Log In | Register
Since July of 2009, jobs data has shown the complete failure of Obama/Democrat type government spending to "create" jobs in the private economy--as reported in my articles, always correct, over that entire period. Here are the unemployment figures for every month, starting with July: 9.5%, 9.4%, 9.8%, 10.2%, 10%, 10%, and 9.7^. Note that unemployment "stabilized" in July-August--BEFORE any Obama/Democrat spending could possibly have had any significant effect--and has not improved since. In other words, the Obama "stimulus", the extra Democrat spending in the second half of 2009 (omnibus spending bill), etc. have had NO--none, zilch, nada--effect on employment. But the spending has bankrupted the country, and has continued--including that 12% omnibus spending increase in December.
What about the "improvement" in the January number to 9.7%? Nope. Wrong. No evidence at all of "improvement". It is not only that the "improvement" was the result of DISCOURAGED workers, and an increase in temporary workers (to the tune of 52,00). There was a statistical "adjustment" in the way the number was calculated in January, and the .3% "improvement was entirely within the "margin of error" of the statistic. It did not represent any "improvement" at all, as the employment situation remained the same as it has since July: UNIMPROVED. How do we KNOW that? We know that because of other, more significant and reliable, jobs data numbers--the unemployment rate being the "softest" of the numbers, with not only "adjustments" (true of the other numbers, as well), but merely representing a "survey" of households rather than a "hard" number.
Thus, the economy continued to lose net jobs in January: 20,000 of them. This was after the economy supposedly "added" jobs in November--"supposedly" because the number of "added" jobs was a statistically meaningless 4,000. The economy then LOST 86,000 jobs in December, and another 20,000 in January. In other words, just as the Obama /Democrat spending should have been taking full effect, the economy LOST 100,000 net jobs over the past two months, after reaching "stabilization" in November. This is inconsistent with a "drop" in the unemployment rate, just as the previous "drop" from 9.5% to 9.4% (six months ago) had no real meaning (beyond showing a "stabilization" which was bound to occur at some point, whether Obama and the Democrats existed or not).
Then look at initial jobless claims numbers (the measure of layoffs--gross jobs lost--in the economy weekly). That number went UP 20,000 last week, to 480,000--to the same level at which it stood some 3 months ago. The four week AVERAGE (essentially January) INCREASED substantially. That too, along with the net jobs lost figures, shows NO "improvement" in January employment. In fact, the numbers could be regarded as showing a slight DETERIORATION. Thus, the 9.7% number has no significance (beyond showing that unemployment may not be getting significantly worse), Since July, the employment data has shown NO "improvement". As my previous articles have said, all the data has shown is that we have been "bumping along the bottom" FOR SEVEN MONTHS--the entire second half of the Obama Presidency showing NO improvement, despite the disastrous increases in government spending.
But did not Obama spending "save" us from collapse, when we were on the brink? Nope. Not true. Even now, intellectually dishonest "defenders" of Obama say that it is "too soon" to evaluate the effect of his policies, since they have not had time to "work". When that was true was in JULY. Obama/Democr spending could not possibly take "credit" for the stabilization" of the economy in July/August, as the spending had hardly had time to have any effect.
Well, what brought us "back from the brink" of total collapse? People like me think it was just the natural rebound in the economy, which would have been stronger without ANY government "fix" (much less the Bush/Paulson/Democrat/Obama panic in the fall of 2008). However, to the extent government policies actually "saved" us--rather than harming us--they were the policies of Bush, Paulson, and Bernanke (Fed). The Obama Presidency had NOTHING to do with establishing those polices, beyond the fact that Obama supported the bailouts in the fall of 2008. Even the GM bailout was BUSH, and not Obama. Sur, Obama continued the Bush policies--and supported them in the first place--making Obama's first year a part of Bush's third term. This includes the FAILED "stimulus" in the summer of 2998. But Obama can hardly claim "credit" for those policies bringing us "back from the brink".
Yes, in the first six months of the Obama Presidency, spending was not the only "stimulus".. Bernanke and the Fed were continuing to pump money into the economy, and to ease credit. Some of it had to be done, although--again--some of us think the Fed/Bernanke went to far in PRINTING money, and in the bailout psychology. It is absurd to suggest Bernanke would have done any different under Bush, because he did not. And Obama continued pouring bailout money into the economy, as Bush had done. Nevertheless, the extra government spending--beyond what even Bush had done--could hardly be given "credit" for the "stabilization" that occurred in the economy by July. That "stabilization" had to already be in motion before the "stimulus"/extra government spending even took effect. Indeed, the Bush/Democrat failed "stimulus" of the summer of 2008 was BETTER timed, in that the economy was not yet in the depths of a deep recession, but merely teetering on the edge of the cliff. It was also more "stimulative'. Yet, it STILL failed to have any beneficial effect (beyond a month or so of artificial "growth").
The Obama/Democrat "stimulus" and extra spending really could not have had any significant effect until the second half of 2009--at exactly the WRONG time, when the economy was already stabilizing and seemingly ready to come out of the recession. Indeed, the GDP did "grow" the ENTIRE second half of 2009 (both quarters). Now it is likely that "growth" was artificial--created by the money the Fed and government were pumping into the economy--but the economy had already "stabilized" by the time that "growth" started. It did that without the help of any Obama/Democrat spending--whatever you think of the Bush?Paulson/Bernanke policies continued by Obama.
Yet, Obama has taken "credit" for "preventing" the collapse of the economy, while trying to "blame" Bush for the bad effects of the bailout and spending policies of the last Bush year. That is the act of a pathological liar. To the extent we were "saved" from "collapse", that was the Bush/Paulson/Bernanke policies--with both their good and bad effects, continued by Obama. There is NO evidence that the Obama "stimulus" (and EXTRA spending) had ANY good effect at all. The spending certainly did not improve the employment numbers at all, which had already "stabilized" before the spending had a chance to take effect.
No, it is too much to expect that the economy would be "well" by now. It is too much too expect that we would already have achieved "full employment". However, we should be IMPROVING, especially when we "stabilized" all the way back in July. Instead, even after bankrupting ourselves further--for nothing--we are not improving at all. That is FAILURE on a scale almost beyond belief.
Obama's response? More of the same FAILED policies. What will be accomplished by a $5000.00 payment for each new employee "hired" by a business? Can a business FIRE one employee and then get the "credit" for hiring another? Can a business get the tax credit by hiring a RELATIVE? Must the business hire a certain number of "minorities" to qualify? And so on. The whole thing is absurd, and will contain the usual Federal Government "strings" that will make it "benefit" mainly those with an ability to SCAM the government, and those politically connected. And that is not even its main defect.
Say an employer can economically justify the hiring of a new employee. Is that employer going to NOT hire that employee because the employer is waiting for a $6000 tax credit from the Federal Government. Don't be absurd, UNLESS the employer KNOWS that the government is considering such a "gift"--in which case the employer will DELAY hiring waiting for the government to act.
Say that an employer cannot economically justify a new employee. Is that employer going to hire a new employee because the government gives the employer a $5000 tax credit? Not if the employer is SANE. The employer may try to manipulate things to take advantage of the gift to the taxpayer, but the employer would be INSANE to hire someone because of that credit. How LONG does the employee have to be hired to get the "credit"? A month? Two weeks? A whole year? Absurdity upon absurdity. There is NO way this kind of policy can have a beneficial effect upon employment (not to mention what happens when the subsidy STOPS).
What about loans to small businesses. Obama seems to have just discovered that small businesses create the most jobs--after a year of FAILED attempts by GOVERNMENT to create jobs. But how did we get in this mess? You remember. I know you do, even if you are so brain damaged as to watch the MSNBC cable network. We got in this mess because banks--at the instigation of the Federal Government--lent money to peole WHO COULD NOT PAY IT BACK. Now Obama wants to make that same mistake little more than a year after the absurdity of this policy became evident when the economy collapsed.
Banks make money lending money. The Fed is giving them money at ZERO percent interest. There is all of this bailout money that has been given to banks. Banks have money to lend. So why would a bank not give a loan to a business, providing there is a good chance of the business paying it back? What we should have LEARNED from the housing collapse is that you simply can't encourage lending to people who have no reasonable way of paying the oney back. Yet, Obama is proposing to repeat the exact equivalent of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in terms of subsidizing loans to small business. And why prefer one small business over another? Who decides who "deserves" a bailout and who does not? Yes, I know that BIG BUSINESSES got "bailed out", but that was supposedly because they were "too big to fail" (an absurdity that some of us considered absurd, even while it was being adopted as policy). It now turns out that we don't want to let ANYONE "fail", so long as they can go through the political hoops to get government assistance. "Absurd" is a kind word for this insanity.
That is the overall problem here. Obama says he does not believe in a Big Government domination of the economy (lol). Yet, the Federal Government is supposed to be able to decide when banks should lend, when employers should hire, what executives should be paid, and virtually everything else about the economy. If government can consistently, and CORRECTLY, make all of those decisions, why should not the government make ALL of the main decisions in the economy FOREVER (socialism, Communism and/or fascism)? There is no logical reason, and that is what Obama truly believes in.
This country became great based on te idea of a free market economy: the idea that a free market best allocates resources because there is no way government can now enough, and be wise enough, to do it by central planning. The Obama approach is the exact opposite of that principle: the "government knows best" approach. FDR, in the Great Depression, did not attempt the kind of government domination of the private economy that Obama is attempting. Both history and theory, not to mention the very founding principles of this country, tell you that the Obama approach is WRONG. The jobs data over the past 7 months show it again, and yet Obama acts like he was not even here the past year: that a NEW government approach to central planning on jobs will "save" us, after the failure of the old central planning approach. Not so.
