[OAW]

Or at least that's what GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney continually says in his stump speech. So let's juxtapose that with the facts that came out today:

The unemployment rate fell 0.2 percentage point to 8.3%, from a high of 10% in October 2009. The drop in unemployment over the month was entirely due to employment growth, as the labor force participation rate remained constant, once new population weights are taken into account. The unemployment rate has fallen by 0.8 percentage point in the last 12 months. Private sector payrolls increased by 257,000 jobs and overall payroll employment rose by 243,000 jobs in January. Despite adverse shocks that have created headwinds for economic growth, the economy has added private sector jobs for 23 straight months, for a total of 3.7 million payroll jobs over that period. In the last 12 months, 2.2 million private sector jobs were added on net. Nonetheless, we need faster growth to put more Americans back to work.

The Employment Situation in January | The White House

And more breaking news from CNN ...

- Dow ends at highest point since 2008
- Nasdaq reaches levels not seen since 2000
- S&P adds 2.1% for the week.

Dow at 4-year high, Nasdaq hits 11-year high - CNN.com

When Obama took office in January 2009 the unemployment rate was 7.8%. Because the economy was shedding jobs at approx. 750K/month ... IOW in a total free fall ... by the time February 2009 came around the unemployment rate was 8.3%. It is now once again 8.3% so it is at a 3 year low ... which is a significant accomplishment since the Obama Administration's economic policies didn't even take effect until several months later.

But a picture is worth a thousand words so here's the latest ....



Since July 2009 when President Obama's economic policies kicked in the jobs picture has steadily moved in the right direction. That simply can't be denied by anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty. Now our good friends on the right may want to argue that if it weren't for Obama's policies that upward slope would be at a sharper angle. And that's fine. But I'd just have to point out to them that they generally rejected that type of reasoning when Obama supporters, the CBO, and many economists across the political spectrum said that Obama's economic policies ( i.e the Stimulus package, the extension of TARP, the Auto bailout, the Payroll Tax Cut, and the extension of Unemployment Benefits) kept the economy from falling even further into the ditch. I imagine they'll resort to the same old discredited talking point that "The Obama Administration promised the Stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8%."

In a White House news conference on June 8, 2009, Bernstein said the projections made in January were off because economic numbers for fourth-quarter 2008 weren't yet available. When they were released, they revealed the economy was in worse shape than economists realized, losing 600,000 to 800,000 jobs a month. Bernstein maintained in that news conference that the stimulus was working, and that the unemployment rate would be even worse without it.

Is the fact that unemployment rose, even as the stimulus unfolded, proof that it has failed? White House officials have steadfastly maintained that, even though the unemployment rate has risen higher than projected in January 2009, it would be even worse if not for the stimulus.

Many independent economists agree with Obama that the stimulus created more than a million jobs and kept the unemployment rate from going even higher than it has (though in fairness, not every economist agrees with that).

Obama warned upon taking office that if "dramatic action" were not taken, "the unemployment rate could reach double digits," with the recession lasting for years.

But PolitiFact could find no evidence of anyone in the administration making a public pledge that the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent.

When we asked Boehner's office what evidence he had, they provided a number of sources that confirmed the prediction. Those included a reference to Rep. Barney Frank -- a Democrat and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee -- saying that Obama and Democrats were saddled with a "false prediction" and that making the prediction "was a dumb thing to do."

There is an element of truth in Boehner’s statement. A report prepared by the incoming Obama administration did project that the unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009. It has been above 8 percent since early in 2009.

We think it's a big stretch to call an economic projection a "promise." The administration never characterized it that way and included plenty of disclaimers saying the predictions had "significant margins of error" and a higher degree of uncertainty due to a recession that is "unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity."

Those are critical facts that the speaker’s claim ignores.

As we have ruled for others who have made this claim, we rate Boehner’s statement Mostly False.

PolitiFact Ohio | John Boehner says Obama promised the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8 percent

So the question on the table is ... in light of these latest figures have President Obama's economic policies been .... helpful, harmful, or inconsequential?

OAW

[mduell]

How much of those recent gains are just ramping up the lie?
Spread between the implied unemployment rate and the BTS reported rate hit a 30 year high:

[turtle777]

And regarding jobs, there are lies, big lies and BLS statistics.

