Obama’s Job Creation Lie

by lewwaters

Looking around at some newspapers from across the country, I stumbled upon the following ad at the Orlando Sentinel.

I’m sure Democrats believe this chart and want others to. But, going to the very source the Obama campaign claims to use we find.

If you note, when Democrats were swept into congressional power in January 2007, in order to correct an “unbearable” unemployment rate, the rate of unemployment was 4.7%. After two years of their “fixing” things under the leadership of then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, unemployment grew to 7.8% when Obama was inaugurated in January 2009.

After peaking over 10.0%, the national unemployment rate did not drop below 9% for well over 2 years. The current 8.5% does not include those who ran out of unemployment compensation and just dropped off the unemployment roles or those who once worked full-time and are now part-time at a much lower wage.

As the following chart shows, again from the very same Bureau of Labor Statistics Obama’s campaign claims to be using, unemployment remains much higher than when Obama took office.

I don’t know what sort of math the Obama campaign is using, but when I see unemployment much higher today than when he took office, I tend to believe that there has been no job creation. If the claim of all of those jobs being created were true, unemployment should be lower, not higher than when he took office.

Don’t fall for fancy looking charts. Look for their sources to verify claims as I did and you will realize that Barack Obama does not deserve a second chance. Remember, it was he who said if he couldn’t fix the economy in three years he would be one term president.

He not only hasn’t fixed it, he’s made it much worse.

It’s time to take America back and send both Obama and his Democrat cronies to the unemployment line.

OMG 2012

45 Comments to “Obama’s Job Creation Lie”

  1. Lew, don’t be obtuse. Of course job creation can go up along with unemployment! There’s way more folks wanting jobs then jobs available, even with the increases. We’ve shipped most new jobs overseas so that a few people can get rich. As Steve Jobs famously said, “Those jobs ain’t coming back.”

    You can have “Free” trade or jobs – pick one.


  2. Outsourcing is another subject, Martin.

    But the fact remains, if any jobs have been created, many more have been lost. And, all during the Democrats and Obama’s watch.

    That’s not obtuse. That’s reality.


  3. Lew, I’ll agree with you that the Democrats are as responsible for job flight (Free Trade) as the Republicans, maybe more so since their ideology includes protecting American workers, yet the big “Free” Trade bills have been under Clinton and Obama.


  4. Martin, if Democrats ideology really was protecting American workers, unemployment wouldn’t be twice what is was when they were crying it was unbearable.

    There are several reasons for “job flight.”

    Many due to Democrats regulations, taxes, union demands and more.


  5. Lew, “Free” Trade IS DEREGULATION. During most of America’s history, tariffs, quotas, and some kind of trade balancing was maintained. Job flight occurred when those barriers were removed in the mid-1990s.

    We could slow the exodus if we turned back the clock on wages, safety, monopolies, education, environment, etc. I assume that’s what Conservatives are advocating?


  6. Yes Martin, it is. But, if our manufacturing costs weren’t so high and so heavily taxed and regulated, foreign manufacturing wouldn’t be so attractive.

    How many people do you know today who are more willing to pay $30 for a regular shirt made in the US versus $12 for a shirt made in Vietnam?

    No, it isn’t what we want, but reality must begin smacking people in the face if we are to survive.

    Every cost laid on a manufacturers back gets passed on to consumers and taxpayers. Otherwise, no profit. No profit, no reason to have a business. As successful as you have been, you know that.


  7. I got it, Lew. Conservatives must think that the majority of the people whose lifestyle would descend to serfdom don’t vote. This is what David Stockton, (Ronald Reagan’s OMB Director from1981-1985) called “the race to the bottom,” when he left the White house in disillusion.

    This also pretty much defines the difference between Liberals and Conservatives.


  8. Martin, paying someone $50 an hour plus full benefits for a job someone else will do just as well for $10 an hour is a no brainer.

    Just how much of your costs do you absorb and not pass along to clients? You didn’t get where you are by doing the majority of your work pro bono.

    And the fact remain, unemployment is double now what it was when Democrats swept into power on a call of how unbearable unemployment was and only they could fix it.

