Archive for the ‘Economy’ Category

Things That Count As Creating Or Saving A Job

Sunday, November 1st, 2009

Three of these were actually counted on the government’s report of the number of jobs “created or saved” by the stimulus package.

The rest might as well be.


“Before/After - no more wallowing in freakish misery.”

* Getting Nancy Pelosi the reconstructive surgery needed to stop people from describing her face as “had a swordfight ‘To The Pain‘ and lost”.

* Hiring people to fill out the government paperwork on how many jobs you created with your stimulus money

* Hitting on college freshmen (just the hot chicks).

* Buying cars for a Driver’s Ed class.

* Giving the baby-sitter a raise.

* Putting even MORE chocolate chips in Chips Ahoy! cookies.

* Requiring road construction projects to employ both primary and back-up “shovel leanin’ guys”.

* Shopping cart repair for homeless people.

* Lawnmower drag race pit crew.

* Re-felting old muppets.

* Upgrading the nation’s energy grid to allow it to receive power directly from the Energizer Bunny.


Feel free to chime in with the fruits of your own research, as commenting on IMAO counts as creating or saving a job.

1 Star (Bad)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (12 votes, average: 4.83 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Job losses

Friday, September 4th, 2009

The job numbers for August are out. And they don’t look good.

Unemployment is now at 9.7% — the highest it’s been since 1983.

The “underemployment rate” — the unemployed rate plus part-time workers who prefer a full-time position plus people who want work but have given up looking for a job — is at 16.8 percent, a record.

What does all this mean?

Obviously, nearly 1 in 10 Americans are out of work. But what else does it mean?

It means that the wrong people are losing their jobs.

We need to fire some elected officials. I’m thinking the entire Obama administration would be a good place to start. But then, I said don’t hire those rascals to begin with. But did America listen to me? No. 52% of American voters went and did something stupid.

Oh, sure. They were frustrated. They didn’t like how things were. But not putting any thought into a solution is a bad solution.

So, we have unemployment near 10%.

I think we ought to give Congress a 10% unemployment rate. That would mean 10 Senators losing their jobs. And 43 or 44 Representatives being sent packing.

Some say to throw them all out. But, as a Representative said yesterday, there are downsides to doing that. Remember, that’s basically what happened to put Obama in office: a desire to get rid of who was there. They seemed to forget that Bush wasn’t running for a third term. Stupid Obama voters.

So, which 10% of Congress should be unemployed?

Oh, I have some ideas.

Senators who are up for reelection in 2010:
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA)
Dodd, Christopher J. (D-CT)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Schumer, Charles E. (D-NY)
Specter, Arlen (D-PA)
Leahy, Patrick J. (D-VT)
Lincoln, Blanche L. (D-AR)

Representatives:
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
Barney Frank (D-MA)
Steve Cohen (D-TN)
Corrine Brown (D-FL)
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL)
Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)
Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Charles Rangel (D-NY)
Jim Moran (D-VA)
…Oh heck, I could go on and on with Representatives. But I’d start with this group.

If 10% of Congress lost their jobs … the most useless 10% … then unemployment might not be a bad thing after all.

Imagine this group having to work for a living. Or even trying to find a job.

1 Star (Bad)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (26 votes, average: 4.81 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Not Sure How This Helps

Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009

Somewhere back when That One was suckering people for their votes, he mocked McCain’s proposed summer gas tax holiday because it would only save “about 25, 30 dollars“.

“Tax breaks for mind-bogglingly wealthy Ultra-Yuppies?”

Now that he’s President, he’s offering a National Park Fee holiday, where - on three select weekends this summer - you won’t have to pay to get into any National Park.

Fees range from $3 to $25.

Now, I hate slipping the government even the thinnest of dimes for anything, so I’m all for ANY instance of not having to render unto Caeser. However, I’d like to point out that this program is utterly useless, other than as a political publicity stunt.

I’ll explain.

It’s like those schemes to punish oil companies for high gas prices by not buying gas on some particular day. People don’t actually use less gasoline, they simply shift the date of purchase to a day earlier or later than normal. The same amount of gasoline is sold either way, so oil companies don’t lose any money.

In this case, nobody’s going to make a special trip to a National Park on “no fee” day. All that will happen is that some people who were going to visit National Parks this summer anyway (mostly tree-hugging, Obama-voting liberals who only like nature when somebody else pays for its upkeep) are going to re-schedule their visits for the free weekends. Total visitorship won’t increase. Tourism won’t increase. And the government will go deeper into debt because it still has to pay National Park staff the same wages whether it collects fees or not.

So what he SHOULD do is permanently double the fees on all National Parks.

Why?

