Economy: Obama Brags About Treading Water

Pages: 1 2

According to “Private-sector jobs are still down by 4.6 million, or 4 percent, from January 2008, when overall employment peaked. Meanwhile, government jobs are down just 407,000, or 1.8 percent. Federal employment actually is 225,000 jobs above its January 2008 level, an 11.4 percent increase. That’s right, up 11.4 percent. … The recession was boomtime for federal employment, especially after Obama took office. Federal jobs kept rising (excluding a temporary Census surge in early 2010) until March 2011 — more than three years after overall payrolls peaked.”

Economist Lott also says the federal public sector is holding up particularly well: “The only group of workers ‘doing just fine’ is federal government employees, where employment has increased by 4 percent since the start of the recession. In sharp contrast, both private-sector and state and local-government employment have fallen, with the private sector in the worst shape. Private-sector employment is down by 4 percent and state and local government down by half that — 2 percent. Between 2007 and 2010, annual wages also grew 40 percent faster for state and local-government workers than for those in the private sector.”

Our latest recession lasted 18 months, ending 36 months ago, in June 2009. Look at the recovery from the deep recession of the early ’80s. At this point during the recovery from that 16-month recession, which began in July 1981 and ended in November 1982, the economy had produced an 8.9 percent increase in civilian employment — almost 9 million jobs. Real GDP growth averaged over 5 percent in the first three years of the Reagan recovery, compared to an average of 2.4 percent three years into the Obama recovery.

Historically, the deeper the recession, the sharper the bounce-back.

The numbers in the early ’80s were grim: a peak 10.8 percent unemployment, 13.5 percent average inflation, prime interest rates at 20.5 percent. But driven by Reagan’s policies of lower taxes, slowing the rate of domestic spending and less regulation, the economy staged a ferocious comeback.

Reagan distrusted government and sought to restrain its growth. Obama, the former community organizer, believes government creates jobs and that “social justice” empowers him to redistribute wealth — according to those he deems worthy.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Pages: 1 2

  • ApolloSpeaks



    Thanks to your 1930s stimulus bill (which failed for Hoover, FDR, the Greeks and Japanese) the recession of the Bush years is still with us with millions out of work and no end in sight. Thanks to you we're suffering through the longest economic woes since the Great Depression, which could have ended years ago if we took a different route.

    BTW Mr. President, Romney is a Reaganite who wants to give the 1980s another try when GDP growth reached astounding highs of 8% with 3.9 million jobs created in 1984-the year of Reagan's landslide. Now that's a recovery we can believe in. Where's your recovery Mr. President? It's headed for the craper and your presidency to defeat as you whine and cry about your predecessor whose economy you can't fix with your debt exploding, jobs destroying stimulus tricks.

    Come November 6th


    Click ApolloSpeaks to read the rest of this piece.

    • Oleg

      That reminds me of what a political hack, masquerading as a journalist, said with regard to a tax issue just under a year ago in British Columbia (Canadian Province) that going back to the old tax system would be like going back to that of the 1950s, or 60s, or 70s, depending on what propaganda piece he was writing at the time. Obviously he moved to B.C from elsewhere, or was too young to remember, but the 1950s through the 1970s was boom time in British Columbia, the unemployment rate was 4 or 5% verses 7.5 to 9% , and the growth rate exceeded 5% on average for over two decades. Talk about a failing arguement.

  • dmw

    Apparently, GW Bush's Presidency was so bad that even Commandante Sub-Zero can't disentangle the country from the Bush woven web, despite the fact that the Commandante had majorities in both Houses of Congress for his first two years. And what did he do? Stimulus (primarily to bolster public sector jobs and really nothing to show for it, as in Where's the promised infrastructure?), Obamacare, takeover of Student Loans, Financial Reform legislation (with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac unaddressed), new regulations from the alphabet agencies to slow down just about everything for real growth in the private sector, and scandals in the alphabet agencies. In other words, GW Bush was so devilishly genuis and the Commandante is just so so thoroughly competent that he can unravel just about anything if given four more years. Not!

  • wagemyths


    I would like to suggest a deep intellectual gap exists across all three parties.In short, the gap has persisted for 200 years since Adam Smith penned his subtly flawed work which is now coming home to roost in America in the form of free trade. Karl Marx suggested free trade as the fastest means to destroying capitalism, while Daniel Webster claimed the primary reason we have our US Constitution was to stop the economic chaos unleashed by free trade with Britain under the Articles of Confederation. Yet, astonishingly we have three political parties which have adopted unwittingly Karl Marx's advice, while the Chinese have adopted Webster’s advice. The Tea Party seems to be oblivious to Webster’s claim, and the average Republican has no idea that Lincoln was a protectionist, and that his party remained protectionist until the 1960s. The reason for this, as the new website suggests, is that there has never been a sound theory of economics. Explaining the intricacies of this failed progression of ideas is the goal of the website’s associated book, “The Un-Republican”, by Geldstone (preview available on Amazon).

    • Oleg

      Than how do you explain the outcome and consequences of the Smoot-Holley act during the 1930s, that replaced trade with massive tariffs on imported goods and materials, which set off series of retaliatory tarriffs by other countries cutting off the import of U.S goods throwing most of the industrialized world into the great depression. If free trade is so destructive then how come all of those countries with protectionist policies are not booming (IE Europe, Japan) while those with free trade waffle and spiral downward? The fact is that one country cannot produce everything that the market demands and even if it can doesn't mean it can do it as well as someone else can, you cannot grow coffee and bananas on U.S soil, except maybe in Hawai. I don't care what Karl Marx said, he formulated an incomplete theory whose ideas continue to fail every where they are tried, (quite spectacularly i might add) very little of what the man formulated works in practice.
      Now if you mean that China engages in currency manipulation and other forms of unfair economic gamesmanship I agree. However even their formula for economic success is close to hitting the wall due to their junk banking system, too much loose credit, and the failure of Europe.
      If you want to create manufacturing jobs end the trade union monopolies which reduce productivity and artificially increase costs with little benefit to their members. It would also do a great deal more to create jobs by bringing down energy costs and reducing excessive government regulation.

  • Jonathan Gal

    20 Year Study Compares Job Growth & Living Standards in Conservative Texas versus Liberal Massachusetts. Texas trounces Massachusetts, even during high tech boom of the 1990's.

  • mrbean

    Hay dar, dah Prez dun beez mah black messiah, yassah. He dun gonta gits meh mah rseparations fum dah honkay crackas. yonowatahmsayin' ….metttttt….metttttt….mettt….

  • wagemyths

    Oleg Thank you for the critique. Smooth Harwley was one many many tarrifs. Google for American tariff history. The first major piece of legislation after the creation of the Constitution was a tariff act. Japan, Korean, China, Germany, England, America, all became superpowers under protectionism. No country became a super power under free trade. Fair trade is impossible because wealth cannot be measured (see website/book). Marx got just about every thing wrong in terms of theory, except this observation. Webster observations supports Marx's claim. Read the work of David H. Mason A Short Tariff History of the United States (free on Google books) to get an idea of the economic chaos that free trade unleashed under the Articles of Confederation. Economic theory out of England (roots of free theory) was erroneously based on subsistence wages (workers near starvation wages)…because exporting your wealth makes your workers poorer, but not necessarily the factory owner who can maintain his profit by foreign sales. This is precisely why the pre-civil war South was pro-free trade. The slaves could not afford to buy the cotton that was produced. Took me 4 years to see the light. Best regards.