As we enter the sixth year of our Dear Leader’s “Occupy the White House Golf Tour”, let us review some numbers from the past five years.
In 2008, there were 145 million Americans in the work force, 79.4 million Americans not in the labor force, and the federal debt was $9.4 Trillion.
Today, in early 2014, we have 145 million Americans in the work force, 91.8 million Americans not in the labor force and a federal debt of $17.3 Trillion.
So in five years there has not added any new Americans to the labor force, but there are 12 million more Americans who could be in the labor force who are not, and the federal debt has increased by $7.9 trillion.
So new jobs created over the past five years is zero. As you have often heard every times the new unemployment numbers come out, the US economy needs to create 120,000 jobs a month just to cover new workers entering the work force. Over five years, that comes to 7.2 Million jobs. Given that the number of Americans in the work force has remained flat, the Obama Economy has not only failed to create any new jobs, it has actively removed jobs. This is an appalling performance, especially since the last recession ending in mid 2009, so for most of the last five years, American should have been in an economic recovery. A period were traditionaly there is not just job growth, but rapid and strong job growth. That has been the pattern in every recession/recovery for the past 100 years. This includes the recession of the late 1970s, which was the worst recession since the Great Drepression and the roaring recovery that occured in the early 1980s. Why is is the Obama non-recovery from the second worst recessionthe sole exception to economic history?
It’s been five years since our Dear Leader started his “Occupy the White House Golf Tour” and four and half years since the second worst recession since the great depression ended. Now history tells us that the deep the recession, the stronger the recovery.
The U3 unemployment rate fell to 6.7% from 7%, which normally would be a good thing. In this case, not so much. Let’s look at the numbers. The economy only added about 70,000 new jobs in December. If you have been paying attention over the past four and half years, you would know that the economy needs to add 120,000 new jobs every month just to keep up with population growth. The drop in the BLS U3 number is explained by the 520,000 people “leaving the workforce.” A better indicator of the health of the workforce is the BLS U6 rate. The average U6 rate during our Dear Leader‘s reign has been 13.1%. To compare, the average U6 rate during President George W. Bush’s two terms was 9.2%.
[…] Fifty years after President Johnson started a $20 trillion taxpayer-funded war on poverty, the overall percentage of impoverished people in the U.S. has declined only slightly and the poor have lost ground under President Obama.
[…] Although the president often rails against income inequality in America, his policies have had little impact overall on poverty. A record 47 million Americans receive food stamps, about 13 million more than when he took office.
The poverty rate has stood at 15 percent for three consecutive years, the first time that has happened since the mid-1960s. The poverty rate in 1965 was 17.3 percent; it was 12.5 percent in 2007, before the Great Recession.
About 50 million Americans live below the poverty line, which the federal government defined in 2012 as an annual income of $23,492 for a family of four.
President Obama’s anti-poverty efforts “are basically to give more people more free stuff,” said Robert Rector, a specialist on welfare and poverty at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
“That’s exactly the opposite of what Johnson said,” Mr. Rector said. “Johnson’s goal was to make people prosperous and self-sufficient.”
So, as the nice man said, “Obama’s economic program of tax, spend, and regulate has been a dismal failure.”
Here is a graph from the Federalist, which points out that if ten million workers haven’t dropped out the workforce because the lack of economic growth, the U3 unemployment level would be almost 11%. This is Jimmy Carter recession level territory, in what should be a robust recovery.
San Francisco is pretty diverse, it even has pro-Second Amendment liberal democrats. These folks are pretty far left wackos despite this one gleam of sanity in the world view. Hell, they don’t like our Dear Leader because he’s “too conservative” in their view. Probably upset he hasn’t rounded up Republicans and shipped them off to death re-education camps yet.
Here is a question that many law abiding citizens who have actually read the Constitution ask themselves, “My next AR, build or buy?”
