Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Context Is Everything

Context Is Everything

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

One of the primary claims at the Democratic National Convention held in Charlotte, NC, (you remember: the one where President Barack Hussein “kill list” Obama’s nomination acceptance speech was moved indoors because of a 30 percent chance of rain) is that Obama has created 4.5 million private sector jobs during his presidency. While that may be true (I cannot dispute that claim), there is more to the job creation story, or as Paul Harvey used to say, “The rest of the story.” The rest of the story? While 4.5 million jobs have been created with Obama as president, there have been 5 million jobs lost during the same period with Obama as president. Let’s see, my conservative math may need some help here from Obamaphiles, Democrats, progressives, and liberals. Five million jobs lost minus 4.5 million jobs created means a loss of 500,000 private sector jobs! That is the same private sector that Obama said on June 8 was “doing fine.”

That assessment comes from CNN, hardly a bastion of conservatism. The CNN video features Erin Burnett and Tom Foreman, so call them liars. I just found the video. At the 1:32 mark, the situation of public sector jobs lost is discussed, and 600,000 jobs were lost. At the 2:48 mark of this video, Foreman discusses the fact that about 60 percent of the 4.5 million jobs created are low-wage jobs, while about 80 percent of the jobs lost were high-wage jobs. And, at the 3:15 mark, Burnett pointed out that what Michelle Obama said in her speech was, “not necessarily true.”

Let’s not forget this little winner from Obama, who said this on September 6:

“I’ll use the money we’re no longer spending on war to pay down our debt and put more people back to work – rebuilding roads and bridges, schools, and runways. After two wars that have cost us thousands of lives and over a trillion dollars, it’s time to do some nation-building right here at home.” [emphasis mine]

Obama is last in job creation (since 1945), with a net loss of jobs. Presidents Kennedy, Ford, and Carter (all of whom served less time in office than Obama) had positive job creation. This fact means that Obama’s (net) job creation numbers are much worse than Kennedy’s, Ford’s or Carter’s.

Veronique de Rugy, senior fellow at the Mercatus Center, says:

“It is the slowest recovery ever. I would claim that there’s really no recovery at all. The last twelve months have seen the slowest wage growth ever. We also have the slowest economic growth compared to any other recovery.”

We get this from FactCheck.org:

  • “Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley challenged Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s statement that the U.S. ‘lost nearly half a million jobs’ under Obama. O’Malley interjected: ‘Not true.’ But Jindal is right. The U.S. has lost 473,000 jobs since January 2009.” [Personal observation: Does anyone remember when Obama took office? Another personal observation: Jindal said “since”]
  • DNC spokesperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz, appearing on the July 8, 2012, edition of Fox News Sunday, said:

    “… all three automakers have actually had record increases in job creation. They had a record June – a month of June, 7,000 auto jobs created. We’ve – we have begun to move in the right direction.”

    The problem with Wasserman Schultz’s statement is that it simply isn’t true.

Not to worry. Despite the fact that 119,000 fewer Americans were working in August than in July, the “official” U-3 unemployment fell from 8.3 percent to 8.1 percent. Could the fact that (a record) approximately 88,921,000 Americans are “not in the civilian labor force” have anything to do with that drop? Or that the civilian labor force participation rate fell from 63.7 percent in July to 63.5 percent in August (BTW, the lowest rate in thirty years).”

For perspective, George W. Bush’s highest unemployment rate was 7.8 percent as he was leaving office in 2009, while Obama’s was 10 percent in October 2009. That means that, even after Obama’s entire presidency, his entire time in office, he couldn’t get the unemployment rate below Bush’s worst rate. And that after he got his 2009 “jobs stimulus” package passed by Congress, so y’all can’t complain that “Wascally Wepublicans” filibustered it. Well, y’all can complain, but y’all would be wrong.

And here’s more good news for all you “more government is the answer” fans. The unemployment rate among government workers is only 5.1 percent. That is the lowest rate among all industries.

But none of the above will even faze all you Obama Kool-Ade drinkers because y’all don’t want to hear any context, or anything unflattering about Obama. Y’all will do just like Obama: blame Bush. But, as John Adams said, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

But that’s just my opinion.