    It’s called balance, Martin. Wages and benefits must balance with retail costs. Our manufacturing costs are out of whack. Many middle class people cannot afford to buy US made goods.

    So what do you do, give each more money from the government? Where do the taxes come from to cover those payments?

    Think about why they have American retirement communities down in Mexico.


  9. Lew, with all respect to you, let me ask a personal question:
    Wouldn’t you be a “serf” if the Conservatives got their way? How many people who read your blog would be “serfs” in this scenario? Do you want to be “serfs”?

    (No insult intended.)


  10. Lew…the two charts are independent of each other. Obama has NEVER claimed unemployment is lower today than it was in 2009. He has accurately claimed 22 months of private sector job growth. Lew, one of the few things I do remember from my Macroeconomics class years ago, unemployment is a lagging indicator of economic growth. That’s not an excuse but a fact. It can always be better, but as long as key economic factors like purchasing of durable goods, factory productivity, corporate profits, retail sales, exports(2nd only behind China) and hirings are tracking upward isn’t that an “improved economy”? Once we actually invest in real nationwide infrastructure improvements, create thousands of jobs, continue to expand energy (more drilling, more natural gas) to lower fuel costs, and allow all those home-owners underwater in mortgages to re-fi…we will turn the corner.


  11. Mike, you give a prime example of how politicians continue to get away with their unscrupulous acts.

    Of course the charts are independent. But, it takes both to tell the whole story.

    Looking at Obama’s claim you would think we have no problems in the country and our economy is booming with nearly full employment. It’s all champagne and caviar all around.

    Left out is that he first killed over millions more jobs with his silly policies than he is claiming to have created. Forget what you were indoctrinated with by liberal teachers and look around you.

    Next, ignore any politician who says they can or have created jobs in office. They cannot create a single private sector job, where the growth must be. They can kill them off with regulations, taxes and policies. But at best, they can only encourage an atmosphere allowing private sector growth. Adding more people to an already bloated government payroll is not job growth. It’s just more of a burden on the backs of struggling middle class taxpayers.


  12. Martin, we are already slaves to the Democrats policies and it is getting worse with the dependency they continue to create.

    We will be even more of an owned slave as the economy continues to falter more & more is supplied by government. So much that we must borrow more money than any other nation on earth to manage it.

    How’s your Chinese?


  13. Lew, has Obama said the economy has “no problems” or “our economy is booming”? No. Has any politician said that? No. You are getting upset about something that isn’t real.

    Government CAN create jobs! When the government enacted the Federal Highways Act, didn’t private companies do the contract work on the interstates? Didn’t that create jobs in the private sector? How about military contracts? Don’t private companies build fighters, ships, and equipment?


  14. The question is: which is better, government-created jobs or private sector-created jobs? Considering that the government screws up everything that it touches, I would much prefer private sector-created jobs.


  15. Mike, Obama is minimizing the problems an bolstering a false view.

    Government awards contracts. The private company hires.

    And with a rising $15 Trillion external debt, where does the money from to pay the contracts?

    Or, didn’t macroeconomics cover excessive indebtedness?

    Please explain the notion of borrowing your way out of debt.


  16. The private company hires to complete a project BECAUSE the government is funding the project. Therefore, government creating private sector jobs.

    You know “spend money to make money?”. Not that I advocate indebtedness but sometimes you have to stop the bleeding with government investment. Wouldn’t you agree that the Interstate Highway System generated an obscene amount of growth; through actual private sector construction jobs, supporting services, the growth/jobs in the small towns along the actual highways, and freight mobility for the price? Estimated around $450 billion (in current dollars) cost with, I would argue, trillions in return over the last 60 years. Would you rather have a network of toll roads operated by private companies? A shining example of borrowing for shared prosperity. Proof, it has happened and with smart choices can happen again.


  17. And still missed, Mike, no new wealth is created, just circulating current wealth.

    The funds come out of the treasury that is fed by tax dollars on private wealth with a small portion returning.

    Without new wealth created in the private sector from non-tax dollars, the treasury diminishes what it has, not grows.

