Previous post:

Next post:

Obama Schedule || Thursday, January 5, 2012

by Keith Koffler on January 4, 2012, 9:38 pm

10:00 am || Receives the Presidential Daily Briefing
10:50 am || Delivers remarks on the Defense Strategic Review; The Pentagon
3:30 pm || Meets with Treasury Secretary Geithner

All times Eastern
Carney briefing TBD


Granny Jan/Janice January 4, 2012 at 9:47 pm

From Obama’s taxpayer funded Ohio “campaign” event. The nonpartisan audience booed loudly:

And we know what would happen if Republicans in Congress were allowed to keep holding Richard’s nomination hostage. More of our loved ones would be tricked into making bad financial decisions. More dishonest lenders could take advantage of some of the most vulnerable families. And the vast majority of financial firms who do the right thing would be undercut by those who don’t.

Granny Jan/Janice January 4, 2012 at 10:14 pm
Susan January 5, 2012 at 8:48 am

He sounds like Hugo Chavez with his loyal pet seals clapping for their own demise.

Star January 5, 2012 at 11:07 am

Our loved ones would be TRICKED…really…aw…

Knothead January 4, 2012 at 10:10 pm

Tax Cheat Timmy in the House!
Oh my, what are those two crazy guys up to?

Star January 5, 2012 at 11:08 am

Yeah–when Bernanke and Geithner are quiet too long, it’s like a toddler or dog in another room doing something you won’t like.

Knothead January 5, 2012 at 11:09 pm

Correct, like the kid and the dog both taking a poop on your new carpet in the family room @ a cost of over $1 trillion dollar plus labor!

jnfr January 4, 2012 at 10:57 pm

Maybe if our “loved ones” got a basic (honest) education in finance and economics (and also read the contract they sign) they wouldn’t get duped into bad financial decisions… just a thought.

Granny Jan/Janice January 4, 2012 at 11:15 pm

The elderly couple he was referring to today and with whom he visited got scammed if you believe the story he told today. There are already laws against that. They never lost their house although he said they almost did. I doubt that. I’m sure WaPo’s factchecker will be on it.

Lizzy January 5, 2012 at 9:35 am

I don’t even believe he meets real people I think they are as phony as
styrofoam columns:)

Star January 5, 2012 at 11:09 am

It was some skeevy broker–not a bank–from what I heard. Like con men and creeps just appeared and require some big bureau or something.

langley barfly January 5, 2012 at 7:44 am

Today’s pathetic, shameful “Politicans” (Rep/Dem) NEED!!! a basic education in Finance & Economics…

qestout January 4, 2012 at 11:10 pm

A Presidential briefing is less than an hour?

Granny Jan/Janice January 4, 2012 at 11:17 pm

Keith could correct me but I think they are brief :)

cindylu January 4, 2012 at 11:39 pm

does the pres briefing even exist or it just a mark on the schedule?

ok maybe it’s like

“hey obama this country is tanking”

o-”i cant deal with it-get out my pen and my executive order form letter-boehner will roll over along with congress and the media, game ON !

LOL what a bunch of jerks!

btw how long until my next vacation? it’s cold here”

Suzie January 5, 2012 at 4:07 am

Just speechless….please come back to Hawaii and relax. Wake me up the day before the elections. Mahalo:)

Star January 5, 2012 at 11:11 am

Oh, no, Suzie–no way. If we are suffering through every day, so are you!

Suzie January 5, 2012 at 1:08 pm


Old Timer January 5, 2012 at 5:22 am

He has a staff of people who reads his mail. He receives 20,000 letters a day. His people pick out 10 letters for him to read. Half are positive and half are negative. I wonder if he reads them before or after the Security Briefing.

PS I have not seen “Lunch with Joe” on the schedule recently.

Car in January 5, 2012 at 6:18 am

Ha ha ha … well, look for a lunch soon then.

Star January 5, 2012 at 11:18 am

Maybe a beer summit if we’re very very good?

Car in January 5, 2012 at 6:18 am

Anything good on ESPN today? That could account for the empty space in his schedule.

BTW, I think if we go back and check the records, it will show that I was right about the number of times he went golfing in Hawaii.


Of course, if he hadn’t missed a week of the holiday, I’m sure he would have more than doubled his golf outings. He was pressed for time, though. Poor thing.

