Ky. congressman has well-lubed operation
Whoa.
I know it’s not cold hard cash stashed in a freezer, but still … the amount of money involved is a little mind-boggling.
Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), the new chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, has funneled more than $236 million in federal funds since 2000 to a web of nonprofit groups he created back home in the Bluegrass State, according to a new report by an ethics watchdog group.
Another group of private firms linked to Rogers and the nonprofit companies received another $227 million in federal loans, grants and contracts during the same period, a three-month investigation by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) found.
Rogers’ family members, current and former aides, donors and business associates have benefited personally from the congressman’s largesse with federal dollars, according to the report. For instance, Rogers’ son, John, worked for one Kentucky company – Senture – that received a $4 million contract from the Department of Homeland Security with Rogers’ help back in 2004. Senture, which has now added offices in several other states, announced last year that it would receive contracts from several other federal agencies, including the Veterans Administration and Education Department….
The nonprofit groups set up by Rogers comprise an alphabet soup of acronyms: the Center for Rural Development, Inc. (CRD), Forward in the Fifth, Inc. (FIF), Southeast Kentucky Economic Development Corporation, Inc. (SKED), Southern & Eastern Kentucky Tourism Development Association, Inc. (TOUR SEKY), Eastern Kentucky Personal Responsibility in a Desirable Environment, Inc. (PRIDE), Unlawful Narcotics Investigations, Treatment and Education, Inc. (UNITE), and the National Institute for Hometown Security, Inc. (NIHS).
“
That’s $560 million — more than a half a billion. At that rate, the good congressman from Kentucky will be getting into real money sometime soon.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
400 comments Add your comment
Mick
April 26th, 2011
2:51 pm
doom
The housing bust plus the economic meltdown in 08 is about an 8.0 on the richter scale of recession compared to the minor aftershocks that bush had to contend with…there is no comparison..
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
2:51 pm
Clinton only had job numbers because of the dot com bubble, Bush’s numbers were bad because he came in with a recession. Obama comes in during the worst world economic collapse in almost 100 years but he’s the problem.
Fascinating!
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
2:51 pm
Mick….there is a HUGE difference.
TaxPayer
April 26th, 2011
2:51 pm
UGA1999, WOW, Barney Frank. That’s your comeback. How about some of the real problems such as the billion dollar fraud ring in Florida.
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
2:51 pm
Willie Lynch,
Nope. Unemployment I believe hit 7% in Bush’s last months in office. Under Obama it went to 8 then to 9 and then finally to 10%. Still having trouble with facts willie? And are you having trouble with the fact that as an average Bush still averaged just over 5% for his presidency. Here are the facts-
Bill Clinton (D) – 5.2%
George W. Bush (R) – 5.27%
Barack Obama (D) – 9.3%
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
2:52 pm
TaxPayer. How about the Trillion dollar fraud ring in Washington?
Peadawg
April 26th, 2011
2:52 pm
That’s a nice theory, Finn. So why are Liberals obsessed with the wealthy?
Mick
April 26th, 2011
2:53 pm
** Lower tax rates bring higher tax revenues.**
The tooth fairy would be so proud of your logic….
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:53 pm
“Higher tax rates = more revenue = lower deficit toward balanced budget. See how easy that was?”
Mick,
All I see is how easily you are duped.
If higher taxes and balanced budget = jobs, why do you think Obama extended the Bush tax cuts and then created the biggest budget deficits in the history of the known universe?
Liberals are so funny.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
2:53 pm
” I’m looking for the permanent members of the underclass who are otherwise capable of securing gainful employment, but who choose not to do so.”
Joe, I’ve asked that question many times of our wingnut friends — name a welfare program that gives money to those who are just too damn lazy to work.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
2:54 pm
Mick….you do understand that the last time taxes were raised over all intake from the government decreased! Great work.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
2:54 pm
“Still having trouble with facts willie?”
Are you still having trouble with cause and effect, Doom?
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:55 pm
“The tooth fairy would be so proud of your logic….”
Maybe the tooth fairy should go to the CBO website and look at federal government revenues before and after the Reagan and Bush tax rate decreases.
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:56 pm
“name a welfare program that gives money to those who are just too damn lazy to work.”
LOL.
All of them.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
2:57 pm
Harry….AMEN!!!
Peadawg
April 26th, 2011
2:57 pm
” name a welfare program that gives money to those who are just too damn lazy to work.”
They all do, Bosch. But that’s NOT the same as saying everyone on welfare is just too damn lazy to work. See the difference?
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
2:57 pm
Mick
April 26th, 2011
2:51 pm
doom
The housing bust plus the economic meltdown in 08 is about an 8.0 on the richter scale of recession compared to the minor aftershocks that bush had to contend with…there is no comparison.
Mick,
That is a matter of opinion. Bush inherited not only the dot.com bust but 9/11 hit just 8 months into his presidency and belted the economy also. A lot of presidents have inherited recessions. The question is what do you do to get out of it. Under Bush we recovered fairly quickly and enjoyed moderate, decent economic growth in the middle 6 years.
I’ll admit that Obama inherited a bad situation with the housing bust but everything the man did simply compounded the recession and delayed it. his perilous fiscal policies have put us on the road to bankruptcy. This point is not debatable and the modest recovery we are now having is threatened by his spending- inflation is looming, the weaker dollar means gas is skyrocketing along with all goods in the U.S that have to be trucked- basically everything- and so we now are met with the very real possibility of a double dip recession.
Mick
April 26th, 2011
2:58 pm
harry
Twisting what I wrote a bit? Never mentioned jobs but since you brought it up, more employment brings in more revenue. Obama made a deal with the repubs for the tax cuts – I was against that deal. You and doom are being disingenious about the great recession obama inherited, we were going to hemorage jobs no matter who was elected and the stimulus at least stopped the bleeding…
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:58 pm
willie is still dodging my two questions…must be related to AmVet…
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
2:58 pm
“See the difference?”
No, Peadawg, there are pesky rules called eligibility requirements, and none of those programs have as an eligibility requirement, “must be too damn lazy to work.”
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
2:59 pm
Mr. Doom — “Be honest about it.”
I *am* being honest about it.
“The country was sliding into a recession from the Clinton dot.com bust as Bush was coming in so jobs were being lost as Bush was just starting his presidency. And then when Bush’s recession hit in his last year it gave back many of the jobs the economy had created in the middle years.”
Nope. Job creation numbers show that Bush had positive job creation numbers in only 2 years of his ENTIRE Presidency, and those jobs didn’t cover the losses suffered in the other six. The Bush years were a net LOSS to employment in this country.
Do you want me to post the numbers again? I’ve posted them at least three or four times in the last couple of weeks.
“Bush’s job growth was anemic because of the 2 bookend recessions but to hear a liberal make fun of Bush’s job creation is quite comical given the 10% unemployment numbers we’ve had under Obama.”
Bush’s job loss period was longer and milder; Obama’s was shorter and deeper. But Obama turned it around *much* faster than Bush did. If anything’s comical, it’s the conservative reliance on a number (the U3) that tells *very* little of value about employment.
BOTH Bush and Obama suck for job creation. But Obama inherited a *much* worse problem (this is illustrated by the numbers I’m again offering you) and he turned it around *much* faster than Bush did. Those are facts.
“Nearly 2 1/2 years in we are finally seeing a smidgen of growth in spite of Obama but we are finally just under the 10% mark here in Georgia and still around 9 1/2 % nationwide.”
Which means nothing, given how U3 is calculated. If population remained steady, or if population and the size of the labor force trended together (they haven’t in recent years; the labor force has been shrinking), then comparing U3 over time would be meaningful. But when those two figures stop trending together as they are doing now, they cease to be meaningful.
Most observers don’t realize that, and most people don’t have a background in statistics or the time to dig into the numbers.
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
3:00 pm
“They all do, Bosch. But that’s NOT the same as saying everyone on welfare is just too damn lazy to work. See the difference?”
Liberals don’t really “do” nuance, or fine shades of meaning, despite their alleged intellectual superiority.
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
3:00 pm
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
2:51 pm
I don’t believe I’m having any problem with the numbers. By your statement we can deduce that Bush’s unemployment numbers moved 2% as have Obama’s. If we are to use the average percentile you’ve indicated surely we would have to give President Obama 8 years to offer any serious comparisons.
Does that seem correct?
Peadawg
April 26th, 2011
3:01 pm
“No, Peadawg”
And people on here call me ignorant and naive….
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
3:01 pm
UGA1999 — “Joe….no I dont care how infactuated you are with me.”
I’m sorry, UGA, but I’m just not that into you. Besides, my wife is better looking than you.
“I wanted to hear you opinion on the tax code and job creation. Oh mature one.”
Okay. Do you have specific questions?
USMC
April 26th, 2011
3:01 pm
“So much for veterans respecting other veterans.”-Joe Mama
I apologize Joe, I thought it was funny; no harm intended:-)
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
3:02 pm
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:58 pm
I’ve answered the one question even if you didn’t like it. But I don’t recall a second question.
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
3:02 pm
Obama comes in during the worst world economic collapse in almost 100 years but he’s the problem.- willie lynch
willie lynch,
Really? The worst economic collapse in almost 100 years? Do you have any freaking idea just how asininely stupid that sounds? Ever heard of the great depression Willie? How about Jimmy Carter with the term stagflation- economic recession, inflation was in double digits and interest rates were around 16-18%- numbers we can’t even imagine today. What Obama inherited is a joke compared to the great depression and the Carter years. Go learn some basic history sir.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
3:03 pm
“And people on here call me ignorant and naive….”
Well, then tell us Peadawg, which programs give money for the sole purpose of just being too damn lazy to work?
