Mar 06 2009

Measuring The Obama-Democrat Economic Disaster

While the democrats are trying to claim all that has happened is not their fault, we need to remember a few facts:

  1. The Democrat controlled Congress of last year decided to NOT produce a GFY 2009 budget under President Bush, instead demanding the government run on a Continuing Resolution (CR) until the Obama administration was in place. Therefore the economic challenges that have arisen over the last year are not solely the responsibility of President Bush by a long shot.
  2. The Obama administration began to be the national leader after the 2008 election cycle, since Bush was a lame duck and the Dems ran Congress. Therefore we can see how the markets and the economy has responded to the Obama-Democrat plans and promises by looking at the last 4-6 months

With these facts of life in mind, let’s see how the economy has been responding to the Obama-Democrat leadership, specifically in terms of the job market. The promises of a coming economic Nirvana are as much myth as the rest of the democrat rhetoric. So each month I will be attempting to show how well (or, more likely, how badly) the liberal economic policies are doing. I will be selecting key states as well as the national unemployment rates to measure the results of the radical policies now in place.

First, here is the latest national numbers, illustrating that the economy is not inspired by the liberal policies it sees, but is instead continuing to back off any optimistic scenarios.

Update to the update – Graph is loaded. – LJStrata
Update – OK folks, I need to load the image to the site, will be up again soon – AJStrata

For January 2009, the unemployment rate by selected state was

  1. California = 10.6%
  2. New York = 7.6%
  3. Missouri = 8.0%
  4. Florida = 8.6%
  5. Ohio = 8.8%

These indicators are going to be the measure of success or failure for the liberal policies now being touted as helping the economy. One thing should be noted, not even the liberals are promising anything before 2010 – since their spendulus bill will not be implemented for at least a year, or more. The American people were told that the turn around would come if the bill was passed. Now, each month, we can hold the liberal democrats in DC accountable for their promises.

Update: Now the Dems try to come clean?

Since the recession began in December 2007, the economy has lost an astounding 4.4 million jobs, more than half of which occurred in the past four months.

Yep, those same 4 months when Obama and the Democrats were in the driver seat.

Even in the best-case scenario that the relief efforts work and the recession ends later in 2009, the unemployment rate is expected to keep climbing, hitting 9 percent or higher this year. In fact, the Federal Reserve thinks the unemployment rate will stay elevated into 2011. Economists say the job market may not get back to normal—meaning a 5 percent unemployment rate—until 2013.

Businesses won’t be inclined to ramp up hiring until they are sure any economic recovery has staying power.

With the liberal promises to raise taxes on small businesses (the engine of our economy) in parallel out-of-control spending and no economic incentives (just a lot of trash talking and crying “crisis!”) this is a very accurate and sobering analysis. Now we learn 14% of small businesses will probably fail due to the liberals’ risky economic schemes.  

I said many times the Spendulus bill was a horrid hoax, now the powers to be in DC are admitting it – in a round about way.

16 responses so far

16 Responses to “Measuring The Obama-Democrat Economic Disaster”

  1. WWS says:

    Great Depression II, here we come.

    Obama lied, the economy died!

  2. conman says:


    “So each month I will be attempting to show how well (or, more likely, how badly) the liberal economic policies are doing. I will be selecting key states as well as the national unemployment rates to measure the results of the radical policies now in place.”

    Let me save you some time. Everyone in the world who hasn’t been living in a cave knows that the unemployment rates and the economy in general are going to be bad for many months to come in the – that is what happens when you are in the MIDDLE OF A RECESSION. That is especially true for the states hardest hit by the housing bubble. So save your breath – your little experiement is so tranparent its hilarious.

    The majority of Americans recognize that Obama can’t wave a magic wand and reverse one of the most severe economic situations since the Great Depression in just few few months. In fact, a March 3rd Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll asked at what point Obama will be “mostly responsible for the country’s economic conditions,” – 25% said in one to two years, 18% said in two to three years, and 23% said in more than three years.
    Just 2% said Obama would shoulder the responsibility in his first six months in office, and 13% said in the first year.

    Oh, and the same poll showed that the vast majority of Americans, 84%, think the current economic conditions were inherited and not caused by President Barack Obama, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll to be released March 3rd.

  3. crosspatch says:

    Looks like the Obumbler crew is hard at work creating a bigger mess. This is just delicious Re: Geithner but go read the whole thing. The scope of his incompetence is staggering:

    If anyone in the US media had thought to ask a former Australian prime minister for his assessment, they would have heard a different view. And they would not have been so surprised at Geithner’s performance since.

    In a speech to a closed gathering at the Lowy Institute in Sydney on Thursday, Paul Keating gave a starkly different account of Geithner’s record in handling the Asian crisis: “Tim Geithner was the Treasury line officer who wrote the IMF [International Monetary Fund] program for Indonesia in 1997-98, which was to apply current account solutions to a capital account crisis.”

    In other words, Geithner fundamentally misdiagnosed the problem. And his misdiagnosis led to a dreadfully wrong prescription.

    Geithner thought Asia’s problem was the same as the ones that had shattered Latin America in the 1980s and Mexico in 1994, a classic current account crisis. In this kind of crisis, the central cause is that the government has run impossibly big debts.

    The solution? The IMF, the Washington-based emergency lender of last resort, will make loans to keep the country solvent, but on condition the government hacks back its spending. The cure addresses the ailment.

    But the Asian crisis was completely different. The Asian governments that went to the IMF for emergency loans – Thailand, South Korea and Indonesia – all had sound public finances.

    The problem was not government debt. It was great tsunamis of hot money in the private capital markets. When the wave rushed out, it left a credit drought behind.

    But Geithner, through his influence on the IMF, imposed the same cure the IMF had imposed on Latin America and Mexico. It was the wrong cure. Indeed, it only aggravated the problem.

    Keating continued: “Soeharto’s government delivered 21 years of 7 per cent compound growth. It takes a gigantic fool to mess that up. But the IMF messed it up. The end result was the biggest fall in GDP in the 20th century. That dubious distinction went to Indonesia. And, of course, Soeharto lost power.”

    Exactly who was the “gigantic fool”? It was, obviously, the man who wrote the program, Geithner, although Keating is prepared to put the then managing director of the IMF, the Frenchman Michel Camdessus, in the same category.

    Worse, Keating argued, Geithner’s misjudgment had done terminal damage to the credibility of the IMF, with seismic geoeconomic consequences: “The IMF is the gun that can’t shoot straight. They’ve been making a mess of things for the last 20-odd years, and the greatest mess they made was in east Asia in 1997-98, so much so that no east Asian state will put its head in the IMF noose.”

    I found that here.

  4. crosspatch says:

    AJ, you can start with Michigan and Detroit in particular. Michigan last had a Republican governor in 2003. How have they done in the six years since compared with other states?

    Detroit last elected a Republican Mayor in 1964. Over the past 50 years about half the population of Detroit has left the city. I saw an article the other day that said that the city of Detroit is large enough to hold Boston, Philadelphia and one other major city I can’t remember … and yet Detroit today does not have one single store from one single major supermarket chain in the city limits.

    Part of the problem of being the party of the poor is insuring you keep a large enough population of poor people to stay in office. It is to your advantage to continue to make more people poor so that they vote for you. If suddenly the rich were to outnumber the poor, the Democrats would be out of office.

    It is sort of the same thing that Hugo Chavez does in Venezuela. As he bills himself as the champion of the poor, it is in his interest to make sure there are more poor.

    I can not remember seeing a situation where Democrats have actually improved a situation they were elected to improve. All they do is institutionalize poverty. They will hand people cash so they don’t starve and that serves to prevent those people from any pressing need to better themselves. So they remain dependent on government programs forever and anyone running for office threatening to cut back on those programs don’t get elected.

    In the end, though, you end up running out of other people’s money, the local community goes into collapse, and people move away as has happened in Detroit. Nobody moves TO Detroit.

  5. crosspatch says:

    It just doesn’t stop.

    More Obumbling from the Second City crew.

  6. Terrye says:


    Bush inherited Saddam and AlQaida but that does not mean the people did not expect him to assume responsibility.

    The truth is Democrats never assume responsibility for anything. Given the choice between solving the problem and finding a way to exploit it and pass the blame onto Republicans they would pick the second one.

