Long-Term Unemployment at Highest Level Since World War II

Low-information Obama voters don’t seem to mind one bit since they collect most of the unemployment benefits the rest of us are paying for.

From WHD:

Long term unemployment under President Obama is at the highest level since at least the end of World War II, threatening to create a permanent underclass of workers who will find it difficult or impossible to obtain jobs in the future. What’s more, Obama’s insistence on repeatedly extending long term unemployment benefits may be fueling the unemployment problem.

According to data recently released by the St. Louis Federal Reserve, the average duration of unemployment is now at about 40 weeks, double the previous highest level of about 20 weeks that prevailed during the last three recessions.

A separate paper released by the Boston Federal Reserve paints a pernicious picture of the problem: Employers seem to be throwing out the resumes of the long-term unemployed and only hiring those who have been without a job for less than six months. Meanwhile, with the guarantee of benefits rolling in, the long term jobless might not be looking aggressively enough for work, the paper states.

Continue reading>>>

 

Read Full Post »

Anyone Remember What Happened After the Last Assault Weapon Ban Was Lifted?

Murders and violent crime went DOWN↓ John Lott wrote about this in the L.A. Times:

This wasn’t supposed to happen. When the federal assault weapons ban ended on Sept. 13, 2004, gun crimes and police killings were predicted to surge. Instead, they have declined.

For a decade, the ban was a cornerstone of the gun control movement. Sarah Brady, one of the nation’s leading gun control advocates, warned that “our streets are going to be filled with AK-47s and Uzis.” Life without the ban would mean rampant murder and bloodshed.

Well, more than nine months have passed and the first crime numbers are in. Last week, the FBI announced that the number of murders nationwide fell by 3.6% last year, the first drop since 1999. The trend was consistent; murders kept on declining after the assault weapons ban ended.

Even more interesting, the seven states that have their own assault weapons bans saw a smaller drop in murders than the 43 states without such laws, suggesting that doing away with the ban actually reduced crime. (States with bans averaged a 2.4% decline in murders; in three states with bans, the number of murders rose. States without bans saw murders fall by more than 4%.)

And the drop was not just limited to murder. Overall, violent crime also declined last year, according to the FBI, and the complete statistics carry another surprise for gun control advocates. Guns are used in murder and robbery more frequently then in rapes and aggravated assaults, but after the assault weapons ban ended, the number of murders and robberies fell more than the number of rapes and aggravated assaults…

As we know, it’s very easy to defeat liberal myths with actual facts. For decades, Democrats have blamed society, and even poverty, for violent crimes. Facts have defeated the claim that poverty causes crime. We have more unemployed Americans living in poverty under Obama while at the same time having more Americans owning/purchasing firearms. Guess what? Crime rates are lower.

The recession of 2008-09 has undercut one of the most destructive social theories that came out of the 1960s: the idea that the root cause of crime lies in income inequality and social injustice. As the economy started shedding jobs in 2008, criminologists and pundits predicted that crime would shoot up, since poverty, as the “root causes” theory holds, begets criminals. Instead, the opposite happened. Over seven million lost jobs later, crime has plummeted to its lowest level since the early 1960s. The consequences of this drop for how we think about social order are significant.

The notion that crime is an understandable reaction to poverty and racism took hold in the early 1960s. Sociologists Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin argued that juvenile delinquency was essentially a form of social criticism. Poor minority youth come to understand that the American promise of upward mobility is a sham, after a bigoted society denies them the opportunity to advance. These disillusioned teens then turn to crime out of thwarted expectations.

The theories put forward by Cloward, who spent his career at Columbia University, and Ohlin, who served presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Carter, provided an intellectual foundation for many Great Society-era programs. From the Mobilization for Youth on Manhattan’s Lower East Side in 1963 through the federal Office of Economic Opportunity and a host of welfare, counseling and job initiatives, their ideas were turned into policy.

The 1960s themselves offered a challenge to the poverty-causes-crime thesis. Homicides rose 43%, despite an expanding economy and a surge in government jobs for inner-city residents. The Great Depression also contradicted the idea that need breeds predation, since crime rates dropped during that prolonged crisis. The academy’s commitment to root causes apologetics nevertheless persisted. Andrew Karmen of New York’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice echoed Cloward and Ohlin in 2000 in his book “New York Murder Mystery.” Crime, he wrote, is “a distorted form of social protest.” And as the current recession deepened, liberal media outlets called for more government social programs to fight the coming crime wave. In late 2008, the New York Times urged President Barack Obama to crank up federal spending on after-school programs, social workers, and summer jobs. “The economic crisis,” the paper’s editorialists wrote, “has clearly created the conditions for more crime and more gangs—among hopeless, jobless young men in the inner cities.”

