Doesn’t look like it’s going so well:
WASHINGTON – Finding a job got much tougher last year, as the number of available openings fell by nearly one quarter.
At the same time, the unemployed population soared by more than one-third, leaving more laid-off workers competing for fewer jobs.
All told, there were 6.1 unemployed workers in December, on average, for every available position, according to Labor Department data released Tuesday.
That’s a sharp increase from 3.4 jobless workers per opening in December of 2008, and much worse than the 1.7 unemployed people per opening in December 2007, when the recession began.
There were 2.5 million jobs available at the end of December, according to the Labor Department’s Job Openings and Labor Turnover survey. That includes all jobs publicly listed by companies and government agencies.
Oh, that’s not all by a long shot. Employment snapshot:
Lets see…..the number of total jobs (employed) dropped by 589k from November to December and in fact they didn’t just move to unemployed, rather they dropped out of the labor force. All told that brings the count to 5.4 million jobs (employed) lost last year.
The labor force participation rate has dropped from 66.5% in December 2008 to 64.6% in December 2009. As people lost jobs, many left the labor force. If they had stayed in, being counted as unemployed, the unemployment rate would be 11.6%.
Since the high of 146,483,000 in November of 2007, the U.S. economy has lost 8,691.000 jobs and there is no reason to believe that we have hit bottom yet. That number dwarfs the slightly more than 2 million jobs lost in 1981-1983.
Now, how will this play out for the mid-terms? Not the way our resident lefties thought it would that’s for sure:
1. Remember this simple formula: Unemployment drives presidential approval numbers, and presidential approval numbers drive midterm election results.
2. President Barack Obama’s approval numbers are hovering just a tick below 50 percent. Since 1962, the average House midterm loss for the president’s party when his approval is sub-50 percent is 41 seats. The GOP needs 40 to take the House.
3. And make no mistake, the December unemployment numbers were bad both economically and politically. The 85,000 job loss was worse than expected and will be played that way the media. The continuation of double-digit unemployment also resonates with voters. And not a in a good way.
4. Then will come the second-take stories that will notice the shrinking labor force, which dropped by nearly 700,000 from November. Had it stayed stable from last month, the jobless rate would have been 10.4 percent. Had it stayed stable since August, the jobless rate would be 11 percent!
5. But wait, there’s more! The U-6 rate rate which combines the basic jobless rate, discouraged workers, part-timers-who-would-rather-be-full-tim ers climbed to 17.3 percent. And the average duration of unemployment rose to a record high 29.1 weeks.
6. Also, there is every indication that as the slowly growing economy eventually draws workers back into the labor force, the jobless rate will creep up to new highs. (Big companies remain cautious about hiring, and small biz remains under pressure due to tight capital markets.) The validity of the Obama recovery plan will seriously be cast in doubt.
7. The sickly labor market will also make it that much harder for the White House and Hill Dems to celebrate what is likely to be a brisk upcoming GDP report in the 4-5 percent range. That seems like an abstract number compared to the unemployment rate.
8. Combine a weak labor market – which may appear to be getting worse to voters – with the moribund housing market and rising gas prices, and you have a toxic triple threat that will be poisonous to Democratic incumbents and further drain Obama’s political capital.
Obama and company will react to this as they always do. “It’s not my fault….It’s all Bush’s fault”
He won’t ever “man-up”….Just not in his makeup.
See author page
The O administration has no time to get all wee weed up over unemployment. They are busy writing notes on their hands to make fun of Palin and considering a ‘process’ through which meaningless sanctions may someday lodged against Iran. Oh, and there’s the health care summit, which I predict will be as useful as the beer summit. O was on TV a while ago, I counted 11 uses of ‘I’ and 16 of ‘we’ before I turned him off in disgust after about 3 minutes. And when will Michelle discover that her husband is doing more to battle obesity in America than her silly program? No job no steak, Michelle.
Hmmm…this isn’t the picture O and the Dems painted. I recently lost my Accounting job at Wells Fargo no less. Recession over? I think not and I don’t foresee it anytime soon until we get conservative policies back in place. Let’s hope that Palin and others can push fresh candidates into office and get rid of some RINO’s and libs.
Thus the reason for number fudging the “unemployment” numbers. 9.7% is so much easier to swallow than 11.6, up from 10 or 10.2% in the past months.
Parsing of numbers is simple… just ignore that labor force off the radar screen, hiding behind the curtain there….
The trick will be, what are Bernanke and Geithner going to do, and how will they handle their “quantitative easing” exit strategy? Not working out so well for the UK… ending that policy, only days later finding themselves staring a double dipper recession in the face. At issue? Blizzards affecting retail sales and effective quashing business activity.
Gee…. any of that sound familiar, as a large part of this nation is facing the 4th blizzard conditions this global warming winter? About the only business I truly enjoy being shut down is Congress… they have one less day to spend our money.
While Greece is waiting in the wings, California-style, for an EU bailout, the dollar grew stronger as a safe bet against a Euro failure, and the markets tanked. As soon as rescue rumors hit the mill, things started looking up, dollar goes back down. Yet this is laughable… Germany’s not made of cash. And right behind Greece is Portugual, who’s bond market has already failed. Or, as Seeking Alpha’s Karl Denninger put it:
Leaked rumours work well to pour a litle fuel on the market. However time is unforgiving, and the sheeeeet has to hit the fan at some point. Now you can ice that cake with the same market forces that contributed to the 2008 crash, meaning non-bond owners bidding up CDS premiums by hedging bets against bond market crashes (“naked buyers”), driving up prices for the genuine bond owners.
Even Krugman gives the double dip a 30-40% chance in the 2nd half of 2010 for the US. Marketwatch feels the same about 2010 housing. Mike Rubino says the same, and says the government should just let the process run it’s course.
Recession #1 should have been left to run it’s course and self-correct. #2’s really going to be the pits with the increased debt load that the current admin is trying to pass off as a “success”.
It seems that, just like at the 3D movies, we’re all to be issued our rose-colored glasses at the door.
UPDATE: Krugman’s predictions are of particular note since he’s a a stick-‘yer-finger-in-the-political-winds kind of guy. Sammie at Yid With Lid has a great walkback thru Krugman history, and his views on deficits from Dubya to the Big Zero eras. Funny how Krugman is all for increasing federal spending in the name of “creating jobs”… (I guess he means creating federal jobs with big pensions)… but he dodges reconciling this “good thing” with the double dip recession prediction except to say the GDP growth is because of the government spending, and to let things run it’s course could cause the double dip.
In other words, we spend spend spend, and ignore the other ramifications…. at least until Obama’s out of office, and he can blame someone else.
Double-dip recession has a nice reassuring ring to it.
Sorta like ‘Double-dip Herpes’.
But hey, at least the federal government is still hiring.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/02/burgeoning-federal-payroll-signals-return-of-big-g/
Krugman needs to get off his butt and go sit in a bar somewhere and just ask the guy or woman next to him about the ‘recovery’.
It’s really rough out there, especially in the CA construction trades. Contractors have tighted their belts all last year, there is no more to give. We will see a lot of business closings and/or layoff really soon.
Then Obama can try and take those green solar panels and sell them to empty business parks.
If folks are required to “tighten their belts” any further their belly button is going to have to move over to make room for the spine.
lol Davey….if the Federal gov’t would tighten their belt, the economy would start to recover.
Wodiej wrote:
“if the Federal gov’t would tighten their belt, the economy would start to recover.”
This is beyond nonsense. When the economy tanks, as it did starting in December 2007, federal revenues drop and the private sector slows or stops its spending. That is what a recession is: a decrease in economic activity. You do NOT “jumpstart” the economy by spending even less! That’s like saying the cure for thirst is to not drink water. No economist believes it and, furthermore, it makes not a lick of common sense.
Indeed, the middle of a recession (if you can get the financing) is the perfect time to do expensive long term projects that require lots of steel, concrete, rebar, etc. Why? Because the demand is slack and prices are lower. Can you say “infrastructure”? Sure, kids, I knew that you could. And what was a big infrastructure proposal in the last year? Why, the stimulus bill — revenues to states for infrastructure projects, unemployment comp relief, and hiring of new employees and retention of current employees as state and local revenues shrank; tax cuits for business; COBRA subsidies for individuals. This is the package you cons opposed in lockstep.
