Unleashing EPA bureaucrats on American livelihoods, living standards and liberties
By David Rothbard and Craig Rucker
Supported by nothing but assumptions, faulty computer models and outright falsifications of what is actually happening on our planet, President Obama, his Environmental Protection Agency and their allies have issued more economy-crushing rules that they say will prevent dangerous manmade climate change .
Under the latest EPA regulatory onslaught (645 pages of new rules, released June 2), by 2030 states must slash carbon dioxide emissions by 30% below 2005 levels.
The new rules supposedly give states “flexibility” in deciding how to meet the mandates. However, many will have little choice but to impose costly cap-tax-and-trade regimes like the ones Congress has wisely and repeatedly refused to enact. Others will be forced to close perfectly good, highly reliable coal-fueled power plants that currently provide affordable electricity for millions of families, factories, hospitals, schools and businesses. The adverse impacts will be enormous.
The rules will further hobble a US economy that actually shrank by 1% during the first quarter of 2014, following a pathetic 1.9% total annual growth in 2013. They are on top of $1.9 trillion per year (one-eighth of our total economy) that businesses and families already pay to comply with federal rules.
A U.S. Chamber of Commerce study calculates that the new regulations will cost our economy another $51 billion annually, result in 224,000 more lost jobs every year, and cost every American household $3,400 per year in higher prices for energy, food and other necessities. Poor, middle class and minority families – and those already dependent on unemployment and welfare – will be impacted worst. Those in a dozen states that depend on coal to generate 30-95% of their electricity will be hit especially hard.
Millions of Americans will endure a lower quality of life and be unable to heat or cool their homes properly, pay their rent or mortgage, or save for college and retirement. They will suffer from greater stress, worse sleep deprivation, higher incidences of depression and alcohol, drug, spousal and child abuse, and more heart attacks and strokes. As Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) points out, “A lot of people on the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum are going to die.” EPA ignores all of this.
It also ignores the fact that, based to the agency’s own data, shutting down every coal-fired power plant in the USA would reduce the alleged increase in global temperatures by a mere 0.05 degrees F by 2100!
President Obama nevertheless says the costly regulations are needed to reduce “carbon pollution” that he claims is making “extreme weather events” like Superstorm Sandy “more common and more devastating.” The rules will also prevent up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks in their first year alone, while also curbing sea level rise, forest fires and other supposed impacts from “climate disruption,” according to ridiculous talking points provided by EPA boss Gina McCarthy.
As part of a nationwide White House campaign to promote and justify the regulations, the American Lung Association echoed the health claims. The Natural Resources Defense Council said the rules will “drive innovation and investment” in green technology, creating “hundreds of thousands” of new jobs.
Bear in mind, the ALA received over $20 million from the EPA between 2001 and 2010. NRDC spends nearly $100 million per year (2012 IRS data) advancing its radical agenda. Both are part of a $13.4-billion-per-year U.S. Big Green industry that includes the Sierra Club and Sierra Club Foundation ($145 million per year), National Audubon Society ($96 million), Environmental Defense Fund ($112 million annually), Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Fund ($46 million), and numerous other special interest groups dedicated to slashing fossil fuel use and reducing our living standards. All are tax-exempt.
As to the claims themselves, they are as credible as the endlessly repeated assertions that we will all be able to keep our doctor and insurance policies, Benghazi was a spontaneous protest, and there is not a scintilla of corruption in the IRS denials of tax-exempt status to conservative groups.
The very term “carbon pollution” is deliberately disingenuous. The rules do not target carbon (aka soot). They target carbon dioxide. This is the gas that all humans and animals exhale. It makes life on Earth possible. It makes crops and other plants grow faster and better. As thousands of scientists emphasize, at just 0.04% of our atmosphere, CO2 plays only a minor role in climate change – especially compared to water vapor and the incredibly powerful solar, cosmic, oceanic and other natural forces that have caused warm periods, ice ages and little ice ages, and controlled climate and weather for countless millennia.
The terrible disasters that the President and other climate alarmists attribute to fossil fuels, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are creatures of computer models that have gotten virtually no predictions correct. That should hardly be surprising. The models are based on faulty assumptions of every size and description, and are fed a steady diet of junk science and distorted data. We shouldn’t trust them any more than we would trust con artists who claim their computers can predict stock markets or Super Bowl and World Series winners – even one year in advance, much less 50 or 100 years.
The models should absolutely not be trusted as the basis for regulations that will cripple our economy.
Contrary to model predictions and White House assertions, average global temperatures have not risen in almost 18 years. It’s now been over eight years since a category 3-5 hurricane hit the United States – the longest such period in over a century. Tornadoes are at a multi-decade low. Droughts are no more intense or frequent than since 1900. There were fewer than half as many forest fires last year as during the 1960s and 1970s. Sea levels rose just eight inches over the last 130 years and are currently rising at barely seven inches per century. There’s still ice on Lake Superior – in June! Runaway global warming, indeed.
This is not dangerous. It’s not because of humans. It does not justify what the White House is doing.
Asthma has been increasing for years – while air pollution has been decreasing. The two are not related. In fact, as EPA data attest, between 1970 and 2010, real air pollution from coal-fired power plants has plummeted dramatically – and will continue to do so because of existing rules and technologies.
For once the President is not “leading from behind” on foreign policy. However, there is no truth to his claim that other countries will follow our lead on closing coal-fired power plants and slashing carbon dioxide emissions. China, India and dozens of other developing countries are rapidly building coal-fueled generators, so that billions of people will finally enjoy the blessings of electricity and be lifted out of poverty. Even European countries are burning more coal to generate electricity, because they finally realize they cannot keep subsidizing wind and solar, while killing their energy-intensive industries.
Then what is really going on here? Why is President Obama imposing some of the most pointless and destructive regulations in American history? He is keeping his campaign promises to his far-left and hard-green ideological supporters, who detest hydrocarbons and want to use climate change to justify their socio-economic-environmental agenda.
Mr. Obama promised that electricity prices would “necessarily skyrocket” and that he would “bankrupt” the coal industry and “fundamentally transform” America. His top science advisor, John Holdren, has long advocated a “massive campaign” to “de-develop the United States,” divert energy and other resources from what he calls “frivolous and wasteful” uses that support modern living standards, and enforce a “much more equitable distribution of wealth.” The President and his Executive Branch bureaucrats are committed to controlling more and more of our lives, livelihoods and liberties.
They believe no one can stop them, and they will never be held accountable for ignoring our laws, for their corruption, or even for any job losses, deaths or other destruction they may leave in their wake.
Every American who still believes in honest science, accountable Constitutional government – and the right of people everywhere to affordable energy and modern living standards – must tell these radical ideologues that this power grab will not be tolerated.
David Rothbard is president of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), a nonprofit educational organization devoted to both people and the environment. Craig Rucker is CFACT’s executive director.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Alan Robertson says:
Well, they did not fail the U.S. Supreme Court (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf):
The Supremes: “If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment, it must say so. The statutory question is whether sufficient information exists for it to make an endangerment finding.”
The judges left it up to the EPA. Seems that under different leadership more than enough “information” could be found to reverse the endangerment finding…right here on this blog. With grants tailored for the purpose, they would find themselves awash in information.
Robert Bissett, Bs.Arch. Naples, Idaho 83847 Artist, Author, Blogger, Teacher Dragon Speed Design Group Latest books: Tornado! – paperback Tornado! – Kindle Real Working Drawings and Real Art, Real Easy Fine Art Prints, Matting, Frames Sometimes a Daily Painting Blog Award Winning Art Custom House Plans, Dome Specialist
Thank you for your honest reporting of the tremendous wealth the Extreme Environmentalists have and use against the best interests of America.
Dick Storm
Some time ago I began questioning the sanity of CAGW proponents. I’ve suggested they may be delusional, in need of professional help. We now have confirmation of that, at least for the highest ranking proponent…
“Dr. LOUDON: You know, I will say to you, Lou, I am very, very concerned about the mental stability of this President at this point. Some of his behavior seems irrational to me. It seems beyond that of just a typical narcissistic, arrogant, sort of, ‘I’m a leader of a big country and I feel tyrannical at the moment’ kind of attitude. It really seems to me like this President is demonstrating behavior that is not only anti-American, but irrational and erratic and perhaps not exactly what we might want to deem sane.”
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2014/06/04/fox-biz-psychologist-worries-erratic-obama-may-not-be-sane#ixzz340INyWwW
It’s not about science; it’s about sanity.
rbissett777 says:
Under Bush, they would have had a hard time doing so, given what EPA’s own studies showed, what the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (that Bush set up) was finding, what the National Academy of Sciences was saying. Usually, Administrations do not openly flout these sources of information in favor of blogs. That is why the Bush Administration for the most part accepted the science but just did their best to avoid acting on it.
The EPA is, by law, required to use independent scientific studies, not in house crap. So Bush did nothing, and the EPA is violating the spirit (if not the letter) of the law by not using all the independent science available.
