Thread: Stimulapalooza: 3.6 Million Jobs Lost is “Quite Positive;”

So far this fiscal year our federal government has spent $241,473,971,063...just on the INTEREST PAYMENTS ON THE DEBT!!!


FIGURES DON'T LIE: DEMOCRATS DO
2 hrs 54 mins ago...

It's been breaking news all over MSNBC, liberal blogs, newspapers and even The Wall Street Journal: "Federal spending under Obama at historic lows ... It's clear that Obama has been the most fiscally moderate president we've had in 60 years." There's even a chart!

: I'll pause here to give you a moment to mop up the coffee on your keyboard. Good? OK, moving on ...

This shocker led to around-the-clock smirk fests on MSNBC. As with all bogus social science from the left, liberals hide the numbers and proclaim: It's "science"! This is black and white, inarguable, and why do Republicans refuse to believe facts? Ed Schultz claimed the chart exposed "the big myth" about Obama's spending: "This chart -- the truth -- very clearly shows the truth undoubtedly." And the truth was, the "growth in spending under President Obama is the slowest out of the last five presidents."

Note that Schultz also said that the "part of the chart representing President Obama's term includes a stimulus package, too." As we shall see, that is a big, fat lie. Schultz's guest, Reuters columnist David Cay Johnston confirmed: "And clearly, Obama has been incredibly tight-fisted as a president."

Everybody's keyboard OK?

On her show, Rachel Maddow proclaimed: "Factually speaking, spending has leveled off under President Obama. Spending is not skyrocketing under President Obama. Spending is flattening out under President Obama."

In response, three writers from "The Daily Show" said, "We'll never top that line," and quit.

Inasmuch as this is obviously preposterous, I checked with John Lott, one of the nation's premier economists and author of the magnificent new book with Grover Norquist: "Debacle: Obama's War on Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future." (I'm reviewing it soon, but you should start without me.)

It turns out Rex Nutting, author of the phony Marketwatch chart, attributes all spending during Obama's entire first year, up to Oct. 1, to President Bush.
That's not a joke.

That means, for example, the $825 billion stimulus bill, proposed, lobbied for, signed and spent by Obama, goes in ... Bush's column. (And if we attribute all of Bush's spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and No Child Left Behind to William Howard Taft, Bush didn't spend much either.)

Nutting's "analysis" is so dishonest, even The New York Times has ignored it. He includes only the $140 billion of stimulus money spent after Oct. 1, 2009, as Obama's spending. And he's testy about that, grudgingly admitting that Obama "is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill."

Nutting acts as if it's the height of magnanimity to "attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush ..."

On what possible theory would that be Bush's spending? Hey -- we just found out that Obamacare's going to cost triple the estimate. Let's blame it on Calvin Coolidge!

Nutting's "and not to Bush" line is just a sleight of hand. He's hoping you won't notice that he said "$140 billion" and not "$825 billion," and will be fooled into thinking that he's counting the entire stimulus bill as Obama's spending. (He fooled Ed Schultz!)

The theory is that a new president is stuck with the budget of his predecessor, so the entire 2009 fiscal year should be attributed to Bush. But Obama didn't come in and live with the budget Bush had approved. He immediately signed off on enormous spending programs that had been specifically rejected by Bush. This included a $410 billion spending bill that Bush had refused to sign before he left office. Obama signed it on March 10, 2009. Bush had been chopping brush in Texas for two months at that point. Marketwatch's Nutting says that's Bush's spending.

Obama also spent the second half of the Troubled Asset Relief Fund (TARP). These were discretionary funds meant to prevent a market meltdown after Lehman Brothers collapsed. By the end of 2008, it was clear the panic had passed, and Bush announced that he wouldn't need to spend the second half of the TARP money.

But on Jan. 12, 2009, Obama asked Bush to release the remaining TARP funds for Obama to spend as soon as he took office. By Oct. 1, Obama had spent another $200 billion in TARP money. That, too, gets credited to Bush, according to the creative accounting of Rex Nutting.

