Taking the SPIN out of Obamanomics

Click on graphics to embiggen.

On Monday, the Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee objected to the use of “precipitous” to describe the rise in unemployment under Obama.

Well, Debbie … “precipitous” means “steep” and I gotta admit … doubling Bush’s average unemployment rates sure seems well within the definition of STEEP to me.

Chrissy’s Site Bites: http://news.webshots.com/photo/2108023510056011884YPytqf

An unemployment rate of 5% is considered a sign of a healthy economy. Less than 5% and there are not enough workers to fill available jobs. More than 5% and there are not enough jobs to satisfy available workers.

During the Bush administration, the unemployment rate cycled between a low of 4.2% and a high of 6.3%. In his last year, it rose to 6.6% in October, to 6.8% in November, and to 7.3% in December.

(Some sources say 7.2% for December, which I expect is due to rounding.)

Chrissy’s Site Bites: http://news.webshots.com/photo/2899612000056011884xlndSA

As measured by the unemployment rate, the “economic mess Obama inherited from Bush” did not even begin until the last quarter of Bush’s last year in office, which also happens to have been the last quarter of the 110th Congress, the only Democrat-controlled Congress during Bush’s administration.

Chrissy’s Site Bites: http://news.webshots.com/photo/2789763090056011884waJAyL

When Obama took over from Bush in January 2009, unemployment was at 7.8%.

In February 2009, Obama and the Democrat-controlled 111th Congress passed a massive “stimulus” spending bill that was supposed to quickly fix the “economic mess Obama inherited from Bush.”

In October 2009, one year after Bush’s 6.6% rate, Obama’s unemployment hit 10.1%, a high not seen in 26 years. (Some sources say 10.2%, again I expect due to rounding.)

In November 2009, the New York Democratic Chair Rep. Carolyn Maloney chastized Obama’s critics, saying he and his fellow Democrats needed time to fix the “economic mess Obama inherited from Bush.”

Maloney cited economists who had estimated it would take “in excess of 3 years” to get unemployment back to its pre-recession levels.

By “pre-recession levels”, they meant “the levels that persisted throughout the first 7 years and 9 months of Bush’s administration.

Chrissy’s Site Bites: http://news.webshots.com/photo/2051489640056011884evHPnd

Okay. Let’s recap.

January 2009 – Obama takes office, unemployment rate at 7.8%.

February 2009 – Obama’s Quick Fix “we must pass this right now” stimulus bill passes.

October 2009 – Unemployment reaches its highest point since 1983.

January 2010 thru Septemper 2011 – The unemployment rate only drops below 9% for two months.

Chrissy’s Site Bite: http://news.webshots.com/photo/2388593490056011884MQQKXT

November 2011 – Unemployment drops to 8.6% and Democrats are crowing about recovery.

Are they dyslexic? Do they not recall screaming about what a vicious criminal Bush was for allowing it to climb to 6.8% in November 2008?

They said they needed 3 years. It’s been 3 years.

If Obamanomics was going to fix the economy, shouldn’t we have seen some serious PROGRESS by NOW?

SOURCES:

http://www.campbell.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2665

http://www.miseryindex.us/urbyyear.asp

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

http://www.njfac.org/jobnews11-08.htm

1 Comment

Filed under Barack Obama, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Economy, George W. Bush, U.S. Congress, Unemployment

One response to “Taking the SPIN out of Obamanomics

  1. I really can’t stand looking at her face, but I love how DWS gets really uncomfortable throughout the whole discussion (’cause she’s trying to figure out how to lie effectively and have it come off like it’s not a lie). Then, in the end, she tries to say, “You said unemployment is going up and it’s not.” That may be what you wanted to hear, Debby, but that’s not what was said.

    Like