Thanks for the link, Phil. I guess the best that can be said about what you posted is that it is based on a true story. Other than that it is basically a complete falsehood. Let’s look at what you wrote:
Now, let’s compare to the facts in the Inc article:
(1) The change is, according to the author, long overdue. (“It’s about time”)
(2) More importantly: “the BEA will rework all its estimates going back to 1929 in order to keep comparisons as valid as possible”. So, no, the growth is not inflated. All the numbers going were retroactively increased going back in time. They didn’t just change the method of accounting and ignore this in computng the growth rate. It is strange that you believed otherwise.
I am beginning to understand how conspiracy theories work!
As for Krugman, I think I’ll take a Nobel-prize winning economist over someone who has proven quite a bit of incompetence regarding economic data right in this thread!
No Joel, your ignorance of the impact is not my problem. First, there are very few who claim it is “long overdue”. AR was always calculated when the money actually changed hands. Before that there is always default which means NO SALE. R&D is a special case. It actually is a cost of the product, which goes into the price of the sale. So it is already counted.
But your biggest mistake is in you thinking it will be recalculated back to 1929. it cannot be because accurate records do not exist. Coupled with your lack of knowledge of historical records is your failure to apply the change to the present tense.
As you know, a recession is defined as 2 consecutive down quarters. WITH the new calculation of GDP, the first quarter is still negative (which under the old calculation would mean a 3-4% decline over what was reported). Add that factor to the anemic growth that was calculated last year with the new numbers (1.9% for the year) and you see we easily have 2 quarters of down growth, but the more accurate numbers.
You are not very good at climate science, but at least you are better at that than at economics. Stick to what you are least incompetent in.
As for krugman, better check what he got his prize in. Obama did more to earn his than Krugman did. and it had nothing to do with micro or macro economics. But you are free to believe your fairytales. I am sure all the Enron people thought his advice was good as well (do I really need a /sarc on that statement?)
From the Financial Times article (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/52d23fa6-aa98-11e2-bc0d-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz34CdqgNeS):
And here is the proof that an accurate recalculation is not possible. At least in the eyes of this one analyst. If they have no idea what is “going to happen” (which is false since they are now tracking the data), they have no clue what happened in the past.
Thanks for the refutation of your own statement.
philjourdan says:
According to the Financial Times article, this is the adoption of part of a new international standard for GDP accounting.
You are repeating a falsehood. Perhaps it is basic math that is failing you. Let’s say I take the function f(t) = f_0 + A*t where f_0 and A are constants and I am interested in the growth rate (proportional to A). If I add a constant value to the function (say, 0.03*f_0) then I don’t change the growth rate A. [Even if I multiply everything by 1.03, if you by chance think that is more appropriate, I barely change the growth rate.]
They don’t have “no clue”. All because they don’t know everything, it does not follow that they know nothing. I am sure if you asked him if it would artificially increase the annual GDP growth rate by 3 percentage points, he would have said no.
This is a fascinating study in how the mind of conspiratorial-minded conservative extremists like yourself works.
@JoelDSHore – but this is not climate shenanigans with numbers. The rate changes. That is why the growth rate went up (spiked) last summer (I guess you missed that part). You added more to the growth with nothing to the base (since the base did not change). So yes, you are adding (the actual number is 2.5-3%) to the growth. Which is all smoke and mirrors since there has been no growth. So the 1.4% decline would have been larger, and the 1.9% increase would have disappeared (if not gone negative).
THAT is why they have to adjust the past numbers! No one is comparing apples to oranges. They are adding more money into the mix to show a growth that does not exist. Double counting only adds. It changes the slope because you are double counting! And that is what is happening.
An easy example. You buy a $50k car. But you lose your job and default on the loan. Too late! That is already counted as GDP. But the banks takes it and turns around and resells it (the banks are not in the car business). So now instead of a $50k transaction, you have perhaps a $90k transaction. Moola more to the GDP.
And on R&D? They declare a widget to be GDP, even though none have been sold yet. Then the company releases the Widget and charges you for the parts and labor AND R&D! Double counted again.
That is not even economics. That is called Accounting. Double counting inflates. Even though the double stuff does NOT exist.
Stick to adjusting temperatures. You failed math.
phil: Like I said, a fascinating study of the conspiratorial-minded. How does your notion of there being an economic recession jive with the continued job gains in the economy…Or are those numbers fudged too in your world?
@joel Shore – what conspiracy? Where have I talked of a conspiracy? You are reading from the alarmist play book on a subject that is not related.
And what gains? Please tell us the gains. Employment is STILL below Boosh levels. The Stock exchange is up, thanks to a trillion dollars a year pumped into it by the Fed (with the blessing of Obama). But that is all that is ‘good news’. Inflation is much higher than reported (just look at fuel and food prices to know that).