Can’t leave the epic Charlie Fox known as Obamacare off the list. “Glitches” in the bloody website are still rampant, leaving many without coverage. Keep in mind, that in the time it took the Obama administration to build a really crappy website, America build almost 100 aircraft carriers during WWII. Plus the aircraft for the carriers, and the support vessels, and trained the crews.
Michael Synder makes the following salient point over at Zero Hedge:
Shouldn’t Internet companies actually “make a profit” at some point before being considered worth billions of dollars? A lot of investors laugh when they look back at the foolishness of the “Dotcom bubble” of the late 1990s, but the tech bubble that is inflating right in front of our eyes today is actually far worse.
For example, what would you say if I told you that a seven-year-old company that has a long history of not being profitable and that actually lost 64 million dollars last quarter is worth more than 13 billion dollars?
You would probably say that I was insane, but the company that I have just described is Twitter and Wall Street is going crazy for it right now. Please don’t get me wrong – I actually love Twitter. On my Twitter account I have sent out thousands of “tweets”. Twitter is a lot of fun, and it has had a huge impact on the entire planet. But is it worth 13 billion dollars? Of course not.
You can talk about “brand value” all you want, but the companies with actual Brand Value are ones that are profitable, and have been for a long time. That is what makes their brand valuable. Twitter’s value is in improving someone else’s brand value, and trying to squeeze a profit out of that could kill the value that people currently see in Twitter.
The current political posturing in D.C. is not over the federal budget. It’s over a ‘continuing resolution’ to fund the government for three months.
That is because the United States of America is entering its fifth fiscal year without an actual federal budget. An actual federal budget has not passed both houses of Congress and been signed by the President since George W. Bush was President.
The President is required by law to submit a budget to Congress every year. The person currently occupying the White House during his golf tour has done so. Those budgets have been received in a truly amazing display of bipartisanship and have failed to received a single vote from any member of congress of either party, and that includes the socialist who caucuses with the democrats. I think the best one of his budgets did was 0-97 in the Senate.
The House has submitted at least one budget, with bipartisan support every year, which Harry Reid has refused to bring to the floor for a vote. The Senate has produced one budget, within the last year, on a strict party line vote.
It is important to note that when the democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, they failed in their primary duty of producing a federal budget. It is not because they tried and failed, they just didn’t even try.
So it is clear that having a federal budget, that receives a close examination, and is open to debate and review by the public is not something that the democrats want. Which raises the question of why they don’t want the transparency that an actual federal budget would bring.
Kudos to CSPAN and YouTube, which brings us the words of Senate democrat “leader” Harry Reid from 2006.
Yup, Harry Reid is calling raising the federal limit to $ 9 trillion is the last thing we should do, because it will weaken the country, and hurt the economy.
Was Harry Reid telling the truth or engaging in hyper-partisan political demagoguery because there was a Republican in the White House at the time. Given his record, if Harry Reid was telling the truth, it was purely by accident.
“Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”
To be fair, that was what he said back in 2006, when he was a Senator from a fly over state with less than one year on the job. Perhaps he was just dangerously incompetent. On the other hand, there was a Republican in the White House back then, so perhaps he was just being the hyper-partisan political demagogue that he has proved himself to be time and time again. On the gripping hand, it probably is both.
The Washington Post had an article that brought up this quote in the context of the current debt limit debate. It said that Obama’s rhetoric then would be considered “a bit Tea Partyish” today. Spin the standard media bias out of that statement, and it is more than a “a bit.” The article also gives Obama an upside down Pinocchio for his current stance. In their rating scale, that is “A statement that represents a clear but unacknowledged “flip-flop” from a previously-held position.”
First off, there hasn’t been a federal budget passed since George W. Bush was President. Second, she’s an idiot. Let’s start a short list of stuff and can be easily cut and will benefit the American taxpayer.
The $2.2 billion Obamaphone program
Supplying arms and funding to known terrorist groups in Syria
The Department of Education
Obamacare
Fraud and Waste in the federal food stamps program