There are other spending bills that Obama signed in the first quarter of his presidency, bills that would be considered massive under any other president -- such as the $40 billion child health care bill, which extended coverage to immigrants as well as millions of additional Americans. These, too, are called Bush's spending.

Frustrated that he can't shift all of Obama's spending to Bush, Nutting also lowballs the spending estimates during the later Obama years. For example, although he claims to be using the White House's numbers, the White House's estimate for 2012 spending is $3.795 trillion. Nutting helpfully knocks that down to $3.63 trillion.

But all those errors pale in comparison to Nutting's counting Obama's nine-month spending binge as Bush's spending.

If liberals will attribute Obama's trillion-dollar stimulus bill to Bush, what won't they do?

http://news.yahoo.com/figures-dont-l...233103895.html

comments

How can you tell if a Politician is lying? His lips are moving.

..

The 2009 budget WAS the budget of George Bush. It was passed by Bush in 2008 for the 2009 year. Obama did not present his first budget until late in 2009 for the 2010 year. It did include the stimulus package, most of which was tax cuts to stimulate the economy. Just for the record, it was Bush that bailed out the wall street banks. Congress passed the bailout in sept. 2008.

..

Note - Congress hasn't passed a Budget SINCE...

..

Did you read the article? TARP had 410 Billion left in it that Bush wasn't going to use and then the "stimulus" was passed during Obama's term. That was not included in the 2009 budget that Bush had submitted. Also, since we haven't had a budget in 3 years, how do we kn ow how much has really been spent by Obama? I would say that the "stimulus" and 410 B left over should both go to Obama. At the very lleast, the "stimulus" is all his.

..

Why does FOX claim it is fair and balanced? It could be because in comparison to the other stations they are. When over 40 Catholic churches are suing the Obama administartion over mandated healthcare laws it's news, right? If it is then why didn't CBS and NBC report on it and NBC take only 19 seconds to just mention it? Simply because these liberal stations hate to report on any news that makes Obama and the Democrats look bad. They are as far from being fair and balanced as you can get.

..

If I am reading this correctly, none of the spending was attributed to Obama? Well then, why is he taking credit for turning the economy around with his spending? Shouldn't the credit then go to Bush?


See also : With a Straight Face, Matthews Spins: It's a 'Fact' That Obama Is Not a 'Reckless Spender'
By Scott Whitlock | May 23, 2012 | 18:24


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-w...ckless-spender

Senate Dems Push Pay Fairness Three Years After Obama Declared Victory
4:39 PM, May 23, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER

Maryland senator Barbara Mikulski just announced that Democrats will be bringing up a pay equity bill after Memorial Day, sometime in June. The thing is, Congress already passed pay equity legislation, and President Obama signed that bill into law--the Lilly Ledbetter Act--in January 2009. “We passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act -- the first bill I signed -- so that equal pay for equal work is a reality all across this country," President Obama said in June 2009, taking political points for this legislative act. In December of last year, Obama said something similar: "Change is the very first bill I signed, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which says in this country an equal day's work gets an equal day's pay. That's change."

So if a bill that supposedly ensures pay equity is already on the books, why are Senate Democrats intent on pushing for another one?

"Dems are still fundraising over their support for the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which Obama signed in January 2009—and which he said at the time leveled the playing field," a senior Republican Senate aide tells me.

The aide is specifically referring to a fundraising letter sent by the wife of former DNC chief Tim Kaine, Anne Holton. On behalf of her husband who is running for Senate in Virginia, Holton writes, "I hope you'll encourage your mothers, sisters, spouses, girlfriends, and others to join Women for Kaine. I look forward to working with you and other members of Women for Kaine in the months ahead. Tim needs all of us, working together, to become Virginia's next Senator."

The senior Republican Senate aide continues, "So they’re playing women for money--and votes. Their hucksterism knows no bounds."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ey_645807.html

Washington Post fact-checks Obama claims of a fiscally restrained administration
By Doug Powers • May 26, 2012 05:50 PM

The Obama administration’s latest proof that they are fiscally responsible is Rex Nutting’s piece at CBS Marketwatch. That analysis — if it can be called that — has since been torn apart like it was accidentally left on the table during a chigiri-e class. The Washington Post fact-check column is the latest to take issue with the Nutting’s numbers and methodology, as well as Jay Carney’s condescending sniveling.