    By example,

    It is the month of August, a resort town sits next to the shores of a lake. It is raining, and the little town looks totally deserted. It is tough times, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit.
    Suddenly, a rich tourist comes to town.
    He enters the only hotel, lays a $100 bill on the reception counter, and goes to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one.
    The hotel proprietor takes the $100 bill and runs to pay his debt to the butcher.
    The butcher takes the $100 bill, and runs to pay his debt to the pig raiser.
    The pig raiser takes the $100 bill, and runs to pay his debt to the supplier of his feed and fuel.
    The supplier of feed and fuel takes the $100 bill and runs to pay his debt to the town’s prostitute that in these hard times, gave her “services” on credit.
    The hooker runs to the hotel, and pays off her debt with the $100 bill to the hotel proprietor to cover the rooms that she rented when she brought her clients there.
    The hotel proprietor then lays the $100 bill back on the counter so that the rich tourist will not suspect anything.
    At that moment, the rich tourist comes down after inspecting the rooms. He takes back his $100 bill, saying he doesn’t like any of the rooms, and leaves town.
    No one earned anything. However, the whole town is now without debt, and looks to the future with great optimism – exactly how the United States government is doing business today.

    It has to be brought back into balance, Mike. The government cannot continue spending more than it brings in, regardless of who is in power.


  18. The Federal Highway System didn’t create new wealth? How about asking JB Hunt, ABF, and countless owner-operators? How about the restaurant that opened along side the highway? The Federal Highway System created opportunity and wealth.


  19. Martin, the bottom line is that government can’t force a willing customer to pay more than the market will bear for goods and services, without grossly distorting and eventually ruining the economy (see Greece, Spain, Italy, France, etc). That means, for example, it can’t force a company to pay someone $9 / hour if that person can only generate $5 / hour in value. It can’t force a consumer to pay $100 for an item that they can buy eslewhere for $50. And above all, it can’t force a foreign or domestic buyer to pay a US supplier $100 for an item it can buy from a Chinese supplier for $20.

    Liberals can talk about “serfs” or “living wage” or “the environment” or “fair share” or “universal home-ownership” or “global warming” or “green energy” or the spotted owl, marbled murrelet, or salmon all they want but it doesn’t change the facts or the reality. And, it’s a reality that no amount of government fiddle-fooling will change.

    The only answer in my opinion is to create a well-trained technical workforce and a business environment that allows us to compete globally, and to take the actions required to minimize regulations that put us at a competitive disadvantage vs other technology superpowers like China – who can build and staff sophisticated factories at a moment’s notice without experiencing years of delay dealing with government and union BS.


  20. The government can only “create” jobs by stealing wealth from the private sector. It’s far better for the private sector to create the jobs since they don’t steal taxpayer wealth to do it.


  21. How much did they grow the treasury, Mike? If the money was federal funds, individuals gained wealth at the expense of taxpayers, but what did taxpayers over all receive?

    Yes, some workers made a paycheck for a while (remember that little word I keep sneaking in BALANCE?), but that was temporary. Where is the sustainable wealth to keep revenues flowing to teh treasury?

    And, if all of this government contract work is so great, why are more people than ever on food stamps and we see some of the highest unemployment in decades at a time government is spending more than ever?


  22. Tom, “job training” is a crock. More than half of America’s population is not suited for hi-end anything. Apple-pickers, maintenance-people, assembly-liners, etc. need jobs too. There is a huge cost to making those people beg. HUGE! Add that price plus the $500,000,000,000 yearly Trade Deficiet onto the cheap TV you’re buying and you’ll see “Free” Trade is the most expensive trade on the planet.

    Lowering the standard of living is not the answer.


  23. Lew, I don’t argue science with non-scientists because they simply don’t know what they don’t know. Please, don’t be one of those people when it comes to economics. The basic fact is that the Keynesian economic model (government spending) works. It can also be exploited – that’s what we should be fighting against – not arguing whether the world is flat.


  24. You don’t have to be a scientist or a economist to read simple reports, Martin.

    We’ve added “millions of jobs in manufacturing.”

