June 8, 2012

Obama on the economy: “The private sector is doing fine … ” [Darleen Click] UPDATED x2

… it’s the public sector jobs we have to save!

Question: What about the Republicans saying that you’re blaming the Europeans for the failures of your own policies?

President Obama: The truth of the matter is that, as I said, we created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone.

The private sector is doing fine. Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. Oftentimes cuts initiated by, you know, Governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don’t have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in.

Did The One sleep through Wisconsin?
Wow, RNC has, surprisingly, been johnny-on-the-spot this go around:

Maybe “headwinds” are racist?

Sissy Willis covers the predictable spin from the Left, including a rapid and risible piece from Precious Ezra Klein

Since Obama was elected, the public sector has lost about 600,000 jobs. If you put those jobs back, the unemployment rate would be 7.8 percent.

But what if we did more than that? At this point in George W. Bush’s administration, public-sector employment had grown by 3.7 percent. That would be equal to a bit over 800,000 jobs today. If you add those hypothetical jobs, the unemployment rate falls to 7.3 percent.

Why yes, Ezra, if we could just outlaw private business and put everyone on the Government payroll, we could get unemployment down to ZERO! Woohoo! Full employment! What could go wrong?

I guess that’s what constitutes “ideas” that Obama would find helpful.

Posted by Darleen @ 10:06am

Tags: , , ,

Comments (24)

  1. The Raceologist-in-Chief knows one thing and one thing only. Don’t judge him, monkey.

  2. The private sector is doing fine, much like General Custer was doing fine at Little Big Horn.

  3. It certainly seems like Obama had just come from a campaign finance meeting. Pumping money into state and local governments is the best way to fund Democratic activities across the country.

  4. The Won was watching Wisconsin.

    All the unemployment is due to Scott Walker!!! And Bush!!! And cutting government spending!!!


  5. “The private sector is doing fine … ”

    To be fair, I imagine when Obama thinks about the private sector, he’s thinking of people like Mark Zuckerberg, Kanye West, and Kim Kardashian. You know, the regular folk he hangs out with.

    They’re doing fine, thank you very much…

  6. Yea, LBascom – at the fund-raisers he’s attending, the people are doing just fine.

  7. I’m not sure that our President and the private sector have ever even met, much less been properly introduced.

  8. – Not so SBF, recall Joe the plumbmer, a frieghtening experience he has avoided repeating ever since.

  9. Just because this is the funny .

  10. Dumbo eats his words. Or not. Reuters polishes.

  11. I’ll go with “or not”. He spent more time jawing about the NY Giants (assembled behind him in the sun in suits and sweating like draft horses) than he did talking about the economy this morning.

  12. sdferr

    Obama blaming GOP for “lack of ideas”

    translation: If I disagree with your idea, it doesn’t exist.

    Kinda like Cory — “dead to us”

  13. – Obama blaming the GOP for “lack of ideas”….

    – Translation: “Hey, you’all elected a community organizer to do a real leaders job, what the hell did you expect. Ahm just the golden boy figure head, you guys are suppodrf to fix this shit, not me….. racists.”

  14. – Thr press is still dutifully, and painfully, trying to prop this guy up, and bouy the flagging spirits of the true believers.

    – Knowing the classic trends of summer employment, and economic dulldrums, even in good years, we’re in for 5 more months of this endless “its not my fault” crappola.

  15. – On the other hand, maybe we should encourage his kings new suit approach to his re-election woes – foresooth Batman!:

    “Mitt Romney and his GOP allies pounced on President Barack Obama’s declaration Friday that the private sector is “doing fine,” suggesting the president’s comments are more proof that he’s “out of touch” with the country’s economic struggles.”here

    “Warm up the batmobile Robin Axelrod….time for another vacation and a few dozen rounds of golf….”

  16. I hear in a comment like Obama’s “private sector doing fine” nothing more than the silly stuff Barry was pushing last week: “I’m the stingiest spending President of the last five decades, growing government at a snail’s pace!”

    It’s all of a piece.

  17. – Obama-man pushes back:

    “It is absolutely clear that the economy is not doing fine. That’s the reason I had the press conference,” said the president, who had called reporters together to press Congress to pass his stalled jobs program.

    “That’s why I spent yesterday, the day before yesterday, this past week, this past month, and this past year talking about how we can make the economy stronger,” he said.

    – Ohhhh, okie dokie….nevermind…..

  18. It’s materially disheartening to be led by an abject moron, all the worse that the thing he’s ostensibly leading is the once greatest nation in the history of nations.

  19. – We could also look at it as materially heartening goimg into a critical election that could decide whether we slip into a third world country or not.

    – After all, what more could you ask for than an opposing candidate who has a panchet for pissing off the majority of voters.

  20. It’s hard to be cheerful BBH, on account of standing at a choice like “a critical election that could decide whether we slip into a third world country or not” is so unnecessary in the first place: one can hardly imagine being other than disheartened simply on grounds of the premise.

    Though I suppose this can be understood to be more likely the case for those of us fortunate to have lived to experience a time when such a pass was well nigh unimaginable, i.e., the United States in her fuller flowering.

  21. – Totally understand sdferr, hell U’m still trying to get my mind around the fact that heading into an expected recession we actuallt voted to go socialism, and elected a Kenyon Marxist for prez.

    – Chris Christie weighs in….here

  22. statist v. statist

    Consider me heartened.

  23. He’s been reading Krugman.

  24. See an excerpt from Robert Higgs’ new book in today’s WSJ. At least part of this passage also appeared a few days ago at Cafe Hayek, and more fully today, if you’d prefer to bypass the maneuvers around the WSJ paywall. I’ll clip here nearly all, but not all, of the excerpt from the WSJ. This is what Obama does not understand that he does not understand, and beautifully put by Higgs in the event:


    In fact, “the economy” does not produce an undifferentiated mass we call “output.” Instead, the millions of producers who bring forth “aggregate supply” provide an almost infinite variety of specific goods and services that differ in countless ways. Moreover, an immense amount of what goes on in a market economy consists of dealings among producers who supply no “final” goods and services at all, but instead supply raw materials, components, intermediate products, and services to one another. Because these producers are connected in an intricate pattern of relations, which must assume certain proportions if the entire arrangement is to work effectively, critical consequences turn on what in particular gets produced, when, where, and how.

    These extraordinarily complex micro-relationships are what we are really referring to when we speak of “the economy.” It is definitely not a single, simple process for producing a uniform, aggregate glop. Moreover, when we speak of “economic action,” we are referring to the choices that millions of diverse participants make in selecting one course of action and setting aside a possible alternative. Without choice, constrained by scarcity, no true economic action takes place. Thus, vulgar Keynesianism, which purports to be an economic model or at least a coherent framework of economic analysis, actually excludes the very possibility of genuine economic action, substituting for it a simple, mechanical conception, the intellectual equivalent of a baby toy. . . .

    Because the vulgar Keynesian has no conception of the economy’s structure of output, he cannot conceive of how an expansion of demand along certain lines but not along others might be problematic. In his view, one cannot have, say, too many houses and apartments. Increasing the spending for houses and apartments is, he thinks, always good whenever the economy has unemployed resources, regardless of how many houses and apartments now stand vacant and regardless of what specific kinds of resources are unemployed and where they are located in this vast land. Although the unemployed laborers may be skilled silver miners in Idaho, it is supposedly still a good thing if somehow the demand for condos is increased in Palm Beach.