Only a funny thing happened: y’all failed to approve the bill, but you take credit for what the Dems forced you to received. So here is Rachel Maddow calling “bullsh*t” on the GOPs celebration of elements of the stimulus package that they all opposed and said would not create any jobs. This is simply too rich.
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/rachel-maddow-calls-out-gopers-by-name-for-stimulus-hypocrisies.php?ref=fpb
wodiej also wrote:
“Recession over? I think not and I don’t foresee it anytime soon until we get conservative policies back in place.”
Since we had conservatives and their policies in place during the 2001 and 2007 recessions, why would anyone think that having MORE OF THE SAME would solve the problem? The definition of insanity . . . .
@B-Rob
Let’s get private industry going… let’s raise their taxes, create uncertainty, and cheer-lead for more government spending and entitlements.
Now that’s INSANE… and that’s the DemonicRAT solution.
Had they put 787 billion in the hands of the individual…. you’d have seen the economy explode… instead the powers to be have implemented policy that continues to see our economy implode. The government is incapable of doing the right thing… only those things that further their hold on power and deepen their commitment to special interests groups… read that UNIONS
billy bob, not all spending is equal, or wise. To use your blanket “gotta spend” to fix the economy is asinine. Prime examples, the debacle called O’healthcare, cap and trade, and some of the BS pork they put in these “job bills”… aka “stimulus, the sequel”. Hang, the original release was a flop. As of Jan 29th, $272.2 bil had been spent. $105 bil in entitlements, $92.8 bil in tax credits, and $74.4 bil in grants, contracts and loans. Only 34% of the total original outlay.
How’s that stimulus working for the nation now? right..
And how about that lowest figure for grants, contracts, and loans? According to the Recovery site, 86.9% of that was grants… not contracts or loans. Grants, for heavens sake… Pell grants, scholarships. Real job creators, *not*. Loans for small business startups? Almost zilch. Contracts? Miniscule. Altho I see you’re beside yourself, a’glow, about a bridge project. Whoopee…
And, of course, that “transparency” of the recipients and their use of the funds is totally invisible to the Recovery site, since only the first two stages are required to be reported.
And what do we get for it? Per CBO’s account, that $787 bil approx will actually total $2.527 trillion in in spending over 10 years. Add the cost of debt service of $744 bil, and the staggering total is $3.27 tril.
Another worthless promotion is the Obama touted high speed rail infrastructure where the demand doesn’t support the need. i.e. Tampa to Orlando. Why? To get to DisneyWorld? Tampa folks do not get jobs for commuting to Orlando. Portland to Seattle? Already have Amtrak, and it’s never full either. But then, this is all the Obama quest to change the habits of Americans and their use of private vehicles.
There are other infrastructure projects, I believe are valid, but they need one on one scrutiny. There is no “it’s infrastructure, so it must be good” formula. Creating parks doesn’t necesarily encourage business creation, but building and improving roads or bridges (in the proper locations) do. Energy projects for windows and doors is a short lived gig at best, and that’s already around. Why spend taxpayer cash to encourage someone to call in a handyman to caulk their windows and doors?
The attempts to prevent foreclosures and modify loans was another colossoa failure….. right along with the Obama/Geithner/Bernanke plan to keep the housing bubble inflated in order to temporarily protect all the toxic assets they had the taxbuyer buy up. Brilliant….
Unemployment extension after extension is not “stimulus”. It’s called enabling. Same with COBRA subsidies. People don’t need handouts. They need jobs. ARRA is the prime example of spending money in all the wrong places.
And about those jobs…. $7500 sign up bonuses for taking a govt job. Small wonder the majority of jobs “created or saved” were government… either sustaining a payroll that could not be met, and adding more red tape bureaucrats to the mix at high dollar union salaries. government gigs being the highest union class.
