Glum.
Powerless, lackadaisical, aimless remarks by POTUS re the jobless report Friday 5. What is the "hot air" remark? POTUS tries defensive sarcasm at half-speed. And the claims that losing 22k jobs (January estimate) compares well to the losing of 800k jobs last January 2009 is both cynical and ignorant. The long term jobless stats (below) are discouraging and ominous. The confused media reporting of a jobless rate that appears to improve to 9.7% while the month shows a loss of jobs does not help the day's summary. The economy is glum. POTUS has been told by Axelrod that there is a storm building in the Democratic majority. The professional campaign ops are telling their candidates to hold on. What is the pay-off? Have Axelrod and POTUS decided to throw the Democratic majorities under the bus? Have they decided that POTUS improves as a candidate if he is running for re-election against a Republican House and a comatose and Harry-Reidless Senate? Does POTUS welcome the victim of the villainous GOP scenario? Strange, listless performance by POTUS on the weekend of the exuberant Tea Party Convention -- the After Obamatantion -- in Memphis. Speaking to John Avlon, author, "Wingnuts," on Sunday 7, re the energy of the Tea Party. Eight million jobless creates the energy for creative politics. Who is Huey Long? Who is Wendell Willkie? Where is Fala?
I wish I had a dime for every time I’ve heard the reporting of some financial statistic accompanied by the word ‘unexpected’. It’s been like this throughout much of the past decade. During most of the Bush administration the economic news month to month was mostly ‘unexpectedly’ good. During the Obama administration the economic data month to month has been consistently ‘unexpectedly’ bad.
It’s interesting to note that whenever Barack Hussein Obama talks about his own presidency, he always puts it within the context of the past two years – like, We have lost 8 million jobs in the past two years, saying in effect, It wasn’t all my fault; Bush was in on it. I’m just trying to make what Bush did less painful for the American people.
It might have worked for a couple of months, but nobody is buying it anymore. The fact is that things have deteriorated considerably since Obama came to office. Worse yet, there’s no prospect of things getting any better as long as Obama and Pelosi-Reid Democrats rule the political roost. Their policies seem to run counter to what we can expect of healthy, self-correcting free markets. At best, this indicates total fiscal ignorance. At worst, it betrays a deliberate assault on capitalism in general.
Also seldom mentioned is the fact that all the economic indicators only started trending downward since Democrats took over the Congress in 2007. Before that, we seem to have been doing just ‘unexpectedly’ fine.
http://peterkoelliker.blogspot.com/
We are well into "1984" style double speak. GDP, Consumer Spending, CPI for example have been completely corrupted as scientific data streams. No by BHO. But by the yahoos we've elected over the past 25 years.
Check out John Williams' Shadow economics site, see iTulip's recent analysis of consumption shows the main part of its growth is debt service, bank fees; not washer, dryers, cars, rugs, lawn mowers etc. looks good on paper but it portrays past expenditures.
Same with GDP. It goes up if the government spends money. Pardon me. But I just don't consider government spending as "product" or "service." see a pattern here? jigger all our economic stats to put positive spin on government largess.
We are doomed!