Boehner Takes Charge

Now this is just funny, I don’t care who you are…

Kind of symbolic of the knock-out punch America threw Nanny Pelosi in November, isn’t it?

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

29 Responses to “Boehner Takes Charge”

  1. Adam says:

    The base should be pleased. They’ve gone and put a hard-core conservative in place of a hard-core liberal. Should be interesting to see if the strength of the GOP right now holds up under an economy that will have improved considerably before the next election.

  2. Schatzee says:

    I don’t know if he’s hard-core – that remains to be seen. But that was really well done. Definitely gave me a laugh to start off my night. But the funniest thing was – in a governmental setting there – didn’t that liberal lady just GOD bless someone????

  3. Big Dog says:

    Adam, you should hope that things go well so your messiah can get reelected. Bill Clinton was reelected because of the work done by Republicans in Congress which he took and got credit for.

    If things start to go well then Barry might get credit for it which I am sure you will even though the Republicans control the House.

    Just keep in mind that if things get worse for a while that Barry gets the blame for that as well.

    Whoever we give credit to for the good gets the blame for the bad on this one.

    And it should surprise no one that eventually the economy will get better. We eventually came out of the Depression even though FDR did so many things that kept us in it (and allowed him to pass the progressive/Socialist agenda).

    I think we will have inflation, high inflation, and eventually things will recover.

    But they will get bad first.

    Hey Adam, no laugh. I mean after your pathetic cartoon? Oh, your side got whacked in this one…

    • Adam says:

      My cartoon was funny because it is true. Your video was funny like the Three Stooges is funny.

      “If things start to go well then Barry might get credit for it which I am sure you will even though the Republicans control the House.”

      What I predict is instead you will continue to pretend the economy was on the brink of disaster and then as soon as the GOP took the House then everything started to go great again. You will ignore all the improvement of the last 2 years and pretend it’s all better only because your side controlled the House.

      “But they will get bad first.”

      In case you didn’t notice, we added a net of 1.3 million private sector jobs this year and unemployment declined from 10% in Dec 2009 to 9.4% in Dec 2010.

      Yes, debt is a problem. Yes, some inflation will come. No, there won’t be the double dip recession you keep predicting. No, your side won’t admit the stimulus had the positive effect it did. No, your side won’t admit that TARP and the auto-bailouts actually were successes.

      But thank goodness the GOP took the House or you might have had to spend the next 2 years pretending our economy is about to collapse and using all your strength to ignore the positive signs in the economy. Now you can say hey things are amazing, look at what the GOP did!

      • Blake says:

        The unemployment went from 9.8% to 9.4%- that aint much considering that it was 9.4% for how many months?- 12? 13?
        So we have just gotten aan illusory uptick, which, if you factor in the jobless numbers, and/or the number of jobs created, is not cause for cheer at all, but rather a cautionary tale on celebrating too soon- kind of like counting your chicks before they are hatched.
        Personally, although I wish I was wrong, I predict another recession, due to the inflationary nature of fuel and how it affects foodstuffs-

        • Ogre says:

          Numbers, especially linked to the current economy, can be twisted to support literally anyone’s point of view. Numbers generated by government for government will nearly always support government.

      • Eoj Trahneir says:

        So “your side” will try to take credit for anything good, and blame anything bad on the GOP.
        That is pretty much what you said.

        Very honorable and honest of you. I am sure you mean that.

    • Ogre says:

      Big Dog: “eventually things will recover.”

      You know, every civilization ends at some point in time, and I’m quite sure no member of the civilization (Egyptian, Greek, Roman) ever thought their time would end, either.

      • Eoj Trahneir says:

        I wouldn’t bet on that. I suspect there were plenty of smart people who realized that the people had just voted themselves the treasury and knew the game was over.

  4. Big Dog says:

    Of course you are incorrect.

    The stimulus had little effect but it would have to have some because if you throw enough money at something there will be some effect. However, most of the money was for payoffs to supporters and for projects that do not create jobs because government does not create jobs.

    Second, how do you add 130,000 jobs and drop the UE rate to 9.4%? Oh, people have stopped looking and that affects the number.

    The jobs for December are always hard to attribute because many places hire for the Christmas season and then those folks stop working in January. Let us wait and see how many people are added for January.

    No matter what, adding over 5 trillion dollars to our debt has long term consequences that are not worth the minimal effect from the stimulus. This is no way to do things and one would think that after the failures of FDR people would realize that.

    But, without trumping this up there would be no crisis for your side to usurp the Constitution with. There would be no crisis to enact progressive-Socialist legislation and programs with.

    You needed the crisis to get things done.

