Obame’s Failures Continue

Update: US Has Dropped Out of 10 Most Economically Free Countries

The Obama administration continues to shackle entire sectors of the economy with regulation, including health care, finance and energy. The intervention impedes both personal freedom and national prosperity.

No surprise here… 10s of 1000 of new regulations each year, an out of control EPA, a huge federal government, endless printing of money, high unemployment, increasing energy and healthcare costs, etc. etc.


The unions received their full retirements while creditors (non-liberal ones anyway) got screwed….. as well as the taxpayers.  The problem is the need for bailouts will continue in the future.


Al Qaeda Stronger than Before

This pResident’s War on Terror, …. uh… ahem…. excuse me…. War on Man-Caused Disasters is an utter failure.  From announcing when he was pulling out of Iraq, against anyone’s sane judgement, to tying the hands of our soldiers when it comes to engagements in Afghanistan, (where there are higher incidents of death than during the Bush years) – and it’s not simply because of the “surge”, this pResident has made action in Afghanistan more political than that of Vietnam.  He has handed Libya, Egypt (thankfully the Egyptian military has stopped – no thanks to obame), Syria (fortunately obame did not get his way in removing the present government) and now Iraq to the terrorists.  His record shows that he is not interested in fighting terrorism.  He may perform for the camera but his actions say otherwise.

Update: A Nuclear Iran!

The obame administration did not learn any lessons from what Chamberlain experienced with Hitler.  Meanwhile, Debbie Wasserface Shultz get caught in lies, while trying to please her (Debbie’s) highness’ desire  when questioned by constituents about Iran, sanctions and its continued ability to work on a bomb.


Labor Participation at levels not seen since the last pRegressive pResident

But listening to the leftist talking heads we are in a recovery.  They love to site the DOW as an indicator. But any sane person knows that is due to artificial pumping of cash from the Fed.  Labor participation keeps dropping regardless of the trillions spent by this pResident.  The mindless drones will continue to utter the dumbed down talking points – “It’s Bush’s fault”, “It is the result of the tsunami, kiosks and ATMs”, “Unemployment is at 7%”, “Baby Boomers are retiring” etc. etc.

The unemployment rate uses labor participation in its calculus.  When job growth is stagnant and people are no longer participating in the labor force, they are no longer counted and the unemployment rate will drop.  The mindless drones and low information voters (they are one in the same) will continue to site the DOW and “low” unemployment, even though both numbers are based on lies.

Note: these are legitimate criticisms and by no way indicate that I hate the president because of his race.

Update: It did not take long for the mindless drones and low information voters to blame the “Baby Boomers are retiring” dumbed down talking point for the decline of the Labor Participation Rate.

The age group which has dropped out of the labor participation rate more-so than any other group is NOT the Baby Boomers.  Age group 30-59, which makes up 50% of the working population, account for labor participation rate plunge since 2007.  The same age group account for 75% of the decline in the past year! So, this pResident is directly to blame for the poor job hunting conditions that we presently experience.  Nice try, but dumbed down talking points are not valid in the sane world.


17 thoughts on “Obame’s Failures Continue

  1. Retired Spook January 10, 2014 / 12:54 pm

    There are 102 million working-age Americans who currently don’t have a job. Let that sink in for a moment. The Left loves to talk about “sustainability”, but how is that number sustainable?

    • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) January 10, 2014 / 2:56 pm

      Who is John Galt?

      Perhaps another 500,000 John Galts each month leaving the Plantation and starving the Beast? Worse than starving though, they’ve joined the multitude sucking at the government teat ~ meaning the starving host has more to feed.

      If this was the plan of the Big-brained Socialists all along then they haven’t though this through very well.

  2. mrevilwrench January 10, 2014 / 3:26 pm

    Be ashamed of yourself, you racist! Do it now! Don’t you realize the efforts the news media go to to decide what you need to know? With all the nonsense going on out there, how could a mere prole such as yourself hope to filter it out? Plus, out of their magnanimity, they tell you what to think of it! How lucky you are! And all this time you probably thought affirmative action was a bad thing. /sarc

    Been Galtin’ it for a while, here…

  3. Retired Spook January 12, 2014 / 10:24 am

    Update: It did not take long for the mindless drones and low information voters to blame the “Baby Boomers are retiring” dumbed down talking point for the decline of the Labor Participation Rate.

