Thursday, February 11, 2010

Why Is ObamaFRAUD Admin Clueless About Jobs?

The American people are realizing that Obama and his cohorts either have to be totally clueless about job creation, or they are guilty of purposely trying to destroy our economy. Maybe it's a bit of both??

Perhaps the following chart may explain the reason why Obama and his inexperienced "advisors" think that throwing taxpayer money at a problem is a wise thing to do. In actuality, they don't KNOW WHAT TO DO! Their lack of experience on this issue is hopelessly obvious and clearly seen by most thinking individuals. The ObamaBORG Bots can't get the job creation train out of the station!


Here’s something to ponder.

Cabinet Members

On a recent Glenn Beck Show, he had a graph that illustrated the percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet. You know what the private business sector is ... a real life business, not a government job.

Here are the percentages discussed by Mr. Beck:

T. Roosevelt ........ 38%
Taft ..................... 40%
Wilson ................. 52%
Harding ................ 49%
Coolidge ............... 48%
Hoover ................ 42%
F. Roosevelt ........ 50%
Truman ................ 50%
Eisenhower .......... 57%
Kennedy ............... 30%
Johnson ................47%
Nixon .................... 53%
Ford .................... 42%
Carter ................. 32%
Reagan ................ 56%
GH Bush .............. 51%
Clinton .................. 39%
GW Bush ............. 55%

And the winner of the Chicken Dinner is ..............

Obama ................ 8% !!!

How can the president of a major nation and society - the one with the most successful economic system in world history - stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one? Or about jobs when he has never really had one? And neither has 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers! They've spent most of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit jobs .... or as "community organizers" ... when they should have been in an employment line.--


Hat Tip:

My wonderful hubby via email!

P.S. Here's a link to the conversation where I first posted this chart:

Two Inspiring American Lives (see comment section)

23 comments:

Kevin said...

Hi Christine,
Thanks to Palin and her views, the whole idea of a community organizer has gotten a bad name. In reality, they should be thanked a million times over. Community organizers try to make life easier for the people who have little say in their government. Why are you (and Palin) so against this idea of helping poor people? What do you think community organizers do?

Did Mr. Beck state how he came up with these numbers? I would be interested in seeing his sources.

Kevin said...

Hi Christine,
And you seem to misunderstand what it means to be working in a university. That is part of the employment line! If you don't think that the university system is part of a business, then you haven't been keeping up with the state of the universities. We are productive members of society and it is because of people who teach in universities that people can then go on to work in business. And why is it you don't think a government job is part of the employment line?

Gary Baker said...

Christine,

Our current Prez represents the worst aspects of the liberal academic. He's made a career out of pointing out what's wrong, but has never actually been in a position where he is held responsible for making things actually work. I think that's why a lot of liberals stay in academia. They can spout all of their theories as though they actually work but never have to put them to any practical tests. Many of them either would not make it the private sector, or would find a shocking adjustment to their standard of living. On the other hand, they might also come to appreciate people who actually make things that people need and want, and the effort that goes into them. They might also come to realize that the real world of cause and effect bears very little resemblance to the one their professors spout.

Considering their disdain for reality,and cause and effect, it is little wonder that they gravitate toward fields that avoid metrics and accountability. Their arguments tend to go the same way. Kevin asks me to show evidence for my opinion on climate change, knowing (at least he should know) that if you can't even show that climate change is actually being affected, you can't proof that something is not affecting it. It's the same way with Obama's "2 million jobs created or saved" and "without the stimulus things would be so much worse." They put the most passion behind things that can't be proven, all the while claiming that "science" is on their side.

I think my favorite lately is Kevin's repeated assertions that Bush trashed the economy. Ask for a cause and effect reason and you get silence. On the other hand, show video of McCain from 2006 stating that Fannie and Freddie are in trouble, followed by Barnie Frank saying everything is fine, and you just get a blank stare. And that's probably the worst part of all: There firm conviction that it couldn't be liberals or liberalism that's the problem.