    There will likely be a double dip recession and inflation will be bad. Food is increasing and gas will be around $5 a gallon.

    Which reminds me, where are all the Dems calling for the heads of people because of the gas prices? When Dems were shouting last time the average cost per gallon was lower than it is now.

    Oh, don’t answer, I know it. Bush was in office.

    • Adam says:

      “The stimulus had little effect…”

      Your opinion, not the opinion of actual economists.

      “Second, how do you add 130,000 jobs and drop the UE rate to 9.4%? Oh, people have stopped looking and that affects the number.”

      It’s good to remember that number of discouraged workers has grown only by 300,000 this year compared to 1.1 million jobs added, 1.3 million in the private sector alone. We’ve seen slow but helpful job growth and the unemployment rate reflects that much more than it reflects simply people no longer searching.

      “No matter what, adding over 5 trillion dollars to our debt has long term consequences that are not worth the minimal effect from the stimulus.”

      We spent big to protect these sectors to prevent a depression. You can keep imaging things would have been better if we’d done little or nothing but you don’t know what you’re talking about.

      “This is no way to do things and one would think that after the failures of FDR people would realize that.”

      Only revisionist conservatives believe that about FDR. You’re growing in numbers but you aren’t any less wrong.

      “There will likely be a double dip recession and inflation will be bad. Food is increasing and gas will be around $5 a gallon.”

      Let me just again repeat the dominant view of economists forecasting the next year:
      A double did recession is unlikely, not likely. Inflation will grow but not as big as you think. Gas prices will rise like they’ve always risen.

      • Eoj Trahneir says:

        History is one thing I don’t have blinders for; in our country we read a history that clearly states FDR and his socialist policy “almost brought USA into the Communist Circe,” and for many here, it was a last gasp almost success-story!

        OMG.

  5. Big Dog says:

    So tell me Adam, if all these so called unnamed experts you refer to know so much, why is every bit of news prefaced with the words unexpectedly or surprise?

    Claims for unemployment rise unexpectedly. Job numbers surprise experts, etc.

    Nearly every bad bit of news is unexpected. If they know so much then why is it unexpected?

    So we can wait and see if these “experts” are right. But the people who have been right all along are predicting it will get bad before it gets better.

    FDR’s policies were bad for us and history shows this. The revisionist history comes from the left who bows down to what he did. We needed to get into WWII to end the Great Depression. His policies did not end it and did not make things better. They only saddled us with social programs that hurt us.

    And if gas prices have always rise then why were your heroes like Schumer et al, out decrying prices when they were at $2 a gallon but remain silent now?

    How many are at the corner gas station like they were when Bush was in the White House?

    Let me help you:

    NONE!!

    And once again, how does the number drop 0.3% when only 130k jobs were “created”?

    • Adam says:

      “But the people who have been right all along are predicting it will get bad before it gets better.”

      Like who?

      “And if gas prices have always rise then why were your heroes like Schumer et al, out decrying prices when they were at $2 a gallon but remain silent now?”

      I know some Democrats have railed against gas prices for political reasons but for the most part the party was concerned with record profits of the oil companies at a time when oil was at a record high.

      “And once again, how does the number drop 0.3% when only 130k jobs were ‘created'”

      First of all it grew by 103k, not 130k and it dropped from 9.8% to 9.4%.

      The simple answer is that the number of unemployed people dropped by 556k and the number of people in the work force shrank by 260k.

      You keep implying that the number only dropped because people quit looking. But the number of discouraged workers only grew by 36,000 people. That’s a change in 0.02% as far as U3 is concerned. Since the drop was 0.4% we know there was much more going on there.

      The change in the unemployed number comes from not only those jobs created (+103k) and the growth of discouraged workers (+36k). It includes those who dropped off because they finished part time work, or were available to work (like discouraged) but didn’t for some other reason, and a few more sets of people.

      • Eoj Trahneir says:

        Please name all 36,000 of those people.

        You are just spouting numbers, like a sperm whale taking a breath.

        Take a look at your neighbors. On your block. Look at the stock market. Look at any indicator you like; your economy is fuc&$%ed up.

        And The Big O isn’t helping by adding huge debt. That is the bottom line and everything else is just posturing and preening.

        Are people discouraged? They better be! Are they giving up? Some how, I suspect they are just…reloading.

        • Big Dog says:

          The reason the number went down is that while 103,000 (I transposed numbers the last time, sorry) were “created” over 500,000 people left the roster of the unemployed. When the number of people who are still unemployed but are not counted as unemployed increases, the UE rate will go down.

        • Adam says:

          I know citing figures from official sources like the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics can confuse people of your nature, but that’s not my fault. Feel free to read the numbers yourself. You might learn something.

