If Job Numbers Don't Improve Obama Can Kiss the 2012 Election Goodbye

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The following article first appeared in The Nation magazine.

The big story out of Washington—and rightly so—is the debt-ceiling fight that President Obama seems to be coming very close to losing. If the president abandons his 2008 campaigvn promise to be an absolute defender of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, he will have very little indeed to run on in 2012.

But that won't be what beats him.

Because the biggest story in America is a different one from the biggest story in Washington. Americans are not that into the debt-ceiling debate. Polling has suggested that less than a quarter of Americans are "closely following" the fight. Those numbers will rise a bit as the deadline gets closer and as the media hypes the issue.

The issue that Americans have been following closely, and will continue to follow straight through the 2012 election cycle, the issue that tops the polls on the list of concerns, is the jobs crisis. Americans are worried about unemployment and underemployment.

And on Friday they got a lot more worried.

The Los Angeles Times headline was stark: "Dismal Jobs Report Shows Unemployment Rising to 9.2%."

The New York Times headline was, if anything, bleaker: "Job Growth Falters Badly, Clouding Hopes for Recovery."

The 9.2 percent official unemployment rate—up from 9.0 percent two months ago and 9.1 percent a month ago—is only a pale shadow of the real rate. Categorized in official terms as the "U6" unemployment, the real rate includes the offically unemployed as well as Americans who are underemployed and those who have given up on the search for work. It stands at more than 16 percent nationally. And in depressed states, such as Michigan (which Obama carried handily in 2008 but where is approval ratings are now troublingly low), it is well over 20 percent.

The official and the real unemployment rates are devastating. These numbers are some of the worst since the Great Depression. But they are not getting the response that high unemployment rates got from Democrats in the Depression era of other periods of economic downtown in the years since.

President Obama and his team have never focused on job issues with the intensity that is needed. And now they are simply being ridiculous.

David Plouffe, the president's political czar, said on the eve of the release of Friday's dismal jobs numbers that he does not believe that the high unemployment rate poses a threat to President Obama's 2012 reelection campaign.

Speaking to reporters this week, Plouffe said, “The average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers. People won’t vote based on the unemployment rate, they’re going to vote based on: ‘How do I feel about my own situation? Do I believe the president makes decisions based on me and my family?’ ”

The almost 10 percent of Americans who are officially unemployed probably don’t feel all that great about their situation. The same goes for the the tens of millions of additional Americans who are underemployed or who have fallen off official radar because they have given up on the search for work in communities where there are simply no jobs to be had.

The unemployed, the underemployed and the abandoned add up to almost one in five Americans. And an awfully lot of them live in battleground states such as Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania —all of which President Obama won in 2008, all of which President Obama needs to win in 2012.

Now, let’s be clear, no one in their right mind thinks that Republicans who would be president are any more concerned about jobless Americans than is the Obama administration.

But neglecting unemployment as an issue—or presuming, as Plouffe does, that Americans will give Obama the benefit of the doubt—is political madness.

When unemployment reaches the level that it has nationally, and the even higher levels that it has in battleground states, potential Obama voters start losing faith that "the president makes decisions based on me and my family."

Some of the disappointed may still vote for Obama out of fear of the Republicans, some will find social issues that draw them to the Republicans, but millions will simply stay home —as they did in 2010.

That's the danger heading into the 2012 race, and it is more profound today that at any time in Barack Obama's presidency.

Obama is toying with the notion of running for reelection as the president who did what George Bush could not: cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

That calculus suggests that Obama and his team really are out of touch with the electoral dynamic.

But that is not the most politically tone deaf scheme to come out of the president's camp this week.

While the president's apparent willingness to take the best argument available to Democrats going into the 2012 election cycle—the promise that they will defend Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security—suggests that Obama learned nothing from the Democratic party's devastating electoral experience in 2010, his top political aide's statements with regard to unemployment suggest that his team has learned even less.

No president since Franklin Roosevelt has won reelection when the unemployment rate was over 7 percent. And Roosevelt won because he ran as a candidate who was fully willing to use the power of the federal government to create jobs —and programs like Social Security.

The notion that a Democratic president can win reelection with an unemployment rate that is edging upward—perhaps toward double digits—and talk of cutting Social Security is not merely unrealistic. It is evidence of a disconnect that could devastate not just Obama's reelection campaign in 2012 but Democratic prospects for years to come.

John Nichols is The Nation's Washington correspondent.

[luckytxn 2,264]

It's the economy stupid

Bill Clinton

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's the economy stupid

Bill Clinton

You think the RWN's understand that?

[luckytxn 2,264]

You think the RWN's understand that?

Yes I think they do as I also think the Socialists do. Clinton beat Bush by using this mantra. Obama the Socialist can't use it as he is the one running for reelection.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yes I think they do as I also think the Socialists do. Clinton beat Bush by using this mantra. Obama the Socialist can't use it as he is the one running for reelection.

Bush proved cutting taxes doesn't work, yet the GOP leaders insist that's what we do to create jobs. So what's the real solution?

