Remember that famous sign on President Harry Truman’s desk? It’s nowhere near President Obama’s Oval Office! From William Teach:
Team Obama Attempts To Deflect Jobs Report To Romney
July 6, 2012 – 2:49 pm
Typically pathetic
(Daily Caller) Gov. Mitt Romney quickly dismissed today’s effort by President Barack Obama’s campaign to downplay the bad news in the June jobs-report issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics at 8.30 a.m.
Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, tweeted out a diversion at 9:01 a.m. that showcased a June 2006 video of Massachusetts Governor Romney saying that a new executive’s policies can’t lower the unemployment rate immediately.
But Romney used his 10:00 a.m. press event to refute the video, telling reporters that Obama’s “policies have not worked… over four years.”
An unemployment rate that has remained for “forty-one months above 8 percent pretty much defines lack of success,” Romney said in response to a reporter’s shouted question about the video after the press secretary had announced the event was over.
Obviously, when Obama’s had well over 3 years to Do Something it can’t possibly be his fault that the jobs report stinks. And has been stinking. The man takes responsibility for nothing that happens under his watch thanks to his policies, such as they are.
Of course, had the job report been great, President Obama and his minions would be the first to claim credit for the good news.
In February of 2009, as his FY2009 Omnibus Budget Act and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act bills were before the Congress, told us that he and his Administration had three years to fix the economy, and that it was “a great thing” that he would be “held accountable.”
If the economy had been fixed, President Obama would be a shoe-in for re-election, and the Democrats would be in strong control of the Congress. But it seems that what our 44th President said would be a great thing, him being held accountable, isn’t turning out so great for him or the Democrats.
The Administration’s response?
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.
What’s that you say? Where’s the link for that quote? The Romney campaign went through and documented it for us, noting that the Obama Administration’s press releases have used the formulation “it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report,” or a very similar variation, thirty times since November of 2009. (Hat tip to Weasel Zippers, via Karen.
The obvious question is: just how many monthly reports does it take before we can read something important into them?
The President was kind enough to give us actual markers for his performance on the economy. The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was supposed to hold unemployment to a maximum of 8%, and the President’s minions projected that it would be roughly 5.6% by now; it hasn’t even gotten down to 8% yet! And, as seen above, the President himself told us, in February of 2009, that he had three years to get the economy fixed. That three years has elapsed, and in that time unemployment is still above 8% (8.2% for June of 2012), we are seeing more people go on disability per month than we are seeing jobs created, the national debt stood at $15,856,367,214,324.44 at the end of June, an increase of $5.229 trillion since he was inaugurated,1 and your Editor wonders: could the economic record of the Obama Administration have been any worse if they were deliberately trying to foul things up?
By the markers President Obama himself specified, he and his Administration have failed. The President set up his own grading system, and failed to meet it, failed to come even close.
______________________________________
- More than the total increase in the national debt during eight years under President Bush, something Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) called “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic.” ↩
Yeah, well, that was then, and this is now. President Mealy Mouth, Buck Passer Without Parallel blames anyone and everyone except himself for his direct and unmistakable personal responsibility for his unprecedented and uninterrupted string of monumental failures.
Obama is the biggest failure in American Presidential history. He makes the damage done by the peanut farmer from Georgia seem like a bad dream from which we awakened and moved on. Yet, we may never recover from the national nightmare Obama has already inflicted on us, and the thought he may lie his way to another term makes my blood run cold.
Obama lies and makes more excuses than a little girl caught making mud pies in her Easter Sunday outfit. His behavior is juvenile, his excuses are transparently self-serving, and the time has come to rid ourselves of this unmanly sub-standard prevaricating pretender.
It is not a question of being in denial that the buck stops here, because President Obama take accountability, contrary to the lack thereof by the GOP, and by this member of the GOP who constantly repeats the same meme on here, steadfastly refusing to blame his own Party and unfettered Wall Street for causing such a total mess of our economy.
As a matter of fact, America is doing far better than Europe, especially the UK, whose PM put them on a Ryan-type austerity plan which is a dramatic failure so far: Unemployment up, deficit up, and GDP negative. Thus, the Keynesian approach which President Obama and the Dems used, worked, but it was not enough and the Republican Party obstructed efforts to continue, especially regarding the American Jobs Act, which would have created about 2 million jobs by now. The Republican ‘Party over Country’ mantra which Republicans have maintained throughout President Obama’s term, thus providing a fierce headwind which has prevented our recovery from excelling. Such a tragic shame, which American voters will assess and respond by kicking the bastards out of office come November!
Now, interestingly, yesterday we had a prominent Republican, nationally known and admired, opt out of attending the Republican Convention in Tampa in a few months, in protest of his Party’s political shenanigans: Party over Country.
When will Republicans wise up and at least listen to their own?
Same old story Wagonwheel, different thread. Nothing’s Obama’s or the Democrats fault even after 42 months in power. There’s always someone else to blame. Until you and your party are able to face the truth and admit your mistakes nothing new will get done. We should change the name of the Patomac to Denile, then we could say Denile isn’t just a river in Washington.
