“Obama Dealt Setback By Jobs Report” (Reuters) – Why exactly is this a setback for President Obama? Are they talking political and if so, do they really think a jobs report in August of 2010 is somehow going to set him back 2 and 1/2 years from now? Really? And if they are talking about the economy suffering a setback, then why is the headline “Obama Dealt Setback…”, is the president the economy now? This is one example of a misleading headline to subtly dig at the president, try to pin the slow growing economy solely on the him.
“Jobs Report Taxes Obama’s Political Capital” (NPR, you know that liberal news org.) The actual story is pretty balanced, it actually starts out with “Fairly or unfairly, jobs have become one of the most important barometers in assessing the president’s performance” and it mentions how the Republicans have been stopping all the presidents efforts to help the economy. Does the headline reflect that, nah, let’s all pile on the one guy who’s trying.
“July Jobs Report Renews Concerns Over A Stalled Recovery” (The Washington Post) So when exactly did concern drop? In order to be renewed, doesn’t it have to have subsided. And is the recovery stalled, according to economists the economy is still growing, slower than “expected” which always makes me ask, who is doing the “expecting”? Would that be those liberal business people on Wall Street? Would it be those people who are pissed that the Obama administration just signed a Wall Street reform bill? Nah, not those economists. Check out this handy little graph that shows growth over the last 8 years, 6 of Bush and almost 2 of Obama.
Notice how the economy goes in waves. In my many years in college, I took about 8 economics (or related) classes and one of the first things you learn is that the economy goes in cycles, it’s kind of why people play the Wall Street game…it’s why they have futures markets…but when it goes up, it comes back down. You can see from the graph that there aren’t any upticks that last very long, they are all very similar. There is that one big downturn though, which brings me to another lesson we learned in those exciting classes like “Money, Credit and Banking” and that is that there is a lag time between actions taken to effect the economy and when the results occur. It’s only logical, right? Hmmmm, who was president just prior to that downturn? Now I’m sure the trolls might say, see how during Bush’s term it didn’t go down as much. Could that be that bubble that was being created with all those sub-prime mortgages and junk bonds and those fucks on Wall Street setting us up for that big dip you see in red? That’s a direct result of Bush and his Wall Street buddies going nuts and no one regulating them. Remember, they put the foxes in charge of the hen house.
“3rd month of weak hiring signals long slog ahead” (Yahoo News) If you read the article, there is nothing that signals a “long slog” ahead. Refer back up to that chart, the ups and downs are pretty consistent, it surely won’t be any longer than any other downturn. The fickle and I will add “economically challenged” media gets all excited when it jumps up and acts like the world is about to end when it goes down. It’s all about ratings, make everything sensational, make bold pronouncements, use misleading “lower 3rds” on the screen to make it more sexy. Cable news sucks ass, all of them, including MSNBC.