For the truth: Employment Report: Blatant And Outrageous Lies in [Market-Ticker]

-t

[besson3c]

Let's play the charts and graphs game!

[OAW]

@@@ mduell

1. You haven't sourced your graph.

2. You haven't expounded upon what the "BTS reported rate" is.

3. Regardless, what you raise is a separate and distinct issue. We all know the "official" unemployment only reflects those people that are considered to be in the workforce or actively seeking employment. Whereas, the "actual" unemployment rate attempts to reflect those people who would like to work but have stopped actively looking. In any event, that distinction existed when Obama took office ... and that same distinction exists now. In order to have an "apples to apples" comparison one needs to look at the changes in the same measure. Which is exactly what the graph I posted does.

@@@ turtle777

OMG. Not this again. Yes ... the accumulated debt under President Obama to date is monstrous. I'll grant you that because that's a fact. Let's see if you'll acknowledge this fact. The day President Obama was inaugurated the nation was projected to incur a 1.2 trillion dollar annual deficit. So once he came into office ... if he had done NOTHING. Simply kicked back in the Oval Office and chilled. Signed NO LEGISLATION into law. Well over HALF of that figure would have still been incurred. Because it was EXISTING LAW put into place by the Bush Administration's policies. See the chart Besson posted. It breaks down the deficit not by whose WATCH it was incurred under ... but by whose POLICIES were responsible for it. Obama spent a sh*tload of money on the Stimulus, etc. In order to rescue an economy in free fall. And it worked. But that money has already been spent. It's impact is done because it was SHORT-TERM. The deficits being incurred by the Bush Administration's economic policies are LONG-TERM. And something tells me that you know this. Now whether you will acknowledge this reality publicly is another matter altogether.

OAW

[OldManMac]

And yet more stats painting Romney as a huckster, which he is.

First Read - Did Obama make the economy worse? Not according to most statistics

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The day President Obama was inaugurated the nation was projected to incur a 1.2 trillion dollar annual deficit. So once he came into office ... if he had done NOTHING. Simply kicked back in the Oval Office and chilled. Signed NO LEGISLATION into law. Well over HALF of that figure would have still been incurred.

That's completely beside the point.

The POTUS is NOT elected to do nothing. This country is going 200mph towards a cliff, and Obama is not braking, but pressing the gas pedal even harder.

And yes, you are right, Bush was bad, too. But at least he didn't promise change

-t

[besson3c]

The falling unemployment doesn't support the notion that he's pressing the gas pedal even harder, Turtle. You can't really address a debt crisis with falling tax revenues and decreased overall spending due to high unemployment, our whole economy depends on people making money and buying stuff.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The falling unemployment doesn't support the notion that he's pressing the gas pedal even harder, Turtle.

Did you study the BLS numbers ? The falling unemployment rate is completely fabricated, it's purely statistical.

Read the link I posted, it explains the shenanigans that the BSL is doing.

-t

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Did you study the BLS numbers ? The falling unemployment rate is completely fabricated, it's purely statistical.

Read the link I posted, it explains the shenanigans that the BSL is doing.

-t

Actually, the link you've posted is BS. It needs to go way back to 1980 to show how bad of a president Ronald Reagan was.

It starts of with 1999. Haha.. what BS.

Only an idiot would fall for the BS you've posted.

You've only show Pres. Reagan was a far worst president than Pres. Obama.

Employment-population ratio:

