Pelosi’s Excellent Jobs Plan

Close down a major manufacturing plant and put hundreds of workers out on the street, unless they unionize, even if the workers have already rejected the union!

Pelosi Vs. Boeing — And Jobs

“Do you think it’s right that Boeing has to close down that plant in South Carolina because it’s nonunion?” asked host Maria Bartiromo.

Pelosi’s quick answer was “yes.”

Pelosi said she preferred the plant in the right-to-work state would unionize; failing that, the National Labor Relations Board is right to shut down the plant where Boeing hopes to build its Dreamliner passenger aircraft.

Never mind that workers at the South Carolina plant were once unionized and voted to kick the union out. The Vought Aircraft plant, which Boeing purchased in 2009, was once one of Boeing’s suppliers.

See also:
Pelosi: “Yes” The Obama NLRB Should Shut Down Boeing’s Plant In SC
Pelosi Says She Supports Pro-Union NLRB Telling Boeing Where To Build Its Factories…
Unionize, Or Die
Nancy Pelosi Goes ‘Rogue’: Boeing Should Either Close Down SC Plant Or Unionize It
Pelosi: Shut down Boeing in South Carolina
Pelosi: NLRB Should Shut Boeing Plant Down Or Force It to Unionize
Nancy Pelosi To Boeing: Shut SC Plant Down
Rick Santorum says Nancy Pelosi is ‘flat out wrong’ on Boeing comment

That’s right, Democrats like Pelosi believe that not having a job is better than having a good paying nonunion job, even if the workers have already rejected unionization. And why do do Democrats work to destroy nonunion jobs? The answer to that is simple. The unions forcibly collect dues from their members, then the unions donate large amounts of their members’ dues money to elect Democrats, and then the Democrats work to further the Unions’ agenda, so the unions can collect more dues, to elect more Democrats, who work for the unions . . . a never ending, self-reinforcing cycle of political corruption.

/and the wheels on the bus go round and round . . .

Another One Bites The Dust

Yet another government entitlement program looks to be about to go belly up.

Social Security Disability Payments Could End in 2017

Aging baby boomers and laid-off workers are inundating Social Security’s disability program with benefit claims, a financial strain that new congressional estimates report could leave the program bankrupt by 2017.

Applications have increased by 50 percent over the past decade, according to a report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), as more people with disabilities lost their jobs — and often remain unemployed for months or even years — in an economy that has been hemorrhaging jobs.

See also:
Social Security Disability and SSI going broke
Social Security Disability Payments May Cease in 2017
Social Security disability on verge of insolvency
Report: Disability fund losing cash
A look at Social Security’s disability program
Old And In The Way: The Politics, Policies and Poverty Of Aging
Soc. Sec. disabilities claims up by 50%
U.S. Trust Funds
Social Security Disability Payments In Peril by 2017
Another Looming Entitlement Crisis
Social Security Disability Fund In Trouble
Government Running Out of Funds for Social Security
Social Security disability payments could end in 2017

Medicare, Social Security, and now Social Security Disability are all well down the road toward insolvency and the politicians, particularly the Democrats, don’t have the guts to do a damn thing about it. So, if you’re under say, 50, I wouldn’t be counting on any of these entitlement programs to be there for you when you might need them in the future.

/it’s the Age of Obama economy and you’re just going to have to learn to fend for yourself

The Path To Prosperity

Adult swim, Democrats out of the pool!

Republicans embrace Rep. Ryan’s government budget plan for 2012

House Republicans announced a far-reaching vision for a leaner federal government on Tuesday, presenting a 2012 budget blueprint that would privatize Medicare for future retirees, cut spending on Medicaid and other domestic programs, and offer sharply lower tax rates to corporations and the wealthy.

The proposal represents the most comprehensive philosophical statement by resurgent Republicans since they claimed control of the House in last fall’s midterm elections. It promises to define the party heading into the 2012 presidential election and to shape the policy debate in Washington as both parties grapple with a soaring national debt.

Drafted by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the proposal aims to eventually shrink federal spending, measured against the economy, to its lowest level since 1949. Ryan said the plan would create jobs, promote growth, and rebuild an economy ravaged by recession and “relentless government spending, taxing and borrowing.”

Read the budget proposal:

The Path to Prosperity

See also:
House Republicans unveil ‘Path to Prosperity’ budget cuts
U.S. Republicans present budget plan with massive cuts
Proposal Transforms Role of Government
The CBO scores Paul Ryan
The Ryan Resolution
GOP budget proposal would cut feds, extend pay freeze
Ryan Rides To The Rescue With Realistic Budget Plan
Editorial: Ryan’s Budget Plan Gets The Job Done
The GOP Path to Prosperity

Right on cue, the Democrats are already squealing like stuck pigs being electrocuted in an acid bath. Children will die, senior citizens will be forced to eat cat food! Brace yourself, because the cynical and deceitful doomsday din will only get louder. Gird yourself for the 2012 elections, Republicans need to oust Obama, take the Senate, and hold the House in order to wrangle this country back onto the road to fiscal sanity. The Democrats’ irresponsible and ruinous spending gravy train must be brought to an end, the status quo is unsustainable and not an option. Vote Republican to save this country’s future from the economic abyss.

/the Path to Prosperity won’t be painless, but it has to be taken, the other road leads the United States down the third world drain

Bogus Obama Math

Listen carefully.

Did you hear that Obama administration talking point? We can’t afford the $700 billion to extend the Bush tax cuts for the “wealthiest Americans”. But we really want to extend the “middle class” tax cuts.

Let’s do some math.

Bush tax cuts: What you need to know

What’s at stake for the deficit?

Treasury estimates the costs of making the tax cuts permanent for everyone is $3.7 trillion over 10 years.

Of that, $3 trillion accounts for the cost of extending them for the vast majority of Americans, as the president has proposed. The remaining $700 billion is the cost of extending them permanently for the high-income earners.

Um, so, we can afford $3 trillion, but not $3.7 trillion, according to Obama math. If we can’t afford the $700 billion for the tax cuts for the “rich” in the first place, where is Obama going to come up with the $3 trillion for the “middle class” tax cuts he loves so much and why is no one asking this question? What bull[expletive deleted]!

See also:
Obama: Republicans playing games with tax cuts
No time to play ‘games’ with tax cuts, Obama says
Obama Blasts GOP on Tax Cut Issue
Tax Cut Battle
Democrats divided over tax hikes
Moderate House Democrats Push for Vote on Extending All Bush Tax Cuts
More House Democrats call for tax cuts for all
Another Democrat Says Extend ALL Bush Tax Cuts
WHIP COUNT: Democrats in favor of extending all of the Bush tax cuts
Change: Pelosi Hints She’s Open To Full Tax Cut Extension

Obama is such a dishonest douche bag. He has no problem borrowing $3 trillion to play political class warfare ahead of the midterm election, but then he can’t seem to borrow the extra $700 billion to extend the tax cuts to those evil “rich” people, you know, the people who actually create most of the jobs in our economy.

/it’s real simple, with the country already over $14 trillion in debt, either we can afford all the tax cut extensions or we can’t afford any of them

Kryptonite For The Economy

/Michael Ramirez

See also:
Is Obama anti-business?
Obama is Anti-Business
U.S. Business Groups Air Policy Concerns
Chamber of Commerce: Obama Polices are a “General Attack” on Free Enterprise
Obama, Big Business Trade Blame on the Economy
Obama’s stimulus fantasy
Letter: Time to go after Obama for his anti-business policies
Big Business Versus Obama
BIRNBAUM: Obama’s bogus pro-business credentials
Editorial: Obama should listen to business leaders

Who knows more about private sector business and the economy, Obama, who’s never held a real private sector job in his life, or professional business people, who actually create private sector jobs?

/the simple fact is that Obama doesn’t have the cure for this ailing economy, Obama is the disease that’s killing this ailing economy

Obama Finds Ass To Kick, Boots More Jobs Than Oil Spill

******************************UPDATE******************************

******************************END UPDATE******************************

It’s bad enough that Obama’s economic policies don’t create any private sector jobs. Now, Obama, in his infinite inanity and in response to the fluke Gulf oil spill, decides that the best way to help the already hammered Gulf Coast economy is to voluntarly destroy thousands of more jobs in addition to those already lost to the effects of the oil spill. I’m not sure which man caused disaster is worse, the oil spill or Obama?