This is not a conspiracy that I know of. But I guess in your limited binary world, anyone not agreeing with you must be a conspiracy nut. Someone needs to show you that people are not binary. But I doubt you will learn that.
Actually, employment has just exceeded the pre-recession peak. And, of course, Bush left Obama with an economy that had already lost a few million jobs from that peak and was losing private sector jobs at the truly astounding rate of about 3/4 million per month (http://www.gq.com/news-politics/blogs/death-race/Jobs%20Chart635.jpg)!!! Here is a real summary from people who try to look at the economy objectively, rather than through ideological glasses (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-06-07/employment-reaches-milestone-in-topping-u-dot-s-dot-pre-recession-peak):
Geez Joel, I am sure you go to SS for ‘facts’ too – when you can get them from the real source.
Try the BLS:
2007 146,047
May 145,814
http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.htm
And the 2007 numbers are not seasonally adjusted (the 2014 ARE)
Employment is STILL below the Bush years – and with 10 million more people to boot!
Please stick with adjusting temperatures. You suck at economics. You do not even know where to find the real numbers.
And a conspiracy requires PEOPLE. Obama is a PERSON. It is not a conspiracy – except in some warped warmist view I guess.
I suggested NOTHING. I stated the facts. Need links to those as well?
…Sorry, some HTML coding errors in my last post, but I think one can figure out who said what.
Wow…What silly misdirection on your part.
(1) The difference between the numbers you have and those that the BusinessWeek article I linked to quoted is yours are from the household survey and that article probably used the ones from the “establishment” (employers) survey. However, the larger picture is that you are picking nits…Your numbers show a value of less than 0.2% below the pre-recession peak. The other numbers show a value a tiny bit above the pre-recession peak. Which one is correct is really in the noise.
(2) By picking nits, you have ignored the more fundamental points:
* Job growth over the last 4 months that has been consistently strong (above 200,000 per month) that hasn’t occurred in any 4 month period since before Bush took office is unlikely to be indicative of the recession that you claim is happening but being covered up by a massive conspiracy.
* Comparing to the pre-recession peak ignores the fact that several millions of the jobs were lost under Bush…And when Obama took office, the economy had not only already lost several million jobs but was shedding jobs at the truly astounding rate of 3/4 million per month, which nobody could instantly stop; hence, several more million were lost before Obama could start to dig us out of the hole that we had fallen into during Bush’s watch (admittedly not all his fault, but certainly during his watch). [One can argue about whether Obama’s policies were aggressive enough to pull us out of the rut as fast as we could have, and in fact, Krugman and some other intelligent economists argued (even at the time!) that the stimulus was insufficient given the size of the hole in the economy. But, given that the Republicans wanted less, not more, and that they obstructed lots of other job creation policies, there is no doubt that what Obama has done is a lot better than the alternative that we actually had.]
* Believing the things that you do requires believing in a conspiracy theory whereby the GDP numbers are being cooked (a conspiracy in itself) and the press is remaining quiet on this point (an even larger conspiracy). And then, you have implied the same thing about inflation numbers.
Wrong again Joel. The HOUSEHOLD survey is the more accurate. The business survey misses the self employed. That is not a nit to pick. That is a fact. As I said, the numbers shown are not really apples to apples since one is a month, and the other is a year. However, on an Seasonally adjusted monthly basis: November 2007: 146,647 May 2014: 145,814 Difference 800k (roughly):
FROM the BLS: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_01042008.pdf
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm
So once again, the nit proves you wrong (proving you wrong is not a nit – it is called a fact – try to get some).
#2 I have ignored nothing. I never talked about job growth. That is a non sequitur. And growth over 200k is not even replenishment! To compensate for increasing populations, you have to have job growth north of 250k! So Obama is not even keeping up with his LEGAL residents, much less the illegal resident criminals he set free!
#2.1 – The issue was if Obama had reached employment levels during the Boosh years. Period. Yes there was a recession, caused by the CRA (passed by Carter, modified by Clinton and protected by Dodd-Frank – all democrats). But that is a non-sequitur! Again! you claimed that employment under Obama had surpassed Bush. I just proved you wrong 6 ways from Sunday! So stop equivocating! If you do not like the debate, stop setting the topic that you are ignorant of!
#2.2 BTW the “3/4 million” rate was for A MONTH. Not “MONTHS”. Again, get your facts correct. Hell, get any facts!
The misdirection is all on you. I gave you the SOURCE of the numbers. That is the outfit that PRODUCES them! You gave an editorial cartoon article then misstated everything else!
I bet you love to adjust temperature data. Given your performance here, you are as good at that as you are at the rest of your opinions.
Simple question, which puts everything in perspective:
Would the average American rather have the 0bama economy, or GW Bush’s economy?
Only religious CAGW fanatics/True Believers would choose the former.
And yes, it is a religion:
dbstealey: Simple answer:
During the Bush Presidency (Jan 2001- Jan 2009), private sector job growth was -450,000 jobs, i.e., the economy lost private sector jobs. [That was offset by public sector job growth…which ought to be popular with you conservatives 😉 …but even TOTAL job growth was only 1.4 million jobs during his Presidency.] By contrast, during Obama, private sector job growth has been +5,200,0000.
If you assume that Presidents can’t instantly affect the economy but that there is some reasonable lag time of, say, 6 months, before their policies can take effect then the differences are much sharper. Bush: -1.6 million private sector jobs; Obama: +7.8 million private sector jobs. (You can retrieve all of the data here: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm)
What Presidents can be held responsible for is the CHANGE in employment during their Presidency, not the economy that they inherited. Obama inherited an economy from Bush that was headed toward what could have easily been the Second Great Depression.
That is what I love about Joel Shore – always wrong. And embarrassingly so.
During the Bush years, EVEN accounting for the Democrat CRA Recession, 7.5 MILLION CIVILIAN jobs were added:
December 2000: 135,836 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/History/empsit_01052001.txt
December 2008: 143,338 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_01092009.pdf
This is not some hack site. This is not even some right wing site. It is the BLS. The OFFICIAL site for employment. Period
in contrast, Obama has LOST 800,000 jobs. There is no millions added. I already gave the links to it. In almost 6 years, Obama has LOST 800k jobs. Period.
Joel, stop lying. I am sure you think the difference of 8 million between your made up numbers and the OFFICIAL numbers is nit picking. But then that is what is so perfect with you. You are always wrong.
joelshore says:
dbstealey: Simple answer…
But there was no answer to my straightforward question:
Would the average American rather have the 0bama economy, or GW Bush’s economy?
The answer is obvious: most Americans [and all rational Americans] would much prefer the economy of GW Bush over that of the totally incompetent, anti-American 0bama.
And as Phil Jourdan says: stop lying.
The falsehoods are multiplying by the minute.
You guys are so good at cherrypicking the data that you want that it has become second nature. There is in fact lots of literature on the differences between the two survey and no clear evidence of which one is more accurate. Furthermore, since the household survey breaks out the category of the self-employed (and farm workers), it is easy enough to check if this is the source of the difference between them and this paper http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2010/05/cps-ces-employment-comparison/ does that and concludes: “It seems the difference in the employment can’t be explained by farm workers or the self-employed. It turns out the number of individuals working in these two sectors held pretty constant over the decade, so the CPS employment index actually rose more against CES employment index with these two categories removed.” Another fiction of conservative ideology blown apart by the facts.
Finally, the establishment survey separates out private sector and public sector employment, which is useful, because in the Bush years, the public sector employment fared a lot better than the private sector employment
Well, Bush didn’t have any 4-month periods of consistent 200k+ employment growth over his whole Presidency (and, for this, by the way, you definitely want to use the business survey because the statistical noise is a lot greater in the household survey from month to month).
Nobody believes that recession was caused by that except diehard ideological extremists like yourself. See, for example, here: http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html
No, it averaged that over a 6 month period centered around the time that Bush left office and Obama took office.
You can’t just look at these snapshop news releases since there are various revisions. You have to look at a consistent data set. Also, it is a cheat to go from Dec 2000 to Dec. 2008 instead of Jan 2001 to Jan 2009…and, really, as I noted, there should be a lag because a President can’t wave a magic wand and fix the economy instantly when he takes office. If you look at Jan 2001 to Jan 2009, you get +4.4 million using the household (CPS) survey and +1.4 million using the business (CES) survey. However, if you look only at private sector job growth in the business survey, you get -0.45 million.
And, you are very good at misusing or distorting the data in various ways; it seems second nature to you.
That is a complete and utter falsehood and I think you are intelligent to know it is false. You are measuring from November 2007, which is 14 months before Obama took office and then cherrypicking which survey you use to boot! It is just amazing to see this in action. Conservatives like yourself seem to have really ceded all intelligent, rational science and data interpretation in favor of manipulation and distortion.
You are the one who is lying as I think everyone here can plainly see. We are both using the same set of official data but you are cherrypicking and simply making things up (like starting in Nov. 2007 with you count on Obama’s jobs).
The truth of the matter is that under Obama, according to the business survey, 5.2 million private sector jobs have been created (BLS data available here: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm) If we assume a 6-month lag for Obama’s policies to take affect from the day of election, that becomes 7.8 million private sector jobs. Those are the facts. Even if we use the household survey (and hence look at all civilian jobs), the numbers are +3.6 million jobs since January 2009 and +5.9 million jobs since July 2009 (http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm).
