The Obama Obfuscation Alliance

When faced with an issue they do not care to discuss the Obama administration is doing what any adolescent would do -- change the subject.   With the usual co-operation of the mindless mainstream media, the Obama administration is doing all it can to shift attention and obfuscate its economic track record.  Thus, in reaction to the uproar over the recent unconstitutional ObamaCare abortion pill, sterilization and contraceptive mandate, they are promoting the inane notion that the Republicans are determined to deny women access to contraceptives.  

This threadbare ploy is an absurd plot to portray conservatives as knuckle-dragging Neanderthals out to kidnap women and force them back to the evil days of the Dark Ages.   It is not just the abject silliness of this contention, but that these so-called best and the brightest actually think this gambit will bear fruit among the women of America, whom they perceive must be really stupid and gullible.   So, who are the sexists?

When confronted about the state of the economy, the same Obama Obfuscation Alliance (the mainstream media, the Democratic National Committee and the Obama re-election machine) regurgitates the transparent assertion that the Obama team was kept in the dark about how dire the economic situation was when "the chosen one" became President.   That is quickly followed up with the contention that no president in the nation's history has worked with more resolve, despite the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, to save the country from the hopeless quagmire those evil Republicans and greedy capitalists created.   

However during the 2008 campaign, Obama and his teleprompter often claimed this was the worst economy since the Great Depression and in speeches just after his inauguration he never failed to remind the American people that he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression, and he would rescue the economy as well as create untold millions of jobs along with lowering the sea levels.    

This same Alliance is incensed when anyone suggests this administration has not been truthful and diligent -- downplaying the vacationing, partying, incessantly campaigning and having a general good time while living in a rent-free mansion and traveling in a really nice personal airplane. All the while bemoaning how the fates were conspiring against him.

 However another occupant of the same mansion actually took his job seriously and didn't blame everyone else and Mother Nature for the situation in which he found himself.  It is generally acknowledged that Ronald Reagan inherited a far worse economic situation than did Barack Obama.  However in the spirit of bi-partisanship it will be assumed that the "Amiable Dunce" and "The Smartest Man to Ever Occupy the Oval Office" inherited equivalent economic disasters.

So let's look at some economic statistics revolving around job creation and economic growth for these two Presidents.   Everyone would agree those are the issues most important to the American people -- with the obvious exception of contraceptives and getting even with the greedy rich.

In order to make this a fair evaluation, one has to take into account an obviously unfair imbalance, on the one hand there is a former bumbling actor and graduate of Eureka College and on the other a former dedicated community organizer and graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School as well as President of the Harvard Law Review, so the comparison will have to be skewed a bit. 

Therefore this analysis will be centered on that period in the first term of both presidencies beginning when the unemployment rate hit its peak through the end of January in their respective re-election years.   Reagan had only 14 months in that time frame to offset a devastating jobless situation whereas Obama has had 28 months -- that is only fair and mitigates the imbalance in education, aptitude and narcissism.

First, Ronald Reagan's 14 months: (http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publication/?pid-144)

 

     November 1982

     January 1984

        Difference

Unemployment Rate

               10.8%

              7.9%

            +27%

Total Employment

        99.0 Million

        104.9 Million

         5.9 Million

Percentage Job Growth

 

              

 

       

 

            6.0%

Labor Force Participation Rate

 

          64.0%

 

            64.4%

 

Goods Producing Jobs

        23.0 Million

          24.6 Million

        +1.6 Million

For Barack Obama the 28 months from October of 2009 to the present is as follows: (http://www.bls.gov/schedule/archives/empsit_nr.htm) [Note: the Bureau of Labor Statistics modified their unemployment calculations in 1994; therefore in order to make the statistics comparable the following unemployment rates are what the BLS categorizes as the U-5 or the total unemployed plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force.]