Code:
1980	60.0	60.0	59.7	59.4	59.1	58.9	58.8	58.8	58.9	58.9	59.0	59.0	 
1981	59.1	59.2	59.4	59.6	59.5	59.0	59.1	59.1	58.7	58.8	58.6	58.2	 
1982	58.2	58.2	58.1	57.9	58.2	57.8	57.7	57.8	57.6	57.4	57.3	57.2	 
1983	57.2	57.1	57.1	57.3	57.3	57.8	58.1	58.2	58.4	58.4	58.7	58.8	 
1984	58.8	59.1	59.1	59.3	59.7	59.9	59.8	59.6	59.7	59.7	59.8	59.9	 
1985	59.9	60.0	60.2	60.1	60.1	59.8	59.9	60.0	60.3	60.3	60.4	60.4	 
1986	60.6	60.3	60.5	60.5	60.5	60.7	60.8	60.8	60.8	60.9	60.9	61.0	 
1987	61.0	61.1	61.2	61.3	61.6	61.4	61.6	61.8	61.6	61.8	61.9	62.0	 
1988	62.0	62.1	61.9	62.2	62.0	62.3	62.3	62.4	62.4	62.5	62.7	62.6	 
1989	62.9	62.9	62.9	62.9	62.9	63.0	63.0	63.1	62.8	62.9	63.0	63.0	 
1990	63.2	63.2	63.2	63.0	63.1	62.9	62.8	62.7	62.5	62.5	62.3	62.2	 
1991	62.0	61.9	61.8	62.0	61.6	61.7	61.6	61.5	61.6	61.5	61.4	61.2	 
1992	61.5	61.3	61.5	61.6	61.5	61.5	61.6	61.6	61.4	61.3	61.4	61.4	 
1993	61.4	61.4	61.5	61.5	61.7	61.8	61.8	62.0	61.7	61.8	61.9	62.0	 
1994	62.2	62.3	62.1	62.3	62.5	62.3	62.3	62.6	62.7	62.9	63.0	63.1	 
1995	63.0	63.1	63.1	63.1	62.7	62.7	62.8	62.8	62.9	62.9	62.8	62.7	 
1996	62.7	62.9	63.0	63.0	63.0	63.2	63.3	63.3	63.4	63.5	63.4	63.4	 
1997	63.4	63.4	63.6	63.7	63.8	63.7	63.9	63.9	63.9	63.9	64.1	64.0	 
1998	64.0	64.0	64.0	64.1	64.1	64.0	64.0	63.9	64.2	64.1	64.2	64.3	 
1999	64.4	64.2	64.2	64.2	64.3	64.2	64.2	64.2	64.2	64.3	64.4	64.4	 
2000	64.6	64.6	64.6	64.7	64.4	64.5	64.2	64.2	64.2	64.2	64.3	64.4	 
2001	64.4	64.3	64.3	64.0	63.8	63.7	63.7	63.2	63.5	63.2	63.0	62.9	 
2002	62.7	63.0	62.8	62.7	62.9	62.7	62.7	62.7	63.0	62.7	62.5	62.4	 
2003	62.5	62.5	62.4	62.4	62.3	62.3	62.1	62.1	62.0	62.1	62.3	62.2	 
2004	62.3	62.3	62.2	62.3	62.3	62.4	62.5	62.4	62.3	62.3	62.5	62.4	 
2005	62.4	62.4	62.4	62.7	62.8	62.7	62.8	62.9	62.8	62.8	62.7	62.8	 
2006	62.9	63.0	63.1	63.0	63.1	63.1	63.0	63.1	63.1	63.3	63.3	63.4	 
2007	63.3	63.3	63.3	63.0	63.0	63.0	62.9	62.7	62.9	62.7	62.9	62.7	 
2008	62.9	62.8	62.7	62.7	62.5	62.4	62.2	62.0	61.9	61.7	61.4	61.0	 
2009	60.6	60.3	59.9	59.8	59.6	59.4	59.3	59.1	58.7	58.5	58.5	58.2	 
2010	58.5	58.5	58.5	58.7	58.7	58.5	58.5	58.5	58.5	58.3	58.2	58.3	 
2011	58.4	58.4	58.5	58.4	58.4	58.2	58.2	58.3	58.4	58.4	58.5	58.5

Life expectancy is over 79 years now compared to 74 years old under Reagan. So a much larger retired elderly population.

Pres. Reagan sucks!

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

That's completely beside the point.

The POTUS is NOT elected to do nothing. This country is going 200mph towards a cliff, and Obama is not braking, but pressing the gas pedal even harder.

And yes, you are right, Bush was bad, too. But at least he didn't promise change

-t

Fair enough. So the question then becomes … how do you address an economy in a downward spiral that is a HUGE contributor to the deficit? Do you focus on the deficit and cut spending … which by definition will further depress aggregate demand and make the economy worse ... thereby further exacerbating the deficit due to decreased tax revenues and increased social safety net spending? Or do you take the hit on the deficit front in the short term in order to improve the economy ... thereby bringing in higher revenues and lowering social safety net spending ... so that the deficit is brought under control in the long term?

