• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, negativ

Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

We could agrue how to count the numbers all day long but as I said, if you think obama was right, "the private sector is just fine" you are as dillusional as him. I will speak to your unemployment numbers since you speak as glowingly of them as you do of the health of the private sector. Once again your numbers are bogus.

The unemployment rate has fallen a full percentage point since August to a three-year low. But last month's decline was not due to job growth. The government only counts people as unemployed if they are actively looking for work.


"In April, the percentage of adults working or looking for work fell to the lowest level in more than 30 years."

So if you add back all the people who have stopped looking for work you get a "real" unemployment rate of almost 15 percent.


"Factoring in those discouraged adults and others working part time for lack of full time opportunities, the unemployment rate is about 14.5 percent. Adding college graduates in low-skill positions, like counterwork at Starbucks, and the unemployment rate is likely closer to 18 percent," writes Peter Morici.


Read more: The real unemployment rate

Relating who sits in the white house to national (un)employment is as meaningful as saying who was the chief justice at that time. Unless you assert use of presdential veto power or the presidential power to persuade a congressional majority of the other party is in the mix, the correct relationship would be perhaps who controlled the congress (that has the ablilty to make new law) at these times is a better measure of gov't "responsibility" associated with it.
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

All of the "at this point in their term" comparisons are pretty foolish. Whatever mess anyone inherited, the more applicable starting point would be where the mess bottomed out. Or where a President was given loads of money to "fix" it. Etc.

For instance, the mess Reagan inherited, with high interest rates and inflation, was such that his "low" didn't occur until he had been in office 20-22 months, in late '82. With Obama, the "low" was his fourth month in office. Play with the dates and circumstances all you want, but using Inauguration dates is to compare apples and oranges. Its for stupid people.
Comparing presidents during their first 40 months is comparing apples to apples; and in Obama's case, only serves to benefit other presidents since none of those other presidents inherited an economy as bad as the one Obama inherited.

And if you think comparing the first 40 months of various presidents is "foolish" and "stupid," tell that to those who commonly compare the first 100 days in office, which is a very standard comparison.


The measure is also not that jobs are created. It is jobs created above the minimum to absorb population growth into the work force. That is 125,000 - 140,000 per month. If below that, then things are getting worse. If above, then better. The only thing "better" about creating 100,000 jobs per month is that it is better than 80,000 jobs per month. But the country has gotten worse regardless. We are not "recovering" until we are above the 120-140K. We are still hemorrhaging when below that.

Since the Recession "ended", we are still hemmorrhaging. While we've had a few months above that Break Even, we have had more below the BE. And we are now back below it. The phrase "Jobless Recovery" seems a bit of an oxymoron.
The unemployment rate measures that and the unemployment rate is down since the end of the recession.

Obama's results are flat at best. Considering that the real unemployment rate would be around 11.0 had he just kept the same Labor Force Participation Rate as when teh Recession "ended", it is difficult to find any success.
The labor force participation rate is impacted by people retiring and since 2008, we have entered the phase where baby boomers have begun to retire. It was predicted even before then that it would have a negative impact on the labor force participation rate. That is not Obama fault.

Labor force projections to 2014: retiring boomers

The labor force will continue to age, with the annual growth rate of the 55-and-older group projected to be 4.1 percent, 4 times the rate of growth of the overall labor force. By contrast, the annual growth rate of the 25-to-54-year age group will be 0.3 percent, and that of the young age group consisting of 16-to-24-year-olds will be essentially flat.​


With the oldest population growing at a rate of 4.1%, compared to .3% and flat in other groups, hopefully, you can see why the partipation rate began falling since 2008.
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

The labor force will continue to age, with the annual growth rate of the 55-and-older group projected to be 4.1 percent, 4 times the rate of growth of the overall labor force. By contrast, the annual growth rate of the 25-to-54-year age group will be 0.3 percent, and that of the young age group consisting of 16-to-24-year-olds will be essentially flat.[/INDENT]

With the oldest population growing at a rate of 4.1%, compared to .3% and flat in other groups, hopefully, you can see why the partipation rate began falling since 2008.

This is a concern with all the responsible western democracies and one Barack Obama decided to confront by getting the country in debt to the tune of $16 trillion dollars, and growing.

Now the legacy is trillions of dollars in debt, a country where retirees expect the young taxpayers to support their lifestyle, but those young taxpayers don't exist in the numbers to support this system. They have either been aborted or birth controlled out of the future. BHO and his followers still have their heads mired in the 1950's and cannot change.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

Comparing presidents during their first 40 months is comparing apples to apples; and in Obama's case, only serves to benefit other presidents since none of those other presidents inherited an economy as bad as the one Obama inherited.

And if you think comparing the first 40 months of various presidents is "foolish" and "stupid," tell that to those who commonly compare the first 100 days in office, which is a very standard comparison.

I listed my reasons, which you have not rebutted. Further, to then cite the "first 100 days" as being a similar comparison is even dumber. "First 100 Days" is a measure of legislative accomplishments, not such as unemployment and GDP and economy. It is rarely "comparative", in that the 100 days of one Admin being compared to another, but more one of "he said he was going to do this, now lets see if he has".


The unemployment rate measures that and the unemployment rate is down since the end of the recession.

Percent of workforce employed is lower. Less people working per 100 Americans now than at the end of the Recession.

The labor force participation rate is impacted by people retiring and since 2008, we have entered the phase where baby boomers have begun to retire. It was predicted even before then that it would have a negative impact on the labor force participation rate. That is not Obama fault.

Labor force projections to 2014: retiring boomers



The labor force will continue to age, with the annual growth rate of the 55-and-older group projected to be 4.1 percent, 4 times the rate of growth of the overall labor force. By contrast, the annual growth rate of the 25-to-54-year age group will be 0.3 percent, and that of the young age group consisting of 16-to-24-year-olds will be essentially flat.​


With the oldest population growing at a rate of 4.1%, compared to .3% and flat in other groups, hopefully, you can see why the partipation rate began falling since 2008.

From your link:

During the 2004–14 period, the growth of the labor force will be due entirely to population growth, as the overall labor force participation rate is expected to decrease slightly from the 2004 level.

It has not decreased "slightly". It has fallen off a cliff. I went to the full report in the link your provided. I went to where they calculated what the LFPR had been, and then where it would be in 2014, based on population growth and baby boomers, Etc. Table 5. Top line:

Here it is

1984: 64.4
1994: 66.6
2004: 66.0
2014: 65.6


Based on boomers, the drop from 2004 to 2014 was projected at 0.4%. From your report. From the BLS.

But, it is now 63.8. That is 1.8 - 1.9 % below boomer. Add that to our current 8.2% unemployment, and we're back at 10.0 to 10.1 unemployment.

Your analysis is one massive fail, because you did not look at the numbers. Just cherry picked. Which was my original point, and now you just got worse.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

I listed my reasons, which you have not rebutted. Further, to then cite the "first 100 days" as being a similar comparison is even dumber. "First 100 Days" is a measure of legislative accomplishments, not such as unemployment and GDP and economy. It is rarely "comparative", in that the 100 days of one Admin being compared to another, but more one of "he said he was going to do this, now lets see if he has".




Percent of workforce employed is lower. Less people working per 100 Americans now than at the end of the Recession.



From your link:



It has not decreased "slightly". It has fallen off a cliff. I went to the full report in the link your provided. I went to where they calculated what the LFPR had been, and then where it would be in 2014, based on population growth and baby boomers, Etc. Table 5. Top line:

Here it is

1984: 64.4
1994: 66.6
2004: 66.0
2014: 65.6


Based on boomers, the drop from 2004 to 2014 was projected at 0.4%. From your report. From the BLS.

But, it is now 63.8. That is 1.8 - 1.9 % below boomer. Add that to our current 8.2% unemployment, and we're back at 10.0 to 10.1 unemployment.

Your analysis is one massive fail, because you did not look at the numbers. Just cherry picked. Which was my original point, and now you just got worse.

You are going to confuse him, he likes the simple numbers not the real ones.
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

This could go down as the quote that sealed the deal, and we're not even to the debates yet. Of course Obama will own Romney in the debates, but Obama in a debate is like having Clemens on the mound. It's his element.

At any rate: What a dumbass thing to say. Reminds me of McCain saying "the economy is solid" in '08.
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

This could go down as the quote that sealed the deal, and we're not even to the debates yet. Of course Obama will own Romney in the debates, but Obama in a debate is like having Clemens on the mound.


:lamo:lamo Yeah, the shroud is off that one my friend...Obama is a monumental liar, that can't speak without a teleprompter, hell, he can't even make a comment on small business owners and how they are doing without having to come out that same day and stutter all over himself walking it back...:lamo:lamo

j-mac
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

This could go down as the quote that sealed the deal, and we're not even to the debates yet. Of course Obama will own Romney in the debates, but Obama in a debate is like having Clemens on the mound. It's his element.

At any rate: What a dumbass thing to say. Reminds me of McCain saying "the economy is solid" in '08.

Barack Obama may have a chance if he brings his teleprompter along but without it he just seriously outclassed.

Always keep in mind that it was Barry Obama who selected Joe Biden to be Vice President of the United States. His reasoning was likely comedy relief, or that Joe might make him look good by comparison. His real reason remains shrouded in mystery.
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

I was listening to obamas speech today while working and when he said that I dropped everything and thought WTF, did he really just say the private sector is doing fine? Then he said it again. This guy is completely out of touch with reality, it is almost scary.


Just hours after President Obama declared the private sector was "doing fine" -- a comment from which he later backed away -- one of the nation's major credit rating agencies affirmed neither the private nor public sector was flourishing.
Standard & Poor’s affirmed its long-term credit rating on the United States at AA+ and said its outlook remains negative.

The credit agency made the announcement after Obama's said Friday morning that the private sector is "doing fine" and that the GOP Congress is slowing down the economy. It was immediately pounced on by Mitt Romney and other Republican leaders, resulting in the president backpedaling by the afternoon.


Read more: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, negative outlook | Fox News


Didn't he walk this back later? I thought I heard that he was backing off of this statement.

Again, IMO President Obama hasn't the skills for the job of POTUS. It's really starting to show, big time now.

He can sure campaign, but he sure doesn't have the chops it take for the presidential job.


I'm voting for Romeny.
 
If Obama loses the election in November, I wonder what that will do for the value of my Topps Obama trading cards that I bought in 2008? :D
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

This could go down as the quote that sealed the deal, and we're not even to the debates yet. Of course Obama will own Romney in the debates, but Obama in a debate is like having Clemens on the mound. It's his element.

At any rate: What a dumbass thing to say. Reminds me of McCain saying "the economy is solid" in '08.

Which is the more dumbass statement, "the private sector is doing just fine" or "obama will own Romney in a debate"? Sorry rock, couldn't resist. LOL
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

Which is the more dumbass statement, "the private sector is doing just fine" or "obama will own Romney in a debate"? Sorry rock, couldn't resist. LOL



If in a debate the President makes a "the private sector is doing fine" kinda comment, he look like what he is - inept as POTUS.
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

This is a concern with all the responsible western democracies and one Barack Obama decided to confront by getting the country in debt to the tune of $16 trillion dollars, and growing.
And of course, debt has nothing to do with jobs. So who knows why you'd even mention it in that context?

They have either been aborted or birth controlled out of the future.
No doubt that has put a strain on the system.

BHO and his followers still have their heads mired in the 1950's and cannot change.
That doesn't even make sense given Liberals are progressive and Conservatives are status quo.
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

And of course, debt has nothing to do with jobs. So who knows why you'd even mention it in that context?


