Jobless Non-Recovery

This is rather long but well worth the economics lesson, although my regular readers are already familiar with the terms and principles described below. No pictures this time, just facts.

When It Comes to the Jobless Numbers, President Obama Isn’t Talking Straight

by: Peter Ferrara, Forbes Online (08-09-12)

“This morning we learned that our businesses created 172,000 new jobs in the month of July,” President Obama bragged regarding last Friday’s jobs report. “That means we’ve now created 4.5 million over the last 29 months and 1.1 million new jobs this year.”

You should have learned by now on your own that you can’t believe a word the man says. If it is not outright false, it is cast out of context to deliberately mislead. Obama’s statement is like a pediatrician who brags to you that under his care your 16 year old son has grown to 4 feet, 5 inches. At the same point during the Reagan recovery, the economy had created more than 9.5 million new jobs.

Moreover, in just one month during the Reagan economic recovery boom, September, 1983, the economy created 1.1 million new jobs. That’s a real recovery.

But Obama’s statement is even more misleading. Because during his entire Administration, the economy has created less than zero jobs. Investors Business Daily replied on August 4 to Obama’s statement, “But ‘we’ haven’t created any jobs. As a matter of fact, since Obama has entered office, some 1.1 million payroll jobs have disappeared.” Former Bush Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors Edward Lazear added in the Wall Street Journal on July 30, “there hasn’t been one day during the entire Obama Presidency when as many Americans were working as on the day President Bush left office.”

Moreover, “since Obama stepped into office, 7.5 million people have left the workforce,” IBD added. Almost all of those folks are still out there without a job.

Obama also neglected to add that the Labor Department’s household survey, which determines the unemployment rate, found that the number of jobs plummeted last month by 195,000. That is why the U3 unemployment rate rose again, to 8.3%. It was the establishment survey of businesses that claimed the economy created 163,000, not 172,000, net new jobs last month. But that number is heavily influenced by seasonal adjustments that can be outdated, and by estimates, not counts of jobs created by new businesses. It is inconsistent with the fact the Labor Dept. also reported on Friday that 150,000 left the workforce last month.

That makes a postwar record 42 months of unemployment over 8%, the longest period of unemployment that high since the Great Depression. While Obama promised us when he wanted to pass his nearly $1 trillion wasteful government spending stimulus that unemployment would never climb above 8% if we did, it has never fallen below 8% during his entire, mistaken Presidency.

Moreover, the U3 unemployment rate doesn’t count the millions who have fled the work force under the oppression of Obamanomics. If labor force participation had just remained the same as when Obama entered office, unemployment would be still stuck for months now at 11%, which would be a postwar record, the highest since the Great Depression.

U.S. News and World Report Chairman Mort Zuckerman elaborated in the Wall Street Journal on July 24, that if you add “the number of discouraged workers who have dropped out of the labor market since the recession began in early 2008 – approximately eight million – the [unemployment] rate would be an alarming 12%. Fifty percent of the jobs created since the recession hit have been part time, with no benefits and a wage that’s inadequate to enter the middle class.” Discouraged workers who have left the work force, and those working part time only because they can’t find a full time job, are counted in the Labor Dept’s U6 unemployment rate, which rose last month to a depression level 15%. If you count the long term discouraged workers that the government stopped counting in 1994, the Shadow Government Statistics website reports that unemployment would be at the deep depression level of 22.9%.

The recession was scored by the National Bureau of Economic Research as ending in June, 2009, more than three years ago, because that is when GDP stopped declining and started growing again. That still made it the longest recession since the Great Depression at 18 months. As Jeffrey Anderson observed in IBD on August 6, “it’s not convincing for Obama to suggest – as he routinely does – that he should be evaluated on the basis of whether the recovery has been better than the recession. Recoveries, by definition, are better than recessions.”

Anderson rightly recognized that the comparable standard of measurement for Obama’s performance in office is: “How does the Obama recovery compare to other recoveries from similar downturns across the decades?”