    Not only is that not the case, Boomers are actually working longer than previous generations.

    The new retirement “turning point.” While 76% of baby boomers intend to keep working and earning in retirement, on average they expect to “retire” from their current job/career at around age 64, and then launch into an entirely new job or career.

    • Amazona January 12, 2014 / 1:34 pm

      Spook, is it wrong of me to enjoy watching the mindless minions make such abject fools of themselves?

      Not that I intend to stop—-just curious about your take on it.

      Fair warning to watty and his/her ilk: you are now entering a Fact Zone, said warning to give you time to avoid it, as you clearly have all others.

      In 2012, in the 25-54 YO age range about 81.4 % participated in the labor force, down from 83.6% in 2002.

      In the 55 and older range, the pattern was quite different. In the broad range of 55 and older, the percentage of those participating in the labor force went from 29.7 in 2002 to 40.5 in 2012.

      But 55 is not yet Baby Boomer range, so let’s take a look a the 62-64 range, where the percentages went from 37.7 to 49.1. Or the 65-74 age range, where the percentage changed from 16.3 to 26.8. In 75-79, the change was from 6.3% to 11.4%.

      Backing up a little, the age range from 20-24 went from a 77.1% participation rate in 2002 to 70.9% in 2012.

      There are a lot of reasons for these numbers. Perhaps more and more in the 20-24 age range are not in the labor force because they are pursuing degrees in transgendered Eskimo studies, enabled by the official government line that they are, after all, still “children” and therefore entitled to be supported by the old folks (who are, as the statistics show, still working).

      But to whine that the number of those not participating in the labor force is due to the number of Baby Boomers retiring is simply more from the Loony Left, trying to distract from the harsh reality that their economic practices kill economic progress. They can, and will, blame absolutely everything and everybody for their failures, and will resolutely refuse to look at the historical patterns of failure that made this failure so inevitable. (TRAPPED in HISTORY !!!!!!!!—-still my favorite of oh-so-many insane rants from the Left)

      • Retired Spook January 12, 2014 / 2:16 pm

        Spook, is it wrong of me to enjoy watching the mindless minions make such abject fools of themselves?

        Not at all. It’s actually one of the few pleasures of life that’s still free as well as in relative abundance. Reminds me, though, of the line from “Me and Bobby McGee”: nothin’ ain’t worth nothin’, but it’s free.”

      • Amazona January 12, 2014 / 2:26 pm

        Well, I wouldn’t exactly call it “free”, given the cost to the nation and to us as individuals of having the Left in such a prominent position and so exposed to ridicule.

        BTW, thanks for the Forbes link. I found myself surfing through many links on that link, and am very impressed by the writings of Dr. Gottlieb.

        Among so many relevant statements in various articles, I found:

        “..insurance status alone doesn’t equate with access. Merely giving someone paper benefits doesn’t mean that they will be able to access the promised care…..
        In Washington, the policy focus is on expanding access to insurance, with short shrift given to the delivery side of the equation, and what insurance really affords”

        I also recommend http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/03/28/yes-health-care-is-a-right-an-individual-right/

        From this I learned: (emphasis mine)

        “…..the story of Brian Hall, of Catlett, Virginia. Brian is a 69-year-old retiree. Brian did what we’d want all retirees to do: he saved for his own health care.

        Brian’s office job allowed him to stay on private insurance after he retired. Brian’s health coverage included a high-deductible insurance plan that would take care of him if he got hit by a bus, or fell down the stairs, or suffered from a stroke. It also included a health savings account, to which Brian made annual deposits of about $4,000 a year.

        Brian collected interest on that savings account, and could use those savings to pay for routine health expenses. Unlike Deamonte Driver, Brian could use his health savings account to gain access to just about any doctor he wanted, because he was paying cash. There was only one condition: Brian could only continue to use his health savings account, and his high-deductible insurance coverage, if he did not enroll in Medicare.