The average pay for a full time fed is over $79K, and, according to the government site:
Oh joy…. Increasing the size of government payroll is not stimulus… save to those who deplore capitalism. The pay scale of taxpayer funded employees compared to the private sector has been skyrocketing… starting under Bush, and compounded further by Obama’s increased numbers on the payroll at the expense of the private sector and citizen.
Bad judgment in stimulus spending? Absolutely. A winner? Absolutely not… unless you consider the private sector workforce obsolete.
BTW… how’s all that spending working out for the EU? You know, those that were supposed to be further along in their economic recovery than we were? More appropriate is there by the grace of Bernanke/Geithner and Obama go we. Thank you Obama voters for my granddaughter’s bleak future.
So Brob,
So with all that rebar and stuff, what happened to all the jobs?
Tom in CA
@BRob:
Oh, where to begin? Where to begin?
No economist believes that more government spending is NOT the answer?
Really?
How about a whole roomful of economists?
Roll the tape:
How about 200 plus economists who said that the failed Stimulus bill was a bad idea before we wasted the money?
(Full sized image here.)
Oh, you mean the infrastructure spending bill that has produced zero measurable effect on employment….is that the spending bill of which you speak?
Dayum Dude!
Those pesky facts keep jumping up and gnawing on your azz.
For the sake of your wife and her upcoming divorce/alimony settlement I sure hope your real life pre-trial motion and deposition skills are vastly superior to what you’ve displayed here regarding law, politics, insurance, and economics.
Just sayin’.
Exit question: When you blog from work, during working hours, and presumably, from an employer owned and provided machine, is that billable time…or are you simply scamming money from your employer under the guise of lookin’ busy on the computer?
Brob,
Actually, I fondly look back on the days of 2001 – 2007. Construction was booming…commissions were big, and then Nancy took over.
Another fun item…the San Francisco Bay bridge, using Federal and State funds, just installed some brand new preformed concrete, ‘rebar’ and other stuff roadways – guess where they came from?
you know the answer…
However it does have an American sign with that slick Obama “you all can thank me” sign. Sweet.
Tom in CA and Aye Chi….
BTW, Aye Chi…. I always find alternative links for the Yahoo News link postings. They don’t stay active for long.
Here’s an active link to the AP story you linked about the infrastructure stimulus results on jobs… plus a few more excerpts.
Aye Chuhuahua and Mata —
Neither one of you is anywhere NEAR the focus of the original discussion. The question was not whether the stimulus bill worked or not; the vast majority of economists simply don’t agree with the 200 in the ad. And I already posted the Rachel Maddow clips of GOPers taking credit for the jobs created by the stimulus bill projects so, at a minimum, y’all need to get control of your own troops before claiming that the stimulus did not work.
And, no, you posting a bunch of economists who were anti-stimulus also misses the point. I will repost what was said by wodiej that started this. He said:
“if the Federal gov’t would tighten their belt, the economy would start to recover.”
By this, wodiej implied that if government contracted spending, then the economy would start to recover. By contracting spending, I take him to mean spend less, running no deficit, etc. But let’s walk this through practically speaking.
Bush’s last budget had a $1.3 trillion deficit. I think the spending was around $3.3 trillion, but don’t quote me on that. Meaning $3.3 trillion in spending, $2.0 trillion in tax revenues, and $1.3 trillion from the Chi-Coms and the A-rabs. If wodiej had his way, spending would have been decreased by $1.3 trillion, or about 40%. To get there, we would have to cut entitlement spending (like medicaid, which increases in recessions), welfare programs (umemployment benefits, food stamps, which go up in recessions), military spending (a big ticket item that has to get touched to get to $2 trillion in spending). As you cut those programs, of course, there is less purchasing of equipment and materials, employees are laid off, the unemployed do not get benefits or health coverage under medicaid.
Yes, this does free the Chi-Coms and the A-rabs to invest elsewhere. But where would they go? And with the extra unemployed people (because you laid off government workers to get to $2.0 trillion in spending) and the lower unemployment and food stamp expenditures, and the decreased government purchases of fuel (the military is the number one oil consumer in the US), stuff, food, etc., you would have less money flowing in the economy.