With the numbers coming out this way, no matter which survey one chooses, no wonder the only way you can try to argue your point is by outright deception and falsehoods.
@joel Shore – blah blah blah. So what are you saying? Basically that you have no clue, and that I am correct.
I picked the Dec to dec numbers as the numbers are released for the MONTH of (ergo December 31st). Jan to Jan would still not get anywhere NEAR your numbers! And would still be right in the ball park (+/- a few) of mine.
You seem to hate the BLS – Why I do not know. Since your messiah runs it (and magically created 451k jobs in August of 2012 – still unexplained – want to take a crack at that one?).
You forgot Joel, that Boosh inherited Clinton’s mess, so he had a full recession in 2001 (9 months), plus another one in 2008 (Democrats) – 6 months. In spite of all that, he still managed to create 7.5 million jobs (actually allow them to be created). Jan to Jan is only a 700k difference than Dec to Dec, which would make it 6.8 miliion (again based upon BLS.gov).
As for the CRA causing the crises, what planet are you on? The recession (every one agrees) was caused by the housing bubble bursting. With me so far? The bubble burst when interest rates started rising and home prices did not. Those that were at 100% of value, saw themselves go underwater. So they defaulted (they could no longer make the balloon payments). What moron would lend 100% of value? Well the CRA DEMANDED that no red-lining could occur, and that demographics, not income be the deciding factor. Gee, guess what happened?
The blame has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. it has everything to do with simple economics. When you force companies to make risky bets and prevent them from hedging them, you get disaster. That is econ 101. But you will never understand that.
And Government employment (non-defense) did not “sky rocket” under Bush. The best numbers (again, BLS) is that from 2000-2008 total government employment (which includes state and local which you neglect to mention) increased by less than 1 million (Again BLS).
So you have no basis for your numbers as you claim (if the dollar does this, and the yen does that, and the markets do another thing). All smoke a mirrors.
While little ole me, just using the GOVERNMENTS OWN NUMBERS proved you a liar.
get off your horse. You lost. You cannot refute my data because it is the OFFICIAL data. Your problem is that you believed the stupidity of the left wing nut sites and got caught by someone armed with the facts! Stop reading them. See how much they dumb you down?
BTW: How many months has Obama had with over 300k job creation? How about Boosh?
There is a very simple test you could have used to save yourself the embarrassment you are heaping upon yourself.
What was the workforce labor participation rate under Boosh? What has it been under Obama? And the Unemployment rates under each?
(hint: The first is much higher under Boosh, the later much higher under Obama – Obama has never been under 6%. Boosh was under 6% most of his tenure).
Get the facts Joel. Like I said, you suck at temperature adjustments because you have been corrupted to not recognize RAW data. And that is your problem here. But this time, there is no “nature trick” you can perform.
The only question that matters:
Would the average American rather have the 0bama economy, or GW Bush’s economy?
And stop lying.
More debunking of the myth that the CRA caused the housing crisis, this time by the Fed:
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=4136&
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2009/05/29/did-the-cra-cause-mortgage-market-crisis-nope-says-fed-report/
@ur momisugly joeldshore says:
June 13, 2014 at 7:04 pm
From your own link Joel:
2? WOW! We are down to 2 whole economists in the US? That is all?
Ok, here is a source for you (and not right wing) – http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey-barney-frank-the-government-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21819.html
I got more, but do not want to run afoul of the link posting limit.
JOel, you are as easy to debunk as shooting fish in a barrel.
Phil,
You must really have a low opinion of the readers of this web site to subject them to continued lies and distortion and hope that they don’t notice. This exchange is a good illustration of how honest people deal with figures vs. how dishonest partisans deal with figures:
Honest people, when there are different equally reasonable sources of data (such as the household and establishment surveys from BLS) quote the results that one obtains using the different sources. Honest people clearly explain the assumptions they are making. Honest people give links to the data source which allows the readers to run the numbers themselves.
Dishonest partisans pretend that the other person is not using official BLS numbers and hope the audience won’t notice this deception. Dishonest partisans cherrypick which data set they use and then do totally unjustified things like attributing the last 14 months of the Bush Administration to Obama.
“Clinton’s mess” was a job creation record of nearly 19 million jobs (household survey) from Jan 1993 to Jan 2001 (23 million if we use the establishment survey). The tech stock crash did cause a small recession, but jobs were not being lost when Bush took office (although total employment was pretty flat) and job losses over the first year or two that he was in office were very modest, at ~2 million jobs total (household survey) or ~3 million (establishment survey). That’s nothing compared to the 2008 recession where Obama inherited an economy that had already lost between 4 and 5 million jobs (household or establishment survey) and was shedding them at a rate of 3/4 million per month.