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
3:03 pm
How do I know many welfare recipients would rather draw a check than work? Because I see with my own eyes that illegals come here to wash dishes, bus tables, build houses, cut grass, and trim hedges. All of which would be available to the people sitting out on the stoops of the public housing areas with their small children at 11:00PM when I’m leaving a Braves or Thrashers game.
Mick
April 26th, 2011
3:03 pm
doom
The dot com bust and the housing bust are like comparing an ant and an elephant. The housing bust caused a worldwide quake. How’s the value of your house these days? Houses in your neighborhood? State? Country? It’s going to take several more years for inventory to be sold off. Be real about the current conditions…
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
3:04 pm
“How about Jimmy Carter ”
Wow, now it’s Carter’s fault. How honest of you Doom.
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
3:04 pm
Mr. Callahan — “I don’t need to do research.”
Actually, you do. Your guesswork and suppositions are neither supportive of or evidence proving your claims.
“I can see with my eyes.”
Yeah, that used to be considered evidence that the earth was flat. Shrug.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
3:05 pm
“All of which would be available to the people sitting out on the stoops of the public housing areas with their small children at 11:00PM when I’m leaving a Braves or Thrashers game.”
And you know those people don’t work how exactly Harry? You go ask them?
USMC
April 26th, 2011
3:05 pm
“The tooth fairy would be so proud of your logic….”-Mick
That’s cute Mick. Ever heard of the Law of Diminishing Returns?
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
3:06 pm
Bosch….and how do you know they do?
Peadawg
April 26th, 2011
3:06 pm
“Well, then tell us Peadawg, which programs give money for the sole purpose of just being too damn lazy to work?”
Food stamps and Medicaid come to mind. But again, I’M NOT saying everyone on those programs are lazy. Again, there is a difference. That’s where the waste and fraud come into play…the ones who game the system.
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
3:07 pm
Mr. Callahan — “Liberals don’t really “do” nuance, or fine shades of meaning, despite their alleged intellectual superiority.”
You’re the only one I’ve noticed dissing the intelligence of your post-opponents today; ironic considering your claimed Magical Truth Divining powers.
Jay
April 26th, 2011
3:07 pm
Doom, you’re smart enough to know that the unemployment rate represents the culmination of job losses or gains over many previous months, and thus not suitable for the comparison you attempt to make. You know that, but attempt it anyway, which also suggests that you know the weakness of your general argument.
We lost an average of 191,000 jobs a month in the second quarter of ‘08, 334,000 a month in the third quarter, 651,000 a month in the fourth quarter and 752,000 a month in the first quarter of 2009, when Obama took office.
From that point, job losses began to decline almost immediately, and over the past year we’ve added 1.5 million jobs.
Fresh sheets upstairs.
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
3:08 pm
willie lynch,
no. Now you’re just trying to play statistical games. And you are no statistician sir. Bottom line is that for much of Bush’s presidency we enjoyed decent economic growth with low unemployment averaging around 5% and it was only in the last year that it fell to 7 %. In Obama’s mere 2 1/2years we have averaged a full 2-3% higher at around 9 1/2 % with barely a glimmer of hope. We are just now seeing some economic growth and it is very modest at that. Bush had 2 bad years and 6 decent years. Obama has had nearly 2 1/2 years and its all been bad, bad, bad.
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
3:08 pm
USMC — Apology accepted, no harm done.
We’re all adults here, but I don’t think there’s any call to get personal with other posters.
Mick
April 26th, 2011
3:09 pm
usmc
Sorry, but if what you are suggesting is true then we should be walloping in surplusses by now…
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
3:09 pm
Jay….you may have added ficticious jobs but unemployment is still at 9.2% great work!!
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
3:10 pm
Mr. Callahan — “How do I know many welfare recipients would rather draw a check than work? Because I see with my own eyes that illegals come here to wash dishes, bus tables, build houses, cut grass, and trim hedges. All of which would be available to the people sitting out on the stoops of the public housing areas with their small children at 11:00PM when I’m leaving a Braves or Thrashers game.”
Translation — ‘Because it seems like the most plausible explanation to me, and I don’t feel like actually doing any reading or research to back up my claims.’
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
3:11 pm
“Bosch….and how do you know they do?”
George W,
Because the Georgia TANF program requires it:
http://team.georgia.gov/portal/site/DHS-DFCS/menuitem.5d32235bb09bde9a50c8798dd03036a0/?vgnextoid=2bea2b48d9a4ff00VgnVCM100000bf01010aRCRD
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
3:13 pm
Mr. Doom — “Bush had 2 bad years and 6 decent years. Obama has had nearly 2 1/2 years and its all been bad, bad, bad.”
Nope.
If you were a working man, fully *75% of Bush’s term* involved month-over-month job losses. Again, I’ll be happy to supply you those numbers.
Mr. Obama has gotten us out a deeper hole MUCH faster than Mr. Bush did. We have a long way to go — no doubt about it — but he’s ahead of Mr. Bush at this stage.
Conservatives *used* to care about facts and truth and honesty. Please don’t disappoint me, Mr. Doom.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
3:14 pm
“Food stamps and Medicaid come to mind.”
No Peadawg, even those programs have eligibility requirements, you don’t get those for just being too damn lazy to work. Try again.
USMC
April 26th, 2011
3:15 pm
“Sorry, but if what you are suggesting is true then we should be walloping in surplusses by now…’
I would contend that there are other forces besides Taxes that are required for surpluses; like out-of-control spending, etc.
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
3:15 pm
Jay,
I beg to differ. Nothing weak about my argument. The issue here is that you guys just don’t want to admit that unemployment is dramatically worse under Obama and the facts bear that out. Sure some jobs have been added back in but at what cost? A trillion dollar stimulus and nearly 5 trillion in new debt to bring unemployment back down to a still staggeringly skyhigh 9.3%? The numbers don’t lie.
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
3:15 pm
UGA1999 — “Jay….you may have added ficticious jobs”
He didn’t. Would you like to see the numbers, or are you just going to dismiss them because they disagree with you?
“but unemployment is still at 9.2% great work!!”
What was your major, exactly? I’m guessing that it didn’t require a lot of math.
ODDOWL
April 26th, 2011
3:19 pm
The Republicans are operating a continuous criminal enterprise. These thieves and ripoff artists should be subjected to the RICO laws. The naive, ignorant, gullible tax payers who vote Republican are the culprits who are responsible for electing this Republican criminal element.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
3:20 pm
Joe….again, your point….are you having a difficult time with the 9.2% number? Do you know what percentages are?
Or the fact that he lied about job creation?
The first lie was an obvious one. According to Obama’s own report, the statistic detailing the creation of 55,000 at US automakers was taken from the BLS, which shows that the increase in jobs over the year included all automaker manufacturing jobs in the US, not just US companies. That means Toyota jobs, Hundai jobs, Ford jobs or any other job creation from an automaker so long as they were residing in America. Did Obama nationalize Ford and foreign automakers as well?
Peadawg
April 26th, 2011
3:21 pm
Bosch, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on there being fraud/waste in Medicaid and Food Stamps.
Jay
April 26th, 2011
3:21 pm
In addition, Joe Mama, there were fewer people employed in the private economy when Bush left office than when he took office eight years earlier.
Over eight years, negative job growth.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
3:23 pm
Jay…Obama over two years….dramatic increase in unemployment. Pick your poison.
Jay
April 26th, 2011
3:25 pm
Doom, you actually do know better, that’s the sad part.
You clearly recognize how distorted a number that is.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
3:25 pm
“I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on there being fraud/waste in Medicaid and Food Stamps.”
No, Peadawg, we don’t have to agree to disagree — I agree with you on that, but people do not simply get money for being too damn lazy to work.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
3:26 pm
Bosch…..actually yes they do.
USMC
April 26th, 2011
3:27 pm
“The Republicans are operating a continuous criminal enterprise.”
No where near as successful as the Chicago-land Mobster in the White House; talk about criminal.
Peadawg
April 26th, 2011
3:29 pm
Bosch,
If you agree that there is FRAUD and WASTE in those programs then you also agree that there people on those programs b/c they are too lazy to work. They’re the same thing. What the hell do you think FRAUD and WASTE mean?
Joe Cool
April 26th, 2011
3:31 pm
“Nope. Unemployment I believe hit 7% in Bush’s last months in office. Under Obama it went to 8 then to 9 and then finally to 10%. Still having trouble with facts willie?”
Let me help you out DOOM
President Obama 1st month in office numbers: FEB. 2009: 8.2% | March 2011: 8.8%
You do that math DOOM.
Dont let a thing called facts get in the way.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
Tundra Dude
April 26th, 2011
3:31 pm
Yippee@12:01 pm, wrote in part:
Remember folks, Ford didn’t take the stimulus handout (i.e. YOUR TAX DOLLARS).
I think he’s referring to the bailout, TARP.
Ford CEO Mulally declared, “We do not face a near-term liquidity issue, and we are not seeking short-term financial assistance from the government,”
Bald-faced lie. I guess the TARP was too transparent for Ford. They used the “stealth bailout” via the Fed, hoping no one would notice.
Ford Motor Credit had borrowed nearly $4 billion from the Fed’s Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF). And just two weeks after this remark, Ford Motor Credit borrowed an additional $3 billion from the CPFF. In all, Ford borrowed $7 billion between October 27, 2008 and June 17, 2009.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
3:31 pm
USMC>>….AMEN DUDE AMEN!
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
3:32 pm
If you were a working man, fully *75% of Bush’s term* involved month-over-month job losses. Again, I’ll be happy to supply you those numbers.- Joe Mama
Joe Mama I suppose that could be factually correct but its also statistically misleading and you should be bright enough to see the obvious reason why. Most economists consider 5% full employment. Its hard to improve upon 5%- very little room to improve on but a lot of room to fall back from. Its like a gymnast hitting a 9.9 on 3 straight routines and then in her next several meets hitting only 9.7 or 9.8 consistently. Did she really get a lot worse? I mean come on? Its hard to improve when you’re right near what is considered full employment and almost the only place to go is down. Very poor analysis of you. I expect and demand better!
Mr. Obama has gotten us out a deeper hole MUCH faster than Mr. Bush did. We have a long way to go — no doubt about it — but he’s ahead of Mr. Bush at this stage.
I disagree with you here also Joe. It shouldn’t take this long to pull out of a recession. In my opinion his actions simply prolonged the recession and made things dramatically worse. Not to mention that all we have to show is an additional 5 trillion in new debt.
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
3:32 pm
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
3:08 pm
I believe Jay has already offered you a reasonable explaination on those numbers. But if we must… Bush’s unemplyment rate by the time Obama took office was 7.6% by most estimations Obama’s higehst unemployment rat so far has been a 2.6% increase on that number. If Bush took office with a 4.2% unemployment rate his 3.4% job loss number is greater than that of President Obama.
Now you do understand greater than and less than don’t you?
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
3:32 pm
Joe….and now it is above 9%. He has had two years and it is still going up. Great work!
2012 unemployment near 11%, higher taxes and $5 gas. CYA O’Loser!
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
3:34 pm
UGA1999 — “Joe….again, your point….are you having a difficult time with the 9.2% number? Do you know what percentages are?”
I’m not having a difficult time with it at all. I know exactly what goes into that number, and, more importantly, exactly what’s left out of it. I know the effect of population and labor force changes on that number, and I know that it doesn’t show what you apparently think it does.
I also know that people who rely on it as much as you are simply don’t know what they’re talking about.
“Or the fact that he lied about job creation?”
No, he didn’t. Once again, would you like to see the numbers?
“The first lie was an obvious one. According to Obama’s own report, the statistic detailing the creation of 55,000 at US automakers was taken from the BLS, which shows that the increase in jobs over the year included all automaker manufacturing jobs in the US, not just US companies. That means Toyota jobs, Hundai jobs, Ford jobs or any other job creation from an automaker so long as they were residing in America. Did Obama nationalize Ford and foreign automakers as well?”
Yadda yadda yadda. Would you like to see the numbers or not?
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
3:36 pm
Joe Cool,
Nope. As I said unemployment was in the 7 % range when Bush left or at least that’s what economists believed it to be. And February and March 2009 are Obama- not Bush even if a pres can’t do much in the first month or 2 in office. Interestingly enough their was a dispute before the stimulus bill was passed that the Dem leadership in the house had promised the Republican minority that if they passed the stimulus package that unemployment would never rise above 8%. Why would this be said if unemployment was indeed accepted as already being 8% or more?
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
3:38 pm
Jay, UGA1999 clearly doesn’t understand how both things can be true at the same time, so he latches onto the single number that agrees with him.
I see it all the time on your blogs.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
3:38 pm
“Bosch…..actually yes they do.”
Did you want something George W?
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
3:38 pm
Joe…”Yadda yadda yadda” is that your response to facts?? hahah unbelieveable.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
3:40 pm
Peadawg,
I know that you haven’t wrote this, in fact, you wrote the exact opposite, but many here automatically assume that if you are enrolled in one of those programs — that automatically equals you are just too damn lazy to work.
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
3:40 pm
willie lynch,
Nice try but a better estimation is the overall performance and hence overall average. Nice try though. You can’t dismiss the entire 8 year Bush presidency by pointing out the last half year where things went sour and then say that last year is indicative of his entire presidency. Its a ridiculous notion. Also please see my explanation to Joe Mama about full employment. You really can’t do much better than 4-5% unemployment- that is full unemployment and from there the only place to go is down.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
3:42 pm
“by pointing out the last half year where things went sour and then say that last year is indicative of his entire presidency”
Ok, that proves that Doom missed his lessons on cause and effect.
Jay
April 26th, 2011
3:43 pm
Again, Thulsa, there were fewer Americans working when Bush left office than there were when he took office eight years earlier. Negative job growth over his presidency.
I don’t know how you can get more “bottom-line” than that.
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
3:45 pm
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
3:40 pm
Apply your own logic, you said:
“You can’t dismiss the entire 8 year Bush presidency by pointing out the last half year where things went sour and then say that last year is indicative of his entire presidency”.
Then how do you harp on unemployment numbers of a man who hasn’t been in office half that time? This is where your argument goes silly. Either it applies to both or it applies to none.
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
3:45 pm
Bosch,
I understand cause and effect quite well. You keep saying I don’t. Please explain your point exactly as to how and why I’m wrong. But make it quick. I’m about to head out and besides Jay has more raw meat upstairs for everyone.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
3:46 pm
” Please explain your point exactly as to how and why I’m wrong.”
I don’t have to Doom, your posts show it quite well.
Joe Cool
April 26th, 2011
3:46 pm
“Nope. As I said unemployment was in the 7 % range when Bush left or at least that’s what economists believed it to be. ”
Well doggoneit….thats the problem. You got that “believed” fact going on huh. Lets try REAL Numbers boo. I know how hard that can be for you.
President Obama 1st month in office numbers: FEB. 2009: 8.2% | March 2011: 8.8%
That would mean plain and simple, that is a +.6…..correct DOOM?
Lets see how hard it is to get a simple yes or no..lol
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
Tundra Dude
April 26th, 2011
3:46 pm
willie lynch@2:51 wrote, in part:
Bush’s numbers were bad because he came in with a recession.
A popular opinion. Why then the CBO’s first 10-year projections, (shortly after Bush-lite took office)
were for a $5.9 _Trillion_ surplus. ??
The deficit hawks of today were Surplus Hawks back in 2001. They accused the CBO of lowballing the surplus. It shudda been $1 Trillion higher, they said. (they wanted higher projections, to give more to their corporate sponsors ($$$).
What happened to all those rosy projections….Obama’s first CBO projection was a 1.2 Trillion deficit…
Thanks, Bush (the lesser).
Jon K, non-voting furriner (got papers), and equal opportunity basher.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
3:46 pm
Actually Doom, your posts show that you don’t understand it quite well.
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
3:51 pm
Jay,
You and the other libs are whining about the mess Obama inherited while singlehandedly dismissing the fact that Bush also inherited a recession and unemployment numbers dipping as he was entering office. Somehow that escapes you that you entered at a high when unemployment was dropping and the numbers were also dropping when he left. This has dramatically skewed the numbers- you should know better. But nevertheless his unemployment numbers averaged substantially lower so far than Obama.
Almost 2 1/2 years into the Obama presidency we are still well over 9 % unemployment at a cost of 5 trillion in new debt? And you think Obama has done well? Surely you jest? For 5 trillion being thrown into the economy you better have a helluva lot better than 9.5% unemployment almost 2 1/2 years into your presidency!
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
3:52 pm
Mr. Doom — “Joe Mama I suppose that could be factually correct”
It *is* factually correct. Once again, would you like to see the numbers?
“but its also statistically misleading”
No, it isn’t. Relying on U3, as you are doing, is statistically misleading when population growth and labor force growth no longer trend in tandem. That’s a mathematical *fact.* If anyone’s being statistically misleading, it is you.
“and you should be bright enough to see the obvious reason why.”
One, I am bright enough, and two, you are really making some beginner errors in the way you’re using that U3 number. You apparently presume that I’m not as swift as you are when it comes to numbers, but your own defense gives you away — it’s you who’s lagging behind with the math.
“Most economists consider 5% full employment. Its hard to improve upon 5%- very little room to improve on but a lot of room to fall back from. Its like a gymnast hitting a 9.9 on 3 straight routines and then in her next several meets hitting only 9.7 or 9.8 consistently. Did she really get a lot worse? I mean come on? Its hard to improve when you’re right near what is considered full employment and almost the only place to go is down.”
A standard percentage — like the U3 value you cite — is misleading when the two numbers is it based upon do not trend in tandem. That’s a mathematical fact. President Bush’s employment figures look better than they are because the American labor force was SHRINKING during his administration — and U3 does not calculate people who are considered to have permanently left the labor force. Who’s counted among those people? Folks who have run out of unemployment benefits but still haven’t found a job. For purposes of U3, those people don’t count as people any more. They still don’t have a *job,* but U3 doesn’t count them any more. Therefore, the long-term unemployed magically evaporate from the figures once they’ve been unemployed long enough.
Result? They’re not counted against the unemployment rate any more. Unemployed — but NOT COUNTED. And you’re RELYING on that figure?
GMAB. Does that sound like honesty to you?
In order to keep up with population growth, at least 1.8M/year or 150K/month new jobs must be added. President Bush only managed to do that 75% of the time during his administration.
“Very poor analysis of you. I expect and demand better!”
Quite frankly, sir, you’re either misinformed or else you simply don’t know what you’re talking about here. And you have no standing to *demand* anything of me.
Now, I have *politely* offered to show you these numbers and walk you through them several times. It is clear to me that you either don’t want to look at them or that you already know what they say and you don’t want to hear it again. But the fact is that U3 is a poor comparative measure, at best, of unemployment at this time.
“I disagree with you here also Joe. It shouldn’t take this long to pull out of a recession. In my opinion his actions simply prolonged the recession and made things dramatically worse.”
Well, from where I am standing, you are either ignoring facts that are inconvenient to your argument or else you’re substituting political orthodoxy for honesty and forthrightness. Either way, I’m sincerely disappointed in you, Mr. Doom.
“Not to mention that all we have to show is an additional 5 trillion in new debt.”
How about that $5T in deficit spending that President Bush engaged in? That bother you any?
Joe Cool
April 26th, 2011
3:52 pm
Bless your heart Doom.
Just spewing numbers the gummy bears told you.
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
3:53 pm
Bosch, No clear explanation as to why you disagree with my statements and cause and effect?