How, pray tell, does less money flowing in the economy during a recession make the economy recover? Just explain to me, practically speaking, how this is supposed to work? Walk through the logistics of how a $1.3 trillion decrease in government spending helps the economy “start to recover.”
Don’t talk about tax cuts; tell me about spending cuts. And I won’t even bother to ask you folks what to cut to get that $1.3 trillion in reductions. Because we know from the scrawl on Sarah Palin’s hand, conservatives are all about tax cuts, not spending cuts. Which is why she struck a line through the word “budget” for “budget cuts” and put “tax” in there instead.
So have at it, people! ‘Splain to me why I am wrong.
Don Bly —
You wrote:
“Had they put 787 billion in the hands of the individual…. you’d have seen the economy explode… ”
Explain to me how this would be done. In 2009, the last year of the Bush presidency, the deficit was $1.3 trillion. I recall spending of $3.3 trillion and revenues of $2.0 trillion.
You say that $787 billion should have been put in “the people’s hands.” Let’s ignore the fact that no ones taxes were raised by the stimulus bill and that it has not actually all gone into effecte.
OK, I’ll bite: how do you do it? How would you have “gotten” the $787 billion in people’s hands on $2 trillion in revenues?
Mata —
Let’s say a doctor had to do a surgery on you to remove some sick body part. After he was 34% done cutting on you, would you ask him “Am I better yet, Doc?” Uh, no.
Would you ask a chef who was 34% done cooking his boef bourguinon “How’s it tasting?” Uh, no.
If you had 34% of a book completed, would you be able to tell someone how the story ended? No.
So why the hell would you expect all the effects of the stimulus bill to be kicking in when only 34% of the dollars have been put into the economy? How does that make any sense to you?
The people who pronounce the stimulus a failure make no sense whatsoever; try getting a year out from the program, then let’s talk.
But I have seen this before, the last time with the Clinton tax hikes. GOPers predicted a recession lasting as long as the taxes stayed up. Instead, the budget deficits came down, the economy boomed, and all the cons could say was “It would have been even better if we had kept the taxes lower.” Uh, huh . . . try selling that in 2012 come re-election time.
billy bob, I just love it when you consistently stuff one keyboard mouth in with the other at each entry. Truly amusing.
The original discussion is about the “latest economic news”. And this doesn’t relate to the (per Obama) life-saving stimulus how?
Trust me, if you plan to continue being the master of “diversion”, you need to learn what is.. and what is not… diversion. Score… “F” for you.
Wait… weren’t you elevating Rachel MadCow on the other thread, telling us how she single-handedly proved that the GOP was ecstatic over the stimulus results?
Get your spin the same page, dude… it worked with 34%? Or it didn’t? You’re just abysmal at this debate stuff….
…. fish in a barrel
But wait… let’s not rely on my promises but those of “da won”, shall we?
Fresh from the Inaugural parties, a fresh faced and confident Obama was saying …the passage of a large economic-aid package would boost the economy and keep the unemployment rate below 8%.”
Buzzer…. WRONG!
From your beloved Madcow network media, Obama said …that “a bad situation could become dramatically worse” if Washington doesn’t go far enough. He talked of the possibility of double-digit unemployment and $1 trillion in lost economic activity, stark predictions that recalled the days of the Great Depression in the 1930s.
Buzzer… WRONG! er… right, but that was WITH his beloved stimulus. ooops
And to add to the stupidity, he also advocated shortening the work week as a stop gap measure. Little did he know it would take fewer employees MORE days than five to accommodate for the layoffs.
duh wuh…
But then, that’s what happens when you’ve only been a community organizer and the darling puppet to the ventroliquist for a living all your life. And oh, BTW, we all know that Obama’s only appeared as the lead attorney in trial court once or twice, and the rest of his illustrious legal career was the “glorified paralegal”. Guess they figured he was an undependable mouthpiece at best, early on. Too bad we, the nation didn’t get the benefit of their knowledge prior to the vote, eh?
And in true “informercial” fashion… which can best describe Obama’s presidency… WAIT! There’s MORE!
