stimulus

This is hard to believe, but hey, it's the federal government's own statistics.

Guess how many new jobs the much ballyhooed "stimulus" program has created across the state of Connecticut, a place with a workforce of about 2 million?

20. That's right. TWENTY. Two-Zero.

You know, that's a total of 2.8 additional new jobs for each Democratic vote in the CT congressional delegation that favored the $800 billion boondoggle.

I really do hope this program picks up some more steam. Because based on the fact that CT's taxpayers are responsible for about 2.2% of the total federal tax base; right now we are running a cost to the CT taxpayer of about $900 million per additional job. This even makes Alex Rodriguez look like cheap labor.   

Then again, Joe Biden was in Fairfield last month  touting some big paving and tree cutting program  on the Merritt Parkway.  And we know " no one messes with Joe"

Right?

Obama and the Dems credit the recent better job market to the Stimulus bill, but defend the-still-week job market by saying that jobs are a “lagging indicator,” it lags the rest of the economy when it comes to improvements, therefore the Stimulus does not yet fully reflect in the job market.

The Problem is this: February, the month the stimulus was signed and before any stimulus money was dished out, the economy lost 60,000 jobs less than in January, and in March the economy lost even less jobs than in February. If the “logging indicator” excuse is true, why did the economy in March, the month stimulus money merely started rolling out, lose less jobs than it did in each of the two months before it? The March improvement cannot be attributed to the stimulus considering jobs are a lagging indicator. Right? It takes time for the Stimulus to reflect in the market. Aint it so?

Whichever way you will cook it, you are toast: if you use “lagging” is a factor, how/why did we get the March improvements? You will of course have to agree that some (or most) of March happened on its own (just as February certainly did happen on its own because it was before the Stimulus). If so, how much of the general improved job markets since then took place on its own independent of Obama? And if you will say logging is not a factor and the better March number IS a direct result of the stimulus, why is the job market now, a half year later, still not doing better than it is?

Side Note:  if you wonder why February saw improvements even before the Stimulus, go back to Katrina for the answer: the New Orleans waters receded before the Bush team took any action. Why? because there is this much havoc that panic can cause before things get less bad on its own. The same is with the job market: it started getting less bad on its own, back in February.

(This writing was posted here too)

Clever and well done.

I chime in with Megan McArdle (H/T)

Wow.  Just . . . wow.  .Paul Krugman, circa 2002

The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble. (emphasis added)

My word, was this ever nonsense on steroids.

I can assure you that the people actually involved in real estate finance out in the hinterland in the early '00's would have explained quite concisely the risks in "bubbling" real estate---since Mr. Krugman obviously ignored the popped bubble circa 1989-1990. But we aren't Ivy League eggheads and we weren't asked.

Let's deconstruct the impact of this remarkable paragraph

A) It was easy for Paul Krugman to identify the real estate bubble in 2006 since it was exactly what he lobbied for in 2002.

Worst still, you spent the second Bush term bashing him for presiding over policies you endorsed. 

B) Krugman often scoffed that the only tool Republicans ever want to use is cutting marginal tax rates. Look in the mirror, Paul.  Everytime the economy hits the least bit of trouble, you immediately demand the fire hose of stimulus --either monetary or fiscal or both--be turned on.  It' a Johnny-one-note approach.

C) The solution to the popped Nasdaq bubble was the real estate bubble. Now the solution to the popped real estate bubble is the federal budget bubble. When the Chinese stop lending to us. are we going to find another bubble to blow up?  What is this--Bazooka economics?

There's always a crisis in capitalism for Paul, and there's always a bubble to fix it.  Should the guys in Oslo do a recount about that award about now? 

I was forwarded this from a friend on Wall Street. It is from the in-house newsletter his firm's senior analyst circulates.

