The Obama Administration: Sock and Buskin Meet Politics

Sock and Buskin may not sound familliar by name, but their image:

is known to most in the Western world. They were the names given to the two symbols of Greek theater: comedy and tragedy. They represent the ability of theater to hold two diametrically opposed entertainment schools, eliciting two opposed reactions from the crowd.

It reminds me alot of the Bi-polar nature of the current ruling presidency of the US. It isn't difficult to find the blatent contradictions in his presidency. In fact they have been covered time after time on ATS. Everything from championing closing Guantanimo Bay to arguing that it must remain open, deriding US involvement in foreign theaters of war then participating in numerous destablization attacks in Libya, Egypt, and Syria, It's not a tax John Q. Taxpayer, psst, it's a tax your honor. Etc.

There are some of the conflicting inner opinions, however, that require reading between the lines. A great example is the attitude the admin has taken towards unemployment and comparing it to their attitude towards insurance. Take this, for instance:
www.firstcoastnews.com...

"Created 7.2 million new jobs," said President Obama. "Strongest job growth in over a decade."

WOW! Uhm, wait though...
www.wsws.org...

Since 2008, the US has lost more than 5 million full-time jobs, but gained 3.1 million part-time jobs. In percentage terms, the number of part-time jobs has grown by nearly 14 percent since 2005.

So it would seem that almost half of those "7.2 Million" jobs are part-time and ammount to "under-employed" workers. OK... Obama is pleased with this and, in some ways, I can understand why. Clearly he accepts the idea that "something" is better than "nothing" and he's obviously proud of the under-employment numbers or he wouldn't be touting them, right?

Not so fast, here comes the president in his Buskin mask so prepare your tissues...
www.washingtonpost.com...

"One of the things health reform was designed to do was to help not only the uninsured but also the under-insured," Obama said. "And there are a number of Americans, fewer than 5 percent of Americans, who've got cut-rate plans that don't offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident.

Whoa! Back the fact up, Barack! You're talking now like "under-" is bad and I'm confused, man. Under-employment is growth, under-insured is atrophy, and under-resourced is where we're all going to be as you tout lower net paying jobs while endorsing higher cost mandates. Damn man, either you've got some serious acting chops at playing the town fool or it ain't no act!

In the end it looks like classic Greek theater... total tragedy for the masses and divine comedy for the aristocracy.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


You forgot a couple more. CNS: Unemployment Rate Down 0.5% in 56 Months Since Obama Became President

Over the last 56 months – since Barack Obama became president in January 2009 --unemployment has dropped 0.5%, from a rate of 7.8% in January 2009 down to 7.3% in August 2013, according to the latest numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

This is a real crock. Here are the actual figures: Alternate Unemployment Charts: The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. The TRUE number has climbed from ~12% at the end of Bush- (The Shrub) to 22% at the beginning of Obama to ~24% now.

What actually happened:

Employment and Unemployment August 24th, 2004 "GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC REPORTS: THINGS YOU'VE SUSPECTED BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK!"

Up until the Clinton administration, a discouraged worker was one who was willing, able and ready to work but had given up looking because there were no jobs to be had. The Clinton administration dismissed to the non-reporting netherworld about five million discouraged workers who had been so categorized for more than a year. As of July 2004, the less-than-a-year discouraged workers total 504,000. Adding in the netherworld takes the unemployment rate up to about 12.5%.

Note the date August 2004. So what Happened in 2005?

The World Trade Organization
WORLD TRADE REPORT
2005 C

LINK

The rats got rid of the comment in the preface that the USA would lose X million jobs and that was not cause for concern to the international corporations. However you can still find some of the information in the body of the report.

.OFFSHORING: MORE FEARS AND HOPES THAN FACTS?

...What about the developed countries? Notwithstanding the public concern alluded to above, most studies
conclude that the repercussions of service offshoring in high income countries are mixed, but positive overall. Productivity and profits are expected to rise, and the “loss” of offshored jobs should be compensated by increased employment and perhaps higher wages in the medium-term...

...a large spectrum of IT jobs could from now on be provided at far lower costs from low-income countries to firms and consumers in high income countries. These opportunities ranged from low-skilled jobs, such as data entry typists and phone operators in call centers, to high skilled jobs, such as software developers. Forrester Research (2002) describes nine services occupation categories subject to potential offshoring, which combined represent 44 per cent of total US employment in 2002 according to Kirkegaard (2004a). Van Welsum and Vickery (2005) reported that in 2003, the occupations potentially affected by offshoring represented 19.2 per cent of total employment in the EU, 18.6 per cent in Canada and 18.1 per cent in the United States (2002).

In the 1990s, a large number of multinational firms had already partially shifted the work of certain back office supply jobs (such as payroll, invoicing and accounting) to countries where they could be provided at lower cost. However, with the arrival of broad bandwidth lines at low costs and the increased digitization of information in all sectors (in particular services), the attraction of a significant cost reduction in the production of goods and/or services was becoming irresistible for any firm in a competitive environment....

Most of the reports focused on jobs in the United States and the United Kingdom that were threatened with relocation to India. This new development was often likened to the offshoring of manufacturing jobs to Mexico and China in the recent past....

A spectacular rise occurred in such reports during the course of 2003 and through the first quarter of 2004. There were 2,634 reports in US newspapers on services outsourcing activities in the first five months of 2004. Most of the reports caught media attention because of their projections of the (cumulative) number of jobs that would be lost in the United States due to the relocation of jobs to low cost locations over the next five or ten years.

I think that is a sufficient explanation of why Clinton changed unemployment reporting after pushing through The Bush's initial try at ratifying WTO and following it with a concerted campaign to get China into the WTO and giving China a Most Favored Nation Status.