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
3:55 pm
Joe Cool,
Perhaps you should also speak with willie lynch a fellow lib who also agrees that most economists believe that the bush unemployment numbers topped out at 7.6%. And let me ask you once again. Those 8% #s that are from Feb. and March of 2009 right? Exactly who was in office at that time sir?
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
3:57 pm
Tundra Dude
April 26th, 2011
3:46 pm
My quote was based on the line being used by those on the right to justify Bush’s numbers.
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
3:58 pm
UGA1999 — “Joe…”Yadda yadda yadda” is that your response to facts??”
I’ve been asking you all afternoon long if you want to see the numbers. You have repeatedly failed to respond to that question, and have been rude in your replies. I think you’re either ignorant on this topic (and don’t realize it) or you *do* realize what the numbers say and you don’t want to deal with them.
“hahah unbelieveable.”
I see no reason why I should continue to be polite to you when you can’t manage to do so yourself.
Jay
April 26th, 2011
3:59 pm
Thulsa, if you want to base your argument on trying to equate the relatively small dot-com recession — it began in March 01 and was officially over by Nov 01, just eight months later — with the greatest economic collapse in 80 years taking place when Obama took office, you are certainly free to do so.
But it doesn’t begin to hold water.
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
4:00 pm
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
3:55 pm
Again are you saying that the policies of Barack Obama caused unemployment to jump like that in 1 1/2 months? You are listening to gummy bears.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
4:05 pm
Joe….polite? Seriously….grow up.
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
4:06 pm
nd U3 does not calculate people who are considered to have permanently left the labor force. Who’s counted among those people? Folks who have run out of unemployment benefits but still haven’t found a job. For purposes of U3, those people don’t count as people any more. They still don’t have a *job,* but U3 doesn’t count them any more. Therefore, the long-term unemployed magically evaporate from the figures once they’ve been unemployed long enough.-Joe Mama,
Joe Mama,
You are sooooooo busted. I was hoping you would go there because this where you get busted. I was wondering if you were going to bring up this fact about the people who’ve left the unemployment figures because they are no longer looking. The reason you and Obama are exposed is because the same applies to Obama. The reality and we’ve all read these numbers is that many economists feel like the Obama unemployment numbers are realistically significantly higher and that the true numbers are more along the line of 22% peak in the 2009. Surely you’ve heard and read these stats by more than 1 source but I will leave you with at least one source.
The true rate of unemployment for October 2009 may be 22.1 percent, not the 10.2 percent reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Jerome Corsi’s Red Alert reports.
Unemployment at 22.1 percent, if accurate, would be at numbers not seen since peak unemployment during the 1973 to 1975 recession.
Read more: Shocking numbers: Real unemployment tops 22% http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=115487#ixzz1Kf4k1dek
Economist John Williams, publisher of ShadowStats.com, estimates that the peak of unemployment in nonfarm unemployment in the Great Depression of the 1930s would, by his methodology, have registered at 34 to 35 percent in 1933.
So, how does the Obama administration get away with reporting the lower unemployment percentage?
Corsi explained that the Clinton administration changed the way BLS calculates unemployment statistics by excluding “discouraged workers,” those who had given up looking for a job because there were no jobs to be found.
Since the Clinton years, discouraged workers looking for a job for more than one year are not counted as “unemployed” because they are considered to have dropped out of the labor force.
The BLS still includes in “U6 Unemployment” calculations short-term discouraged workers, as long as they have been looking for a job less than one year.
This definition permits the Obama administration to under-report “U3 unemployment” at 10.2 percent when real unemployment as calculated before the Clinton administration redefinition is twice that amount, Red Alert contends, and U6 unemployment lies somewhere in between.
These differences are illustrated in the following chart that Williams produces in the “Alternative Data” section of his website named “Shadow Government Statistics: Analysis Behind and Beyond Government Economic Reporting.”
Read more: Shocking numbers: Real unemployment tops 22% http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=115487#ixzz1Kf4unnMD
Read and enjoy, I’ll see you guys later.
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
4:09 pm
Thulsa the Dumb,
Get out man, the dirt is filling that hole.
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
4:09 pm
with the greatest economic collapse in 80 years taking place when Obama took office, you are certainly free to do so.-Jay
Love the revisionist history there Jay. Seems the Carter years must have therefore been a goldilocks economy in your opinion. See you guys later.
Mr Right
April 26th, 2011
4:10 pm
Are you or is your company seeking a federal government contract? No problem – all you have to do is first disclose all the money the company and/or executives gave in political donations and who they gave it to. Surely this will have no political implications at all. Oh, the best part about this executive order? Unions are exempt from it. That’s some high quality HopeNChange Yea, talk about a “well- lubed operation’.
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
4:10 pm
willie lynch,,
Read and learn about the real unemployment rate under Obama. Its all over but the shouting.
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
4:15 pm
UGA1999 — “Joe….polite?”
Yes. Polite. Good manners are never out of place.