You can read the WaPo’s entire analysis here, but this is the conclusion: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...s_fact-checker



The obvious question is being asked: Only three Pinocchios on a four Pinocchio scale? http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/2...bama-spending/

?

In the WaPo’s defense, there was going to be one more, but after hearing Obama and Carney saying theirs is the most fiscally restrained administration in 60 years, Geppetto died laughing before he could make the fourth Pinocchio. http://cnsnews.com/video/national/ob...early-60-years http://go.bloomberg.com/political-ec...-into-the-b-s/

If you missed it, give a read to Political Math’s “How to make Obama’s spending look small.” http://www.politicalmathblog.com/?p=1786


**Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2012/05/26...al-restrained/

Romney hits Obama on the "fine" economy
Associated Press – 1 hr 43 mins ago.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Presumptive presidential nominee Mitt Romney has released a Web video hammering President Barack Obama for his assertion Friday that "the economy is doing fine."

The Romney campaign has paid for the 54-second spot, which opens with the president at a White House press conference.

The ad shows eight people talking about their experiences: staff cuts, job loss, personal bankruptcy, a two-year job hunt, no healthcare and a slashed pension and other concerns. The ad closes with, "No, Mr. President, we are not doing fine."

Romney is using Obama's remark to cast the president as out of touch with the average American, a criticism the president's campaign has tried against Romney.

The economy with its stubborn 8.2 percent unemployment is the biggest issue for voters and a weak spot for Obama.

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-ad-hits...142327604.html

Report shows carnage downturn caused to families' net worth
By Lucia Mutikani, Reuters

WASHINGTON -- Americans suffered a record decline in wealth between 2007 and 2010 as home values tumbled, according to a Federal Reserve report on Monday that underscored the severity of the recent recession. The median family's net worth dropped 38.8 percent during the three-year period, the Fed said in its latest report on changes in U.S. Family Finances, derived from a survey of consumer finances. Fed economists told reporters that this was the biggest drop in net worth since the survey started in 1989.

The median net worth, which is the value of assets minus debt, plunged to $77,300 in 2010 from $126,400 in 2007. Net worth in 2010 was at levels last seen in 1992."Although declines in the values of financial assets or business were important factors for some families, the decreases in median net worth appear to have been driven most strongly by a broad collapse in house prices," the Fed said.

The survey's findings shine a harsh light on the devastation inflicted on the economy by the 2007-09 recession and could help to explain the frustratingly slow pace of the recovery. The housing market's collapse was at the core of the recession, during which the economy contracted nearly 5.1 percent between the third quarter of 2007 and the second quarter of 2009, with the unemployment rate rising 4.5 percentage points to 9.5 percent. "Housing was of greater importance than financial assets for the wealth position of most families," the Fed said.

The survey found that the decline in median net worth was large for families in groups where housing was a larger share of assets, such as families headed by someone 35 to 44 years old and families in the West region. "A substantial part of the declines observed in net worth over the 2007-10 period can be associated with decreases in the level of unrealized capital gains on families' assets," the Fed said.

The share of total assets of all families attributable to unrealized capital gains from real estate, businesses, stocks, or mutual funds fell 11.6 percentage points to 24.5 percent in 2010, it said. While the overall level of debt owed by families was unchanged, debt as a percentage of assets rose to 16.4 percent in 2010 from 14.8 percent in 2007 because the value of the underlying assets, especially housing, decreased faster.

The share of families carrying a credit card balance fell 6.7 percentage points to 39.4 percent in 2010. The median balance fell 16.1 percent to $2,600 in 2010 from $3,100 in 2007. The proportion of families with debt payments greater than 40 percent of their income was nearly unchanged between 2007 and 2010.

http://economywatch.msnbc.msn.com/_n...net-worth?lite

comments

Statistics show that during this recession, congressional members actually increased their wealth!

I hate to refer to this is simply "bad times," as if this is just some natural cycle like a thunderstorm. These bad times were created by Banks who ripped off the country and their clients and got away with it. And they are still up to their old tricks, no doubt confident that stupid taxpayers will bail them out again.

...

... and with a 'Constitution' and 'Bill of Rights' that more closely resembles what our Forefathers intended.

How can you have one that more closely resembles that our forefathers wanted than the one we have now that was written by those very forefathers ???

...

Who was in charge of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and resisted all efforts for oversight on those entities? Barney Frank and Chris Dodd- DEMOCRATS.

..

Let's not forget the role pelosi and reid had A democrat controlled congress 2007 til 2011. Sorry.

...

Obama is a politician, a good one, but his legendary brilliance has been absent. That said, no president has the power or ability to "fix the economy" and, frankly, I don't like it when they try. That's not their job. The current fiasco is world-wide in scope and Obama, even if he were as smart as is often claimed, can do little about it.

..

In the same cycle, while the dwindling middle class loses their ass, the nation's top earners increased their net worth by contemporary "carpet bagging." Moving the jobs to China for $.51/hr and bringing the product back to the US with a lousy 6% tariff is the new corporate game.

..

Well, I for one am happy that the "private sector is doing fine" while Obama continues to party with the rich....$40,000 a plate fundraisers to b*tch about the rich....anyone else see the irony in that?

Fact check: 4.5 million new jobs created under Obama?
By Eric Pfeiffer, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 18 hrs ago.

With the Democratic National Convention in full swing, a number of party leaders are attempting to boost President Barack Obama's re-election effort by asserting that 4.5 million new jobs have been created during his term.

Obama himself has recently claimed more job growth in the past 27 months than President George W. Bush created "during the entire seven years before this crisis."

"Despite incredible odds and united Republican opposition, our president took action, and now we've seen 4.5 million new jobs," San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro said in his keynote address at the DNC on Tuesday night.

That statistic was echoed by virtually all of Tuesday night's speakers, including first lady Michelle Obama, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who previously served as Obama's chief of staff.

However, CNN fact-checked that claim and found it to be "not the whole picture." Instead, CNN found that there has been a net increase of just 300,000 nonfarm payroll jobs since Obama took office. And if you count government jobs, there are actually 400,000 fewer people working today than in January 2009.

When Democrats use the 4.5 million jobs number, they're referring to jobs created after the economy bottomed out in January 2010, one year after Obama took office. That time frame excludes the worst job losses, which took place in 2009, and which many Democrats argue were the result of Bush policies.

CNN concludes: "The figure of 4.5 million jobs is accurate if you look at the most favorable period and category for the administration. But overall, there are still fewer people working now than when Obama took office at the height of the recession."



Still, a historical analysis of job growth percentages shows that Obama still fares better than some recent presidents. As of July, Obama is averaging +0.84 percent annual job growth in his term. That places him ahead of Bush, who saw +0.51 percent growth in his first term and -0.84 percent in his second term. Obama is also tracking better than George H.W. Bush, who presided over +0.69 percent growth during his one term in the White House.

However, Obama's job growth percentages trail far behind those of some other recent presidents, including Bill Clinton (+2.60 percent and +1.60 percent), Ronald Reagan (+1.75 percent and +2.53 percent) and even Jimmy Carter (+2.30 percent).

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/f...-election.html

Am I reading this correctly, 36.5% of the American labor force are unemployed? All kidding aside, if it is true, that over 1/3 of those people who are of age to be included in the labor force (presumably over the age of 18) are without jobs, no wonder our economy is in the toilet!

Labor Pains: U.S. Economy Adds 96,000 Jobs in August
Published September 07, 2012 Reuters



U.S. jobs growth slowed more than expected in August, setting the stage for the Federal Reserve to pump additional money into the sluggish economy next week and dealing a blow to President Obama as he seeks reelection in November.

Nonfarm payrolls increased only 96,000 last month, the Labor Department said on Friday. While the unemployment rate dropped to 8.1 percent from 8.3 percent in July, it was largely due to Americans giving up the search for work.

