Tag Archives: Democrats

Democrats say they rescued the economy, Republicans ask where are the jobs?

Barack Obama will announce today “We rescued the economy”. (H/T ECM, Breitbart TV, Hot Air, Gateway Pundit)

Gateway Pundit adds:

President Disaster will quadruple the US budget deficit his first year in office. He will reportedly spend $23.7 trillion to “fix” the economy… or bankrupt it by next year.

…Government Motors sales drop 22%. (H/T ECM, Gateway Pundit,

Meanwhile, 134 House Rebublicans ask “Where are the Jobs?”.

Gateway Pundit adds:

President Obama and democrats in Congress, of course, promised that their stimulus would prevent unemployment from rising about 8%. Today it is at 9.7% and House Republicans who unanimously opposed the Stimulus Bill want to know where are the jobs?

The unemployment rate during the Bush years was 5.27%.
President Disaster’s unemployment rate is averaging above 8.6%.

Jim Demint contends with the leftist media trying to get the word out.

Pundit and Pundette give him a gold star!

They’ve got the transcript, too!

Excerpt:

LAUER: . . . But over the past couple of days, I don’t have to tell you, you’ve ignited a firestorm, and people are saying that you are playing pure politics with this issue. How do you respond?

DEMINT: Well, it has nothing to do with politics or it’s certainly not personal. But, but the President’s policies have not matched up to his promises so far. We saw that in this giant stimulus, his trillion dollar stimulus that has stimulated the government, but really cost American jobs and, and, and loaded lots of debt on top of future generations.
LAUER: But, but sticking to health care reform, let, let me, you know, give you your own words here. You, you were addressing the group Conservatives for Patients Rights about the health care debate and you said quote, “If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.” Now are you rallying conservatives to the cause of health care reform? Or are you rallying conservatives to the cause of breaking a president?

DEMINT: Oh, we need to put the brakes on this President. He’s been on a spending spree since he took office. And we need health care reform. Unfortunately, when the President was in the Senate, I’ve probably offered more health care reform proposals than anyone in the Senate. And the President voted against every proposal that would have made health insurance more available and more affordable to people. His goal seems to be a government takeover, not making insurance more available. So I do think we need to stop the President on this. We need to stop his policy, because if we allow him to continue to ram things through Congress before we even get a chance to read them.

LAUER: But-

DEMINT: Matt, I just brought one of the bills this morning. I mean, if you look at this bill, it’s one of the three bills that we’re gonna have to look at.

LAUER: It’s a complicated issue. There are a lot of details in that bill.

DEMINT: Well why do we need to pass it in two weeks before we go home in August?

LAUER: Well that’s, that’s a good question. And I’m gonna get to that in a second. But, but the words you chose were very specific. “It could be his Waterloo, it could break this President.” I, I guess the obvious question is, it wouldn’t break your heart if you break this President, would it?

DEMINT: Well, again, it’s not personal, but we’ve got to stop his policies, Matt. The policies are not matching up to the promises. They’re loading trillions of dollars of debt onto the American people. And the thing is we need real health care reform. I’ve introduced proposals that would help individuals own their own health insurance policies if they don’t get it at work.

LAUER: Right.

DEMINT: There are a lot of ways to do this without a government takeover and a government plan.

LAUER: And I read, I read some of your plan. You wrote it in an op-ed, and I, and I did read that, and would encourage people to go see that. Is the deadline dead, Senator?

DEMINT: It appears to be, and I hope it is. And that’s what I mean, the Senate is supposed to be the body that deliberates and debates and actually reads bill, bills. You know, I hear that more than anything else, as I go around the country. Why don’t you guys read the bills before you pass them? There are a lot of things in these bills that are gonna alarm the American people. I’m afraid the President knows that. He wants to push it through before we’re able to take a look at what’s really in it. And that shouldn’t happen in Congress. This doesn’t take effect for four years, Matt. We don’t need to pass it in two weeks. It’s 20 percent of the American economy.

LAUER: Right.

DEMINT: It’s one of the most personal issues that we deal with as Americans. The government shouldn’t take it over and we shouldn’t pass a bill in two weeks.

LAUER: Senator Jim DeMint. Senator thanks for joining us this morning. We appreciate your time.

DEMINT: Thank you Matt.

Worst. President. Ever.

Obama loses 2.5 million jobs, 9.5% unemployment, worst in 26 years

When Democrats talk about economic policies, they don’t actually know what they are talking about. They just make up numbers and conducting kabuki-theater townhalls with pre-screened questions from hard-core Democrat activists. They’ll say whatever is necessary in order to maintain power.

Want proof?

Here’s proof from the Heritage Foundation. Democrats promised us that if their pork-filled spending bills were passed, that unemployment would be much lower than if we did nothing at all. But guess what? They passed the spending bills and unemployment is MUCH HIGHER now than if we had done nothing at all.

Obama caused us to have much higher unemployment than if we had not spent a dime
Obama's massive spending bills caused us to have a much higher unemployment rate than if we had not spent one thin dime

That means that we are now stuck with trillions of dollars in spending, massive budget deficits and a ballooning national debt. And not only did it not help unemployment, it actually HURT the unemployment rate.

Heritage writes:

In January, President Obama pressed for an $800 billion economic “stimulus” package to turn the economy around. Though the bill largely consisted of increased spending on traditional liberal priorities, the President claimed that it would “create or save” 3.5 million jobs. The President’s economic advisors predicted that unemployment would rise to 9 percent by 2010 if Congress did not pass the stimulus bill, but that with the stimulus unemployment would stay below 8 percentage points.

Congress passed the stimulus bill in February 2009 and the President has repeated his claims. President Obama recently said that the stimulus bill has already created or saved 150,000 new jobs and that it will “create or save” another 600,000 jobs by the end of the summer. Asked when the public should begin to judge the effects of the stimulus, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said “I think we should begin to judge it now.”

Surprise! You can’t borrow and spend your way out of debt. Maybe having rich parents is not the best preparation for higher office, yes?

Where is President Bush when you need him?

Comparison of Bush and Obama unemployment rates
Comparison of Bush and Obama unemployment rates

Bush “spent” money on trillions of dollars in tax cuts. That’s how you stimulate an economy. Put the money back in the private sector – in the hands of working families and businesses – not in the hands of bureaucrats.

How out-of-touch are the Democrats?

The Wall Street Journal reports on how sincere the Democrats are in their empathy for the common man. (H/T Hot Air)

Excerpt:

The spending on overseas travel is up almost tenfold since 1995, and has nearly tripled since 2001, according to the Journal analysis of 60,000 travel records. Hundreds of lawmakers traveled overseas in 2008 at a cost of about $13 million. That’s a 50% jump since Democrats took control of Congress two years ago.

The cost of so-called congressional delegations, known among lawmakers as “codels,” has risen nearly 70% since 2005, when an influence-peddling scandal led to a ban on travel funded by lobbyists, according to the data.

Although complete travel records aren’t yet available for 2009, it appears that such costs continue to rise. The Journal analysis shows that the government has picked up the tab for travel to destinations such as Jamaica, the Virgin Islands and Australia’s Great Barrier Reef.

People are suffering under a recession caused by the Democrats and they just keep collecting and spending more and more of our money!

We knew that Democrats would do this: we had access to their voting records, their pork and earmark records, their records on spending, waste and other issues. People who studied their voting records and voter guides knew that Democrats would mess up the economy.

The Republican response

Read this statement by Eric Cantor and you will hear a completely different attitude from the Democrats.

Excerpt:

“First and foremost, the American people are concerned about the economy, job creation and the unsustainable debt obligations incurred in the last 6 months.

Beginning in January, House Republicans laid out a serious and substantive agenda that put jobs first. House Democrats, along with the White House, instead took an unfocused, ‘go it alone’ approach that has fallen well short of its goals and has failed to create jobs.