 

       October 2009

     January 2012

        Difference

Unemployment Rate

              11.5%

               9.9%

           +13%

Total Employment

       138.4 Million

         141.6 Million

         3.2 Million

Percentage Job Growth

 

 

 

            2.3%

Labor Force Participation Rate

 

            65.1%

 

             63.7%

 

Goods Producing Jobs

         18.4 Million

           18.2 Million

          -.2 Million

 

Unfortunately the unsophisticated conservative from Tampico, Illinois bests the really cool hip socialist from Honolulu, Hawaii.

Over a 28 month period Obama has created an average of 114,300 jobs per month whereas in only 14 months Reagan created an average of 421,400 jobs per month.   It has taken Obama 28 months to drop the unemployment rate by 1.6 percentage points while Reagan took only 14 months to realize a drop of 2.9 percentage points.   

Worse still is the unprecedented decline in the Labor Force Participation Rate during the Obama 28 months indicating over 3.4 million people have simply given up looking for work, dropped out altogether and are no longer counted as part the overall labor force.    It appears some Americans didn't anticipate this aspect of "Hope and Change."

For those in the middle class and recent college graduates that cannot find higher paying jobs, of the 3.2 million jobs created under Obama nearly 65% are in the lower income portion of the service sector as the high paying jobs in the goods producing sector continued to decline.   Alternatively under Reagan's 14 months of job creation over 1.6 million jobs were in the goods producing sector and over 70% of the 5.9 million jobs created during this period were in either goods production or the higher income portion of the service sector.   Could it be Reagan knew the secret to change the people can believe in?

It is the contention of Obama and his fellow-travelers that only government can jump start the economy and job creation.  Massive government spending, regulations and higher taxes are essential.  No community organizer worth their salt would think otherwise.   Whereas Ronald Reagan asserted that government must dramatically reduce spending as well as regulations and cut taxes.   Obviously he was a greedy imbecile who just didn't understand the nuances of hybrid Keynesian/socialist dogma.

Barack Obama, however, does understand and during this same 28 month timeframe the federal government spent over $8.2 Trillion of which $3.1 Trillion had to be borrowed to cover the deficits. (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com)    In an attempt to be fair to the current president and in recognition of his multiple stimulus plans, if just the deficits are taken into account versus the jobs created during this period, then the cost per job is:  $968,750.00

In Reagan's 14 months, the government spent $2.1 Trillion (inflation adjusted to 2012) of which $0.5 Trillion was deficit spending.  Again using the deficit only the cost per job created was:  $84,750.00.

Surely with all that "pump priming" during the Obama 28 months the economy grew rapidly as job creation lagged behind.   Well, not quite.   The average annual growth of the Gross Domestic Product has been a paltry 2.3%.     While the 14 months for Reagan the GDP averaged an astounding 6.3% annual growth. (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth) No doubt the Alliance can creatively dismiss this dichotomy.

But there is a world record in which Barack Obama and his idol, Saul Alinsky, should be most proud.  In his four years as President he will have accumulated over $5.5 Trillion in federal debt held by the public (monies owed to domestic and foreign bondholders).  When he was inaugurated the debt stood at $6.3 Trillion, it will be nearly $11.8 Trillion by the end of his term -- an increase of nearly 87%.  (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=NP) He has accumulated nearly as much debt in just four years as all his predecessors including George W. Bush did in 222 years.   

As a matter of fact Obama is so taken with this triumph that he plans to add another $4.0 Trillion in debt during his next term in office while continuing with his wildly successful job creation program.

It is hard to fathom why the Obama Obfuscation Alliance would not be out trumpeting these overwhelming economic accomplishments.  But they seem reluctant to do so.   Therefore it appears certain the American people will be regaled with the further adventures of those dastardly Republicans and malevolent conservatives as they conspire with the oil companies to pollute the air and water, eliminate food stamps for the children, establish a theocracy, relegate women to a permanent state of being barefoot and pregnant, re-institute slavery and plot with the rich to allow them to make even more money on the backs of the poor while not paying their fair share of taxes.  

During his 1966 campaign for Governor of California, Ronald Reagan aptly described not only the Obama administration but their re-election campaign:  "Government is like a baby.  An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other."

