Lake Minnetonka Liberty

"Man is not free unless government is limited"

Your Ad Here

So That’s How Obama Is Reducing The Unemployment Rate

Report says 230,000 unemployed losing benefits over weekend

It’s just like I told you. Here’s another 230,000 people who don’t have jobs and won’t be counted as unemployed because their benefits have run out. How else can you explain 4 million fewer jobs in the labor force since Obama became president?

You don’t lose that many jobs and have a declining unemployment rate unless you’re just not counting people. And that’s Obama’s plan. Shrink the labor force as much as possible and use fuzzy math to lower the unemployment rate. He is doing this on purpose. If you haven’t figured out that he’s not about the country, only about power, reelection, and himself, there’s something wrong with you.

More than 230,000 unemployed workers will lose their jobless benefits this weekend as portions of federal programs expire across several states.

All told, 409,300 long-term unemployed Americans in 27 states will have lost upward of 20 weeks of federal unemployment benefits by this past Saturday, even as the many state jobless rates remain high, according to a new analysis by the National Employment Law Project (NELP).

The latest batch of cuts affects 236,300 unemployed people in eight states — California (11%), Texas (7%) Pennsylvania (7.5%), Florida (9%), Illinois (8.8%) North Carolina (9.7%) Colorado (7.8%) and Connecticut (7.7%) — half of which have jobless rates above the 8.1 percent national average posted in April.

“A growing number of long-term unemployed workers are being left behind,” said Christine Owens, executive director of the NELP.

“Job openings are not taking the place of these cuts,” Owens said.

You watch. The unemployment rate will magically decrease or stay the same, even with these job losses. You do the math. Does job losses equal a lower unemployment rate in your world?

The Worst Since “The Great Depression”

Facts are stubborn things. We’re three years in to Obama now, you can’t point and wrongly blame Bush for the economy anymore. It wasn’t his fault to begin with, but that subject we’ve already discussed.

I told you everything Obama is doing is wrong. 180 degree’s opposite of Reagan, and spot on with FDR. The result is what I told you was going to happen. No improvement to speak of, and that ideology will prolong the misery. Yeah I know, I’m right again and as usual, Obama is not.

The record of President Obama’s first three years in office is in, and nothing that happens now can go back and change that.  What that record shows is that President Obama, with his throwback, old-fashioned, 1970s Keynesian economics, has put America through the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression.

The recession started in December, 2007.  Go to the website of the National Bureau of Economic Research (www.nber.org) to see the complete history of America’s recessions.  What that history reveals is that before this last recession, since the Great Depression recessions in America have lasted an average of 10 months, with the longest previously lasting 16 months.

When President Obama entered office in January, 2009, the recession was already in its 13th month.  His responsibility was to manage a timely, robust recovery to get America back on track again.  Based on the historical record, that recovery was imminent, within a couple of months or so.  Despite widespread fear, nothing fundamental had changed to deprive America of the long term, world-leading prosperity it had enjoyed going back 300 years.

Supposedly a forward looking progressive, Obama proved to be America’s first backward looking regressive.  His first act was to increase federal borrowing, the national debt and the deficit by nearly a trillion dollars to finance a supposed “stimulus” package, based on the discredited Keynesian theory left for dead 30 years ago holding that increased government spending, deficits and debt are what promote economic growth and recovery. That theory arose in the 1930s as the answer to the Great Depression, which, of course, never worked.

That was the beginning of President Obama’s Rip Van Winkle act, pretending not to know anything that happened over the previous 30 years proving the dramatic, historic success of the new, more modern, supply side economics, which holds that incentives for increased production are what promote economic growth and recovery.  Indeed, that Rip Van Winklism pretended not to remember the 1970s either, when double digit inflation and double digit unemployment proved Keynesian economics grievously wrong.

