Obama's Pet $1.6 Billion Solar Plant Needs $500+ Million Bailout



"I deem this plant profitable and economically sustainable-- even though it needs a gift of more than half-a-billion dollars of your money. You folks can all thank me later."

(pic from DailyTech)

It's Obamanomics in action! Get money from limitless source (such as middle class taxpayers), blow it on some piece of sh*t that doesn't work and/or makes no economic sense, then request or demand more money from said limitless source and/or complain about racism.

Brilliant!

From Fox News (via Gateway Pundit):

After already receiving a controversial $1.6 billion construction loan from U.S. taxpayers, the wealthy investors of a California solar power plant now want a $539 million federal grant to pay off their federal loan.

"This is an attempt by very large cash generating companies that have billions on their balance sheet to get a federal bailout, i.e. a bailout from us - the taxpayer for their pet project," said Reason Foundation VP of Research Julian Morris. "It's actually rather obscene."

The Ivanpah solar electric generating plant is owned by Google and renewable energy giant NRG, which are responsible for paying off their federal loan. If approved by the U.S. Treasury, the two corporations will not use their own money, but taxpayer cash to pay off 30 percent of the cost of their plant, but taxpayers will receive none of the millions in revenues the plant will generate over the next 30 years. [That may not be a big deal, since this thing is economically suspect at best.]

"They're already paying less than the market rate," said Morris, author of a lengthy report detailing alleged cronyism and corruption in the Obama administration's green energy programs. "Now demanding or asking for a subsidy in the form of a grant directly paying off the loan is an egregious abuse."

NRG doesn't see it that way, telling Fox News the money is there for the taking."NRG believes in a clean and sustainable energy future and therefore participates in available government programs to develop and expand the use of clean energy to accelerate America’s energy independence." In 2013, the Obama administration handed out $18.5 billion in renewable energy grants, with $4.4 billion going to solar projects.

Ivanpah is the largest concentrated solar power plant in the world. It was unveiled in February with great fanfare. Dr. Ernest Moniz, the U.S. Secretary of Energy, justified taxpayers' investment at the time, saying, "We want to be technology leaders. It's good for our economy and it’s also good for helping stimulate the global transition to low carbon."

But since then the plant has not lived up to its clean energy promise. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the plant produced only about a quarter of the power it's supposed to, a disappointing 254,263 megawatt-hours of electricity from January through August, not the million megawatt-hours it promised. [emphasis mine]

As an added bonus, the plant also kill birds at an alarming rate due to the fact that the plant's mirrors both attract and roast them alive. It's "speciesism" at its worst. So, that young woman who adopted that rescue chicken "Snow" probably doesn't like it much.

But let's remember that Obama and cronies didn't fail us all with the solar plant, the sun and the solar plant failed them. Probably because of racism and ungovernable people and such...

America is Out of Top 10 in Economic Freedom

How bad is this? Well, Canada is ranked higher.

From Breitbart (via Drudge):

A new report of "economic freedom" around the world finds the US ranked 12th among 152 countries, tied with the United Kingdom, and lower than neighbor Canada or Australia. The index, published by the Cato Institute and Canada's Fraser Institute, has been published since 1996. As recently as 2000, the US ranked 2nd in the world, in terms of boasting a free economy. The US's declining ranking will lower future economic growth.  

The index, built on decades of research by Nobel laureates and dozens of leading scholars, measures 5 broad factors that impact the economy: 1. Size of government; 2. Legal structure and security of property rights; 3. Access to sound money; 4. Freedom to trade internationally and; 5. Regulation of Credit, Labor and Business. Countries where citizens are freer to engage in business and trade and property and legal rights are protected by the rule of law will score higher on the index. According to economic research, though, these countries will also do better economically and create and generate more wealth.  

The 10 freest economies in the world are: Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, Mauritius, United Arab Emirates, Canada, Australia, Jordan, and Chile and Finland tied for 10th.  

America's descent down the ladder of economic freedom is unsettling, in itself. More troubling, however, is the chief factor behind the US decline. The biggest drop in US economic freedom has been in the country's legal structure. The report notes that, "increased use of eminent domain to transfer property to powerful political interests, the ramifications of the wars on terrorism and drugs, and the violation of the property rights of bondholders in the auto-bailout case have weakened the tradition of strong adherence to the rule of law in United States."  

[...]  

A balanced federal budget is insignificant and meaningless if the rule of law has been subverted. No single election or administration can repair that damage. That is a task that must be tackled by a generation.

So let's all keep this in mind as we start voting for the next ten to twelve years. It's not enough to simply oppose Obama, Elizabeth Warren and others on the hard Left. We need to hold every politician accountable.

Obamanomics in Action: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force

"But on the upside record numbers of people are on disability. Don't all you folks thank me at once."

Yeah well, I'm sure it's part of some racist plot to make Obama look bad or something...

From CNS News (via Drudge):

A record 92,269,000 Americans 16 and older did not participate in the labor force in August, as the labor force participation rate matched a 36-year low of 62.8 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

The labor force participation rate has been as low as 62.8 percent in six of the last twelve months, but prior to last October had not fallen that low since 1978.  

[...]  

The 92,269,000 who did not participate in the labor force are those in the civilian noninstitutional population who did not have a job and did not actively seek one in the last four weeks. Because they did not seek a job, they did not count as “unemployed.” 