There can be no explanation other than that the US taxpayer is suffering from boiling frog syndrome. As the old story goes (which is totally fantastic, btw), if you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, he will immediately leap out. However, if you put a frog into a pot of cool water and gradually turn up the heat, you can cook him alive right before your very eyes. Of course, what this visual suggests is that we are being lulled into a cozy state. (I guess any rebate checks or decreased withholding tax, coupled with the regular excoriation of the rich, backed up with promises to raise taxes on those rotten, earning dirt bags … and on those rotten, earning dirt bags alone … will get an Administration a lotta’ brownie points towards this goal of lulling.) By degrees, we are becoming accustomed to the changes that are being made. And as the water in which we are stewing heats up, I fear some kind of desensitizing is taking hold as well. Unfortunately, we won’t realize until it’s too late, that the continuous installments of increasingly hotter water eventually will cause our demise. What’s particularly galling about our situation is that the changes that are being rammed thru are not even being done all that stealthily. The problem as I see it, though, is that the subject matter is a bit too sophisticated or complex for the average, lazy American to want to lift a finger to either educate himself, or better, put a stop to the madness. 

I presume we want to turn down the thermostat--so what's the plan to cause that to happen, folks?

I considey myself sorta a "shot and a beer" Republican so when I see charts like this from Redstate

I feel compelled to try and provide a better visual idea of the futility to date of Obamanomics

Since February the Obama camp claims to have "saved or created" 100,000 to 150,000 jobs

On the other hand, unemployment is up by over 1.5 million. I suspect that when adds in "discouraged workers" no longer seeking work we are well above that number.

So I think there's about a 1 to 12 ratio of new or saved jobs to lost jobs right about now.

So here's the graphic

Jobs Obama saved

Jobs Obama didn't save. 

Any questions?

;

by  Lance Thompson

Many people I respect believe that conservatives cannot appeal to a majority of voters simply by saying “no” to the socialist agenda now guiding our government.  They say we must have an alternate positive plan, rather than simply obstructing the rush to totalitarianism.  I disagree.

A train headed for a washed-out bridge benefits immensely from anything that safely halts its headlong rush toward destruction.  If the passengers realize the danger, they would also perceive the value of halting forward progress.

But for those who require a positive plan, one is available and easily understood.  As so many profound ideas these days, it comes from the source of much modern wisdom–half-hour network comedy classics.  In the NBC series Seinfeld, the character of George Castanza suffered week after week from the results of his chronically poor judgment–lost jobs, broken relationships, public humiliation and personal embarrassment.  In one episode, George realizes that the source of his troubles is his own warped instinct to always make the wrong decision.  He further decides that he will, from that moment on, always do exactly the opposite what his instincts tell him to do.  Instantly, he finds success and happiness — all because he decided to “do the opposite.”

This is the positive alternative conservatives have been looking for.  Obama spends trillions of dollars we don’t have, and plunges the nation into debt we can never repay.  Saying no to this is certainly sane and responsible, but doing the opposite would be even better.  Instead of increasing spending, how about reducing it?  Would reducing spending play well with the electorate?   In a recent poll, Californians faced with a massive state deficit preferred the solution of reducing spending to raising taxes by a 3 to 1 margin.

Obama has abandoned long-time allies to their fates by canceling defense programs and dismissing vital relationships, gone hat in hand to our sworn enemies to apologize for America’s foreign policy, and demonstrated tolerance for outrages committed by rogue regimes.  Certainly ceasing these self-defeating behaviors would be a positive step.  But how much better to do the opposite–install missile defense systems in Poland because it strengthens a stalwart ally, support Israel in defending itself against terrorists on all sides and a nuclear-ready Iran, acknowledge and strengthen our special relationship with the United Kingdom, and show pride in and demand respect for the sacrifices generations of Americans have made to defend freedom and liberty throughout the world.

Obama has vastly increased government control of private industry.  The current executive branch is now in the executive suites of banks and lending institutions, automobile manufacturers, and soon health care providers.  Obama has bought a majority share of Chrysler with taxpayer money, then handed it over to union bosses.  Clearly, simply saying no to all of this Marxist nationalization of private industry would be a demonstration of sanity.  But doing the opposite would qualify as insightful and visionary.   Allow the ruthlessly fair free market to pick winners and losers rather than government bureaucrats.  If companies cannot compete, then they must fail and make room for those that offer what the public wants.  Artificially propping up inefficient companies rewards incompetence and punishes competitors who are actually doing things correctly.  Taking government out of private industry energizes, enables and encourages investment, innovation and success. 

Obama promises to raise taxes on the rich, on businesses, on the most successful entities in our society and economy.  This is a policy that, again, punishes success.  Not punishing success, and refusing to raise taxes, is a definite improvement.  But doing the opposite–reducing taxes on successful individuals and enterprises–is infinitely better.  Encourage and reward success with lower taxes, and we shall certainly have more of it.  Our economy will expand, employment will grow, revenues will increase, just as it did under Ronald Reagan, and in response to George W. Bush’s tax cuts.

I do not agree with those who say conservatives cannot simply be the Party of No.  A few administrations ago, “Just say no” was First Lady Nancy Reagan’s advice to kids to avoid drugs.  It was widely ridiculed by the Left and the media.  Yet drug abuse undeniably begins voluntarily, which requires an affirmative response, not to mention a substantial investment.  Just saying “no” when drugs are offered effectively eliminates the problem.

But for those who believe conservatives need a specific plan to counter the tide of socialism sweeping across the country, the solution is clear and simple.  Take any policy of the current administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress and just do the opposite.  In every case, such a course will result in greater success, expanded liberty, and a brighter future for Americans.

On the other hand, continuing in the current direction will result in America becoming a pitiful minor character in a show about nothing.

Stamford CT Mayor Dan Malloy fancies himself a "New Democrat" who is fiscally  responsible and concerned with economic growth.

Of course, when Fox News's Steve Doocy tracked him down, Mayor Malloy's major initiative was to use the federal stimulus money to cover the city in new astroturf fields. 

Yeah, that was what is was going to take to get ourselves out of the depression. Astroturf.

$15 million worth.

So where does Mayor Malloy spend the city's own money?

Not on police protection!

23 officers in Stamford laid off

Stamford (WTNH) - Negotiations between the city of Stamford and the Stamford Police Association (SPA) broke down tonight and that means 23 police officers will be off the beat.

What's even more ironic about this is Malloy's own son is a recidivist criminal.

The old saying applies here. Don;t watch what Democrats say;  watch what they do.

Anyway, with incumbent Republican Jodi Rell @ 72% job approval Malloy might as well go to the artifical "field of dreams" as for his chances to unseat the Governor.

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

When the president alludes to his mandate the messages are delivered with the smug satisfaction that he need not explain himself nor defend the mind-boggling amount of taxpayer dollars he is throwing at every problem that comes his way, much like throwing spaghetti against the wall.  But in his case, if it sticks, we’re cooked.

His fan club, apparently so overwhelmed with his rock star “tude,” doggedly cling to the “hope” he promised.  “Hope” and “Change” were, after all, burned into his teleprompter.

What has become as dangerous as a truckload of C‑4 is that hope, by itself, is not always enough.  Those same BHO groupies are “stuck on hope” because they still subsist on the incessant superficial media coverage of President Bush’s financial blunders.

Obama’s followers have yet to understand or accept where their fearless leader has taken Americans in these first 100 days – straight down Thomas Crapper’s throne.  If they persist in their blind adoration, they’ll be enjoying their just desserts a la commode.

Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Paul Craig Roberts, in his March 2008 article entitled The Collapse of American Power, offered this bleak assessment: “…the fact of the matter is that the U.S. is bankrupt.”  That statement was made during the Bush Administration.  What conservative Americans are learning, while liberals continue to savor the Chosen One, is that one trillion dollars of debt has morphed into several trillions, a staggering amount most humans cannot wrap their brain around.  It is turning recovery into a mathematical impossibility.

