Barack Obama has done something no other president has done in the five months after his election.
He and his pals Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid laid the groundwork for this achievement back in June when they created what I have since last July been calling the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy, so it is fair to say that Obama's accomplishment, spanning November 2008 through March 2009, belongs to him, with a heavy assist from his fellow party members.
It took a lot of hard work, perseverance, and persistence, but he and they have done it. That crowning achievement follows the jump.
Obama is the first president to have five straight months of decline in real employment following his election.
We're not talking about that seasonally adjusted stuff that gets reported every month and misinterpreted as if that is what actually happened. No-no-no. I'm referring to five straight months of decline in the number of Americans actually working, i.e., the not seasonally adjusted figures. Defying any and all seasonal factors that would work against this accomplishment, the economy on the ground has lost jobs in each and every one of the past five months:
You start to appreciate just how difficult this achievement was when you look at how large the job additions were during comparable months in 2004 through 2008.
It gets "better." The real, on-the-ground job losses represent the only time in 70 years of history available at the Bureau of Labor Statistics that the real, on the ground, not seasonally adjusted economy has lost jobs for five consecutive months. The, only, time (click on graphic to see a full-size version in a separate window):
And of course, although I hope I'm wrong, the losing streak may not stop at five.
It's conceivable that March's on the ground loss of 58,000 might be changed in subsequent revisions, but that seems highly doubtful. January's original seasonally adjusted -598,000 went to -741,000 after subsequent revisions. February's first seasonally adjusted revision released today had no change from the original -651,000. A March reversal of +59,000 or more in the next two not seasonally adjusted revisions seems pretty unlikely. Even if that happens, no other president has seen the economy lose jobs on the ground for even four consecutive months after his election.
Is anyone foolish enough to believe that the applauding establishment media will take note of what has really happened with jobs on the ground since Dear Leader's election?
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
It makes me wonder if BHO's
April 3, 2009 - 12:58 ET by mattmIt makes me wonder if BHO's plan is to destroy this country.
I'm wondering, too...
April 3, 2009 - 16:44 ET by Jarhead68I'm wondering how you could wonder. It's been painfully obvious for two years now.
The govt stopped working in
April 4, 2009 - 03:38 ET by RizzoThe govt stopped working in 2006. What happened then? Oh, the Ds came to town and took over congress and refused to pass any legislation because of spite and pure hatred for W. He does get some of this blame, but he gets a pass on fannie freddie housing mess. He and other Rs tried to fix this and were shot down by dems. The dems who, btw, were the highest recipients of hush money from fannie and freddie. Obama, Hillary, dodd, Kerry. Hmm. Coincidence? The Ds made an impending, but fixable mess much worse because of their hatred and lack of actionHeck, they were rated lower approval than bush. How's that even possible?
Great Post!
April 3, 2009 - 12:59 ET by Franklins_LockeNice background!
Now, that is some "change" you can believe in.
http://franklinslocke.blogspot.com/
Is anyone foolish enough to
April 3, 2009 - 13:09 ET by SeashellIs anyone foolish enough to believe that the applauding establishment media will take note of what has really happened with jobs on the ground since Dear Leader's election?
If they do speak of it (which is doubtful) it will be to blame Bush.
If they don't report it, it
April 3, 2009 - 14:04 ET by motherbeltIf they don't report it, it never happened!
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
I'm thinking that being
April 3, 2009 - 13:20 ET by jiffypopI'm thinking that being handed a failing economy with a recession might have something to do with it...Blaming Obama for this is like telling the kid who ate the cake before the birthday party that its ok because its really the birthday boy's fault for not having the party soonner
Yes, but we can blame him
April 3, 2009 - 13:27 ET by XJ.JonYes, but we can blame him for taking steps to only make it worse.
Taxed Enough Already
If business owners weren't
April 3, 2009 - 13:42 ET by MANstreammediaIf business owners weren't terrified of his policies before and after he was elected (If you don't know any of these mythical creatures, I'll tell you that they were) or if Obama had any significant policies that were actually beneficial to actual businesses (the ones that employ people, not the dog and pony shows he included in his small business statistics), it is likely we would not be in this mess now. So, yes, this is dear leader's fault.
The Bush excuse doesn't fly
April 3, 2009 - 13:44 ET by bdshepherdRegardless of the state of the economy before the election, Obama is responsible for at least a good portion of the rise in unemployment. The only rational response by employers to Obama's anti-business rhetoric and policies is to tighten their belts as much as possible in hopes of surviving his administration. That means employees will be laid off, and the recession will be far worse and longer than if a more rational approach to business -- one that favored ending the recession over remaking America into a liberal wasteland-- had been used.
The economy has been in recession for what, a year now? Is it just coincidence that the steady drop in employment started around election day? The numbers for previous months are mixed, but starting in November they are only negative.
I agree that this decline
April 3, 2009 - 13:44 ET by Dan The Man 2I agree that this decline started under President Bush, however we have had two plus years of a dem congress. And the fall under bush was not entirely his fault. In fact little of the drop was. He did contribute tout through the bailouts. But Obama put the pedal to the metal and switched on the afterburnersOne thing we need to do is figure out where bush ends and obiwan begins. Of course themsm will always blame bush
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
I'm thinking that being -- uh, no.
April 3, 2009 - 13:56 ET by nolotrippenThe data is there. Bush inherited the same kind of situation, but he was, despite not being a conservative, hardly anti-business.
And there's the rub. A businessperson (I am one) looks at the landscape and decides if it's a good time to invest, to be bold, to try and grow. Obama has made that landscape look like a minefield (but I'm still going to work toward that American, not Soviet, dream).
So yes, blaming Obama is the right thing to do.
Bush 41 got blamed
April 3, 2009 - 14:06 ET by motherbeltBush 41 got blamed massively for the economy that he inherited from Clinton.
Sauce for the Gander.....
It's a fact of politics: Presidents get the credit for good economies and blame for the bad. The only difference is the way the media plays it.
Or not.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Mommy, Bush broke the economy and now he won't fix it.
April 4, 2009 - 03:13 ET by JWFThat does not get tiring now does it.
Stop the insanity!!!!
April 3, 2009 - 13:39 ET by Roscoe MendagoEven before the jacka$$ Obama took office, was he proposing policy that would encourage economic growth, employment, enhancement of our defense and national security, was he? No, not even close, everything he has done has been counterproductive, 180 degrees out of phase. Obama wasn't brought up to be a capitalist, he was raised to be a radical Marxist of some sort, am I wrong, isn't it all there in his past and near past, was anyone paying attention? Does a right-wing Military takeover appeal to anyone? I believe if he would go counter to his actions there would be some light in the tunnel, but the nation is stumbling around in the dark and about to step into a vertical shaft with no bottom. What this guy has accomplished in less than 90 days, done with a compliant Congress is going to doom America, bank on it.
Any of the non-thinking, brain dead lemmings that voted for this POS, and you know who you are, drop dead, drop dead twice!!!!
This guy is going to get us all killed!!!!
Tom: The AP is already
April 3, 2009 - 19:01 ET by stratmanTom:
The AP is already covering for The Obama in their latest report that Wall Street shows 4th week of gains despite a "slightly worse" than predictied net total lost of 663,000 jobs last month.
Just more proof that MSM is willing to sugarcoat bad news for our CIC Little Lord Fauntleroy Obama.
Hilarious
April 3, 2009 - 20:13 ET by slickwillie2001European press story about the Bamster caught teleprompter-less: The Question that Flummoxed the Great Orator: http://www.guardian.co.uk
"Barack Obama, the World's Greatest Orator (™all news organisations), didn't exactly cover himself in glory when the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson asked him a question about who was to blame for the financial crisis. Normally word perfect, Obama ummed, ahed and waffled for the best part of two and a half minutes. Here, John Crace decodes what he was really thinking ..."
PS The Guardian!!!!
Spon on SLICK!
April 4, 2009 - 08:28 ET by BuxomAnnieMcGreggorThat was Hilarious. John Crace's decoding should be a lesson for all the MSM.... but sadly, LOVE is BLIND!
"We retort..... you decide."