Obama blames Europe, energy prices for slow U.S. job growth

Obama worried about the pathetic U.S. jobs situation? Heh, no. He is busy having six campaign fundraisers today. That is more important to him.

RR

While ever a nation consumes more than it produces there will always be a bad outcome. You have seen nothing yet.

Obama in 2009 promoting his 800 billion dollar stimulus plan.

I want to start by thanking the folks here at Cardinal Fastener for the tour you just gave me. The story of this company - which began building wind turbine parts just two years ago, and is now poised to make half its earnings that way - is that a renewable energy economy isn't some pie-in-the-sky, far-off future. It's happening all across America right now. It's providing alternatives to foreign oil now. It can create millions of additional jobs and entire new industries if we act right now.

Cardinal Fastener Company three years later.

Cardinal Fastener & Specialty Co., the Bedford Heights bolt-maker that became a supplier to the U.S. and European wind turbine industry in 2007, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy Thursday and suspended operations.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/obama_promotes_stimulus_plan_i.html

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2011/06/cardinal_fastener_files_for_ch.html

@bigguy

52 states? What happened? Did they finally annex Guam and England?

Got tired of blaming Bush, I guess. Have to blame the lesser solvent nations of EU, commonly known as PIIGS (an acronym frequently used in mainstream media in reference to:Portugal,Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain) in contrast to BRIC(Brazil, India, and China).

@Laguna You are wrong.

There is no recovery under president Obama. That charts does not indicate any sort of recovery when you take the policies of Ben Bernanke into consideration. As the Austrian Economist explains here in the Bernanke Bust http://mises.org/daily/6054/The-Bernanke-Bust Also, when regulation increase then federal workers increase as well. The trend in federal spending is always up, so each succeeding president always spends more then the previous. http://mises.org/daily/6030/The-Crisis-of-Interventionism

Also, Obama has a history of blaming others for his failures. It has always been the following at fault for him. 1)George Bush, 2)Oil companies, 3) Insurance companies, 4)Free-markets/Capitalism, 5)Europe 6)Fox News, 7)Republicans and 8)The "greedy" market Speculator.

When ever an individual blames all his problems and failures on others then it is a sure sign of a spoiled brat with an extremely stubborn mentality that refuses to learn from his mistakes and failures. People like that are most dangerous to have as leaders as they "know" that they can't do no wrong.

look for a slew of even more absurd stories from the lapdog media trying to justify and even explain away the massive failure this president has been.

in addition to the silly articles these last few years about 'fun-employment' (geddit?) another summer in the obama economy will mean more articles about what fun it is to forget summer travel and just have a 'stay-cation.'

The One. With his laser focus on jobs. Four years running on change and still blaming everyone else. LMAO!

Of course it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the millions of "shovel-ready" jobs that failed to materialize from the signature stimulus packages and loan guarantees, all on the public dime.

Laguna,

: Public sector employment is now down 608,000 workers since January 2009, a 2.7 percent decline. At the same point in Bush’s term, public sector employment was up 3.7 percent. See the numbers here: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/01/493849/obama-bush-jobs-record/?mobile=nc

Your left wing progressive site left out a few salient facts. The decline is for public sector jobs at the state and local level, not Federal. Almost all states have an amendment to their constitutions requiring the Governor to balanced the budget. States and local municipalities have had to cut back on a bloated private sector that actually could be sort of supported when times where good (Bush most of his term) to having to cut back when times are bad and a washed in debt (Obama). Or they could raise taxes and continue to go bankrupt and insolvent like California who just keeps bleeding jobs out of the State.

Also, talking about "shovel-ready" jobs: much of the stimulus went as grants to the states; the losses of school teachers, fire fighters, and police officers would have been much greater without it. Now that the stimulus has run its course, state finances are growing more dire, leading to more layoffs. That may well be what Republicans want: a cratering of employment just prior to the election.

I've always maintained that the 'stimulus' was more like a 'sedative'. It doesn't actually help you in the long run, it just dulls the pain. The only differene is that the jobs we would have lost yesterday we'll instead be losing tomorrow. Instead of taking an ugly body blow and making the hard but necessary sacrifices to a more prosperous future we're plagued by years of mediocrity under the guise of recovery and we have to keep shooting up with stimulus and 'quantitative easing' to keep the act going.

I think the republicans will offer more of the same but to tout the idea as any kind of solution, or even a step towards a solution, is not sound. Nothing substantive has been done to improve the ability of people or businesses to work and thrive in this country for over two decades. Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Romney are all slightly different angles on the same picture. Larger influence of federal government, stronger limits on the authority of state governments, and the erosion of US civil liberties.

Welcome to the start of our third consecutive "Recovery Summer". Only now, the europeons are the reason for our economic woes. Hey, it's gotta be true because Obama sez so.

RR

Continually blaming others for one's woes is incompetent and untrustworthy leadership.

RR, indeed it must be so as Obama and his minions create the statistics to prove it.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned ies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli

@Thunderbird2

And lucabrasi (and other Americans, etc) please stop calling the UK England... it offends those of us from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

I hope that the Mods will allow me to reply politely, given that thay allowed your original comment.

Two points:

1) I was born in Worcester. I was raised in Shetland and Lancashire. The closest I've ever been to the United States is Quito, in Ecuador.

2) When I said "England", I was referring to the country which lies south of Scotland and east of Wales. My home. "The UK" is something else entirely.

Having said which, I completely understand why a person from Scotland/ Wales/ Ulster might feel a bit paranoid regarding this issue. Peace :)

Typical Obama, blame someone else.

It was the whole world outside the 52 states has caused all the woes and hardships now America is having!

Speaking of the jobs report (which for some strange reason this article actually felt they should leave out the actual report numbers....... they're that bad for Obama that even the media could not try and spin it in his favor so let's just leave it out altogether) it was actually this below, and the previous two months were also more more horrible than originally thought.

U.S. employers created only 69,000 jobs in May, the fewest in a year, and the unemployment rate ticked up.

The Labor Department also said Friday that the economy created far fewer jobs in the previous two months than first thought. It revised those figures down to show 49,000 fewer jobs created. The unemployment rate rose to 8.2 percent from 8.1 percent in April, the first increase in 11 months.

Hardly unexpected... he failed, he has an election to fight so he blames everyone else except himself. Muppet!

And lucabrasi (and other Americans, etc) please stop calling the UK England... it offends those of us from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Did they finally annex Guam and England?

Perhaps this link will work:

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-25/markets/31396583_1_uk-line-national-debt-eurozone

It is pretty. Perhaps it explains the economic expansion in the United States after the Great Depression,

Economic expansion occurred after the great depression when Govt spending started to collapse. It's important to point out that the rest of the world was not suffering a great depression but instead a depression. In fact it was known as the depression in the U.S, only after Govt spending via New Deal policies of FDR did it turn into the great depression. http://mises.org/daily/3515 http://mises.org/daily/2845 . Of course the depression DID in fact begin because of Govt policy through the FED and as always is the case Govt will intervene to regulate or "fix" passed errors by setting in motion new errors. http://mises.org/daily/3788

Laguna, the clap-trap that WWII ended the Great Depression is a myth that you've been force-fed as unquestionable truth, but is nonetheless false.

http://m.yahoo.com/w/legobpengine/news/no-paul-krugman-wwii-did-not-end-great-192801096.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=US&.lang=en-US

The sky is blue, and 2+2=4.

how elusive that keynesian 'multiplier' remains, eh laguna.

Laguna@09:43PM

Sorry, but your post is utter nonsense.

First, global markets are tied to the U.S. economy. It is the largest and the dollar is the reserve currency. Compare the dollar exchange rate of any international currency between 2008 and today.

Second, WTO has to do with trade, not fiscal or monetary policy.

Third, the EU problems are of their own making. Their socialistic policies of the past 40 years have bled them white and now they are out of money and mired in debt.

Finally, our employment problems are due to Obama Administration policies: keynesian stimulus, Obamacare, EPA, green energy, energy industry obstruction and more. The EU had no say in any of that.

Try again.

RR

Bill Clinton had it right when he said that the focus should not be on how Romney made his millions but on what Romney plans for the American economy:

I think the real issue ought to be, what has Gov. Romney advocated in the campaign that he will do as president? What has President Obama done and what does he propose to do? How do these things stack up against each other?

It is very likely that a President Romney would be quite beholden to whichever group of Republicans (traditionalists or Tea Partiers) hold the House - and the latter is the best bet. This is because a President Romney would have been elected with only grudging, suspicious support from this group, and he would have to do everything in his power to prove his faithfulness to them in order to prevent a nomination challenge in 2016. (He's quite good at doing what is expedient, so there's no reason to feel personally sorry for the guy.) Thus, for a view of what a Romney economic policy would look like, pay attention to Paul Rand.

Regarding the disappointing jobs report, it is disingenuous to criticize Obama for attributing blame to the financial storms sweeping Europe - and this is so because similar storms would be sweeping the US if the "Austrian Economics"-loving House Republicans had had their way. It is not that Obama has overseen a massive expansion of government, despite what many would have you believe: Public sector employment is now down 608,000 workers since January 2009, a 2.7 percent decline. At the same point in Bush’s term, public sector employment was up 3.7 percent. See the numbers here: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/01/493849/obama-bush-jobs-record/?mobile=nc

Watching Romney try to edge away from austerity is painfully comical; he's like a dog who is unsure how far he can go before his owner yanks him back in line. Perhaps in his heart, he'd like to be a slightly more conservative shade of Obama, easier on the regulations and reliably generous towards upper-bracket tax cuts, but his overseers will make that impossible. We'll see if austerity is a good sell after its complete failure in Europe.

Sail, nevermind the whole truth, when half-truths will do.

Sailwind, the number of Federal employees during Obama's presidency fell 1.3 percent in 2011 although it is up 1.3 percent for the entirety of his term - in essence, it has been flat. In fact, non-government payrolls added 82,000 in jobs; the 69,000 number cited includes balancing out the 13,000 public-sector jobs that were lost during the same period. The Obama administration has turned out to be anything but a big-government one.

Also, talking about "shovel-ready" jobs: much of the stimulus went as grants to the states; the losses of school teachers, fire fighters, and police officers would have been much greater without it. Now that the stimulus has run its course, state finances are growing more dire, leading to more layoffs. That may well be what Republicans want: a cratering of employment just prior to the election.

Most any European country would prefer the "failure” Obama to any of their leaders, Thunderbird2 - including Great Britain. The UK cannot blame their recession on being tied to the common currency, as is the case of Greece; no, the UK and the US are actually very similar in economic terms. Yet the US has out-performed the UK significantly during Obama's term. You can see the chart here: < http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-25/markets/31396583_1_uk-line-national-debt-eurozone>

Thanks, AiserX! It is often interesting to hear from those inhabiting alternative realities. The first sentence of the article you cited:

To Austrians, all economic "booms" founded on monetary largesse always end in economic busts, roughly equal in size and intensity to the preceding booms.

"Monetary largesse?" That's a pretty phrase! I assume you understand what it means - perhaps an expansion of the money supply; perhaps an expansion of public debt - well, whatever. It is pretty. Perhaps it explains the economic expansion in the United States after the Great Depression, which was finally reversed by federal intervention in the form of WWII. I'm not sure if that counts as "monetary largesse," but considering the extent of government involvement at that time, certainly "monetary largesse" must have been a factor. How did that turn out?