I know this is above your pay grade, but it is what it is .... there is no other way to compare periods from the 1950's to the 2000's. I know you don't like that because you don't like the numbers, but they are what they are.
I also note you resorted to this weak deflection rather than answer the question.
But that's ok, it was rather expected. Besides, your none answer answered for you -- results didn't matter to you in 2004.
Agreed, it was indeed a short term stimulative measure.
Well, the dip in last quarters gdp figures were largely due to a decline in exports and government consumption, but I digress.
I think the two things are combining to create a wierd dynamic we havent seen before in US economics where enormous portions of the workforce are retiring but their jobs dont have the demand required to fill them or the cost is so great that employers are making due. It really is unprecedented but, I would expect eventually we will reach some sort of point where employers have to start filling holes with workers rather than stretching a workforce that is already stretched pretty thin.
Another possible worry: an amnesty deal will create another leap in our workforce and hold down wages to some extent.
ALL of these things are working together in a bad way for the workforce, imo.
Not a thing is ever going to change the mind of an ideologue partisan like you who believes the numbers we have today show Obama to be doing a good job. The more people dependent the more votes liberals buy.