If you guys would spend less time trying to blame other people and more time trying to find out what’s not working and fix it, you’d win every election till 2050. But you can’t. You either identify or concoct a percieved problem, come up with some grandious government scheme to fix it, then when it busts the budget and exacerbates the issue instead of changing the paradgim y’all want to double down.
If I had a bar manager who had an inventory control problem and he spent a thousand bucks to correct the problem and yet we were still loosing inventory I’d fire his ass and replace his system with another until I solved the problem. I certainly wouldn’t keep on doing the same old controlls and loosing my inventory.
I used to tell my managers; Don’t blame a problem on someone fix the friggin’ problem or I’ll find someone who can. I’m tired of playing the blame game with you Wagonwheel. Fixing the blame is not fixing the problem!
Part of fixing the problem is understanding the causes and simultaneously working on the fixes.
This is exactly what President Obama and the Dems have done. But when one faces a systemic problem of corruption nurtured by the opposition Republican Party which still retains the power to obstruct, there is only so much progress/recovery that can be accomplished.
As you continue blindsided by your own right wing extremist mythologies, together with the corruptions of the power of money, it makes it even more difficult for principled leaders to achieve. In spite of this unpatriotic idiocy, President Obama’s achievements are remarkable, though not enough.
When will you and your ilk cooperate for the sake of our country, Hoagie, or will you continue to cynically undermine the country for which you fought?
[laughter] So, the Republican you endorsed as our bestest possible candidate, in your very first comment on THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL, isn’t going to attend the Republican National Convention. Former Governor Huntsman finished dead last among all of the Republican hopefuls, behind Rick Perry, behind Michelle Bachmann, behind everybody, and trashed the TEA Party, the very group that led, from the grassroots, the Republican Party back out of its minority status.
It’s painfully clear: you like the old go-along-to-get-along Republicans of the Bob Dole/Bob Michel/Hugh Scott wing of the party, the Democrats Lite who won a few — though never a majority of — elections, but never seriously challenged the Democrats.
What you don’t like is that we did wise up, and we listened not to Jon Huntsman, but to the grassroots conservatives, we listened to the voters.
Never click on Perry’s links. He’s so desperate for attention he actually links his own site without providing notification, which reveals his typical dishonesty.
I guess you will have to tell us how this is dishonest, ropelight.
And just for the record, your cohort John Hitchcock does this all the time, which is just fine with you.
You are stretching, ropelight, but never mind, you stretch constantly, instead of debating the issues. That’s just who you are!
No, Mr Editor, what I don’t like is that you folks are not reasonable and willing to work together on our most serious problems, the opposite of the attitude of the Republicans during the Reagan era.
And what I also don’t like is the dishonesty of today’s Republicans, epitomized now by Mitt Romney, who will say basically anything, with little regard to the truth, or even to previously held positions he’s held.
For example, when he was Governor of MA, he inherited a downturn, like President Obama has, then credits himself for turning the downturn into an upturn, also like President Obama has, yet now he turns around an criticizes our President. Moreover, by the end of his term, Governor Romney was 47th out of 50 in job creation. And as bad, he turned around at Bain Capital, making tens of millions of dollars for himself, by outsourcing the jobs of others.
Moreover, he campaigns against practically the same affordable care act he initiated in his state of MA. Go figure that one.
The one thing I credit Mitt Romney was the rescue of the Salt Lake Olympics: Well done!
I note that even the Wall Street Journal has taken to bashing Romney on the poor campaign he has run to date, especially his lack of an agenda should he be elected. Thus, Romney’s days of gliding through and telling lies is not attractive to the WSJ, nor to many others either.
Not only is Romney running a poor campaign so far, he is no event in sync with the radical base of his party, with you folks on here.
Jon Huntsman was the only credible candidate you had, and you have thrown him under the bus, and are therefore left with what, messageless Romney? You folks are unlikely to win in November, unless your voter suppression and corrupt Super PACs become overwhelming. I believe Americans are sick of your junk!
WW wrote:
Senator Barack Hussein Obama (D-IL) told us what the problem was: a federal government that “irresponsibl(y)” and “patriotic(ally)” added $4 trillion to the national debt in eight years, but his “solution” has been to add $5 trillion to the national debt in just 3½ years; perhaps you might see that we think that the “fixes” he has been working on do not address the problems, but make them worse.
Unfortunately, we didn’t seem to have the power to obstruct President Obama’s agenda, in that he got it passed. It took him more effort than he liked, but he still got his plans passed. It is the results of his plans which have not been successful, because his plans are simply the wrong ones.
WW, Hoagie is fighting for the country for which he fought, by fighting to retire President Obama after one term. It doesn’t matter whether you think that the President is a great fellow or not; he just isn’t up to the job, and his policies are just plain wrong.
And I’m fairly certain that if Mitt Romney is elected this November, you will be right there, agitating against virtually all of his policy proposals.
BO needs a new line: “it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report,”. Almost every month since Nov. 2009. While he saying that about that month, it’s impossible to look from Nov. 2009 when he first used that deflection to now and keep a straight face. Dear Beeee Ohhhhhhhhh, we do read a lot into the cumulative statements: “You are a failure.” When the statement is said 31 times when bad news was given, there is no other conclusion.