It reminds me of a line from the movie Colors. Where the older cop was schooling the young hot shot cop on how to work the streets. Same principle applies here.

There's two bulls standing on top of a mountain. The younger one says to the older one: "Hey pop, let's say we run down there and f*ck one of them cows". The older one says: "No son. Lets walk down and f*ck 'em all".

OAW

[turtle777]

It's too late to find a solution that doesn't hurt. We have screwed ourselves into a corner, and it will be very painful to get out.

Politicians in general have a low pain tolerance, so they will do whatever they can do avoid facing reality.

Reality is, we have lived beyond our means for decades, and at some point, the house of cards is going to crash.
We will face dramatically decreased standards of living. There is NO way around it.

What should we do ?
Get rid of the Fed, let the TBTF banks go broke, prosecute the banksters that broke laws and put them in prison.
That would be a good start.

-t

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Bush was bad, too. But at least he didn't promise change

So Bush was better than Obama because he planned to f*** everything up all along?

[Mrjinglesusa]

This is EXACTLY the problem with politics in general. Even if something GOOD happens, if it makes the Democrats/Obama look like they did something good, then the Republicans will try and spin it. Even if something makes sense and is the smart thing to do, if it makes the Democrats/Obama look good, then the Republicans will oppose it. And yes, BOTH sides do this.

It's no wonder nothing ever gets done.

[ebuddy]

I was wondering how long the "Obama's making the economy worse" thread would go before Bush was brought up. The economy must be doing swimmingly well.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I was wondering how long the "Obama's making the economy worse" thread would go before Bush was brought up. The economy must be doing swimmingly well.

Take a mental snapshot of this, and contrast this objectively to what Republicans will be saying about Obama after the next election they win.

I'd be willing to bet that this is normal politics. I'm not defending it, just bringing forth a little friendly wager

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

So Bush was better than Obama because he planned to f*** everything up all along?

Pfff, you can't spin it.

There's only two options:

a) Obama knows full well how he's f*cking the economy, but lies about it to be able to keep going.
b) He's utterly f*cking clueless.

Pick your poison.

P.S. I think Bush was b).

-t

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I was wondering how long the "Obama's making the economy worse" thread would go before Bush was brought up. The economy must be doing swimmingly well.

Obama inherited an economy that was in the toilet thanks to Bush. That's a fact. The economy, though not doing great, is doing better than it was when Obama took office. That's another fact.

January 19, 2001 (Bush takes Office):

Dow Jones Industrial Average ( DJIA ) Close 10587.59

January 20, 2009 (Obama Takes Office):

Dow Jones Industrial Average ( DJIA ) Close - 7949.09 Down 332.13
Nasdaq Stock Market Close - 1440.86 Down 88.47
S&P 500 Close - 805.23 Down 44.89

February 3, 2012:

Dow Jones Industrial Average ( DJIA ) Close - 12862.23 Up 156.82
Nasdaq Stock Market Close - 2905.66 Up 45.98
S&P 500 Close - 1344.90 Up 19.36

How would you like to try and spin those numbers?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by OAW 

@@@ mduell

1. You haven't sourced your graph.

2. You haven't expounded upon what the "BTS reported rate" is.

3. Regardless, what you raise is a separate and distinct issue. We all know the "official" unemployment only reflects those people that are considered to be in the workforce or actively seeking employment. Whereas, the "actual" unemployment rate attempts to reflect those people who would like to work but have stopped actively looking. In any event, that distinction existed when Obama took office ... and that same distinction exists now. In order to have an "apples to apples" comparison one needs to look at the changes in the same measure. Which is exactly what the graph I posted does.

1. I thought it was obvious from the url; it's from zerohedge.

2. Sorry I meant BLS not BTS. I work with BTS data every day so I type the acronym a lot.

3. I assumed your thousand word picture was from BLS numbers, and I was broadly discrediting BLS because they're known for manipulations other than the U3-U6 gap you describe.

Is your graph based on the BLS initial numbers or the revised numbers they release weeks later? For the past few years the BLS employment numbers have been revised downward almost every month from the initial.