It should be interesting to see how they respond over the next few years. America is sinking (liberal states fastest, of course), but liberal Europe is sinking faster. Greece is getting bailed out, but other countries are waiting in the wings to line up for their own bailouts. I wonder who they'll find to blame now that they are all socialists over there. Probably Bush.

Gary Baker said...

Hi Kevin,

I think you have it mixed up. It's thanks to Obama that community organizers have gotten a bad name. Especially when he advocates for groups like ACORN that seem well acquainted with illegal tactics. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, however. Can you reference any positive accomplishments that Obama did as a community organizer? Any concrete examples of how he actually made someone's life better? I mean I know that he made his own life better, but I mean the people he was nominally helping.

"Why are you (and Palin) so against this idea of helping poor people?"

This goes back to what I was alluding to in previous posts: You are so convinced that anyone who disagrees with your methods must be evil regardless of the outcome. It's because conservatives want to help the poor that we oppose most of your methods. Union operations cost jobs. Every time the minimum wage goes up, that costs jobs. All of the minimum coverages that liberals insist on for medical insurance raise the price of coverage so much that people can't afford the coverage they really need. I remember when the idea of mandating employer required health coverage came out from Hillary quite a while ago. She was told that a lot of employers couldn't afford it. Her response was if they couldn't afford it they shouldn't be in business. That's exactly what she got, too.

If Obama and his administration really wanted to help the poor, they would do everything they could to make it cheaper and easier for businesses to start up and create jobs. Instead, they are still promising new taxes, more regulations, and the constant threat of added expenses. During his campaign, he repeatedly brought up how he would tax some businesses more and likely put others out of business.

Which part of that was supposed to help the poor, increase employment, or spur the economy?

Gary Baker said...

"We are productive members of society and it is because of people who teach in universities that people can then go on to work in business."

Some are, and some teach women's studies and black studies and minority studies. Some think every student that goes to U. of Delaware should be either forced to admit that they are part of a repressed minority or confess their majority guilt. Some sign letters condemning Lacrosse teams and calling for their expulsion before any investigation is even conducted. Some incite students to steal school newspapers because they don't follow the liberal line and trample crosses put out to memorialize people who were killed in utero. Some are there to make sure that diversity trumps merit, and PC trumps free speech.

In short, some are not there to teach, but to indoctrinate and reshape society as they would have it. They claim that tolerance is their goal but their entire history is one of silencing dissent. They claim to honor science, yet are seldom even able to establish a simple-cause effect relationship, substituting slogans for evidence. They contribute nothing, and cost many their rights to speech, to assembly, to due process. And there are so many of them in academia that the administrations make no distinctions between the ones who actually do contribute and those who do not.

People who are part of the "employment line" are expected to produce a quality product. In the university, and in public schools for that matter, expect to get paid whether they produce or not. In fact, the standard operating procedure for public schools in the past has been the worse they are, the more money the demanded for improvement. They got the money (spending for education has doubled since the seventies when corrected for inflation). The improvement never materialized. Teacher's unions made sure it never had to.

If you want respect as a productive member of society, start cleaning your own house. I know a lot of good teachers. I'm proud to have them as friends. But until you're ready to dump the bad apples and stand up for real, measurable reform, you will get little respect. And you will deserve even less.

Gary Baker said...

Another reason why I hate unions - They use the government to force money from workers whether they want representation or not. (What a bunch of dictators.)

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/12/a-less-perfect-union/

Kevin said...

Hi Gary,
So do you have anything new to say? You should thank your lucky stars for academics--I assume you went to college?
You seem to be 'all-knowing' about me. I find that very interesting. You may not believe this (and it doesn't matter if you don't) but I actually had a job 'in the employment line' before deciding to dedicate 6 years studying your religion. And I worked my way through college. Know anyone who has a cochlear implant? Know anyone who has Alzheimers or Parkinson's Disease? I worked my arse off for ten years trying to make the lives of these people better. But you don't really want to know this about me because you think all I am is a useless liberal academic!

