Showing posts with label Obamanomics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obamanomics. Show all posts

Saturday, May 7, 2016

Obama spins economic news, again

So, Obama held a presser telling us how well the economy is doing. He announced that 160,000 new jobs were created in April 2016. This is good news, he says. People who do not ask questions will accept Obama's affirmation of this economic news. But, I ask, is the economy doing better after 7.5 years of Obamanomics? Here are the statistics. You can decide for yourself.
  1. A majority of those 160,000 jobs are part time, mainly because Obamacare forces people who have too many full-time jobs to pay for health insurance for those workers, and they can't afford that, so they just create part-time jobs. For more on this, read "The truth about Obama's economic numbers."
  2. The 160,000 new jobs supposedly created in April is the fewest announced created jobs in seven months.
  3. The number of American workers not working is 94.04 million. There are 210,220 working age people in the United States, so that means the unemployment rate is 40%.
  4. People's incomes are not rising!
  5. People do not have more disposable income. 
  6. People do not have more liberty and freedom with their money.
Without rising productivity, you can't have rising wages, and you can't have increased salaries. You just can't have it.

Those 95 million Americans not working have to have their livelihoods paid for by someone. Someone has to pay for the food on their table, or beer in their refrigerator. Someone has to buy their cars and pay for their gas. Someone has to pay for their iphones and service. Someone has to pay for them when they get sick. 

So those who are working are flipping the bill. And small businesses are paying for the not working rather than creating jobs for the not working. 

So not only is the government spending more and choking more, it is making the economy where the American dream languishes, smaller. Yet here you have Obama at a press conference speaking of how much the economy has improved. Millennials fall for this because they have never seen a robust economy. To them, this is robust. 

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

The Best Way to Help Poor Children is sans Obama

This is a teaching moment here, and this is the purpose of this blog. We'll keep the individuals I'm referring to anonymous, calling them Carmen and Jeff.  Hang on a moment, and you'll see this post is a quintessential example of something I wrote about a few months ago.

Jeff said that he felt bad because many kids don't get much for Christmas. Their gifts from Santa entail simple things like shirts and pants.  And then their friends talk about what they got for Christmas -- bug things like Stereos, computers, video games, etc. -- the poor kids feel bad. So, he said, we ought to think of this, and give our kids more humble gifts from Santa, and make it so the big gifts, the expensive gifts, are from the parents.

So then Carmen says, "You have a point there."

I said, "That's a perfect example of why we need to get rid of people like Obama."

Carmen and Jeff look at me all offended, Jeff says, "This has nothing to do with politics."

Carmen said, "When I was a kid there was a republican in office, and we were still poor."

I didn't mean to get them so upset, and so I said nothing more. Later I'm sitting with just Carmen, and she said something about our paycheck, about how it's simply not enough money for us to get ahead. And I said, "Bingo. That's exactly what I was talking about.  People suck so much out of paychecks to help the poor to the point that now everyone is poor. That's what people like Obama want. They want victims."

Yes, it is to the point right now where we feel we can't get ahead.  My parents, and my grandparents, worked hard to get ahead.  They were never rich, but they could afford to buy a nice house with plenty of bedrooms for all the kids.  They had to work hard to get this, but they had it. Today, I work just as hard as my parents and grandparents, make about the same amount of money, and only make enough, after taxes, to buy a humble home where my kids are doubled up.

Look, allow me to explain.  It's easy to see the poor child and to empathise with him. This is what drives liberalism.  They count on you not seeing what is not seen, and that is all the money taken from hard working people to pay for all their government programs aimed to help these victims.

Yet it goes to show that the truth hurts, especially when you're referring to poor children who's parents don't have enough money to pay for gifts.  I was not meaning to sound like I don't care, but my point was that liberals feed into stuff like this. Liberals want poor kids, and they want people like you to feel bad for them, because that makes you all victims. Now, here me out here.

These poor kids are victims. Liberals like Obama need victims to survive, and to keep the democratic party going.  They say things like you are saying, "Oh, I feel your pain." And then they create programs to help them that someone else has to pay for.  And so taxes have to be raised on the hardworking people, the rich, the middle class, and also the poor.

On the surface people see Obama's programs come off as good.  They are helping the poor. They are making it so the poor can eat, have a roof over their heads, and so forth.  But what is not seen is all the money filtered from paychecks. By the time you get them they are so small that the value of the dollar goes less far than it did 40 years ago.  In other words, liberalism has made everyone poor. That's what they mean when they say they can create a euphoria.  Their euphoria, their world where everyone is equal, is a world where everyone is poor.

And you can say that when you were a kid you were poor and their was a republican president.  But that is not telling the whole truth.  Since the 1960s, since the death of John F. Kennedy, liberals have controlled the media, they have controlled what our kids learn, and they have controlled Washington. And I'm referring to democrats, but I'm also referring to establishment republicans like George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, Mitt Romney, John McCain, John Kasich, Jeb Bush, and John Boehner.

These are the types of republicans who are also liberals.  Look, just last week presents a perfect example of what I'm referring to here.  In 2010 and 2014 republican voters, in landslide elections, put republicans into office who promised to oppose democrats, and to stop Obama.  Then they sign budget deals like the one last week where the democrats get everything they want funded and republicans get nothing.  Some say Obama got what he wanted with a fight, but there was no fight. Republicans just caved on everything.

Here's a better example.  In the mid 1980s democrat controlled New York was in a depression and about to go bankrupt.  Donald Trump was rich already, and so he had no personal need to invest in New York.  But he did.  By the time he was done, he had created millions of jobs for New York, and billions of dollars.  He had single handedly pulled New York out of a depression. And he was not a politician.  He created no government programs. What he did was encouraged government to get out of the way, give him tax breaks, etc., and he did what businessmen do: make deals.

So who do you think really cares about the poor: liberals or conservatives? Liberals are gutless people who say they care about the poor, and create programs other people have to pay for, such taxes out everything we buy or make, and in the long term make everyone poor. Conservatives look like they don't care for the poor because they don't offer them free programs, but they create environments where everyone has an opportunity to prosper, and where the dollar goes a lot farther.

In other words, even if those poor families made the same amount of money under a conservative government that did not include Obama, those few dollars that bought cheap gifts from Santa would have been able to buy more expensive gifts. So, you see, the best thing we can do for those poor kids is to get rid of Obama.

That said, I'm all for helping poor kids. It's called charity. And less money taken out of paychecks, the more charity people do. For instance, during the 1980s, when taxes and regulations were low under Ronald Reagan, charitable givings were at record highs. So, get rid of the Obama's of the world and poor kids will be far better off. 

Further Reading:


Friday, July 3, 2015

The truth about Obama's economic numbers

So the AP comes out with this story today that the unemployment rate fell to a seven year low at 5.3%. They tell us that this is because 223, 000 jobs were gained during the last month. The White House is hailing this as good economic news, and the AP goes right along with it. Yet when we look at all the numbers we see a different picture.

First of all we must look at the rest of the data, for to get an accurate economic picture we must view it all. Right now, in the U.S. a record 93 million people are no longer in the workforce, and are not counted in the unemployment statistics that are reported by the White House. So, if you take out all these working age people, the unemployment rate is 5.3%.  This is called the U3 unemployment number, and by most accounts it is the least accurate, although best looking, unemployment number.  In essence, reporting this makes Obama look good.

Now, if you add the 93 million to the unemployment number you get the U6 unemployment number, and most economist get somewhere between 10 and 14 percent unemployment rate. However, economist David Stockman estimates that it would be upwards to a 42.9% unemployment rate. Now, could you imagine what would happen if Obama released that unemployment number? Obama's popularity would plummet. So it only makes sense that he release the smallest of the samples.

Investigating the numbers further, 432,000 people lost their jobs last month (I'm referring to June). Now, let's put this in Math 101 form: 223,000 jobs created minus 432,000 jobs lost equals negative 209,000 (-209,000). So now we see what the true damage of Obamanomics had on our nation during the month of June.

Now, here are the numbers as reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: 5.3 unemployment rate, 223,000 jobs created, and 432,000 work force decline. In May the statistics were similar. So if you do the math, the trend of economic collapse is obvious.

There are a lot of reasons why Americans can't find jobs. For one thing, Baby Boomers are not retiring, perhaps because they need healthcare. Baby Boomers cannot afford to retire. High School and College Students are not working because the low paying jobs they used to take either no longer exist or are taken up by low skilled, uneducated immigrants who do not speak English. Either that, or older people who have lost their jobs are taking these jobs, leaving younger Americans with no work.

Because of Obamacare the 40 hour work week is no longer defined as full time work; 30 hours is. This is because most companies limit hours so they don't have to pay for health insurance. So this has forced many Americans to take on two part time jobs, leaving no jobs open for new workers.

In many places minimum wages are so high that places like McDonald's have to hire fewer workers, and this eliminates jobs for high school and college age kids. So, there are a variety of reasons why so many people are not in the work force. This is not to mention the record number of people who live off the government and so they have no incentive to look for work.

So, anyway, the economic numbers do not look so good.  The White House is lying about the economy being good.  

Some, however, believe he has simply redefined the definition of a good economy.  For instance, the Gross Domestic Product is shrinking.  For most of history the GDP has been the number one indicator used by economists to measure how the economy is doing.  The White House no longer wants to use the GDP as an indicator, claiming "it just doesn't show the whole story."  

They don't want to show it because the GDP shows the economic failures of the Obama administration that they don't want you to know about.  You have 93 million no longer in the workforce, an actual unemployment number greater than 10 percent, college graduates with big college loan debts who can only find a job working 30 hours per week.  There is simply no room for the economy to grow, unless you count government jobs. 

Recession has been re-defined as well, because if you considered two consecutive quarters of a declining GDP as a recession, the entire Obama term would have to be considered a recession.  He doesn't want that, so he has re-defined recession by simply not reporting the GDP.  

The economy has been stagnating, sort of like it did during the Jimmy Carter administration.  Still, the Obama administration keeps reporting that we are in a recovery.  

More people are not working than ever before, immigrants are taking all the jobs that college and high school age kids once took, twice as many jobs are lost in a given month than jobs created, full time work is now considered 30 hours, wages have stagnated (are not going up), disposable income has stagnated, and the number of people who have no desire to work because they receive government checks is growing.  

So you have no markers of a growing economy, and yet the White House continues to say that we are in a state of recovery.  Then the Associated Press, instead of doing its own review of the data as I just did, just reports what the White House releases.  The same is true of most of the rest of the media, and so too many people are mislead into thinking the economy is in a state of recovery.  

What the White House wants you to think is that all this doesn't matter.  What matters is that Obama and the democrats are nice.  Democrats have made it so "everyone" can get healthcare.  Democrats have made it so that anyone can get food stamps and other forms of government assistance.  Democrats will give you free cell phones.  Democrats will protect your social security.  Democrats are nice. 

But all this niceness is actually making the country worse. 

Further reading:

Monday, November 10, 2014

I am not a racist because I disagree with Obama

So I'm on Facebook, and I read this: "What if Obama was white, would the creation of 200,000 jobs for several straight months still make you think his economic policies aren't working."

When I see junk like this, I have a hard time not responding.  So I didn't, but I will in this space.  Here is what I would have responded if I did.
So, are you implying I'm a racist because I don't approve of Obama's economic policies.  Let us investigate those 200,000 jobs. Actually, let's just investigate the 275,000 jobs created in June.  On the surface that number sounds great.  However, once you break it down, it actually doesn't.  Consider that in June the number of people employed full-time actually declined by 523,000, and the number of part-time workers increased by 799,000 (which includes those who wanted part-time and those who wanted full-time but could only find part-time).  So the 275,000 number is misleading in itself. It is in no way indicative of a robust economy.  Am I a racist because I chose to investigate the numbers the Obama administration releases? Am I a racist because I do the job the media refuses to do? 
There, that saves me from angering some friends.  Thanks.

Friday, June 27, 2014

20% of families have no one working, says data

The BLS has been tracking data on employment in families since 1995.
That year, 18.8% of families had no one working.
The highest percentage was in 2011 when it hit 20.2%
It's hung at 20% in both 2012 and 2013.
So we cannot blame just Bush or Obama.

New data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor shows that a whopping 20% of American households have not one person working.  That means that 1 in 5 households are living off the government.

The Bureau defines a family as follows:
Families are classified either as married-couple families or as families maintained by women or men without spouses present. Unless otherwise noted, families include those without children as well as those with children under age 18
About 1 in 5 American families have no one working,
the trend has been consistent since 1995
The report showed that in 2013 there were 80,445,000 families in the U.S. and in 16,127,000—or 20 percent--no one had a job.

I supposed if you define economic success by how many families are on the government dole, then this is remarkable.

However, if you define success, as most people do, by how many families are self sufficient, then this is a stunning sign of the abject failure of the American economic system.

Something we are doing is abjectly wrong.

Sunday, May 4, 2014

Latest economic statistics don't look good for Obama

Idealists don't care so much about statistics, as they only get in the way of their idealistic statistics.  If you throw statistics at idealists that show the economy is not doing good, they will generally say things like, "we just need to give it more time."

We hear Obama saying things like this all the time about his economic strategies, and we keep giving him more time, and we keep getting more statistics that don't show an improving economy. 

A realist, on the other hand, loves statistics.  If statistics show his policies aren't working, he changes course.  That said, the following are the latest statistics regarding Obamanomics and Obamacare.  
  1. The U.S. Labor force shrunk by over 800,000 people in April of 2014 (note that Obama was elected in 2008, so this is six years into his Presidency), according to The Bureau of Labor Statistics
  2. The labor force participation rate declined or decreased to 62% in April 2014, that was the lowest since 1978, when Jimmy Carter was President
  3. What that.  This is according to The Bureau of Labor Statistics
  4. This means is only 62% of Americans of working age have job as of April 2014
  5. The number of Americans not working, but eating and watching television, probably driving and making cell phone calls, 92,594,000 in April, 2014
  6. Despite these #s, the unemployment rate has plunged from 6.7 to 6.3%, but mainly because they simply stopped counting the number of people who have given up looking for work.  This is according to The Bureau of Labor Statistics
  7. In other words, a large percentage of the 92,594,000 Americans not working is not counted in the unemployment rate.  This actually works to Obama's benefit because it makes the numbers look better.  
  8. The unemployment rate also went down because 280,000 jobs were created in April, most in 2 years at a rate of 6.3%, according to The Bureau of Labor Statistics
  9. The number of women 16 and older not in the labor force climbed to a record high of 55,116,000 in April, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
  10. This means that there were 55,116,000 women 16 and older who were in the civilian nonsinstitutional population who not only did not have a job, they did not actively seek one in the last four weeks. That is up 428,000 from the 54,688,000 women who were not in the labor force in March.
  11. 23,052,388 of U.S. households now on food stamps, that's 20% of American households that are being fed by the government, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture
  12. Twenty-percent of American households have no one working.
  13. If the number of people no longer looking for work, and who are working age, are included, the unemployment rate is 12.6%.  This is referred to as the U-6 number
Of interest here is that the Obama administration claimed that 280,000 jobs were created in April, and this, along with the decline in unemployment to 6.3%, was even reported by news organizations like Fox News.  This misleads people into thinking the economy is improving.

Yet labor force data suggests that 800,000 people lost their jobs in April.  The data does not add up. If 800,000 people left the job market, and 280,000 new jobs were created, this should be a net negative not a net positive.

This shows how any administration can spin the numbers to make them look good. Regardless, by studying all these numbers, we can see that Obama's economic policies are not working, and this is not good for a President who's now into his sixth year in office. look good for the economic policies of a President in his 6th year in office.  

References: