« Where Are The Leaders? | Main | "Cold Cash" returned to private sector »

Where'd I Put My Secret Decoder Ring?

It's official. We're in a recession. The labor department announced 533,000 job losses in November alone, with the unemployment level at a 14 year high.

It ain't good.

While this is not news of a desired nature, one must put it's validity into perspective.

14 years ago, it was 1994. Bill Clinton was in office, with an adoring media fawning over how robust and powerful the "Clinton Economy" was. The average rate of unemployment for the year of 1994 was 6.1%.. Yes, 6.1%.. And the media deemed Clinton an economic wizard. Yet, until this current economic downturn, which can be directly traced to over-regulation and Democratic mismanagement, unemployment for the post 9/11 (remember that?) Bush years varied between 4.5% and 5.9%. But nary a positive word was ever spoken about that by the MSM or the all-caring Democrats.

Now, once again, as it seems to happen at the beginning or end of every decade, the economy is on the skids.

But don't worry! President-elect Obama, complete with decorative podium prop, has risen to save us all from economic ruin.

Obama says his recovery plan will "save or create" 2 million jobs. "Save or create"? What the hell does that mean? Will "saving" jobs be a new statistic? Does this mean that, despite the current trend of job losses, President Bush has "saved" the rest of the 94% employed?

The centerpiece of Obama's recovery plan is to implement a new 1939 style WPA (Works Progress Administration) program. In essence, he wants to expand government by employing 2 million people to patch up potholes.

And from where exactly will the money for these 2 million new paychecks materialize?

Us. The taxpayers. The people whose jobs have been miraculously "saved". For what is a government employee but someone who gets paid by taxpayer dollars?

Make no mistake. This is not about creating jobs. The private sector does that, and that's where the answer to our economic crisis will come. This is about creating a new 2 million person Democratic voting block for Obama's second term. Who will it be, exactly, that these new employees will vote for President: "The One" who messianically "created" their jobs, or someone who will pull the curtain back from this modern-day Wizard of Oz and cut off the flow of taxpayer money to the bloated government teat?

Couple this with the inevitable desire to give 20 million illegal aliens amnesty and the right to vote, and we may not see a Republican in the White House for a very long time.

By Shawn Mallow


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (15)

Yes, Clinton inherited a me... (Below threshold)

Yes, Clinton inherited a mess from Bush, and yes, their was a high unemployment rate when he took office. What was the rate of unemployment when he left?

Now you want to blame Clinton for this mess? He hasn't been in office for the last 7 1/2 years. And isn't it a shame that the finical mess didn't wait for a couple of months, so you could blame Obama?

Did Clinton have a recession while he was in office? I don't remember one. But I do remember Bush #41 saying "know new taxes", and boy did we ever get to know them, plus high unemployment rates.

But besides your talking, misleading BS GOP points, why isn't Bush #43 doing anything to solve this economic mess right now? He is spreading the wealth upwards, you know, wealth care for the upper 1% of people.

But when someone wants to spread that wealth to the middle income, you call it socialism, right? But please continue your rhetoric, it does make for some what interesting reading of typical GOP talking points!

He said 1994, but Clinton t... (Below threshold)

He said 1994, but Clinton took office in 1992. The numbers in Clinton's term were caused by CLINTON. I personally remember the Clinton years as the worst in my life. I held 5 jobs in those 8 years, plus aquired and recovering from Cancer.

You libs keep talking about how Clinton "created" jobs. So much BS. The Y2K issued created jobs, but only temparary ones, so we had to move from job to job. And then the economy collapsed in early 2000, still on Clinton's watch! I know, because I lost my job to that recession!

As for the current recession? Dems created it, and Bush is tired of cleaning up after them and has apparently decided to let the Dems do it for a change. Except that Obama hasn't got a clue on how to do it.

You want to fix the problems? Throw Obama, Pelosi, and Reid out on their a$$es and maybe we can get started.

More ultra rightwing thinki... (Below threshold)

More ultra rightwing thinking: "Ugh, everything bad in the US and the rest of the world democrats fault, everything good, thank you St Ronal Raegan."

Do you realize how simplistic those absurd arguments are? Nah, what am I thinking.

Shawn Mallow,shut up.... (Below threshold)
walter redd:

Shawn Mallow,shut up.

Yeah, Shawn - how DARE you ... (Below threshold)

Yeah, Shawn - how DARE you question the wizdom of Obama?

/sarc, for walter's sake.

Seriously - the United States economy runs in cycles, but the trend has been better for ALL across the last couple of centuries. A 7% unemployment rate is worrying for those who are unemployed - but as Mycroft points out the numbers HAVE been higher for Clinton, but nobody THEN was screaming gloom and doom and insisting that massive governmental jobs programs were the only way to correct it.

One thing that seems to be overlooked is that the payment for all these programs and all these bailouts is going to be coming out of OUR collective pocket. Bailouts of this industry and that industry and promises of guarantees all over the place require money - and that money is going to be coming from US.

If Obama did nothing - in three to five years the cycle would turn and things would get better. (Look at how Clinton handled the economy - he kept his hands pretty much off it.) Now Obama's planning on doing something - and in three to five years the cycle will turn and things will get better.

But the cost will be much higher, for likely the same result.

"Yet, until this current ec... (Below threshold)
Dave Noble:

"Yet, until this current economic downturn, which can be directly traced to over-regulation and Democratic mismanagement."

How about under-regulation and bipartisan mismanagement?

I think you can find a lot of smart, knowledgeable people, who assess our current economic problems objectively, who would agree with my statement.

