The Prof
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 12,828
- Reaction score
- 1,808
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
What amazes me is your lack of understanding of population growth, discouraged workers, under employed, and debt service as it impacts even you. BLS Data gives the number, you have a problem with it, take it up with them.
Do you think a 155.2 million labor force in a country of 310 million people is an indication that the Obama economic policies have been successful? Please explain how growing the labor force by 1 million people in four plus years is an example of good economic policies?
Do you think over 800,000 discouraged workers in April 2013 is an indication that the economy is improving under Obama? Did you bother to even look at the discouraged worker chart of 2009?
Do you think under employment of 10 million Americans(your number) is an indication of an improving Obama economy?
Explain why that during the Bush term the labor force grew at 1.3 million per year but under Obama that has been 300,000 per year yet Obama economic performance good, Bush bad?
What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?
After Obama: 13.9% and falling
Exactly right, people like you don't want actual facts and analysis of those facts when they prove you wrong. You see, liberals want badly to believe in their ideology so let me suggest that if you want so badly to have a European economy here there are flights there every day. We could even take up a collection here to get you there.
There continues to be claims that Obama has created over 3 million jobs during his term. Please show me those jobs on the employment report?
No, the U-6 dropped 3.2% from the peak of the recession. That warrants a thank you, Mr. President.So...
1) the U-6 rate dropped 0.3% in 52 months to 13.9%...and you think that warrants a 'thank you' to POTUS Obama.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/new/budgetinfographic.png2) Fine, then where is your unbiased factual source that details exactly how much of that added debt did not go towards helping Americans - either directly or indirectly - get back to work?
It's not a bad thing our country is willing to pay to make sure people don't starve. It's not a bad thing we've expanded the program to make sure more people don't starve. Would you rather our country tell people they have to starve just so we can keep our percentage down?3) So it is not a 'bad thing' that 40+% more Americans are so poor since Obama took office that they require government assistance so that they do not starve.
There has been over 6 million positions added since the end of 2009. In strictly net terms the gains are nearly two million.
No, the U-6 dropped 3.2% from the peak of the recession. That warrants a thank you, Mr. President.
The argument I initially made was that our country is better now than we were before Obama. The .3% is simply the difference from before Obama until now. But as we both SHOULD know, the recession was in effect before Obama and hit its devastation peak in late 2009. The longer Obama has been in office, the further the number keeps dropping.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/new/budgetinfographic.png
Unless you're going to tell me Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and defense spending was all spending designed to improve the economy, then most of the added debt did not go toward improving the economy. Throw in other money spent on retirements, benefits, food stamps, education, etc. and most of the added debt was due to "business as usual" policies and decreased revenues due to the recession.
It's not a bad thing our country is willing to pay to make sure people don't starve. It's not a bad thing we've expanded the program to make sure more people don't starve. Would you rather our country tell people they have to starve just so we can keep our percentage down?
We're better off now than we were before Obama took office. Almost all indicators of problems are going down, not up as they were before Obama took office (with the exception of GDP, which is now going up instead of down like it was before Obama).
Correct, Four million of those jobs were lost before Obama took office, he even points that out with bolding. :lamoFour year time table Rainman. Four. You're using the completely wrong time span and still coming up six million jobs short. This is embarrassing. Have some self respect.
Correct, Four million of those jobs were lost before Obama took office, he even points that out with bolding. :lamo
Better take it up with BLS that confirms the data of over 9 million jobs lost. You just cannot get it through your head that Obama is a complete failure and incompetent.
That the U-6 went up is just as much his responsibility as when it went down. Being a leader means taking responsibility for all that happens under you during your term of leadership - not disavowing responsibility for things that put him/her is a lesser light.No, the U-6 dropped 3.2% from the peak of the recession. That warrants a thank you, Mr. President.
The argument I initially made was that our country is better now than we were before Obama. The .3% is simply the difference from before Obama until now. But as we both SHOULD know, the recession was in effect before Obama and hit its devastation peak in late 2009. The longer Obama has been in office, the further the number keeps dropping.
I did not say all the spending did or did not go towards unemployment reduction (obviously, it all did not).http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/new/budgetinfographic.png
Unless you're going to tell me Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and defense spending was all spending designed to improve the economy, then most of the added debt did not go toward improving the economy. Throw in other money spent on retirements, benefits, food stamps, education, etc. and most of the added debt was due to "business as usual" policies and decreased revenues due to the recession.
It's not a bad thing our country is willing to pay to make sure people don't starve. It's not a bad thing we've expanded the program to make sure more people don't starve. Would you rather our country tell people they have to starve just so we can keep our percentage down?
We're better off now than we were before Obama took office. Almost all indicators of problems are going down, not up as they were before Obama took office (with the exception of GDP, which is now going up instead of down like it was before Obama).