[luckytxn 2,264]

Bush proved cutting taxes doesn't work, yet the GOP leaders insist that's what we do to create jobs. So what's the real solution?

Bush Sr. after promising to "read my lips, no new taxes" proceeded to then sign the largest tax increase in history up to that time. The economy not long afterwards faltered setting the stage for Bill Clinton. Bush Jr. signed a huge tax decrease and the economy took off with record increases in tax revenue that ensued. So knowing this, tell me what happened to crash the economy? Was it the increasing record tax revenue? Was it the increasing and record deficits?

Also for giggles tell us how spending huge record amounts of money is solving things. Also how and why is it necessary for the Feds to step in and make defaulting companies and homeowners whole a good thing. You are good at putting this ####### on here constantly but little feedback at all. I am not sure if you are just trying to get the big hearts or enjoy tossing this stuff in here for fun.

For sure propping up failures does ensure that some jobs are safe and shareholders do not lose much does sound noble but the problems still persist. There were recessions before the great depression happened but they didn't allow the needed corrections beforehand and they built up till we got the economic free fall that led to the depression. (land values and speculation also triggered the collapse back then) If we are going to allow the Federal reserve to intervene then we are always going to see history repeat itself. This was foretold and I will assure you it will happen again in the future when the memories dim. Maybe sooner since the Feds are so intent on trying to do the opposite than what needs done.

[luckytxn 2,264]

I forgot to add that us going to using complete fiat money is the root to all of this. I do know that we will keep on that path. People can't comprehend us not doing so. At the very least anyway we can see history repeat itself again by us being able to repay the debt with ever cheaper dollars. History showed France was not too happy when Germany paid her war reparations back to them with pretty much worthless money. The German people suffered greatly though by this and I hope we don't suffer near that much.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Bush Jr. signed a huge tax decrease and the economy took off with record increases in tax revenue that ensued.

Nice fairy tale. Now how about we talk about the facts...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You think the RWN's understand that?

Of course they do. This is why they do all they can to sabotage the recovery. Remember, their #1 goal is to defeat Obama in 2012. If the country needs to suffer for that to happen, that's a price their willing to pay.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Bush proved cutting taxes doesn't work, yet the GOP leaders insist that's what we do to create jobs. So what's the real solution?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[luckytxn 2,264]

Here's something else you might not remember about the Bush tax cuts. Congress thought it would be a good idea to phase these tax cuts in over several years. Didn't work. The economy continued to shed jobs, so the Congress decided to let the tax cuts take effect immediately, and threw in a cut in capital gains and dividends to boot. It worked. Eight million jobs were created and tax revenues increased.

Did you catch that? Tax revenues increased after a tax cut. Democrats just hate this, but increased revenues are the norm after tax cuts. Why? Because tax cuts spur economic growth. The CBO said that the Bush tax cuts would lower 2006 revenues by $75 billion. Oops! Wrong again! Revenues actually increased by $47 billion. What about jobs? In the 18 months before the Bush tax cuts our economy lost 267,000 jobs. In the 18 months following the cuts it added over 300,000 jobs. In the next 19 months another 5 million jobs were added. [Atlanta Journal Constitution, 6/24/11]

[웃 910]

Here's something else you might not remember about the Bush tax cuts. Congress thought it would be a good idea to phase these tax cuts in over several years. Didn't work. The economy continued to shed jobs, so the Congress decided to let the tax cuts take effect immediately, and threw in a cut in capital gains and dividends to boot. It worked. Eight million jobs were created and tax revenues increased.

Did you catch that? Tax revenues increased after a tax cut. Democrats just hate this, but increased revenues are the norm after tax cuts. Why? Because tax cuts spur economic growth. The CBO said that the Bush tax cuts would lower 2006 revenues by $75 billion. Oops! Wrong again! Revenues actually increased by $47 billion. What about jobs? In the 18 months before the Bush tax cuts our economy lost 267,000 jobs. In the 18 months following the cuts it added over 300,000 jobs. In the next 19 months another 5 million jobs were added. [Atlanta Journal Constitution, 6/24/11]

LOWER TAXES = EXPONENTIALLY INCREASING FEDERAL DEBT

Explain this:

And so, just by looking at the previous chart, you can see why this chart is the way it is:

Edited July 12, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[luckytxn 2,264]

LOWER TAXES = EXPONENTIALLY INCREASING FEDERAL DEBT

Explain this:

And so, just by looking at the previous chart, you can see why this chart is the way it is:

Easy to explain. When we spend way more than we take in we get a dampening effect. Historically when we take in even more revenue we spend even more. The best way out.

Stop spending so much money

[웃 910]

Easy to explain. When we spend way more than we take in we get a dampening effect. Historically when we take in even more revenue we spend even more. The best way out.

Stop spending so much money

The opposite of spending money is receiving money....So technically more tax revenue = less spending.....Oh, I forgot, you believe tax cuts = more tax revenue. How does that work again?

Edited July 12, 2011 by Lord Infamous