Why is it that you keep stating that Obama never had an 'employment line job' but you have never mentioned GW Bush and his job history? Sure, he worked for his dad's oil company (meaning he was given the job and didn't earn it) and then he ended up running a baseball team, but what kinds of jobs were those? What exactly did he produce? Give me a break! I would rather have a community organizer president who actually helps people than someone who ran a baseball team.

You state "In the university, and in public schools for that matter, expect to get paid whether they produce or not." That is absolutely ridiculous! Clearly you don't know what it means to teach at a university.

" Every time the minimum wage goes up, that costs jobs." Source for that little tidbit? That is usually the statement that Republicans give to the public but they are never able to prove that is the case. We see things totally opposite. I think people should be paid a wage they need to live on. When I went to school for my first Bachelors Degree, minimum wage was 3.25 an hour (I know because I was lucky enough to find a job that paid 3.75). The federal minimum wage is now 7.25 an hour. It hasn't gone up that much in 25 years! I don't see how anyone can complain that minimum wage is too high! Could YOU live on 7.25 an hour??? I doubt it. And most people who work at minimum wage jobs do not get any health benefits. That makes it twice as bad.

Kevin said...

Hi Gary,
(continued)
About the so-called silence: every time I give you a reason, you jump to another topic and pretend I never answer. That is your own problem, not mine. About Bush wrecking the economy: I seem to remember a budget surplus during the time of President Clinton. How much of a surplus was left when President Bush left office??? Maybe answer that you and you will see what I am getting at. In case you weren't paying attention, in 2000 the federal budget surplus was 230 Billion, and the year before was about 123 Billion. In 1998 it was 69 billion. When Clinton took office, there was a deficit of 290 Billion (and who were the two presidents before him???). What was the surplus when Bush left office? And once you answer that, please tell me who wrecked the economy?

"You are so convinced that anyone who disagrees with your methods must be evil regardless of the outcome." Please show me where I stated that? I think you are confusing my comment about a tyrant with someone else.

Why do you have a problem with women's studies and black studies? Since you aren't a historian, I will tell you that we didn't know too much about women in the ancient world because men were the historians. When women started going to college, they naturally became interested in their own history. Now we know much more about women in history than we did before. You clearly don't like that, and I am not surprised. I don't know if you not liking that is related to women going to college in general (I hope not), but one led to the next. The same with Black Studies.

" It's thanks to Obama that community organizers have gotten a bad name." No Gary. Palin in her folksy speech made fun of him and what he did. Now every anti-Obama person spouts the same thing, even though they have no clue what he did or what a community organizer did. Palin sat in her plush office in Alaska and did exactly what for the people of Alaska? All they got for voting for her is that she quit half way through to make a couple of million on a book.
For you, community organizers are like unions. Even if 200 years ago a union offered you a job at 8 hours a day, and a safe job that meant not doing the same, back-breaking motions for 15 hours a day, and a job that you could make enough money for you and your family to live on, you would turn them down. But that is your choice. I don't always agree with what unions do (as I have already pointed out) but at least I know what part unions played in this country and in Europe and I know that what they do today is also good. If you don't like them, try putting a ballot measure up that outlaws the unions. Let the people decide since it apparently is majority rules.

Christinewjc said...

If I may jump into the conversation?

I'm sure that Gary will have more complete information about unions, but what I know about them shows that they were once a good thing for workers, but when they became too powerful, the union bosses became very dictator-like.

Kevin, I read Sarah Palin's book and the way you describe her is 180 degrees from the reality of her life, her work, and what she accomplished for Alaska. Please go read the book and educate yourself about her before you go spouting off nonsense and the usual progressive talking points gibberish.

Obama's "community organizing" days and the Chicago thugs he hung around helped lead to the corruption of ACORN (read up about the "ACORN 8"). The thugocracy of SEIU was extremely evident during the election and corruptocrat leader Andy Stern has become a household name since Glenn Beck exposed who he is, what he is all about, and how Obama "listens" to this dangerous individual.

No matter how you try to legitimize "community organizing," the Alinsky Rules for Radicals book exposes just what they are REALLY all about - and it's not good for our country.

Christinewjc said...

Also see:

Obama's 2011 Budget Allocates $4 Billion for ACORN

Christinewjc said...

And this:

The Steady Drip: How to Create a Crisis and Steal a Nation

That post has it all! The Manufactured Crisis to get Obama elected, the Cloward Piven Strategy used, and the Alinsky Rules for Radicals "community organizing" evil tactics used by the likes of ACORN.

Dirty stuff....to say the least!

Gary Baker said...

"Sure, he worked for his dad's oil company (meaning he was given the job and didn't earn it) and then he ended up running a baseball team, but what kinds of jobs were those? What exactly did he produce?"

Oil for gasoline, machinery, you know the stuff that actually produces jobs, valuable services, etc.

"I worked my arse off for ten years trying to make the lives of these people better."

I truly salute you for that work. You were doing something that actually helped people and was a valuable service.

"I would rather have a community organizer president who actually helps people than someone who ran a baseball team."

Please show what he actually accomplished that helped anyone. I know he was a big force behind the corrupt ACORN operation and he managed to get enough contacts to get a sweetheart mortgage deal in Chicago, but actually accomplishing something?

"That is absolutely ridiculous! Clearly you don't know what it means to teach at a university."

I know that if tenure has been granted it just about takes dynamite to blast them out. I know that many professors teach things such as women's studies, minorities studies, etc., which contribute nothing useful to a resume on full salary. I know they can work politically to deny students due process and it won't affect their academic careers. (See Duke Lacrosse incident.)

I know that right now in California, thanks to the unions, thousands of public school teachers are sitting seven hours a day in rooms, reading magazines, working on novels, running businesses, on full pay. I know they can do this for years, sometimes right up retirement.

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-me-teachers6-2009may06,0,6604006.story?track=rss

Gary Baker said...

"" Every time the minimum wage goes up, that costs jobs." Source for that little tidbit?"

I could, and you could source views to the contrary. So how about a little reason and common sense? I can tell you how the minimum wage costs jobs. Can you tell me how it increases jobs?

Here's how it costs jobs: In every labor market, there are businesses at the margins. These are the people that are just making enough profit to live on and keep their business going. Generally, they don't have a lot of assets. Most of their cost is labor. They have it balanced so that they can handle economic cycles and keep going, but a serious shock will put them out. Enter an increased minimum wage. Labor cost has just gone up. Profit hasn't gone up. Productivity hasn't gone up. All the sudden though they have more expenses and nothing else. They can't absorb the cost or they go under. They can't pass the cost off to the customer. They are already at the margin. So they either cut labor cost (jobs) and do with less or fail.

Scenario two - I am a little business owner (and I do run a side business). I would like to hire some help, maybe give some teenagers some work experience to help them later in life, but I can't afford 7.25 an hour. I can afford ten hours a week at 4.00 an hour, and even then I'd be taking a small loss, but one I could handle. I even know some teens who would love that kind of experience at that price. The law says no. No jobs for you.

In all your talk about living wage, you make the assumption that the purpose of a job is to support the worker. It isn't. The purpose of a job is to fill a need in the labor market. The worker can decide if he wants it or not. Some workers would love to have a job that would give them experience, young people would like training and walking around money, but now the businesses know that there is no way they can get enough productivity out of them to make it worthwhile. What are the unemployment statistics for young workers now as compared to a few decades ago?

That's how raising the minimum wage looses jobs. Now why don't you explain how the opposite is true.

Gary Baker said...

"About the so-called silence: every time I give you a reason, you jump to another topic and pretend I never answer."

Show some examples please?

Here's a challenge for you: Pick a topic. Define what you are actually arguing. We can agree on the terms and then have an in-depth discussion sticking strictly to the subject. Let the readers decide who strays.

""You are so convinced that anyone who disagrees with your methods must be evil regardless of the outcome." Please show me where I stated that? "

Let's take a look over at your blog, shall we. I see some nice choice comments about the Governor of Rhode Island, your continuous assertions that everyone who is for traditional marriage is anti-gay, your most recent assertions above that Palin and Christine are against helping the poor, your mocking of the Christians who were against the signing of the hate crimes bill because it was an assault on freedom of speech and religion (BTW - The mayor of Lancaster California is being investigated under a complaint from that law for religious comments. Did you know that, Kevin?)

Your comments toward those who disagree with you are not couched in disagreement of policies. They are not people with differences of opinion. They are anti-gay, anti-poor, etc. It seems to me that you think they are evil. That is the message your writing conveys.

Gary Baker said...

"Why do you have a problem with women's studies and black studies?"

By their very nature (title) they are divisive and exclusionary. I have attended one or two such courses. They do little to promote understanding, and from the articles I read often have the opposite effect, promoting turmoil and disunity among the races and genders.

"Palin sat in her plush office in Alaska and did exactly what for the people of Alaska?"

Well, for starters she fired the government chef, stating that she could cook for her family. More listed here:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Sarah-Palins-Accomplishments

and here:

http://rightviewfromtheleftcoast.blogspot.com/2008/10/gov-palins-accomplishments.html

and here:

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080907/FEATURES05/809070306/1014/FEATURES05

Accomplishments of politicians are often mixed, but between business accomplishments and ethics reforms, I would opine that the people of Alaska are better for having elected her.

Gary Baker said...

"I know that what they do today is also good."

Tell that to the educators in CA who have to join whether they want to or not, or the child care independent workers who will lose part of their subsidies to unions and get no benefit or choice. Tell that to the secured creditors in GM who got squat while Obama paid off the union cronies. Tell it to the elderly people who got pushed against a wall by SEIU workers at townhall meetings. Tell it to the parents of millions of students who can't get school choice for their students who are stuck in failing schools and are losing their best years for learning because unions resist choice.

Yeah, I'll fight them at the ballot, but between the money the throw at the politicians (much taken from workers against their will, the poor you claim to care so much about) I'll lose. And the poor will lose. Because of the unions and people like you.

Gary Baker said...

Now, on to Bush and the economy. Your list of deficits clearly shows that they went down after Clinton took office and started going up after Bush. Your conclusion however, that Bush wrecked the economy, makes use of one of the basic logical fallacies: After the fact, therefore because of the fact. I'm still waiting for the "cause-effect" chain that establishes why Bush is to blame. And while you are working to establish it (or not) you might want to consider a few things:

A lot of the low deficits that Clinton ran were the result of capital gains revenue provided by the dot.com boom, an increase in wealth that turned out to be largely illusion. They taxed people for selling stock that was based on large overestimation of the actual value because that what it sold at. When the market corrected, so did the tax revenue.

A lot of non-dot.com businesses were also in much worse shape than believed. Much of this trouble was discovered in the Bush administration, and tax revenues and business decreased, but it's not as though the bad practices started on his watch. He was there when the blame came due. Some might claim that the atmosphere Clinton encouraged (integrity doesn't matter as long as the economy looks good) might have had a good deal to do with this. History will judge.

The terrorist attack of 9/11 was a major blow to the financial sector, the airlines, and called for a major restructuring of the security system. Clinton had devoted much of his watch to cutting security and reducing assets on the ground, as well making little effort to pursue terrorism as a mounting problem.

It is very easy to point to single numbers and say that Bush was bad. That doesn't make it so. Give specific examples: What did he do that was bad for business. I have already pointed out numerous things that Obama has done to reduce business and you have either ignored them or applauded them. Make the case if you can.

Gary Baker said...

On the other hand, if you really want an analysis of "who wrecked the economy" using your criteria, I would have to say that it was Obama. He's projecting trillion plus deficits are far as the eye can see.

Gary Baker said...