        Brian was okay with that. He had saved enough over the course of his life that he preferred the plan he was on, rather than a Medicare program that was increasingly facing the same problems as Medicaid. But on January 3, 2009, when Brian turned 65, he received a phone call from the Social Security Administration, informing him that he had no choice but to enroll in Medicare, and that he could not withdraw from the program. If Brian insisted on withdrawing from Medicare, the agent told him, he would forfeit his right to his monthly Social Security benefit, a benefit that he had paid for with every paycheck he’d ever received.

        Now, think about that for a moment.

        Brian Hall is telling the government that he doesn’t want to take advantage of a government program. He’s saying, “take this taxpayer money and spend it on someone else. I’m happy to continue to pay into my private insurance plan and my private health savings account instead.” And the government responds by telling him that he has no choice but to enroll in Medicare and shut down his health savings account. If he doesn’t do what the government has told him to do, the Social Security Administration will confiscate his pension, even though his pension has no financial connection to the Medicare program.

        We longer have to look over our shoulders for Big Brother. He is here, in our faces.

      • Amazona January 13, 2014 / 6:02 pm

        On a more personal note, when we were negotiating for a new health insurance carrier for our company (and just in time—our new coverage started December 1 and today we got notice that the policy we dropped has been canceled….) I said my preference was to sign up for one of the concierge doctor plans becoming more popular, and to have a high-deductible catastrophic policy for the big stuff. And I was told “the government would not allow that”.

    • M. Noonan January 12, 2014 / 1:39 pm


      It is amazing what you can find when you actually look at the facts – I’ve heard this talking point, as well. I went back through the records and found that in 1948, 3.5 million children were born in the United States. In 1995, 3.9 million children were born. 1948 is 65 years prior to 2013, 1995 is 18 years prior to 2013 – so, at best, the in and out due to age of 2013 was a complete wash, with a bias in favor of there being a plus to the work force. In other words, there is nothing in the number of Boomers retiring which can explain the drop in the labor force in 2013, the explanation must be found elsewhere.

  4. dbschmidt January 12, 2014 / 10:13 pm

    I would have to agree this President is one of the worst Presidents we have in history but still behind (on my scale) of the likes of W. Wilson. President Obama is almost a President Jimmy Carter’s second term in real time. I would have to venture that he is the worst President because, being the smartest person ever, he is incompetent. An extreme Progressive (like Wilson, FDR and LBJ (among others) before him) anti-American piece-of-work.

    So is Obama—in Obama’s mind—a failure or not. Hard to say. America is screwed on the level of Obama not even giving us a reach around but does Obama consider himself a failure? Probably not. Doubt that the narcissist part does but any honest person must admit that his performance is a complete and utter failure.

    • Amazona January 13, 2014 / 5:53 pm

      While I agree that the efforts of Wilson, FDR and LBJ were harmful to the country, I never got the impression that any of these men were anti-American, or hated the country. I think they had a genuine belief that what they were doing would make this country better than it was.

      I have never seen anything to indicate any animosity toward the United States in any of them. I think LBJ was by far the worst, as a human being—crude, cruel, vicious and implacable in his pursuit of wealth and power and even acclaim. But even he never said anything to indicate hostility toward the US.

      Obama, on the other hand, has exhibited some degree of disdain and even contempt for this country for pretty much his whole life. His stepfather started to steer him in the direction of seeing some good in the US, but his mother immediately yanked him away from that influence and packed him off to Hawaii, where his anti-American grandparents turned him over to America-hating self-proclaimed communist Frank Marshal Davis.

      There was also a lot of anti-American sentiment in Hawaii at the time. The decision to become a state was not a popular one in many circles, and there was a lot of very hostile talk about the United States. “imperialism” and so forth. This piled onto Obama’s desperate need to find approval from his absent and indifferent father, who did not like the US, and his grandfather on his father’s side, who hated the British and imperialism.

      Barack Obama was steeped in contempt and even loathing for the United States from birth, from both sides of his family and from his involvement with people like Davis. These early influences have shown through the mantle of American Patriot he had to assume, at least to some limited extent, to be able to run for office in this country. It has been seen in his speeches, in his Crotch Salute during the playing of the national anthem, in his disparaging comments and his Apology Tour, in his pandering to the enemies of the United States and his lack of respect for our allies.

      While the first three men you mention certainly did great damage to the country, and set the stage for the death spiral into overt Leftism we are experiencing now, I think Obama is the first president to be truly anti-American, and whose actions are truly malicious.

