Sure enough a few hours later, it started to get lighter outside. And lighter, and lighter, until daylight came back.
I saved the day. Literally.
So ... let's talk about what's going on in the Administration's graphic (right). First, you see job loss. You see the massive "Recovery Plan" passed, and you see jobs gained.
But wait a minute. This is exactly what we'd expect, indeed, the Obama administration said we could expect ... if we did nothing about it. Market forces would foment re-adjustment, and jobs would come back, no matter what we did.
Here's another graphic based on administration data. Unemployment projections with, and without government intervention, and, in red, we've added the actual, real data.
Now.... look at the lower, darker line, which is what we were told would happen, it's worse than what the Obama administration said would happen if we did nothing. The argument they're trying to make with their graphic is that the Recovery Act is what brought jobs back.
But if you look what the chart above shows, the logical conclusion is that the Recovery Act .... made it worse!!!!!!!!
Oh, sure, there are more jobs than there were before we hit rock bottom, but rock bottom was worse with the plan than it was projected to be with out, and way worse than it was projected to be with the plan, and it's still about 2 points higher than it was projected to be by this time without it.
So it was agreed ahead of time that whether we did something or not, we'd lose jobs to a certain point, and then gain them back. Not just by the "crazy right-wingers" -- by the Administration itself.
And now we're supposed to give the administration credit for what everyone agreed would happen anyway ... and it's not even that good!
You see in the chart the effects of the market trying to do its thing despite the monumental increase in debt we've taken on and the looming tax increases not to mention the extra economic drag of the Obamacare Tax Increase.
This is why the Rahm and his fellow Alinskyites said "Never let a crisis go to waste" at the beginning of the crisis triggered by the housing bubble bust. It's because it's cover. You can use the opportunity to do a whole lot of things you'd otherwise never get away with ... and when the inevitable turnaround comes, you can say it was your plan that did it -- and if it takes too long you just point at the previous guy and blame him.
Sorry -- not buying this desperate last-minute plea from the O Admin.
This guy said he'd cut the BUSH deficit in half by the end of his first term. The last deficit of Bush's term was just under $500B. A staggering addition of ~$4T over 8 years. Since Obama took over, the annual deficit almost tripled the first year to nearly 1.5T, and dropped to about 1.2T the next couple of years and ... so far projected at $.1T this year, still more than double Bush's worst year. This is not making excuse for Bush deficits, but as you can see what comes out of his mouth and what actually happens are incongruous. He's added to the debt an average of $1.5T a year compared to the $500B/2 = $250B a year he promised (by inference ... cut $500B in half).
Given that, and Anita Dunn's bragging about their ability to "control the message" and Mark Lloyd's concern for the same (learning, as he said, from Chavez's "incredible democratic revolution") given the opaque cover-up of Fast and Furious and the blatant ... I'll be kind and call it "misdirection" of what happened in Bengazi and the fact that the head of the BLS works for the same Administration ....
Yeah, I take anything that comes out of this Administration with about a 5 lb bag of salt, especially in an election year. Although, it really seems like the man has been campaigning non-stop since 2007. That could be just me. But I don't think it is.