Let's get the economy moving again

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

http://news.yahoo.com/president-obama-says-private-sector-doing-fine-161824918--abc-news-politics.html

[/dev/null]

Already being discussed

 

But worth repeating

 

Yes We Can!

Forward!

 

Hope for Change

[DC Tom]

We've created 4.3 million jobs over the last…27 months

 

Let's look at this one statement:

 

Seasonally adjusted numbers:

May 2012, 142,287,000 employed, 8.2% unemployment.

Feb 2010, 138,641,000 employed, 9.7% unemployment.

 

First off, that's only 3.6 million. So let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was including jobs created in February of 2010 (i.e. the difference between the Jan. and Feb. reports as well):

 

 

Seasonally adjusted numbers:

May 2012, 142,287,000 employed, 8.2% unemployment.

Jan 2010, 138,333,000 employed, 9.7% unemployment.

 

Okay, now we're in the 3.9 million - 4 million range. He's not using the unadjusted numbers; those are even less (Feb 10 to May 12 looks like about 2.8 million). One might also suspect at this point that he means the 28 months from December 2010 (the employment low of this recession) to April of 2012, which looks like about a 4.3 million difference...but I'm disinclined to check since at this point his statement is demonstrably inaccurate at best.

 

 

But then one might wonder: why the past 27 months (or 28, or 29, as the case may be)? Why measure job creation from an arbitrary "two and a quarter years ago" point? Well, duh...because from the beginning of his term, it would be:

 

May 2012, 142,287,000 employed, 8.2% unemployment.

Jan 2009, 142,099,000 employed, 7.6% unemployment.

 

A net creation of roughly 200k jobs...some TWENTY TIMES LESS than he's claiming. But that, of course, isn't fair...he was inaugurated on the 20th, he can't reasonably be held responsible for the January 09 numbers. So what can he reasonably be held responsible for? How about...from the passage of the stimulus package, which according to White House estimates would hold unemployment at around 8% (note: that was never PROMISED, it was just part of an analysis done that was referenced). The stimulus was passed in February of 09. When he can "reasonably" start taking credit for the labor market's actions after that is, of course, up for debate. In the strict "he's in charge, it's his fault or blame as the case may be," that would be the March 09 numbers:

 

May 2012, 142,287,000 employed, 8.2% unemployment.

March 2009, 139,833,000 employed, 8.5% unemployment.

 

Which is 2.5 million jobs created. On the other hand, if you're more realistic about the time it takes for the stimulus to have an impact, you might choose May or September of 09:

 

May 2012, 142,287,000 employed, 8.2% unemployment.

May 2009, 140,570,000 employed, 9.4% unemployment.

1.7 million jobs created.

 

May 2012, 142,287,000 employed, 8.2% unemployment.

September 2009, 138,864,000 employed, 9.8% unemployment.

3.4 million jobs created.

 

I'm not seeing no 4.3 million anywhere. I am seeing 200k jobs lost from September 09 to February 10...which makes one wonder if we should debit those against any "jobs created" claim, on the basis that if you're going to claim credit for job creation, you reasonably have to take the blame for job loss (since you're claiming magical power over the labor market), and you can't reasonably claim to have created jobs you destroyed in the first place.

 

These numbers can only mean one thing: Never trust a President when he talks job creation. No matter how thin you slice it, Mr. President...your statement is still baloney.

[IDBillzFan]

These numbers can only mean one thing: Never trust a President when he talks job creation. No matter how thin you slice it, Mr. President...your statement is still baloney.

Sometimes I think one of the big lessons we're going to take away from this upcoming election is this: the internet continues to screw with the election process

 

In fairness, the election process opted to screw with the internet first...make it work for them...mobilize people on a larger scale than ever before. And it worked. I'll tell my child many things about this president, but the one thing I will tell him is that Barack Obama made John McCain his B word because his team knew how to use the internet. I still have relatives that say "Boy, this internet is really going to take off one day." They all look like John McCain.

 

But the other side caught on. Now they can not only mobilize (Wisconsin ground game), but they can raise money (Romney finally outraised him this month) and they can take a Friday afternoon press conference and embarrass one comment so badly that the president of the US had speak to the press a second time ON FRIDAY to clarify that he's not an idiot.( The Sunday shows will move this right into Monday.)

 

The whole dialogue has been "Obama has the ground game. Obama has the money. Obama is great speaker and great campaigner." And in the last two weeks, he looks like John McCain. Out of step. Slow. Behind the eight ball. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama decided to halt his campaign and go back to DC to address the economic problems. He's that messed up.

 

Mess with the internet. The internet messes with you. Obama getting out-Obama'ed is going to be the story in a couple of months.

 

And if the inernet won't mess with you, at least Tom will. And you don't want Tom turning on you.

 

He has trademarks. He'll use them.

Edited June 9, 2012 by LABillzFan

[Nanker]

Sometimes I think one of the big lessons we're going to take away from this upcoming election is this: the internet continues to screw with the election process

 

Mess with the internet. The internet messes with you. Obama getting out-Obama'ed is going to be the story in a couple of months.

 

And if the inernet won't mess with you, at least Tom will. And you don't want Tom turning on you.

 

He has trademarks. He'll use them.

 

Quite! And should he ever do a Charles Foster Johnson on us, I'm outta here, for good.

[OCinBuffalo]

Let's look at this one statement:

 

Seasonally adjusted numbers:

May 2012, 142,287,000 employed, 8.2% unemployment.

Feb 2010, 138,641,000 employed, 9.7% unemployment.

 

First off, that's only 3.6 million. So let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was including jobs created in February of 2010 (i.e. the difference between the Jan. and Feb. reports as well):

 

 

Seasonally adjusted numbers:

May 2012, 142,287,000 employed, 8.2% unemployment.

Jan 2010, 138,333,000 employed, 9.7% unemployment.

 

Okay, now we're in the 3.9 million - 4 million range. He's not using the unadjusted numbers; those are even less (Feb 10 to May 12 looks like about 2.8 million). One might also suspect at this point that he means the 28 months from December 2010 (the employment low of this recession) to April of 2012, which looks like about a 4.3 million difference...but I'm disinclined to check since at this point his statement is demonstrably inaccurate at best.

 

 

But then one might wonder: why the past 27 months (or 28, or 29, as the case may be)? Why measure job creation from an arbitrary "two and a quarter years ago" point? Well, duh...because from the beginning of his term, it would be:

 

May 2012, 142,287,000 employed, 8.2% unemployment.

Jan 2009, 142,099,000 employed, 7.6% unemployment.

 

A net creation of roughly 200k jobs...some TWENTY TIMES LESS than he's claiming. But that, of course, isn't fair...he was inaugurated on the 20th, he can't reasonably be held responsible for the January 09 numbers. So what can he reasonably be held responsible for? How about...from the passage of the stimulus package, which according to White House estimates would hold unemployment at around 8% (note: that was never PROMISED, it was just part of an analysis done that was referenced). The stimulus was passed in February of 09. When he can "reasonably" start taking credit for the labor market's actions after that is, of course, up for debate. In the strict "he's in charge, it's his fault or blame as the case may be," that would be the March 09 numbers:

 

May 2012, 142,287,000 employed, 8.2% unemployment.

March 2009, 139,833,000 employed, 8.5% unemployment.

 

Which is 2.5 million jobs created. On the other hand, if you're more realistic about the time it takes for the stimulus to have an impact, you might choose May or September of 09:

 

May 2012, 142,287,000 employed, 8.2% unemployment.

May 2009, 140,570,000 employed, 9.4% unemployment.

1.7 million jobs created.

 

May 2012, 142,287,000 employed, 8.2% unemployment.

September 2009, 138,864,000 employed, 9.8% unemployment.

3.4 million jobs created.

 

I'm not seeing no 4.3 million anywhere. I am seeing 200k jobs lost from September 09 to February 10...which makes one wonder if we should debit those against any "jobs created" claim, on the basis that if you're going to claim credit for job creation, you reasonably have to take the blame for job loss (since you're claiming magical power over the labor market), and you can't reasonably claim to have created jobs you destroyed in the first place.

 

These numbers can only mean one thing: Never trust a President when he talks job creation. No matter how thin you slice it, Mr. President...your statement is still baloney.

This post is way too long for anybody to read.

 

But yet...has value. Amazing.

 

And for LA, tell your relatives that Dan Rather called, and wants to talk about the future of the internet.

[WorldTraveller]

This post is way too long for anybody to read.

This made me laugh out loud a little

Edited June 9, 2012 by WorldTraveller

[B-Man]

While Tom ably proves that the administration's oft used numbers are untrue, we have to ask ourselves, why even call a "press conference" on a Thursday morning to discuss the economy and then not even offer anything new ?

 

What was the purpose ?

 

 

My own supposition follows from what happened earlier in the week.................an embarrassing thrashing for the left and for Unions in Wisconsin. Already the talk had spread from Walker to "Obama didn't do enough" and "liberals re-evaluating their fall support"

 

 

Now I think that this was just beltway talking head nonsense, Mr Obama could do anything and the dems would still vote for him (they have too much invested) but the Obama Campaign panicked and decided to get their man out there on national TV.