Gulf drilling ban expected to cost thousands of jobs, millions in pay

The White House extended its ban on new offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and the North Slope of Alaska, along with an order to cease any ongoing deep sea drilling operations on Thursday, May 27, 2010. The six month moratorium is projected to result in the loss of approximately 46,000 jobs, according to a CNN Money report.

The White House decision was met with scrutiny from Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who wrote a letter to President Obama Wednesday, June 2, 2010, stating that prohibiting deepwater drilling could result in the loss of 6,000 jobs for Louisianans for this month alone.

The ban requires all Gulf of Mexico wells in waters over 500 feet to shut down. It also bans any new permits from being issued for any new deepwater drilling anywhere. The White House changed the ban from 30 days to six months last week to allow for investigations into what caused the Deepwater Horizon oil rig to explode on April 20.

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt defended the moratorium, stating, “The President believes we must ensure that the BP Deepwater Horizon spill is never repeated,” and stressed that the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association ban is only for deep water drilling. Shallow water rigs are not subject to the ban.

See also:
Louisiana’s Sen. Landrieu blasts Interior Secretary Salazar on Gulf drilling ban
Landrieu presses Salazar on 6-month Deepwater Drilling Moratorium
Oil rigs leaving Gulf of Mexico over drill ban
Oil Supply Disruption: A Sure Bet On Job Losses
ENGLER: Drilling moratorium is a jobs moratorium
Drilling moratorium could cost Houston thousands of jobs
‘Thousands of Louisianans are going to be out of work because the president wanted a get-tough headline’
Obama under pressure on oil drilling ban
Railroad Commish Jones: ‘President Obama, Reverse Drilling Ban’
Anger over Obama block on Gulf of Mexico oil drilling after BP disaster
Drilling Bits of Fiction
Salazar’s own experts opposed drilling moratorium
Louisiana officials fret over drilling moratorium

Yep, while Obama “studies the problem” by day and party’s hardy with celebrities by night, the Gulf oil spill disaster worsens by the day and now he’s adding to the problem. Jobs are increasingly disappearing and, along with the drilling rigs that are now leaving the Gulf for work elsewhere, many are never coming back. It’s amazing, if a policy is absolutely wrong headed and devastatingly detrimental to the American economy, Obama is attracted to that policy and sticks to it like an energized electromagnet.

/yeah, Obama, the proverbial one legged man at the ass kicking contest, has found some ass to kick all right, OURS!

Happy First Birthday “Stimulus”!

The “stimulus” worked exactly as intended. What, you didn’t think it was supposed to create jobs, did you?

/Michael Ramirez

Why Defend The Failed Stimulus?

Recovery: Is the president right when he says the stimulus kept the U.S. from falling into a depression? No. In fact, too much government tinkering and spending, not too little, has given us the jobless recovery we have now.

Democrats in charge of both the White House and Congress are firing all their guns at once to tout the benefits of the $862 billion stimulus package passed a year ago this week. They’ve even planned a 35-city tour to support it. Their message?

“One year later, it is largely thanks to the recovery act that a second depression is no longer a possibility,” President Obama said Wednesday. The stimulus act has created 2 million jobs, he claimed, predicting 1.5 million more this year from the program.

Is it just a coincidence that the 3.5 million jobs he is claiming is exactly what the White House predicted early last year? We doubt it. But whatever the case, Obama’s claims are false.

Start with this: Stimulus didn’t save us from an economic cataclysm. Obama himself said so back in March, noting that the economy was “not as bad as we think,” and that he was “highly optimistic.” It’s clear he didn’t think we were on the brink of a Depression.

He was right. In an editorial at the time, we pointed to 13 separate economic indicators signaling an imminent economic recovery — with all of them flashing before the stimulus was in place.

We knew at the time that our resilient private economy would climb out of its hole, and that politicians would try to claim credit. That’s why we wrote: “No politician who voted for these job- and growth-killing measures should claim any credit for our eventual rebound.” Following Wednesday’s fact-bending dog-and-pony show, we think that bears repeating.

The claim that stimulus has “created or saved” 2 million jobs is complete fiction. It rests on the obviously false idea that money can be taken from the productive private sector and given to the nonproductive public sector and create a net gain in jobs.

Based on the imaginary existence of a so-called “Keynesian multiplier,” this kind of thinking hypothesizes jobs that don’t really exist. Sadly, when we count actual jobs, the reality is a bit starker: 8.4 million jobs lost since December 2007, the start of the recession. And more than 4 million lost since the start of 2009.

So when Vice President Biden says Americans are “getting their money’s worth” from stimulus, it should be treated as a punch line — not a policy view.

Hey “Gordon Gecko” Obama, why do you need to wreck this country?

/because it’s wreckable, alright!

Read It And Weep For America’s Future

Obama gets bad numbers from Congressional Budget Office

Jobs and the deficits are going to be big themes of President Obama’s big speech tomorrow — and he got some bad numbers on both topics today from the Congressional Budget Office.

Oval colleague Richard Wolf breaks it down for us:

Here’s more bad news on the budget front for President Obama: A new report by the Congressional Budget Office says the nation’s $1.4 trillion deficit is likely to stay in that range for the next two years.

The 2010 deficit should be about $1.35 trillion, and if Obama keeps President Bush’s tax cuts in place and extends other expiring tax breaks, the 2011 deficit would be about the same, the report says. Over the next decade, the nation would rack up another $12 trillion in deficits, thereby doubling the size of the $12 trillion national debt.

“Daunting” and “bleak” were just some of the adjectives used by CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf on Tuesday to describe the 10-year budget picture. Spending is projected to outpace revenue, and the debt would soon be two-thirds the size of the overall economy. By 2020, interest payments on that debt would be more than $700 billion, about four times the size of the current amount.

The report shows the unemployment rate rising slightly above 10% before declining slowly. Not until 2014 would the rate drop back to 5%.

“In sum, the outlook for the federal budget is bleak,” Elmendorf said. “U.S. fiscal policy is on an unsustainable path to an extent that cannot be solved by minor tinkering.”

But don’t worry, it’s Obama to the rescue.

Obama’s federal spending freeze

The White House has been cranking out initiatives daily in an effort to regain the public’s confidence, and on Tuesday, its target was the enormous federal deficit. Aides to President Obama disclosed that his forthcoming budget will call for a three-year freeze on “non-security discretionary funding.” That’s bureaucratese for capping everything but defense, homeland security, veterans, international affairs and entitlements (for example, Medicare and welfare), with no adjustments for inflation. That would result in $250 billion less being spent over the coming decade than currently projected, said Rob Nabors, deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget. Although it’s merely a gesture, it’s a good one that sends the right signals to Congress and the public.

Skeptics were quick to note how little of the budget actually would be affected — about 17% — and how small the savings seem in comparison to the $6 trillion in total deficits expected over the coming decade. And presidential budgets are just proposals; Congress controls the purse strings. It’s hard to say how well received Obama’s latest offering will be, given how few details have been released. The official line is simply that the administration’s budget for fiscal 2010 (which runs from October 2010 through September 2011) will call for cutting some programs and increasing others.

So, in case you’re still confused, the National Debt is projected to double to over $20 trillion in the next ten years and Obama’s answer is to save $250 billion over the next decade. It’s like trying to put out a five alarm fire with a squirt gun, it’s a joke.

Oh, and remember that useless “stimulus” that we borrowed almost a trillion dollars for, the Democrat porkfest that had to be passed immediately to keep the unemployment rate below 8%? Well, four million jobs lost and a 10% unemployment rate later, guess what?

Officials Say Stimulus Bill to Cost $75B More

Last year’s $787 billion economic stimulus bill is going to be even more expensive — $75 billion more.

The new Congressional Budget Office estimate, released Tuesday, provides more ammunition for Republicans who say the stimulus has been long on spending and short on creating promised jobs. The additional cost also eats into the savings forecast from the budget freeze President Barack Obama is expected to propose Wednesday night during his State of the Union address.

Almost half of the additional cost, $34 billion, is because the food stamp program won’t be able to take advantage of lower-than-expected inflation rates and will instead have benefits set by the stimulus bill.

Higher unemployment insurance costs added $21 billion to the bill, and stimulus-subsidized bonds to pay for infrastructure projects have proven more popular than expected with state and local governments.

The $75 billion increase would erase one-third of the $250 billion in 10-year savings that would come from the partial domestic spending freeze being proposed by Obama. The boost in unemployment payments alone would more than erase the $10 billion to $15 billion in first-year savings from such a freeze.

And don’t forget that we borrowed the “stimulus” money so the debt service over time is going to make it cost more.

Read the whole depressing, frightening, and sobering CBO report:

The Budget and Economic Outlook:
Fiscal Years 2010 to 2020

See also:
Bleak Economic Projections as Obama Prepares for State of the Union Address
The CBO’s Economic Outlook Is Bleak
US Congressional Budget Office Chief Sees ‘Bleak’ Outlook
CBO Chief: “The Outlook For The Federal Budget Is Bleak”
Budget Office: The government’s finances on ‘unsustainable path’
CBO: Federal Deficit Projected at $1.35T
The Obama Fisc
Budget sanity
A ‘Bleak’ Budget but Slightly Better
Obama Seeks Partial Three-Year Spending Freeze
Broad range of programs targeted by proposed spending freeze
How much would Obama’s spending freeze trim US deficits? Not a lot.
The “spending freeze” in context
Tepid Reception for Obama Spending Freeze
Obama faces backlash on spending freeze
The Obama Spending Freeze is Simply Not Credible
Spending Freeze Won’t Melt Partisan Divide
Stimulus is now $75 billion more expensive
Stimulus Bill to Cost $75 Billion More Than Expected, CBO Says
Congressional Budget Office says stimulus bill to cost $75 billion more
CBO: Stimulus $75 Bln More Expensive Than Estimated
Stimulus price tag soars as jobless rate rises

/no matter what Obama sys tomorrow night, the State of the Union, is not strong

Lots Of Bull[Expletive Deleted] Saved Or Created

Obama tells business leaders they are key to job growth

President Obama kicked off a much-anticipated jobs summit Thursday, telling 130 business leaders and others summoned to the White House for the afternoon-long session that private business, not government, holds the key to future job growth.

“Ultimately, true economic recovery is only going to come from the private sector,” Obama said.

Thank you President Oblivious! You needed a “jobs summit” to announce that? It’s telling that you and most of your Cabinet has absolutely zero private sector experience.

See also:
President Obama holds jobs summit to refocus on economy
Economic ideas floated at local jobs summit
Labor Praises Jobs Summit, Calls For Action—But Obama Sending Mixed Signals on Major Spending
As Obama Holds Jobs Summit, Frustrated Left Complains About Slow Growth
Bing pleads for federal dollars for Detroit at Jobs Summit
RNC Chairman Steele Blasts Job Summit
Jobs Summit or White House ‘Photo-Op’?
Gingrich hosts his own jobs summit

Hey Obama, here’s an idea, if you really want to get the recovery going stop spouting stupid platitudes at meaningless “job summit” photo-ops and CUT TAXES! It’s not rocket science, it’s been proven to work time and time again.

/although I’m not holding my breath because cutting taxes is to Democrats as garlic is to vampires

How’s That Trillion Dollars In “Stimulus” Working Out?

What does a trillion dollars in wasteful deficit spending on Democrat pet pork projects buy, besides record deficits and the most unsecured national debt in American history? Well, lets see, 2.7 million jobs lost since the “stimulus” just had to be passed immediately, without anyone even having read it, and the highest unemployment rate in 26 years, with no net job growth in sight. Hip, hip, hooray, you go Obama and the Democrats (hopefully starting in 2010)!

dd
gr2009032100104

Job losses accelerate to 263,000 in September

The nation’s job losses accelerated in September, driving the unemployment rate to a 26-year high of 9.8% and casting a cloud over the incipient recovery, economic data showed Friday.

