Posts Tagged unemployment

Democrats’ Economic Record

Common Cents has this gem, which illustrates the effect that a Democrat majority in Congress has had on unemployment numbers. But remember: it’s all Bush’s fault!

2000

4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.9 7.4
2009 7.7 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.1 10.0 10.0
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.9 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6  

,

Leave a comment

Obamanomics 101

Andrew B. Wilson at the American Spectator presents a rather scathing critique of Obama’s economic policies, and how they are spun as doing things that they don’t do:

For spendthrift Democrats to go around claiming that they have “cut taxes” is to engage in the most deliberate and outrageous obfuscation — throwing dirt in the eyes of an American public. What Obama and the Democrats have done, in the course of running up $2.7 trillion in federal deficits and spending nearly 25% of GDP over the past two years, is to put checks in the mail to people who, for the most part, pay no income tax — meaning that these payments from the federal government out of borrowed money are indistinguishable from welfare checks. The Obama administration has not cut tax rates for real taxpayers and has no intention of doing so (with huge tax increases soon to take effect with the expiration of the earlier round of George W. Bush tax cuts).

But none of this stops Democratic Party stalwarts from playacting the part of favoring tax cuts. On CNN, California Senator Boxer made the laughable claim that she had supported “$1.2 trillion in tax cuts” through the stimulus bill — which would suggest that the entire stimulus bill, and more, was devoted to tax cuts. In fact, she began her interview with Wolf Blitzer in claiming she had supported $2.2 trillion in tax cuts.

Since Obama came to office in January 2009, the unemployment has risen from just under 8% to close to 10% — where it has stayed for the past year.  There has been a net loss of about 2.5 million jobs.  Even so, the Obama administration continues to claim that it has “created or saved” about 3 million jobs.  That is a meaningless metric, which is not based on any evidence.  It comes from plugging data on government spending into a Keynesian computer model and assuming (against a great weight of contrary evidence) that every dollar spent would provide $1.50 in economic growth and job creation.  It is merely a restatement of what the target was at the outset of the stimulus program, as opposed to an objective measure of what the program has actually achieved.

Read the whole thing.

, , ,

Leave a comment

The Obamacare Abomination: Pricetag

So, having seen some conservative reactions to Obamacare, and looked at some possible recourse to it, why not look at what’s at stake? What will this really cost us, and how has that been misrepresented?

I’ve already talked about the problems with the CBO report that the Democrats relied upon to get Obamacare passed. There’s enough there to warrant me repeating some of it: Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , , ,

2 Comments

Congress Blows Billions on Jobs Bill

Following up on an article from the American Spectator I commented on earlier, which discusses how the Jobs Bill probably won’t create any new jobs, I found an article by Donald Lambro at Townhall that also takes apart the jobs bill.

You do not need a doctorate in economics to know that such a tiny sum of money (in comparison to a nearly $4 trillion federal budget) isn’t going to create a ripple in a workforce that numbers more than 150 million people. Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , ,

Leave a comment

The Recovery that Wasn’t Quite

Anthony Randazzo at Reason Magazine writes a fairly length piece on how the economy, despite the White House’s reassurance, is not recovering. In fact,most of the conditions that cause the economic collapse are still in bad shape, and unemployment is still increasing.

“The Recovery Act has created jobs and spurred growth,” President Barack Obama said in a December speech trumpeting the success of his economic policies. “We are in a very different place today than we were a year ago.” Lawrence Summers, director of the White House National Economic Council, concurs. “Everybody agrees that the recession is over,” Summers said that same month on ABC’s This Week.

But a closer look reveals those appealing numbers sit on a dangerously shaky foundation. Economic growth in 2009 was largely dependent on a historic level of government spending that even the president acknowledges is unsustainable in the long term. The root problem of mortgage delinquencies has yet to be worked out. Bank lending is sparse amid ongoing uncertainties surrounding regulatory reform. As a result, manufacturers and small businesses continue to struggle with limited credit. All that translates into historic job losses and a bleak outlook for meaningful growth in 2010 and 2011.

Worst of all, many of the core problems in the housing, banking, manufacturing, and service sectors are being perpetuated and exacerbated by the very federal programs the president credits with jump-starting economic growth. Instead of confronting the roots of the crisis head on, as Obama has repeatedly boasted of doing, his administration and the Democratic Congress have kicked the can down the road, postponing the day of reckoning for real estate, the auto industry, and the toxic mortgage-backed securities that were at the heart of the economic meltdown. These unsolved problems will keep looming over the economy until they’re finally addressed.

Take the time to read the whole thing.

, , , ,

Leave a comment

Evading Prosperity

Doctor Zero pens an analysis of a coverage provision in the Obamacare bill that will likely result in a loss of part-time jobs. The provision would require employers to provide full benefits to part-time workers, which would make it prohibitively expensive to retain those workers as part-time.

As Ed Morrissey pointed out, the original Senate version of this health-care mandate would have encouraged businesses to evade it by reducing full-time staff and hiring more part-time employees. The revised version would have the opposite effect, virtually annihilating part-time employment by making it dramatically more expensive. Employers would have no choice but to provide expensive health-care benefits to their part-time staff, pay stiff penalties… or dodge this swinging pendulum of financial ruin by getting rid of part-timers altogether. Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , ,

Leave a comment