“Inexplicably, instead of focusing on jobs and restoring the financial security that has been lost by millions of struggling families, the President continues to push an agenda that the majority of Americans are uneasy with. The American people do not support a government healthcare plan that will increase costs, reduce patient choice and flexibility, and lower the quality of care available in our country. The American people do not support the radical Cap & Tax plan which will impose a hard-hitting tax upon families and small businesses costing our struggling economy thousands of jobs.

“As job losses continue to mount, families’ worries about losing their healthcare, paying their mortgage, and sending their children to college continues to intensify. Employment must be our focus, yet Speaker Pelosi and the unchecked Democrat majorities continue to increase Washington’s hand in the free market, at the expense of job creation. At some point, even the Speaker must realize that enough is enough.

Mike Pence gives his assessment of the situation here.

Obama loses 2.19 million jobs, 9.4% unemployment, worst in 25 years

UPDATE: Welcome readers from 4Simpsons! Thanks for the link Neil!

Gateway Pundit has the story in graphs. (H/T Lonely Conservative)

What was the unemployment rate under Bush?

Despite the recession he inherited, 9-11, stock market scandals, Hurricane Katrina and two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the unemployment rate during the Bush years averaged out to 5.27%. (Misery Index)

How about so far under Obama?

The US economy lost 598,000 jobs in January.
The US economy lost 706,000 jobs in February.
The US economy lost 742,000 jobs in March.
The US economy lost 545,000 jobs in April.
And, in May the US economy lost 345,000 jobs.

Here’s a graph that may help you to understand how bad Obama really is, compared to Bush:

US Unemployment Rate
US Unemployment Rate

Clinton’s rate is good because Newt Gingrich was in charge of the House in 1994 onward, and the House is where all spending bills originate

Hot Air reports (with a graph) that the unemployment rate is worse than the White House predicted it would be if they hadn’t passed the stimulus:

We are heading towards double-digit unemployment and doing that while we incur the massive debt of the unstimulating stimulus package. We could just as easily have kept the money and ridden out the unemployment, much as we’re forced to do now, only being a lot poorer while doing it.

Why is this important?  It demonstrates that the President and his economic advisers have gotten pretty much everything about this economic collapse wrong.  Instead of contracting government spending and shoring up the credibility of the currency, they’re setting records in dissipating it instead.  Instead of focusing on fixing the problem that government explicitly created — mortgage-backed securities — they’ve literally left that for last while they waste money chasing every Democratic constituency but ignoring the actual cancer in the financial system.

Bush was cutting into the deficit until the Democrats Community Reinvestment Act caught up with him in 2008. But Obama has ruined Bush’s effort to balance the budget, with his massive redistributions of wealth.

Obama's projected deficits
Obama's projected deficits

And the Heritage Foundation shows that the national debt is getting much worse under Obama’s tax and spend policies:

debt-deficits_04-580
Debt as % of GDP under Obama

The Heritage Foundation writes:

The national debt is skyrocketing. In 2009 publicly held debt is projected to jump to 54.8 percent of GDP, up from 40.8 percent in 2008. A year to year increase of this size hasn’t occurred since World War II. While the main causes of this massive increase – $787 trillion economic “stimulus” and the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) – are sure to be debated for some time, the truly freighting revelation should be not what has already taken place, but what our elected officials have planned.

President Obama’s budget, if passed, would send debt to levels 26.3 percent of GDP over current law. Although President Obama has publicly stated his desire to both bring down deficits and reform entitlements under his watch, his actions don’t match his words.

Who caused the recession? The democrats caused the recession, Bush tried to stop them in 2003. And Obama’s spending spree is only making things worse. We have a worse economy than Canada now, in every measure that counts. Obama’s planned tax hike is causing companies like Microsoft to ship jobs overseas, and his cap and trade plan will cost us even more jobs.

High tax rates cause the most productive people to stop working, costing us jobs. Obama is to blame. His total ignorance of economics means that he will be playing whack-a-mole with the US economy – always inventing new interventions into the market to fix the problems his last intervention caused.

UPDATE: Muddling Towards Maturity links to a comment by a business owner who explains why he will be hiring in Panama, not in the USA.

