Showing posts with label Barack Obama 2014. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama 2014. Show all posts

Monday, December 29, 2014

You could almost say the few people Obama's added to the labor force he's sent straight to the unemployment lines

The lowest jobless claims yet still don't yield the lowest unemployment levels under Bush.

As I pointed out here, jobless claims for 2014 are probably going to finish the year at the 15.7 million level, not-seasonally-adjusted. The comparable year under Bush was 2006, coincidentally also his sixth year in the presidency, when there were 16.2 million similarly measured jobless claims. That's as low as claims ever fell under Bush in absolute terms, and as low as they've been in this century, until now.

So things are better under Obama, right, because claims are going to be the lowest yet this century?

The civilian labor force level was 152.6 million in November 2006, almost 10 million higher than when Bush was first elected, but only 3.7 million higher now at 156.3 million as of November 2014. So claims were 10.6% of the civilian labor force in 2006, and 10.0% of the civilian labor force in November 2014, so yes, things are marginally statistically better, but still very close.

But what's not close is the unemployment rate, or the unemployment level. Not-seasonally-adjusted the rate was 4.3% in November 2006, but 5.5% in November 2014. The civilian labor force has barely grown by 1.7 million after six years of Obama, yet the unemployment level is still 2.05 million higher today than it was in November 2006 when first time jobless claims were at their lowest level before now.

You could almost say Obama sent the few people he's added to the labor force since 2008 straight to the unemployment lines. The other 8 million or more sent themselves straight out of the labor force, never to be counted as unemployed again.

Obama's civilian labor force has only grown 1.7 million since 11/2008, 1.3 million of which came in the last year!

The civilian labor force grew by 1.3 million 11/13-11/14
By contrast George Bush's civilian labor force grew by 11.8 million over his presidency, 6.9 times more than Obama's. To the same almost 6 year point in his presidency Bush's civilian labor force grew by 9.8 million, 5.8 times more than Obama's.

The current year's addition of 1.3 million may be contrasted to the 2.4 million added at the same interval under Bush.

Obama, he sucks!
The civilian labor force grew by 2.4 million 11/05-11/06

Sunday, December 28, 2014

Jeb Bush pocketed $1.4 million in 2013 working for ObamaCare profiteer Tenet Healthcare of Dallas

So says the LA Times, here:

And on Wednesday, Bush resigned from the board of directors of Tenet Healthcare Corp., also effective Dec. 31, according to a corporate filing. The Dallas-based company actively supported the 2010 Affordable Care Act, and has seen its revenue rise from it, an issue that could draw fire in Republican primaries.

Bush earned cash and stock awards worth nearly $300,000 from Tenet in 2013, according to corporate filings. He also sold Tenet stock worth $1.1 million that year, the records show.

Thursday, December 25, 2014

If Obama had wanted to "rescue" the economy in 2009, he should have ramped-up the wars as he's doing now

If Obama had really wanted to rescue the economy in 2009, he would have ramped up dramatically the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of putting them on the path to euthanasia. In this sense he was a very bad Keynesian who made FDR spin in his grave.

Of course, that assumes he is smart enough to understand Keynesianism, being raised as a doctrinaire Marxist who was content to bask lazily in the glow of his presidential victory while a bunch of Clinton re-treads did their mediocre best for him . . . recreating HillaryCare. A more sinister interpretation believes that the inattention to the economy was all on purpose, since suppressing the middle class is the main objective of revolutionary leftism faced with successful capitalism almost everywhere. Still others simply chalk it up to Obama's incompetence, just another example of the Affirmative Action Presidency at work.

But I digress.

The simple reason for the need to have ramped up the wars back in 2009 is that the radical stimulus spending called for by the likes of Paul Krugman (3x what Obama ended up spending), who ridiculed the smallness of Obama's stimulus spending plan in The New York Times here, cannot be accomplished quickly through any other department of the federal government except through what we used to call more accurately The War Department. 'There are only a limited number of “shovel-ready” public investment projects — that is, projects that can be started quickly enough to help the economy in the near term,' Krugman wrote at the time.

That's for sure.

