Big Dogs House

Why The Obama Stimulus Is A Failure

Dec 13, 2011 Political

A case study:

Despite all the spin the Stimulus did NOT create jobs in numbers of any consequence. The Dems are crowing now about the unemployment rate drop to below 9% but that will likely go up after Christmas when seasonal employees end their run. It is also worthy to note that if the same number of people were looking for jobs today as were in 2007 the unemployment rate would be 11%.

Don’t worry, Debbie Washer Woman Schultz says unemployment is not increasing.

You can make any claim if you manipulate the numbers your way…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: failure, lies, Obama, stimulus, unemployment

The Stimulus That Didn’t Stimulate

Jul 5, 2011 Political

A new report from Barack Obama’s own Council of Economic Advisors shows that the stimulus failed to stimulate, that each job created or “saved” cost taxpayers $278,000, and that we would have been better off without the stimulus.

What a surprise? The Stimulus was a failure, just as I had said it would be. To spend 278 thousand dollars per job created or allegedly saved is absolutely criminal. To top it off, the trend of adding jobs appears to be going in the wrong direction. The Stimulus failed to stimulate and now it is having a harmful effect on the economy. Interpretation of the report indicates that we would have done better without the Stimulus.

Perhaps this is because the Stimulus was not meant to actually stimulate. The report they wrote says it was and Obama and his toadies said it was but the reality of the situation is that a lot of taxpayer money, money we do not have, was appropriated for the sole purpose of paying off Democrat constituencies. The labor unions, the Obama supporters, the Democrat controlled cities that can’t make it on their own, all took our money as part of a huge payoff and redistribution scheme.

All sides agree on these incriminating numbers — and now they also appear to agree on this important point: The economy would now be generating job growth at a faster rate if the Democrats hadn’t passed the “stimulus.” Weekly Standard

Debbie Wasserman Schultz said the Democrats own the economy and she is absolutely correct. The Democrats took a bad situation (caused mostly by their failed policies) and made it much worse. We have hit rock bottom and are now starting to dig.

This is what happens when we elect a man with NO experience whatsoever. Never had a productive job, never had to make payroll and lived his life off the taxpayer. He got taxpayer money for his education, for his community rabble rousing and for his jobs in politics. Oh sure, he received money through graft and corruption as well as the books he wrote about his life (as if he actually had anything to write about) but he never ran anything meaningful.

He was and remains out of his league and he continues to drive us further toward government control of everything.

He is well on his way with the failed Stimulus and the 5 TRILLION dollars of debt he has accumulated.

It is more meaningful when his own people point it out.

Maybe they want to avoid the pitchforks and torches…

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: costs, debt, failure, lies, Obama, stimulus

Good Riddance To The Worst Congress

Dec 27, 2010 Political

The worst Congress to ever be seated in this country is finally on its way out and I say “good riddance.” I know there are many out there, particularly the liberal/progressive types who need government intervention, who will argue that this was not the worst Congress. This is because their measure of success is how many laws were passed. The more laws passed, the more successful the Congress.

This, of course, is complete nonsense. The 111^th Congress gave us a number of 2000 plus page bills that were not read by any member of the Congress. We were told that we would have to pass them to see what was in them or that no one knows how they are going to work, but they are good legislation. To top it off, the legislation passed was opposed by a large majority in this country, a majority that was ignored by the Congress. The members who are supposed to represent us ignored our wishes and passed their agenda.

This is one of the major reasons Democrats lost so many seats in the November election. Their side will tell you that it was insignificant or meant nothing or was not because of any one thing but the reality is, they lost because they did not listen and people did not like what they were doing. They were taken out of power because they were out of control.

And they did not learn from the election either. In a lame duck session they passed legislation that Americans opposed. They passed legislation that should have received more scrutiny and they gave the go ahead on a treaty that weakens America.

They did not learn.

Yes even now they seem to think that the loss was a fluke and that the public does not know what is good for it. But the burning question remains, if these agenda items were so good for America, why did the Democrat leaders have to bribe so many people to pass the legislation? Why did they have to give away billions in taxpayer dollars to get their own party members on board? I know the popular myth contends that Republicans were the party of “No” and they held everything up but this is a LIE told by progressives in an attempt to hide the fact that they have big enough majorities in Congress to pass what they wanted but were unable to do so.

So, once again, if the legislation was so wonderful, why did they need all the bribes and back room deals? If it was so wonderful then why did it NOT pass when Democrats had a big enough majority to pass anything they wanted?