 

 

He trots out his fake numbers for the economy, states that the private sector is doing fine, and implores the Congress to get going and spend Billions (more) hiring government workers ( READ PUBLIC UNIONS)

 

 

It screams of him going out of his way to try and get more votes in November,

 

 

but that is his "governing" style.

 

 

.

Edited June 9, 2012 by B-Man

[Taro T]

While Tom ably proves that the administration's oft used numbers are untrue, we have to ask ourselves, why even call a "press conference" on a Thursday morning to discuss the economy and then not even offer anything new ?

 

What was the purpose ?

 

 

My own supposition follows from what happened earlier in the week.................an embarrassing thrashing for the left and for Unions in Wisconsin. Already the talk had spread from Walker to "Obama didn't do enough" and "liberals re-evaluating their fall support"

 

 

Now I think that this was just beltway talking head nonsense, Mr Obama could do anything and the dems would still vote for him (they have too much invested) but the Obama Campaign panicked and decided to get their man out there on national TV.

 

 

He trots out his fake numbers for the economy, states that the private sector is doing fine, and implores the Congress to get going and spend Billions (more) hiring government workers ( READ PUBLIC UNIONS)

 

 

It screams of him going out of his way to try and get more votes in November,

 

 

but that is his "governing" style.

 

 

.

But it works for Chavez, so it's all good, right?

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

the govt has only given more power to corporations and banks/financial institutions.

 

taxes- all time low

regulations- favor big business, glass steagle gone for example

current spending- drug program/2 wars/bush tax cuts/ all not paid for.

 

and the recession which the banks caused -mainly aig, created half the debt...

 

after the bailout and all the debt, big business is sitting on 2 trillion. good or bad, they are not investing...

 

so the question is, if the private sector will not hire, who will? the govt must pay for a jobs bill, whatever that may be. and the rich will have to pay for it.

 

supply side only works if the wealthy class actually invests. but since europe is causing pause, i dont see how that would work....

 

whats the other option?

Edited June 9, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER

[Chef Jim]

the govt has only given more power to corporations and banks/financial institutions.

 

taxes- all time low

regulations- favor big business, glass steagle gone for example

current spending- drug program/2 wars/bush tax cuts/ all not paid for.

 

and the recession which the banks caused -mainly aig, created half the debt...

 

after the bailout and all the debt, big business is sitting on 2 trillion. good or bad, they are not investing...

 

so the question is, if the private sector will not hire, who will? the govt must pay for a jobs bill, whatever that may be. and the rich will have to pay for it.

 

supply side only works if the wealthy class actually invests. but since europe is causing pause, i dont see how that would work....

 

whats the other option?

 

Once you figure out why corporate America is stitting on all that cash you'll have you're other option.

[B-Man]

 

Clueless appeal to aid gov’t workers

By JOHN PODHORETZ

, June 9, 2012

 

A startlingly listless President Obama appeared in the White House press room yesterday morning, spoke some dull preliminaries about the European financial crisis — and then slipped and tumbled headfirst into re-election quicksand from which he will find it very difficult to extricate himself.

Now, it is not the case that the president is finished because he said, “The private sector is doing fine” — even though those were the very words he spoke yesterday, the week after a jump in the unemployment rate and a downward revision of the GDP.

 

It’s just one quote, after all, and a lot can happen in five months. And while it’s inarguably a huge gift to the Romney campaign — one worth approximately three George Clooneys and six Sarah Jessica Parkers — the president’s rival is certainly capable of making blunders that will hand back some of the advantage.

No, “The private sector is doing fine” may prove to be the pivotal moment for the 2012 campaign because of what it demonstrates about the president’s ideas as he heads into the fight of his life.

First, the assertion indicates the president has fallen prey to the temptation to believe in macroeconomic generalities that make him feel good, rather than facing the practical realities of life outside the White House bubble.

 

Obama said there’s been significant private-sector job growth since the start of the year. That is a very arguable proposition; 800,000 new jobs in five months is not an especially impressive figure for anything that deserves to be called a “recovery.”

In any case, the health of the private sector can’t be measured solely or even primarily by job creation. Most people, after all, haven’t gone through the horror of unemployment.

What they have gone through is a period in which they have almost no job mobility, and a period in which their wages haven’t grown much — even as the inflated cost of gas and food has eaten away at what little gain they have enjoyed.

And that doesn’t even get into the discomfiting anxieties that come with working in America in 2012 — the sense that many jobs are tenuous, that maybe your employer can get by with one worker instead of two and that the one who gets laid off will be you.

In part, Obama needs to be able to say, “The private sector is fine,” because a healthy private sector is essential for his plans to increase the size of government — after all, the money to pay for it has to come from somewhere.

