Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AEI Ideas)   Let's take a wee look back at the Obama Administration economic predictions with and without the Stimulus. 5.3% unemployment? That would be absolutely Bush league   (aei-ideas.org ) divider line
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

2453 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Jul 2012 at 12:09 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



164 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-07-06 06:33:55 PM  

Fart_Machine: MFL: That's just democrat talking point garbage. No plan? really...

LOL! You need to include the handy flowchart.

[images2.dailykos.com image 308x444]


HOW did I miss his post earlier...looks like I have a new red guy...
 
2012-07-06 07:16:33 PM  
img837.imageshack.us
 
2012-07-06 07:24:17 PM  
Somebody pointed out today that in 2004 Obama was decrying Bush for touting jobs numbers at precisely this same point in his presidency.

Those numbers being 315,000 as compared the 85,000 Obama can "boast" for the same period.

The entire summer campaign of 2004 was dedicated to Democrats running ads about Bush record on jobs and nobody seemed to remember the tech bubble that burst right before Bush took office or the economic problems created by the 9/11 attacks... No, it was clearly ALL Bush.

These days of course Obama isn't to blame for anything what so ever.
 
2012-07-06 09:06:51 PM  
Obama administration repeats same jobs line-for the 30th month
By Chris Moody, Yahoo! News

When the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced the nation's latest national employment figures Friday, the Obama administration stressed that people should not "read too much" into the data.

Mitt Romney's campaign pounced, and flagged the fact that the White House has repeated that same line nearly every month since November 2009.

See below for the roundup of articles from WhiteHouse.gov that Romney's campaign posted on its site. In many of the posts, the authors for the administration do acknowledge that they repeat themselves:

June 2012: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is informative to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/07/06/employment-situation-june)
May 2012: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/06/01/employment-situation-may)
April 2012: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/05/04/employment-situation-april)
March 2012: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/04/06/employment-situation-march)
February 2012: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/03/09/employment-situation-februar y)
January 2012: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/02/03/employment-situation-january )
December 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/06/employment-situation-decembe r)
November 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/12/02/employment-situation-novembe r)
October 2011: "The monthly employment and unemployment numbers are volatile and employment estimates are subject to substantial revision. There is no better example than August's jobs figure, which was initially reported at zero and in the latest revision increased to 104,000. This illustrates why the Administration always stresses it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/11/04/employment-situation-october )
September 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/10/07/employment-situation-septemb er)
August 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/09/02/employment-situation-august)
July 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/08/05/employment-situation-july)
June 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/07/08/employment-situation-june)
May 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/06/03/employment-situation-may)
April 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/06/employment-situation-april)
March 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/01/employment-situation-march)
February 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/04/employment-situation-februar y)
January 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/02/04/employment-situation-january )
December 2010: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/01/07/employment-situation-decembe r)
November 2010: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/12/03/employment-situation-novembe r)
October 2010: "Given the volatility in monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/11/05/employment-situation-october )
September 2010: "Given the volatility in the monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/08/employment-situation-septemb er)
July 2010: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.  It is essential that we continue our efforts to move in the right direction and replace job losses with robust job gains." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/08/06/employment-situation-july)
August 2010: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/09/03/employment-situation-august)
June 2010: "As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/07/02/employment-situation-june)
May 2010: "As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/06/04/employment-situation-may)
April 2010: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/05/07/employment-situation-april)
March 2010: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/04/02/employment-situation-march)
January 2010: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/02/05/employment-situation-january )
November 2009: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/04/employment-situation-novembe r)

Moral: NEVER send a community organizer to do a PRESIDENT's job!
 
2012-07-06 09:45:45 PM  

tony41454: I cannot read where it tells me to look at all the reports in an aggregate, so I'll just say that Obama says not to care what the numbers say.


Yeah, I noticed. Lucky for you, I found a graph and table that lists them as an aggregate total. Wouldn't ya know it, Unemployment rates have been going down slowly but surely ever since we got out of the recession in the middle of '09, and it even looks like it might be picking up speed.
 
2012-07-06 09:53:40 PM  

pacified: You're right, gotta let thousands more die in Iraq and New Orleans.


Okay, 1/10 for effort.
 
2012-07-06 11:46:05 PM  

randomjsa: Somebody pointed out today that in 2004 Obama was decrying Bush for touting jobs numbers at precisely this same point in his presidency.

Those numbers being 315,000 as compared the 85,000 Obama can "boast" for the same period.

The entire summer campaign of 2004 was dedicated to Democrats running ads about Bush record on jobs and nobody seemed to remember the tech bubble that burst right before Bush took office or the economic problems created by the 9/11 attacks... No, it was clearly ALL Bush.

These days of course Obama isn't to blame for anything what so ever.


People were upset with Bush because he took a relatively mild recession and turned it into multi year unemployment. It would have taken some very simple government measures to turn things around, but instead he pushed tax cuts for the rich.