Proof of this can now be seen in the GDP numbers in just the last year when ISIS all of a sudden became a threat on the administration's radar screen even though ISIS had been building in the open for years and the administration actually had been warned about it and knew about it.

Federal government consumption had been a net negative subtraction from GDP for each of the last three years, 2011-2013, totaling -0.28 points of GDP for each year on average, and 75% of that came on average from cutting spending on National Defense.

All of that changed on a dime in 3Q2014 when ISIS surged into Iraq. Consumption on national defense suddenly vaulted to +0.69 points of GDP from +0.12 points in 1Q and -0.07 points in 2Q, to the point where defense spending now represents fully 97% of the federal contribution to GDP in the third quarter of 2014, and over 13% of GDP overall. All the current big contributors to GDP come in lower than this except for exports, with which defense spending is tied. 

Only the military can spend large sums of government money quickly in this slow-moving, inertia-plagued bureaucratic state. Future presidents, take note: War is still the father of everything.

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

Zero Hedge gets ObamaCare spending all wrong, again

The latest screed is here, claiming that healthcare spending is "the reason" behind the surge in Q3 GDP.

From the BEA here, healthcare spending contributed 0.52 points (line 17) to 5.0 GDP, about 10.4% of the total.

Zero Hedge wants to leave the impression there was no single bigger contributor to GDP, which isn't the case at all:

Equipment contributed 0.63 (line 30)
Durable goods 0.67 (line 4)
Pure consumption from defense spending 0.69 (line 55)
Export of goods 0.69 (line 47).

More importantly, it's not like we haven't spent 0.52 points of GDP on healthcare before.

We spent 0.51 in 4Q2011, 0.70 in 1Q2012, 0.48 in 4Q2013, and 0.45 in 2Q2014.

That last one is really important. It's the third estimate final figure of healthcare spending for the immediately preceding quarter, which can now be compared to the third estimate final figure for this one. The difference? Just 0.07 points, for an increase in healthcare spending of 15.5% on an annualized basis from 2Q to 3Q. As I've said, we've seen such increases before, quite apart from any new developments over ObamaCare.

The proper comparison, notably, is with 2Q, not with the previous estimate of healthcare's contribution to GDP for the current quarter, which, like everything else, was admittedly incomplete in the BEA's own words, as is always the case with the estimates before the third and final report.

And what that shows, last of all, is that GDP hasn't "surged" at all between 2Q and 3Q. The only thing which surged is the final revision based on the more complete data. The quarterly measure of GDP is up a very modest 0.40 points, from 4.6 to 5.0, or about 8.7% on the annualized basis. Healthcare's share of that increase to GDP is just 17.5%. 82.5% comes from other categories.

The worrisome thing is all kinds of people read and sometimes quote Zero Hedge: Rush Limbaugh, John Hussmann and Bill Gross come to mind. And Real Clear Markets often links to it, which is how I saw it.

Zero Hedge is embarrassing to read, kind of like pornography.

To date current dollar GDP under Obama is running 9.6% behind Bush every year



























Bush nominal GDP increased 43% over his term. To date nominal GDP under Obama is up less than 20%.

Bush nominal GDP rose $4.4338 trillion from the end of 2000 to the end of 2008, from $10.2848 trillion to $14.7186 trillion. That comes to $554.225 billion per year for eight years.

Obama nominal GDP has risen to date $2.8812 trillion from the end of 2008 to the end of 3Q2014, from $14.7186 trillion to $17.5998 trillion to date. That comes to $501.078 billion per year for 5.75 years.

The $53.147 billion difference amounts to a difference of 9.59% on average per year to date.

Republican enthusiasm for the Line Item Veto began under Reagan and was their version of the imperial presidency

No different than Reagan's enthusiasm for federal mandates like EMTALA, which is the proximate cause of ObamaCare. But J. T. Young doesn't remember it that way, or that far back, here:

'Unmentioned in Obama's legacy is that he killed the line-item veto. While not having done so directly, Obama's presidency has ended this long-time Republican goal just as assuredly as if he had. The political and fiscal role reversals between the Congress and presidency - and between Republicans and Democrats - transpiring for twenty years, have culminated with this administration.