Anderson noted that over the past 65 years, since World War II, America has experienced 10 previous recessions and 10 previous recoveries. He reports that average real GDP growth in the first three years after those recessions was 4.6%. In sharp contrast,

“During the Obama recovery…, average real GDP growth has been just 2.2% — less than half the historical norm. Of the past 11 recoveries, the Obama recovery has been the worst. The 10 stronger recoveries involved Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush – in other words, every other postwar President.”

Clearly, President Obama has been doing something wrong.

President Obama says out on the campaign trail, “We knew when I started in this job that this was going to take some time. We haven’t had to come back from an economic crisis this deep or this painful since the 1930s.” But Obama and his apologists cannot say that the recovery is so bad because the recession was so bad, because “the historical record shows that the pattern is generally as follows: the worse the recession, the stronger the recovery,” as Anderson proves. If we examine the 5 longest and worst recessions over the past 65 years, each lasting at least 11 months, “During the four pre-Obama recoveries from such recessions, average real GDP growth in the first three years was a whopping 5.9% — dwarfing the 2.2% figure under Obama.”

Anderson calculates what this Obama subpar performance has cost the American people. The difference between 5.9% and 2.2% real growth, a 3.7% per year shortfall, “equals about $555 billion per year, or $1.6 trillion over three years. If you divide that equally among the roughly 300 million Americans, it works out to a shortfall of more than $5,000 per person – or more than $20,000 for a family of four.”

Moreover, as Anderson reports, if the Obama recovery had rebounded as fast as the recoveries from the others of the worst 5 recessions since World War II, America would be enjoying 10 million more jobs now, with 10 million more workers contributing to the economy and paying taxes, rather than drawing taxpayer funded benefits.

And it is not getting any better, as Anderson also explains: “Over the first two years of the Obama recovery, average real GDP growth was 2.2%. During the third year, it remained at 2.2%. So far in 2012, it has been 1.8% annualized. In the most recent quarter, it was 1.5% annualized.”

Art Laffer explained in the Wall Street Journal on Monday why Obama’s recovery has been so awful – he relied on old-fashioned Keynesian “stimulus,” rather than the pro-growth incentives of the more modern supply side economics. Laffer explains,

“[S]timulus spending doesn’t really make much sense. In essence, it’s when government takes additional resources beyond what it would otherwise take from one group of people (usually the people who produced the resources) and then gives those resources to another group of people (often to non-workers and non-producers). Often as not, the qualification for receiving stimulus funds is the absence of work or income – such as banks and companies that fail, solar energy companies that can’t make it on their own, unemployment benefits and the like. Quite simply, government taxing people more who work and then giving more money to people who don’t work is a surefire recipe for less work, less output and more unemployment.” (emphasis added).

Laffer then explained the fundamental fallacy of Keynesian economics:

“Without ever thinking where the money comes from, politicians and many economists believe additional government spending adds to aggregate demand. You’d think that single-entry accounting were the God’s truth and that, for the government at least, every check written has no offsetting debit. [But] for every additional government dollar spent there is an additional private dollar taken. All the stimulus to the spending recipients is matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis every minute of every day by a depressant placed on the people who pay for these transfers. Or as a student of the dismal science might say, the total income effects of additional government spending always sum to zero.” (zero sum game)

But Laffer added that Keynesian stimulus spending is actually a net drag on the economy because the incentive effects of that spending encourage the recipients of the taxpayer largesse to reduce work and other productive activities, while the incentive effects of the increased taxes on producers to finance those benefits encourage them as well to reduce work and other productive activities. Hence the woefully below average Obama recovery. Yet, Obama is campaigning for hundreds of billions in additional, Keynesian, stimulus spending, which will only drive the economy down further, and further increase unemployment.

Laffer might have added that the central concern of Keynesian economics that inadequate demand can cause economic downturns is also wholly fallacious. In a market economy, if demand for a product or service is inadequate, then its price will fall until demand equals supply. So in a market economy, demand can never be inadequate.

Laffer proved out his analysis in the Journal commentary with a table of data showing that in the 34 Organization for Economic Development countries, greater Keynesian stimulus spending was followed by lower growth rates. Laffer concluded that Keynesian “Stimulus advocates have a lot of explaining to do. Their massive spending programs have hurt the economy and left us with huge bills to pay.”

But under Obama, the worst is yet to come. Under current law enacted under Obama, on January 1 the top tax rates of virtually every major federal tax are scheduled to soar, except for the federal corporate income tax, which under Obama is already the highest in the industrialized world. With Obama’s regulatory costs building to a crescendo then, government spending, deficits and debt already accelerating, and the Fed flooding the market with cheapened currency, the result will be one big, bad, whopping recession next year. Unemployment would then soar back into double digits, the deficit would rocket to over $2 trillion for the first time in world history, real wages and family incomes would fall further, and poverty would explode. If Obama is reelected, the American people would have achieved these results the old-fashioned way: they will have earned them.

Too many Americans are not getting what is happening with the economy and the election because they are relying too much on the so-called mainstream media. They don’t understand that ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, etc., are not reporting on the election. They are participating in it.

Not a Drop to Drink

The City of Phoenix could face a lawsuit after a city worker told a woman she could not hand out free water. Lawyers say that, under the 1st and 14th amendments, Dana Crow-Smith should have been able to give water to thirsty citizens.

Crow-Smith was handing out free water last month in Phoenix when she was told she was violating city code and would need a permit in order to continue. She was threatened with a citation.

“It was really hot and yeah we wanted to show God’s love and a small act of kindness is a great way to do that without shoving it down someone’s throat,” Crow-Smith said.

The Rutherford Institute is representing Crow-Smith, believing that the city violated “Crow-Smith’s First Amendment right to freely exercise her religion, her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, as well as Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act.”

The Rutherford Institute wants the city apologize to Crow-Smith and state that she is allowed to distribute water in the future. If the city does not comply, The Rutherford Institute says that a lawsuit will ensue.

“But I don’t think it’s even about religious beliefs. I think anybody should be able to giveaway water on the sidewalk to anybody. It’s hot and it’s a nice thing to do,” Crow-Smith said.

John W. Whitehead, the president of The Rutherford Institute agreed: “It is a sad day when local government officials prohibit Americans from such charitable acts as giving water to the thirsty in their city.”

Attribution: , Personal Liberty Digest

Manifesto Destiny

Saudi Manifesto Puts Hillary’s Deputy Chief In Middle Of Muslim Plot

by: Tim Brown

According to an Arabic-language researcher, Walid Shoebat, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin, is at the forefront of a plan to organize U.S. Muslim minorities to transform America into a Saudi-style Islamic state. Apparently a manifesto commissioned by the ruling Saudi Arabian monarchy is what has specifically pointed out Abedin’s involvement in the Muslim Brotherhood and this mobilization.

Abedin was an assistant editor for twelve years for the Journal of Muslim Minority

Affairs for the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs. This institute was founded by her father and is currently directed by her mother. The organization is backed by the Muslim World League, which is an Islamic organization located in Mecca that was founded by Muslim Brotherhood leaders.

WND reports,

Amid a backlash against five Republican lawmakers who want to probe Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in the federal government, the 2002 Saudi manifesto shows that “Muslim Minority Affairs” – the mobilizing of Muslim communities in the U.S. to spread Islam instead of assimilating into the population – is a key strategy in an ongoing effort to establish Islamic rule in America and a global Shariah, or Islamic law, “in our modern times.”

The manifesto, a sweeping account of the king’s success in disseminating the radical Wahhabi interpretation of Islam worldwide, does not mention the Institute for Muslim
Minority Affairs by name. But it cites a book written by Huma Abedin’s father, “Muslim Minorities in the West,” listing him as co-author.

The manifesto was unearthed and translated by Walid Shoebat, a Palestinian American author and critic of radical Islam who has done extensive research on the Abedin family’s connections to the Muslim Brotherhod and its Wahhabist affiliations.

The “Muslim Minority Affairs” agenda, the manifesto says, works “under the umbrella of the Muslim World League and the International Islamic Relief Organization and World Association of Muslim Youth and others,” which essentially is the chain of command for the Abedins’ Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs, as confirmed by the Arab Dictionary on Media Icons.