Obama inherited an economy in freefall and has produced nearly 30 straight months of private sector growth. If the Republicans would agree to any form of additional spending to help states retain teachers and government employees, unemployment would drop by 1% overnight. Instead, they've made the political calculation that if they sit on their hands they can blame the President for the anemic growth.
 
2012-07-07 12:16:35 AM  

Stile4aly: randomjsa: Somebody pointed out today that in 2004 Obama was decrying Bush for touting jobs numbers at precisely this same point in his presidency.

Those numbers being 315,000 as compared the 85,000 Obama can "boast" for the same period.

The entire summer campaign of 2004 was dedicated to Democrats running ads about Bush record on jobs and nobody seemed to remember the tech bubble that burst right before Bush took office or the economic problems created by the 9/11 attacks... No, it was clearly ALL Bush.

These days of course Obama isn't to blame for anything what so ever.

People were upset with Bush because he took a relatively mild recession and turned it into multi year unemployment. It would have taken some very simple government measures to turn things around, but instead he pushed tax cuts for the rich.

Obama inherited an economy in freefall and has produced nearly 30 straight months of private sector growth. If the Republicans would agree to any form of additional spending to help states retain teachers and government employees, unemployment would drop by 1% overnight. Instead, they've made the political calculation that if they sit on their hands they can blame the President for the anemic growth.


B-b-b-but-but Soshulizms!!!1!1!one!1eleventyone!1!!!
 
2012-07-07 01:14:56 AM  

friday13: Wouldn't ya know it, Unemployment rates have been going down slowly but surely ever since we got out of the recession in the middle of '09, and it even looks like it might be picking up speed


Oh..... *SNAP*
 
2012-07-07 02:52:22 AM  

Lando Lincoln: Let's take a look at who we could have had as our President and VP instead.

Yeesh. Yeah. Obama and Biden still look great.


THIS.

/seriously we all expected McCain to have jumped on the Senile Express by now, leaving us with President Caribou.
 
2012-07-07 03:08:04 AM  

SkinnyHead: We would be under 6% right now if it wasn't for Obama failed stimulus plan.


I'm sure you have proof of that claim. (who am I kidding?)

I have yet to see anyone explain how they know that we'd have a peachy keen economy right now if Obama had just done [whatever]. The 2008 recession was the second worst in American history, so someone surely can explain why we should expect to have recovered in only a couple of years, when the Great Depression recovery took over a decade.

What I see is corporations hoarding cash and refusing to hire, because Obama might raise their taxes or some nonsense. Instead of taking a lead in moving the recovery along, they're acting like a 10 year old who tells the neighborhood kids that if he doesn't get to be quarterback, he's going to take his ball and go home.
 
2012-07-07 05:45:52 AM  

ImpendingCynic: SkinnyHead: We would be under 6% right now if it wasn't for Obama failed stimulus plan.

I'm sure you have proof of that claim. (who am I kidding?)

I have yet to see anyone explain how they know that we'd have a peachy keen economy right now if Obama had just done [whatever]. The 2008 recession was the second worst in American history, so someone surely can explain why we should expect to have recovered in only a couple of years, when the Great Depression recovery took over a decade.

What I see is corporations hoarding cash and refusing to hire, because Obama might raise their taxes or some nonsense. Instead of taking a lead in moving the recovery along, they're acting like a 10 year old who tells the neighborhood kids that if he doesn't get to be quarterback, he's going to take his ball and go home.


Ok, there's some right here and some wrong here. Your first paragraph is pretty much correct. The supply-side, classic economics model says, in fact, that government should do basically nothing in response to short-term recessions, with perhaps the exception of spending and tax cuts. Even then, though, it sggests that if spending and taxes are where they are supposed to be, then nothing at all.

So, really, they should be complaining that Obama should do nothing, not something.

But the notion of sitting on cash is really mired in not thinking through what that means. They don't stuff it into mattresses, because miney loses value due to inflation. So they deposit it in a bank. Banks don't like to sit on money for the same reason. In a year, that's how you turn $1,000,000,000 into $975,000,000. Successful banks try to avoid doing that. So they lend it out. And loans to businesses either save or create jobs. Loans to consumers mean they spend money and save or create jobs.

Sitting on cash being responsible for the problem is a bit of a myth.
 
2012-07-07 10:34:28 AM  

whidbey: friday13: Wouldn't ya know it, Unemployment rates have been going down slowly but surely ever since we got out of the recession in the middle of '09, and it even looks like it might be picking up speed

Oh..... *SNAP*


Is that a "dammit, he beat me to it" or a "Dayum, you just got told" snap?
 
2012-07-07 06:59:45 PM  

BillCo: It's too bad our great leader spent 1.5 years cramming a bloated welfare plan down the throats of the American people when he should have been focused on jobs and the economy.


Hey Billco, can I interview you for a story about the right-wing's perspective on why Obama shouldn't be re-elected?
 
Displayed 14 of 164 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report