Obama claims this recession was worse than the Carter recession, but is that actually true? We explore:

70 shares

No one actually knows when the current "recovery" began,  but joblessness still rules the day.  This blog does not entertain the idea of a "jobless recovery."    Such talk is nothing but mindless chatter designed to cover up this Administrations ineptness at job creation.  Why does the problem continue?  According to Obama,  he took over the worst economy since FDR,  which is,  also,  mindless chatter designed to give excuse for his failures.

Let's look at his claim.  The only aspect of the current disaster to be worse than the Great Depression era,  was the near collapse of the banking industry,  brought on by the Progressive policy we know as Affordable Housing.  Before 2008,  the talk of the town was that "everyone has the right to own a home,"  so the Socialist Progressives made sure that loans were cheap,  easy to secure and and offered to folks with no credit or the worst of credit.  When these folks could no longer make their payments,  the bottom fell out of everything related to banking and TARP was born.  You don't hear much about "Affordable Housing," these days,  do you.

Understand that TARP was not about saving the stock market,  despite what you hear over and over,  again.  In September of 2008,  the Market lost 700 points in less than a single business day.  TARP was immediately created with one man in change and without oversight,  a fellow named Paulson.  While TARP was being used to quietly funnel somewhere between 7 trillion and 24 trillion dollars back into the banking industry,  the Market lost another 4,000 points in the insuring 5 months following its "rescue," (proving my point)  and the lie was told and sold to the public.

So much for the banking aspect of the recession and the fantasy of TARP.

Lets' compare the pathetic jobs record of this president to Reagan,  remembering Reagan followed the feckless Jimmy Carter and his recession. 

Reagan was president for two years before his recovery (with jobs) kicked into high gear.  The chart in this post begins at the end of Obama's second year,  as well. 

When Reagan took office,  inflation was at a runaway rate of 13.5% compared to a nothing inflation rate inherited by Obama from Bush of 2.7%.  Reagan inherited a 10.8% unemployment rate compared to Obama's inherited rate of 7.7%   The chart to the left,  shows Reagan's track record as to job creation compared to Obama's.  No comparison,  AND,  Obama has manipulated unemployment numbers but still looks terrible as an administrator.   Progressives continue to cap interest rates at 3.25%  while Reagan had to deal with mortgage rates of more than 21%  !  One would think that housing sales would be booming,  today,  but years of bad mouthing banking has caused that industry to tighten its approval policies.  They have no intentions of being played by this Administration again.  

Of course,  Wall Street is doing good.  Give an industry trillions of dollars and demand no accounting for the money,  well,  things are bound to improve.  

But pile on 20, 000 pages of new regulations,  ask for more than 400 different taxes,  inflate the food stamp roles by doubling the number of takers on that program,  and throw in the largest tax increase in the history of mankind,  ObamaCare,    and you have what you have with job creation.   Obama doesn't think there is a link between his idiot policies and the continuing jobless issue.  Most of the real world,  knows better.  

Leaving off the banking industry,  Reagan had a far greater "hill to climb" than did Obama.  But Reagan turned the trick,  while Obama is feverishly growing the federal "workforce"  and telling the worker to go to hell.    

The Democrats posit the notion that "we really are better off than we were four years ago." Here is why that is nuts . . .

<<<< I say "29 consecutive months of job growth,"  truth is 22 months.  I say "4.5 million jobs created,"  truth is 4 million jobs created.  I say "Only 4 million jobs lost in four years,"  truth is 5.1 million jobs lost. I say "We ARE better off,"  truth is "nonsense."

When speaking of "four years ago,"  as the Dems attempt to frame the debate,  they mention that we lost 800,000 jobs in Obama's first month.  I assume, therefore,  "four years ago"  begins with January of 2009. The question,  then is "Are we better off today,  than we were four years ago,  beginning with January of 2009?"

Indeed,  we lost 800,000 jobs that month.  We have moved passed that issue.  Give the Dems one point.

7.3% versus 8.1% today.

Now,  at the end of Bush (December of 2008),  we stood at 7.3 % uuemployment,  Four years later we stand at 8.1% and have been at 8% or above for 43 consecutive months.  Are things better today, comparing unemployment numbers,  than four years ago?  Of course not.  

9.0% unemployment average v 5.3% under Bush

Under Bush,  we lost 2.59  million jobs.Under Obama we lost 5.1 million

Using CNN numbers,  we lost 2.59 million jobs during the 2008 recession.  In the four years since 2008, we have lost 5.135 million jobs if you add up the month by month numbers found at the Bureau of Labor site, here.  Are we better off in this regard,  today, than four years ago.  Of course not. 

If you count consecutive months of job growth,  the actually number is 22 months,  not 29.  Surely someone in the Democrat Party knows how to count.  Using Bureau of Labor stats,  "consecutive months" cannot begin  until October of 2010. That is job growth for 27 consecutive months compared to 52 consecutive months,  under Bush,  the longest sustained growth in American history (see Forbes).

Bush 8 million jobs created v 4 million under Obama

If you add up all the totals given in the chart (second one down on the BLS page hyperlinked),  you have 4.06 million jobs,  not 4.7 million.  Compare that to the four years of Bush (2003 to 2007) of 8 million jobs created or 5.4 million created including 2008  (again,  see Forbes ).  Keep in mind that Bush became president during a recession,  as well.  Add to this,  the destruction of the world's trade center ("9/11"),  something the Democrats want you to forget about when talking about the Bush economic years.  Are we creating jobs at a faster, more sustained rate under Obama than under Bush?  Of course not.

We are 1 million short after four years. 

Comparing 5.1 million jobs lost to 4 million jobs created under Obama, \ we are standing at minus 1.07 million jobs.  For those of you living in Chicago,  that's 1.07 million fewer people working than four years ago.

Workforce participation is down under Obama

Today,  four years into Obama,  workforce participation is at a 30 year low.  Are we better off today than four years ago?  Heck,  we are not better off compared to 30 years ago.

Annual debt is up under Obama

Obama's annual budgets average 1.3 trillion dollar every freaking year.  Bush averaged 440 billion counting TARP;  counting the two wars,  that average rises to 650 billion [at most],  still half of the Obama spending binge.