Huma’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood have led at least five congressional representatives to call for an investigation into how the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the U.S. government. Among those leading the charge are Rep. Michele Bachmann, who was

That’s Because They Are!

nk”>viciously attacked for warning and asking for an investigation into the matter. Even Secretary Clinton slammed Bachmann for the letters she wrote asking for an investigation.

Some have tried to dismiss the allegations of Abedin’s involvement in the Muslim Brotherhood and point out that she is married to a Jew and that it seems unorthodox for a Muslim to do such a thing. Dana Milbank from the Washington Post thought this was significant enough to write about.

However Shoebat points out:

Actually, marrying a Jew is no evidence of Huma’s loyalty to the United States. In fact, it’s additional cause for concern. If I asked Blitzer and Milbank to define Muruna they would sit there baffled, they know zip when it comes to Arabic or Muslim Brotherhood foreign policy. Yusuf Qaradawi, the spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood who has been close to – and served by – the Abedins, explains it:

“Is it permissible, then, to have alliances with powers that are non-Muslim? Can Muslims work in banks that practice usury? … For the young Muslims they should not leave their jobs in banks and insurance agencies despite their work being evil, since their experience in these agencies would gain experience for what would benefit the Muslim commerce … whoever examines the issues in light of the Doctrine of Muruna would find that entry into these arenas is not merely a project, but a preference and a duty.”

Muruna (Flexibility) which includes “sanctioning Sharia prohibitions for an interest” is completely justified by the Brotherhood. If Huma had denounced the Brotherhood, there would be no need for Weiner to

have to convince his mother-in-law Saleha Abedin that he is cured of sexting, nor would Huma arrange for Hillary to speak at Dar al-Hekma College where her mother worked.

The manifesto “declared from the first day that the Kingdom (of Saudi Arabia) was formed, that its purpose was to spread the Shariah throughout the world, as it had been revealed in the Quran and the sunnah.” It also says that Jews are the biggest obstacle in the way of Islam pressing forward with its takeover of the Americas:

“The greatest challenge that faces Muslims in the United States and Canada are the Jews who take advantage of their material ability and their media to distort the image of Islam and Muslims there by spreading their lies and distortions in the minds of the people in these countries.”

The threat to our government and society by Islam is great. Its teachings of damnable doctrines for men’s souls is the main danger and second it’s political and social implications are simply frightening. The fact that this is treated so cavalierly today is quite shocking. All one needs to do is witness the video of the Islamic festival in Dearborn, Michigan to get a glimpse at what Islam produces and friends this is light to what takes place on the other side of the globe.

You Think You Have it Bad at Work

A real-estate salesman is suing his former boss for urinating on his clothes, biting him, and throwing shoes, scissors and staplers at him.

Albert Sultan, of Eatontown, New Jersey, claims that Jack Terzi forced him to work 12-hour days, Monday
through Friday, and 26 Sundays a year, according to the New York Post.

In papers filed in Manhattan Supreme Court this week, the 24-year-old alleges he was not allowed vacation or sick days during his three years at Jack Terzi Real Estate in New York City and was regularly fined for office ‘violations’.

Sultan was forced to pay $15 for every minute he was late to work and $30 for every minute he left early. The fine would soar to $1,000 if the employee missed a Sunday or ‘failed secretarial duty’.

Sultan claims he was regularly referred to as a ‘f**king idiot,’ a ‘lowlife’ and a ‘piece of s**t’.

But, as well as claiming that he was verbally abused, Sultan says he was ‘physically assaulted’, bitten, and had a shoe, scissors and a stapler hurled at him, the suit says.

On one occasion, Terzi ‘urinated on a garment which
belonged to [Sultan] in front of third persons,’ and, on another, ‘poured shavings’ on to his employee’s breakfast.

The suit alleges that Terzi ‘sneezed in plaintiff’s face
in a contemptuous fashion on multiple occasions.’

Sultan is seeking $129,320 in unpaid wages and commission and $5million in damages. He is also asking for a four-year non-compete agreement which he was forced to sign to be declared void.

