Josh Earnest Overshoots Job Creation by 200,000

The Obama administration lies about all economic numbers. And if it weren't for creative accounting, Obama would have been run out of DC by his Leftist zombies. Until Obama and his minions leave, who knows where the numbers will end up. All we know is the reported numbers will be stellar, since the Obama administration makes them up as they go along. The economic result, however will be miserable. Obama says he's created millions of jobs, as more people languish at home, tired of looking. Thus, in this latest White House presser, Josh Earnest is grilled over the manufacturing jobs numbers reported by them. FOX: "You were talking about the president, and the economy having created 900,000 manufacturing jobs...can you help me square the difference, I think we came up around 807." Earnest: "Yeah, I think what I said was near 900,000, I did overshoot the mark just a little bit, I was just working off of memory. I didn't have the numbers in front of me." Josh Earnest rounded up when giving statistics about manufacturing jobs. Way up! I understand. As I explained earlier, when you make up numbers, why bother to add them up, when you can round them up. Obama has a penchant for understating and overstating always to his benefit. In this quote, Obama overstates steel manufacturing, "This nostalgia about an era when everybody was working in manufacturing jobs, and you didn’t need a college degree, and you could go in and as long as you worked hard you could support a family and live a middle-class life -- that has been undermined far more by automation than it has been by outsourcing or the shift of jobs to ... low-wage countries," Obama said. "I mean, the steel industry is producing as much steel in the United States as it ever was. It’s just (that) it needs one-tenth of the workers that it used to." Yet, according to Politifact, Frank Giarratani, an economist at the University of Pittsburgh who specializes in the steel industry, provided us with numbers calculated by the U.S. Geological Survey for raw steel production. The data goes back to 1900. The high point came in 1973, when the United States produced 137 million metric tons of raw steel. By 2013, the most recent year available, that had fallen to 87 million metric tons -- a decline of more than one-third from 1973. That’s not even close to "as much" as the peak, which is what Obama said. "We do produce a lot of steel, but current production is far below the post-WWII peak," Giarratani said. Obama also projected what the debt would be under his watch. According to the Obama's 2009 budget, below would be the deficit, as well as the impact on the debt: Year Deficit Projected Actual 2010: $1.293 trillion $1,294 2011: $1.645 trillion $1,295 2012: $1.101 trillion $1,087 2013: $768 billion $ 679 The $679 billion represents the famous phrase, "If I haven't reduced the deficit by half in my first term..." He certainly did reduce Bush's war time deficit, something that anybody could have done. Bush was fiscally reckless, though some justify the increase spending due to the wars. Year Deficit Projected Actual 2014: $645 billion $ 485 2015: $607 billion $ 438 2016: $649 billion $ 587 2017: $627 billion 2018: $619 billion 2019: $681 billion 2020: $735 billion 2021: $774 billion Deficits each year, and you can see that the numbers began trending up after 2018. This likely takes into account the inability to hold down interest rates. Regardless, with deficits every year for the next 10 -- and no surpluses -- the nation’s accumulated debt will rise every year for the next decade. Here’s the rundown by year of the projections for publicly held debt every year: Year Public debt Actual 2010: $9.019 trillion 2011: $10.856 trillion 2012: $11.881 trillion 2013: $12,784 trillion 2014: $13,562 trillion 2015: $14.301 trillion 2016: $15.064 trillion $19.977 trillion 2017: $15.795 trillion 2018: $16.513 trillion 2019: $17.284 trillion 2020: $18.103 trillion 2021: $18.967 trillion Current debt: $19.977 trillion. Don't worry. You didn't miss it on Obama's projections. In fact, if we extrapolate Obama's chart, we wouldn't have hit $19.977 trillion until 2022 at the least. So he's quite a few years off. In short, Obama grossly missed the mark. Let's not forget Quantitative Easing. As Heritage explains, The Federal Reserve’s Recent Expansionary Policies Since 2007, the Fed has followed an expansionary monetary policy in an effort to stimulate economic growth.[2] One key part of this effort was to buy short-term Treasury securities through its open-market operations. Through these asset purchases, the Fed injects more money into the economy. These purchases, in other words, were supposed to boost economic activity because they add reserves to the commercial banking system, thus allowing banks to lend more money. Partly due to the ineffectiveness of these open-market operations in terms of unusually slow economic growth, the Fed instituted several rounds of additional securities purchases known as quantitative easing (QE). Under its QE policies, the Fed purchased longer-term securities in an effort to push longer-term interest rates down and, ultimately, further stimulate borrowing. The Fed engaged in three successive rounds of QE since 2008, and each had its own unique characteristics. Characteristics of Each QE QE1 (December 2008). In December 2008, the Fed started buying longer-term Treasury securities as well as the debt and the mortgage-backed securities (MBS) of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs).[3] The Fed announced it would purchase up to $100 billion of the GSEs’ debt and up to $500 billion of their MBS from both banks and the GSEs themselves. QE2 (November 2010). In November 2010, the Fed announced that it would purchase $75 billion per month of longer-termed Treasuries, for a total of $600 billion. These purchases were to be concentrated in Treasury securities with maturities of two to 10 years, though the Fed also intended to purchase some shorter-term and some longer-term securities. QE3 (September 2012). In September 2012, the Fed announced its third round of easing, now referred to as QE3. Under QE3, the Fed’s combined securities purchases (long-term Treasuries, GSE debt, and MBS) were increased to approximately $85 billion per month. Unlike its counterparts, QE3 was an open-ended commitment. Rather than commit to purchasing a fixed amount of securities by a certain date, the Fed declared that it would make purchases until it decided that the labor market had sufficiently improved. As of this writing, the Fed holds approximately $2.3 trillion in long-term Treasuries, and $1.7 trillion in GSE securities.[6] According to Richard Fisher, president of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, the Fed now holds more than 30 percent of the stock of outstanding MBS and nearly 25 percent of outstanding Treasuries.[7] All three rounds of the QEs, as well as the Fed’s “normal” open-market purchases, were supposed to increase economic activity through additional lending. Imagine pumping over a trillion dollars annually into an economy, and still not driving GDP over 3 percent for any year. Now that's unprecedented anywhere in the world! Heritage continues explaining Obama's problem, A large portion of these QE purchases, however, removed some of the riskiest assets—Fannie’s and Freddie’s debt and MBS—from commercial banks’ balance sheets. This fact has led some to argue that the Fed designed the QE programs as a way to bail out banks, not merely as a new form of expansionary monetary policy.[10] Regardless of the true intent, the QE programs have been so controversial because they effectively exchanged cash—created out of thin air—for bank assets that had dramatically declined in value. From the perspective of banks, the QEs could be judged a success because the purchases strengthened their financial position. Donald Trump now takes over. He knows this money sits in bank vaults (electronically speaking). Those funds await opportunities. I expect an economic explosion soon in America.

The Obama administration lies about all economic numbers. And if it weren’t for creative accounting, Obama would have been run out of DC by his Leftist zombies.

I understand. As I explained earlier, when you make up numbers, why bother to add them up, when you can round them up.