The only ones who would agree with your's are idealogues who don't let facts get in the way of their pre-conceived notions.

"Shawn Mallow,shut up.... (Below threshold)

"Shawn Mallow,shut up.

4. Posted by walter redd"


What a witty retort to the running commentary of this thread..

You've got some wicked mad forensic skills.. How do you do it?

I'm gonna go crawl under my desk in the fetal position in hopes that you won't subject me to any more of your substantive analysis.

I'm no expert on writing, b... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

I'm no expert on writing, but beginning a post with, "Fourteen years ago, it was 1994" seems a little, umm, how shall I put this, STUPID to me.
As for me, I remember the so-called liberal media of 1994 as lionizing Newt and his Contract On America, and constantly reminding us all of how Hillary had FAILED in her bid to "socialize medicine".
If conservatives would ever get over their self-victimizing myth of the "Liberal Media", Americans might begin to take them seriously again.

The original poster makes t... (Below threshold)

The original poster makes two core statements: (1) media bias leads them to view apples and apples (comparable unemployment figures) as apples and oranges, and (2) Obama's proposed "jobs program," or what we know of it now, seems to be aimed at the 21st century version of a CCC/WPA government employment program, which will have no impact on creating long term private sector jobs, which, after all, are the real engines of economic growth and the tax base expansion. Then what do we get from the leftist trolls? They offer up distractions instead of responding to the hypotheses put forward in the post. Mostly hazy memories which conveniently forget about the tech bust in 2000 (Clinton's work) and create out of whole cloth an always reliable leftist MSM "lionizing" Newt Gingrich (wow, what a whopper) and actually reporting that Hillarycare was rejected by the American people. How about actually responding to the original post? BTW, have any of you tried your hand at Fantasy/SF writing?

Bogue: Dude, how old... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Dude, how old were you in 1994?
Nowhere did I say that Hillary-care (as you guys love to call it) was not rejected by the people. But voters, then and now, wanted SOMETHING done. The media, in 1994, cast the failure to pass health care reform as a failure by the Clintons--which it was.
If you listen to Talk Radio every day, you will hear 50 times an hour about "liberal media bias." Did it ever occur to you geniuses that these guys want you to distrust the "Mainstram Media" because they want you to trust only themselves? Just because you hear it over and freaking over on AM radio doesn't mean it's true. Why do you think that you TwentyFourPercenters are somehow able to see through this dark conspiracy while the rest of us are just sheep?
Let me make it clear: There has been no "liberal media" since the mid-1980s. If there were, Reagan would have faced impeachment for Iran-Contra, and Bill would have skated. Think hard, now, brainiacs, and try to remember: is that what happened?

Neal Boortz, a libertarian ... (Below threshold)

Neal Boortz, a libertarian talk show host who's gaining in popularity, has the following on his web page regarding what's on his show.

"Don't believe anything you read on this web page, or, for that matter, anything you hear on The Neal Boortz Show, unless it is consistent with what you already know to be true, or unless you have taken the time to research the matter to prove its accuracy to your satisfaction. This is known as "doing your homework."

Most people don't bother to check what they know to be 'true'. See Lee over on the Blue regarding Palin's 'pregnancy'. That dude puts troofers to shame re conspiracy theories...

And really, it's not like information is hard to find these days. Filtering out the gold from the garbage takes some getting used to, but it can be done fairly easily.

Why do you think that you TwentyFourPercenters are somehow able to see through this dark conspiracy while the rest of us are just sheep?

Because Democrats as a group have shown a remarkable willingness to vote for nebulous crap as long as it sounds good. It's been my experience that Democrats will promise you the sun, the moon, and the stars as long as you vote for them.

After the votes are counted, recounted, found in a warehouse and counted again, then passed through mystic divination to figure out just who the person was ACTUALLY intending to vote for, regardless of what was on the ballot - and the Democrat wins - the promise gets shelved. Nothing gets done. And the next election cycle the promise gets pulled off the shelf, dusted off, fresh batteries put in, and put to work blaring away with the same promises that the Democrats didn't work on LAST time.

They know what their constituency will tolerate. Why should they change how they do things?

And people keep voting for Democrats. Go figure.

I've listened to Boortz on ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

I've listened to Boortz on occasion. He only utters the phrase "liberal media" THIRTY times an hour instead of fifty.
Sorry, but you guys are still brainwashed. But good luck getting along in the reality-based world.

'Reality-based'? Man, you n... (Below threshold)

'Reality-based'? Man, you need to abandon that - the reality-based crowd are usually the most delusional when it comes to actually dealing with 'reality'. They seem to think demonstrations and politically correct slogans and intentions substitute for actual planning, effective action, and a desired outcome.

Be that as it may, Neal calls it like he sees it. If you have a problem with that, I'm sure the 'progressive' Congress will be glad to address it via the Fairness Doctrine.

WHO CARES IF THERE ARE NO M... (Below threshold)


OK, Now that all you folks ... (Below threshold)
Rich K:

OK, Now that all you folks are done I hope pissing on each others Ideologies can we get back to the point of what O is proposing to "Save Us All". He says he wants jobs rebuilding,revamping and restoring government buildings,roads,bridges etc. Now anyone with a clue knows that those places require bidding contracts and prevailing wage guidlines be followed. And who is in the best position to garner most of these contracts? Union shops and union workers.Union pressure at the top gets the wheels greased and WHAALAA,union guys workin and the rest of us not so lucky non union folk sucking eggs. Payback complete from O to his contributors. And this is without even considering the auto bailout they plan on us paying the check for. Im so happy!!!






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy