Obama economic disaster continues

[powernoodle]

Obama's Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who each were handpicked by Obama, released on Friday its assessment of Obama's failure on the economy. The report was released at a point in the news cycle - right at the beginning of a 3-day holiday weekend - so as to fly below the radar. And it worked. You probably didn't hear a thing about it on CNN or MSNBC.

Notable admissions extracted from the report:

- even using the administration's ridiculous claim that the so-called "stimulus" created 2.4 million jobs, each of those supposed jobs cost the U.S. taxpayer $288,000.

- at a cost of $666 billion, the Obama regime has ballooned the national debt from $9.9 trillion to $14.4 trillion in only 30 months in office. And by seeking to eliminate the current spending cap, they evince their intent to go even deeper in debt. As I have demonstrated earlier, it is the Obama regime's hope that the national debt will exceed America's gross domestic product (GDP) - a notion that would have been laughable just 3 years ago.

- if the President and his regime had merely cut a check of $100,000 to each of the supposed 2.4 million job recipients (setting aside the reality that government does not create any jobs), the taxpayers would have saved $427 billion of Obama's $666 billion porkulous spending.

Additionally, unemployment has increased during the Obama regime's tenure from 7.3% to 9.1%. The actual number, which includes those who have stopped looking for work, is much higher. Only in the world of Obama-math could the skyrocketing rate of unemployment be evidence that the "stimulus" has created jobs.

Back here in the real world, Obama has been a demonstrable - and predictable - failure. Jimmy Carter Part II - only with more zeroes and without the distraction of a drunk brother. One must leave to conjecture the question of whether the Obama economic disaster has resulted from incompetence or intentional malfeasance (I believe it is both), but the result is the same: by any objective measure, President Obama is a failure.

A change in administrations is on the horizon, and it cannot occur too soon.

Link.

[jhakken]

- if the President and his regime had merely cut a check of $100,000 to each of the supposed 2.4 million job recipients (setting aside the reality that government does not create any jobs), the taxpayers would have saved $427 billion of Obama's $666 billion porkulous spending.

Of course if we just handed out the cash, none of the infrastructure would have been built, which is where much of the cost rests. In my area some much needed road and bridge work was done.

[Triton]

Of course if we just handed out the cash, none of the infrastructure would have been built, which is where much of the cost rests. In my area some much needed road and bridge work was done.

Are you serioiusly trying to tell us that all this infrastructure has been built?

[jhakken]

Are you serioiusly trying to tell us that all this infrastructure has been built?

Some of it has been comppleted and some is continuing. Are you seriously trying to say that infrastructure has not been built?

[Triton]

Some of it has been comppleted and some is continuing. Are you seriously trying to say that infrastructure has not been built?

Oh some has been built, but the fact of the matter is that the porkulus spending was used a political pay off and had very little to do with putting infrastructure where it was actually needed... even the regime is admitting that the jobs "weren't as shovel ready as we thought." The other day what did I hear on the radio? Why an ad asking us to contact our congress critter to try to get more infrastructure spending. You really have a hard time admitting that the porkulus didn't work don't you?

[tvranesic]

Of course if we just handed out the cash, none of the infrastructure would have been built, which is where much of the cost rests. In my area some much needed road and bridge work was done.

Likely, complete with big, expensive signs heralding "stimulus dollars at work".

[RickJ]

Obama's Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who each were handpicked by Obama, released on Friday its assessment of Obama's failure on the economy. The report was released at a point in the news cycle - right at the beginning of a 3-day holiday weekend - so as to fly below the radar. And it worked. You probably didn't hear a thing about it on CNN or MSNBC.

Notable admissions extracted from the report:

- even using the administration's ridiculous claim that the so-called "stimulus" created 2.4 million jobs, each of those supposed jobs cost the U.S. taxpayer $288,000.

- at a cost of $666 billion, the Obama regime has ballooned the national debt from $9.9 trillion to $14.4 trillion in only 30 months in office. And by seeking to eliminate the current spending cap, they evince their intent to go even deeper in debt. As I have demonstrated earlier, it is the Obama regime's hope that the national debt will exceed America's gross domestic product (GDP) - a notion that would have been laughable just 3 years ago.

- if the President and his regime had merely cut a check of $100,000 to each of the supposed 2.4 million job recipients (setting aside the reality that government does not create any jobs), the taxpayers would have saved $427 billion of Obama's $666 billion porkulous spending.

Additionally, unemployment has increased during the Obama regime's tenure from 7.3% to 9.1%. The actual number, which includes those who have stopped looking for work, is much higher. Only in the world of Obama-math could the skyrocketing rate of unemployment be evidence that the "stimulus" has created jobs.

Back here in the real world, Obama has been a demonstrable - and predictable - failure. Jimmy Carter Part II - only with more zeroes and without the distraction of a drunk brother. One must leave to conjecture the question of whether the Obama economic disaster has resulted from incompetence or intentional malfeasance (I believe it is both), but the result is the same: by any objective measure, President Obama is a failure.

A change in administrations is on the horizon, and it cannot occur too soon.

Link.

Yes! I agree Sir!

[Bear Claw Chris Lappe]

Of course if we just handed out the cash, none of the infrastructure would have been built, which is where much of the cost rests. In my area some much needed road and bridge work was done.

Or it might have been. Folks spend the cash locally, which increases local tax revenues and the road work gets paid for by local governments.

[quietmike]

Don't forget troop casualty rates in Afghanistan have increased 500% since Obama took office.

We need a mechanism to recall an elected official that is such an abysmal failure.

[jhakken]

Likely, complete with big, expensive signs heralding "stimulus dollars at work".

And with big, expensive pay because of the Davis-Bacon Act. But the signage is there. It costs money as does the website tracking the ARRA.

[jhakken]

Don't forget troop casualty rates in Afghanistan have increased 500% since Obama took office.

We need a mechanism to recall an elected official that is such an abysmal failure.

An offensive costs lives. Is there a strategy you attribute these deaths to. I wish that we could get these Afghani's trained faster. I supported this war and I support our withdrawl. Hopefully we'll leave some good operatives in place.

[timcsaw]

But it's all not bad news for Obama... having golfed for something like 17 weekends in a row, he's taken a couple strokes off his handicap.

[Codger_64]

But it's all not bad news for Obama... having golfed for something like 17 weekends in a row, he's taken a couple strokes off his handicap.

...and has taken the time to explore his Irish roots with a trip to Ireland.

[OliverH]

Or it might have been. Folks spend the cash locally, which increases local tax revenues and the road work gets paid for by local governments.

You mean like the $300-400 tax rebate that taxpayers have been given the last few years? I also think that's the theory behind the one-year cut in FICA taxes that's been given this year. So I guess you approve of these measures? (It certainly does contribute to the budget deficit, though....)

[Bear Claw Chris Lappe]

You mean like the $300-400 tax rebate that taxpayers have been given the last few years?

Uh, no...pretty sure that's not what we were talking about...........

[OliverH]

Uh, no...pretty sure that's not what we were talking about...........

Sorry if it was a distraction. My point was that part of the stimulus over the last few years really HAS been handing over dollars to people in the form of tax credits/rebates and (this year) in a tax vacation for FICA. Just out of curiosity, do you think these were good ideas to try to pump up demand, get people spending money, etc., to reduce the effect of the recession? From your prior remarks it sounds like you might well approve of such measures, or at least you might if they weren't part of Obama's program.

[tvranesic]

But it's all not bad news for Obama... having golfed for something like 17 weekends in a row, he's taken a couple strokes off his handicap.

See...the positive can always be found if one is willing to look long enough.

[Thomason]

You guys crack me up. In 2016 Obama will winding down his second term as President and you will still be posting the same ol' same ol'.

[powernoodle]

none of the infrastructure would have been built, which is where much of the cost rests.

Edit: at least they all had a good laugh about those people who weren't receiving those shovel-ready jobs which weren't happening.

[Bear Claw Chris Lappe]

Sorry if it was a distraction. My point was that part of the stimulus over the last few years really HAS been handing over dollars to people in the form of tax credits/rebates and (this year) in a tax vacation for FICA. Just out of curiosity, do you think these were good ideas to try to pump up demand, get people spending money, etc., to reduce the effect of the recession?

I consistently support any measure that lets people keep more of their hard earned dollars, which is not the same as "handing over dollars".

From your prior remarks it sounds like you might well approve of such measures, or at least you might if they weren't part of Obama's program.

Really? and what "prior remarks" would these be? Show me where I've differentiated between Obama and anyone else on wasteful government spending?