Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Economy, Free Markets, Politics, Taxes, Unemployment | Tags: January Jobs Report, President Barack Obama, Zero Hedge
President Obama: press briefing, Friday, February 5, 2016, on the just released jobs report:
TGIF, everybody. I wanted to stop by, because as you’re aware by now, America’s businesses created another 158,000 jobs last month. After reaching 10 percent in 2009, the unemployment rate has now fallen to 4.9 percent — even as more Americans joined the job market last month. So this is the first time that the unemployment rate has dipped below 5 percent in almost eight years. Americans are working.
All told, over the past six years, our businesses have added 14 million new jobs. Seventy-one straight months of private-sector job growth extends the longest streak on record. Over the past two years, 2014 and 2015, our businesses added more jobs than any time since the 1990s. …
So, as I said at my State of the Union address, the United States of America, right now, has the strongest, most durable economy in the world. I know that’s still inconvenient for Republican stump speeches as their doom and despair tour plays in New Hampshire. I guess you cannot please everybody.
Zero Hedge: 02/05/2016, 10;14 a.m.
Headline : “70% Of Jobs Added in January Were Minimum Wage Waiters and Retail Workers”
For those curious where the big jump in earnings came from, the answer appears rather simple: the reason, according to the BLS’ breakdown of jobs added in January (per the Establishment survey), of the 151,000 jobs added in the past month, retail trade added 58,000 jobs in January, while employment in food services and drinking places, aka waiters and bartenders, rose by 47,000 in January.
Simple: state regulations demanding higher wages for minimum wage workers starting January 1, which as discussed previously will promptly lead to employers passing on wage hikes costs to consumers in the form of 10% higher food prices starting in NYC and soon everywhere else.
This is the full breakdown of January job gains:
- Retail Trade: +58K
- Leisure and Hospitality, which includes food workers: +44K
- Professional and business service workers, excluding temp workers: +34K
- Manufacturing workers posted a curious rebound, rising by +29K. We are confident this number will be revised promptly lower.
- Construction +18K
- Wholesale Trade: +9K
- Education and Health saw a big and unexplained drop from 54K to 6K
- Information services added just 1K workers
- As for sectors losing workers included Temp Help workers, Transportation and Warehousing (courtesy of the truck and train recession), Mining and Logging, and Government workers.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Crime, Democrat Corruption, Foreign Policy, Intelligence, National Security, Politics, Progressivism, The Constitution, The United States | Tags: Disguise / Conceal, Obfuscate / Muddle, Obscure / Hide
“There is nothing here. It’s a little bit like what the Republicans and others have tried to do with respect to Benghazi.”
“Rules should change to keep people from doing what I did with my emails.”
“I didn’t generate any ‘top secret’ e-mails.”
“None of the e-mails were labeled “classified”
“Nothing was marked ‘classified'”
“No classified material was ever sent over my private server”.
“She had never stored classified documents or transmitted them via her private server.”
“Her campaign smeared Inspector General McCullough as a ‘partisan'”.
(he was an Obama appointee.)
“I did not send or receive anything that was classified at the time.”
“I have never received anything marked ‘classified.'”
“A silly inter-agency food-fight about over-classification.”
“She did not ‘originate’ the offending documents.”
“She wants all of her top secret documets released for the public to judge.”
“When you receive information, of course there has to be some markings, some indication, that someone down the line had thought that this was classified, and that was not the case.”
“Well, It was allowed then!”
“She compared her situation to someone driving the speed limit, but then being ticketed retroactively after the speed limit was lowered for something that wasn’t speeding at the time.”
ADDENDUM: 2/05/2016, New Hampshire
We’ve got this absurd situation of retroactive classification” Added that she was “100% sure the FBI would exonerate her.”
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economics, Economy, History, Regulation, The United States, Unemployment | Tags: Constant Experimentation, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, The Great Depression
Obama likes to compare his recession to Franklin Roosevelt’s GREAT Depression under the mistaken belief that the GREAT Depression was long because it was a particularly bad one, and the reason that Obama’ recession has gone on so long is simply because it was an unusually bad one— which is all a bunch of hooey.
FDR’s Great Depression was bad because FDR had no real idea how to deal with it and attacked it with the idea of constant experimentation with ways to end it. There was the NRA, the WPA, the RFC, the CCC, and the OPA to mention just a few. Two UCLA economists announced back in 2004 that they had figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect thought by all good Progressives to be beyond reproach— Franklin D Roosevelt himself. The Wall Street Journal reminds us in a “Notable and Quotable” column:
After scrutinizing Roosevelt’s record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.
“Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,” said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics. “We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.” . . .
“The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes,” Cole said. “Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened.”
What? Non-intervention as policy? Works pretty well. Economies like to recover. Freedom and prosperity go together. Consult Calvin Coolidge.
