Obama’s Crashing Economy — 2 Million Jobs Gone & Worst Jobs Condition Since Great Depression, But Obama Has Audacity to Blame Others, Criticize Bachmann’s Policies, Ignore the Truth (video)
Posted By Vicki McClure Davidson on July 7, 2011
Enter stage right, Obama The Magician! He waves his magic hopenchange wand in front of 2 million American jobs.
Now you see them, now you don’t. Poof!
Two million jobs now DEAD AND GONE during the Golden Era of Hopenchange. The Magician-in-Chief takes a bow in front of the horrified audience and asks them to thank him.
Behold Obama The Wrecking Ball Chief! Liberals complained about 5.26 percent unemployment average during George W. Bush’s terms, they wanted CHANGE.
Kaboom!
Long-time businesses are now crashing during the Golden Era of Hopenchange, we’re still over 9 percent unemployment, the worst, longest period we’ve been since the Great Depression, we’re up against an exploding debt and out-of-control spending, and Obama is blaming corporate jet owners.
American Crossroads: The Negotiator
Change direction, Mr. President, before it’s too late.
If it isn’t already.
Change Direction
This is mind-numbing… Obama’s failed economic policies are still being ignored or glossed over by the vast majority of the liberal media, but our Country Club President has the jaw-dropping audacity to claim that Rep. Michele Bachmann’s economic plans will hurt the middle class.
Listen up, Mr. President — we’re already way beyond hurt with your direction, your ill-fated “redistribution of the wealth” plan. Not that you’ve noticed, of course, from the golf course and from your myriad fundraisers and from your vacations.
Nothing promised by this administration has come to pass, nothing predicted has been even close, the multi-billion-dollar stimulus that the majority of Americans didn’t want stimulated nothing and made things worse.
Based on this Team Obama consistent track record for getting everything wrong — and even liberal billionaire Mort Zuckerman is sick to death of what Dear Leader has done to destroy the economy — Bachmann’s policies are likely a winner.
Let’s put it this way — anything would be an improvement.
From Gateway Pundit, After 3 Years of Failure After Failure, President Says Bachmann’s Policies Will Devastate the Middle Class:
** Real US GDP has risen 0.8% over the 13 quarters since the current recession began, compared to an average increase of 9.9% in past recoveries.
** Obama’s trillion dollar stimulus failed.
** The unemployment rate is still above a 9%.
** Obama is the worst jobs president since the Great Depression overseeing the worst housing downturn since the Great Depression and the worst slide in home prices since the Great Depression.But since when do facts matter to this bunch?
After two and a half years of failure after failure, the Obama Administration today had the gall to say a Bachmann presidency would devastate the middle class.
ABC reported:ABC News’ Devin Dwyer (@devindwyer) reports: Signaling its messaging operation has kicked into gear, the Obama campaign today directly responded to Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann’s bid for the presidency, saying her economic policies would devastate the middle class.
“Congresswoman Bachmann talks about reclaiming the American Dream, but her policies would erode the path to prosperity for middle class families,” Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said in a statement.
“She voted for a budget plan that would extend tax cuts for the richest Americans on the backs of seniors and the middle class while ending Medicare as we know it,” he said. “Congresswoman Bachmann introduced legislation to repeal Wall Street oversight — risking a repeat of the financial crisis — and while she voted to preserve subsidies for oil and gas companies, she opposes making the investments necessary to enhance America’s competitiveness and create the jobs of the future.”
Pat Austin at And So It Goes in Shreveport weighs in on the White House ignoring the increasing amount of evidence of Obama’s failed policies:
Then we have this study by The Weekly Standard which claims that jobs created by the stimulus actually cost up to $278,000 each. In yesterday’s daily briefing at the White House, Jay Carney took issue with this, discounting it simply because it came from The Weekly Standard:
A Weekly Standard analysis that says the jobs created in the stimulus cost $200,000 each is “based on false information,” Carney said, reading a response he had prepared on a piece of paper. “The Weekly Standard did this analysis, and we should view it through that prism, I suppose,” he said.
Here’s what Carney blew off… from The Weekly Standard, Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job:
When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it’s clearly not trying to draw attention to the report’s contents. Sure enough, the “Seventh Quarterly Report” on the economic impact of the “stimulus,” released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama’s economic “stimulus” did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.
The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.
In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.
Tom Blumer at NewsBusters breaks down Obama’s economy with startling graphs, statistics, the whole ball of wax — On the Economy’s Condition As Worse Than When Obama’s Term Began, Mitt Romney Is (or Was) Right.
From Reuters, Obama really might have made it worse:
The Republican charge is a body shot aimed right at the belly of President Barack Obama’s re-election effort: He made it worse.
No, not that White House efforts at boosting the American economy and creating jobs and “winning the future” were merely inefficient or wasteful, which they certainly were. Even Obama finally seems to understand that. “Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected,” he joked lamely at a meeting of his jobs council.
Rather, that the product of all the administration’s stimulating and regulating is an economy that’s in significantly worse competitive and productive shape than when Obama took the oath in January 2009. He was dealt a bad hand, to be sure – and then proceeded to play it badly. At least, that is what Republicans have been saying. “He didn’t cause the recession as we know,” presidential candidate Mitt Romney said in New Hampshire yesterday. “He didn’t make it better, he made things worse.”
Team Obama offers a different narrative, of course. As the president said in his State of the Union address earlier this year, “Two years after the worst recession most of us have ever known, the stock market has come roaring back. Corporate profits are up. The economy is growing again. … These steps we’ve taken over the last two years may have broken the back of this recession.” He somehow failed to insert his usual boilerplate about the economy losing 700,000 jobs a month when he took office.
[...]
Indeed, the results are horrifying. The two-year-old recovery’s terrible tale of the tape: A 9.1 percent unemployment rate that’s probably closer to 16 percent counting the discouraged and underemployed, the worst income growth and weakest GDP growth of any upturn since World War II, a still-weakening housing market. Oh, and a trillion bucks down the tube. Oh, and two-and-a-half years … and counting … wasted during which time the skills of unemployed workers continue to erode and the careers of younger Americans suffer long-term income damage. Losing the future.
[...]
But wait there’s more. Obama created a debt commission that produced a reasonable though imperfect plan to deal with America’s long-term fiscal woes. But he stiffed it and then failed to supply a plan of his own, sowing the seeds for an impending debt ceiling crisis and making an eventual fiscal fix that much harder. One more step along the path not taken, along with pro-growth tax and regulatory policies that would have reduced policy and economic uncertainty and unleashed the private sector to invest, expand and create.
Elections have results. So do bad policies. Obama’s choices on taxing and spending and regulating, sorry to say, seem to have made things worse.
From Ace of Spades HQ:
The argument you’d made to demonstrate this goes something like this: While there has been some weak positive growth in GDP, we secured that by spending 2012-2015′s revenues now. So yes, we got a meager (very meager) boost from spending tomorrow’s revenues today.
But this has had the effect of depleting any further wiggle room we had regarding spending future receipts, and has left us with such an enormous overhang of debt that the fact of this debt outweighs any positive effect of spending future revenues today. This is why people aren’t spending, aren’t hiring, and aren’t investing — they know the actual economy is worse than the superficial glance at GDP growth rates would show.
They know that the minor goose of the GDP numbers will be erased by the steep drop in GDP to come — and that it must come, as borrowing forever doesn’t work, and if a government won’t correct its unbalanced books, reality will balance those books one way or another for them.
Pres. Obama to Americans: 'You should be thanking me' | Graphic credit: The Anchoress
About the author
Comments