Obamateurism of the Day

posted at 8:01 am on July 10, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Analysts universally panned the jobs report on Friday, which showed a growth of only 80,000 jobs — slightly more than half of what’s needed just to keep up with population growth. It was the third straight disappointment in the series, making the second quarter of 2012 the worst period in two years for job creation.  Anyone with even a passing understanding of the jobs data knew that the only good news from the report was that it wasn’t any worse.

Not everyone has a passing understanding of the jobs data, apparently:

We learned this morning that our businesses created 84,000 new jobs last month, and that overall means that businesses have created 4.4 million new jobs over the past 28 months, including 500,000 new manufacturing jobs.  That’s a step in the right direction.  (Applause.)  That’s a step in the right direction.

A step in the right direction? Only if you think falling behind is the “right direction.”

By the way, BLS data shows that the US has added 3.75 million jobs in the last 28 months, not 4.4 million (138,665,000 in February 2010 and 142,415,000 in June 2012).  As I mentioned yesterday, the 28-month starting point was picked by the White House to conveniently overlook the million-plus job loss from the start of the recovery in June 2009, which was four months after Obama signed the stimulus bill that was supposed to keep unemployment from reaching 8%.  But even at the rate Obama claims for the period that ignores jobs lost during the recovery (and not the recession that preceded it), that only comes to 157,142 jobs added per month, or about what would have been needed just to keep up with population growth.

In other words, even if Obama’s bogus numbers had been true, it wouldn’t have been “a step in the right direction.”  It would have been marching in place.

Got an Obamateurism of the Day? If you see a foul-up by Barack Obama, e-mail it to me at obamaisms@edmorrissey.com with the quote and the link to the Obamateurism. I’ll post the best Obamateurisms on a daily basis, depending on how many I receive. Include a link to your blog, and I’ll give some link love as well. And unlike Slate, I promise to end the feature when Barack Obama leaves office.

Illustrations by Chris Muir of Day by Day. Be sure to read the adventures of Sam, Zed, Damon, and Jan every day!

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Math is not only hard it seems, it’s incomprehensible. I like how he inflated the number to 84k jobs all on his own; maybe that was the step in the right direction he was talking about. I never heard anyone in the press correct him either.

I repeat: Barack Obama is betting on the media, not America.

CitizenEgg on July 10, 2012 at 8:04 AM

the spinmeister

cmsinaz on July 10, 2012 at 8:05 AM

He stinks of desperation. If he weren’t such a total socialist dick I’d almost feel sorry for him. Almost.

SKYFOX on July 10, 2012 at 8:06 AM

So sick of the 4 million+ number from him cause no one calls him out on how pathetic it really is, when broken down into reality–it barely meets population growth AND he had an $800 billion injection of taxpayer money to assist it..

hillsoftx on July 10, 2012 at 8:14 AM

It’s an entitlement thing. Obama thinks he’s entitled to his own facts.

JimK on July 10, 2012 at 8:15 AM

More and more voters are beginning to realize Obama is a disaster.

Now that’s a step in the right direction.

AZCoyote on July 10, 2012 at 8:16 AM

A step in the right direction?

The only thing heading in the right direction is the countdown clock to November 6th.

lynncgb on July 10, 2012 at 8:20 AM

New Poll from WaPo today , based on polling of RV

Barry and Romney tied at 47% each

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obama-mitt-romney-deadlocked-in-race-poll-finds/2012/07/09/gJQAaJwdZW_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop

Despite a 33 D 24 R 36 I , a 9 points oversampling of D. That is reflected on the respondents thinking that Barry will handle the economy better.

Also not emphasized:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/presidential-election-campaigning-sways-few/2012/07/09/gJQAJhANZW_graphic.html

Look at the trend line over the last 3 polls of WaPo

Barry 51, 49, 47
Romney 44, 46, 47

bayview on July 10, 2012 at 8:21 AM

Emperor Peter Pan Obama probably thinks that if only he believes hard enough, really really hard enough, he can fly…

Delusional.

Narcissistic personality disorder.

A pathological liar.

Good Lord, I would hope that the lieutenant colonel carrying the football makes himself conveniently absent when Obama decides that in order to win in November he has to nuke Iran or Syria, or Cuba, or better, Tel Aviv, or Tiblisi or Toronto…wag the dog and all that.

Oh, yeah, and he’s still a Putz.

coldwarrior on July 10, 2012 at 8:21 AM

A step in the right direction? Only if you think falling behind is the “right direction.”

This in Washington DC where a slowing in the rate of growth of government is a “cut”.

Bizarro-world logic.

Paul-Cincy on July 10, 2012 at 8:26 AM

By the way, BLS data shows that the US has added 3.75 million jobs in the last 28 months, not 4.4 million

Ed Morrissey,

Unfortunately, that’s a bad link. When you use data.bls.gov and change the date range, the URL link changes to one like the one above, and it’s not a permanent link to what you were viewing.

Please update the link to give the general series URL, and then explain the time window which readers should examine.

Thanks in advance!

ITguy on July 10, 2012 at 8:26 AM

I’ll take Obama at his word. He wants the economy to suck.

gwelf on July 10, 2012 at 8:29 AM

It’s called “lying”.

The Rogue Tomato on July 10, 2012 at 8:29 AM

I am not sure if the above qualifies as an Obamateurism. In fact, it gives Ogabe certain amount of political cred. To lie so blatantly and still have some voters (outside of his Free Shit cohorts) duped is not a mark of an amateur.

Archivarix on July 10, 2012 at 8:31 AM

Hah! Thanks for pointing out what the pencil necked stank breathed mincer never seems to discuss- on his watch, a million plus jobs were LOST previous to the pathetic “growth” that’s occurred in the “past 28 months”.

Net 1.2 mill from his inflated claims of 4.4, you get 3.2 million jobs created. I wager a very large pct. of those jobs are gov’t jobs, created with stimulus cash that will go away.

Regardless, duhbama infested the white house in Jan of 09. That’s 41 months up to June of 12.

3.2 mill/41 months = 78,049 jobs a month. Roughly HALF of what is needed just to keep the status quo.

And we’re supposed to believe the unemployment rate is 8.2% with this going on?

Pathetic. Absolutely, eye wateringly, and indisputably a crashing failure of towering proportions.

Add this in with the dolt’s ridicutarded foreign policy, his lethally stupid Fast and Furious “oversight”, and his legions of constitution shredding czars just to name a few things, and you have the most inept and corrupt gang of thugs thieves and prostitutes ever to infest the White House.

GrassMudHorsey on July 10, 2012 at 8:31 AM

That’s a step in the right direction. (Applause.)

Well, the audience agreed.

Smart folks there.

tru2tx on July 10, 2012 at 8:37 AM

If the population aged 16 years and over is approximately 250 Million people, then each 1% of the Employment-Population Ratio represents about 2.5 Million jobs.

The average of the Employment-Population Ratio over the term of George W. Bush’s Presidency (January 2001 to December 2008) was 62.7%.

The average of the Employment-Population Ratio over the term of Obama’s pResidency (January 2009 to present) is 58.7%.

Those 4 percentage points equate to about 10 Million jobs.

On average about 10 million more people had jobs, month in and month out, under George W. Bush than they do under Barack Hussein Obama.

ITguy on July 10, 2012 at 8:38 AM

That’s a step in the right direction.

Into the abyss!

pilamaye on July 10, 2012 at 8:42 AM

Barry’s fictional claim of 4+ million jobs created under him must be challenged at every point.

bayview on July 10, 2012 at 8:51 AM

He just gave the talking points of the day to his flying monkeys. Beckel, Colmes, Juanito Williams, DWS, and Piglosi will be spouting these facts all over the air waves and no one refutes them with dear leader’s short comings. Wonder how they would like it if the next time they dine out and the waiter short changes them. He’s just trying to make it fair and spread the wealth around.

Kissmygrits on July 10, 2012 at 8:54 AM

ITguy on July 10, 2012 at 8:38 AM

You posted this on another thread and it’s good to see it again here.
That 8.2% unemployment figure doesn’t account for the reduction in the universe of available jobs, does it? If not, wouldn’t the true figure be even worse? Maybe not in the U6 range, but still pretty bad I’m thinking.

SKYFOX on July 10, 2012 at 8:54 AM

The second part of the “Bush Tax Cuts” were signed May 28, 2003, and turned the economy around… both employment and revenues went UP as a result of the Bush Tax Cuts.

To let any part of the Bush Tax Rates expire, and increase to new, higher Obama Tax Rates, would result in lower employment (more job losses) and LOWER revenues!

But, as Obama explained in his debate with Hillary Clinton, his views on tax policy are not based on maximizing revenue, but rather on imposing his view of “Fairness”.

ITguy on July 10, 2012 at 8:54 AM

I repeat: Barack Obama is betting on the media, not America.

CitizenEgg on July 10, 2012 at 8:04 AM

…that’s a SURE bet…I just wish there was some way for the general public to show our dissatisfaction with the media…beside not buying their product… it doesn’t seem to faze them.

KOOLAID2 on July 10, 2012 at 8:55 AM

His tax increase for those above $250,000 affects thousands of small business people.I’m sure that will be a winner of votes for him from that group.

docflash on July 10, 2012 at 9:00 AM

GrassMudHorsey on July 10, 2012 at 8:31 AM

Tell us how you really feel, will you!!!

Well done, I may borrow some of your lines : ))))))))

herm2416 on July 10, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Video: Obama’s redistributionism on capital gains taxes
posted at 1:40 pm on April 17, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Read and listen very carefully to this. The higher priority for Obama isn’t to raise revenue; it’s to ensure fairness. In order to do that, he will have the government take a bigger share of the gains and redistribute them through social programs to others. The pretense of having more money acts as a veneer for good, old-fashioned redistributionism

And his example shows his bias. He talks about billionaires paying a different rate than secretaries on income, but that’s purposeful. The idea behind a lower capital gains tax is to encourage risk-taking. The secretary in this parable garners an income at much lower risk because investors have taken a risk in creating her job. When the risk succeeds, it generates much more taxable income across the board. When it doesn’t, the investors lose a lot of money.

If the risk carries a heavier tax burden, less money will go towards investment. People will instead put their money into safer, less risk-intense areas, such as savings or low-yield bonds and commodities such as gold. That will create fewer opportunities for employment, which translates across the board into less revenue for the government as well as a stalled economy. The surest way to start an economic disaster is to increase penalties for investment.

Obama’s blindness on capital gains reveals a hard-Left mindset. He sees investors always profiting and never losing, while the people who work at jobs created by successful investment as victims of this exchange rather than the beneficiaries of it. Obama wants to use the heavy hand of government to take away the rewards of risk from those who invested, and instead redistribute it to those who took no risk to create economic growth. In doing so, he will kill the engine that drives the American economy.

Obama either fails to understand how a free-market economy grows, or simply doesn’t care. Either way, it makes him a dangerous choice for the Presidency.

ITguy on July 10, 2012 at 9:04 AM

…that’s a SURE bet…I just wish there was some way for the general public to show our dissatisfaction with the media…beside not buying their product… it doesn’t seem to faze them.

KOOLAID2 on July 10, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Would an all time high of NYT’s share price at over $50 in 2003-04 to less than $5 in 2009 do?

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=NYT+Interactive#symbol=nyt;range=my;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;

bayview on July 10, 2012 at 9:07 AM

…that’s a SURE bet…I just wish there was some way for the general public to show our dissatisfaction with the media…beside not buying their product… it doesn’t seem to faze them.

KOOLAID2 on July 10, 2012 at 8:55 AM

There is, it is called the Internet**! Fewer people are getting their news from free tv, because it can’t be trusted. I read one newspaper–the wsj. The rest I get from the Internet. I am 52, not the demographic that typically gets the bulk of her news from the Internet. I haven’t trusted MSM in years. The print media is bleeding red ink and readership; the MSM just keeps cutting back wherever it can–remember all the foreign correspondents? They are no longer around. The recent NBC debacle of the Martin shooting, and the fact that only the Internet, for the most part, is covering F and F are two good, current, reasons why MSM ratings are in the tank.

**As far as showing dissatisfaction, who among us doesn’t mock MSM? I think that mockery is becoming considerably more widespread, IMHO.

herm2416 on July 10, 2012 at 9:09 AM

President Obama rarely works; no surprise he doesn’t notice if you’re not working.

TN Mom on July 10, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Liberals+Math=lies I think that’s a pretty universal equation.

Mini-14 on July 10, 2012 at 9:15 AM

KOOLAID2 on July 10, 2012 at 8:55 AM

bayview on July 10, 2012 at 9:07 AM

I was listening to a show on CSPAN radio over the weekend. It was a bunch of “journalists” and they were talking about why their industry is shrinking. They blamed the economy, bloggers, free media, etc., but never once did they mention that the reason might be that they have abused the public trust. They have no clue. They are just offended that bloggers and sites like Drudge are run by people who have not been trained in journalism like they are.

Night Owl on July 10, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Add this in with the dolt’s ridicutarded foreign policy, his lethally stupid Fast and Furious “oversight”, and his legions of constitution shredding czars just to name a few things, and you have the most inept and corrupt gang of thugs thieves and prostitutes ever to infest the White House.

GrassMudHorsey on July 10, 2012 at 8:31 AM

Me like-y this new word ridicutarded. Me use-y often when speaking of the O-face.

Nutstuyu on July 10, 2012 at 9:30 AM

The heck with his college transcripts, I’m at the point now where I want to see his check book. Math is hard.

Cindy Munford on July 10, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Think Greece is embarrassing?

Joe Biden’s “hometown” of blue collar Scranton, Pa has $5,000 in the bank and the mayor has put all the workers on minimum wage.

The media is keeping this quiet until some cork can be put in the bottle. All they mention is Stockton California and their spending where they tried to imitate Dubai. Which nearly broke Dubai,too.

IlikedAUH2O on July 10, 2012 at 9:36 AM

P. S. The whole bunch (mayor and protagonists) in the Cash Katrina, financial disaster of Scranton, Pa is of the Democratic flavor. So was Stockton, CA, apparently.

IlikedAUH2O on July 10, 2012 at 9:39 AM

P. S. S, They don’t have U. S. Democrat Party officials in office in Dubai. But they do read The New York Times and Jack Klugman quite a bit.

IlikedAUH2O on July 10, 2012 at 9:43 AM

So this is what falling forward means. sounds more like the old two step to me. One forward, two back.

Bmore on July 10, 2012 at 9:55 AM

In other words, even if Obama’s bogus numbers had been true, it wouldn’t have been “a step in the right direction.” It would have been marching in place.

Fallon on July 10, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Yesterday Rush read this article and elaborated on it at length: Does Romney have a chance against Obama’s cynical politics? By Michael Goodwin, Published July 09, 2012, New York Post

“It’s the economy, stupid” may no longer be true. If Romney is depending on a bad economy to sink Øbama, it’s likely a fatal mistake. For Obama…

… 8.2 percent unemployment is something to work around, not worry about. It is a distraction to be paved over with side deals for friends, bailouts and trade barriers for unions, a pass on immigration laws for Latinos, subsidized loans for students, huge handouts for green-energy zealots and unleashed regulatory cops to “crucify” producers of fossil fuel. He even leaks national security secrets to boost his warrior cred.

The whole jobs thing is passé because work is optional when unemployment and disability benefits are the new welfare and an increase in food stamps is proof of “fairness.” With only half the country paying taxes, the other half isn’t worried about spending. For their government masters, dependency is good.

As Goodwin says, Romney’s problem is that he grew up in another America, where traditional values prevailed. He faces an opponent who spouts its verities, but actually believes in none of them.

Barack Obama believes that politics is a knife fight, and the only rule is that he must win. His conduct reflects the unholy mix of a messiah complex with the muscle of The Chicago Way. His goal, he tells us, is to “transform” America, not fix it.

petefrt on July 10, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Barry just pulls numbers out of his ass knowing that the lemmings that constitute his base will lap it up.

He could tell them that water is wet and they’d proclaim him a genius.

GarandFan on July 10, 2012 at 10:14 AM

The heck with his college transcripts, I’m at the point now where I want to see his check book. Math is hard. HIS check book? It would be blank for the last 3.5 years while the US Taxpayers pick up the tab.

Besides, you are all RACCCCISSSST. Minorities don’t get opportunities in math because they have to spend extra time with black history and Ebonics.

katablog.com on July 10, 2012 at 10:42 AM

That’s a step in the right direction.

To Obama, This is a step in the right direction.

VibrioCocci on July 10, 2012 at 10:43 AM

“Add this in with the dolt’s

ridicutarded

foreign policy”

GrassMudHorsey on July 10, 2012 at 8:31 AM

I LOVE this!!!

bernzright777 on July 10, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Aside from the maliciously destructive president, here are the real numbers.

Schadenfreude on July 10, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Obama has accomplished all the destruction he set out to do in the first round. So, to him it’s “a step in the right direction”. It was Freudian.

Schadenfreude on July 10, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Disgusting liar just makes me puke.

jqc1970 on July 10, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Voting this d-bag fraud out of office in November is a “step in the right direction”.

Tim_CA on July 10, 2012 at 12:57 PM

ITguy on July 10, 2012 at 8:38 AM

I now have hard numbers to back up my estimate of 10 million jobs.

Go to the Employment-Population Ratio , look at 2001 to 2008, click the button to “Go”, and then click the button to download the 96 months of data into a Microsoft Excel spreasheet. Open the spreadsheet and average the numbers to confirm that the average of the Employment-Population Ratio over the term of George W. Bush’s Presidency (January 2001 to December 2008) was 62.7%.

Next, go to:

A-1. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years and over, 1977 to date

[Numbers in thousands]

Note the numbers for June 2012.
The Civilian noninstitutional population was 243,155,000
The Number Employed was 142,415,000
Resulting in a Percent of population Employed (the Employment-Population ratio) of: 58.6

How many more people would be employed if we had the same Employment-Population ratio now as we the monthly average over all 96 months of the Bush administration?

Current population: 243,155,000
*
Bush-era average Employment-Population ratio: 62.7%
=
152,458,000 jobs

How many people were actually employed in June 2012?
142,415,000 jobs

What’s the difference between the two?
152,458,000 jobs
-
142,415,000 jobs
================
10,043,000 jobs

Over 10 million more people should have jobs, and would have jobs under Bush’s average employment rate, but don’t have jobs because of Obama’s employment rate.

And for each person without a job, many more lives are affected.

If Obama and the Democrats raises tax rates on anybody, more jobs will be lost and revenues from taxes will actually go DOWN, not up.

To allow any part of the Bush Tax Rates to increase now under Obama would be irresponsible.

ITguy on July 10, 2012 at 1:03 PM

We learned this morning that our businesses created 84,000 new jobs last month, and that overall means that businesses have created 4.4 million new jobs over the past 28 months, including 500,000 new manufacturing jobs. That’s a step in the right direction. (Applause.) That’s a step in the right direction.

___84,000 jobs created.
10,043,000 jobs needed just to get back to the AVERAGE level of employment under President George W. Bush.

9,959,000 = number of jobs Obama only came up short!

ITguy on July 10, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Actually, it is 10,043,000 jobs Obama came up short.

Number of employed we should have under the Bush average employment rate: 62.7% * 243,155,000 = 152,458,000

Actual number of employed in May: 142,287,000

Number of jobs that would have had to have been created in June, just to get back to the AVERAGE level of employment under all 96 months of President George W. Bush’s Presidency:

152,458,000 jobs
-
142,287,000 jobs
================
10,171,000 jobs needed to be created in June.

Actual increase in employment in June:
142,415,000 June employment
-
142,287,000 May employment
================
____128,000 Increase in employment in June (I don’t know why the increase in employment is bigger than the number of new jobs created … which is listed as 84,000 new jobs in the post above)

Number Obama came up short:
10,171,000 increase in employment needed, just to get back to Bush’s monthly average
-
____128,000 actual increase in employment
================
10,043,000 jobs Obama came up short.

ITguy on July 10, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Nobody — NOBODY — with a real job or who’s actually looking for one believes his BS.

Yet he has a ton of supporters?

It’s the problem inherent in a democratic government as the percentage of the population dependent upon the government approaches 50%.

EconomicNeocon on July 10, 2012 at 4:27 PM

An estimated 1.78 million students will graduate with a bachelor’s degree in 2012. Although some will continue with graduate school, most will start looking for jobs – along with 13 million other unemployed Americans. 80,000 new jobs per month won’t even cover those new college graduates, let alone help already unemployed Americans or the high school graduates who do not go to college.

This is a total disaster. Why is Romney not pouncing on this? Why is it so difficult to point out what I just pointed out?

Colony14 on July 10, 2012 at 6:36 PM