When faced with an issue they do not care to discuss the Obama administration is doing what any adolescent would do -- change the subject.   With the usual co-operation of the mindless mainstream media, the Obama administration is doing all it can to shift attention and obfuscate its economic track record.  Thus, in reaction to the uproar over the recent unconstitutional ObamaCare abortion pill, sterilization and contraceptive mandate, they are promoting the inane notion that the Republicans are determined to deny women access to contraceptives.  

This threadbare ploy is an absurd plot to portray conservatives as knuckle-dragging Neanderthals out to kidnap women and force them back to the evil days of the Dark Ages.   It is not just the abject silliness of this contention, but that these so-called best and the brightest actually think this gambit will bear fruit among the women of America, whom they perceive must be really stupid and gullible.   So, who are the sexists?

When confronted about the state of the economy, the same Obama Obfuscation Alliance (the mainstream media, the Democratic National Committee and the Obama re-election machine) regurgitates the transparent assertion that the Obama team was kept in the dark about how dire the economic situation was when "the chosen one" became President.   That is quickly followed up with the contention that no president in the nation's history has worked with more resolve, despite the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, to save the country from the hopeless quagmire those evil Republicans and greedy capitalists created.   

However during the 2008 campaign, Obama and his teleprompter often claimed this was the worst economy since the Great Depression and in speeches just after his inauguration he never failed to remind the American people that he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression, and he would rescue the economy as well as create untold millions of jobs along with lowering the sea levels.    

This same Alliance is incensed when anyone suggests this administration has not been truthful and diligent -- downplaying the vacationing, partying, incessantly campaigning and having a general good time while living in a rent-free mansion and traveling in a really nice personal airplane. All the while bemoaning how the fates were conspiring against him.

 However another occupant of the same mansion actually took his job seriously and didn't blame everyone else and Mother Nature for the situation in which he found himself.  It is generally acknowledged that Ronald Reagan inherited a far worse economic situation than did Barack Obama.  However in the spirit of bi-partisanship it will be assumed that the "Amiable Dunce" and "The Smartest Man to Ever Occupy the Oval Office" inherited equivalent economic disasters.

So let's look at some economic statistics revolving around job creation and economic growth for these two Presidents.   Everyone would agree those are the issues most important to the American people -- with the obvious exception of contraceptives and getting even with the greedy rich.

In order to make this a fair evaluation, one has to take into account an obviously unfair imbalance, on the one hand there is a former bumbling actor and graduate of Eureka College and on the other a former dedicated community organizer and graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School as well as President of the Harvard Law Review, so the comparison will have to be skewed a bit. 

Therefore this analysis will be centered on that period in the first term of both presidencies beginning when the unemployment rate hit its peak through the end of January in their respective re-election years.   Reagan had only 14 months in that time frame to offset a devastating jobless situation whereas Obama has had 28 months -- that is only fair and mitigates the imbalance in education, aptitude and narcissism.

First, Ronald Reagan's 14 months: (http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publication/?pid-144)

 

     November 1982

     January 1984

        Difference

Unemployment Rate

               10.8%

              7.9%

            +27%

Total Employment

        99.0 Million

        104.9 Million

         5.9 Million

Percentage Job Growth

 

              

 

       

 

            6.0%

Labor Force Participation Rate

 

          64.0%

 

            64.4%

 

Goods Producing Jobs

        23.0 Million

          24.6 Million

        +1.6 Million

For Barack Obama the 28 months from October of 2009 to the present is as follows: (http://www.bls.gov/schedule/archives/empsit_nr.htm) [Note: the Bureau of Labor Statistics modified their unemployment calculations in 1994; therefore in order to make the statistics comparable the following unemployment rates are what the BLS categorizes as the U-5 or the total unemployed plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force.]

