Posted by: tork | September 7, 2012, 11:36 am 11:36 am

There is no recovery in progress. Our labor force continues to shrink.

Posted by: tork | September 7, 2012, 11:36 am 11:36 am

Not at all. It’s not like Obama was beamed down to Earth from a spaceship.

Obama played an active role in the subprime mortgage crisis years before Bush became President. ACORN urged lenders to extend home mortgages to subprime borrowers, pushing charges against banks in the 1980s that their home lending practices amounted to “red-lining,” in violation of the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act.

In 1994, lawyer Obama, a graduate of Harvard Law School then fresh from his Project Vote! experience, represented ACORN in the Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Federal Savings Bank case, in which ACORN pressed for Citibank to make more loans to marginally qualified African-American applicants “in a race neutral way.” Obama was hired by the group to train its community organizers and staff in the methods and tactics of the late Saul Alinsky. ACORN would stage in-your-face protests in bank lobbies, drive-through lanes and even at bank managers’ homes to get them to issue risky loans in the inner city or face charges of racism.

After obtaining a settlement in the Citibank litigation, ACORN used its subsidiary organization ACORN Housing, a nationwide organization with offices in more than 30 U.S. cities, to push the group’s radical agenda to get subprime home buyers mortgages under the most favorable terms possible.

At least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 percent of loans in the conventional loan market.

So since the mid-1990′s, Obama actively supported ACORN and subprime mortgage lending as a community organizer, a lawyer, a State Senator, and a US Senator (which he was in 2007). He was always part of the problem.

POSTED BY: TORK | SEPTEMBER 7, 2012, 11:36 AM 11:36 AM

Agreed. Deval Patrick made a good point about Romney as governor which appears to apply to the presidency as well: he is more interested in having the title than doing the job.

On top of that shipping jobs overseas appears to be his only foreign relations experience.

CNN reports: “Anyone watching the Democratic National Convention heard the number 4.5 million jobs created several times. It’s only a net gain of 300,000 over the course of the Obama administration to date.

The private jobs figure stood at 111 million January 2009, the month Obama took office.
Nonfarm private payrolls hit a post-recession low of 106.8 million that month, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The figure currently stands at 111.3 million as of July.

According to a study released last week by the liberal-leaning National Employment Law Project, low-wage fields such as retail sales and food service are adding jobs nearly three times as fast as higher-paid occupations.

Conclusion:
The figure of 4.5 million jobs is accurate if you look at the most favorable period and category for the administration. But overall, there are still fewer people working now than when Obama took office at the height of the recession.”

Wapo reports: “According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, job creation in Obama’s entire presidency is minus 300,000 or plus 160,000, depending on whether you date his presidency from January or February…

[T]he U.S. population keeps growing, meaning the economy has to keep creating more than 100,000 jobs each month just to keep pace. By that measure, Obama is in a hole no matter when you start counting.”

In other words, for practical purposes, net job growth during the Obama years has been roughly zero. But population continues to grow. If you adjust for population, we are actually down 4.2 million jobs from where we were in Feb, 2008 when Pres. Obama began his term (42 months times 100,000).

So in actuality, the WaPo really soft-pedaled it. The headline could have been “Democrat claim: 4.5 million jobs created. Truth: 4.2 million jobs lost. That’s essentially what the numbers given by Kessler say.

And for the inevitable nitpickers, sure, it can be argued that these 100,000 jobs per month were not literally “lost” since they didn’t really ever exist. But in terms of jobs per American, we are roughly down 4.2 million jobs from Feb 2008 to the present. This goes hand in hand with our record poverty, which is much worse than it was four years ago. Currently, over 100 million Americans (about 1/3 of our population) are receiving one or more forms of welfare.

Now who’s the one taking us back to yesterday?

Posted by: EPU | September 6, 2012, 11:04 pm 11:04 pm

Now be honest and have some integrity.

When Obama took office, the country was losing something like 750,000 jobs a month and was in free-fall economic collapse! Using the end of January 2009 (or February 2009) as a begin date to blame lost jobs on Obama is just plain stupid.

Bush handed Obama a country in free-fall economic collapse.You expected him to stop this on a dime? Are you that dense, or just being dishonest?

The momentum from the Bush collapse was just peaking as Obama took office and it continued for months. It then started to reverse as Obama’s policies began to kick in.

Since then about 4.5 million jobs gained back from the Bush disaster. We’re adding hundreds of thousands of jobs instead of losing them.

Meanwhile, we keep hearing the worn out line from the democrat playbook whose script reads “republicans will take us back to yesterday.”

Excuse me, but unemployment at the end of February 2009, Obama’s first full month as president, was 8.3% . . . last month unemployment was . . . 8.3%

Now who’s the one taking us back to yesterday?