Filed under: Afghanistan, Democrat Corruption, History, Intelligence, Iraq, Middle East, Military, National Security, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: ISIS in Afghanistan, The Rules of Engagement, The State Department
Up till now, the U.S. Army could have engaged with ISIS in Afghanistan — only if the group “posed a threat to the U.S.” which meant they had to be designated as a terrorist organization by the State Department. Obama has changed the rules of engagement so they can now pursue ISIS-K (ISIS-Khorasan) in Afghanistan and Pakistan as a terrorist organization.
The designation of the group as a “terrorist organization” means the US also prohibits any cooperation with or supply of material or resources to the group.
ISIS-K was formed a year ago in January by a group of militants who defected from the Tehrik-e Taliban and pledged allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. So Obama’s only a year late in protecting our troops.
“ISIS-K already is believed to be responsible for suicide and small-arms attacks and kidnappings, targeting civilians and Afghan government officials,” CNN reported.
President Obama has had an interesting relationship with the rules of engagement since he became president. The massacre at Fort Hood happened because soldiers on the base were forbidden to carry weapons. And that’s only one of the examples.
American planes in Syria, once they have found a significant target, have to radio back to base to get permission to actually bomb it, and then it goes up the chain of command who decide if there is any risk of killing civilians, so most of the missions reportedly return to base with bombs intact. And it was recently reported that bombing missions had to drop leaflets telling civilians on the ground to run away because we were going to drop bombs on those oil trucks.
In the first four years of the Obama administration — 3 times as many Americans were killed in Afghanistan as in the 8 years of George W. Bush’s conduct of the war — and there was no prospect of victory.
Under Obama, there were 8,000 Islamic terrorist attacks on infidels across the globe — a 25% increase over the period when fighting in Iraq was at its peak. The administration dropped the designation “War on Terror” and replaced it with “overseas contingency operations.” Any student of language could tell you things about that wording.
Obama has a peculiar relationship with national security. I have always suspected that he never saw a war movie, unless it was an anti-war film, never studied the history of the United States and never read a military history. He goes to great lengths to make a show of protecting civilians, but blithely orders drone attacks on gatherings of terrorist wedding parties or family gatherings. He really likes Special Forces because they added the death of bin-Laden to his legacy. But he demonstrates his unfamiliarity with things military when he says things like ‘corpse man’ and gets his grandfather’s service in Patton’s Army all confused.
Leaving our troops on the battlefield without the ability to shoot back is simply unconscionable. His reported daily briefings in 3 short paragraphs with 3 choices of action don’t allow for much discussion of pros and cons or alternatives.
Obama ran for the presidency using the Iraq War and George W, Bush as a foil. Public support for the war had begun to decline, and there was a specific unrecognized reason for that. And there was the same reason behind Obama’s attempt to blame every criticism of his actions on George W. Bush.
(h/t: weasel zippers)
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economy, Free Markets, Freedom, Progressivism, Taxes | Tags: Free Market Capitalism, The Federal Debt, Wealth and Poverty
Our wealthiest citizens, the top 20% of the economic pie, pay 70% of all taxes. The poorest 20% pay 3/5ths of one percent of all taxes. So we have to raise taxes on the wealthiest citizens to be “fair” or “balanced.”
There is, however, a problem. If you confiscate the entire wealth of the richest citizens — every penny the Forbes 400 have — it would cover one year’s federal deficit.
Raising tax rates on everyone in the top 2% of the wealthiest citizens would not cover one year’s federal deficit.
Washington borrows $188 million every hour.
I wrote this down a while back, I’m not sure just how long ago, but I can assure you that nothing has improved. Food for thought.
— “How You, I, and Everyone Got the Top 1 percent All Wrong“ by Derek Thompson, The Atlantic
— “Obama orchestrated a massive transfer of wealth to the 1 percent,” by Matthew Gray, New York Post
There is, of course, an answer. Wealth is created by the free market and capitalism. Free people are endlessly inventive, and the hope of improving your financial situation, making a new idea the next big thing, becomes in a free market the opportunity to succeed. Where did Uber come from? Or telephones unconnected to phone lines that are actually tiny computers keeping track of everything and entertaining you as well?
Getting rich or richer, improving your situation, or changing your life is commonplace in America, yet in many parts of the world it is impossible to move beyond the status into which you were born. I cannot understand why the Left cannot think beyond “income inequality.” They are still stuck back in the French revolution railing against the opulence of the King and all his court. “It’s not fair” they whine.
Some people simply want to get rich — that probably accounts for all the Powerball tickets sold. Some want to accomplish something worthwhile. Some want to move to a better neighborhood. Some want to build something important, others want to discover something new. If you know or are convinced that you can never move beyond where you are — I guess envy is all you have left.