 

       October 2009

     January 2012

        Difference

Unemployment Rate

              11.5%

               9.9%

           +13%

Total Employment

       138.4 Million

         141.6 Million

         3.2 Million

Percentage Job Growth

 

 

 

            2.3%

Labor Force Participation Rate

 

            65.1%

 

             63.7%

 

Goods Producing Jobs

         18.4 Million

           18.2 Million

          -.2 Million

 

Unfortunately the unsophisticated conservative from Tampico, Illinois bests the really cool hip socialist from Honolulu, Hawaii.

Over a 28 month period Obama has created an average of 114,300 jobs per month whereas in only 14 months Reagan created an average of 421,400 jobs per month.   It has taken Obama 28 months to drop the unemployment rate by 1.6 percentage points while Reagan took only 14 months to realize a drop of 2.9 percentage points.   

Worse still is the unprecedented decline in the Labor Force Participation Rate during the Obama 28 months indicating over 3.4 million people have simply given up looking for work, dropped out altogether and are no longer counted as part the overall labor force.    It appears some Americans didn't anticipate this aspect of "Hope and Change."

For those in the middle class and recent college graduates that cannot find higher paying jobs, of the 3.2 million jobs created under Obama nearly 65% are in the lower income portion of the service sector as the high paying jobs in the goods producing sector continued to decline.   Alternatively under Reagan's 14 months of job creation over 1.6 million jobs were in the goods producing sector and over 70% of the 5.9 million jobs created during this period were in either goods production or the higher income portion of the service sector.   Could it be Reagan knew the secret to change the people can believe in?

It is the contention of Obama and his fellow-travelers that only government can jump start the economy and job creation.  Massive government spending, regulations and higher taxes are essential.  No community organizer worth their salt would think otherwise.   Whereas Ronald Reagan asserted that government must dramatically reduce spending as well as regulations and cut taxes.   Obviously he was a greedy imbecile who just didn't understand the nuances of hybrid Keynesian/socialist dogma.

Barack Obama, however, does understand and during this same 28 month timeframe the federal government spent over $8.2 Trillion of which $3.1 Trillion had to be borrowed to cover the deficits. (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com)    In an attempt to be fair to the current president and in recognition of his multiple stimulus plans, if just the deficits are taken into account versus the jobs created during this period, then the cost per job is:  $968,750.00

In Reagan's 14 months, the government spent $2.1 Trillion (inflation adjusted to 2012) of which $0.5 Trillion was deficit spending.  Again using the deficit only the cost per job created was:  $84,750.00.

Surely with all that "pump priming" during the Obama 28 months the economy grew rapidly as job creation lagged behind.   Well, not quite.   The average annual growth of the Gross Domestic Product has been a paltry 2.3%.     While the 14 months for Reagan the GDP averaged an astounding 6.3% annual growth. (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth) No doubt the Alliance can creatively dismiss this dichotomy.

But there is a world record in which Barack Obama and his idol, Saul Alinsky, should be most proud.  In his four years as President he will have accumulated over $5.5 Trillion in federal debt held by the public (monies owed to domestic and foreign bondholders).  When he was inaugurated the debt stood at $6.3 Trillion, it will be nearly $11.8 Trillion by the end of his term -- an increase of nearly 87%.  (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=NP) He has accumulated nearly as much debt in just four years as all his predecessors including George W. Bush did in 222 years.   

As a matter of fact Obama is so taken with this triumph that he plans to add another $4.0 Trillion in debt during his next term in office while continuing with his wildly successful job creation program.

It is hard to fathom why the Obama Obfuscation Alliance would not be out trumpeting these overwhelming economic accomplishments.  But they seem reluctant to do so.   Therefore it appears certain the American people will be regaled with the further adventures of those dastardly Republicans and malevolent conservatives as they conspire with the oil companies to pollute the air and water, eliminate food stamps for the children, establish a theocracy, relegate women to a permanent state of being barefoot and pregnant, re-institute slavery and plot with the rich to allow them to make even more money on the backs of the poor while not paying their fair share of taxes.  

During his 1966 campaign for Governor of California, Ronald Reagan aptly described not only the Obama administration but their re-election campaign:  "Government is like a baby.  An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other."