Search This Blog

Thursday, May 17, 2012

The Economy and 'Stimulus'

Yesterday I saw some report up on Politico claiming that Democratic presidents had seen much more job growth with higher taxes than Republicans ever did with low taxes. Considering there are books upon well-researched books clearly showing the opposite, I took this as yet another desparate attempt by the left to take credit for jobs that they had nothing to do with. Take Wisconsin right now: Walker's fixes to the Wisconsin state budget has taxes down, business up, and jobs up. One of the only places in the country like that right now. And can Obama claim credit for that? He'll try, but they're not his successes to claim.

Rush Limbaugh talked about the same thing yesterday. He has up three devastating charts showing that the economy is the opposite of roaring back. The first is a comparison of real GDP between Reagan (tax cuts) and Obama (wasteful government spending), and Reagan's real GDP level is over twice Obama's. The second is the raw total of employed people in America over the past three years. It looks like after the 2009 recession, the jobs came back briefly but they're dying down now to the same low level seen at the worst of 2009. This isn't percentages, here, this is total number of working people. Don't forget that the percentage doesn't directly show there aren't as many jobs to be had, or that many people have given up looking for work. The third chart shows the Civilian Employment to Population Ratio from the US Department of Labor. It flatlines from 63% in 2008 to just between 58% and 59% ever since 2009. There is no recovery. Unless you're a lying Democrat hoping for reelection. I'm calling you out, Obama!

Relatedly, Ann Coulter takes on the public sector 'sacrificial scam.' Basically, public sector employees, far from earning less than private counterparts, are guaranteed so much more in benefits than the private sector that they're compounding the fiscal problems on the federal level, state levels, and local levels. Where's all the talk about 'paying your fair share' now, liberals? I really don't understand why the public sector doesn't want to be part of the solution to our fiscal problems (a la Walker) since they wouldn't get paid once government is flat broke anyway. Maybe they're naive enough to think that could never happen. At least the voters of Wisconsin aren't that naive.
Here's what Rush said yesterday about the scam of Obama's stimulus money intended to help people underwater with their mortgages, as it relates to unions (you could get more of it here):
So, as far as anybody's concerned, people who've been improperly foreclosed on are gonna get help, and that's the last anybody's heard about it, until today, when we find out that in the case of the bank shakedown, the money is going to unions. And nobody ever knows. So Obama gets credit publicly for compassion and wanting to help people out who have fallen on hard times, and all he's doing is creating slush fund after slush fund that's going to his union people. Now, don't forget the circuitous route this money takes. A great percentage of the money given to unions ends up back with the Democrat Party. It's one of the cleverest money laundering schemes I've ever seen.

It finally became clear to me during this brouhaha in the state of Wisconsin. It's been going on for a long time. I just never figured it out. But what happens is this. Obama comes up with a program to help the disadvantaged or the downtrodden or whatever, announces the plan, the money goes to state agencies to distribute, it goes to public sector unions, who do what? They stay employed. The whole point is to make sure that in this dire, down economy union people don't get laid off. Public sector union people primarily, but private sector as well. And the reason Obama doesn't want those people fired is because they pay dues on their salaries.

So the money leaves Washington, it ends up keeping union people employed. They pay dues on the money that their salaries are coming from, and that dues money then ends up as contributions to the Democrat Party. It's a way for Obama to raid the Treasury and have the money take a circuitous route and end up back in his coffers or the party's coffers, laundered through the unions under the guise of bailing out people who have been foreclosed on in this case. That's how it works. Yeah, there's an ideological tie to the unions. I mean socialists hang together.
Apparently even the NYT has figured it out now. Not that they're calling the stimulus sham "money laundering," but that doesn't change the fact that it is money laundering.
And what does Mitt Romney plan to do to remedy the situation we find ourselves in with over $15T in debt, a downgrade, and a poor economy? He granted an interview with National Review Online answering those very questions. He has a plan to get us out of it, and knows what he's talking about. That's better than Obama!

No comments:

Post a Comment