Another little tidbit for Kevin:

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/003893.html

The link shows a graph from a paper charting localized CO2 levels in a northern hemisphere castle over the past 200 years. Two things show up:

1. There were often spikes of higher CO2 levels than seen during modern times.

2. There were often spikes of lower than modern CO2 levels.

Despite this, the world did not end, the levels cycled regardless of technology, and the climate didn't necessarily track the cycles. Which leaves the climate change crowd with the same problem: They establish CO2 as a cause with no direct link to the effect.

And here's another one:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB119880525309554481.html

This one talks about levels where CO2 levels were 16 times higher than they are today, and it wasn't during a warm period. It was during a glacial period.

Does this mean that Kevin is wrong about CO2 and global warming? Not necessarily. What it does mean, however, is that contrary to the warmist's insistence, the debate is not over, the science is not settled, and the decision to try and regulate all carbon producing industries has at least as much a political component as scientific. If someone is planning to tax and regulate the heck out of me, I think they owe me more than "This is for your own good. Trust me."

Kevin said...

Hi Gary,
I'm not sure why my comments are showing up.
Thanks for those links. I'll definitely look them up. As I said before, I fully realize that there are cooling and warming trends on the earth in the distant past.
"the debate is not over, the science is not settled, and the decision to try and regulate all carbon producing industries has at least as much a political component as scientific."--I agre with you on all points.

Gary Baker said...

Kevin,

That's a gracious message, and I appreciate it, but at the same time I still have wonder what it means. Twenty-four hours ago you seemed pretty certain that science was on your side, or you were certainly acting that way. And unless I miss my guess, you're still willing to support the government taking trillions from the economy to battle this, or at least won't use it as a sticking point.

I had two daughters that went through elementary and middle school being taught that the science on this was solid, that the debate was over. My youngest was scared about it, she was hearing so much. All of that for something that you now admit is at least as much political as scientific. Can you understand now why I'm so upset with government schools and with the unions that keep them under lock and key? This is a battle that I never should have had to fight. Science doesn't take sides, and with respect to the data scientists shouldn't either. As long as the school remains a government institution, there will never be a way to get the politics out.

Kevin said...

Hi Gary,
I do believe that science is showing what I stated. However, Bush did not accept it. He did this for political reasons (at least that is according to scientists whose research was left out), not for scientific reasons. He wanted to keep the support of conservatives, who don't accept global warming. My guess is that Obama may be pushing the global warming button because it brings in Democratic votes. That is what it means to be a politician.
The debate on this is clearly not over. However, I would rather err on the side of caution about controlling CO2 rather than waiting until the ice is melting and my yard becomes beach front property (I am about 9 feet above sea level and about 5 miles from the San Francisco Bay).
It is unfortunate that kids aren't taught about what the scientific process is--you examine, you test, and then try to figure out what is going on. Nothing in science is constant. I disagree with you slightly when you said that science doesn't take sides--I think that it naturally take sides. When you have data, you have to interpret that data. People interpret it, and people are subjective. If people disagree, they then do their own research, publish it somehow, and then others can chime in whether or not they agree. The process then starts over.

Gary Baker said...

Kevin,

"I do believe that science is showing what I stated."

I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. The creator of the infamous "hockey stick" chart admitted that there has been no statistical warming of the Earth in the last 15 years. The IPCC has admitted that it isn't a scientific organization but a policy organization and that there have been so many irregularities in it's reports that it really can't vouch for the science. A closer look at Al Gore's temp vs. CO2 graph shows that increased CO2 came after warming. Reviews of the last century show that there were several periods of hotter temperatures with much less industrialization and a lot few people. In short, there are no scientific underpinnings to speak of.

Now I fully support your right to believe what you want, but your willingness to tax and regulate based on opinion of what is best for everyone with no science to back it up goes back to that dictatorial streak we were discussing earlier. Better safe than sorry is fine if you can get agreement for the necessity, but you want to take probably trillions of dollars from the economy over the long term from people who aren't willing with no real evidence to demonstrate the necessity. That may be the description of a benevolent tyrant, but it's still tyranny.