BO’s problem is he has quietly changed Truman’s “The Buck stops here” to “The Ugandan shilling stops here”. That way, he can say he has no responsibility.
BO has said “it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report,” almost every month since Nov. 2009.
So Yorkshire, can you tell me what the average month-to-month job creation figures were for GW Bush’s two terms?
Answer: 65,000, according to Chris Hayes on his show “Up” this morning on MSNBC.
A bit smaller than the most recent month, 80,000, isn’t it.
And Bush was not even dealing with the recession through most of his eight years, during which time he had the most massive expansion of big government since fy 2001. In the GW Bush Era, government spending went from $3T to $6T, an increase of 100%, spending doubled. So far, during the Obama years to date, spending went from $6T to $7.9T, an increase of 32% in spending. The figures are right here!
If we assume that in his second term President Obama continues to increase spending at the same rate as his first four years, he would be taking spending from $6T to $10.2T, and increase of 70% over his eight years, considerably less than the 100% increase by Bush over his eight years.
So take your heads of the sand, Republicans, GW Bush, a Republican last time I looked, spent proportionally more than President Obama, by a considerable amount!
Now Dems need not get giddy over this, because this is still much too much spending, even though it is an improvement.
So let us get the economy growing at about 3% of GDP, and begin to phase in spending cuts. There is plenty of potential for this with the PPACA health care reform, together with a significant downsizing of our military as we wind down our war with Afghanistan.
WW:
Answer: 65,000, according to Chris Hayes on his show “Up” this morning on MSNBC.
Oh, I thought you might have have had a reliable source.
Since my experience with Hitchcock indicates he doesn’t lie or twist information, I take him at his word and don’t feel the need to verify his sources. That’s my prerogative.
However, that’s not the case with Perry, he’s demonstrated such a pronounced lack of intellectual integrity over such an extended period of time on such a wide range of topics that pretty much anything he references is either from some insane moonbat site or twisted beyond all recognition.
In other words only a fool would take Perry at his word for the most mundane of contentions. I certainly don’t and clicking on his links is not only a waste of time, but if the link goes back to his own site then it’s a waste of time squared: WT= ->(PxP)
Hyperbolic much, Perry? Define “all the time” since to you, “all the time” doesn’t actually mean all the time. I don’t comment here nearly as prolifically as I did at CSPT, nor do I author here nearly as prolifically as I did at CSPT. But if you’re talking about my articles where I self-link without telling people I’m self-linking, they’re my articles. Of course, when I talk about something I talked about before, I’ll link back to it. And when I do, there are always secondary and tertiary links to research items that I did not write.
If you’re talking about my comments, which are comparatively few, I rarely link anyone in my comments. But I’m an author here. It goes without saying that I will link back to what I already said before to refute your claims of total ignorance. Or to prove that I already walked that piece of land.
Go read my comments at Hot Air, where I’m not an author but just another one of the nobodies like you are here. I have self-linked there multiple times. You will see that every time I self-link at Hot Air, I publicly declare I have done so. And I get people clicking on my publicly declared self-links while not getting a single complaint that the links are to me.
You’re not an author here. When you self-link it would only be good form for you to openly declare you have done so instead of hiding that fact from people.
And oh by the way, Perry, the term “cohort” is not the intrinsically bad thing you thought it was. You really need to hone your vocabulary skills if you want to play at the grown-up table.
Roman Cohort: from Wikipedia
The basic fighting unit was a cohort, composed of six centuries (480 men plus 6 centurions). The legion itself was composed of ten cohorts, and the first cohort had many extra men — the clerks, engineers, and other specialists who did not usually fight — and the senior centurion of the legion, the primipilus, or “number one javelin.”
WW wrote:
Total Federal outlays were $1,862.864 billion in FY2001; they were $2,982.544 in FY2008, the last budget in which President Bush actually signed the spending into law. In FY2009, which should have been signed into law by President Bush, but which the Democrats controlling Congress delayed until after President Obama took office, total outlays were $3.517.667 billion, not quite 100% but still way, way too close to it, but that was because Barack Hussein Obama and the idiotic Democrats in Congress passed huge spending increases and added the ridiculous porkulus plan on top of that. The Democrats increased FY2009 spending by 18% over FY2008. Of course, since for Democrats the buck doesn’t stop with President Obama, but all things are blamed on the evil Booosshh! the fact that the Democrats passed the spending into law, after President Bush left office, and it was signed into law by President Obama, will not make the first dent into your conscience.
In his FY2009 budget proposal, President Bush proposed total federal outlays of $3.11 trillion, a number that your Editor sees as way too high, but that’s still far below the $3.52 trillion that the Democrats spent.
[Comment edited; I had failed to set off WW's comment in blockquotes previously. -- Editor]
And that’s the last Budget the Democrats in Congress ever passed, despite Constitutional requirements and despite a Federal Law absolutely requiring a Budget. In fact, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid actively decided not to do a Budget leading up to 2010 elections specifically to try to save Democrat skin from the voters. And Harry Reid has continued that unconstitutional, illegal stonewalling to this day, intent on not even putting a Budget proposal on paper for fear that will hurt Dem chances at getting re-elected (and it most definitely would, as the voters would see the total out-of-control nature of the Dems).