The “in the tank” media, reports every little Bear market rally as if recovery was at hand.  And whenever Ben Bernanke speaks, his presentation is reminiscent of “When E.F. Hutton talks, people listen.”  That’s the joke of course, because we all know what happened to E.F. Hutton.

And so goes Wall Street.  Not so very long ago, everyone listened to Alan Greenspan too.  And look where we are now.  “The thrill is gone” as B.B. King said, “free from the spell” of Wall Street economists.

For you recalcitrant liberals, there is the National Bankruptcy Survival Guide, in which Seth Van Brocklin explains the difficulty in quantifying the national debt.  As he states: “Once numbers start getting up into the trillions, they literally become mind-numbing.”

By way of illustration, Van Brocklin explains just how large one trillion dollars actually is:  “If you were able to earn $1 per second continuously, you would accumulate $1 Billion after 33 years.”  But, to make $1 Trillion at the rate of $1 per second, “it would take 33,000 years.”  We’re pretty sure you can now visualize twelve times that amount, which is roughly the national debt under the current Administration.

It’s difficult not to feel and sound morose at times.  The present Administration (as well as the numerous fiscal blunders and catastrophes of previous Administrations) have forced the American People to duck and dodge an unrelenting monetary meteor shower which is hitting us all left, right, and center.  Even the Administration’s indignation over Bernie Madoff seems rather comical when you step back in order to see a bigger picture, that is, the federal government now running the biggest Ponzi scheme in history.  But with a solid majority, the bad guys aren’t even getting a slap on the wrist.

The president rode into office on a wave of popularity with a promise to fix the economic mess he inherited (as we are constantly reminded).  He’s smart, but not that smart.  If he were the brainchild his followers touted he is during those nightmarish months of campaigning, he wouldn’t now be crushing the country with a spending tsunami.  And as the country is crushed, so are our lives, our livelihoods, our dreams and aspirations, and, most tragically, our children’s future.

As elected leader of the U.S., one would either have to be totally unprepared, inexperienced or ignorant to not understand the magnitude of this economic crisis.  A logical conclusion would be that this President is either too ignorant, OR fully understands and is lying to Americans -- perhaps running the economy, and thereby the nation, into the ground to realize a larger ideological agenda in the naïve belief it’s for the greater good.

The saddest part is this: even if conservatives were to reclaim the majority in Congress, slash taxes across the board, break the hold unions have on industry, resurrect manufacturing and purge entitlements to illegal immigrants, those efforts would only be a blip on the radar of history.

While the media doesn’t even try to conceal their bias anymore, they continue to squash the opposition through the denigration of patriotically concerned Americans who are now fighting back to save our Republic.  It is not a pretty picture, and there will be no honor at the end of the day for the media.

This is why the TEA party participant numbers are swelling.  No matter what kind of negative hype the media invents, citizens are on to them and there’s a new wave of optimism about to crush the Left’s favorite milieu – carefully crafted ignorance.

We know for a fact (and readily admit) that there are just as many academically intelligent people on the left as there are on the right. After all, America wasn’t conceived and built by dummies.  We, therefore, cannot understand why logical and common sense answers are being cast aside or rejected entirely—the way a demented fisherman tosses the filets of his catch into the drink and tries to sell us the innards.  Americans won’t be buying your stinking innards much longer.  Looming inflation won’t let them.

Our greatest fear is searching for, but not finding, viable solutions to reverse the trade and industry mess in which we find ourselves. The more research we find out, the more we realize it is becoming impossible to clean up after this disaster.

Americans must find a way to strike a balance between regulation, to protect against greed, but at the same time allow everyone to pursue their dreams unhindered by a parasitic socialist system designed to quash our freedoms.

The TEA party participants are looking for that balance and we will not settle for less.

by Lance Thompson

Over the weekend, the Obama administration has changed the National Economic Threat Level Red (describe economy as a crisis bordering on a catastrophe) to Green “the economy is sound–what, me worry?”  This, despite the fact that during the presidential campaign, Obama ridiculed opponent John McCain for making the same confident statement about America’s finances, and that was long before everyone’s 401K got the Obama meltdown discount.  But, even though our houses and retirement funds are worth less, our jobs are gone or disappearing, and the federal government continues to spend money faster than they can print it, I’m willing to take Obama at his word that the economy is not a crisis.

Now, to address this troubled economy, which is fundamentally strong and not in a crisis, Obama has spent all the money we have and quite a bit of money that doesn’t exist.  He spent this money as directed by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, on all manner of liberal wish-list projects and earmarks, under the guise of “emergency stimulus.”  Okay, let’s assume that all that deficit spending will eventually revive the economy at some point in our grandchildren’s future.

The rest of the world does not stand still, and crises arise on unpredictable and inconvenient schedules all their own.  It is not certain what the next crisis will be, but it is undeniable that there will be one.

In international relations, where state gifts from this administration range from 25 bargain bin DVD’s to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to Hillary Clinton’s presentation of a panic button to the Russian government, events are unpredictable.  Pakistan may collapse and the nation’s eighty-odd nukes would be in the hands of–well, who knows?  China, with a resurgent space program, has harassed our ships on the high seas and tested anti-satellite weapons.  The Chinese know that there is unlikely to be another American administration less likely to interfere in an invasion of Taiwan.  Russia has ridiculed our groveling offer to cancel missile defense in Eastern Europe in exchange for their cessation of military and nuclear aid to Iran.  And Iran’s dual space- and nuclear programs are transparently complementary as foundations for nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles.  All of these, and many more, are possible international crises.

Naturally, the crisis may be of another kind.  Hurricane season is coming up.  Has anyone noticed a dearth of beachfront housing, commercial property or industry?  We are just as vulnerable to another Katrina as ever.  Volcanoes are restive in Alaska and Yellowstone has been rumbling of late.  California hasn’t had a big quake in over a decade–they’re seismically due, as is the New Madrid fault in the Mississippi Valley which breaks loose at much longer intervals.  We’ve had some near-misses from asteroids lately, the latest of which came as something of an astronomical surprise.  Don’t forget regular disasters like blizzards in the northeast, droughts in the Southwest, floods all over the flatlands.  And judging from the impeccable science that backs up the global warming alarmists, another ice age must be imminent.

Crises come in all varieties.  We could have a viral pandemic that would overtax our health care system.  The drug wars of Mexico, which really are on the scale of an actual war, could explode across the border at any moment.  More terrorist strikes are undeniably being planned.  Many have been prevented or interdicted over the last eight years by a vigilance which has been systematically relaxed since Obama took office.  And, of course, a real financial crisis could occur at any time–the FDIC could fail, homeowners could stop paying their mortgages to qualify for mortgage assistance, mass layoffs could follow tax hikes on businesses and corporations, China and Japan could call in their debts or even stop raising the limits on our credit cards.

I raise these possibilities not merely to increase readers’ gray hair quotients, but because they all have one common trait.  The responses or solutions to each of these crises will be very expensive.  Whether it’s sending a military force to war in the Western Pacific, rebuilding a devastated city or region, or treating millions of stricken Americans, the federal government will be called upon to act quickly, and spend vastly.

But the financial crisis, which has now been disavowed by the administration and Democrats in Congress who used it to pass their profligate spending bills, has already spent all the money.  If what they say is true (try not to snicker at that), then the economy is sound, there is no crises, and we spent a couple of trillion dollars because we panicked.

Much like the response to the boy who cried wolf, the vast economic resources of the nation were called out, record-breaking debt was incurred, and private corporations were taken over by government agencies, all to meet a false alarm.  After two months of Obama, the coffers are empty and the debt is overwhelming.  This administration has made certain that we literally can’t afford another crisis.

Which makes one wonder what we will do when one occurs.