Of the 155,959,000 who did participate in the labor force, 146,368,000 had a job and 9,591,000 did not have a job but actively sought one. The 9,591,000 are the unemployed. They equaled 6.1 percent of the labor force—or an unemployment rate of 6.1 percent (which was down slightly from the 6.2 percent unemployment rate in July).

And how many of these 92+ million are people who have just given up looking for a job? I suspect a pretty fair amount. Obama's economic policies, political bullying of employers, and ObamaCare have made the job market a real joy for the past several years.

Record for $3+ Gas Prices Continues

"I give unto you underlings sky-high gas prices. You're welcome."

Under the watch of Obama, of course...

From the CNS News article by Julia Seymour:

This Independence Day weekend, drivers won't see any relief from high gas prices. Although prices retreated by a fraction of a cent at the beginning of the week, AAA predicts holiday travelers will pay the most at the pump since 2008. 

In its monthly gas price report released June 30, AAA said, "With Independence Day only a few days away, today's national average price of gas is $3.68 per gallon. This average is considerably more expensive than recent years for the holiday. The national average on July 4 in previous years was: $3.48 (2013); $3.34 (2012); $3.57 (2011); $2.74 (2010); $2.62 (2009); and $4.10 (2008)." The motorist organization expected prices to remain high throughout the month of July, ranging from $3.60-$3.70 per gallon.  

[...]  

The still high gas prices would extend the record number of days the national average for gasoline has remained above $3-a-gallon. Unless prices drop nearly 70 cents a gallon, July 4th will be the 1,290th day above that mark. USA Today reported in September 2013 that, for the first time ever, gas prices had been higher than $3 a gallon for 1,000 consecutive days - beginning Dec. 23, 2010, through Sept. 17, 2013. That streak of three-and-a-half years has not been broken.

Hey, super-high gas prcies and the ensuing high prices of consumer goods is the new normal! We to pay extra for "fairness," or the enviroment, or something...

Well, I don't know why anyone would expect more from Leftist, community organizer. Still, do you remember the days when people proudly proclaimed that Obama was ging to make them all rich?

I barely do.

Obama's EPA Preparing to Raise Cost of Electricity and Cost Jobs

"Higher energy prices, higher prices for consumer goods, and another hit to the GDP. I just can't believe how smart I am! You're welcome America."

The disastrous presidency continues. But when the GDP takes another "unexpected" hit, when median household incomes drop further, and when jobs become scarcer, cold winters, greed, and Bush will be blamed. It's the Obama way and basically his only strategy. 

From the U.S. Chamber of Commerce:

Next week, it’s expected that President Obama will personally announce EPA’s latest effort to transform how America generates electricity. Remember in 2008, when Candidate Barack Obama said, electricity prices would “skyrocket?” This is what he meant, and it will affect every element of economic activity. 

What is EPA about to do? 

Next week, EPA will release carbon emission regulations for already-existing power plants. It’s a follow-up to last-year’s proposed regulations on new power plants. 

How damaging could these regulations be on our economy? 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21^st Century Energy released a report, “Assessing the Impact of Proposed New Carbon Regulations in the United States,” prepared with the assistance of the global energy and economics firm IHS. The analysis found that by 2030 potential new carbon regulations could:

• Cost as many as 442,000 jobs in 2022 and put 224,000 Americans out of work, on average, annually
• Cost $51 billion in GDP loss annually
• Lower disposable household income by 586 billion
• Increase electricity costs by more than $289 billion.

The report is based on an existing plan developed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Obama administration's previously-announced goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 42% of 2005 levels by 2030. “We considered it as close as we could get to what the administration would be unveiling next week,” Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the Energy Institute said at a press conference.  

[...]  

How will this affect consumers? 

Since the United States isn’t a homogenous mass, these potential rules will affect different areas of the country differently depending on what fuel sources they rely on and are able to tap for electricity generation. The report finds that the most damaging effects on jobs and the economy will be felt in much of the south and the Great Lakes region.

Map: Average Annual GDP and Job Losses from Potential EPA Carbon Regulations

As for electricity prices, if you live in the South power region—much of the Southeast from Tennessee to Florida--expect to see the highest increases: $6.6 billion on average annually and $111.4 cumulatively from 2014-2030.

Map: Average Annual Increase of Electricity Costs from Potential EPA Carbon Regulations

 

Considering Obama's sterling record of squeezing the middle class with policies that have caused sharp drop is household incomes, this kind of regulatory assault against Americans is par for the course.

When Obama said he was going to fundamentally change America and his wife chimed in that "Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual," people generally didn't think it was going to be an assault on the South and the middle class. Guess again.

US Economy Shrinks, GDP Falls 1%

"Do not worry. My mystical hoe and book of quotes from Rev. Wright will put the economy back on track. And anyone who doubts me is racist!"

I'm sure it's because of global warming, or the cold winter, or racism, or Bush, or white privilege, or guns, or fracking... But whatever the reason is, the economy sure didn't shrink because of ObamaCare, or Obama's regulations on employers, or the spending of [insert Carl Sagan's voice] billions and billions billions of dollars on criminally ineffective and scandal-ridden government programs. No sir.

From Bloomberg:

The economy in the U.S. contracted for the first time in three years from January through March as companies added to inventories at a slower pace and curtailed investment. 

Gross domestic product fell at a 1 percent annualized rate in the first quarter, a bigger decline than projected, after a previously reported 0.1 percent gain, the Commerce Department said today in Washington. The last time the economy shrank was in the same three months of 2011. The median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for a 0.5 percent drop.  

A pickup in receipts at retailers, stronger manufacturing and faster job growth indicate the first-quarter setback will prove temporary as pent-up demand is unleashed [pent-up demand by who exactly? The unemployed, the record numbers on disability, or the record numbers on food stamps? Reminds me of the "pent-up demand for housing" and that didn't work out to well, did it?]. Federal Reserve policy makers said at their April meeting that the economy has strengthened after adverse weather took its toll.

Yup. I called it. It was the cold weather. Never has America had to endure such intemperate weather, so of course the GDP declined. It has nothing to do with Obama's regulatory bludgeoning of American employers and his war against the American middle-class. Nothing.

Unemployment Decreases After RECORD Drop in American Workforce

Quite the recovery, huh? (Graphic from Zero Hedge)

But, hey the unemployment rate dropped! An all time high of 92 million people are not in the labor force! Obamanomics have won!

From CNBC (h/t Patterico's Pontifications):

Job creation accelerated in April as the U.S. economy added 288,000 new positions, while the unemployment rate plummeted to 6.3 percent amid a sharp drop in the workforce. 

Economists had been anticipating 210,000 new jobs and a 6.6 percent rate. 

Despite the big number, not all the news was good: The headline rate tumbled as 806,000 people left the civilian labor force, a development one market strategist called "shocking." The labor force participation rate slumped to 62.8 percent, its worst of the year and near 35-year lows. Also, the average work week was unchanged at 34.5 hours, as were average hourly earnings at $24.31. [emphasis mine]

Not all the news was good... No kidding. Labor force participation rate has the largest monthly drop since records have been kept. 288,000 jobs were added as 806,000 people left the job market for a net loss of 518,000. America currently has the lowest labor force participation rate since January 1978.

All this and the Senate Democrats are trumpeting victory? Seriously?

I guess putting the most amount of people on the dole is the goal of Obamanomics. All in the name of fairness and to combat racism, I guess.

ObamaCare to Cost Employers $5000 Per Employee

"And thus I give unto you mortals, the end of employer-based health insurance. You're welcome."

Maybe even more than that... But hey, remember that any claims that ObamaCare is bad for the economy is/are (a) stupid (b) racist (c) because you want poor people to die.

From The Washington Free Beacon article by Elizabeth Harrington (via Drudge):

Obamacare will cost large companies between $4,800 and $5,900 more per employee and add hundreds of millions to their overhead, according to a new survey. 

The American Health Policy Institute conducted a confidential survey of 100 large employers—those with 10,000 or more employees—asking what costs they expect to incur from Obamacare over the next decade. 

Factoring in the health care law’s added mandates, fees, and regulatory burdens, employers anticipate cost hikes between $163 million and $200 million in 2016, a 4.3 percent increase. By 2023, employers will be paying 8.4 percent more than “what they would otherwise be spending” for their employees’ health care. 

In the next 10 years, the total cost of Obamacare to all large American employers is estimated to be from $151 billion to $186 billion, according to the study. 

“This study is a c-suite diagnosis of how [the Affordable Care Act] ACA is shaping large employer behavior,” Tevi Troy, president of the American Health Policy Institute, said. “We don’t know yet precisely how employers will react, but the study shows that employers will have to make real changes or incur heavy costs, which means that the ACA will have a significant impact on those in employer-sponsored health care.”  

[...]  

“If the law leads to significant cost increases for [employers], this would affect the behavior of employers, which could in turn affect how—and even whether—they provide health care for their employees,” the study said. 

Health care costs have already been increasing for large businesses, which spend $578.6 billion each year to provide health coverage for 170.9 million employees, retirees, and dependents. However, numerous studies suggest that Obamacare is adding to employers’ burdens. 

For instance, a report by the Urban Institute found that Obamacare increased large employer health costs by $11.8 billion in 2012, and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the excise tax on high-cost plans would cost $32 billion from 2018 to 2019.

Don't worry Americans! According to Dems, this is really, really good news for the economy. I'm not totally sure why, but it is! Or is it that it's only good for Washington DC's economy? I keep forgetting...

Ouch! IBD: "Judging Obama's Economy By His Own Promises"

"Do not judge me by my past promises, for that is racist. Judge me instead by my current ones."

Chart from IBD piece linked below

I'm sure to do that is unfair, racist and greedy.

From the Investor's Business Daily editorial by John Merline (h/t Instapundit):

Perhaps the best metric is Obama's own promises about what his economic plan would produce. Those are contained in his first budget, which was issued in early 2009. 

Above are charts comparing that budget's forecasts for key economic indicators with what actually happened. [Charts are above at top of post] 

The results are startling. The economy did far worse than Obama thought it would on every important measure. 

But, his backers say, the recession was deeper than Obama expected at that point. Except that nominal gross domestic product in 2010 turned out to be exactly where Obama said it would be. It was only after then that growth fell short. 

Others will say that Obama just did in his first budget what every president does: Paint a rosy picture of future economic growth. This doesn't hold water either, since Obama's projections were in line with the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and other economic forecasters, all of whom expected a normal recovery. 

Then again, the economy might have suffered from what Obama likes to call "self-inflicted wounds" imposed by Republicans — the threat of default, the sequestration, the turn to "austerity" policies, etc. 

The problem here is that federal spending from 2010 to 2013 was almost exactly where Obama pegged it in his first budget, and it's much higher as a share of GDP. Deficits were also far higher than Obama expected. 

From a standard Keynesian perspective, these should have provided additional stimulus to the economy — above what Obama initially forecast. 

So the GOP's efforts to rein in spending can't be blamed for Obama's failure to meet his economic targets. 

What can? Perhaps it's the combined effect of the massive Dodd-Frank financial regulations, ObamaCare, the hugely expensive new EPA regulations and two enormous tax hikes on investment income.

Look, any judgement of Obama is racist. He is above us, has to deal with problems that are far larger than any anything else in history, and is far too smart for silly conservatives and stupid people who just want to live their own lives.

Certainly, his political amateur standing, lack of any previous leadership position, his academic Marxist leanings, his big government policies, his predilection toward spying both international and domestic, his constant untruths uttered in speeches and tweeted out endlessly, his business unfriendly policies, his politically convenient witch hunts, his haughty and thin-skinned personality, his constant search for scapegoats, his recycling of failed economic and political policies, are not to blame for anything.

A Pretty Good Question: "If the U.S. economy is getting better, then why are major retail chains closing thousands of stores?"

"I shall create wealth by taking it from others, sayeth the Light-bringer. What could possibly go wrong with spreading the wealth around?"

Tyler Durban at Zero Hedge asked the question, and there's not really a good answer. My bet is that retail stores are closing because of:

1) Online Sales

2) The Cold Weather

3) Greed

4) The GOP

5) Bullying

6) Overweight Children

7) George W. Bush

8) Even More Greed

9) The European Debt Crisis

10) The Tea Party

11) Global Warming

12) ATMs

13) Israel

14) Guns

15) Racism

... and it's mostly because of racism.

From Durban at Zero Hedge:

If the U.S. economy is getting better, then why are major retail chains closing thousands of stores? If we truly are in an "economic recovery", then why do sales figures continue to go down for large retailers all over the country? Without a doubt, the rise of Internet retailing giants such as Amazon.com have had a huge impact. Today, there are millions of Americans that actually prefer to shop online. Personally, when I published my novel I made it solely available on Amazon. But Internet shopping alone does not account for the great retail apocalypse that we are witnessing. In fact, some retail experts estimate that the Internet has accounted for only about 20 percent of the decline that we are seeing. Most of the rest of it can be accounted for by the slow, steady death of the middle class U.S. consumer. Median household income has declined for five years in a row, but all of our bills just keep going up. That means that the amount of disposable income that average Americans have continues to shrink, and that is really bad news for retailers.  

[...]  

#1 As you read this article, approximately a billion square feet of retail space is sitting vacant in the United States. 

#2 Last week, Radio Shack announced that it was going to close more than a thousand stores. 

#3 Last week, Staples announced that it was going to close 225 stores. 

#4 Same-store sales at Office Depot have declined for 13 quarters in a row. 

#5 J.C. Penney has been dying for years, and it recently announced plans to close 33 more stores. 

#6 J.C. Penney lost 586 million dollars during the second quarter of 2013 alone. 

#7 Sears has closed about 300 stores since 2010, and CNN is reporting that Sears is "expected to shutter another 500 Sears and Kmart locations soon". 

#8 Overall, sales numbers have declined at Sears for 27 quarters in a row. 

#9 Target has announced that it is going to eliminate 475 jobs and not fill 700 positions that are currently empty. 

#10 It is being projected that Aéropostale will close about 175 stores over the next couple of years. 

#11 Macy's has announced that it is going to be closing five stores and eliminating 2,500 jobs. 

#12 The Children’s Place has announced that it will be closing down 125 of its "weakest" stores by 2016. 

#13 Best Buy recently shut down about 50 stores up in Canada. 

[...] 

#15 It is being projected that sales at U.S. supermarkets will decline by 1.7 percent this year even as the overall population continues to grow. 

#16 McDonald's has reported that sales at established U.S. locations were down 3.3 percent in January. 

[...]

#18 Even Wal-Mart is struggling right now. Just check out what one very prominent Wal-Mart executive recently admitted...

David Cheesewright, CEO of Walmart International was speaking at the same presentation, and he pointed out that Walmart would try to protect its market share in the US – where the company had just issued an earnings warning. But most of the growth would have to come from its units outside the US. I mean, via these share buybacks?

Alas, outside the US too, economies were limping along at best, and consumers were struggling and the operating environment was tough. "We're seeing economies under stress pretty much everywhere we operate," Cheesewright admitted.

#19 In a recent CNBC article entitled "Time to close Wal-Mart stores? Analysts think so", it was recommended that Wal-Mart should close approximately 100 "underperforming" supercenters in rural locations across America.

#20 Retail consultant Howard Davidowitz is projecting that up to half of all shopping malls in America may shut down within the next 15 to 20 years...

Within 15 to 20 years, retail consultant Howard Davidowitz expects as many as half of America's shopping malls to fail. He predicts that only upscale shopping centers with anchors like Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus will survive.

But don't worry, Obama will make it all better, right? And I bet if you renounce all others in his name, then he'll give you more food stamps and upgrade your ObamaCare health plan to gold...

So can we admit that Obamanomics is a failure yet?

Thanks Obama: America's GDP Growth Downgraded Again-- Growth Gap Now at $1.31 Trillion

Graphic from Investors.com editorial

You know... I'm beginning to think that Obama just isn't the guy for the job.

From The Investor's Business Daily:

Stagnation: With fourth-quarter GDP growth downgraded in the latest government report, President Obama's anemic economy stretches on. If this had been only an average recovery, we'd be $1.31 trillion richer. 

Remember all that talk at the beginning of last year about how prosperity was — finally — just around the corner? In February 2013, for example, Reuters reported "signs are emerging that a more robust recovery is around the bend." 

The same month, Bloomberg told its readers that "most Fed policymakers expect growth of 2.3% to 3%." 

At the start of last year, the Obama administration projected growth in 2013 would be 2.3%. The Blue Chip consensus forecast was slightly higher. 

None of those projections was stellar. But with the Bureau of Economic Analysis' sharp downward revision of Q4 growth — from 3.2% to 2.4% — each turned out to be overly optimistic. Actual gross domestic product growth for 2013 came in at a pathetic 1.9%. 

That means annual growth during Obama's "recovery" has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years. 

Looked at another way, if Obama's recovery had merely been average — that is, if it had matched the average growth of the previous 10 economic recoveries — the economy would be $1.31 trillion bigger than it is now. 

And 7.5 million more people would have jobs if employment growth had kept pace with the average post-World War II recovery. 

It seems the only thing that's shown solid growth under Obama is the pile of excuses he's made to explain away this ongoing subpar performance. 

First he rationalized that recoveries from financial crises are always slower. Then it was the tsunami in Japan, the debt crisis in Greece, the protests in the Mideast. He blamed Republicans for threatening to default on the debt and imposing across-the-board spending cuts. Later it was expiring unemployment benefits and "cuts" in food stamps. 

Our favorite excuse is the one trotted out for the latest downgrade ... bad weather. Seems a cold winter sapped growth. But the weather excuse doesn't make sense, either, since national temperatures and precipitation were close to average during all of Q4. [emphasis mine]

I'm getting really tired of hearing lame excuses and the word "unexpected" from people trying to excuse Obama's abysmal performance in handling the U.S. economy. All we get is excuses for the last failure, false hopes for the next, "unexpectedly" bad results and then another round of blame/excuses that often involve the GOP's nefarious plots and some nebulous reference to racism.

Will this cowardice ever stop?

Obama is, without a doubt, the worst president in modern history. And we haven't seen a smidgen of the results planted in the last five years. The anemic economy and Russian invasion of Ukraine is just the beginning results of this president's labors.

There's much more "fun" to come-- but the real fault won't lie with Obama. No, it'll be the fault racism or bullying.

Report on Ant & Rat Tribes-- Chinese People Living Literally Underground

The video is not in English, but English subtitles are available in the options lined at the bottom of the video.

I found this video on Breitbart. It is awful, but not surprising.

Never let an American Leftist fool you, the Chinese poor live in crippling poverty and in dire conditions.


From the Breitbart article by Fances Martel:

Vice magazine visited the groups in Beijing, often called "ant" or "rat" tribes because of the hours of labor they work and their lives underground. They found a ravaging and severely unhealthy economic situation below the already dismal lifestyles that the communist country's economy has yielded millions. The "ant" tribe tends to be composed of young professionals who are forced to take unskilled labor jobs because of the closing job market. They can only afford to live in these tight spaces. The "rat" tribe is far less wealthy and typically composed of migrant unskilled workers. They occupy former bomb shelters and other underground lairs in a much less orderly way as they toil dawn-to-dusk trying to make ends meet. 

The "ants," who are described in the report as "highly-educated working poor," pay rent to the owners of these underground areas, owners who have established a system of living spaces where up to six people could be paying rent to live in the same room. The rooms are makeshift creations in places like parking lots that were never meant for permanent dwelling, particularly of so many people at once. 

The rent for living in a small room in one of these colonies is inexpensive enough for a young professional working in private industry to afford, as the largest salaries in China are reserved for high-ranking members of the government or employees working for the government. While they are above ground, though impoverished, they are sometimes in suburban areas further away from work or school. Private industry pays 70% less than government work but constitutes a great number of the white collar jobs in urban areas. This is especially important in a smog-filled city where young workers find themselves with no health care aid and are forced to take unskilled or low-skill jobs after receiving liberal arts or professional degrees. "Even minor symptoms will cost you a lot of money," says one of the dwellers in Vice's documentary, noting that he does not see the possibility of ever saving money to move out of the space he currently rents, especially if he gets even mildly sick. 

Those living in air-raid shelters face a host of different problems even more dangerous than those who find spaces slightly higher underground. These shelters were never meant for dwelling, so they lack a number of amenities, including fire escape paths, kitchens, and bathrooms. They cook by lighting a fire on the floor and make amends to fix other living situations, but with no windows or means of ventilation, most create dangerous fire hazards and pollute the already smoggy Beijing air.

And let's not forget, the Democrats have repeatedly used China as an example of how we should run an economy.

Without Labor Dropouts, Unemployment Would Be at 10.8% Under Obama

"Ignore these numbers. They were all made by racists."

Well, many people knew that the dropping unemployment rate was due to people giving up looking for hard to come by jobs and start collecting from the government. However, the actual numbers are pretty shocking.

From The Federalist article by Sean Davis (h/t Ace of Spades):

Yes, the unemployment rate has fallen significantly from its high of 10 percent in October of 2009. But it turns out the unemployment rate has been falling for a pretty depressing reason: people dropping out of the labor force. Last month, 347,000 workers dropped out, effectively sending the message that it wasn’t even worth looking for work anymore. 

Here’s what the unemployment rate would look like if the labor force participation rate — basically the number of people in the economy working or looking for work — had remained constant since June of 2009:

[...]   

To understand how the labor force numbers affect the unemployment rate, it helps to understand how the unemployment rate is calculated. First, BLS determines who is a member of the civilian non-institutional population: people who are 16 years of age or older who are not inhabitants of institutions (prisons, mental institutions, etc.) and not active duty members of the U.S. military. Next, BLS determines what percentage of those individuals are members of the labor force: that roughly consists of people who are either working or are looking for work. Then, BLS determines how many individuals within the labor force are employed. Subtracting the number of employed persons from the labor force gives you the number of unemployed, and dividing the number of unemployed by the total labor force gives you the unemployment rate. 

If you hold total employment constant and increase the size of the labor force, the number of unemployed persons will increase, as will the unemployment rate. A shrinking labor force, however, can completely mask a serious job shortage by excluding those who stop looking for work altogether from the calculation of unemployed persons.
In June of 2009, the labor force participation rate was 65.7 percent (by way of comparison, the average over the last decade is 65.1 percent, while the peak was 66.5 percent in June of 2003). Since the end of the recession, that number has nose-dived. At the end of last month, it hit 62.8 percent — on par with what the U.S. experienced in the late 1970′s (although at the time, the number was on the upswing). 

What does this all mean? Rather than being the sign of a vibrant economy, the falling unemployment rate is actually an arithmetic artifact of the BLS head-counting process. If the labor force participation rate had held steady since 2009, the number of people in the labor force today would total nearly 162 million people. Instead, BLS reports the official number to be just shy of 155 million. 

And thanks to how BLS calculates and reports the official unemployment rate, those 7 million people are not included among the ranks of the unemployed. Add them back in and you have an unemployment rate that averages a very stubborn 10.8 percent since the end of the recession. 

Some recovery, huh?

Obama's a liar and his policies are pathetic, ineffective, and harmful to the economy. We're not recovering. The government is using barely effective measures to ease the pain and not treating the disease-- prescribing morphine while a patient is having a heart attack. But even that analogy is far too kind, as morphine wouldn't actually cause much further damage to the patient, while Obama's policies are really hurting the American economy.

We're in the most incompetent of hands.

Giant Miss in December-- 74,000 Jobs Created, but 197,000 Had Been Expected

"Look, trying to micro-manage the economy and punish my enemies is really hard. I need another vacation..."

 

Oops.

Obamanomics in action. The Left simply does not create many non-government jobs. It creates government dependency.

From Zero Hedge:

So much for the recovery. Moments ago December nonfarms were revealed at just 74,000 a huge miss to expectations of 197,000 - the biggest miss Since December 2009. The drop from last month's revised 226K was the largest since December 2010. Other notables: the change in private payrolls was a tiny 87K vs expectations of 200K. Mfg payrolls added just 9K vs 15K expected and down from 31K. Average hourly earnings for all employees rose 0.1% vs. Expected 0.2%. The good news: the unemployment rate plunged to 6.7% from 7.0%... For all the wrong reasons - the number of people not in the labor force rose to a record 91,808,000. As a reason for the plunge the BLS says there was a major weather effect seen on the forced part-time series, and notes the decline in healthcare which is rare and part of the sector slowing. Thank you Obamacare. And now bring on the Untaper.  

[...]   

Some of the highlights from the report:  

[...] 

Among the unemployed, the number of job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs decreased by 365,000 in December to 5.4 million. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more), at 3.9 million, showed little change; these individuals accounted for 37.7 percent of the unemployed. The number of long-term unemployed has declined by 894,000 over the year. (See tables A-11 and A-12.) 

The civilian labor force participation rate declined by 0.2 percentage point to 62.8 percent in December, offsetting a change of the same magnitude in November. In December, the employment-population ratio was unchanged at 58.6 percent. The labor force participation rate declined by 0.8 percentage point over the year, while the employment-population ratio was unchanged. (See table A-1.) [emphasis mine]

So exactly when is Obama going to make us all rich? Or was that just a teensy bit unrealistic?

U.S. Government Sells Last of GM Shares-- For a Loss of Billions

"Don't thank me all at once. Just fall to your knees in my presence and renounce all others in the name of the Light-bringer."

Oh goody...

From USA Today:

U.S. taxpayers no longer own any of automaker General Motors. The Treasury sold the last of its remaining 31.1 million GM shares today. It started with 500 million shares in 2010. 

The taxpayer loss on the GM bailout is $10.5 billion. The Treasury department said it recovered $39 billion from selling its GM stake, and had put $49.5 billion of taxpayer money directly into the GM bailout.  

The total bailout rises to $51 billion, including another $1.5 billion that Treasury put into programs to keep GM suppliers afloat and to make sure owners' warranties were honored, plus some into the old GMAC finance company that's now known as Ally — separate from a much larger Ally bailout. 

That $1.5 billion didn't go directly to GM, but was spent largely on its behalf.

Billions lost so that GM can resume posting losses and the car maker unions can continue to run up tabs and meddle in politics. What an accomplishment...

Obama's Horrible New Normal for American Jobs

A pretty damning graphic... Click Pic to Enlarge

Ignore the graphic, we're in the recovery winter. And it was all George Bush's fault anyway...

From AEI's James Pethokoukis (via Instapundit):

If the US labor market were back at pre-Great Recession levels, this would have been a pretty decent employment report. Net new jobs were up 203,000 last month with gains broadly based, bringing lower unemployment and underemployment rates. November also saw a nice bump in hours worked, which when combined with an increase in average hourly earnings, points to “a robust advance in wage income,” according to RDQ Economics. The firm also adds, “The evidence from the labor market shows that the momentum in the economy was sustained through the period of the government shutdown.” Good stuff all. 

But here’s your trouble: 

1. There are still 1.1 million fewer employed Americans today than right before the recession started, despite a potential labor force that’s 14 million larger. And there are 3.6 million fewer full-time workers than back in 2007. 

2. The employment rate, the share of Americans with a job, is 58.6% — exactly where it was in November 2009. 

3. If the labor force participation rate were where it was a year ago, the jobless rate would be 7.9%, not 7% (and 11.3% if the LFPR were at prerecession levels, though closer to 9% if demographics-adjusted). 

4. More than 4 million Americans remain out of work for 27 weeks or longer. 

5. Overall, according to the Hamilton Project Jobs Gap calculator, it will take another five years to return to 2007 employment levels even at the improved job creation pace of the past four months. 

Things could be worse, of course. If not for the Fed’s bond-buying program, tax hike-driven austerity may well have put the economy back into recession in 2013, sending unemployment back toward 10%. (For more: See the euro zone.) Yet the Long Emergency for workers is still in effect — particularly those who are lightly educated –even as inflation remains moribund. Of course this shouldn’t be surprising given an economy that’s growing around 2% right now.

Do you want to bet that we will still have an "unexpectedly" weak retail holiday season?

Consumer Confidence in U.S. "Unexpectedly" Falls to 7 Month Low

"With my magic halo, I command that you will still be surprised at my continuing economic failures!"

I'm not just tired of the press continuing to use the word "unexpected" when delving out their economic bad news every month, I'm getting pissed off about that word. After five plus years of Obama's amateur, ideological, and catastrophic handling of the economy, we're still supposed to be surprised by economic bad news. Really? I'm not surprised. And this isn't unexpected news.

From Bloomberg (via JWF):

Confidence among U.S. consumers unexpectedly declined in November to a seven-month low as Americans grew more pessimistic about the labor-market outlook.  

The Conference Board’s index fell to 70.4 from a revised 72.4 a month earlier that was stronger than initially estimated, the New York-based private research group said today. The median forecast in a Bloomberg survey of 78 economists called for a November reading of 72.6. 

The drop in sentiment helps explain why some retailers such as Best Buy Co. see a need to match competitors’ discounts this holiday-shopping season. More employment opportunities and wage gains would help lay the groundwork for a pickup in household purchases that make up about 70 percent of the U.S. economy.  

“The economy just has not performed very well this year and has been disappointing relative to what most people were hoping for and expecting through the course of the year,” said Stephen Stanley, chief economist at Pierpont Securities LLC in Stamford, Connecticut. “It’s one thing when you have one or two years into the recovery and things aren’t progressing in the job market, but here we are four-plus years in.”

There has been no recovery! I'm sick of that b.s. too. Obama just pumped tons of money into the economy to keep things slightly buoyant in the very short-term. This is not a recovery.

The proportion of Americans who said jobs would become more plentiful in the next six months declined to 12.7 percent, the lowest since November 2011, from 16 percent.  

The share of respondents who said they expected a pickup in their incomes declined to an eight-month low of 14.9 percent in November from 15.7 percent a month earlier.

Hey, do you want to bet that these same people will be surprised when there's an "unexpectedly" weak holiday season for retailers this year?

Obamanomics... Retrying the failed economics of socialism with a willing media and the built-in shield of the race card. Yay!

Number of People on Disability Jumps Up 20% During Obama Presidency

"If folks are making such a big deal out of this, then they must hate disabled people and graft. Oh, I mean, just hate disabled people. And the critics are all racists besides. Isn't that right, Oprah?"

 Obamanomics in action.

From CNS News (via Drudge):

In the fourteen fiscal years that preceded President Barack Obama’s inauguration in 2009, the tax receipts coming into the federal government’s Disability Insurance Trust Fund exceeded the benefits paid out, and the trust fund ran a surplus. 

In each of the five fiscal years Obama has served as president, the trust fund has run a deficit as the number of people receiving disability benefits has surged. The Disability Insurance Trust Fund has never before run five straight years of deficits. 

In fiscal 2013, which ended on Sept. 30, the Disability Insurance Trust Fund ran a record deficit of $31.494 billion, according to newly released data from the Social Security Administration. That followed deficits of $8.462 billion in fiscal 2009, $20,831 billion in fiscal 2010, $25.264 billion in fiscal 2011, and $29.701 billion in fiscal 2012. 