How progressive social policy enlarges the size of government

Great editorial by Ed West writing in the UK Telegraph. Is it possible to be a social leftist and a fiscal conservative? Or does the former impact the latter negatively? West’s editorial assesses the impact of feminism and sex education on government budgets, which receive much funding from the productive private sector.

First, Britain’s social program for unwanted children is seeing record enrollment:

Last night’s Rageh Omaar programme, Lost in Care, is timely. The number of unwanted children in Britain has reached 80,000, and that figure was calculated before the recent Baby P surge. Of those unwanted kids, 10,000 live in children’s home.

And what are the costs to the taxpayer for this skyrocketing number of unwarranted children?

The show reminded us how awful the statistics are for care home children; only 13 per cent get good GCSEs [high school diplomas] and almost half achieve no qualifications. One in four prisoners were in care, as were one in three homeless. and one in five girls in care are pregnant within a year of leaving. No wonder there is currently a desperate drive to find more foster parents, a calling that is seriously heroic.

Well, I already talked about how leftist domestic policies destroy marriage here (socialism), here (same-sex marriage) and here (no-fault divorce). But the interesting thing is the cost of the anti-family, anti-child policies of the left. They were in such a rush to rebel against social conservatives, that it never occurred to them that those moral rules were in place to protect the interests of all parties.

Recklessly impregnating someone or getting pregnant without the ability or willingness to look after that child ruins another person’s life, and also costs the state £25,000 a year for that matter.

This is the problem with people who enact policies based on the need to feel compassionate and superior, while disregarding the logical consequences. Should we really be voting in people who undermine traditional morality run our government? If we do, it will cost us. To see more about how leftist policies increased the size of government and raised tax rates, see this previous post.

For more news from abroad, check out my recent post on the state of free speech in Canada, the United Kindom and Cuba.

UPDATE: Just noticed this over at OneNewsNow: Obama would ax abstinence-only funding.

Excerpt:

If Congress approves President Obama’s budget requests, there will be no more federal funding of abstinence-only education programs.

Barack Obama has recommended completely zeroing out Title V abstinence programs to states, as well as abstinence education programs to community-based organizations (CBAE) and replacing them with more than $100 million for contraceptive-based sex-education programs. The massive omnibus bill signed by the president had already reduced funding to abstinence programs by $14 million.

And then there is this story from mensactivism.org, entitled “Number of Unwed Moms in the U.S. Rising.

Story here. Excerpt:

‘(AP) The percentage of births to unmarried women in the United States has been rising sharply, but it’s way behind Northern European countries, a new U.S. report on births shows.

Iceland is the leader with 6 in 10 births occurring among unmarried women. About half of all births in Sweden and Norway are to unwed moms, while in the U.S., it’s about 40 percent.

France, Denmark and the United Kingdom also have higher percentages than the United States, according to the report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.’

Oh, well. Ideology beats out fiscal prudence, I guess. I don’t think that immorality of the parents is too good for the children who are affected, either. Bible: 1, Atheists: 0.

Are Obama’s bailouts just pay-offs to left-wing special interest groups?

We looked at whether Al Gore’s global warming alarmism was just a scam to increase his already considerable wealth by misleading people desperate to find meaning in life with a bunch of faith-based lies. This time, let’s take a look at Obama’s bailout activities and see whether the the bailouts are to stimulate the economy, or to reward people who voted for him.

For instance, California recently cut $74 million from its state budget by lowering the salaries of unionized workers. How did Obama respond? By threatening to withhold stimulus money unless the unions got the money back.

The radically leftist Los Angeles Times has the story. (H/T Hot Air)

Reporting from Sacramento — The Obama administration is threatening to rescind billions of dollars in federal stimulus money if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers do not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers approved in February as part of the budget.

Schwarzenegger’s office was advised this week by federal health officials that the wage reduction, which will save California $74 million, violates provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Failure to revoke the scheduled wage cut before it takes effect July 1 could cost California $6.8 billion in stimulus money, according to state officials. …

The wages at issue involve workers who care for some 440,000 low-income disabled and elderly Californians. The workers, who collectively contribute millions of dollars in dues each month to the influential Service Employees International Union and the United Domestic Workers, will see the state’s contribution to their wages cut from a maximum of $12.10 per hour to a maximum of $10.10.

