News – Politics – Opinion – Podcasts
…then why has the number of Americans on food stamps increased by 3 million since this time last year and by more than 14 million since Barack Obama entered the White House?
There’s something to put on your resume.
“When I was President (pause) we created or saved (pause) a kajillion billion jobs (pause) but somehow (pause) put 14 million people on food stamps in the process.” (applause from adoring media, I mean Democrats–eh, same thing.)
How does that work?
…then why is the average duration of unemployment in this country close to an all-time record high?
With six million less jobs, thanks to Obama’s so-called recovery policies, should we be surprised that the average duration of unemployment is at or near a record high? If you pollute the employment market, making it inhospitable to job creation–lets call it Obamagenic Employment Cooling–you have fertilized the field for long term despair.
(Full size Graph on the jump.)
Continuing more with questions – but now from the audience:
Unemployment numbers just came out – are we now coming out of the woods?
Alzheimers steals billions of productivity from this nation – what will you do about it?
Things everyone should know about Democrat leadership. (No need to remind you that they will blame everyone but themselves for it.) Every day, the U.S. government takes in $6 billion and spends $10 billion. This means that every day the federal government spends $4 billion more dollars than it has. The real unemployment rate … Read more
My wife is watching Television. I’m reading. And what to my wondering eyes should appear…but a commercial for something called Forever lazy. It looks like a snuggie -jumpsuit with a hood. Dr. Denton’s without the footies. And it comes in several unflattering shades. My only question after seeing it…does it come in convict orange, because it should.
The Ad shows grown-ups wearing mostly fuchsia Forever Lazy outfits, lounging, doing minimal tasks around the house, and even appearing in public; and I’ve got this image of every 70s (ish) Hollywood and TV future-state where everyone wears the same outfit, color-coded to identify your station in direct contradiction to the finger-nails-on-the-chalkboard-equality-memes pumped out by the leftist-Hollywood-utopian-future-statists.
I appreciate it when democrats give you the rope with which to hang their half baked ideas. Take Mark Fernald for example. Mr. Fernald is a sometime New Hampshire Democrat candidate for this or that, and prominent member of the left wing Granite State Fair Tax Coalition (GSFTC). He recently (sorry, frequently) forwards partisan, left wing economic spin, to justify his pet obsession with rising taxes and class warfare.
This most recent email to the arm chair central planners in his fan base is just another in a string of left wing editorials that attempts to contrast democrat spending against that of our previous president. It is typical Fernald; an oranges to rotten apples comparison that uses incomplete data, wild assumptions (about Obama’s future affect in every case), misleading graphs, cherry picked data, and resulting percentages that stretch the fabric of reality so thin that you could easily pass into the alternate dimension in which Democrats and faeries dance widderershins around the deficit mound, as money appears out of nowhere to pay for whatever theirr tiny, narrow, Marxist minds can imagine.
This particualr faerie story centers around three graphs from the Government Printing Office (GPO). Not the fed, the treasury, or even some fruit-loop left wing think tank, but the GPO. The GPO prints stuff, and answers to the Executive branch. So right out of the toy-box we have to question these partisan stills, presented as they are in a partisan manner, bearing guestimated facts and assumptions, with no basis in reality any greater than anything that has ever escaped Mr. Obama’s teleprompter; you do recall all the Obama the non-partisan, deficit cutting, cost reducing, globe saving, health care giving, unifying, auto company saving, mortgage rescuing, goodness? How about the transparent lobbyist-less, open to ideas, new tone, we need to work together Obama? No? You probably remember the we won, closed door, partisan, hate those bankers, Tea Partiers are terrorists, intimidation tactics, don’t interrupt my vacation, Arrest Ron Paul supporters, dozens of lobbyists, shadow cabinet, Attack Arizona, hunt down my enemies, anti-free speech, black panthers can scare away voters, give guns to Mexican drug lords, nohting is my fault Obama with the double action golf-club grip? Well his printing office is the source. Are we surprised it tries to make him look good?
So what can we glean that goes beyond the objective of showing your Republican friends that they are wrong about Obama? How about using facts to show that those Republicans are actually right?
This is ranking quite high on the awesome scale. Thanks to Leigh Macneil for posting it on Facebook so I could then pilfer it and share it with you.
Unemployment Application
To the Editor:
In his letter of May 19 in the Laconia Daily Sun Martin Carney incorrectly claims that workers in Right-to-Work (RTW) states are worse off than those in forced unionization states. Actually they are better off.
First. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, average unemployment in the forced unionization states is 8.31%, in the 22 RTW states it is 7.95%. In addition, 13 of the 22 RTW states are significantly below the national average unemployment rate while only 13 of the 28 forced unionization states are below the national average. So, workers are more likely to find a job in a RTW state.
President Obama says he is focusing on jobs. Is that good or bad? In 2009 and 2010 he said he would “focus like a laser” on jobs. Yet we suffer from the longest high unemployment since the great depression with no end in sight.