'Twenty years ago, Republicans, armed the Contract with America, dramatically rode to Congressional majorities for the first time in decades. Prominent within that important document was a call for a line-item veto for the president.

'The intent was to give a president power to eliminate wasteful federal spending with pinpoint accuracy. Instead of having to veto an entire bill, and risk shutting down all, or part of the government, a president would be able to stop particular provisions but leave a larger spending bill intact. This authority would reverse the "Hobson's Choice" that prevailed between Congress and a president.'

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Ronald Reagan said to Congress in his 1986 State of the Union address, "Tonight I ask you to give me what forty-three governors have: Give me a line-item veto this year. Give me the authority to veto waste, and I'll take the responsibility, I'll make the cuts, I'll take the heat."'


WHATEVER CONSERVATISM IS, IT MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT ABOUT SEEKING TO ACQUIRE MORE POWER BUT RATHER ABOUT SEEKING TO DIFFUSE AND DISTRIBUTE IT, SOMETHING THE CONGRESS DELIBERATELY BETRAYED IN THE 1920s WHEN IT DECIDED TO STOP THE NATURAL EXPANSION OF REPRESENTATION. NO BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT MAY BE SAID SINCE THAT TIME TO BE IN ANY WAY CONSERVATIVE IN SPIRIT, EXCEPT IN THE OCCASIONAL IRRITABLE MENTAL GESTURE IN THAT DIRECTION WHICH IS USED AS A CLOAK FOR MORE SELF-AGGRANDIZEMENT. NO ONE ANYWHERE RETAINS "SELF-RESTRAINT" IN THEIR LEXICON.





Sunday, December 21, 2014

Obama says you're better off than when he took office, except you are not

click to enlarge
Obama says, quoted here:

"Like the rest of America, black America in the aggregate is better off now than it was when I came into office."

On the contrary:

Full-time jobs have not recovered to their 2007 peak and won't until summer 2015, if we are lucky. That will be eight years later, when full-time jobs in the past have always bounced back after at most three years in post-war recessions. Obama has done nothing for jobs, except to let the problem fester and try to heal itself.

Health insurance costs much more, covers much less and has narrower and less convenient networks. The proof of this is in the polling, where the majority of Americans remain opposed to ObamaCare. The minority which likes ObamaCare is benefiting from it at the expense of those who don't, who are more numerous. It's called income redistribution. Otherwise known as socialism. You know, like in Cuba, Obama's new best friend.

Owners' equity in household real estate stands at 53.94%, still almost 10% below where it was in 2005. Completed foreclosures in the last month are still running 95% above normal.

More than half of the 66% of Americans who have saved anything for retirement have individually saved less than $25,000. American taxpayers are forced to contribute on average 13.5% to the pensions of the country's government employees and save for themselves only at the rate of 5%.

But perhaps the most damning indictment of Obama is how Americans of all stripes have been impoverished under his watch. Real median household income in the US is lower now than when the recession ended in Obama's first term in 2009, and much lower than when he took office:

"At this point, real household incomes are in worse shape than they were four years ago when the recession ended."

Lies told often enough can become the truth, but they are still lies.

Saturday, December 20, 2014

Amounts allocated for retirement soar to $24.2 trillion in 3Q2014

The Investment Company Institute reports, here.

IRA-type instruments continue to lead the way with 30% of the total amount saved, followed by 401k-type plans holding 27%, and government defined benefit plans at all levels 21%.

The latter figure, representing $5.1 trillion, remains remarkable in view of the fact that the taxpayers have contributed significantly to this sum through taxation, on top of funding their own retirements, or not funding them as the case may be.

As recently as 2011 the national average rate of taxpayer contributions to state employee pension plans, and teacher, police and fire retirement plans combined was 13.5%, according to data reported here by The Buckeye Institute. Contrast that with average annual personal savings rates under Bush of just 4% and under Obama of 6%. And for the most recent 5 months of 2014 the rate has fallen to 5%.

