A popular trope of the “Progressive” left is that Barry Hussein Soetoro Obama inherited a much worse economy than he knew.  Given that he declared the economy the “worst since the Great Depression” while campaigning it’s hard to reconcile his instant ignorance cum January 20, 2009.  And, his acolytes often parrot an argument John Hlinko made today on Sean Hannity’s syndicated radio program: “Bush’s economy lost 741,000 jobs in its last month, reported after Obama took office. At that rate, without Obama’s help, we’d be at 35% employment today.”

First, let’s dispense with after – as if it makes a difference to anyone but an Obama butt boy.  The Department of Labor, our Alma mater, reported the job loss for December 2008 on Friday, January 9, on schedule, period and before Barry became President.

Second, claiming an event on a longitudinal progression to be a trend is colossal statistical ignorance, or simply dishonest.  By that means one could conclude that the national temperature on January 20, 2009 was 41 degrees and absent Barry we wouldn’t be enjoying summer. But, we really are!

Mr. Obama early on allowed that if he didn’t turn around our economy, cut our deficit in half, lower unemployment levels to less than 6 percent and lower sea levels, his presidency would be – properly – a one term proposition.  Yup.

Hlinko then argued that “Most economists argued for a higher level of stimulus (as though $787 billion was too puny) and that Barry shouldn’t be held accountable for failure to restore America to its former greatness,” because the stimulus was so little.  So, Hlinko’s best argument is that Barry failed to heed the advice of “most economists” even when he had veto-free majorities in Congress, and he shouldn’t be held to account.  That begs the question: Why would we reelect a man-child who failed to heed good advice and now claims it was good advice – unheeded.

I’m reminded of the Menendez brothers:  Yes, we killed our parents, but don’t punish us, we’re orphans.