Remember Obama’s Go To Answer For Everything: “It’s Bush’s Fault!”?

You wait long enough, the TRUTH comes out. The TRUTH just slams through the lies and misinformation of the PREGRESSIVE Left.


Their conclusion? Unemployment remained high because the federal government (all branches controlled by the Democrats) kept extending unemployment benefits – “In particular, our estimates imply that unemployment benefit extensions can account for most of the persistently high unemployment after the Great Recession.”

The left would attack anyone who opposed the extensions. The left said that unemployment payments was the best stimulus for local economies. The report said that continued high unemployment offset any small benefits to the local economy.

“Our results of a sizeable macro effect leads us to expect that the stimulative effect of higher spending by the unemployed is largely offset by the dramatic negative effect on employment from the general equilibrium effect of benefit expansion on vacancy creation.”

Again, extended unemployment benefits kept many out of employment. Extended UNEMPLOYMENT is not “BUSH’S FAULT”, but the fault of the left. That is the reason they lost the House in 2010.

One waits long enough and the TRUTH WE ALREADY KNEW comes out. Obame’s policies are a failure….. and the fact that many are RUNNING away from Obame, his failures and his policies, during their re-election campaigns, is proof.

11 thoughts on “Remember Obama’s Go To Answer For Everything: “It’s Bush’s Fault!”?

  1. Amazona November 1, 2014 / 10:13 am

    Great post.

    The comment “the stimulative effect of higher spending by the unemployed is largely offset by the dramatic negative effect on employment from the general equilibrium effect of benefit expansion on vacancy creation” is a little cluttered, but boiled down it says that “benefit expansion” has a “dramatic negative effect on employment” due to what the wonks describe as a “general equilibrium effect”, which means that it creates an imbalance.

    It would have been easy to say the same thing without the effort to make it sound more intellectual and complicated, but the message is the same: Expanding benefits upset the equilibrium of the employment market, having a dramatically negative effect on job vacancy creation.

    A similar report could be written on the dramatically negative effect on job vacancy creation caused by the arbitrary tying of wages not to the value of the work being done but to an unrelated political maneuver.

    In the meantime, I like the term “general equilibrium effect” and wish I had had it in my vocabulary back in the days when, every now and then, I would overindulge in adult beverages. “I have NOT had too much to drink! I am merely experiencing a general equilibrium effect.”

  2. The Political Comm.. (@ThePoliticalCom) November 1, 2014 / 11:21 am

    Obama’s Iran Plan Makes Tuesday’s Vote A Critical Global Event!

    If Obama’s plan to make a deal with Iran in his 2nd-term is true, then the mid-term election on Tuesday takes on even greater significance in terms of the safety of the world!

    Read more at The Political Commentator here:

    And Get Your Friends, Family and Co-Workers Out As Well Because We Have All Learned The Hard Way That Elections Have Consequences!

  3. Retired Spook November 1, 2014 / 12:54 pm

    There was a news story a few months ago that I thought I had bookmarked but apparently not, about one of the countries in the EU that had increased unemployment benefits out to, I think, 3 years. Finally they decided they couldn’t afford to do that anymore, and they cut it to 2 years. Immediately (and miraculously) a significant percentage of the unemployed that were cut off found jobs. So they cut it again to 1 year, and, wonder of wonders, many of those whose benefits were cut off also found jobs.

    • dbschmidt November 1, 2014 / 2:41 pm


      I know what you mean because I remember the same type of issue from years past. It was other countries, like Denmark, who cut the number of years of benefits—lo and behold, people got jobs that much earlier. 5 years of unemployment and people “found” jobs after 4 years and 11 months of unemployment. Revisions in the number of years of unemployment benefits showed the same results adjusted to the number of years allowed.

      Try to search for it now and you get nothing more than “ThinkProgress” crap about NC and what we went through. I was in the middle of it. I was unemployed at the time. Mine was due to a layoff and hip replacement surgeries. At the same time, thanks to Obamanomics, companies were not hiring at my skill set level. Let’s just say it is not “You want fries with that” level.

      At the time—it was looking like Obama’s dream of a two jobs at less than 35 hours a week plan was the model ~ so I went towards other skills of mine and applied at every auto parts, radio shack, and big-box home store that was in the neighborhood figuring on 2 x 35 hours jobs. I got almost 100% callback because they were looking and in face-to-face interviews (2nd round) I was dismissed as a candidate because of their fear of me taking a nearly 80% pay cut and they felt I would be looking elsewhere if the economy ever picked up.

      Long story somewhat shorter—it wasn’t the lack of opportunities. It was the lack of anyone willing to work for well above minimum wage or having the skill set required. I see and have lived through these folks with their fancy union signs wanting $15 an hour wages and I ask myself (or yell at the TV—readers choice) what skill set do they have to request that amount? Why not $50 / hour—it would make them so much better off.

      Then I remember that it is not the corporate world’s position, nor requirement, to create jobs. But the lo-info would never understand. They listen to the Hila-beast would claims that , in fact, corporations do not create jobs. I think I will leave it at that.

      • M. Noonan November 1, 2014 / 10:11 pm

        It simply must be understood. Here in Nevada, for instance: minimum wage, $8.25 per hour or $328.00 per week. Very often, a person on unemployment can get $400.00 per week. Factor in the cost of going to work (lunch, transportation, the hassle of actually getting out of bed in the morning, etc) and there’s no reason for anyone to go to work while on unemployment unless the job pays at least $600.00 a week. This is why unemployment benefits should be set at 80% of the minimum wage – to give an incentive to take the first reasonable opportunity which comes along.

      • tiredoflibbs November 2, 2014 / 12:59 pm

        But Mark, you do know that the only solution to that predicament is to raise the minimum wage.

      • Retired Spook November 2, 2014 / 1:46 pm


        What’s kind of funny, in a pathetic sort of way, is the Left’s efforts to not only make people believe that increases in the minimum wage don’t have a negative effect on jobs, but that, as Maryland Senator Ben Cardin said on Fox News Sunday this morning, increasing the minimum wage actually increases employment. I think I actually saw his nose grow, but Chris Wallace just let it slide. Just once it would be refreshing to see a reporter actually call out someone when they tell a whopper.

  4. Amazona November 2, 2014 / 3:23 pm

    Just got this from a friend:

    Watch to the end.

    • dbschmidt November 2, 2014 / 4:41 pm

      Responsibility requires commitment ~ neither of which our current PoTUS possesses.

      • Amazona November 2, 2014 / 7:59 pm

        He wants authority without responsibility, and that never works.

    • tiredoflibbs November 3, 2014 / 6:45 am

      Typical, the Praetorian media just lets that “answer” slide. It is shameful, considering what the media and the left did with the “Mission Accomplished” banner. Oh wait, that was Bush’s fault too.

Comments are closed.