Nonfarm payrolls fell by a greater-than-expected 263,000 in September, the Labor Department reported. It marked the 21st consecutive month of job losses.

Since the recession began in December 2007, 7.2 million jobs have been lost and the unemployment rate has doubled.

While disappointing, the September numbers were not catastrophic, economists said.

“We are more inclined to view September as a temporary setback than as a signal that the decelerating trend in job losses has stalled out,” wrote Stephen Stanley, chief economist for RBS Securities. “It is far too early to be pulling the alarm on this nascent recovery.”

But another economist sounded the warning.

The “weak employment report lessens hope for a sustainable recovery,” wrote Harm Bandholz of UniCredit Research. “Once the impact of the inventory cycle and the fiscal stimulus has run its course, gross domestic product growth will slow down substantially again.”

The employment figures also carried a political dimension, as Republicans said the continued job losses proved the stimulus had failed, while Democrats said they proved that government support is essential.

“Today’s job report is a sobering reminder that progress comes in fits and starts — and that we’re going to need to grind out this recovery step by step,” said President Barack Obama. “I’m working closely with my economic advisors to explore any and all additional options and measures that we might take to promote job creation.”

“We are headed for what appears to be, at best, a jobless recovery,” said Rep. John Boehner, the Ohio Republican who leads the GOP in the House. “That is not what the American people were promised.”

Details of the report were almost universally dismal, with the number of unemployed people rising by 214,000 to 15.1 million.

And of those, 5.4 million have been out of work longer than six months, accounting for a record 35.6% of the jobless.

Stimulus Spending Doesn’t Work

The global recession and financial crisis have refocused attention on government stimulus packages. These packages typically emphasize spending, predicated on the view that the expenditure “multipliers” are greater than one—so that gross domestic product expands by more than government spending itself. Stimulus packages typically also feature tax reductions, designed partly to boost consumer demand (by raising disposable income) and partly to stimulate work effort, production and investment (by lowering rates).

The existing empirical evidence on the response of real gross domestic product to added government spending and tax changes is thin. In ongoing research, we use long-term U.S. macroeconomic data to contribute to the evidence. The results mostly favor tax rate reductions over increases in government spending as a means to increase GDP.

. . .

The bottom line is this: The available empirical evidence does not support the idea that spending multipliers typically exceed one, and thus spending stimulus programs will likely raise GDP by less than the increase in government spending. Defense-spending multipliers exceeding one likely apply only at very high unemployment rates, and nondefense multipliers are probably smaller. However, there is empirical support for the proposition that tax rate reductions will increase real GDP.

Gee, who would have ever figured that tax cuts were more effective at stimulating the economy and creating jobs than massive government deficit spending on Democrat pet pork projects that do nothing to create sustainable jobs. Just a thought, maybe the Democrats should have passed more tax cuts instead of wasting most of a trillion dollars in taxpayer money on incredibly stupid crap like frozen sliced ham, turtle tunnels, and outhouses in national parks.

See also:
US unemployment at 26-year high
Jobless rate reaches 9.8 percent in September
263,000 Jobs Lost, Worse Than Views; Jobless Rate 9.8%
Unemployment rate rises to 9.8% as employers cut more jobs than expected
UPDATE: Fed’s Rosengren Sees High Unemployment Next 2 Years
2.7 Million Jobs Lost Since “Stimulus” Bill Enacted
Stimulus can’t ease job pain for U.S. states and cities
Biden on Unemployment: “Less Bad” Isn’t Good
Republicans Seize on Jobs as Proof Obama’s Policies Have Failed
Job Numbers Released, GOP Pounces
As Biden lays out stimulus goals, GOP demands specifics on new jobs
Romney: Stimulus Not Working, Time to Fix It
Stimulus: New Research on Government Stimulus Spending and Tax Cuts
How Bad Does The “Stimulus” Suck?
Where’s The Stimulus And Why Do We Need Any More Of It Anyway?

/so, Obama and the Democrats have lost 2.7 million jobs, the U.S. unemployment rate is the highest in 26 years, and their trillion dollar “stimulus” has failed miserably, I guess there’s only one thing left for them to do, blame Bush!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 26 other followers