Back in October, President Obama admitted that Americans are not better off now than they were four years ago. Here’s the tape:
On a conference call today, however, DNC flak Brad Woodhouse contradicted his boss. saying “It’s obvious the economy is better today.”
Really?
Under Obama’s watch we’ve lost a net 572,000 jobs. The participation rate has hit a 30-year low, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The Obama economy looks like a war on women: Women account for more than 99 percent of the jobs lost under President Obama, says the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Or maybe Obama is waging war on the young: More than half of all recent college graduates under age 25 were “jobless or underemployed, the highest share in at least 11 years.” “About 1.5 million, or 53.6 percent, of bachelor’s degree-holders under the age of 25 last year were jobless or underemployed, the highest share in at least 11 years. In 2000, the share was at a low of 41 percent, before the dot-com bust erased job gains for college graduates in the telecommunications and IT fields,” says the AP.
Or maybe he is waging war on the middle class, with higher gas prices, lower home values, and declining income.
And then there’s the price we’re all paying for ObamaCare.
“At the moment, the new law is making health care slightly less affordable. Independent health care experts say the law has caused some insurance premiums to rise. As we wrote in October, the new law has caused about a 1 percent to 3 percent increase in health insurance premiums for employer-sponsored family plans because of requirements for increased benefits. Last year’s premium increases cast even more doubt on another promise the president has made – that the health care law would ‘lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.’” That’s according to FactCheck.org.
Clearly we’re not better off now than we were four years ago. It’s not even close. Obama admitted as much. Why can’t his folks at the DNC?
“…half of all recent college graduates under age 25 were “jobless or underemployed, the highest share in at least 11 years”
You know whats interesting about that statistic and the one that follows it? It makes up a large section of the core Obama voting constituency. Its not out of the question to consider the fact that roughly half of everyone who voted for Obama in 2008 aren’t working and have no prospects for work in 2012.
Now, to get re-elected, you have to get everyone who voted for you last time as well as a fair amount of the other guys votes. What we see going into this election is the situation affecting the incumbents voters are clearly and demonstrably – worse. You can just see someone who was a college freshman in 2008 voting for Obama in that election, who is now about to graduate, faced with a 1 in two chance of not having any opportunities for work.
That has to have an impact to your thinking.
Could we not play Democrat-like statistical games? How can “99%” of jobs lost have been lost by women? That figure is ridiculous on the face of it. Also, what happened to the “Mancession” meme? Rember that? Is that yesterday’s flavor?
Seriously, with the actual job-loss/labor participation numbers being an indictment of this administration, why would you want to provide deflection ammunition to Obama’s flying screaming monkey brigade by citing nonsense like that “99%” of jobs caca? Did someone at Romney central find that to be a cute comeback for the #OWS “99%” silliness?
Herodotus Prime – You are right. 99% is ridiculous. The link you need is: http://www.bls.gov/ces/tables.htm#ee
If you use the payroll tables at the link (All employees and woman employees), you’ll find that the jobs lost by women account for about 57% of jobs lost (from January 2009 through December 2011). Not 99%, but still more than half the jobs lost.
– years of misery? No thanks.
This is just further proof that the Obama2012 campaign is int total chaos; therefore, it makes sense the DNC is, likewise, in total chaos as well. Obama is in a total meltdown.