By “cooperate” you obviously meen capitulate. Ain’t gonna happen. We regard Obaba’s left wing agenda as evil, and why should we cooperate with evil?
Sorry, but we don’t let left wingers pick our candidates for us. Huntsman was a prettyboy narcissist who was way too impressed with himself and who looked down his noze at the Party’s base. He got what he deserved, which was to finish dead last in the primaries.
Nobody was interested in Bill Huntsman when he was running for the nomination. There’s a reason Michael Huntsman was called Mister Asterisk, and that’s because, when the polling data and voting data came out, David Huntsman had an asterisk by his name while everyone else had a number.
That asterisk by Fred Huntsman’s name meant that Ralph Huntsman couldn’t even get all the way up to one percent of the voters. So, the fact that George Huntsman has chosen to skip the convention and all other Republican activities until the Republicans bow down to Kevin Huntsman’s demand means less than nothing.
Everyone is saying “I don’t know this James Huntsman you’re talking about.”
Wrong, Mr Editor! President Obama was stuck carrying forward the Bush policies, two wars and Medicare Part D, all off budget, not to mention the two unpaid for Bush tax cuts favoring the wealthy, not to mention the ARRA and the stimulus, spent to keep us from going over a cliff into a great depression. These are facts: Absorb them, internalize them.
Moreover, President Obama throughout his first term has had to address the economic downturn caused by Bush policies or the lack whereof. This was covered graphically in this graphic I put up about a month ago today, which you have been unable to counter, Mr Editor, nor have any of your cohorts on this your blog! You offer no credible counter, none!!!
Another fact: So far President Obama has created more jobs (4.4 million) than Bush did (0.52 million in his two terms. Absorb and internalize that fact, and don’t forget it!
You folks must learn to deal with the facts, otherwise Americans will continue to suffer, with more added to the list should your voter suppression and unlimited campaign financing somehow put you plutocrats over the top. Perish the thought, it could happen!
Excuse me, Dude. The chart I showed is labeled “US Government Spending”, which obviously is the Federal Government alone. Moreover, the chart is a “Romney Official Site”!
Thank you for illustrating, better than I could have, how far to the extreme right your Republican Party has moved in the past decade or so! And all of you on here have moved right along with the mob, without exception. There was the day when Jon Huntsman would have been viewed by your party as a moderate. Those days are long gone.
In my humble opinion, people like you folks represent a lurking and present danger for this country which you proclaim to be saving from the so-called Socialists. Indeed, we all need to be saved from you emerging plutocrats!
So quit your weaseling Righties, and return to a more sane moderate middle, so we can get our country robustly growing again after you folks have almost ruined it, saved by our President!
PS: Credit where credit is due, kudos to both parties for passing the transportation bill and for extending the school tuition loan rate instead of doubling it.
Wagonwheel says:
July 7, 2012 at 20:06
Wrong, Mr Editor! President Obama was stuck carrying forward the Bush policies, two wars and Medicare Part D, all off budget, not to mention the two unpaid for Bush tax cuts favoring the wealthy, not to mention the ARRA and the stimulus, spent to keep us from going over a cliff into a great depression. These are facts: Absorb them, internalize them.
It was a Democratic Controlled Congress. If they thought Bush spent too much, why didn’t they cut spending. I know, it was Bush’s fault.
WW wrote:
As you are well aware, I always use, and specifically used and noted above, total federal outlays, which include both the on-a d off-budget items.
One might ask a simple question: for what reason did Barack Obama run for President if he was just going to go along with republican policies? That, after all, is the argument you have made here! He could have asked for serious revisions or the complete repeal of Medicare Part D; did he? He could have ordered American troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan almost immediately; did he? He could have asked the Congress to repeal or revise the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, early on, when he had huge, filibuster proof majorities; did he?
It’s kind of amazing that you tell us how he was able to get “ARRA and the stimulus” (which I thought were the same thing) passed, that he was so able to get his stamp on policies, early on, yet completely unable to even try to reverse any major Bush Administration policies.
We know that you like the President personally — or at least that you like his public image personally, since you don’t really know the man — but we can tell that, deep down, you are really disappointed with his performance when it comes to reversing Bush Administration policies.
WW wrote:
Sorry, but you are still wrong. I have already given you the numbers for total federal outlays, above, and the source was Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789–2017, from President Obama’s own FY2013 budget proposal. Further, on a different page from the same website you linked, you will see where they break out federal spending separately, and give the FY2012 level as $3.8 trillion.
If you look at that page, right above the pie chart, you will see different tabs for Total, Federal, State, State & Local, and Local spending; it is when you click on the Total spending page that you get the $6.3 trillion figure.
WW wrote:
“(M)oved right along with the mob?” Is “mob” your new term for the voters?
You see, Jon Huntsman had a fair shot, right along with the other candidates; he did not win the nomination because the primary voters chose other candidates.
Perry, you and Paul Burka think a lot alike when it comes to the Republicans: neither of you are capable of logic and neither of you are capable of anything remotely resembling research.