Originally Posted by OAW 

Fair enough. So the question then becomes … how do you address an economy in a downward spiral that is a HUGE contributor to the deficit? Do you focus on the deficit and cut spending … which by definition will further depress aggregate demand and make the economy worse ... thereby further exacerbating the deficit due to decreased tax revenues and increased social safety net spending? Or do you take the hit on the deficit front in the short term in order to improve the economy ... thereby bringing in higher revenues and lowering social safety net spending ... so that the deficit is brought under control in the long term?

False dichotomy. Keep spending and you become Greece/Italy/Japan/etc.

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

Obama inherited an economy that was in the toilet thanks to Bush. That's a fact. The economy, though not doing great, is doing better than it was when Obama took office. That's another fact.

...

How would you like to try and spin those numbers?

Already bottomed out and headed for cyclical recovery?
Well beyond the president's control.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Already bottomed out and headed for cyclical recovery?
Well beyond the president's control.

So if something good happens while the republicans are in power, its because they did good, if something bad happens it was the democrats fault or just coincidental and would have happened regardless, and if something good happens when the democrats are in power, it was either something the republicans did or coincidence but the bad stuff is all their fault?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Pfff, you can't spin it.

There's only two options:

a) Obama knows full well how he's f*cking the economy, but lies about it to be able to keep going.
b) He's utterly f*cking clueless.

Pick your poison.

P.S. I think Bush was b).

-t

Or:

c) he's doing the best with the cards he's been dealt, albeit making ideological choices that differ from your philosophy.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Or:

c) he's doing the best with the cards he's been dealt, albeit making ideological choices that differ from your philosophy.

Sorry, I don't see that as an option.

And what are those "cards" anyways ? Are you a fatalist that doesn't believe things can be changed ?

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Sorry, I don't see that as an option.

I know you don't.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

So if something good happens while the republicans are in power, its because they did good, if something bad happens it was the democrats fault or just coincidental and would have happened regardless, and if something good happens when the democrats are in power, it was either something the republicans did or coincidence but the bad stuff is all their fault?

I was providing the spin, the parties are irrelevant.

The president doesn't have total control of the economy. If he did Obama would magic 5 million jobs back into existence and Bush would have reinflated the dot com bubble. They are policy leaders, not wizards. They should be criticized for pursuing bad policies even though those policies don't account for the entirety of the development of the economy.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

This is EXACTLY the problem with politics in general. Even if something GOOD happens, if it makes the Democrats/Obama look like they did something good, then the Republicans will try and spin it. Even if something makes sense and is the smart thing to do, if it makes the Democrats/Obama look good, then the Republicans will oppose it. And yes, BOTH sides do this.

It's no wonder nothing ever gets done.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

So if something good happens while the republicans are in power, its because they did good, if something bad happens it was the democrats fault or just coincidental and would have happened regardless, and if something good happens when the democrats are in power, it was either something the republicans did or coincidence but the bad stuff is all their fault?

And that, my friends, is U.S. politics in a nutshell. And yes, it goes both ways and both sides do it.

This is exactly why I rarely post in the PL or discuss politics with friends/family.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mduell 

I was providing the spin, the parties are irrelevant.

The president doesn't have total control of the economy. If he did Obama would magic 5 million jobs back into existence and Bush would have reinflated the dot com bubble. They are policy leaders, not wizards. They should be criticized for pursuing bad policies even though those policies don't account for the entirety of the development of the economy.

I think that you can also lay some of the credit on blame on the final end results of a large sample size of leadership, taking into account the natural swings of an economy and a variety of other circumstantial factors. I don't know what the average period is for a downturn or upturn, but that both Clinton and Obama left with an economy trending up might just mean something.

[hyteckit]

Pres. Obama definitely put a brake on the increasing job lost. Look at this graph. Totally reversed it since 2009.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

Obama inherited an economy that was in the toilet thanks to Bush. That's a fact. The economy, though not doing great, is doing better than it was when Obama took office. That's another fact.

January 19, 2001 (Bush takes Office):

Dow Jones Industrial Average ( DJIA ) Close 10587.59

January 20, 2009 (Obama Takes Office):

Dow Jones Industrial Average ( DJIA ) Close - 7949.09 Down 332.13
Nasdaq Stock Market Close - 1440.86 Down 88.47
S&P 500 Close - 805.23 Down 44.89

February 3, 2012:

Dow Jones Industrial Average ( DJIA ) Close - 12862.23 Up 156.82
Nasdaq Stock Market Close - 2905.66 Up 45.98
S&P 500 Close - 1344.90 Up 19.36

How would you like to try and spin those numbers?

