Editor’s Note – Democrats speaking – immediately conjures up the feeling that a fact-check is necessary these days. Here are three more examples – shameful, just shameful that every word is an attempt to confuse, twist, misrepresent, or just plain lie to you – all from the “say and do anything to win” crowd on the left.
Yet, the polls say the race is neck and neck, or that Obama got a bounce from the DNC. Once again, its about the sound bites, the only things most people here, and they count on you not checking and believing every word. What a way to run a country or win the Oval Office.
Was fixing the economic mess really too big a job for any president?
By Rand Simberg – PJ Media
On Wednesday night, former president Bill Clinton gave a long-winded address (as is his wont — few like the sound of their own voice more than him, with the possible exception of Fidel Castro) in an attempt to make an excuse for the current president’s pathetic job performance on the economy. Here is the essence of his argument:
President Obama started with a much weaker economy than I did. No president — not me, not any of my predecessors — could have repaired all the damage in just four years.
So is it true?
Well, first of all, the statement is misleading, in that it implies that Clinton started with a weak economy at all. Despite all the nonsense by James Carville and others during the campaign in 1992 about George Herbert Walker Bush creating “the worst economy in fifty years,” Clinton actually inherited a robust economic recovery, and, as shown in the graph below, GDP had been growing at a four percent clip all through the election year (recall that Clinton won with only 43% of the popular vote because Ross Perot took so many votes from Bush). (See the charts and read the rest here.)
The worst economic stewardship since FDR extended the Great Depression.
By Tom Blummer – PJ Media
I was briefly tempted to take a tiny bit of pity on the Obama administration after Friday’s awful employment report. After all, one can make a pretty strong case based on the raw (i.e., not seasonally adjusted) figures that the number of jobs added after seasonal adjustment should have been at least 50,000 higher than the official result of 96,000. That still would not have been enough to support a claim that the job market or the economy as a whole are legitimately recovering, but it would have sufficed to prevent the Obama-loving but self-protecting establishment press from reluctantly pouncing on how bad Friday’s news was, and how it will harm Dear Leader’s reelection prospects.
But then I read the reactions of Alan Krueger and Hilda Solis.
Krueger, who chairs the White House Council of Economic Advisers and as such is supposed to be financially and statistically literate, was last month seen complaining that July’s reported unemployment rate of 8.3%, unrounded, was “only” 8.254%. Shortly after Friday’s release, he claimed that “today’s employment report provides further evidence that the U.S. economy is continuing to recover from the worst downturn since the Great Depression.” Solis, the insufferable apparatchik who serves as Obama’s Labor secretary, piled it on even thicker, asking us to believe that “our recovery remains on a stable trajectory of positive job growth. Smart and steady wins the race.”
Forget about the sympathy. If anyone deserves a bad break from seasonal calculations 60 days out from the presidential election and just desserts for avoiding at least three previous months when the seasonal sausage-makers could defensibly have reported initial job losses (August 2011, April 2012, and June 2012), it’s this reality-denying crowd.
Three years and seven months into the Obama administration, there’s no longer any reasonable doubt that we’re living through the worst presidential exercise of economic stewardship since Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s rabid progressivism known as the New Deal locked the Federal Reserve-created, Herbert Hoover-enhancedGreat Depression into place for eight additional years. In 1932, the year before FDR was inaugurated, the unemployment rate was 23.6%. In 1940, it was still 14.6%. In between, it never fell below 12%. The economy only recovered because of the military build-up required to win World War II. (Read the rest here.)
By The Ulsterman Report
Without getting too much into the specifics of the government bailout/takeover ofGeneral Motors – the very act top Democrats are now repeating over and over again as proof of Barack Obama having “saved” the car company, the true facts of how GM is actually doing are troubling at best. At worst – it appears quite likely taxpayers will never get back the money Obama took from them to give to his union cronies, and yet another requested bailout may be on its way soon. General Motors is failing – and failing badly. Just like Barack Obama.
EXCERPT: The Democrats’ GM Fiction
The Democrats have decided to run in 2012 as the bailout party. It is an odd choice — the 2008–09 bailouts were deeply unpopular among the general public, and even their backers were notably conflicted about the precedent being set and the ensuing moral hazard. But Democrats have nonetheless made one of the most abusive episodes in the entire bailout era their economic cornerstone: the government takeover of General Motors.
…Ugly as the bank bailouts were, the federal government appears set to make itsmoney back on most of them, with the exception of some smaller regional banks and CIT. Even AIG, one of the worst of thefinancial basket cases, is set to end up being a break-even proposition for U.S. taxpayers. But tens of billions of dollars will be lost on GM. The federal government put up more for a 60 percent interest in the firm than GM is worth today.
…As much as it will pain the hardworking men and women of GM to hear it, it is not worthwhile to save jobs at enterprises that cannot compete on their own merits. So long as the federal government is massively subsidizing the operation, a job at GM is a welfare program with a fairly robust work requirement. (And we all know how the Obama administration feels about work requirements.)
GM losing as much as $49,000 per Volt sold
…Nearly two years after the introduction of the path-breaking plug-in hybrid, GM is still losing as much as $49,000 on each Volt it builds, according to estimates provided to Reuters by industry analysts and manufacturing experts.
…The weak sales are forcing GM to idle the Detroit-Hamtramck assembly plant that makes the Chevrolet Volt for four weeks from September 17, according to plant suppliers and union sources. It is the second time GM has had to call a Volt production halt this year.
“I don’t see how General Motors will ever get its money back on that vehicle,” LINK
General Motors Is Headed For Bankruptcy — Again
…Right now, the federal government (YOU THE TAXPAYER) owns 500,000,000 shares of GM, or about 26% of the company. It would need to get about $53.00/share for these to break even on the bailout, but the stock closed at only $20.21/share on Tuesday. This left the government holding $10.1 billion worth of stock, and sitting on an unrealized loss of $16.4 billion.
…It’s doubtful that the Obama administration would attempt to sell off the government’s massive position in GM while the stock price is falling. It would be too embarrassing politically. Accordingly, if GM shares continue to decline, it is likely that Obama would ride the stock down to zero.
…Will GM be able to turn itself around, and save American taxpayers from losing $26.5 billion on Obama’s bailout?
…“The game isn’t over until it’s over”, but if President Obama wins reelection, he should probably start giving some serious thought to how he is going to justify bailing out GM, and its unionized UAW workforce, yet again. And, during the current campaign, Obama might want to be a little more modest about what he actually achieved by bailing out GM the first time. LINK