Just to repeat the links where readers can compare my honesty to Phil’s dishonesty:
establishment survey: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm
household survey: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm
I didn’t claim only 2 supported this view. That’s more deception on your part.
Not right wing? Your first source is Peter Wallison “codirector of financial policy program at the American Enterprise Institute”. That’s not right wing? Your second source is an opinion piece by Rep. who had a 98% lifetime score from the American Conservative Union as of 2012.
So, I’m linking to pieces from the Wall Street Journal blogs (which quote Fed economists, including one who is from the very conservative University of Chicago economics school and is a former Bush Administration official) and a paper published by the Federal Reserve…and you are linking to two articles, one written by a guy at the American Enterprise Institute and the other written by a Congressman with an almost-perfect score from the ACU!
Joel, yes they do see your deception. Fact #1
2? I read your link you simpleton! That is what YOUR link said! The Fed one? Do you mean to tell me you did not read your own link? Then why did you post it? is that lie by deception? posting links to things you have no clue about? or is that lie by omission (hoping no one follows the link so you can lie your pants off about it)? So which lie is it Joel?
As for Boosh – I guess you missed the Dot Com Bust (from your own numbers it started in January 2001, so how did Boosh cause that?) And I guess you missed 9-11 (it was in all the papers) which was a big blow to the financial sector (funny how no banks needed bailing for that), which was due in part to Clinton refusing Bin Laden 3 times!
That record Joel. You must think very highly of yourself – but no one else does. because they see your lies! Show me one lie I have made. Just one.
The Household survey IS the more accurate. Do not believe me? Ask Obama. Well, perhaps not since he cannot tell the truth. yet HE says it is.
And I gave you the numbers. Not minced diced or frickaseed (such as your links), just plain and simple. You tried to make 7.5 disappear! (your lie about Boosh losing jobs).
We know several things for a fact.
#1: The Unemployment rate before Democrats took control of Congress was 4.5%
#2: The lowest Unemployment rate for Obama has been 6.3% (current).
#3: Obama magically added 451,000 jobs in August of 2012. There is still no documentation for that adjustment (kind of like your temperature adjustments).
#4: Boosh had 15 months of recession during his 8 years. Obama “officially” only has had 6.
#5: The Labor participation rate has gone from over 67% (for Boosh) to under 63% for Obama. http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
#6: The number of jobs under Obama has not surpassed the number of jobs under Boosh.
These are facts, most of which are documented above. You then switched from jobs to government jobs, claiming that Boosh only created them despite having a higher labor participation rate, a lower unemployment, and a static government work force ONCE the TSA was created and millions of private jobs were pulled into Government (thought I would miss that one, eh? Try again).
based upon the above 6 indisputable facts, you are now trying to tell us Obama has created 5 million jobs (where? Please show us where) and that Boosh lost 5 million jobs. I understand your immersion into temperature adjustments has thoroughly befuddled your mind, but your math does not add up. Even without the facts, documented as I have presented them, your contention does not hold water from a logic standpoint.
Unless of course you think that adjusting temperatures down in the past and up in the present is how you “create” raw data. Alarmists are math impaired.
Call me a liar one more time without documentation, and I will get nasty on you Joel. So stop lying.
And READ YOUR OWN DAMN LINKS!
Irrelevant statistics. Of course, Obama has a higher average unemployment rate given the economy that he inherited (and a similar story goes for the labor participation rate, which is also affected by long term demographic shifts).
Let’s see what HAPPENED TO the unemployment rate under Bush’s tenure: It went up by +3.6% [from 4.2% in Jan 2001 (the “mess” that he inherited from Clinton) to 7.8% in Jan 2009].
Under Obama’s tenure, the unemployment rate has gone down (-1.6%) from Jan 2009 to at present.
These numbers would be even more lopsided if we factored in any sort of lag time for policies to take effect. A six month lag and Bush’s change in unemployment rate goes to +4.9% and Obama’s to -3.2% at this point.
Again, data available here from BLS: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm
Joel Shore
More lies. He “inherited”? His party blessed him with! remember, it was a democrat congress (Pelosi and Reid). And no, no similar story. When you increase the cost of something, you get less demand for that thing! That is called Economics 101.
So what has Obama done? increased the cost of labor (Obamacare, EPA regulations). So he has gotten less of it. your dismissive hand waving about a similar story does not hold water. The “long term” demographic shifts? Should help him since he has raised taxes over 2 dozen times so the middle class is all but disappearing. Which REQUIRES both spouses to work just to pay the tax bill! But they are not. Why? No jobs! yea, that demographic shift! He did very well instigating it himself.
Cut with the hand waving. You have absolutely no clue about economics as is evident by your ignorant statements. And your math is woeful as well. Only an alarmist could say that less is more. Less employment, less participation equals more jobs in the Joel world.
Nowhere else as the numbers proved.
Here’s another “fun with numbers”
Again, before the dot com bust and 9-11 (both Boosh’s fault of course even though the bust started in JANUARY 2001, before he even took office, and despite the fact that Clinton refused Bin Laden 3 times).
So 5 years after the Boosh Dot com recession, Boosh had unemployment down under 5%. 5 Years after the CRA recession (created by the democrats), Obama still does not have it under 6%! And that is with a labor participation rate 4 points lower. 6+4=10. WOW! Obama is doing so well.
I said:
Sorry, I meant to fill in his name and link to his ratings:
REP. JEB HENSARLING
http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/49827/jeb-hensarling#.U5-wKkCmXTp
And you had 2 pieces from Liberals. Are you going to argue with the first source (I just grabbed the first 2 links – apparently you cannot find or follow links on your own).
Again, proven wrong. With your own links. And your only come back now is “you are lying”. But no specifics. Just more ad hominems from the clowns who think they can adjust their way to a heat wave.
So, if I may translate joelshore:
‘Clinton’s policies did not affect Bush, but Bush’s policies are the reason for Obama’s serial failures.’
Got it.
@dbstealey
You channel him well! That is actually the nut of his argument. That plus more unemployment, plus less participation means more jobs.
No…I think Clinton’s policies definitely affected Bush. Clinton left Bush with the “mess” of 4.2% unemployment and a real budgetary predicament: Remember Alan Greenspan’s concerns in 2001 that we had to be careful not to pay down our debt too quickly ( http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/07/992184/-Greenspan-in-2001-We-re-paying-down-the-debt-too-fast-VIDEO)!
And the Dot com Bust and 9-11. JOel forgets to mention those.
And how about CRA being changed under Clinton? He forgets that too. Of course Boosh took over before January 2001 as that is the only way he can blame it on Boosh.
Phil,
I think little is served by continuing this further. You continue to come up with silly metrics to try to prove what you want to believe but they all basically just show that Obama inherited a much worse economy.
People can read my posts for facts and figures that are backed up by links or they can read yours for silliness and deceptions and mythologies (like CRA caused the subprime mortgage crisis).
@joel Shore – the first thing you have gotten right so far. And no, I am not “coming up with”. The premise from the outset was jobs. Your lie of Boosh losing 5 million and Obama creating 5 million. I merely showed you the raw data (even adjusted by the Idiot in Chief). Even Obama cannot adjust his way to prosperity. Nor can you.
I realize to an alarmist that raw data is both an anathema and fantasy. But that is your problem. Next time you want to debate the economy, try coming armed with raw data. A novel idea for most climate alarmists, but that is what works in the real world.
If you don’t want to be called a “liar”, then you could start by admitting that your claim that “Obama has LOST 800,000 jobs” was blatantly false. You were counting from 14 months before Obama took office (and, of course, also cherrypicking the source of the job numbers …household survey vs. establishment survey…on top of it). Even counting from when Obama took office is not fair to him, since he inherited an economy incomplete freefall, losing 3/4 million jobs per month, so that millions of more jobs were lost before his policies could possibly start to take effect, but at least it is not an outright falsehood like your statement was.
@joel Shore
Your “opinion” does not count. I stated a fact. A fact is not a lie. Employment under Obama is down 800k at least. I did not state the reasons. The reasons may or may not be a lie. You can “ASSUME” anything you want. But as of January 20, 2009, Boosh’s signature was useless and only Obama’s amounted to anything. Period.
You lied when you stated Obama had created 5.4m jobs. Even his own departments show that is a lie. But they show what I stated to be truthful.
Notice that I never said anything about being “fair”. fair is a childish word used by children and adults who have not matured. It is also not objective.
I take it you are ESL? Or are you still debating the meaning of the word “is”?
And while not technically a “lie”, your disinformation about government jobs and Boosh is also not the whole truth. As those jobs were not “created”. They were transferred from the private sector to the public sector. So yes, using your statistics (which explains why your adjustments claim water now freezes at 40 degrees Fahrenheit) the number of private sector jobs under Boosh took a hit – thanks to DHS – when thousands of jobs were moved from the private sector to the public sector. Note the term. “Moved”. The jobs were not lost nor created.