Taxpayers are funding the retirements of government workers at a rate more than double their own, which is one reason why most people haven't saved enough for their own retirements. CBS News reported again just weeks ago here that of the 66% who have saved anything for retirement, the majority have saved $25,000 or less.

Meanwhile, government pension plans, as rich as they may appear from the data, may be underfunded long term by as much as $4 trillion, according to The Boston Globe, here.

With a week left before Christmas, maybe you should make do with what you've spent so far, and put something away for a rainy day. It's a comin'.


Friday, December 19, 2014

Average food stamp participation under Obama is 43.2 million annually to date, 84% higher than under Bush

Under Bush it was 23.5 million on average, and under Clinton 23.1 million.

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Was the valet driving?


Obama was mistaken for a valet?

He's also been mistaken for a president, an American and a golfer, but who's counting?

The story in People here is making a lot of people pretty angry.

Gone are the days back in 2011 when Obama claimed to miss being so anonymous.

Liar then. Liar now.

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Gas for $2.50: What Obama called a phony promise in 2012 is now the reality, without him, without Gingrich, without government


Gasoline nationally just now averages $2.50/gallon without Newt Gingrich's help, or Obama's

See here for the controversy over Newt's faith in his drilling program in March 2012, which materialized without him, and without Obama, because private enterprise did it all, drilling on private lands:

The Gingrich campaign responded to [White House spokesman Jay] Carney Tuesday with a statement that read in part, "$2.50 gasoline is achievable and drilling here, drilling now so we can pay less and be independent of Middle East oil is just common sense."

Sunday, December 14, 2014

Stupid things heard on the Steve Gruber Show radio program last week

Both the AM drive-time host, Steve Gruber, a libertarian for whom every opponent is taken as a challenge to his manhood, and his weekly punching bag guest, Liberal Lee, last Tuesday agreed that the middle class in America is basically . . .  intact!

Which just proves that ideologues are impervious to the destruction which has been all around them and that libertarians and liberals drink from the same cup. Both camps are too heavily invested in the political gangs they support to say otherwise, for if the one did it would mean George Bush and Alan Greenspan would have to be blamed, and if the other, Barack Obama, Larry Summers and the rest of the Clinton re-treads which steered the economy through the latest depression to give you . . . nearly $90 billion in costs for over 500 failed banks, over 5 million homes lost to foreclosure, full-time jobs still 4 million below the 2007 peak seven years ago, ObamaCare's lies, higher costs, poorer coverage and limited networks, the deaths of Americans at Benghazi, IRS targeting of conservatives, the most imperial presidency in our history, 30 million prime working age people not working, a lawless executive, and 1.8% GDP, the worst in the post-war.

For his part, Gruber basically gave over a segment on his show every week this fall to the reelection campaign of Congressman Tim Walberg, a conventional Republican who normally votes with the majority of his caucus, but who did vote against making the Bush tax cuts permanent for the vast majority of Americans. Walberg notably just rewarded his radio benefactor who opposed Cromnibus with a vote for it, in keeping with his past voting record for sweeping spending bills which avoid the traditional appropriations process in order to take the politics out of spending the people's money. Hey, thanks Gruber.

The Steve Gruber Show is unfortunately heard on many small market radio stations during morning drive throughout Michigan, which through August 2014 was the top state for completed foreclosures among non-judicial states for the prior twelve month period. But the show's best rank is only #3 in the Lansing market according to dar.fm, and #31 in the mornings overall, here. The best thing that can be said for it is that the stations it is on are typically low-power, like its commentary. 

Saturday, December 13, 2014

Obama's war on growth: Per capita measure shows GDP didn't recover to 2007 level until 3Q2013

So says Ironman, here:

"Going by this measure we see that it wasn't until the third quarter of 2013 that the U.S. economy really recovered to its pre-recession level. And then, it has only been since the second quarter of 2014 that it has grown beyond that level.

"The interesting thing is that tracking the GDP per capita measure this way would more closely match the perceptions of the American people regarding the overall health of the U.S. economy. Say as measured by the University of Michigan's Consumer Sentiment Index, which returned to its prerecession levels just a few months ahead of real GDP per capita.