    This is the one claim where Wasserman Schultz is far, far off. The lowest point for manufacturing jobs was December 2009, almost a year into the Obama administration. Since then, the number of manufacturing jobs has rebounded, increasing by 303,000. That’s nothing to sneeze at — but it’s far from even a million, much less the “millions” Wasserman Schultz claims.

    And if you look at the numbers since the day Obama took office, manufacturing jobs have actually fallen by 800,000.


    And, you continue to leave out that in order to “spend,” government today first has to “borrow.”

    I’m still waiting for an explanation on how someone, or a government, borrows their way out of $15 Trillion debt, especially given that said government owes more debt than any other nation on the planet.


  25. I’ve oftern written about where the National Debt came from (“Free” Trade):

    As for the Deficit, that’s caused by intellectual dishonesty. Even the dorks we send to congress should know that loan-out=repayment-in. Mitt Romey’s 15% tax rate is criminal! There’s nothing worse than smart people pretending ignorance to justify being cheats.


  26. Martin, I said nothing about the deficit, but the debt.

    Where it came from is not as important as how will it be paid down?

    Neither party is doing anything to lower it and saying they are cutting discretionary spending is a smoke screen.

    BTW, for an attorney i am surprised you do not realize that Romney’s 15% is the current rate of capital gains, given that it was already taxed at about 35% before he received it.

    Even then, $3,000,000 in taxes is a far greater amount than $3,000 on income at a higher rate.

    Government spends dollars, not rates.


  27. Lew, I’m also a CPA and I know EXACTLY how the “Capital Gains Tax Cuts” scam works. The aristocracy has convinced you that their money is holier than yours so they don’t have to pay as much. The fact that you let yourself be suckered saddens me. As an attorney, acting in full faith and disclosure, I’ll tell you you’re being fleeced and how to stop it, but as a Capitalist, if you insist, I’ll take your money. At least I’m giving you a heads up, Romney is pissing down your back and telling you it’s raining.


  28. Martin, the only one “fleecing” us is the government. Government produces nothing and only takes wealth away from us. The government is probably the most useless critter that we have.


  29. Jack, you and I have already had this discussion. Modern government gave us the Industrial revolution. Government lengthened your lifespan. Government gave us the good life. There are plenty of valid targets for your hate, pick something I can work together with you on.


  30. Then you already know it is double taxation.

    Just so you know, I’m no fan of Romney’s.

    NO body has convinced me of anything, other than maybe my grammar school arithmetic teacher who taught me that $3 Million is much more than $3K


  31. Modern government has given us n-o-t-h-i-n-g, Martin. Government is destroying this nation and everything we’ve ever worked for. That’s the bottom line.


  32. Martin, they are also giving us illegal aliens, extended welfare, failing “Green” Energy companies, Bridges to nowhere, excessive salaries and benefits for themselves, high unemployment and much more.


  33. First, Lew, you keep coming back to the double-taxation issue:
    That better not be from some Republican talking-points because it’s pure HORSESHIT. They’re called “Capital GAINS tax cuts” because they only apply to GAINS.

    Secondly, Lew, your list of grievances are real. Each of those should be dealt with. Government is being used as a club by unscrupulous people. Let’s track them down, name names, and convict them if possible.


  34. Who sets Capital gains at 15%, Martin?

    Is the money not already taxed before it goes out in dividends?



  35. Lew, you’re talking about dividend income from corporations. “Capital gains” are any income from “investment,” (a fancy word meaning not on payroll).

    Personally, I don’t think business should be taxed – only people should be taxed, but whatever, do you want to expand this discussion to “dividends”? When you buy a stock that delivers 10% dividends, that’s what you get. Whatever is happening back at the corporation, tax-wise, is immaterial – you get 10%, and it should be TAXED JUST LIKE ANY INCOME. My goodness, you don’t even have to do anything for the money, how could it POSSIBLY be worth less tax?! You’re being taken for a fool, Lew.


  36. Maybe you should propose that for all of the congressional insider trading, Martin.

    After all, they write the rules.

    BTW, I’m a flat taxer at a rate across the board.


  37. I’m CERTAINLY NOT a flax-taxer because that is like saying “tax the poor.” And it would be around 30%! (Anybody who says it would be less is a liar.)