The difference between you and Paul Burka is the fact he’s paid the big bucks to be so stupid. He’s Senior Editor of Texas Monthly.
Oh, one more thing you and he have in common: I severely outclass both of you in written debate and logic and facts.
WW:
So quit your weaseling Righties, and return to a more sane moderate middle, so we can get our country robustly growing again after you folks have almost ruined it, saved by our President!
Only problem is, we’ll be there by ourselves. Do you really believe the Dems will go half way? If so, it’s a first. What I take from your statement is do it our way and abandon priciple. No thanks. Maybe the Dems should come ove to our side. The view is nice.
WW wrote:
Jobs, January 2001: 136,181,000
Jobs, January 2009: 140,436,000
Jobs, June 2012: 143,202,000
Jobs created during President Bush’s two terms = 4,255,000
Jobs created during President Obama’s 3½ years = 2,766,000
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. You may have to input the data query to get the information you want.
Translation: Wagonwheel just spouted off some numbers, without doing the work of actually looking them up, and naturally got the numbers wrong. Since he specifically specified during President Bush’s two terms, the data retrieved match Wagonwheel’s criteria.
What is interesting and telling are these two charts on Unemployment for the last TEN (10) Years which cover Bush and BO. http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 Pull the sails in, they just went flat.
If Wagonwheel is going to argue that President Obama can’t be held accountable for the poor economic shape we are in today, because the mean ol’ Republicans have obstructed his agenda, wouldn’t that also mean that President Obama cannot legitimately claim credit for any jobs which have been created?
OK, I’ll accept those numbers.
So let me make a further calculation:
Bush: 4,255,000 / 96 months = 44,323 jobs created per month
Obama: 2,766,000 / 42 months = 65,857 jobs created per month
During our Great Recession, President Obama created 48.6% more jobs than Bush.
Given that, even in a bad month, like June, when 80,000 jobs were created, that is almost double Bush’s average monthly job created.
So my numbers change, but my message does not change with your numbers, Mr Editor!
It is also worth noting that Bush’s low job creation numbers were generated by his massive expansion of government for two wars (military) and homeland security operations, so Bush did poorly with expanding private sector jobs.
And you support putting this same Party, yours, back in power? This borders on insanity, because it goes against your core principle of small and non-intrusive government, when your party has a recent history of doing the exact opposite from your so-called basic principles, putting the lie to these core principles.
You Righties are all rhetoric but no action, otherwise known as a do-nothing party!
Where’s the Constitutionally mandated Budget, Perry?
Where’s the Budget as required by Federal Law, Perry?
Why hasn’t the Senate brought the 30 different Jobs Bills to the floor that the House passed, Perry?
Why hasn’t the Senate voted on the Budget the House passed, Perry?
Why hasn’t the Senate acted to uphold the Constitution after they swore an oath to defend it, Perry?
“Bush: 4,255,000 / 96 months = 44,323 jobs created per month
Obama: 2,766,000 / 42 months = 65,857 jobs created per month
During our Great Recession, President Obama created 48.6% more jobs than Bush.”
That’s so cute! Then we must have a higher % of people employed under Obama than under Bush, right? Liars lie, and statistics are for f’in accountants. We’ve talked about this befor Wagonwheel. If you can’t determine the truth, you’re either a liar or a fraud. Or pehaps a leftist accountant.
Hey, Editor. Go back to that database and eliminate 2008 from the data. See what numbers come up when that one year is removed.
John Hitchcock suggests:
That’s right Mr Editor, take out what makes your party look bad, so only your distorted version of reality is projected. Only pathological liars would ever think/try to do this, which members of your party exhibit on a daily basis to the American people.
Like Governor Paul LaPage of Maine, upset with the SCOTUS ruling on the PPACA (“ObamaCare”) screams: “The IRS is the new Gestapo!” Can you even imagine?
But every once in a while a little truth seeps out: Following the WSJ extreme slam on Candidate Mitt Romney, Leader Boehner let slip: “Voters aren’t going to fall in love with Romney!”
And since you brought up the Constitution, John Hitchcock, show us where in the Constitution it says anything other than majority rule in the Senate. Senate Republican record use of the filibuster has succeeding in grinding that body to a nearly total halt, producing a rule in the government by a minority party with extremist views. Informed and caring Americans don’t want this!
Are the American people going to “fall in love” with Mitt Romney? No, I’d suggest that they won’t, and they shouldn’t. Too many Americans did fall in love with Barack Obama, and what has it gotten us: a huge, sycophantic crowd, our liberal from Lewes included, who worship the ground on which he walks, and cannot look at him objectively and see that he has simply not been up to the job. We have his unrequited lovers telling us how President Obama is responsible for every piece of good news that has occurred, and absolutely blameless concerning the slightest bit of negative news. Kim Jong-il spent a long time building up a cult of personality, and now that he has gone to his eternal reward, his son, Kim Jong-un, is trying the same thing; that’s how the despots retain power even when their regime has produced little other than failure.
I don’t know how hard Barack Obama has tried to build a cult of personality here, but whether he worked at it or his sycophants just fell in love on their own, he’s got one. To not love President Obama is a great sin, and the Obamabots really do see holding the President accountable for what he does and the goalposts he set himself as beyond the pale, and anyone who even thinks that way must be a raaaaacist.