"Contrary to what at least one particular economist [Jonathan Gruber] and his fellow travelers [Bill Maher/Kathleen Sebelius] might think about their cognitive abilities and financial literacy, regular Americans would seem to be pretty capable of collectively assessing the real condition of the U.S. economy."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, self-perceptions matter.

Coincident with the extraordinarily long 6 year wait for the real economy to recover, the self-identification of the American people by lower class in January 2014 has swelled by 50 million since 2008, according to the results of a regular Pew survey, showing just how many people have died on the vine of a militant, leftist Obama administration and Democrat Party bent on destroying the middle class.

When the New York Times suddenly tells you after the election that 30 million prime-working-age Americans 25-54 aren't working, you know that where there's smoke, there's fire. With fewer than 5 million job openings in the country for those 30 million, legalizing 11 million illegal aliens isn't just an act of charity toward some, but a declaration of war against all.

Barack Obama has been burning down the house, one family at a time.


Thursday, December 11, 2014

The Heritage Foundation didn't repudiate the individual mandate until long after the Tea Party did

Ramesh Ponnuru here in March 2012 in the wake of both Romney and Gingrich putting the finger on Heritage for the individual mandate in October 2011:

"So yes, conservative opinion on the mandate has changed. But I don’t think it’s right to suggest that most conservative voters or conservative policy thinkers ever supported it. I think what happened is that as soon as grassroots conservatives focused on the mandate, they hated it—and they were right to hate it, in my view–and both the politicians and that one outlier think tank responded to their sentiment."

Timothy Noah pointed out here in 2013 that it wasn't until 2011 that Heritage formally opposed its own idea, meaning it took Heritage two years to join the Tea Party in opposing ObamaCare:

'Heritage, in a 2011 amicus curiae brief submitted in support of the legal challenge to Obamacare, stated, “Heritage has stopped supporting any insurance mandate.” Heritage also said it had come to believe the individual mandate was unconstitutional—an interpretation later rejected, of course, by the Supreme Court.'

Flashback to October 2011: Romney and Gingrich agree ObamaCare's individual mandate idea came from the Heritage Foundation

From the Western Republican Leadership Conference Presidential Debate interchange in October 2011 between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich about the individual mandate (see it here starting at the 29:00 minute mark):

ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate?

GINGRICH: I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare.

ROMNEY: You did support an individual mandate?

ROMNEY: Oh, OK. That’s what I’m saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation.

GINGRICH: OK. A little broader.

ROMNEY: OK.

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Flashback to Feb. 2012: Newt Gingrich was mocked and worse by Obama and company for saying $2.50 gas was possible, but it's happening right now

Newt, deservedly doin' The Mussolini
Obama called Gingrich's promise of $2.50/gallon gas a "phony election-year promise" in 2012 here. The White House spokesman lying shill Jay Carney chimed in calling it a lie, here. Pure projection syndrome.

Two and a half years later and everywhere across this country the price of gasoline is plummeting toward an average of $2.50 and lower because of the success of drill-baby-drill-fracking on private lands, and the Feds haven't had one damn thing to do with it.

The average price in Grand Rapids, Michigan, tonight is $2.539 with prices falling. Smart shoppers at Sam's Club here tonight can get gas for $2.469. Prices in many southern tier states of this great country are already paying well below $2.50, for example $2.20 in Texas City, TX, $2.25 in Memphis, TN, and $2.30 in West Monroe, LA. Go duck men, go.

Newt Gingrich was right. Obama and company are idiots.

About 20 million Americans have dropped out of the middle class under Obama as lower class explodes by 50 million

In 2008 53% of the population considered itself middle class, about 161 million Americans, according to the Pew data referenced here and here.

But in 2014 only 44% consider themselves middle class any longer, almost 140 million based on current population. That means about 20 million have dropped out of the middle class during the Obama presidency so far.

Where'd they go?

Well, not up. The upper class has also declined, about 16 million, from 21% of population in 2008 to 15% in 2014.

The only class seeing an increase is those self-identifying as lower class, and that has exploded from 25% of population in 2008 to 40% in 2014. That's up over 50 million, from 76 million in 2008 to 127 million in 2014.