Even then crime patterns were defying expectations. And by the end of 2009, the purported association between economic hardship and crime was in shambles. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, homicide dropped 10% nationwide in the first six months of 2009; violent crime dropped 4.4% and property crime dropped 6.1%. Car thefts are down nearly 19%. The crime plunge is sharpest in many areas that have been hit the hardest by the housing collapse. Unemployment in California is 12.3%, but homicides in Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles Times reported recently, dropped 25% over the course of 2009. Car thefts there are down nearly 20%.

So, as you can see, Liberals are full of shit on almost everything associated with crime. More guns/assault weapons don’t create crime and neither does poverty. Remember this when you debate a liberal know-nothing.

Read Full Post »

Rand Paul’s Strategy: Republicans Should Let Dems Raise Taxes and Let Them Own It (Video)

It won’t work. Dems have been blaming their economy on Bush and Bush has been out of office for 4 years.

 

 

Read Full Post »

Let’s Have a Depression Now

I love the guys over at ZeroHedge. Here’s an interesting article I thought should be shared. As we know, we are in an Obama Depression now.

From ZeroHedge:

Originally posted at Monty Pelerin’s World,

The United States is more than four years into its form of economic purgatory. The government pronounced the recession over in June of 2009. That announcement does not conform with reality or even subsequent government suspect data. Even the Administration-friendly New York Times knows better:

Between June 2009, when the recession officially ended, and June 2011, inflation-adjusted median household income fell 6.7 percent, to $49,909, according to a study by two former Census Bureau officials. During the recession — from December 2007 to June 2009 — household income fell 3.2 percent.

To believe the recession ended requires a bizarro interpretation of economics where bad is actually good and good is actually bad.

21st Century politics sees no need for truth. When government believes itself to be responsible for the economy and convinces the people of that, it has put itself into a box. In a world where government claims credit for good things, bad things ultimately become their responsibility as well. Recessions are bad things which government should not have allowed to happen or should fix quickly.

The reality is that government does not create wealth or economic abundance. (They can create poverty, however.) When recessions occur, they threaten the myth of all powerful government. The first reaction of government is to do something regardless of whether something makes sense or not. The second phase is to declare the problem solved (in this case, claim the recession ended).

This kind of politics is dangerous on two counts. First, government risks what little credibility it has left (which I might say is not necessarily a bad thing). Second, it causes government to pursue policies which reinforce its lies. It is these policies which created the current economic crisis in the first place.

The country’s economic problems began decades ago. In trying to cover them up with economic interventions (stimuli), government actions prevented the economy from correcting the imbalances that caused slow growth.From a political standpoint, economic policies encouraged institutions and people to use debt to live beyond their means. The massive debt buildup in both the economy and the government hid the underlying problems and allowed them to grow ever larger and more malignant out of sight.

After decades of such interventions, the economy no longer is able to function efficiently. In order to remedy the problems, massive liquidations of debt and misallocated assets are necessary. There is no other way to achieve an economic cleansing. It may be possible to continue this economic charade with additional interventions, but there is a limit to how far it can be continued. Japan has achieved zombie existence for over two decades by refusing to face up to the imbalances in their economy. Our government has chosen the same course of “extend and pretend.” There is no hope for a recovery until something like another Great Depression liquidates the built-up imbalances.

No politician wants to be in office when that event occurs. Thus, they make matters worse for the country by continuing to spend money we don’t have to prop up an economy that cannot and should not be saved. Their goal is not to repair the economy but to ensure the most favorable terms for their own re-election. As a result they continue to savage the future of the country in order to protect their own present.

People will eventually regain control of their government. They always do. Unfortunately the process of history is slow and sometimes ugly. Multiple generations around the world have never known freedom. China and the Soviet Union are two examples that are just now transitioning toward freedom. Are we to enter some institutional dark ages where our grandchildren and their grandchildren do not experience freedom? It is possible because all governments prefer more power for themselves and less liberty for their citizens.

The required change is so great as to be analogous to an addict trying to break his habit. Most addicts have to hit rock-bottom before reality intrudes. In the case of the US, we are going to hit rock-bottom when the economy collapses. That is likely to be within the next ten years and could be at the front end of that estimate. This world-changing event may (at least temporarily) drive a stake through the heart of big, oppressive welfare-state governments.

There is no guarantee that government will shrink when this happens. Civil unrest is a likely outcome. Statists may attempt to use the crisis to further expand government. Martial law and other restraints are likely. Hitler used a similar situation to rise to power. Parts of the Constitution were emasculated under New Deal policies that “had to be done” to pull us out of the Depression. Of course, we never got out of the Depression until after the end of WWII.

Economic pain and suffering will be great. Yet the economic calamity is unavoidable. It was pre-ordained by years of government interventions. Mathematical and economic laws will not be avoided. As stated by Ludwig von Mises:

There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit (debt) expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit (debt) expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.

