Please Hit

Folks, This is a Free Site and will ALWAYS stay that way. But the only way I offset my expenses is through the donations of my readers. PLEASE Consider Making a Donation to Keep This Site Going. SO HIT THE TIP JAR (it's on the left-hand column).

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

This Unemployment Brought To You by Barack Hussein Obama

The recent unemployment figures, 9.4% of Americans out of work blows through the President's projection at the time of the porkulous debate. At that time, America was promised that if his bill was passed, unemployment would not rise higher than 8%.

The spike in unemployment is a black-eye to the president as it is proof that the President's plan of government spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave is doing very little to help the economy.

The administration is so embarrassed about the bad numbers that they have revised their promises. Job creation is no longer the bell weather statistic, now it is jobs created or saved:
His latest invocation came yesterday, when the president declared that the stimulus had already saved or created at least 150,000 American jobs -- and announced he was ramping up some of the stimulus spending so he could "save or create" an additional 600,000 jobs this summer. These numbers come in the context of an earlier Obama promise that his recovery plan will "save or create three to four million jobs over the next two years." (source WSJ)
 The reason for the change is that "saved jobs" is unmeasurable:
Of course, the inability to measure Mr. Obama's jobs formula is part of its attraction. Never mind that no one -- not the Labor Department, not the Treasury, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics -- actually measures "jobs saved." As the New York Times delicately reports, Mr. Obama's jobs claims are "based on macroeconomic estimates, not an actual counting of jobs." Nice work if you can get away with it.

And get away with it he has. However dubious it may be as an economic measure, as a political formula "save or create" allows the president to invoke numbers that convey an illusion of precision. Harvard economist and former Bush economic adviser Greg Mankiw calls it a "non-measurable metric." And on his blog, he acknowledges the political attraction.

"The expression 'create or save,' which has been used regularly by the President and his economic team, is an act of political genius," writes Mr. Mankiw. "You can measure how many jobs are created between two points in time. But there is no way to measure how many jobs are saved. Even if things get much, much worse, the President can say that there would have been 4 million fewer jobs without the stimulus."
(source WSJ)
 What Mr. Obama does not yet understand is that people are beginning to come out of their Obama-kool-aid-induced-coma's. The see that unemployment numbers continue to skyrocket and realize that the daily chant of "Blame on Bush" has lost it resonance.

Even the liberals are getting antsy. In the Nation John Nichols warns that  Double-Digit Unemployment Poses Political Danger for Obama. He also warns that the unemployment numbers are actually higher than announced:
What happens when we include people who have stopped looking for work because they do not believe there are jobs to be found, along with part-time workers who would like to be working full-time?

Then, we start looking not at the unsettling 10 percent figure but the far more frightening 20 percent number.

As economist Howard Rosen told NPR after official unemployment topped 8 percent in February: "Today we learned that there are 12.5 million people who are unemployed, and we have another 8.6 million people who are working part-time because they cannot find full-time jobs. Now, you're talking about 20 million people in this country who are either unemployed or underemployed. I don't want to freak out people, but the unemployed number, we start talking about 15, 16 percent."

Since February, of course, the official unemployment rate has spiked dramatically, as has the real rate.
 February mmmmm, who became President in January? Based on that real unemployment rate, one out of every seven adults is out of work.

Nichols says that while Obama will try to blame Bush (he feels that is legitimate),
The problem, of course, is that the blame game gets harder when it becomes possible to link a sitting president's actions to soaring unemployment figures.
He concludes by blaming not the President, but his advisers as if the President was totally left out of the equation:
The current "deciders" appear to be members of Obama's economic team -- led by the likes of Larry Summers, Tim Geithner and rest of the "public servants" formerly known as Wall Street insiders. Their bad calls, especially on the auto bailout, could give America a "jobless recovery" and a politically-vulnerable president.
 When the GM/Chrysler plant and dealer closings work their way through the system, those real unemployment numbers could go from the mid-teens to over 20%. If that happens there will be no way for Obama to shift the blame. Maybe by that time our leaders will get some sense and give us a real stimulus; cut spending and lower taxes.


Carol_Herman said...


Soon to be 70, I remember the first vote I ever cast; when I came of age (21). And, that was for JFK.

I had no idea why LBJ was selected as his running mate. Most people just discounted this. And, very few people remember that back in 1962-1963 Martin Luther King Jr., went down South. And, started asking for riots. The South ignored him. But two cities, Chicago and New York City, had terrible riots in 1963! (Yes, it was the Jews that the Blacks rose to attack.)

And, JFK's re-election chances PLUMMETED. Again, a topic that bore no fruit. Never did get discussed. But it was the reason JFK had to go to Dallas. (Because LBJ said Texas was about to be lost, in 1964.)

You can believe in Arlen Specter's "one bullet." But, I never did. And, I used to laugh when the comedian, Mort Sahl, would come out on stage, with the one of the Warren Commission's books; and, he'd bring down the house. Just reading out loud.

Meanwhile, LBJ waltzed into the White House. That had been his dream. And, perhaps he got there because killing Kennedy looked good to some insiders? (Well, killing Lincoln also looked good to a few animals.)

Anyway, to make my long reminiscence, a bit shorter, I remember how LBJ tumbled. Vietnam did him in. And, he wasn't helped by screaming at Eshkol throughout May 1967. Nor did his "beautifying America" schemes work out, either.

But in our system, you get to stay "the term." And, Obama is there. Propped up by a dying media. While in Israel, Livni hasn't quite been able to make hay out of her advantages. Which obviously include Obama's thrusting at Netanyahu. To take him out of office.

I wonder how Bibi will handle this on Sunday, June 14th. Obama has already called him, asking for both a "head's up" on content. And, the hope that Bibi throws his a "few good cards."

Of course, nothing ever did help LBJ with his spiral downwards. Nor has it really ever brought Jimmy Carter respect. But we just have to wait to see the future unfolding.

Kaya Kelly said...

With less government intervention the Great Depression would have been a far shorter event. Historians have been able to exculpate FDR for his direct role in extending the Great Depression. The media are hard at work covering BHO's behind. Will they be successful? I think not, and BHO will be a one term President ranked down there with Jimma C.