Why would I be compelled to spin them? There isn't an economist in existence today that would consider the growth of the US economy as anything more than anemic and while that may not be enough, you're citing the actual numbers showing anemic growth as an accomplishment? The overall economy is a compilation of metrics anyway including labor, capital, trade, consumption, etc; the real economy. GDP for example must grow at least 2.5% to begin lowering the unemployment rate and under this Administration GDP for all of 2011 expanded at a 1.7% rate.



With a FY 2012 budget showing gross debt more than 100% of GDP, I'd put your little friggin' stick away.

This is what a recovery should look like: First 9 quarters of the Reagan Recovery: 5.1 percent, 9.3, 8.1, 8.5, 8.0, 7.1, 3.9, 3.3, 3.8, 3.4

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Pres. Obama definitely put a brake on the increasing job lost. Look at this graph. Totally reversed it since 2009.

From your graph, if we could just do a national census each year we'd be in so much better shape.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

How would you like to try and spin those numbers?

Easy to explain: the money printed by the Fed had to go somewhere. The stock market is an obvious choice.


http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=4Oa

Look at the employment rate of civilian population. This tells you that there was never a recovery, and that we are still in a recession.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...11-january.png

Fudging labor and inflation statistics is able to mask it from GDP and unemployment, but you better not believe the hype.

P.S. Friggin' MacNN doesn't show the pics all the time. Hence the links. WTF ?

-t

[besson3c]

Please guys...

You guys are the same Obama enemies well before he was even elected. You were complaining that the economy is not recovering, now you are complaining that it isn't recovering fast enough. There is nothing Obama can realistically do that will make you happy.

Besides, your beliefs are all based on your personal ideology which is simply theoretical since it hasn't been put to practice in decades, if at all.

Reserve your criticism for when we reach the peak of this upward trend and it is insufficient. Until then, we should all be happy with improvement.

[besson3c]

I'd also predict that if the improvement continues and this message can be sold to the public and they see the same, Obama will win re-election.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't know what the average period is for a downturn or upturn, but that both Clinton and Obama left with an economy trending up might just mean something.

Trending upward is insufficient to conclude anything; the initial phase of every bubble or ponzi scheme is trending upward. Also a sample size of 2 is... not good.

The impact of a recession on employment typically lasts just under 2 years:

(source)

A few notable observations for the most recent recession:
- The lead in was unusually mild; even as GDP began to drop, employers held on to payrolls ~6 months longer than usual.
- The peak job losses are quite severe.
- The curve is unusually smooth; there has only been one blip caused by the census hiring.
- The recovery is unusually slow. The curve is typically close to symmetric around the peak; with the peak at 25 months in we should be 1 month away from full recovery and obviously we're not. GDP has recovered without jobs, leading to the name The Jobless Recovery.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Pres. Obama definitely put a brake on the increasing job lost. Look at this graph. Totally reversed it since 2009.

Compared to what neutral hypothesis? That is, what would that graph look like if the president did nothing?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

now you are complaining that it isn't recovering fast enough. There is nothing Obama can realistically do that will make you happy.

Huh ? Not enough ?

The economy is not recovering AT ALL. Despite adding $6.5 Trillion in debt. That's just an amazingly bad record.

-t

[mattyb]

Its 2012, when are you going to understand that its not just a Rep/Dem president that decides how the US economy behaves?

I could find 15,000 links/graphs/opinions to back this up, but then nobody would be able to pass blame onto the Reps/Dems - which is after all much more fun than actually facing reality.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Huh ? Not enough ?

The economy is not recovering AT ALL. Despite adding $6.5 Trillion in debt. That's just an amazingly bad record.

-t

I guess the problem is that I don't understand how you can equate the information in the lead post with literally zero recovery.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Look at the employment rate of civilian population. This tells you that there was never a recovery, and that we are still in a recession.

-t

Employment rate of civilian population?

WTF? Now babies have to work too? What's next? Embryos need to work and be counted as the labor force.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

The economy is not recovering AT ALL. Despite adding $6.5 Trillion in debt. That's just an amazingly bad record.