Obama proclaims if we don’t pass the stimulus immediate, it’s a catastrophe!
Buzzer… WRONG! Game over.
So now can we expect your “parallel universe” argument saying how life would have been had we not put ourselves into this non-stimulating stimulus? And when you do, don’t forget to include your Obama-certified federal license for being an official economic tarot card reader.
@BRob:
Err….sources please.
Make sure that you have way more than
200,300 because I do.Patently false.
Butch’s clips were of GOP reps having their photos made with “Publisher’s Clearing House” style giant checks and/or issuing press releases stating what the projected effects were.
Not a single one of the GOP reps referenced took credit or, in any way, claimed responsibility. Not a single one.
Again, your claim is patently false.
Why do you have such a huge difficulty just telling the truth?
Oh, I know. Because the truth is that the Stimulus has been a boondoggle. A monumental, ineffective waste of taxpayer dollars.
Err no… The tape of the economists does not miss the point. In fact, it specifically addresses the point.
Perhaps you should watch it again:
Of course you don’t want to talk about tax cuts. Of course not.
All the way back to Kennedy, tax cuts have been proven to work effectively toward the stimulation of the economy. That’s why you don’t want to talk about them.
Tax cuts coupled with across the board spending reductions would have shortened the duration and depth of the current decline.
The seizure and redistribution of wealth by the gov’t, or cranking up the presses to print more dollars, or more borrowing from lender nations does not work.
The American People know how to handle their money better, and more effectively, than anyone in DC and it has been proven over and over that the recipients of those dollars will spend them.
More money in the hands of the citizens and businesses of this country results in more investment and more spending and more economic growth.
It’s been proven over and over and over and over again.
Never once has the spend, spend, spend approach via the gov’t been proven to work.
Never. Once.
Exit question: Since you revile tax cuts so much, tell me BR, did you send your Bush tax cut money back in to the IRS? Or did you spend it…stimulating the economy in the process?
You can tell me, I’ll keep it between us.
Brob,
Perhaps you missed my question.
Since the ‘stimulus plan’ passed, the plan Mr. Obama said without, we would have greater unemployment.
Unemployment is at 9.7%. It went up.
Can you explain that, please?
oh, and why do you suppose that in the posted link a large concrete company in Denver filed for C-11? Employed over 1000 people. Maybe they couldn’t get re-bar.
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_14227145?source=rss
BRob, you are so far off on your estimate of GWBush era deficits that the error rebuts the majority of your naive and shrill diatribe. Go do some more research and get back to us.
Further, you demonstrate a remarkable inability to recognize irony when you ask (hopefully tongue-in-cheek), “OK, I’ll bite: how do you do it? How would you have “gotten” the $787 billion in people’s hands on $2 trillion in revenues?” Here’s one clue: The money never leaves the Peoples’ hands unless the confiscatory policies of the government (at all levels) removes it by force of law. So, simply, the government could have simply reduced taxes (of all varieties–income, payroll, sales, etc.) and the $ would have REMAINED in the Peoples’ hands. I’m surprised that your self-identified superior intellect couldn’t suss this out by itself.
Oh, Brob,
Forgot about my buddies at Orco Supply in CA – filed for BK
http://www.constructiondistribution.com/web/online/News/HEADLINE-NEWS/2$647
Owners of 2 rebar facilities.
Someone forgot to tell them about the stimulus.
@skh.pcola:
skh,
First, welcome to FA.
What an astute observation and stellar first post!
Make yourself at home, and stick around awhile.
Thanks, Aye Chihuahua. I have visited on and off for quite a while, but have never piped up. I enjoyed the comment thread as much as the original post. I’ll try to keep up with those who know the regulars here.
More billy bob gems of mis’education
Yes it was… that is if you want to blame Bush for 2009. And technically it was $1.23 tril. Now, shall we discuss who holds the nation’s purse strings? Or is that beyond your Chicago education, Mr. Lawyer?
From the Bush admin/GOP held congress, the
budget… sorry, meant gross debt, was between 57% to 65% of the GDP in gross billions, undeflated.Since the time Pelosi/Reid took reins in 2007, to Obama today, that has jumped to 86% of the GDP in a single year… 2009. The pre’estimates for 2010 is at 98.1% of the GDP in gross billions, undeflated. And none of this encompasses the interest/debt service.