The report's weak tenor was also underscored by revisions to June and July data to show 41,000 fewer jobs created than previously reported. The labor force participation rate, or the precentage of Americans who either have a job or are looking for one, fell to 63.5 percent -- the lowest since September 1981.

The lackluster report keeps the pressure on Obama ahead of the November vote in which the health of the economy looms large.

Economists polled by Reuters had expected payrolls to rise 125,000 last month, but some had pushed their forecasts higher after upbeat data on Thursday.

The economy has experienced three years of growth since the 2007-09 recession, but the expansion has been grudging and the jobless rate has held above 8 percent for more than three years -- the longest stretch since the Great Depression.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke last week said the labor market's stagnation was a "grave concern," a comment that raised expectations for a further easing of monetary policy as soon as the central bank's meeting on Wednesday and Thursday.

The jobless rate peaked at 10 percent in October 2009, but progress reducing it stalled this year, threatening Obama's bid for a second term. An online Reuters/Ipsos poll on Thursday gave Republican Challenger Mitt Romney a 1-point edge on Obama, 45 percent to 44 percent.

The lack of headway putting Americans back to work has also put the question of further monetary stimulus on the table at the Fed. The central bank has held interest rates close to zero for nearly four years and pumped about $2.3 trillion into the economy through two bouts of bond buying.

The weak report makes it more likely that the Fed will launch a third round of bond purchases next week. Since the beginning of the year, job growth has averaged 139,000 per month, compared with an average monthly gain of 153,000 in 2011.

Economists blame fears of the so-called U.S. fiscal cliff -- the $500 billion or so in expiring tax cuts and government spending reductions set to take hold at the start of next year unless Congress acts -- and Europe's long-running debt problems, for the slowdown in hiring.

Job creation last month was weak across the board, with manufacturing payrolls down 15,000, the first decline since September last year. Factory jobs were inflated in July because automobile manufacturers kept plants running when they would normally shut them for retooling, economists said.

There was little improvement in construction employment, which added 1,000 jobs. Temporary hiring fell 4,900, declining for the first time since March.

Utilities payrolls saw a snap back, adding 8,800 after being depressed by the strike of about 9,000 workers in July.

Government payrolls declined 7,000, falling for a sixth straight month.

Average hourly earnings fell one cent last month, highlighting the underlying weakness in the labor market.

The average work week was steady at 34.4 hours.


Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/2...#ixzz25nQz7c4R

The average work week was steady at 34.4 hours.

Because this is "part-time" and they do not have to pay benefits....


Private Sector Adds More Jobs Than Expected in August
Published September 06, 2012 Reuters

Private employers added a better than expected 201,000 jobs in August, a report by a payrolls processor showed on Thursday, a rare dash of good news for the country's struggling labor market.

July's figure from the ADP National Employment Report was revised up to 173,000 from the previously reported 163,000.

August's job gain easily topped expectations of 140,000 new jobs, and was the highest since March.

U.S. stock futures edged higher after the ADP release, and the U.S. dollar extended gains against the yen.

The U.S. government will deliver the much more comprehensive August payrolls report on Friday, for which economists expect payrolls growth to have dipped from July.

The jobless rate was high at 8.3 percent in July, causing deep concern at the Federal Reserve, which aims for maximum employment and which could ease policy even more at a meeting next week.

"The gain in private employment in August is strong enough to suggest that the national unemployment rate may have declined," Joel Prakken, Macroeconomic Advisers chairman, said in a statement.

"Today's estimate, if matched by a similar reading on employment from the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) on Friday, will alleviate concerns that the economy has slipped into a downturn," he said.

Economists often refer to the ADP report to fine-tune their expectations for the highly anticipated payrolls numbers, though it is not always accurate in predicting the outcome.

The report is jointly developed with Macroeconomic Advisers LLC


Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/2...#ixzz25nRTBKJr

Bleak jobless numbers: [I]Obama’s post-DNC hangover
By Michelle Malkin • September 7, 2012 09:22 AM


In a nutshell: http://twitchy.com/2012/09/07/unempl...spinners-weak/

Unemployment numbers “bleak;” White House spinners weak; Dems freak.

More people giving up the search for work. Workforce participation plummeting again.