The economy has recovered. The job market has not.

Perhaps we had a lot of zero marginal product workers pre-recession or we've just seen a significant structural shift.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Please guys...

You guys are the same Obama enemies well before he was even elected. You were complaining that the economy is not recovering, now you are complaining that it isn't recovering fast enough. There is nothing Obama can realistically do that will make you happy.

Besides, your beliefs are all based on your personal ideology which is simply theoretical since it hasn't been put to practice in decades, if at all.

Reserve your criticism for when we reach the peak of this upward trend and it is insufficient. Until then, we should all be happy with improvement.

Many of the folks unhappy with the state of the economy are the Indies who voted this President into office, the same ones that contributed to Bush's abysmal approval ratings in his last year in office. What's your excuse for their displeasure?

[Chongo]

Gas was ≈$1.85 a gallon when Obama took office. It's now ≈$4
Here are couple of reports from CNN. What's the cause? CNN says supply and demand. If it were four years ago Bush, Halliburton etal would be blamed. Why isn't Obama to blame for the fact that gas prices have doubled (and heading to $5) since Obama took office?
Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com
Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Let's play the charts and graphs game!

Yes, let's!

So... Obama has managed to spend $2.4 trillion in a third the amount of time as Bush. This means hope and change equals approximately $7.2 trillion with another term. (of course, before you add in Obamacare which this chart cleverly neglected.)

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mduell 

The economy has recovered. The job market has not.

I submit the economy has NOT recovered.

The GDP numbers are misleading. The only reason GDP is back up is because inflation numbers are fudged, and the GDP deflator doesn't adjust GDP down to a real level of economic activity.

The alternative explanation would be an almost unprecendented increase in productivity.
There is no facts to support that would be true (to my knowledge).

-t

[mduell]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

The alternative explanation would be an almost unprecendented increase in productivity.

Thus the ZMP worker theory.

[turtle777]

More signs that there is no recovery:

Shipping Rates Go... Negative | ZeroHedge

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis: Huge Plunge In Petroleum and Gasoline Usage

-t

[turtle777]

Pretty interesting: chart showing the marginal debt utility (impact of debt on GDP):


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-...bt-me%E2%80%9D

We're close to the endgame. Soon, adding debt will have a negative marginal utility.

-t

[Chongo]

Re the unemployment rate.
8.3% Unemployment Lie | Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog

As far as “discouraged” workers who are not looking for a job, that is total rubbish put out by the government. The real story is the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) simply has stopped counting more than 1.2 million of the unemployed in its report Friday. Williams goes on to say, “The issues here suggest that the headline 8.3% unemployment for January has moved well outside the realm of common experience and credibility, into the arena of election-year political shenanigans.” Williams is such a gentleman. Please take into consideration the government’s “official” or “headline” number is only based on people being out of work for 6 months or less. If the unemployment rate was calculated the way BLS did it in 1994 and earlier, the unemployment and underemployment would be 22.5% (according to Shadowstats.com.)

[turtle777]

^^^ Yep. Shadowstats is an excellent source to see how government statistics are continuously "adjusted" to fit politician's rality.

-t

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Gas was ≈$1.85 a gallon when Obama took office. It's now ≈$4
Here are couple of reports from CNN. What's the cause? CNN says supply and demand. If it were four years ago Bush, Halliburton etal would be blamed. Why isn't Obama to blame for the fact that gas prices have doubled (and heading to $5) since Obama took office?
Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com
Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

Yes, let's thank Pres. Bush for tanking the economy, tanking the stock market, tanking the housing market, and nearly destroying the auto industry in order to bring gas prices from $4/gal to $1.85/gal.

Gas prices more than tripled under Pres. Bush, from $1.25/gal to close to $4/gal.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Thus the ZMP worker theory.

Thanks for the link, it was a very interesting read.

I do believe the Zero MP (marginal product) worker theory has merit.
However, some of the data discussed in the link (and subsequent links) seem to indicate that even Zero MP workers can't fully explain the gap.

Of course, you could always resort to negative MP workers, but how likely is that ?

I think one has to question the measurement of output (GDP) as well, and not just take it as a God-given, infalible measurement.

-t

[mduell]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Of course, you could always resort to negative MP workers, but how likely is that ?

I've met a few of those!