Now tell us how proud you are…. especially in light of the results @predicted by “da one” I point out above?
Memo to Obama… economist post presidential job possibility? Nope…. Math teacher? Not a chance. Snake oil salesman? 100% change of employment.
I see… we should be posting a bunch of economists who supported the stimulus. The stimulus that is far from “stimulating”. huh? I think we’ve had enough of those that say “yo! can’t you see this is working? Just you wait, Henry Higgins, just you wait”.
The government does need to spend less, and apply the spending they do more productively. It is you who decided to simply take a blanket assumption and run with it… sans any fiscal logic.
Let’s put this one in simple pictures and O’bonics you can understand. Watch the movie, “Dave”, and the simple concept put forth. Like audit/edit/cut agency by agency of waste and bureaucratic do’nothings. Plus the money they control. Piece by piece, eliminate the fiscal turds causing indigestion.
Any private industry that wants to succeed has to do this every year. Why? They aren’t just sucking dry the US taxpayer by presenting them with a snow job. The time the government (all levels) get the the message that the taxpayer is NOT a bottomless pit of bailout cash is the time they start getting wise.
Problem is, that moment never seems to happen with the elistists in power (both parties, but most especially your party, billy bob…)
And I’ve already posted Mata’s “Hollywood insider review” of your touted “madcow” segment. It’s called two thumbs down, a less than brilliant snow job/propaganda piece, and based on more than a decade of post production film/TV experience.
I repeat here, in case you can’t handle two threads at once… if you want adept talent for producing propaganda, I’m your girl. Will I do it? My soul and principles ain’t for sale, unlike MadCow’s.
MATA you have a lot of patience do you already know about my saying of Aghanistan disaster?
@skh.pcola, allow me to also bid you welcome to FA. Please limit your lurking, as voices are always welcomed. Even those like billy bob’s.
INRE your comment that billy bob’s comment about the deficit amount was “….so far off on your estimate of GWBush era deficits that the error rebuts the majority of your naive and shrill diatribe. I do know that you are thinking of Bush’s $480 bil approx deficit vs billy bob’s figure.
In all fairness, billy bob was playing gross debt figures. Perhaps he was figuring some of us would be dumb enough to compare the gross debt of Bush vs Obama’s “net” debt (so he thinks because of fiscal years and implementation… heh) of $1.2 tril as of the end of 2009. Nope… we don’t play that game. You want to play marbles with apples? Then both of us play marbles with apples.
In order to compare billy bob’s quoted gross figures to today’s Obama’s gross deficits, I had to resort to the same gross figures. Which @ I did in my response comment above.
I probably should have been more disclosing in that the $1.2 tril that billy bob blames on Bush is the 2009 figure, which was passed in 2008 by the Dem held Congress. However that budget occurred during Obama’s first year, and not Bush’s last year. Technically, Bush’s last year gross budget deficit was $998 bil. Again, that is the product of a Pelosi/Reid Congress. In fact, since the Dems took hold of both chambers to projected 2010 budgets, the gross budget deficit has risen 33% in three years of Dem reign. Approx 16% between 2008-09, and another 12% between 2009-10.
Shall I also project the (usually conservative and low) estimate for the Big Zero’s election year? That would be $1.66 tril gross budget deficit, and 100.6% of the GDP. Also 69.6% of that will then be held by the taxpayers, thanks to Obama voters.
Thus my question to billy bob: “How proud are you?”
But, for clarification, here’s a common graph. We use pictures for billy bob, since he’s reading challenged.
@Ms. Bees… do fill me in on your “Afghanistan disaster” off forum. I must be missing that one in my forum travels. But I didn’t want to muck up the thread with an Stans diversion. But I am most interested.
you got gmail MATA
Aw, this was an exceptionally good post. Taking the time and actual effort to generate a great article… but what can I say… I procrastinate a whole lot and never manage to get nearly anything done. Normal I blig about finger rings set