Truth001 wrote: Way to rally the troops Ransom. Blame SSDI for the lower unemployment numbers! That is stretch even for you John. You don't mention that many baby boomers are starting to retire. SSDI is nothing but a slam at many good people who have had to resort to this program. That does not mean there isn't some fraud. There are always a few that make it bad for the many.- Unemployment Explained: Obama's Disability Scammers
Dear Comrade Pravda,
At issue here, as we wrote originally, is that SSDI enrollments have gone up while the number of people in the workforce has gone down. And the numbers and timing are such to cause one to examine the link.
While it’s true that more people are retiring, Baby boomer retirement has nothing to with the increased numbers of SSDI recipients. And the drop in the workforce participation rates has nothing to do with Baby Boomer retirements either. The topline number might go down. but not participation rates.
Fortunately, since liberals have such terrible math problems, Madeline Schnapp, the director of research at Trim Tabs, did a little graph for Mike Shedlock, following up on his original story.
First here’s what she wrote: From July 2010 to April 2012, the decline in the number of people collecting extended and emergency unemployment benefits was 2.46 million. Over the same time period the number of people collecting disability benefits increased by 2.20 million. We suspect the similarity in the inverse relationship is more than coincidence.
The chart below makes the relationship even more clear:
As we noted in our original piece, Bloomberg.com reported that “Based on current trends, 7 percent of the nonelderly adult population could be receiving disability benefits by 2018, Richard Burkhauser and Mary Daly wrote in the spring issue of the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. That’s two years after the SSDI program will run through its trust fund, according to an April report by the Social Security trustees.”
You liberals want to pretend to care about the unfortunate? Then quit defrauding them. That SSDI money is there for people who are legitimately disabled, not for more of your OWS The-World-Owes-Me-Something nonsense.
You know who your economic policies have hurt most? Young black males, followed by youth of any race, followed by black males of any age, followed black women.
There is just no delicate way of putting it: You continue to cheat the very people you say you care about most.
It’s one thing for me to disagree with your ridiculous economic theories. But this goes farther. The Democrats under Obama have proven to be the most hypocritical and unethical manifestation of party politics in at least the last 100 years.
Mac 287 wrote: These kinds of articles may really help in taking disability away from folks who really need it...wow! Success is yours! Misery is those folks who really are disabled and really need it to survive. So what? we have the next several years to show 'em...get up and get a job...disabled or not! hey, you. Christian conservative caring people have the formula for saving money, saving the country and getting rid of all these slugs...have at it...destroy the possible only place the disabled can go for help! Remember Ebeneezer Scrooge? "Have they no prisons, no workhouses?" not an exact quote... .- Unemployment Explained: Obama's Disability Scammers
Recommended
Dear Comrade 287,
Actually, I want the money reserved for people who are really disabled. We owe them that much.
They have paid into the system for insurance. And the system is not solvent even before this new massive wave of claims. If any private insurance company acted like that people would go to jail.
Do you even understand what insurance is supposed do about? It’s about spreading the risk amongst large pools so that if catastrophic events overtake individuals, they are not without resources. But if you game the system as politicians and citizens have done, it collapses.
It’s just a welfare entitlement now.
Tad6 wrote: As usual, John Ransom speaks without evidence. - Unemployment Explained: Obama's Disability Scammers
Dear Comrade 6,
As usual, 6 writes without reading.
There is quite a bit of evidence.
In addition to the data provided above, you can read the Bloomberg story I cited, the Daniel Mitchell story, the story from Charles Payne, and the original Shedlock piece penned about the issue.
I would link to them, but you won’t click on the links anyway.
If you had done that in the first place you wouldn’t have written at all.
Shubi wrote: Since we handed sharly his head on a platter, new trolls will appear to spout the same commie nonsense. Often, the new name is the exact same Media Matters troll.- Tea Party Hails Lugar Defeat
Dear Shubi,
Yes. I have noticed that we have a new influx of liberal scribblers who are particularly nasty. You say they come from Media Mutters? How do you know that?
Space Vegetable wrote: I find it amusing that a new ad for Elizabeth Warren with Obama singing her praises has been airing here in MA. It's funny because here you have two people bleating about "fairness" when both used affirmative action to get unfair advantage in their careers. - Tea Party Hails Lugar Defeat
Dear Space,
Could they find someone who could at least wash their hair?
Elizabeth Warren looks like she just rolled out of bed in the morning.
I usually don’t take cheap shots at people for appearance, and I usually dress more like Bill Belichick than Bill Clinton, but there seems to be an outbreak of poorly groomed women in prominent positions in the Democrat Party.
Ahh… I think I just proved the connection between Occupy Wall Street and the Democrats beyond refutation.
Jsingletary wrote The Indy Star is crying big crocodile tears for Lugar. What are we going to do without this giant of a statesman who was able to build consensus on Capitol Hill? Sniff. Sniff. - Tea Party Hails Lugar Defeat
Dear J,
Newspapers have the same problem that politicians from both parties have. It was put very well the other day by Scott Rasmussen, the pollster.
He wrote:
In many troubled relationships, both sides deserve some of the blame. But the United States is a nation founded on the belief that governments gain their legitimacy only from the consent of the governed. In the relationship between the people and the Political Class, that means the voters are right, and the politicians need to change.
I would say that this applies not just to the Political class, but to the Governing class in general, including especially newspapers and TV.
There is a degree of unreality emanating from our elites which is truly frightening me.
I don’t know why anyone thought that Lugar was not going to get his butt kicked by Mourdock given the number of transgressions and political shifts Lugar made. If I knew Mourdock was going to win the primary back in September, and the media couldn’t figure it out, I’m either the greatest prognosticator in history, or the elites are very, very, sadly out of touch.
Guess which I’m betting on?
I’ll say this much: The same goes for my guess that Obama will not be reelected. I’m not that smart.
Our leaders are that out of touch.
Pray for us.
DG wrote: If Romney selects General Petraeus as running mate, the largest landslide in history will defeat Obama. -From Meritocracy to Mediocrity in One Presidential Term
Dear General,
You know, that’s one of those fantasy football picks that looks great paper, but falls apart in reality.
Our problems are not military or economic. They are political, and I don’t think that someone outside of retail politics is going to have the solutions or the experience necessary to help cut the Gordian Knot.
That said I’m not sure that it makes much of a difference who Romney picks. He’s going to win pretty handily. He could even pick Beaumont Federal Correctional Institution Inmate No. 11593-051 and win.
Lav66 wrote: “It only took Bush four years to run up a $5 trillion dollar debt." Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't Bush in office for 8 years. Bush ran up the deficit 5 trillion in 8 years with 2 wars. Obama did it in a little less than 3 years. Hannity aired a segment last night on the author of the new book Screwed that Obama knows that he is going to lose reelection and will sign a record number of executive orders that inexorably binds the USA into more of a one world government such as giving the U.N the power to make changes to our Second Amendment rights. -From Meritocracy to Mediocrity in One Presidential Term
Dear Lav,
More math problems from our liberal friends.
You might remember last week I had to brush back a liberal who said King George II was responsible for “30 years of tax cuts for the rich,” even though George 2.0 was only president for 8 years.
Between the math problems we’ve cited and the reading disorder I pointed out with Comrade 6, I’m beginning to think that all liberals might qualify for SSDI.
Mac287 wrote under alias David9: Hey John, really, Sarah Palin? You could have used anther example to better show how smart they are? Why John, why? Please leave Sarah out of your ponderings, for I LOVE her, sorry Todd. -Disaster: April Brings Government Surplus; WTFund?
Dear Comrade 287,
This might have worked if you didn’t have the exact same punctuation problems that Comrade 287 does week after week. Space bar, man. Space bar.
By the way, Sarah’s a pretty smart person. I’m guessing she would have made a much better president that Obama has.
I don’t know how over-educated you have to be to screw up as badly as Obama has. Perhaps we try a little less education and a lot more common sense?
AmlBlue wrote: I would believe this if I believed in the tooth fairy. A master spin in the accounting can show anything O wants it to be. Check out how he spins the Jobs Report.......if anyone believed this, the majority of us would all have good-paying jobs. -Disaster: April Brings Government Surplus; WTFund?
Dear Blue,
You might have missed a bit of the humor portion of the reading comprehension test.
Or maybe you just read the head line.
A significant number of people don’t even read the second page- even of MY column- if you can believe it.
I’m still trying to get over it. <---- That was humor ;-)
Gmallast wrote: Picayune point. I think you meant "Happy Days are Here Again."
Didn't work so well for FDR either, but he kept getting re-elected anyway in spite of no progress on the Depression. -No Confidence will Kill Obama Reelection Chances
Dear Mr. and Mrs. G. Mallast,
I did mean "Happy Days are Here Again.”
The world is a different place than when FDR was running. I don’t think anyone really thinks that FDR ever really solved the Great Depression, except maybe Paul Krugman.
While we all wait for the next Reagan, or JFK or FDR, I say that the next “X” will be someone we didn’t expect, and at a time different than we are prepared for.
It will be someone like Sarah Palin who comes from nowhere and surprises everyone. Of course it was never going to be Obama and the porgressives.
One of the things that really bothers me about this iteration of progressives, is that they are not progressive at all.
They have no new ideas. All their ideas hearken back to Communism circa 1930, or FDR’s New Deal. Or the radicalsim of the 1960s and 70s.
They should at least have some respect for history. It doesn’t repeat itself. Obama’s presidency amounts to little more than a bad remake of Starsky and Hutch.
GeorgeHodorWalkerBush wrote: Keep hoping for failure, John. I agree with you that the economy is not good right now; however Republican filibustering against further stimulus is the root cause. -No Confidence will Kill Obama Reelection Chances
Dear Comrade Hodor,
Have some respect for historical accuracy please.
We’ve out-New Dealed the New Dealers.
Spending by the government as a percentage of GDP is double what the government spent as a percentage of GDP from 1931 to 1940.
In fact, this year’s government outlay will exceed the outlay for federal spending in every year of World War II with the exception of 1944 and 1945.
According to usgovernmentspending.com, government spending this year will make up 40.3 percent of GDP. According to Barry Ritholz, during the top spending years of World War II- 1943, 1944, and 1945- federal spending as a percentage of GDP was 39.61 percent, 41.56 percent and 41.54 percent, respectively.
In the 10 year period between 1941 and 1950 we averaged 32.4 percent of GDP on government.
In the last ten years, we’ve averaged 36.4 percent of GDP on government.
When liberals say that we’ve spent too little, frankly it’s just a lie.
A convenient lie for them, because a lie is all they have.
My_God_is_bigger wrote: Wondering what is the right wing take on US corporate profits being the highest they have ever been? Why would corporations hire if they are seeing record profits rising with fewer employees? And lastly. How does the fact the global economy has been even slower to recover than the US fit into you world view?
Is Obama to blame for the global economy as well? -No Confidence will Kill Obama Reelection Chances
Dear Comrade MGIB,
Corporations will eventually hire in order to expand profits. That’s what happens with excess profits. You can only get so much productivity from an employee before you have to add new ones in order to expand. That’s why profits are good, not evil.
Right now companies are so unsure of what’s going to happen down the road, however, that they are banking profits or distributing them to shareholders, rather than hiring.
The global economy hasn’t been slower to recover. It just took a while for the economic consequences of the real estate failures in the US to hit the rest of the world.
They are going through the banking problems now that we went through in 2008.
Remember just last year George Soros and Barack Obama were hailing the Chinese as great managers; Saturday Night Live was parodying the subservient relationship Obama had with China because they owned so much of our debt; Russia was lecturing the rest of the world about the fiscal irresponsibility of the US; The Eurozone was spoken about as a least an economic entity with claims to parity with the US?
Reality has caught up with them now.
So yeah, Obama bears the brunt of the blame for much of the global economy as well.
The world economy will not be right until we get the US economy right.
None1257 wrote: What will John Ransom say about his prediction, if Obama wins re-election? Will he post an article on this site that admits that he was dead wrong? -No Confidence will Kill Obama Reelection Chances
Dear Comrade 1257,
Wrong about what? Obama’s reelection?
Sure. It’s not like I could hide being wrong.
I’ve been saying that Obama would be a one-term president for a while. It doesn’t take a Princenton Ph.D. to see that the trillion dollar stimulus boondoggle was going to fail.
And that’s how he planned on getting reelected in fact. The stimulus program was created supposedly to have maximum effect for years 3 and 4 of the president’s term specifically sacrificing mid-term elections for Democrats in order to help Obama get reelected.
Face it: Obama does whatever is best for Obama. Always.
What? Did you think I was going to do the liberal weasel-word maneuver and redefine what I wrote into something else?
Like going from talking about creating jobs to only talking about “saving” jobs? Or how’s about this one: “Investing” government money with my fat-cat contributors in the guise of “green” jobs? Or one of my favorites: Campaign against military action and war, even with the approval of Congress, and then start unilateral military actions in Libya, without Congressional approval calling it “time-limited, scoped-limited kinetic activity?”
Or my favorite: Obama went from being the post-racial president to all race and gender, all the time. Never mind that he’s abused his black constituents worse of all through his economic policies.
So, yeah if he wins reelection, I’ll admit I’m wrong.
I’m just not wrong.
That’s it for this week,
V/r,
JR
"Like" me on Facebook and you'll get sneak peeks of columns and, as an added bonus, I will never raise your taxes. Send me email and I just might mention you on Sunday.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member