    The whole “starve the beast” strategy of limiting Government is counter-productive, disingenuous, and perverse. The fact that Conservatives won’t recognize that a nouveau aristocracy is rising in America baffles me? Do you want a class system?


  38. From what I see, Martin, we already have a class system going.

    And what is this fear of “tax the poor?” Our so called “poor” are wealthy by world standards. What other country has “poor” with cell phones, color TV’s, DVD Players and such? How is these “poor” are able to have those things and pay no taxes, while many who aren’t considered “poor” today are struggling to make ends meet?

    Why is it my responsibility to support a High School drop-out who won’t take advantage of free birth control (that we who do pay taxes pay for, as well as that free education we pay for) and pops out a dozen children?

    We certainly feel for the children, they didn’t ask for it, but when do their parents take responsibility for their own actions? Why won’t people as Angel Adams be responsible? They don’t have to.

    Just when did America adopt the Karl Marx slogan, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?”

    Please document that a flat tax would have to be around 30%


  39. Flat tax:
    Currently, the wealthy pay 80% of the taxes at a 35% top rate. That means for every 1% their taxes drop, everyone else has to increase their rates by 5% to counteract. 5% X 5 is 25% added onto whatever you pay now. (The poor still won’t pay taxes – they have no money.) OF COURSE, 80% of the people’s taxes GO UP – the poorer 80%!

    And the argument about cutting deductions… Please! Hardly anyone does a Schedule A (deductions) for much more than their home interest, and most people have no deductions – unless you’re talking about the Standard Deduction? Somehow you’ve been convinced that the rich pay too much taxes and poor people need to be taxed more!


  40. It’s not a “zero sum” game, Martin. We need to CUT taxes for everybody and get the government OUT of our lives.


  41. Martin it sounds to me as though you’re caught in the classic union and liberal trap of thinking we live alone in the world, and can decide” what’s fair” without the baleful influence of outside market forces.That was sort-of true back in the ’50s and ’60’s but it sure isn’t now.

    Now, if you tax capital gains at, say, 30%, you’re motivating that capital to flee to off-shore venues where it’s taxed at less than 30%, sometimes much less. If you raise taxes on dividends, you both (a) hurt small investors and retirees who need that income stream from their stocks and mutual funds and (b) motivate the truly wealthy to take their marbles to greener pastures. If you mandate high wages and benefits for low and medium-skill jobs, you push employers to look offshore where those same skills are avaliable at lower costs.

    These realities don’t mean we can’t ever make any adjustments in tax rates or eliminate loopholes – but any adjustments we make better take the big international picture into account, and in my opinion there is NO WAY we can ever come close to balancing the federal budget wthout also making dramatic cuts in spending, unless we simply live with an ever-expanding deficit and just print the money we think we need. I have in my collection a 50,000,000 mark bill from Weimar Germany dated September 1923 that graphically shows the end-game of such an approach.

    You also seem to suggest that, because *some* of our unemployed can’t be trained anymore, we should just give up. I don’t buy that. Even if some of the older workers can’t be retrained, we sure as hell ought to be working hard to train those who are still in school.


  42. Tom, “traps?” I’ll have an debate on economics with you but what are your qualifications? How many stocks & mutual funds do you manage? How many people have you employed? How much interaction do you have with the general population? How many businesses have you run? Where does your expertise come from?

    I’m not trying to be rude but so many people are just talking out of their ass, repeating dogma – I need to know I’m not wasting my time.

    BTW, Weimar Germany inflation IS coming. There’s no other way to rid ourselves of the National Debt.


  43. Tom, thanks for that link. It seems we’ve actually met. Here’s my forum:
    and my email is martin@hash.com

    Find an essay you’d like to debate and we’ll go after it privately via email. (I’ve locked the forum from spammers.)


  44. Always quote the number of people employed not unemployed. The unemployed figure is extremely fudged. 10% unemployed really doesn’t sound that bad. 50% employed sounds much worse and is much closer to reality. Only 1 out of 2 Americans are working


Leave a Reply. Comments are moderated. Spam & off topic comments will not be approved at Blog Author's discretion. THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ZONE!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: