Leader Pelosi. Good morning. Nice to see you all here – you missed the crowd of visitors to the Capitol. It’s pretty exciting when they come where, what a thrill.
With today’s jobs report it is clear that we have work to do. Although this is the 27th month of increased, continued job increases in our economy it is certainly not enough. It’s clear from that jobs number that we have work to do. We know it and the American people know it and American families across the country know it.
Wow. “This is the 27th month of increased, continued job increases,” says Pelosi. You’ve got to praise a president who can boast that kind of a record.
But a president who has – quite literally - TWICE THAT RECORD? You should demonize that president.
George Bush had 52 months of “increased, continued job increases.” As US News and World Report points out:
“Economy Made Few Gains in Bush Years”, declared the Washington Post earlier this week. And while the story grudgingly acknowledged the 52-straight months of job growth, it dismissed any economic gains as the ephemeral product of the housing bubble and wild-spending consumers. Except … that worker productivity — the most important long-term indicator of the core health and competitiveness of an economy — has risen at a really impressive 2.6 annual rate during the Bush years vs. 2.0 percent for Clinton and 1.6 percent for Reagan. (That factoid from the Wall Street Journal.) This is important stuff. It’s one big reason why the World Economic Forum says the U.S. has the most competitive economy in the world. The economic rebound after the pro-growth 2003 tax cuts was no mirage.
Okay, 52 straight months of job growth under Bush. Let me get out my calculator, because this is math that is clearly FAR beyond any Democrat’s ability to perform: 52 months versus 27 months. Which is more?
Yep. I just confirmed it. Bush’s 52 consecutive months of job growth dwarfs Obama’s 27 months.
And Bush also gave America worker productivity that dwarfed Bill Clinton’s while giving us virtually the same unemployment rate as Clinton (5.2% unemployment under Bush).
I could do also do the math to show that Bush’s unemployment rate is so much better than Obama’s it’s not even funny. But that would be like rocket science explained to ants for Democrats. So I won’t bother. But if you look at the monthly unemployment figures and do the math that Democrats are clearly too depraved to do, Obama’s average unemployment rate through May 2012 is 9.2%.
So the guy with the 9.2% unemployment rate who promised America that unemployment would be under 6% by now if we passed his massive stimulus is saying that the guy with the 5.2% unemployment rate is to blame for his abject failure.
It actually gets considerably worse – because even those monthly unemployment figures are deceitful. Labor participation has plummeted abysmally and catastrophically under Obama; millions of workers have simply given up bothering to even try to look for a job and 88 million working age Americans aren’t working during this failed presidency. If we were to calculate Obama’s unemployment rate by the SAME participation rate that Bush’s last unemployment figure was calculated under, Obama would actually have an 11.4% unemployment rate.
That’s in the weeds particularly for Democrats’ whose ideological brains are somewhat smaller than cockroackes’, but the U-6 unemployment rate that many say is this broader ”real” rate is 14.8% right now.
Job creation is way down. The unemployment rate is up. The market just crashed to correction levels (defined as dropping by 10% from the high) with the Dow losing 278 and the Nasdaq losing 80. The last two months of “job gains” were downwardly revised. The GDP sucks the big one with a downwardly revised 1.9%. And speaking of “revising” EVERYTHING keeps getting revised down under this propaganda presidency.
Well, at least Obama has Nancy Pelosi to keep singing his praises. It’s a way-off tune shrieking cackle that belongs in the padded part of the psycho ward, but at this point Obama has to take praise anywhere he can get it.