Usually the wheels come off the bus before it goes into the ditch. But here we go. Another wheel falls off the Obama bus. (Must be one of the Dr. Seuss buses, given all the wheels this thing is losing). Obamacare, the Patient Unaffordable and Un-accessible (all we really) Care (about is government power) Act will require another 800,000 Americans to give up their jobs. Put another way, it will cost 800,000 jobs.
So when are Shaheen, Ex-Porter (That’s ex congresspersonista Carol Shea-Porter) and Paul ‘Hot Dog’ Hodes going to come out and clear up the record? They have all argued that the loss of jobs was some right wing fear mongering.
The same CBO the left swore was non-partisan when it claimed the bill would save money, then that it would cost money if we ended it, can’t suddenly be partisan can it?
These are democrats. Of course they can. So should we wait for the "Big Pharma, and Big Health care" bought the congressional Budget Office narratives?
And how will Obama’s Bureau Of Laboring Statistics every hide another 800,000 lost jobs? Though they are doing a fine job with the millions they are hiding now–except from the people who are actually unemployed.
So many unanswered questions.
While you are waiting. Here’s some video courtesy of Town Hall.com (On the jump) where the CBO admits there will be employment casualties in the war for universal coverage. Which makes you wonder what would happen if Obama waged war on universal employment?
My bad. He’s already waging that war.
One more distraction before you jump. Queen, the Band? Song–“another one bites the dust;” change the lyrics to..”another wheel off the bus.” CArry that around in your head until November 2012. Ok. Go ahead. Watch the video. I’ll keep quiet. (for a minute)
The US Bureau Of Laboring Statistics calculates the latest rate of unemployment at 9%. We do however have to question the methodology and the real fact that another 300,000 or so people gave up looking for work. Real Unemployment is still in the teens and inflation for food and fuel is rising.
The percentage went down to 9.4% for December but is that a good thing? We will have to wait until we get the January numbers to shake out the holiday hiring but overall it is not strong news.
The House Democrats have balked at a bi-partisan deal that while not perfect, is an actual compromise, and would end a good deal of the uncertainty about tax increases (that is stagnating the economy) by ensuring that for the most part, there are almost none. (The estate tax survives)
For people seeking jobs, that’s not a happy tale to tell. But it’s not the only tale. Texas is creating jobs. And New Hampshire has an opportunity to charge after Texas, even do them one better, and become the beacon of the Northeast. It’s something we need to do. There are people out there looking for work. We just need to give them a reason to come here to find it.
Anyone know if Paul ‘Sugar Daddy’ Hodes and Carol Seiu-Porter have decided to raise taxes yet? That’s what that is you know? If they allow any existing cuts to expire, they are raising taxes. Now I realize our liberal friends don’t see it that way. They look at it like this. Since 2003/2005 the … Read more
Jobs numbers are tricky things. Politicians will always tell you what you want to hear and leave out what they don’t want you to hear. So it is no surprise that we are getting the same old song and dance, that "the economy created private sector jobs again." That’s a nice thing to hear, but is it an improvement or are we still arranging deck chairs on the Titanic?
Deck chair anyone?
Unemployment is still at 9.6 percent and despite claims of job growth for ten months, unemployment has been at or above 9.6% for 20 months.
The numbers do not add up.
NH Employment Services has released its October report for the most recent New Hampshire jobs data and it’s not good for John Lynch. The state continues to lose its human capital. The granite state shed another 360 workers in August to parts unknown as the post ‘end of the recession’ exodus of our civilian workforce rose to 16,550. So from July 2009 to Aug 2010, 16,550 people gave up looking for work in John Lynch’s New Hampshire, ‘Lynch-Marched’ right out of our local job market. That doesn’t happen in a healthy pro job-growth environment. If John Lynch and the democrats were really doing their political ‘best’ the Civilian work force would be rising as people felt compelled to come here to look for work because more business and industry though of New Hampshire as a business friendly environment. But it’s not. It’s hostile.
Shea-Porter is clinging to the idea that the health care bill she deemed passed will create jobs. But like most progressive undertakings it will destroy two to three times as many jobs as are forced into existence by the distant, egg head, committee appointees in DC. Net loss, ship sinks, economy drowns.
With that in mind Ben Domenech at RedState has this. It suggests the path to job loss created by the bills provisions, you know the ones we can fix later. Of course the taxes created to supposedly pay for the bill, are the ones destroying the jobs. That’s the liberal-progressive equivalent to free market process of creative destruction; it’s just called destruction.
If New Hampshire only had one person in their workforce, and they had a job, unemployment would be at 0%. Keep that in mind as John Lynch and the democrats short-stroke the September adjusted jobs number around as a sign that they are good for the economy. They are not.
The unemployment number is merely a reflection of how many people are actually in the workforce, versus how many of that number are working. You could manage to create no jobs at all and have unemployment go down simply because the number of people looking kept getting smaller every month.
Well that what’s been happening in the Granite State, so take the news in this mornings paper of a recent decrease in the unemployment percentage with a shaker of salt. John Lynch will want to spin this as John’s economic recovery stage show, but how do you sell that when people are leaving the theater in droves? You don’t tell anyone they are leaving.