Unemployment 17% Higher Than Obama Team Projection

As many predicted, the "reasoning" the most massive government spending spree in the history of the United States of America is somewhat flawed. The Chicago Daily Observer:

"Back when the Obama administration was selling the “stimulus” spending spree, they released a chart projecting what unemployment would be with the “stimulus” spending and what it would be without the “stimulus” spending. Here’s that chart updated (the red dots) with unemployment figures for each month since the “stimulus” passed. [See below.]

Unemployment isn’t just worse than Obama said it would be with the stimulus. It’s even worse than he said it would be without the stimulus. Meaning Obama isn’t rescuing anything. He’s making things worse."

Sadly, "worse" is pretty darn bad. Long term unemployment numbers are at levels not seen since 1948.

The number of jobs over all is now down 6 million from the peak, while private-sector employment is off 6.3 million from the high.

There is happiness today that the number of jobs being lost is decreasing. But the long-term unemployment rate shows that there is still a major problem in finding employment for people.

Innocent Bystanders has overlaid these actual numbers on a chart created by the Obama administration that was intended to promote the massive "stimulus" spending plan.


(UPDATE: Chart including June is here.) I'm no economist, but I'll hazard a guess that if the goal is to "spread the wealth around," it might be helpful to have some wealth left to spread. When government creates an environment that is hostile to business, well, the result is obvious, no? Rob at Say Anything explains it this way (and reminds us who is at the helm):

And yes, it is Obama’s fault. Our labor and business markets are proactive, not reactive. With Obama promising big new taxes on businesses, big new taxes on investment, and big new regulations on pretty much everything in the country why in the world would we expect businesses and entrepreneurs to engage in the sort of expansion and investment necessary to create jobs and prosperity? Obama isn’t giving anyone any incentive to invest, expand and/or profit.

In short, someone has to pay for government expansion, and as we in Illinois know very well who that someone is. On May 27, Obama touted his first 100 days of economic stimulus:

Among other things, he said, the spending has saved or created roughly 150,000 jobs while providing sorely needed infrastructure repairs and fueling increased demand for businesses.

"But this is just the beginning," he said.

So jobs are down 6 million, minus 150,000 "saved and created". Someone tell me again, why is 150,000 is a good number? And "this is just the beginning," he says.

Yup, that's just what we're afraid of.