This agreement prevented him for working for another real estate agency for four years.


But Terzi’s lawyer has denied the allegations, claiming that Sultan is a disgruntled employee who stole confidential information from the company to start his own business. 

‘In an attempt to distract the court from his wrongdoing, Mr. Sultan has responded with a baseless and personal attack on Mr. Terzi,’ an attorney at the firm of Sills Cummis & Gross told the New York Daily News.

Terzi has filed a counter-suit, claiming that Sultan was a disloyal employee and asking for a court order enforcing the non-compete agreement.

Attribution: Daily Mail

Real News

Todd Akin took his foot out of his mouth long enough to declare he is staying in the race! Evidently it’s the biggest story of the year. So big, President Obama had to come the podium to capitalize  speak on the topic.

“The One” has not given a press conference for at least a few months now. I guess there hasn’t been much of great import of which to speak. Until this earth-shattering news of Todd Akins dimwitted statements about rape & pregnancy. Maybe if his name was Todd Biden, he would get a pass.

So here we are, talking about some no-name senate candidate. But, hey, it’s a lot more important than say, the Chinese and Japanese in a rather heated argument over the ownership of the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands in the China Sea. The conflict has sparked huge protests in Sichuan province, China, with no resolution in sight. China and Japan aren’t exactly bossom buddies as it is. Their animosity for each other runs pretty deep already. What could possibly happen that’s any of our concern, I ask ya?

But hey, how about those tax returns of Mitt Romney? What’s he trying to hide, anyway? Knowing that the IRS doesn’t have any problem with him is immaterial. Sure, he’d be in prison for tax evasion if they did, but hey, it’s important and the American People want to know, I guess. It has to be more important than Egypt’s wonderfully democratic uprising, the “Arab Spring”, which has spawned an Islamic dictator in Mohammad Morsi that is now more powerful than the secular dictator they just threw out, Hosni Mubarak and is tied to the Muslim Brotherhood who’s intent is to destroy Israel. But hey, where are Romney’s tax returns. That’s what people want to know. I know it’s true because that’s what the dems and the press keep telling us.

We now know Obama’s favorite super power would be the power to speak every language.  The president said he would “love to be able to speak any language,” even though “it might not come in handy to rescue folks from a burning building.” Obama says he’s a “big believer in making connections with people.” We know this because he told it to some bubbleheaded morning drive radio show hosts during a phone interview with KOB-FM in Albuquerque, N.M. We also learned he listens to Beyonce while working out. Hard hitting stuff, I know. Much more important than say, the Israel, Iran conflict. Prime Minister Netanyahu has all but guaranteed a strike on Iran nuclear facilities. But hey, how is that more important than Barack’s super power. We still don’t know what type of tree he would be. Maybe he’s saving that gem for his next hard-hitting interview.

Speaking of investigative journalism. Were we? Anyway, we find out Paul Ryan’s ex-girlfriend was black. I don’t know if she still is. Being that Ryan must be a racist, he probably took her to his lab in his parents basement to whiten her up. Kind of like One Hour Martinizing. If you’re a white racist, you know what I’m talkin bout. You know that knowledge is paramount relative to the economy.

This is what the American people must know. They certainly don’t need to know whether their house will be foreclosed. They’re unconcerned with the uneployment rate. They’re utterly disenchanted with potential taxmegeddon next year. Why would anyone care about such trivial things when there’s a Mormon vying for the Whitehouse. He’ll probably turn it into a temple. Those Mormons. We all know what their up to.

We all just want to know when Romney will release those darn tax returns and whether Joe Biden wears mismatched socks! All will be right with the world with that knowledge. You know this to be true.

Harry Reid, Public Servant

by: Betsy Woodruff

Try this thought experiment. Imagine that someone grows up in poverty, works his way through law school by holding the night shift as a Capitol Hill policeman, and spends all but two years of his career as a public servant. Now imagine that this person’s current salary — and he’s at the top of his game — is $193,400. You probably wouldn’t expect him to have millions in stocks, bonds, and real estate.