If Mitt Romney wins the election four months from now, we shouldn’t love him. What we should do is respect the office he holds, but fairly judge his performance in that office. We know, in advance, that he isn’t a god, that he isn’t perfect, and he will not be successful in every last thing he tries. Your Editor has noted that Mitt Romney has already made a promise that he cannot keep, that the unemployment rate will be reduced to 6% by the end of his first term, because it concerns something he cannot control, but that it doesn’t matter: having made the promise, he will be held accountable for keeping it.¹
The President of the United States should not be the focus of love by the American people; he should be someone who is judged, honestly and coldly, on his actual performance in office. Mitt Romney might make a good President, or he might be a failure in office; we cannot know this in advance, but are simply taking our best guess. What we do know is that, while Mr Romney might be a failure as our President, Barack Obama already is a failure, and that’s why he has to be replaced; he just isn’t up to the job.
______________________________________________
¹ – This is not to say that unemployment will not be 6% or lower by the end of Mr Romney’s first term if he is elected; it very well could be. It is a statement that the President does not control the unemployment rate or the economy, and if unemployment is below 6% by 20 January 2017, it will not be because President Romney made it so.
WW complained:
Yes, and I agree with him. Unlike every other part of our legal system, with the Infernal revenue Service, you are guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. Under our tax code, you owe what the IRS says you owe, period, unless you can prove that you owe a different amount.
With the IRS as the enforcement arm of ObaminableCare, if the IRS says that you didn’t prove that you carried health insurance — you will have to produce a 1099 or some other document proving that you had it — you will be liable for the penalty tax.
WW wrote:
The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 5, Paragraph 2: “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”
That would be somewhat different from what you felt before:
Of course, I would guess that if the next Congress has a Republican majority in the Senate, you will find your respect for the filibuster rule reverting to the position you expressed in 2008. I can see, in 2013, when the House has passed a repeal of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, and a Senate with 52 Republican members is taking it up, that you will be loudly shouting that the Democrats must filibuster the evil Republican attempt to take away our health care!
We will, of course, suggest that the Republicans use the reconciliation process, which is not subject to the filibuster, to run roughshod over the Democrats’ objections and repeal that infernal law.
Here we have our Editor, assuming that Romney will get elected, calling for respect for the office of President, exactly what he has not himself done for our current President from the very first day of his first term.
Mr Editor, with an hyperpartisan attitude like this, how can you expect any of us to take your pontifications seriously?
Not only that, you admit that our unemployment rate is not in the control of a President Romney, the implication of your past remarks about President Obama being the opposite.
Finally, President Obama’s goal was to bring unemployment to 8%. Sure, he should be held accountable, and he came very close to meeting that goal, given that we are at 8.2%. Romney originally promised 4%, but quickly changed that to 6%. Do we yet know what Romney’s goal will be.
In contrast to President Obama, Romney flips and flops so much, making one wonder what he stands for and how often.
If we want a principled President, reelecting President Obama should be the right and only choice to make. Are you Republicans going to vote according to your principles, or do you throw them to the side for strictly partisan political reasons as instructed by your political leaders to remain in lock step with them?
WW wrote:
Kind of like pathological liars who suggest that FY2009 expenditures are all President Bush’s responsibility, even though most of the FY2009 expenditures were not even passed by Congress and signed into law until Barack Obama had been inaugurated? Kind of like pathological liars who claim that President Obama isn’t responsible for any of the bad news which has occurred during his presidency? Kind of like the pathological liars who claim that the Republicans have completely obstructed President Obama’s agenda, when he got most of it passed into law despite Republican objections?
Republicans held the House for 6 of the 8 years GWB was President.
Republicans held the Senate for 4-1/2 of the 8 years GWB was President.
Perry wants everyone to forget that fact so he can blame everything on GWB. 2007 and 2008, Democrats ruled the roost in both Houses of Congress, and the lunatic fringe ran the Democrat majorities. Eliminating 2008 would only eliminate the final GWB year that Democrats ran Congress. But Perry doesn’t want to eliminate any parts where Democrats held most of the power, since those parts are the worst parts, statistically speaking.
This is more proof that Perry has no actual concern for what the US Constitution actually says. Otherwise, Perry would have already known that (especially since he has demanded that same thing and been told that same thing countless times before). It is funny that we can point to the actual words of the Constitution to show it allows us to do the exact things we want to do but won’t allow the Leftists to do what they want to do (and they do anyway, the Constitution be damned).
“Study to shew thyself approved,” Perry.
Right, like the pathological liars who would hold President Obama responsible from the day he took office, when a continuation of the previous Presidents policies do not and can not turn on a dime.
Again, here is the data which you simply have not responsibly countered, because you cannot, Mr Editor, and you know that!
You people are desperate, which is why you wholeheartedly support voter suppression and Super PACs, the latter whose sponsors are not even accountable because their identities are anonymous. Yet you personally have no problem with this, not on principle, but on whatever is necessary to win an election, as Machiavellians are wont to rationalize any behavior, good or bad, whatever it takes to win. Correct?