Jobs numbers from previous months revised downward yet again. Manufacturing jobs down. Minority unemployment numbers stuck.

It’s the Dems living in an “alternate universe.” This is the world as it is.

And no, there’s no joy on the Right. Only rejoicing we can see is from Spinner Central at MSNBC.

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/09/07...-dnc-hangover/

comments

But the unemployment rate dropped from 8.3% to 8.1%, which is the only number the BO supporters will focus on. Of course the only reason it dropped is because record numbers of people are just giving up and dropping out of the labor force entirely. These are the silver bullet the pResident is basing his re-election hopes on- the totally dependent that you can scare with “Republicans will remove the government food from your mouth”!

..

spin from the Dems. This is from the same WH operative who attacked Ann Romney for not being part of the workforce:

Hilary Rosen✔ @hilaryr

Entrepenuers and self employed leave the “work force”. That is a hopeful thing. People leaving aren’t necessarily bad. #29msJobsGrowth

...

Today’s jobs numbers prove once again how Obama’s policies are failing. Yet…he is proposing four more years of the same. Did he say anything different? No…he is doubling down. Unlike Clinton who moved to the center out of necessity…Obama has NO INTENTION of doing that. It won’t matter if the entire Congress is full of Tea Party people. Obama will just skip Congress and push his agenda.

This marxist dictator in chief MUST GO!!! He told us that last night when he made it clear…he is not changing a thing!

..

You can be sure they will try to spin these numbers. Debbie W-S will lie about them. But it will no longer work on the American People. The only ones who will be fooled are the kool aid drinkers who were in the audience last night. And they are hopelessly lost to rationality.

..


... and dropping out of the labor force entirely. ”!

Precisely. 368,000 people quit looking. But lying, spinning liberals will tout “hey the unemployment rate dropped .2 percent! We’re coming back!! Yuck yuck yuck”. Yeeechhh. This is why liberals count on (often correctly) the stupidity and laziness of the electorate not to look behind their spin. I hope enough independents are not that stupid.

..

Colleague notes: "Both the civilian labor force (154.6 million) and the labor force participation rate (63.5 percent) declined in August."

I can not post the body of this article because -->

A censored word was detected. Please do not use censored words in your posts.

No idea WHAT is censored ... no one will tell me what words are disallowed ...

The Reason Why The Unemployment Rate Dropped: The Labor Participation Rate Is At Fresh 31 Year Lows


Reuters: Unemployment fell "largely due to Americans giving up search for work."
By Lucia Mutikani


"This weak employment report, in jobs, wages, hours worked and participation is probably the last piece the Fed needs before launching another round of quantitative easing next week," said Joseph Trevisani, chief market strategist at Worldwide Markets in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.

The lackluster report piled pressure on Obama ahead of the November vote in which the health of the economy looms large.

"This report underscores President Obama's failed promises to get our economy moving again," House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, the top Republican in Congress, said in a statement. "Wages are stagnant, gas prices and health care costs are up, our national debt has surpassed $16 trillion, and millions of Americans remain out of work or underemployed."

The data dampened spirits in U.S. stock markets, which opened marginally higher. Treasury debt prices rallied and the dollar slipped against the euro to its lowest in nearly four months as traders increased bets the Fed would launch a third round of bond buying at a meeting next Wednesday and Thursday.

Economists polled by Reuters had expected payrolls to rise 125,000 last month, but some had pushed their forecasts higher after upbeat data on Thursday.

LOOKING FOR A SILVER LINING

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke last week said the labor market's stagnation was a "grave concern," a comment that raised expectations for a further easing of monetary policy. The economy has experienced three years of growth since the 2007-09 recession, but the expansion has been grudging and the job less rate has held above 8 percent for 43 straight months -- the longest stretch since the Great Depression.

The jobless rate peaked at 10 percent in October 2009, but progress reducing it stalled this year, threatening Obama's bid for a second term. An online Reuters/Ipsos poll on Thursday gave Republican Challenger Mitt Romney a 1-point edge on Obama, 45 percent to 44 percent.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/ idUSB RE88 604Y20 12090 7?irpc=932