Granny Jan/Janice January 5, 2012 at 8:50 am

Golf? He was busy posing shirtless on the beach in Hawaii. 121 photos. You can tell it really is an election year. Yes, that’s Bobby Titcomb frollicking with him.

Susan January 5, 2012 at 9:08 am

Granny Jan, Did you see the picture of him from his Iowa video conference on Drudge? He looks like a oompa loompa and his make-up artist definitely over-powdered his hair…

Granny Jan/Janice January 5, 2012 at 9:37 am

I saw the CBS clip. I know he’s toast but he actually looked like toast.

qestout January 5, 2012 at 10:01 am

Too funny!

Star January 5, 2012 at 11:13 am

Oompa loompa–you made me laff.

Star January 5, 2012 at 11:17 am

I went to those pictures and now you owe me, Granny. Ew. The glistening pecs again…Way more of a president than I need to see or want to see.

One Mad Woman January 5, 2012 at 8:07 am

Geithner is still there? He’s been far too quiet if he is.

Susan January 5, 2012 at 8:39 am

Oh yes, he’s still there…busily cooking the books and “borrowing” from pension plans to keep the behemoth going until Obama scares our wimpy congress into raising the debt limit again.

girly1 January 5, 2012 at 9:08 am

121 photos and all I can say is…’.Where’s the Beef”??? He’s beginning to resemble a starving Somali immigrant!

Lizzy January 5, 2012 at 9:39 am

You mean Wagu beef? Plenty of that we pay for it too! I guess after
Michelle consumes her daily requirement to keep arms toned he’s left
with peas:(

Susan January 5, 2012 at 9:49 am

Reminds me of that old nursery rhyme. Jack Sprat could eat no fat. His wife could eat no lean. And so between the two of them, they licked the platter clean…

Lizzy January 5, 2012 at 11:08 am

Bet she does lick it clean if not the plate the Vodka glass:)

Star January 5, 2012 at 11:20 am

You make that sound like a bad thing. :-)

Susan January 5, 2012 at 11:46 am

Now you and Lizzy made me laugh, Star!

Lizzy January 5, 2012 at 1:14 pm

No I do my drinkin out of a brown paper sack can’t afford the
good stuff Michelle chugs:-)

Star January 5, 2012 at 1:49 pm

The closest I come to Grey Goose is that Great Blue Heron who used to come in the yard.

Star January 5, 2012 at 3:05 pm

Wonder if this will be discussed with senior advisers…


Data Suggest Long-term Unemployment Substantially Higher than Official Level


Washington, D.C.- The Great Recession pushed the share of the long-term unemployed (defined as being unemployed more than 6 months) to over 40 percent throughout 2010 and 2011. But, a new report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research shows that this standard measure estimate understates the extent of long-term hardship in the U.S. labor market.

“Long-term unemployment rates have been at unprecedented levels for two years now, but the full group facing long-term hardship in the labor market is likely to be at least twice as high as the official figure,” said John Schmitt, a co-author of the paper and a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

The report, “Down and Out: Measuring Long-term Hardship in the Labor Market,” proposes a broader definition of long-term unemployment that encompasses the underemployed and those workers experiencing long-term hardship in the labor market.

The report expands on the official concept of unemployment by including data on discouraged workers — those not in the labor force who want a job but have stopped looking because they believe there are no jobs available; marginally attached workers — those who want a job and have looked in the past 12 months, but are not counted as unemployed because they haven’t looked in the last 4 weeks; and workers who are part-time for economic reasons – those who want a full time job but only have part-time work. Together with the unemployed, these groups are the basis for an alternative Bureau of Labor Statistics’ measure of unemployment, known as U-6, which the authors argue gives a more complete picture of long-term hardship.

While the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not track the length of time workers have fallen under these categories, the authors demonstrate that under reasonable assumptions, the share of workers facing long-term hardship may be twice as high as the share that is long-term unemployed by the standard measure.

Under these same assumptions, between 2007 and 2010, long-term unemployment increased almost as much in these unofficial channels as it did under the more narrow definition.

Star January 5, 2012 at 3:07 pm

Coincidentally I blogged on the “changes” people I know have experienced…

Jeannieology January 5, 2012 at 7:49 pm

And has Michelle apply Just for Men — Color Real Black # 55