    Sooner or later people are going to want more than blame. The truth is that the Democrats have been in control of Congress for more than 2 years and they did nothing to deal with the credit crisis when it might have mattered. No doubt you will argue that Bush was president blah blah blah…but Bush and McCain both tried to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Democrats blocked it. You can claim they did not try hard enough, but if the Democrats had not been keeping the whole thing afloat it would not have been necessary for them try and find a way to force the issue. The Democrats were in control of Congress and they had oversight.

    The problem with people like you is that you want all the power and none of the responsbility.

    As months pass it will get harder and harder to blame Bush. Say what you want for most of his tenure in office the economy did pretty well. And at least he could put together a cabinet.

  7. kathie says:

    The shame is that I think that the Republicans had quite a good plan for half the amount of money, $400 billion something, some shovel ready jobs, extended health insurance and unemployment, then tax cuts on business and more permanent tax cuts on middle class. If jobs keep more people in their homes, then small businesses need to keep people hired, and re hire. One person suggested we could employ tons if we fixed all the military stuff coming home as well. Two of the things that might have helped the most, businesses and the military are despised by the dems. What a shame!

  8. Terrye says:


    New Orleans is another example of that. Once upon a time the poor people of the Gulf might have short on money, but they had the self motivation to get out of the way of a hurricane. Yep, it is obvious that years of Democratic governance did a helluva job in LA.

    I hope Jindal can turn it around. So far he seems to be doing pretty well. Last I heard LA was doing better than most on unemployment.

  9. Redteam says:

    yes, Louisiana was the only state that created new jobs in the month of December.

  10. momdear1 says:

    You are all missing the point. Why do you think so many of Obama’s appointees have ethical and tax problems? Why was a big time tax cheat considered the only person who was capable of handling the job as Sec. of Treasury? Because he knows how to game the system. These clowns are in the process of looting the national treasury. Why else would he surround himself with people who have proven they know how to get away with scaming the system and evading getting caught ?
    First they got the $350 Billion Bush Generously left for them to manage. With in week they were back for a trillion more. Now they are dipping in for another $3.5 trillion. This won’t be the last. Already people have stopped talking about the $350 billion and the trillion dollar
    bailouts.” All the talk is about the new $3.5 trillion. As soon as they get that one done they will be back for more and more and more. With all that money coming out of Wash. there is no way anyone can keep up with where it goes. My guess a lot of it will end up in foreign bank accounts along side other African Tyrants like Idi Amin, Robert Mgabwe, et al. . Like his brethern African rulers, Obama is already trying to install himself as president for life by censoring the opposition and there is talk of putting chips in our drivers licenses. These clowns could care less about the economy and the suffering of the hard working American taxpayers who have lost half their wealth due to their half baked economic policies. They are getting theirs and so what if the rest of us drown in debt. During Bush’s last months in office the stock market rocked up and down in the 10,000 range. Occasionally is dropped down into the 9,000’s but it quickly went back up. Since Obama was elected it has gone straight down. So dont’ tell me this is Bush’s stock market mess.

  11. crosspatch says:

    BATON ROUGE — Initial claims for unemployment insurance in Louisiana increased for the week ending Feb. 21.

    That’s according to the state labor department, which recorded 4,154 claims last week. That’s up from 4,053 the previous week.

    However, initial claims fell a bit compared to the comparable week of Feb. 23, 2008, when 4,306 were recorded.

    Continued unemployment claims for the latest week rose a bit to 40,124. But that’s a sharp increase from 2008 comparable week figure of 21,221.


  12. Redteam says:

    yes, unemp was up very slightly, but employment was up even more. Have to look at all the numbers

  13. WWS says:

    Conman – S&P 500 is down 13% since Obama announced his budget. And it’s still dropping.

    That economy-killing budget ain’t Bush’s fault.

  14. Neo says:

    Businesses won’t be inclined to ramp up hiring until … they are confident that Obama/Pelosi/Reid won’t steal their lollipops

  15. MerlinOS2 says:

    BLS is the source for the historic data

    Go to their home page and they have a lot of good info on the right side bar.

  16. […] mine. What can I say that I have not been saying from months? From March 6th of this year: These indicators are going to be the measure of success or failure for the liberal policies now […]