From fiscal 1995 through fiscal 2008, the Disability Insurance Trust Fund ran surpluses, as receipts from the disability insurance taxes paid by people who were working exceeded the value of the benefits paid to those claiming disability.  

[...]  

When President Obama took office in January 2009--which was the fourth month of fiscal 2009--there were 7,442,377 workers on disability, according to the Social Security Administration. As of October 2013, there was a record 8,936,932. That means the number of people on disability has increased by 1,494,555 while Obama has been in office--a jump of 20 percent.  

In addition to the 8,936,932 workers collecting disability in October, there were also 157,676 spouses of disabled workers who collected additional benefits, and 1,871,127 children of disabled workers who collected benefits.  

All told, 10,965,735 people collected federal disability benefits in October.  

At the end of fiscal 2008, there was a net balance of $216.239 billion in the Disability Insurance Trust Fund—meaning the Treasury owed $216.239 billion in IOUs to the trust fund for surplus disability insurance tax receipts it had taken in previous years and used for other government expenses.  

At the end of fiscal 2013, the net balance in the Disability Insurance Trust Fund had dropped to $100.486—a decline of $115.753 billion.  

That $115.753 billion, the cumulative five year deficit of the disability insurance program, equals the amount of money the Treasury had to borrow from other sources to pay disability benefits during that time.  

From the last day of January 2009 through the last day of September 2013, the total debt of the federal government climbed from $10,632,005,246,736.97 to $16,738,183,526,697.32—an increase of $6,106,178,279,960.35.  [emphasis mine]

This is what you get when you elect an amateur, who believes that he's smarter than he actually is, to a high office.

Hey, but at least race relations are better... Uh, right?

10 Nasty Facts Regarding Obama's Handling of Jobs

"Who are you going to believe on the economy, folks? Me? Or your own lying and racist eyes?"

From Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge:

#1 The percentage of working age Americans with a job fell to 58.3 percent in October. The lowest that number has been at any point since the year 2000 is 58.2 percent. In other words, there has been absolutely no "jobs recovery". During the last recession, the civilian employment-population ratio dropped from about 63 percent to below 59 percent and it has stayed there for 50 months in a row. Will the percentage of working age Americans with a job soon drop below the 58 percent mark?... 

#2 The U.S. economy lost 623,000 full-time jobs last month. But we are being told to believe that the economy is actually getting "better". 

#3 The number of American women with a job fell by 357,000 during the month of October. 

#4 The average duration of unemployment in October 2013 was nearly three times as long as it was in October 2000. 

#5 The number of Americans "not in the labor force" increased by an astounding 932,000 during October. In other words, the Obama administration would have us believe that nearly a million people "disappeared" from the U.S. labor force in a single month. 

#6 The number of Americans "not in the labor force" has grown by more than 11 million since Barack Obama first entered the White House. 

#7 In October, the U.S. labor force participation rate fell from 63.2 percent to 62.8 percent. It is now the lowest that it has been since 1978. Below is a chart which shows how the labor force participation rate has been steadily declining since the year 2000. How can the economy be "healthy" if the percentage of Americans that are participating in the labor force is continually declining?...

#8 If the labor force participation rate was still at the same level it was at when Barack Obama was elected in 2008, the official unemployment rate would be about 11 percent right now.

#9 Even if you are working, that does not mean that you are able to take care of yourself and your family without any help. In fact, approximately one out of every four part-time workers in America is living below the poverty line.

#10 In January 2000, there were 75 million working age Americans that did not have a job. Today, there are 102 million working age Americans that do not have a job.

So what are our politicians doing to fix this?

Shouldn't they be working night and day to solve this crisis?

After all, Barack Obama once made the following promise to the American people...

"But I want you all to know, I will not rest until anybody who's looking for a job can find one -- and I'm not talking about just any job, but good jobs that give every American decent wages and decent benefits and a fair shot at the American Dream."

Unfortunately, things have not improved since Obama made that promise, but he has found the time to play 150 rounds of golf since he has been president.

Meanwhile, because there aren't enough jobs, the number of Americans living in poverty continues to grow.

As I wrote about the other day, according to new numbers that were just released an all-time high 49.7 million Americans are living in poverty.

It's enough to keep you up nights.

Obama has done the worst job of handling the U.S. economy then any previous president. Hands down.

Record Numbers of People Falling Out of Labor Force

Do not fret! Obama stands ready to battle the greed... or whatever capitalist nonsense that is destroying our economy!

It's Obamanomics in action!

From Zero Hedge:

First, the labor force participation rate, which plunged from 63.2% to 62.8% - the lowest since 1978!

But more importantly, the number of people not in the labor force exploded by nearly 1 million, or 932,000 to be exact, in just the month of October, to a record 91.5 million Americans! This was the third highest monthly increase in people falling out of the labor force in US history.

At this pace the people out of the labor force will surpass the working Americans in about 4 years.

Hey, don't worry... Obama will give everyone food stamps and print up more money to pat for it all. And then the Light-bringer will give you free ice cream and balloons!

When will people learn that these sort of economic policies have been tried before and failed miserably. But keep plugging away... keep kicking working people while their down... take away their full-time jobs and their health insurance. It's the Obama way.