“Seriously….grow up.”
I strongly suspect I’m older than you, and more mature into the bargain.
Now, I’ve politely asked you several times if you want to see the job creation numbers and perhaps have an explanation of what’s there so that you can examine it at your own pace and convenience. I would appreciate the courtesy of a direct reply, as opposed to the continued and increasingly shrill defense of your own untenable position, sir.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
4:20 pm
Joe….are these real numbers or the numbers that Obama has lied about. Also if you are going to show the job creation numbers, please also post the job lost numbers.
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
4:38 pm
Mr. Doom — “Joe Mama, You are sooooooo busted.”
You *think* so, but I’m ahead of you, as usual;
“I was hoping you would go there because this where you get busted. I was wondering if you were going to bring up this fact about the people who’ve left the unemployment figures because they are no longer looking. The reason you and Obama are exposed is because the same applies to Obama.”
I *know* that. (laughing) You think I don’t *know* that already?
Obama’s numbers are significantly higher because of the extension of unemployment benefits; that’s why you see a horrendous increase in his job creation figures early in his term. If you’d LOOK at the numbers I’ve offered you, you’d see that President Bush left office with some EQUALLY horrible numbers, except that he *hadn’t extended unemployment benefits* like Congress did after Obama took office. So Obama’s got a justification for horrible numbers early on — and Bush *doesn’t* have one for the tail end of his Administration.
“The reality and we’ve all read these numbers is that many economists feel like the Obama unemployment numbers are realistically significantly higher and that the true numbers are more along the line of 22% peak in the 2009. Surely you’ve heard and read these stats by more than 1 source but I will leave you with at least one source.”
I’m well aware of what they say. The fact that you’re posting them gives credence to my argument and Jay’s that you actually know what we’re telling you and that you simply choose to ignore it.
It’s a shame that you’ve chosen partisanship over honesty, Mr. Doom.
“The true rate of unemployment for October 2009 may be 22.1 percent, not the 10.2 percent reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Jerome Corsi’s Red Alert reports.”
Pfffft! Jerome Corsi? Since you’re posting the U6 figures for Obama, let’s see if you have the stones to post the U6 figures for Mr. Bush then, tough guy. (laughing)
“Unemployment at 22.1 percent, if accurate, would be at numbers not seen since peak unemployment during the 1973 to 1975 recession.”
Aaaaaaand now you’re comparing U3 to U6 over time. Now I *know* that you’re intentionally being misleading.
“Read more: Shocking numbers: Real unemployment tops 22% http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=115487#ixzz1Kf4k1dek”
Respectfully, I have personal experience with the management at WND, and they are freakin’ NUTS. I don’t accept anything that comes from them. Kindly find another source, please.
“Economist John Williams, publisher of ShadowStats.com, estimates that the peak of unemployment in nonfarm unemployment in the Great Depression of the 1930s would, by his methodology, have registered at 34 to 35 percent in 1933.”
Yep. I’m familiar with ShadowStats.
“So, how does the Obama administration get away with reporting the lower unemployment percentage?”
I wouldn’t call it ‘getting away with;’ there are a passel of Republican howler monkeys in the trees, shrieking the lower number over and over. (pointing, laughing)
“Corsi explained that the Clinton administration changed the way BLS calculates unemployment statistics by excluding “discouraged workers,” those who had given up looking for a job because there were no jobs to be found. Since the Clinton years, discouraged workers looking for a job for more than one year are not counted as “unemployed” because they are considered to have dropped out of the labor force.”
That’s actually inaccurate. Discouraged workers = no longer drawing unemployment benefits. At the time, the duration of benefits was a year, but that’s no longer the case. But yes, the calculation method was changed that way during the Clinton Administration. That’s nothing I didn’t already know.
“The BLS still includes in “U6 Unemployment” calculations short-term discouraged workers, as long as they have been looking for a job less than one year.”
I *know* that already. (eyeroll)
“This definition permits the Obama administration to under-report “U3 unemployment” at 10.2 percent when real unemployment as calculated before the Clinton administration redefinition is twice that amount, Red Alert contends, and U6 unemployment lies somewhere in between.”
If you’re going to cite Bush U3 and compare it to Obama U3, but now you want to cite Obama U6, then be a man and cite Bush U6. Go ahead.
“Read and enjoy, I’ll see you guys later.”
It’s nothing new, Mr. Doom. And all you’ve done is demonstrate that you *do* know what Jay and I are talking about. I think I liked you better when I thought that you were uninformed. Now I know that you’re being intentionally obtuse and misleading, I like you a lot less.
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
4:41 pm
UGA1999 — “Joe….are these real numbers or the numbers that Obama has lied about.”
Nope, they’re the real numbers. Not coming from the White House. Would you care to see them?
“Also if you are going to show the job creation numbers, please also post the job lost numbers.”
They’re the NET job creation numbers. That means that they show the *aggregate* of jobs created and jobs lost each month — so some months show *negative* numbers.