Because going to a park is a choice, just like smoking, and he raised taxes on that, even though it disproportionately affects the po’ folks who vote for him.

Also because park-goers are a HUGE burden on our health care system. They get lost, need rescuing, starve, dehydrate, break legs, get eaten by bears, and get itchy bums while being naughty in the poison ivy.

I think it’s about time they paid their fair share.

1 Star (Bad)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (18 votes, average: 4.89 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Obama Is Taking Your Questions!

Wednesday, March 25th, 2009

The White House web site has a new page called “Open for Questions“, where citizens are encouraged to submit their questions on the economy. On Thursday, Obama will answer all the ones that make him look good, like “The economy is so much better now that you’re president. Why are you so awesome, and how can we best praise you? Would a large, golden idol be appropriate?”

Personally, I’d go a little less softball. Here are some of mine:


“That’s a tough question… let me have my staff dig up some dirt on you to release to the media, and I’ll get back to you on that.”

* You say America needs jobs, green energy, and cheap health care, yet all you’ve done is “invest” trillions in financial institutions that are too stupid to earn a profit. Isn’t this like promising to buy your daughter a pony, then going out and buying yourself a Mustang?

* Could we maybe take your $3.5 trillion budget to Vegas and play blackjack with it? Statistically, we should still have $3.4 trillion left afterwards, which is better odds than we’re getting from you.

* You’re planning to lower the deduction on charitable giving. Are you also planning to spank your children when they share their toys?

* When asked why it took you so long to express outrage over the AIG bonuses, you said “because I like to know what I’m talking about before I speak.” Didn’t you actually mean to say “my teleprompter was broken”?

* A two-part question: In your speech on the economy, you said “there are no silver bullets”. If that’s true, then - first - how will America defend itself from a werewolf invasion, and - second - have you considered asking the Lone Ranger for assistance?

* You criticized AIG executives for “enriching themselves on the taxpayers’ dime”, calling it “inexcusable”. Does this standard apply to your $500,000 book deal? Or is your book deal OK because it was done before you assumed the Presidency? And does this make the AIG bonuses OK, because they were set up before they accepted the bailout?

* You said we “can’t afford to demonize every investor or entrepreneur who seeks to make a profit”. Does that mean you have a list of people that you CAN afford to demonize? Does that list consist of the names of people who submit unflattering questions to the Open For Questions web site?

* Senator Benjamin Cardin has proposed a measure to help newspapers that are struggling to stay afloat by allowing them to reorganize as non-profit entities. If you support this measure, would you support a similar measure for bloggers? I mean, I sit around all day making stuff up, and I’m not making any money at it, either.

* If Treasury Secretary Geithner is fired or resigns, who will replace him. Are there any Democrat tax cheats left in Washington who aren’t already part of your administration?

* Although you expressed outrage over the AIG bonuses, you don’t seem too upset about the millions in Fannie Mae bonuses. Are you saying that it’s OK to use bailout money for bonuses as long as your company name sounds like a character from the Beverly Hillbillies?


Anything YOU want to ask That One?

1 Star (Bad)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (46 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Other Link of the Day

Tuesday, March 24th, 2009

Hart of ThatHero.com sums up the economy with a very simple graph:

Further discussion available here.

1 Star (Bad)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (10 votes, average: 4.9 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

If He Can Say This With A Straight Face, Maybe He Deserves To Be President

Sunday, March 22nd, 2009

Barack Obama said this:

“we’ve actually been operating in a way that has been entirely consistent with free-market principles”

Which I found odd, because things have really been more like this:


[Hat tip: VW Bug]

1 Star (Bad)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (39 votes, average: 4.97 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Quote of the Day

Friday, March 20th, 2009

From XKCD, on the MSM’s faux outrage over $165 million in bonuses coming out of a 175 BILLION dollar bailout:

The difference between a million and a billion is the difference between a sip of wine and 30 seconds with your daughter and a bottle of gin and a night with her.

1 Star (Bad)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (12 votes, average: 4.42 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

They got their wish

Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009

Remember the recent presidential election?

Sure you do. It was in all the papers.

Anyway, there was talk about how bad the economy was, and that putting a Democrat in office — even a raving socialist like Obama — would bring back the Clinton economy. Remember that?

Well, guess what? It’s happened.

The Dow closed this afternoon at 6725.02. It hasn’t closed that low since April 21st, 1997, when it closed at 6660.21.

That’s when Clinton was president.

At this rate, we’ll soon be a prosperous as we were during the Roosevelt administration, where the Dow peaked at 194.40, on March 10, 1937.

Ah, the good old days.

1 Star (Bad)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (29 votes, average: 4.93 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...