As should have been long expected, Obama’s trillion dollar Keynesian stimulus did nothing to promote recovery and growth, and almost surely delayed it.  That is because borrowing a trillion dollars out of the economy to spend a trillion back into it does nothing to promote the economy on net. Indeed, it is probably a net drag on the economy, because the private sector spends the money more productively and efficiently than the public sector.

The National Bureau of Economic Research scored the recession as ending in June, 2009.  Yet, today, in the 49th month since the recession started, there has still been no real recovery, like recoveries from previous recessions in America.

Unemployment actually rose after June, 2009, and did not fall back down below that level until 18 months later in December, 2010.  Instead of a recovery, America has suffered the longest period of unemployment near 9% or above since the Great Depression, under President Obama’s public policy malpractice.  Even today, 49 months after the recession started, the U6 unemployment rate counting the unemployed, underemployed and discouraged workers is still 15.2%.  And that doesn’t include all the workers who have fled the workforce under Obama’s economic oppression.  The unemployment rate with the full measure of discouraged workers is reported at www.shadowstats.com as about 23%, which is depression level unemployment.

Today, over 4 years since the recession started, there are still almost 25 million Americans unemployed or underemployed.  That includes 5.6 million who are long-term unemployed for 27 weeks, or more than 6 months.  Under President Obama, America has suffered the longest period with so many in such long-term unemployment since the Great Depression.

Read the whole story

It’s looking bleak for Obama next year

If it’s looking bleak for him, it’s looking bright for America! Seriously, cheap shots aside, things are darkening on Obama’s horizon.

Some call what we are experiencing, “The Great Recession,” that’s incorrect. We are in a depression, accurately called, “The Great Obama Depression.”

A bad economy is one thing, but, this depression has hit the swing states, particularly the rust belt harder than the rest of the country. And those are the states Obama must win if he’s to be reelected. The residents of those states have seen quite enough, thank you very much.

But while virtually all states have lost ground since 2008, a National Journal analysis of the census survey found that many of the swing states likely to decide the 2012 election have suffered the heaviest losses. The nine states that switched from voting for George W. Bush in 2004 to Barack Obama in 2008 experienced a greater decline in their median family income than did the nation overall. It’s the same story in the partially overlapping list of 14 states in which Obama attracted between 45 and 55 percent of the vote last time. Both groups, according to separate employment figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, have also lost a higher percentage of their jobs since 2008 than the nation overall.

That’s because the economic crisis did much of its deepest damage in the Rust Belt, which includes many of American politics’ traditional battlegrounds, and in the Sun Belt, which contains many of the newly emerging swing states. This concentration compounds President Obama’s political challenge as he works to assemble a 270-vote Electoral College majority. “It will force him to play defense and put into play states that he didn’t expect to have to defend,” Republican pollster Glen Bolger says.

The president still has some time for the economy to show more signs of life—and a potential case to make even if it doesn’t. Across the country, the pain under Obama’s watch is a continuation of the crisis that began late in George W. Bush’s presidency. But, even so, the census results suggest that in essentially no state could the president feel safe asking voters the question that Ronald Reagan made famous: Are you better off than you were four years ago? Read the rest

Bye, bye Barack! Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out!

OBAMUNISM: Income Slides to 1996 Levels

How’s that for some “Hope and Change,” huh? By the way, how is that working out? The economy doing pretty good? How about with you, ya doin’ okay?

The income of the typical American family—long the envy of much of the world—has dropped for the third year in a row and is now roughly where it was in 1996 when adjusted for inflation.

Three years in a row, well that encompasses the entire Obama presidency and Democrat super majority, doesn’t it? More of the same? Four more years? Anybody? Hello?

Earnings of the typical man who works full-time year round fell, and are lower—adjusted for inflation—than in 1978.

Lower than in 1978? Who was president in 1978? Why that would be Jimmy Carter, wouldn’t it? And now earnings for the typical male are lower? What is it I always say again? Oh yeah! Here we go. “Worse than Jimmy Carter, Obama needs to leave.” HA! HA! HA! LMAO!!!