If Democrats respected the Constitution or the Bill or Rights they’d be trying to uphold them instead of subverting them. The evidence is both clear and overwhelming, there’s no doubt that Democrats regard the founding principles of our Republic as impediments to their plans for a collectivist future.
Recall Barack Obama’s clearly stated intention to fundamentally change America. He was talking about undermining the Constitution’s protections for individual rights in favor of big government rule.
Look at the legislation passed under his tyranny, the common denominator is that it restricts the rights of individuals and increases the authority of big government bureaucrats to regulate our businesses, our finances, our health care, and even what we eat and drink.
From lying to us about Fast-n-Furious to undermine the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment protections, to coddling terrorists with an attempt to hold a show trial in the shadow of the Twin Towers, to refusing to uphold federal immigration laws, to refusing to ensure only properly registered voters cast ballots, to turning a blind eye to Black Panther thugs intimidating voters, to providing intelligence information to to our enemies, to using “executive privilege” to conceal blatant gun running to Mexican drug cartels, to “outing” the doctor who helped us confirm Osama bin Ladin’s presence, to preventing the construction of a much needed oil pipeline, and on and on and on and on.
Make no mistake, Barack Obama’s idea of fundamental change for America is to reduce our nation to the level of a third world shit-hole with him and his accomplices firmly installed as the ruling junta, with Mr Fundamental Change as Great Leader for Life.
WW:
So let me make a further calculation:
Bush: 4,255,000 / 96 months = 44,323 jobs created per month
Obama: 2,766,000 / 42 months = 65,857 jobs created per month
Feb. 09 unemployment was 8.3%
Jun. 12 Unemployment was 8.2%
So all it says is all the jobs lost have been made up and no forward progress has been made, except the artificial 0.1%. So if BO has 2.8 million jobs created, then he also gets credit for the 2.8 million jobs lost in the same period. In short, if this were a football game, the team on offensive was on the other team’s 20 yard line, and through penalties and yards lost found themselves on their own 30 yd. line on 3rd down, and on a desparation play got back to the other team’s 20 yd line. Yep, one play gain 50 yds., but it was the 50 yds they lost. Time to give up the ball.
Regarding the “shit-hole”, Republicans have been well on the way of doing so before most people had ever heard of a man named Obama. Fortunately for us, President Obama came on the scene with hope and change, on which he is delivering in spite of despicable/dirty opposition from the very party that got us into this recessive/regressive mess to begin with, with their massive expansion of government without regulation.
Just now we are beginning to see similar banking malfeasance which American banks perpetrated, this time by European banks, regarding their alleged illegal efforts to manipulate the libor rates (interest rates banks charge one another) for their own gain, in cahoots with those entities making bets, so that both bettors and bankers profited. This again illustrates the lengths to which unregulated entities will go to make a buck at the expense of the economy whose health we taxpayers depend. Read here:
I wonder what Republicans will say now to rationalize these egregious behaviors of their conservative supporters?
WW responded:
Two huge spending bills, passed by Congress over strong Republican opposition, and signed into law by President Obama, both within two months of him becoming President, and both serious departures from President Bush’s proposals. Why shouldn’t President Obama and the Democrats be held responsible for those laws and their economic consequences?
Of course, if unemployment had maxed out at 8%, or somewhere close to that, and had been heading steadily downward, to the 5.6% projected for June of 2012, you would be the first one to tell us that it was clearly, obviously, most certainly the result of President Obama’s policies and quick action in the winter of 2009. President Obama would certainly be taking the credit for it, and his re-election would not be in the slightest doubt at all, while the Democrats would still control both Houses of Congress.
Leaders claim responsibility, and take responsibility; President Obama certainly does that when things are going good, but if something goes wrong, he’s the first to be pointing fingers at someone else. He uttered big words about being held accountable, back in February of 2009, and said that the President being held accountable was a “nice thing,” and that if “I don’t have this thing done in three years” he would be looking at a “one-term proposition.” He took the responsibility, right then, as he should have . . . when he thought that his policies were actually going to work. It’s only now, when it has become obvious that his policies did not work, that it’s still George Bush’s fault.
Of course, some people had a better idea than did President Obama just what the stimulus plan would do. I wrote, on February 6, 2009, before the porkulus plan had even been passed:
And I had a very prophetic last line:
I was right, all along.
And I was right even before that. You see, President Bush promoted a “stimulus plan” in January of 2008, when there were signs that the economy might go into a recession, and I wrote, on January 19, 2008, that it was a bad idea. President Bush signed what turned out to be a $170 billion stimulus plan in early February of 2008, $120 billion of which went directly into the hands of consumers, and it didn’t work. It increased the deficit, and the national debt, but the recession was not prevented.
You might as well take it as an established fact: when your Editor tells you that some cockamamie economic scheme by the government will not work, you should listen, and heed his words, because events have usually proved him right.
According to Robert Elliott’s report 7/6/12 in the Examiner.com 17 States elected GOP governors in the 2010 mid-term elections which resulted in policies that reduced unemployment in every single one of those States and in strengthening economies which are improving at twice the national average.
Unemployment and economic conditions in States electing Democrat governors haven’t yet improved at nearly the same rates.