No doubt that has put a strain on the system.


That doesn't even make sense given Liberals are progressive and Conservatives are status quo.

The blue font makes you look insane.
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

The blue font makes you look insane.
What do you think the thoughts you express here do for you?
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

What do you think the thoughts you express here do for you?

I was just trying to help. Between the gorilla pic, the blue font and your inability to grasp complex numbers......
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

I listed my reasons, which you have not rebutted.
Of course I rebutted it. You gave one reason, that being different president have different economic issues to deal with at different times during their presidency. I rebutted that by pointing out that no president since FDR was handed an economy worse than what Obama was handed. So even if other presidents had different issues at different times, none was worse than what Obama had to deal with -- and he's still doing better than most Republicans in terms of unemployment.

Further, to then cite the "first 100 days" as being a similar comparison is even dumber. "First 100 Days" is a measure of legislative accomplishments, not such as unemployment and GDP and economy. It is rarely "comparative", in that the 100 days of one Admin being compared to another, but more one of "he said he was going to do this, now lets see if he has".
That's even more nonsense. It's a comparison of accomplishments, PERIOD. Typically, it's legislation since that is typically what a president accomplishes during their first 100 days, but it can be any accomplishment worth noting...

Presidential first 100 days | Home - Home

Still, there is no more fair and reasonable measurement than to compare a president who has not yet finished a term with others at the same point in their presidency, just like the first 100 days test. It certainly isn't reasonable to compare a president who has not yet finished his term with the entirety of other presidents.


Percent of workforce employed is lower. Less people working per 100 Americans now than at the end of the Recession.
It coincides with the combination of the worst recession since the Great Depression and baby boomers hittong retirement age.

Explaining the decline in the U.S. labor force participation rate

From your link:

It has not decreased "slightly". It has fallen off a cliff. I went to the full report in the link your provided. I went to where they calculated what the LFPR had been, and then where it would be in 2014, based on population growth and baby boomers, Etc. Table 5. Top line:

Here it is

1984: 64.4
1994: 66.6
2004: 66.0
2014: 65.6


Based on boomers, the drop from 2004 to 2014 was projected at 0.4%. From your report. From the BLS.
It's lower than expected because the BLS could not predict the massive recession that occurred, which exasperated the downward trend. Since the job market began coming back around the beginning of 2010, the participation rate has slipped about 1 percentage point, which according to studies (one of which I linked above), roughly half of that slippage is due to retiring baby boomers.

But, it is now 63.8. That is 1.8 - 1.9 % below boomer. Add that to our current 8.2% unemployment, and we're back at 10.0 to 10.1 unemployment.
Talk about idiotic ... You're taking a number which was predicted to occur two years from now to claim what unemployment would be without the drop expected two years from now!

:doh:doh:doh
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

I was just trying to help. Between the gorilla pic, the blue font and your inability to grasp complex numbers......
a) you're in no position to help. You should focus more on yourself than others.

b) It's not a gorilla ... yet another mistake of yours.

c) when you learn that a net gain of private sector jobs is not a net loss, as you falsely claimed, then you can talk about others' grasp of complex numbers. You couldn't even get simple numbers right. You called this a loss of private sector jobs ...


Jan/2009: 110,985,000
May/2012: 111,040,000

BLS: Total private

:doh:doh:doh
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

Barack Obama may have a chance if he brings his teleprompter along but without it he just seriously outclassed.

Always keep in mind that it was Barry Obama who selected Joe Biden to be Vice President of the United States. His reasoning was likely comedy relief, or that Joe might make him look good by comparison. His real reason remains shrouded in mystery.

And yet, even given that, he and Biden easily disposed of McCain and Palin. :cool:
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

Of course I rebutted it. You gave one reason, that being different president have different economic issues to deal with at different times during their presidency. I rebutted that by pointing out that no president since FDR was handed an economy worse than what Obama was handed. So even if other presidents had different issues at different times, none was worse than what Obama had to deal with -- and he's still doing better than most Republicans in terms of unemployment.


That's even more nonsense. It's a comparison of accomplishments, PERIOD. Typically, it's legislation since that is typically what a president accomplishes during their first 100 days, but it can be any accomplishment worth noting...

Presidential first 100 days | Home - Home

Still, there is no more fair and reasonable measurement than to compare a president who has not yet finished a term with others at the same point in their presidency, just like the first 100 days test. It certainly isn't reasonable to compare a president who has not yet finished his term with the entirety of other presidents.



It coincides with the combination of the worst recession since the Great Depression and baby boomers hittong retirement age.

Explaining the decline in the U.S. labor force participation rate


It's lower than expected because the BLS could not predict the massive recession that occurred, which exasperated the downward trend. Since the job market began coming back around the beginning of 2010, the participation rate has slipped about 1 percentage point, which according to studies (one of which I linked above), roughly half of that slippage is due to retiring baby boomers.


Talk about idiotic ... You're taking a number which was predicted to occur two years from now to claim what unemployment would be without the drop expected two years from now!

:doh:doh:doh

At least you finally now admit that the drop in the LFPR is due primarily (about 80%) to folks giving up looking rather than your earlier lame "baby boomer" excuse. Otherwise, your argument is still hopeless.
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

a) you're in no position to help. You should focus more on yourself than others.

b) It's not a gorilla ... yet another mistake of yours.

c) when you learn that a net gain of private sector jobs is not a net loss, as you falsely claimed, then you can talk about others' grasp of complex numbers. You couldn't even get simple numbers right. You called this a loss of private sector jobs ...


Jan/2009: 110,985,000
May/2012: 111,040,000

BLS: Total private

:doh:doh:doh

Orangatang? Sorry, I'm bored, raining all day AGAIN! Seriously though, your defending this economy is a joke.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

At least you finally now admit that the drop in the LFPR is due primarily (about 80%) to folks giving up looking rather than your earlier lame "baby boomer" excuse. Otherwise, your argument is still hopeless.
Now you're making up more numbers. about 50% is due to baby boomers, according to the study I posted. Who knows where you got 80% from, but likely the same place where you dreamed that numbers expected in two years from now can be used to alter the unemployment rate today.

:lamo:lamo:lamo
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

Orangatang? Sorry, I'm bored, raining all day AGAIN! Seriously though, your defending this economy is a joke.
It's cute how of the 3 things I pointed out, you couldn't even refute the 2 more salient ones but instead, aimed for the low hanging fruit you thought you might have a chance at ...

... but sadly :( you got that one wrong too. :lamo No, that's not an orangutan either.
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

The record job growth is in China. [...]
Sure if you are willing to live on next to nothing, and work under slave like conditions and piss on the environment.. [...]
You just described Tea Party heaven :mrgreen:
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

And of course, debt has nothing to do with jobs. So who knows why you'd even mention it in that context?

Debt has nothing to do with jobs? People are reluctant to invest because of the massive debt and the insecurity it brings. All you need do is look at Greece, Spain, or any third world countries. Of course debt is closely tied to the economy and the lack of jobs. That should be common knowledge, and probably is.

No doubt that has put a strain on the system.

Of course it has put a strain on the future because there will not be enough people to support the entitlements of the boomers. Again, that should be common knowledge.


That doesn't even make sense given Liberals are progressive and Conservatives are status quo.

Piling up unpayable debt is "Progressive"? Creating unsustainable entitlements is "Progressive"?

In the 1950's the birth rate was higher and 'entitlements' may have made some sense had these rates continued. Of course they have not but "Progressives" continue to spend money and create 'entitlements' as though it is still the 1950's. They are well behind the times, and 'regressives' would be a more apt term.
 
Back
Top Bottom