If all this legislation was so wonderful then why did the Congress have to hold midnight votes? Why did they have to stay in session over the holidays to get things done? Harry Reid used the same tactics two years in a row, threaten to keep them through the Christmas holiday so they will vote for anything to get out of DC. It is absolutely piss poor leadership and Reid is not the only piss poor leader. Nancy Pelosi is one as well.

Those who bow down to her will tell you how much she accomplished and how wonderful she is. This is a lie. She could not get things done with a majority and blamed Republicans for her own party’s inabilities. She had to force her people with threats and that is no way to lead. She was such a poor leader that she lost more House Seats than any Speaker in nearly a century.

Remember, if what they did was so wonderful then they would not have had to bribe people to get it passed. If what they did was so great we would know what was in the legislation and they would not have to lie about the contents (if they had any real idea what was in the things to begin with) and if what they were doing was so great they would not have lost a historic number of seats in the midterm elections.

The liberal/progressives must have been absolutely terrible because after only two years they have been replaced with Republicans and the public is not any more thrilled with them at this point. It is bad news and you know you screwed up when you are replaced by the very party that was thrown out in disgust because of its inability to control spending and its loss of principles.

When you are replaced by people who are hated as much as you just to keep you from running amok and having free reign then you know you truly suck.

The 111^th Congress is the worst that has ever been seated. It took a nation in debt and bankrupted it and it passed tons of nanny-state laws to gain more control over our lives.

It did this because a certain part of the leadership thinks that it must rule over people too stupid or inept to care for themselves.

But it also had success because there are certain parts of society that either believes that government must run their lives, that they are unable to run their own without government intervention, or that they are entitled to the fruits of another person’s labor (a message that the nanny-state government has driven home for decades).

And as much as the 111^th Congress was a failure, the other failures in this society are the people who actually think that this Congress did good things and who feel good about the forced redistribution of wealth.

We can vote out a bad Congress but, unlike Survivor, we cannot vote the failures among us out of the tribe.

Perhaps they can make a New Year’s Resolution to become self sufficient and stop expecting the government to take care of them.

As for the rest of us, we should resolve to cut the funding from the beast in any legal way possible…

A funny aside: Most progressives have no problem with the nanny-state until the nanny state interferes with what they like. This guy is all for government intrusion into our lives but is upset when it intrudes into football. It is an understatement to say this guy has a warped sense of what is important. For what its worth, I don’t think government should be involved in our lives and I don’t think it should interfere with a game that is supposed to be played regardless of weather…

I also think it is funny that the Pennsylvania Governor commented by calling the canceling of the game a joke; “It’s an absolute joke,” Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, a big Eagles fan, told Fox. “I was looking forward to this. It would have been a real experience. This is what football is all about.”

It is funny because if Rendell even went to the game he would sit in a luxury box and not be exposed to the elements. He is right that the cancellation was a joke but what real experience would it be for a guy who would be pampered at the stadium? Ah yes, a true progressive. I am the king and will be treated as such while the peons get “a real experience.”

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: 111th congress, bribes, failure, forced redistribution, lies, unconstitutional

What Happened To The Stimulus Money?

Jun 13, 2010 Political

And why are teacher’s, firefighter’s and police officer’s salaries a federal concern?

The stimulus bill signed into law last February was a 787 billion dollar boondoggle. The total package, with interest on borrowed money, will put the thing over 1 TRILLION dollars. The unfortunate thing is that we got very little for our money and the things it was spent on are NOT things that will stimulate the economy and a lot of them are things states are responsible for.

Obama is pleading with Democrats to pass another 50 BILLION dollars of “emergency” funds to prevent teachers, firefighters and police officers from being laid off.

President Obama urged reluctant lawmakers Saturday to quickly approve nearly $50 billion in emergency aid to state and local governments, saying the money is needed to avoid “massive layoffs of teachers, police and firefighters” and to support the still-fragile economic recovery. Washington Post

The first thing we should realize is that the federal government is not responsible for teachers, firefighters or police officers unless they work for the federal government. The states AND ONLY THE STATES are responsible for the people in these professions who work in the individual states. It is not the responsibility of taxpayers from Maryland to pay for the teachers, firefighters or police officers in Michigan or any other state. Each state is responsible and using federal tax dollars to pay for these things taxes Americans twice for the same thing.

People are taxed by their states to pay for these services and then their federal tax dollars are used to pay for the same services, often because of mismanagement at the state level.

It is up to the states to decide if they can afford to pay for the same level of services or if they will have to be scaled back. The states need to decide whether or not to raise taxes to pay for these things. It is not the responsibility of the federal government and our tax dollars should not be paying it.

This is Obama pushing our tax dollars to the people in the unions. Obama has the support of the teachers and many of the law enforcement and firefighting unions (whether the individual members support him or not) and he wants to ensure he has their votes so he will pay for them with OUR money.

Obama already signed one stimulus into law and that stimulus provided for teachers and for law enforcement.

• $4 billion for state and local law enforcement agencies
• $44.5 billion in aid to local school districts to prevent layoffs and cutbacks, with flexibility to use the funds for school modernization and repair (State Equalization Fund)

Wikipedia

Read the Wiki article and see how much money the stimulus funneled to things that will not, in any way shape or form, stimulate the economy. The total education package was over 90 BILLION dollars.

Obama spent 48.5 BILLION dollars for teachers and law enforcement and now he wants 50 BILLION dollars more. If the stimulus worked as sold then these entities would not need additional money, if we were to accept that the federal government should be paying for them at all.

The stimulus is not stimulating and it is a failure. Obama wants more money to throw at his supporters in the unions at the expense of the taxpayers and our national sovereignty. How much more debt will we accrue before we are totally owned by another country?

It is not the job of the federal government to pay for the salaries of people working for the individual states. The states are solely responsible for these salaries and if they cannot afford them then they need to make the same tough decisions that plenty of private companies have made and lay off employees.

Obama is trying to use OUR money to pay off the unions and to pander for their votes. We should not be paying for these things and it is criminal that we paid for them with the first stimulus.

Let us not keep making the same mistakes by continuing to throw good money after bad on an economic folly.

Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: failure, firefighter, mini stimulus, Obama, payoffs, police, stimulus, teacher, unions, vote buying

Proof Stimulus Is A Failure

Jun 11, 2010 Political

Barack Obama is putting pressure on Congress to pass a 30 BILLION dollar package designed to jump start job creation. Obama’s administration has lost millions of jobs (net) despite the bogus “saved job” category used to deceive people into thinking that taxpayer money has saved jobs and without it unemployment would be higher.

President Obama Friday repeated his call for Congress to pass a $30 billion package to foster hiring and help tackle painfully high levels of unemployment.

“I’m hopeful the House will pass these measures next week and that the Senate will follow as soon as possible—with support from both Democrats and Republicans,” Obama said in remarks delivered in the White House Rose Garden. CNBC

Obama passed a 787 BILLION dollar stimulus package that was supposed to keep unemployment below 8% and was supposed to jump start job creation. Obama said the number one goal of his economic plan was to create 3 million jobs in the next two years (MSNBC 16 Jan 2009).

The stimulus was touted as a job creator and was needed to keep unemployment from rising. Unemployment has been stagnate at just under 10% for most of the time since the stimulus was passed.

When things kept going bad the regime told us that things were worse than they thought or that no one knew how bad it was. We were then told that this was a slow process and that the stimulus needed time to work. But we are not on the track that was spelled out in his economic report. We are well behind what they predicted.

When this has been pointed out the Obama apologists tell us that the stimulus will take time and was never intended to work quickly (despite the initial claims and the report). The Obama regime told us that it would take at least until the end of 2010 before we saw improving jobs results.

Well which is it?

In either case, Obama’s request for more money to stimulate jobs is an indication that the stimulus is a failure.

If it was supposed to work more quickly, as was initially reported, then the 30 billion dollar request is an admission that it did not work as sold.

If it was anticipated that the job growth would be slower and that we would not see results until the end of 2010 at the earliest then why ask for more money now? Let’s wait to see if it works as stated when the time frame was revamped before we throw more money into the black hole.

The fact that Obama is asking for more money now is an indication that he does not believe that his stimulus will work. He knows that things will not get better as a result of his plans and he wants to appear as if he is doing all that he can because it is an election year and he knows that his party stands to get trounced.

The request for this money to stimulate jobs is an admission by Obama that his stimulus did not work as planned and that he does not expect it to work as planned.

It is a political move to throw good money (if the US actually has any good money) after bad during an election year.

The stimulus is a very expensive failure.

How many times will Obama go to the well before people begin to see this?

Related:
Retail Sales Slump

Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: failure, jobs, Obama, stimulus, unemployment