Powered by

About

  • Jonathan sanchez

    Sounds totally republican to me… I think you totally forgot that, as president clinton said, the republicans made the mess and since obama can’t clean it up fast enough they want him fired

  • Igor

    When Bush left office we were losing 700,000 jobs per month, and now we worry that we ‘only’ added 96,000 jobs last month. What a turnaround!

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    “In Tampa, the Republican argument against the President’s re-election was pretty simple: we left him a total mess, he hasn’t cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in.

    In order to look like an acceptable alternative to President Obama, they couldn’t say much about the ideas they have offered over the last two years. You see they want to go back to the same old policies that got us into trouble in the first place: to cut taxes for high income Americans even more than President Bush did; to get rid of those pesky financial regulations designed to prevent another crash and prohibit future bailouts; to increase defense spending two trillion dollars more than the Pentagon has requested without saying what they’ll spend the money on; to make enormous cuts in the rest of the budget, especially programs that help the middle class and poor kids. As another President once said – there they go again.

    I like the argument for President Obama’s re-election a lot better. He inherited a deeply damaged economy, put a floor under the crash, began the long hard road to recovery, and laid the foundation for a modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses, and lots of new wealth for the innovators.

    Are we where we want to be? No. Is the President satisfied? No. Are we better off than we were when he took office, with an economy in free fall, losing 750,000 jobs a month. The answer is YES.

    I understand the challenge we face. I know many Americans are still angry and frustrated with the economy. Though employment is growing, banks are beginning to lend and even housing prices are picking up a bit, too many people don’t feel it…

    …President Obama started with a much weaker economy than I did. No President – not me or any of my predecessors could have repaired all the damage in just four years. But conditions are improving and if you’ll renew the President’s contract you will feel it.

    I believe that with all my heart.”

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Are you really so stupid that you think that by constantly reminding anyone that Obama’s middle name is Hussein is going to sway anyone not to vote for him?

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    There were two other attacks on the President in Tampa that deserve an answer. Both Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan attacked the President for allegedly robbing Medicare of 716 billion dollars. Here’s what really happened. There were no cuts to benefits. None. What the President did was save money by cutting unwarranted subsidies to providers and insurance companies that weren’t making people any healthier. He used the saving to close the donut hole in the Medicare drug program, and to add eight years to the life of the Medicare Trust Fund. It’s now solvent until 2024. So President Obama and the Democrats didn’t weaken Medicare, they strengthened it.

    When Congressman Ryan looked into the TV camera and attacked President Obama’s “biggest coldest power play” in raiding Medicare, I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. You see, that 716 billion dollars is exactly the same amount of Medicare savings Congressman Ryan had in his own budget.

    No you got to admit that it takes a lot of brass to attack someone for something you did too!

    At least on this one, Governor Romney’s been consistent. He wants to repeal the savings and give the money back to the insurance companies, re-open the donut hole and force seniors to pay more for drugs, and reduce the life of the Medicare Trust Fund by eight years. So now if he’s elected and does what he promised Medicare will go broke by 2016. If that happens, you won’t have to wait until their voucher program to begins in 2023 to see the end Medicare as we know it…

    …Now let’s look at the Republican charge that President Obama wants to weaken the work requirements in the welfare reform bill I signed that moved millions of people from welfare to work.

    Here’s what happened. When some Republican governors asked to try new ways to put people on welfare back to work, the Obama Administration said they would only do it if they had a credible plan to increase employment by 20%.

    You hear that? More work.

    So the claim that President Obama weakened welfare reform’s work requirement is just not true. But they keep running ads on it. As their campaign pollster said “we’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.” Now that is true. I couldn’t have said it better myself – I just hope you remember that every time you see the ad.

  • Baronius

    Warren – I’ve slammed you before when you’ve written poor articles. This is a good article.

    Whatever you may think of the media, lately Wasserman Schultz has been called out for lying during interviews. As you noted, the 4.5 million jobs number has been challenged in the press, too.