However, Democrats have an explanation, rather that attempt to reduce taxes, eliminate over regulation, and cut wasteful government spending, they’ve focused on blaming others and making up stupid excuses to explain away their across-the-board failures.
In 2012 the voters will decide between the GOP’s record of proven performance and the Democrat’s insulting repetition of ridiculous excuses, and if 2010 is any indication Democrats will get shellacked again. Which is exactly what they’ve got coming, after all, they’ve sure as hell earned it.
[Comment edited to add hyperlink; no changes made to text. -- Editor]
No, Perry, we’re not desperate. We hold the US Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, as it says. You do not. We declare the President is not above the Law or the Constitution. You have placed him above both (since he’s a Democrat). We hold to the facts and histo-facts. You do not. We examine the whole context. You eschew context. We hold to the Truth. You hold to lies. We hold Principle above Ends. For you, the Ends justifies the Means. We hold to the Tenth Commandment. You demand everyone violate the Tenth Commandment.
Our record of predictions is very good. Yours is very dismal. We know Obama was rated the furthest Left of all the US Senators when he was the Junior Senator from Illinois, even further Left than the openly Socialist Bernie Sanders. You claim he is far more Centrist, despite all evidence to the contrary.
We live in the real world. You live in your delusions.
I also wrote this on the stimulus plan, posted on February 4, 2009:
The tax credit was reduced to an $8,000 maximum in the final bill. Still, it didn’t help, because homebuilding remains the most depressed part of the construction industry. People are not building new homes because the market is glutted with existing homes which are hard to sell, houses being offered for really bargain prices, but which still are not being snapped up because too many of the people who would potentially move up to a bigger and better home already own smaller, starter homes that they are afraid they will not be able to sell, and are unable to buy a new home without a reasonable assurance that they can sell their old one. The government tried to help, but really didn’t, because they didn’t understand the problem.
But the evidence is clear: your Editor said, in early 2009, that the stimulus plan was a bad idea, and time has proved him to have been right.
Of course, your Editor wasn’t the only one who accurately predicted what would happen. Sharon posted, on February 15, 2009:
Simply put, before there was any evidence at all on what the effect of the stimulus bill would be, our good friends on the left were already blaming Republicans for its failure!
Why don’t you take your own advice and abandon your extreme, left wing policies? Calling we, who a patriots, a danger is just a sign of your own extremism.
Average unemployment under Bush = 5-6%
Average unemployment under Obama = 8-10%
Now, tell us who was the better president?
Editor, I remember the GOP’s general response to Obama’s Stimulus plan was to point out that the only thing stimulated would be more debt.
Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate then and they arrogantly passed an enormously expensive Stimulus Bill which did little or nothing to stimulate the economy. It did however provide funding for a variety of projects Obama favored, like Fast-n-Furious which resulted in over 300 dead Mexicans and at least 2 US law enforcement officials, and Stimulus also paid-off a number of Obama’s campaign contributors which was most likely it’s primary purpose.
That’s easy: President Obama, hands down!!!
Yes, Perry. Ignore absolutely every fact in the book to name the anti-Constitutional criminal as the better President than the far more Constitutional non-criminal.
During President Bush’s Great Recession, from June 2008 to June 2009, 5,735,000 jobs or almost 500,000 a month were lost. Now that is a fact, Eric; absorb it and don’t forget it.
This is the record which President Obama inherited, which you Republicans would just as soon forget. Well here is one citizen who will not let this record be forgotten.
Moreover, in August of 2009, the unemployment rate peaked at 10%, also part of the Bush record that President Obama inherited. The President has managed to get that rate down to 8.2%, pretty close to the 8% predicted, an amazing accomplishment considering Republican headwinds. Yet no credit for President Obama and the Dems from the opposition, do-nothing Republican extremists.
This is the abysmal record that President Obama inherited. At least he has made remarkable progress in turning it around, though there is lots more work to do, which will remain undone and reversed should the Republicans take back power, according to their record during Bush-43.
I have faith that the American voter, as much as they have suffered, will reelect a President who has positive ideas about continuing to move forward.
And surprise, surprise, these Republican crooks want to get back in power to reinstate similar old policies, even worse, considering the Ryan Austerity Plan they will install. And even worse yet, they wish to reject the PPACA health care act, which Americans are liking more as more of the details are being understood.
For Perry who believes a net sum of 0% is a gain.
WW laughingly wrote:
So, President Obama is only three years late on his promise — still not quite achieved — and do I need to remind you again what the President said would be the case if he didn’t get the economy fixed in three years?
That’s right, Eric. Absorb that fact and don’t you ever forget it.
Bush wasn’t president till June 2009, so your figures are lies.
You’re a duck, Perry, quacking out the same old excuses. Obama is president. He is responsible. End of story.
BO says he created X Millions and Millions of Carl Sagen sayings Jobs. All it did was replace the X Millions and Millions LOST Damn statistics from his own agencies. So, reality is, he’s gain a few jobs overall. Damn what a record. I wonder how many more jobs would have been created if he did NOTHING, especially all the new Envirowhacko Regulations he put in that are killing jobs.
Update