Continue reading>>>

 

Read Full Post »

White House Data Debunk Myth Bush Cuts Built Deficit

Obama has lied about the Bush tax cuts even after he extended them in 2010. Obama and his mindless lefty class warfare imps have been claiming the 2001 & 2003 Bush tax rates only benefited the wealthy. They claimed it caused 90% of the deficit. Both claims are bold lies.

From IBD:

While President Obama insists the Bush tax cuts caused the recession and record deficits, his own economists say otherwise.

He might want to consult their data for the truth.

Kicking off fiscal cliff negotiations last month, Obama said: “What I’m not going to do is extend Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% that we can’t afford and, according to economists, will have the least positive impact on our economy.”

During the White House press conference, he added, “If we’re going to be serious about deficit reduction, we’ve got to do it in a balanced way.”

Obama argued voters made it clear in the election that they don’t want to go back to Republican policies that “cost” the Treasury revenues and “blew up the deficit,” as he told them repeatedly during the campaign.

The Washington media by and large share these assumptions. And they’re driving the debate over what to do about the federal budget crisis before Jan. 1, when the tax cuts and spending programs are set to expire.

But the assumptions are faulty, based largely on political demagoguery rather than hard numbers — including ones certified by Obama’s own fiscal policy advisers and bean counters in the White House. [Emphasis added]

[...] Based on Bush fiscal policies, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected budget deficits of 0.7% to 1.5% of GDP for the years 2008 through 2011. The CBO even predicted surpluses for the subsequent years through 2018.

[...] Obama’s economic report shows that the average deficit-to-GDP ratio during the entire Bush administration — 2001 to 2009 — was 2%, which is well below the 50-year average of 3%.

[...] During the Obama years, in contrast, the same deficit ratio has averaged 9.1%.

Continue reading>>>

 

Read Full Post »

The Ultimate Fiscal Cliff Cheat Sheet Infographic

From ZeroHedge

The Fiscal Cliff is the name given for the 2013 increase of Federal Government taxes and budget cuts. The Bush-era tax cuts expire and the 2013 “Budget Control Act” kicks in, among other budget cuts & new taxes. The Fiscal Cliff is set to reduce the 2013 US Government budget deficit by roughly half; will remove $607 Billion from economy (GDP), resulting in 4% drop, pushing it back into recession; it can NOT be avoided. It must happen to fix the budget deficit; any delay must be paid for later; it will NOT reduce the US debt, only slow down the growth. The Fiscal Cliff’s (new taxes and budget cuts) size and impact are visualized below in physical $100 bills.

Read Full Post »

Urban League: Economic Downturn and Weak Economic Recovery Have Hurt the Black Middle Class

Now run out there and vote for Obama based only on the color of his skin. He’s done miracles for the black community.

From the Chicago Tribune:

Generations of Valerie Magee’s family, from her grandparents to her children, have deepened their roots in the black middle class, finding a pathway to prosperity through college education and the support of family members.

But as Magee, 56, watches college tuition skyrocket and wealth and incomes plummet, she worries that college might be moving beyond her young grandchildren’s grasp.

So Magee, a divorced nurse administrator, recently sold her pricey south suburban Matteson home, hoping that will free her up financially to better assist her children if they need help with a future mortgage payment or tuition.

“Every generation wants the next to move up at least one more rung on the ladder, not backward — never backward,” she said. “My daughter and son-in-law are doing OK for now, but who knows what will happen tomorrow?”

For months, the presidential candidates have been trying to court the middle class, extending offers of tax cuts, lower gas prices and better schools. The message: America does well when the middle class does well. The corollary: We feel your pain.

But much less attention has been given to the black middle class, which since the recession and slow recovery has suffered massive decreases in wealth and high rates of home foreclosures. Blacks overall are experiencing a 13.4 percent unemployment rate, according to figures released Friday, much higher than the national rate of 7.8 percent.

The Pew Charitable Trusts’ Economic Mobility Project recently released a report projecting that 68 percent of African-Americans reared in the middle of the wealth ladder will not do as well as the previous generation.

In August, the National Urban League’s State of Black America 2012 report found that nearly all the economic gains that the black middle class made during the last 30 years have been wiped out by the economic downturn.

“This is a very dire situation,” said Valerie Rawlston Wilson, an economist with the National Urban League Policy Institute. “Even for blacks who have college degrees, we’ve seen a doubling of their unemployment (rate) between 2007 and 2010.”

All the numbers in the black community have gotten worse, yet most will still vote for Obama due to skin color. You reap what you sow.

Continue reading>>>

Read Full Post »

Fed Chair Ben Bernanke Admits the Low Interest Rates Hurt Retirees, But Blames Recession

 

Ben Bernanke is the man responsible for devaluing our dollar with his 3 rounds of buying debt (quantitative easing) and causing retirees to lose billion due to his zero percent interest rates.

From Daily Caller:

The Federal Reserve’s risky effort to reduce interest rates is hitting swing-voting retirees in the wallet — and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is blaming the financial crisis.

“I know that people who rely on investments that pay a fixed interest rate … are receiving very low returns, [which is] a situation that has involved significant hardship for some,” he said in an Oct. 1 speech in Indianapolis.

However, he added, “I would encourage you to remember that the current low levels of interest rates … are in a larger sense the result of the recent financial crisis — the worst shock to this nation’s financial system since the 1930s.”

The Fed’s decision to lower interest rates cuts the income on interest earned by retirees who depend on savings.

These retirees are important during elections because they’re swing voters. For example, retirees can sway the presidential vote in Florida — a must-win state for the Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Romney and President Barack Obama are neck-and-neck in the state, while both sides spend heavily to tout their support for Medicare and Social Security, and slam their opponent’s proposed policies.

That Medicare-focused debate may be expanded by Bernanke’s admission that the government’s low-interest policy hits retirees.

Bernanke’s effort to blame his low-interest policy on the housing bubble and the subsequent economic meltdown, however, is undermined by the Fed’s role in creating the bubble.

Through the 1990s and 2000s, the Federal Reserve used its regulatory power to boost mortgage lending to poor Americans. That policy was pushed by the Democratic Party’s progressive wing — including Obama while he was working in Chicago — but it inflated the housing bubble. The bubble burst in 2007, destabilizing Wall Street and severely damaging the economy.

Continue reading>>>

Read Full Post »

Rick Santelli: GDP Numbers are “Depressingly Weak” (Video)

In Obama’s world these weak numbers are a sign of “recovery.”

From CNBC:

New durable goods orders in August fell by the most since the recession and a separate reading on the broader U.S. economy came in much weaker than expected. But weekly jobless claims sank to a two-month low, in a hopeful sign for the labor market.

New orders for long-lasting U.S. manufactured goods in August fell by the most in 3 1/2 years, pointing to a sharp slowdown in factory activity even as a gauge of planned business spending rebounded.

The Commerce Department said on Thursday durable goods orders dived 13.2 percent, the largest drop since January 2009, when the economy was in the throes of a recession. Orders for July were revised down to show a 3.3 percent increase instead of the previously reported 4.1 percent gain.

Economists polled by Reuters had expected orders for durable goods — items from toasters to aircraft that are meant to last at least three years — to fall 5 percent.

Continue reading>>>

 

Read Full Post »

Obamanomics: “Recovery” Jobs Mostly Low Wage Jobs

Low wage jobs that cost on average about $228, o55 per job. Paid for via Obama’s failed Recovery Act.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — Sure, the economy is adding jobs these days…but most of those positions pay pretty poorly.

Spin by CNN. We have a 30-year low labor force participation rate and unemployment only dropped due to Americans exiting the labor force.

Some 58% of the jobs created during the recovery have been low-wage positions, according to a new report by the National Employment Law Project. Only 22% have been mid-wage jobs and 20% higher-wage positions. These low-wage jobs pay $13.83 an hour or less.

“The recovery continues to be skewed toward low-wage jobs, reinforcing the rise in inequality and America’s deficit of good jobs,” said Annette Bernhardt, NELP’s policy co-director. “While there’s understandably a lot of focus on getting employment back to pre-recession levels, the quality of jobs is rapidly emerging as a second front in the struggling recovery.”

The explosion in low-wage job growth comes after the Great Recession hammered the mid-wage job sector. Some 60% of the jobs lost during the downturn were mid-wage, as opposed to 21% of low-wage and 19% of higher-wage positions.

The fastest growing low-wage jobs include retail salespeople, food prep workers, laborers and freight workers, waiters and waitresses, personal and home care aides, office clerks and customers representatives.

Employment in low-wage jobs has been expanding since the start of the century, rising 8.7% since the beginning of 2001. Mid-wage employment, meanwhile, dropped 7.3%. High-wage staffing rose by 6.6%.

“The economy has fewer good jobs now than it did at the start of the 21st century,” said Bernhardt.

The economy also has less jobs now than it did in Jan. of 2009, but the media can’t tell voters the truth. Obama has a  jobs deficit.

NELP looked at employment trends in 366 occupations between 2008 and 2012. Low-wage jobs had median hourly wages between $7.69 to $13.83, while people in mid-wage positions earned between $13.84 and $21.13. High-wage jobs had a median hourly wage of $21.14 to $54.55.

The NELP study backs up a separate report from the Department of Labor that showed more than half of displaced workers who lost their jobs during the recovery and found new ones were working for lower wages.

Continue reading>>>

Read Full Post »