Obama Economics Advisor Blames Lousy Jobs Numbers On Bush

[Guest]

President Obama’s economic adviser Gene Sperling blamed the economy the president inherited for today’s unemployment report with a jobless rate at 9.1%. Keep in mind that the president promised an unemployment figure of 8%.

Sperling claimed that 11 million jobs had been “saved” due to the president’s spending policies. Here are his full comments:

"The president inherited an economy that we now know was falling at almost 9 percent per year — 8.9 percent — of the fourth quarter of 2008. Independent analysts found that the Recovery Act that the president put forward meant a difference of about 8 million jobs in 2010 and up to 3 million jobs in the second quarter of this year. What the president was fighting for, working his heart out everyday this summer was to get a long-term plan that would give long-term fiscal certainty."

This is nonsense. During the Reagan administration, the American economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988, which reduced the unemployment rate by 1.6%, from 7.1% in 1980 to 5.5% in 1988. This was near full employment. The inflation rate during Carter’s administration was 13.5%. It fell to 4.1% in 1988. Interest rates had peaked at 20% in June 1981. Reagan’s policies of tax reduction and regulatory reform. Reagan’s policies are widely recognized as bringing about the second longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history, surpassed in duration only by the 1990s expansion that began under George H. W. Bush in 1991.

In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the highest income earners, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%. In 1986, he further reduced the rate to 28%. The federal deficit fell from 6% of GDP in 1983 to 3.2% of GDP in 1987.[ The Federal deficit in Reagan’s final budget fell to 2.9% of GDP. The rate of growth in Federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Ronald Reagan.

Today, inflation is relatively low, certainly lower than it was when Regan inherited Carter’s economic policies, and interest rates are the lowest they’ve been in generations. Mortgage rates are in the low fours. What’s stalling the economy is regulatory control and the fear that Obama will raise taxes.

It is time for the blame shifting to stop. We are in this mess because of President Obama’s policies.

http://godfatherpolitics.com/820/obama-economics-advisor-blames-bush-on-lousy-jobs-numbers/

I wonder what would have happened if President Bush had tried to blame Clinton for something that existed 3 1/2 years into his presidency. LOL

[phkrause]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20030729-503544.html

[phkrause]

http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/02/barack-...ob-shapiro.html

[phkrause]

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm

[phkrause]

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2010/07/02/reagan-raised-taxes-7-times/

[phkrause]

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-i...d-amnesty-audio

[lazarus]

It was under Bus that the rate stated climbing. Here are the rates for each month

April 2008 4.9 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.8 7.3

2009 7.8 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4

In 2008 the rate went form 5% to 7.3%. That of course was the effect of Bush policies right?

By May of 2009 unemployment was 9.4%. The rate has plateaued in the Obama presidency. It could have continued climbing but it didn't. Obama has stabilized the economy. When Bush left the US was losing 500K+ jobs a month, how crazy was that.

I guess we could say its Clinton's fault, I suppose.

[Guest]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20030729-503544.html

CBS News? This is nothing but left wing nonsense. Propaganda, if you will. They're desparate for their man to win a second term.

[Dr. Shane]

I guess we could say its Clinton's fault, I suppose.

No. I think it is Congress's fault.

Recessions are cyclical. We started into a recession in December of 2007. We should have been pulling out of it toward the end of 2008 or beginning of 2009 except for the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack. I think the objective observer will agree that the failure of Fannie and Freddie has more to do with Congress than it does with the President. President Bush tried to increase regulation on Fannie and Freddie in 2003 and got no where because of BOTH parties in Congress.

Let's not give Obama a pass on this. Obama claimed he was the man to get us out of this mess. He knew the problems we had before he was elected and he claimed to have the solution. It doesn't matter who he inherited the problem from. What matters is that he claimed to have the solution. He said unemployment wouldn't go above 8%. We cannot give him a pass and let him pass the buck to someone else. This is his economy. He owns it. If he can get unemployment well below 8%, he doesn't deserve re-election.

[phkrause]

I heard quite a number of economists, even before Obama took office, mention that this recession would take at the least 4-5 years to overcome. And so far they've been pretty much right on.

[Dr. Shane]

I was hearing that after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack imploded - in September of 2008. The recession had started in December of 2007. Obama was running as the solution to the recession. He knew what he was getting into and was offering himself as the solution. He even went as far as to say that after 3 years if the economy hadn't turned around that the American people were going to make a change.

[phkrause]

I absolutely agree Shane. I see this from presidential candidates all the time, promising, promising, and promising things that they have no right to promise, because there's no way they know for sure that they can deliver. As we see with Obama, he probably figured with democrats ruling the house and the senate he shouldn't have any problem, but even with that he couldn't get the democrats to agree.

[John317]

That's one of the great dangers to a Republic. The leaders know that they can make promises they can't keep, yet if they keep getting elected by the people on the basis of those false promises, they will keep doing it.

I think it's time for the electorate to send a message to politicians that the people want to be told the truth, not have false promises. That make the politicians look like liars (SURPRISE!!), and the people don't want liars and cheats in the White House or in any of the governmental positions, do we?

If we keep it up, we will have a government and a social system as corrupt as Mexico's.

[lazarus]

Could it be that people don't want the truth? Ron Paul tells the truth but he won't get elected as president.

The American system is already as corrupt as Mexico's just in a different way. $12m/day lost through waste, fraud and corruption in Afghanistan over the last decade!!!

[Dr. Shane]

The American system is already as corrupt as Mexico's just in a different way.

In a very different way.

In Mexico if you get pulled over and do not have enough money to bribe the police officer, you get your car impounded.

If your daughter gets raped by a boy the punishment is determined by who bribes the judge the most. If you (the daughter's father) pays the judge more than the boy's father, the rapist will be punished severely. If the rapist's father pays more than you, he will get his hands slapped.

I choose America's corruption any and every day over Mexico's corruption.