But, surprise, he does, if he’s our Senate majority leader, whose net worth is between 3 and 10 million dollars, according to OpenSecrets.org. When Harry Reid entered the Nevada legislature in 1982, his net worth was listed as between $1 million and $1.5 million “or more,” according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. So, since inquiring minds inquire, let’s try to figure out how Reid’s career in public service ended up being so lucrative. He hasn’t released his tax returns, which makes this an imperfect science, but looking at a few of his investments helps to show how he amassed his wealth.

In 2004, the senator made $700,000 off a land deal that was, to say the least, unorthodox. It started in 1998 when he bought a parcel of land with attorney Jay Brown, a close friend whose name has surfaced multiple times in organized-crime investigations and whom one retired FBI agent described as “always a person of interest.” Three years after the purchase, Reid transferred his portion of the property to Patrick Lane LLC, a holding company Brown controlled. But Reid kept putting the property on his financial disclosures, and when the company sold it in 2004, he profited from the deal — a deal on land that he didn’t technically own and that had nearly tripled in value in six years.

When his 2010 challenger Sharron Angle asked him in a debate how he had become so wealthy, he said, “I did a very good job investing.” Did he ever. On December 20, 2005, he invested $50,000 to $100,000 in the Dow Jones U.S. Energy Sector Fund (IYE), which closed that day at $29.15. The companies whose shares it held included ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, and ConocoPhillips (evil big oil). When he made a partial sale of his shares on August 19, 2008, during congressional recess, IYE closed at $41.82. Just a month later, on September 17, Reid was working to bring to the floor a bill that the Joint Committee on Taxation said would cost oil companies — including those in the fund — billions of dollars in taxes and regulatory fees. The bill passed a few days later, and by October 10, IYE’s shares had fallen by 42 percent, to $24.41, for a host of reasons. Savvy investing indeed.

Here’s another example: The Los Angeles Times reported in November 2006 that when Reid became Senate majority leader he committed to making earmark reform a priority, saying he’d work to keep congressmen from using federal dollars for pet projects in their districts. It was a good idea but an odd one for the senator to espouse. He had managed to get $18 million set aside to build a bridge across the Colorado River between Laughlin, Nev., and Bullhead City, Ariz., a project that wasn’t a priority for either state’s transportation agency. His ownership of 160 acres of land nearby that stood to appreciate considerably from the project had nothing to do with the decision, according to one of his aides. The property’s value has varied since then. On his financial-disclosure forms from 2006, it was valued at $250,000 to $500,000. Open Secrets now lists it as his most valuable asset, worth $1 million to $5 million as of 2010.

How Reid acquired that land is interesting, too. He put $10,000 into a pension fund his friend Clair Haycock controlled, to take over the 160-acre parcel at a price far below its assessed value. Six months later, Reid introduced legislation that would help Haycock’s industry, a move many observers said appeared to be a quid pro quo, though Reid and Haycock denied that the legislation was the result of a property deal.

We don’t know how much more money Reid has or how he made all of it. For that, we’d have to see his tax returns.

Just Your Average Farmers Market

This is a market where you have to keep your wits about you – because eight times a day a train comes crashing through.

Just seconds before it is a bustling open-air marketplace like any other with stallholders and shoppers haggling over the price of the produce on sale.

Maeklong Market is in Samut Songkhram, Thailand, about 37 miles west of Bangkok.

Every day people sell locally grown fruits such as lychee, durian, and mango, freshly caught seafood, dried spices and peppers, and other local foods.

Locals weave their way in between vendors, picking up whatever they need that day, while tourists curiously marvel at the more unique foods at the market such as fried frog on a stick.

But then, eight times a day, a piercing siren sounds and in a flash the market transforms –

Notice the tracks under foot

the shoppers disappear and the stallholders whip away their produce.

It is such a tight squeeze that the train – appearing to travel at about 15mph – touches the fruits, vegetables and everything else at the marketplace as it passes through.

Once the No.4382 commuter train from Mae Klong to Ban Laem has gone, everything goes back to normal – as if nothing happened

Attribution: Mail Online