      • percybeezer January 13, 2014 / 6:55 pm

        “While I agree that the efforts of Wilson, FDR and LBJ were harmful to the country, I never got the impression that any of these men were anti-American, or hated the country. I think they had a genuine belief that what they were doing would make this country better than it was.”

        Oh, my dear, Woodrow Wilson was truly evil! Not just as a racist human being that attempted to overturn the anti-slavery gains of the 1860s, re litigate the civil War, re-segregate the military, re-segregate Washington DC and all Federal Buildings and departments, and empower the KKK, his dream was to put the US under “International Law” thus usurping the Constitution.

        To Black intellectuals who had come to DC to protest his antebellum dictates he was quoted as saying; “segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen.

        … and, don’t get me started on FDR!

      • Amazona January 13, 2014 / 9:08 pm

        Hey, I’m not defending any of them! I just said that no matter how wrong they were, no matter how much damage they did, no matter how awful they were as human beings, I never got the impression that their GOAL was to destroy the United States.

        I don’t think that of most of the RRL, either. I think that they have fundamentally different ideas of what it takes to be great nation, and to those who find these ideas profoundly wrong they defy the very identity of the country as we understand it. But this is different from hating the United States and what it stands for, which is where I think Obama comes from.

        Yes, the outcome is much the same. But if you are talking merely about motive, merely about the underlying attitude toward the United States, about being anti-American, I see a difference. It is my opinion that the first three you mentioned did not see themselves as the architects of the downfall of the United States, but as people making it better—just applying criteria we find absolutely wrong in every way.

        Unlike Libs, I don’t give credit for motive—if you screw it up, it doesn’t really matter if you didn’t mean to. So this is not in any way an excuse for their general awfulness or the effects of that awfulness.

        All I am saying is that I have never heard anything to make me think their INTENTION was to destroy the country. Obama, yes.

      • M. Noonan January 15, 2014 / 2:03 am

        I guess it could just be semantics – but the commonality of Wilson and Obama is a sense in each of them that what we were given is just not quite up to scratch…that those Founders just didn’t get it quite right and they are just the people to fix the errors.

      • Amazona January 15, 2014 / 1:42 pm

        Mark, I know what you are saying, and there is a lot of overlap between destroying a country by trying to “improve” it and destroying a country because you don’t like it and want it to be so different it is not even the same country any more.

        I just have had the impression that the first three men named all grew up thinking of themselves as Americans first, and then came to a belief that America should expand to include things they thought would make it better.

        And my impression of Obama is that he never thought of himself as American, as well as growing up in family and cultural environments that were distinctly anti-American and which had to form his core beliefs and values, and that he never had any respect for the country at all—that his goal was never to “improve” it but to destroy it and then build a country unlike it, a country like whatever nation he admires.

        While the end result of each motivation might be much the same, all I addressed in my post was the statement that all three men were “anti-American”.

      • dbschmidt January 15, 2014 / 9:58 pm

        I do have to agree with Ama that President Obama is the most anti-American President with him being “steeped in contempt and even loathing for the United States from birth.“; however, I reiterate that President Wilson had as much disdain for the country as any President with Obama being inclusive.

        President Wilson had so much contempt for the formation and direction our Founders bestowed on a fledgling country. He was a part of being the great Progressive (Fabian society) push at the time that tried to undermine our fledgling country by any and all means possible. Reinstate segregation everywhere possible, Margret Sanger and “Planned Parenthood” and the creation of the Fed are among the trifecta of his handiwork.

        With President Obama–his hate and/or contempt for America bears from his nature and background. President Wilson’s loathing came from an inherent desire to alter the course of a fledgling nation to one more suitable to his beliefs of how a nation should be.

        In the case of Wilson–Goebbels (one Hitler’s henchmen) relied on Wilson’s propaganda to push for the election of Der Fuhrer and WWII so one could venture how Wilson’s Amerika would have turned out.. On the other hand–we should be grateful President Obama is such a spineless, weenie, community organizer that he did as little damage compared to what he could have–even if it is quite great so far. Hang on for the pits of despair if the Hitlery beast is elected. Best of both wrongs?

Comments are closed.