  • http://rwno.limewebs.com Not the liberal actor

    Re: comments #3 and #5, Jay, I don’t remember saying ANYTHING about Medicare, or about comments made at the RNC. Are you trying to obfuscate, to change the subject? Are your comments designed to make look the fool?

    You keep saying that Obama inherited a disaster of an economy that Georgw W. Bush wrecked. This link may interest you.

    About jobs:

    1. Jobless Numbers Are Even Worse Than They Look – real unemployment 19%
    2. 20% of American men are not working
    3. Employment rates for new college graduates have fallen sharply in the last two years
    4. record 88,921,000 Americans are no longer in the labor force

    You say, “When some Republican governors asked to try new ways to put people on welfare back to work, the Obama Administration said they would only do it if they had a credible plan to increase employment by 20%.” Can you offer a source for that statement? Or is that your opinion?

    You also say, “So the claim that President Obama weakened welfare reform’s work requirement is just not true.” [emphasis mine] Source? Or is that your opinion? You may be interested in this source, as well as this one: this source.

    You say, “Are we better off than we were when he took office…” Did you miss the “better off discussion in the video at the 1:40 mark?

    Re: comment # 6, Baronius, thank you.

  • http://danmillerinpanama.wordpress.com Dan(Miller)

    I agree with Jet Gardner and others the middle name given to President Obama should not be used; he is not responsible for it. Instead, he should be referred to as Barack Hubris Obama; Hubris is a middle name he has earned in full measure.

  • http://rwno.limewebs.com Not the liberal actor

    Re: comment #8, Dan, I must agree with you: Hubris is much better than Hussein.

  • http://rwno.limewebs.com Not the liberal actor

    And Jet, you may find this source interesting, particularly page 2, where Tom Blumer states:

    “Full-time employment only increased by 43,000 in August. It’s down (yes, down) by 902,000 since March, and by over 1.4 million since Obama took office.”

    “22% of the 3.47 million private-sector jobs created since the recession’s end have been at temporary help services.”

    “What about what the new jobs created actually pay? The National Employment Law Project recently reported that “Lower-wage occupations were 21 percent of recession (job) losses, but 58 percent of recovery growth. Mid-wage occupations were 60 percent of recession losses, but only 22 percent of recovery growth.” The leftists at the NELP wouldn’t state the obvious, so I will: Their research proves that the Obama administration’s economic policies are gutting the middle class.” This reinforces what Foreman said at the 2:48 mark in the video.

  • Marcuscassius

    I think you guys should get together and show statistics that ALL Americans are out of work. ALL Americans are on welfare and NO ONE wants Obamacare. you’d at least be completely comical. Instead there’s a lingering doubt about whether you’re kidding or serious.
    Lemme simplify, for those not alive through the last 30 years. Republicans have achieved nothing but catastrophe. They have almost totlaly trashed the military,Congress, the Supreme Court, The economy worlf opinion. Basically anything they’ve touched. They have left most of the world on its knees, while making a handful unbelievably wealthy. They managed to move a full thistyy percent of the WORLDS wealth to 1% of the American population. To try to dengrate Obamas efforts at this late date in the hope of continueing the rape of the world is trite and childish. It speaks to a severe amount of misinformation. Blog that! Explain how the worst events in the last 100 years, rivaling only the Black Death is consistantly set in motion by the mechanizations of the GOP and the Republicans?

  • Mrcuscassius

    Hubris? You need to look up the word. It has nothing to do with Obama. Definetly fits Cheney and Raygun. Rove, the facist mastermind of the GOP shows it every day.
    What you see in Obama is effort. An extremely intelligent man trying to fix things while Republicans subvert and obstruct. I think you may be so used to seeing false confidence that when you see the real thing it looks arrogant. Or perhaps it was just an easy insult? That’s rather arrogant in itself!

  • http://rwno.limewebs.com Not the liberal actor

    Re: comments #11 and #12, Marcuscassius, I have to ask: “Are you for real, or did BC include your comments for comic relief?”

    You say: “What you see in Obama is effort. An extremely intelligent man trying to fix things while Republicans subvert and obstruct.” Is that statement your opinion? Or can you offer facts to substantiate your opinion, particularly with rspect to jobs.