Indeed, he said, “The private sector is fine,” to provide what he thought would be a sobering contrast to the condition of the public sector. But this is the point that really shows the tone-deafness behind those five extremely unfortunate words.

Obama’s explanation for the slowdown in economic growth is that the public sector is hurting, and that’s where Washington must step in and act.

 

 

“Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. Oftentimes, cuts initiated by, you know, governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government,” he said. “And so, you know, if Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is how do we help state and local governments.”

 

The president seriously wants to go before the American people and argue in an election year that the wildly unpopular $860 billion stimulus of 2009 needs to be supplemented this year by more direct federal support of state and local government workers?

 

I’m trying very hard to think of a way this argument is not politically insane for Obama in his quest to win over independent voters who will make the difference in November.

I’m thinking. Give me a second.

Still thinking. And . . .

 

I got nothing.

 

And that may be what Barack Obama has got, too.

[Doc]

While Tom ably proves that the administration's oft used numbers are untrue, we have to ask ourselves, why even call a "press conference" on a Thursday morning to discuss the economy and then not even offer anything new ?

 

What was the purpose ?

 

 

My own supposition follows from what happened earlier in the week.................an embarrassing thrashing for the left and for Unions in Wisconsin. Already the talk had spread from Walker to "Obama didn't do enough" and "liberals re-evaluating their fall support"

 

 

Now I think that this was just beltway talking head nonsense, Mr Obama could do anything and the dems would still vote for him (they have too much invested) but the Obama Campaign panicked and decided to get their man out there on national TV.

 

 

He trots out his fake numbers for the economy, states that the private sector is doing fine, and implores the Congress to get going and spend Billions (more) hiring government workers ( READ PUBLIC UNIONS)

 

 

It screams of him going out of his way to try and get more votes in November,

 

 

but that is his "governing" style.

Yep, Barry and the dems got their asses kicked this past week, so he figured it was time to show his face and all would be well again. He even thought that he could toss-off the "the private sector is doing fine" line and have it go unnoticed. This guy has the biggest ego I've ever seen.

[DC Tom]

after the bailout and all the debt, big business is sitting on 2 trillion. good or bad, they are not investing...

 

It's okay though. It's not real money, since it wasn't created by labor.

[Taro T]

Ironic, progressives bemoan Romney's aloofness. They might want to target a different feature of his personality to show a contrast in personalities that favors the President.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Better than making gov't contractors do the work... They suck and feed of the tit even more... Then talk bad about the gov't... At least in-house employee take ownership (okay not speaking for everybody) and should be taught about good stewardship.

 

Ironic, progressives bemoan Romney's aloofness. They might want to target a different feature of his personality to show a contrast in personalities that favors the President.

 

 

Like those crazy gold plates supposedly found outside Palmyra, New York in the 1820's... Or his umcompassionate personality towards domestic animals on long car trips to the Great White North?

 

Yep... There are some real glaring personality issue here... From the surreal to the more surreal...

Edited June 9, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois

[/dev/null]

Like those crazy gold plates supposedly found outside Palmyra, New York in the 1820's... Or his umcompassionate personality towards domestic animals on long car trips to the Great White North?

 

You know, the left likes to talk about tolerance of non christian religion. Islam is a religion of peace. Respect Atheists and Buddhists. It's OK to be a Wiccan

 

But Mormans, you guys sure do hate on

[3rdnlng]

I wonder what tastes better, German Shepherd or Black Lab? Does anyone know who to ask?

[ExiledInIllinois]

You know, the left likes to talk about tolerance of non christian religion. Islam is a religion of peace. Respect Atheists and Buddhists. It's OK to be a Wiccan

 

But Mormans, you guys sure do hate on

 

Hey... I don't claim to spdak for the left... Especially for the enviro and relgion... And gays... I am an equal opportunity basher of the bat schit crazy... I guess you guys can say: "It takes one to know one." Touche! But come on... Mormons are easy... The Book of Mormon reads allmost word for word the King James... Even with the errors! Sure they were persecuted, but everywhere they went (NY, OH, MO, IL, then UT) they left behind drama...

 

Even a good atheist like yourself can appreciate a little Mormon bashing...

 

I wonder what tastes better, German Shepherd or Black Lab? Does anyone know who to ask?

 

Portuguese Water Dog, grilled off Chappaquiddick!

[Nanker]

I wonder what tastes better, German Shepherd or Black Lab? Does anyone know who to ask?

 

Right. Obama admits in one of his books to eating dog meat while growing up in Indonesia, and Mitt Romney's a fiend for putting his dog in a kennel in a car top carrier. Got it.