          Look at any indicator I like? I get that the US economy is in recovery and a jobless one at that. But we’re coming back from a very deep recession which fell just short of a depression. We are 2 years into recovery and we’re doing OK all things considered.

          How about jobs? Unemployment is a problem but the jobs are coming back slowly. The economy added 1.346 million jobs to the private sector in 2010.

          GDP? Needs to get better but still grew 13% in the last four quarters, Q4-2009 to Q3-2010.

          Stock market? The DJIA is up 63.9% since the low point of the recession. The S&P 500 is up 71.0% and the NASDAQ is up about 92.5%. These same three are just -17.7%, -19.2%, and -4.6% below the peak in October 2007. These three will most likely be above the 2007 peak by the end of this year.

          How about retail sales? In 2010 retail sales were the highest in two years and on track to set a record for highest ever.

          Yes, there’s still an uncomfortable level of unemployment and the debt is huge. But is our economy “fuc&$%ed up?” No. You’re wrong.

        • Adam says:

          “When the number of people who are still unemployed but are not counted as unemployed increases, the UE rate will go down.”

          When a person stops looking for work then they are not unemployed by definition of the measurements we have relied on for years. I know there are flaws in it but that’s the way it’s done.

          You seem to want to suggest that renders the declines meaningless. What I find most revealing is that when we see the alternative measurements U5 and U6 which take into account in U5 the discouraged, and U6 the discouraged and other marginally attached then those rates too decline 0.3% each. That is very close to the 0.4% decline that does not consider these.

          Also I have a comment for Eoj Trahneir which is moderated for too many links.

          • Big Dog says:

            By definition they are no longer unemployed. Except they are. I have no problem with not counting them so long as people are made aware that the drop is artificial. If you want to claim that they are no longer unemployed then when things look up and they are start looking again and the rate spikes YOU CANNOT use that as an excuse for the spike (which is what you and others have done int he past). It must be counted as an increase in the number of unemployed.

            Keep in mind BLS numbers will be revised in a month or so and they are government numbers which are marginally reliable.

            Obviously the U6 number cannot decrease by anything if 500,000 more people were added so that will need to be revised. It is impossible to increase the number of people by half a million and decrease the rate.

  6. Adam says:

    “If you want to claim that they are no longer unemployed then when things look up and they are start looking again and the rate spikes YOU CANNOT use that as an excuse for the spike…”

    Why not? If I’m out of work but not looking then why should I still be counted? U3 does not differentiate between why I’m not looking. But why then can I still not be counted if I return to looking for work but haven’t found a job yet? This is just now it works.

    “Keep in mind BLS numbers will be revised in a month or so and they are government numbers which are marginally reliable.”

    You always say that. Yes, the numbers get revised for several months but you cannot revise away the fact that every single month in 2010 the private sector job growth was positive and the economy added over 1.3 million jobs. Sooner or later you’ll have to stop pretending the economy is on the brink of collapse and I suspect that will be quickly now that you can say the GOP had a hand in it.

    “Obviously the U6 number cannot decrease by anything if 500,000 more people were added so that will need to be revised.”

    Above I meant to say U4 and U5. U6 did remain the same from November to December because the number of Part Time For Economic Reasons increased by 503k. My point was simply to counter your suggestion that the rate went down because people quit looking for work. We can see that U4 and U5 which count marginally attached workers went down 0.3% compared to 0.4%.

    • Adam says:

      Actually I misspoke. U6 also declined 0.3% just like U5 and U4. Surely given that you can see that suggestions about problems in formulas are not relevant. Even the U6 underemployment value changed from 17.2 in Nov to 16.9 in Dec.

  7. Adam says:

    “That is why they changed the way they measure unemployment and inflation.”

    First the CBO, now BLS and BEA? All faulty sources now simply because they run counter to your world view? Give me a break. There is no logic behind changing them other than to make them more accurate.

    You act like the government’s response to inflation and unemployment was just to lower the value artificially through changing the formula and then convince Americans they are fine. That would mean something if the numbers actually meant anything to average Americans. It’s ridiculous. Americans know when they’re doing good and when they’re doing bad. They don’t care what BLS or BEA or anybody else says.

    We’re talking about formulas that are for the government, for leaders, and for business people to use. They have not been changed simply to hide the real values of anything.

  8. Big Dog says:

    Sooner or later you will have to realize that the net result is more jobs lost. More people are unemployed, or have lost their jobs, now than at this time last year.

    If you “create” 1.3 million but loose 5 million you are at a net loss. I am using these numbers as an example. The reality is that more people unemployed means a net loss of jobs.

    You simply cannot keep harping that so many jobs were created when the net is a loss.