And we know from Michelle Malkin that Obama is pressuring private companies to shaft their shareholders in order to give his union buddies a better deal than they deserve.

Greed is good – until it gets in the way of a union-friendly restructuring deal. President Obama, generous recipient of Wall Street largesse, angrily derided a group of hedge fund managers this week as “speculators.” The miffed president suggested that uncooperative firms were selfish for holding out on the government’s Chrysler bankruptcy plans and refusing to make “sacrifices” to benefit the United Auto Workers.

The “sacrifices” involved Chrysler debt holders agreeing to sell the debt to the government at prices determined by union-beholden bureaucrats instead of bankruptcy courts. The hedge firms balked. Obama sneered that the dissenters were looking for “unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout.” But the holdouts never took banking bailout funds from Washington. And the targeted financial executives were simply doing what good money managers are supposed to do: put their clients’ fiduciary interests first.

Michelle Malkin also reports on how Obama wants another $19 billion for his peeps at Fanie Mae. Remember, democrats caused this recession by forcing banks via regulations to make loans to Democrat voters against all common sense. Obama gets happy leftist feelings of superiority by redistributing wealth from the producers to the victims. And he thinks that if you went to expensive private schools and Harvard thanks to a rich grandmother, then you would feel good about him redistributing your money, too.

The story from Yahoo News Michelle links to says:

Fannie Mae (FNM.P), the largest provider of U.S. home mortgage funding, said on Friday it needs more capital from the U.S. Treasury after a $23.2 billion loss in the first quarter, and warned government housing programs would cut deeper into its profitability.

The government-controlled company said its regulator requested $19 billion from the Treasury under a funding commitment that on Wednesday was doubled to $200 billion. The credit, in the form of senior preferred stock purchases, was established as soaring losses led the government to push the company into conservatorship in September.

As the nation’s housing market reels in its worst downturn since the 1930s, credit-related expenses accounted for the majority of Fannie Mae’s loss, at $20.9 billion. It also took a $5.7 billion loss on mortgage securities.

Provisions for credit losses soared 85 percent as the U.S. economy faltered, expanding delinquencies — which have wreaked havoc on the entire financial system — to consumers with better credit, it said.

Oh, and here is news of a prospective bailout of Obama’s buddies in the left wing media.

Inquisitr.com and Free Republic reported: (H/T Gateway Pundit)

At the annual White House Correspondents Dinner in Washington DC Saturday evening (May 9), President Barack Obama ended on a serious note, pledging his undying support for journalists and specifically newspapers.

President Obama spoke about media job losses and changes in the industry, then quoted Jefferson, “if he had the choice between Government with newspapers or newspapers without Government, he’d choose the latter.” The gushing was perhaps understandable at a press function, but it’s what he said next that foretold of a newspaper bailout.

Obama told the crowd “Your ultimate success is essential to success of our democracy” before shortly saying “Government without a tough and vibrant media is not an option for the United States of America.”

The notable thing in context is that Obama primarily in the speech talks about newspapers, with other media outlets being mentioned second (collectively), or when making a joke (for example, noting that Jefferson hadn’t seen Cable News.) It would appear from the speech clearly that Obama holds the mainstream media, and particularly newspapers above online media. It is clear that when he talked about “tough and vibrant media” that he is referring to mainstream media, and newspapers in particular.

He concludes with the line that the problems in the media industry are “problems worth solving,” which sounds an awful lot like the final word that there’s going to be a newspaper bailout.

And remember I blogged recently about Michele Bachmann’s effort to prevent taxpayer money from going to ACORN while they are facing criminal charges.

It’s like Bush and Haliburton. Only that Bush stuff never actually happened, but this Democrat stuff is actually happening. Everything the Democrats hated about Bush? Like opposing dissent and free speech? Bush never did any of it. Democrats are the ones who are authoring hate crime bills and criminalizing blogging. Yeah, fascism is a solely a phenomenon of the left. Always has been, always will be.