BLS confirms no such thing. Your claim is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Labor Force Statistics. The number of people Not in the Labor Force increased 9.4 million. That's not the same thing as leaving the labor force. The Labor Force increased 1 million (+1.4 million employed -0.4 million unemployed).
What your sources are doing are saying that if there are 9.4 million more not in the labor force, then that must mean there are 9.4 fewer in the labor force. Which is ridiculous and completely ignores population growth.
Oh, and the number of people not in the labor force who want a job went up 0.7 million and those who do not want a job went up 8.7 million
You want to blame Obama for the jobs situation, what is it that he did or didn't do that caused the job situation? BTW, you should get that saying of yours copyrighted.Guess my dream that Obama wasn't in office in 2010-2011-2012 was a reality. Get someone to help you read the chart. I find it quite interesting that increasing employment back to January 2009 levels ignoring the pre recession numbers and at a cost of over 6 trillion to the debt along with massive numbers dependent on the Federal Taxpayer for welfare is called a success to a liberal. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?
That warrants a thank you, Mr. President
Why? Because he had been an office for 8 months? Surely you're not going to tell me you also believe the economy is a light switch. You have to look at trends, and the trend is that the longer Obama is in office, the better things are getting.That the U-6 went up is just as much his responsibility as when it went down.
That's what I said. We went from 14.2% and rising (all the way up to 17.1%) to 13.9% and dropping. That's a positive trend.So, the U-6 dropped from the day he took office until today by a whopping 0.3% to 13.9%.
Your claim was:I did not say all the spending did or did not go towards unemployment reduction (obviously, it all did not).
It seemed you definitely suggested all the added debt was due to money spent to better the economy/unemployment.But (as I pointed out before) Obama did drop the U-3 rate (from when he took office) from 7.8% to 7.5% today...but it took him 52 months and a 50+% rise in the national debt to do it.
I don't care what percentage is inaccurate, merely that your statement is inaccurate.But since you cannot know what did or did not - then you cannot say what percentage of my statement was inaccurate.
No, this is false. First of all, the increase in federal spending has been minimal. Most of the debt incurred is from the lost tax revenue. Second of all, most of that spending WASN'T towards stimulating the economy, it was towards the things we were already committed to spending.Besides, it goes to credibility - he rose the national debt by over 50% yet despite all that spending (much of it indirectly/directly to stimulate employment)
And, once again, I don't think it's bad we're making sure people get food. This isn't really that difficult to understand.So, once again, you think it is not a bad thing that under Obama's leadership, the level of poverty has grown in America to such an extent that over 40% more Americans need government food handouts so they do not starve.
Too late.I am not going to get into some back-and-forth, pointless debate with you on this.
You want to blame Obama for the jobs situation, what is it that he did or didn't do that caused the job situation? BTW, you should get that saying of yours copyrighted.
Why? Because he had been an office for 8 months? Surely you're not going to tell me you also believe the economy is a light switch. You have to look at trends, and the trend is that the longer Obama is in office, the better things are getting.
That's what I said. We went from 14.2% and rising (all the way up to 17.1%) to 13.9% and dropping. That's a positive trend.
Your claim was:
It seemed you definitely suggested all the added debt was due to money spent to better the economy/unemployment.
I don't care what percentage is inaccurate, merely that your statement is inaccurate.
No, this is false. First of all, the increase in federal spending has been minimal. Most of the debt incurred is from the lost tax revenue. Second of all, most of that spending WASN'T towards stimulating the economy, it was towards the things we were already committed to spending.
And, once again, I don't think it's bad we're making sure people get food. This isn't really that difficult to understand.
To address what I'm sure your larger point is, I do not like how the income inequality gap has increased over the last several decades, including under Obama. But from where I sit, I've seen many things Obama has proposed to combat this, so it's hard for me to blame him when Republicans actively work against him.
Too late.
You didn't answer my question. If we were a socialist country I probably would blame the president, but since we are a capitalist country I don't. BTW, only a small portion of the stimulus was devoted to shovel ready jobs and about 1/3 was devoted to tax relief.Wonder if I will get an answer if I to get it copyrighted? You cannot seem to answer it
Who should we blame for the terrible economic performance in 2010? Didn't those shovel ready jobs get their shovels? When does the economy become Obama's responsibility and do you really believe getting employment back to where it was when he took office at a cost of 6 trillion dollars is a success?
Hmm, you don't understand the difference between GDP and employment? What is it about conservatism that creates such confusion? If you want "shovel ready" projects and lowered unemployment, then demand them from your Congress critters. Lowered demand with corporate profits way up isn't going to drive private industry to invest in markets that are not expanding.How about explaining to us a shovel ready job? Then since you want to give him credit for an economy coming out of recession in June 2009 due to his policies then you need to be more consistent. Apparently getting out of recession in 4 months is a positive light switch but the poor discouraged worker numbers over 1-3 years later is an economy that cannot turn on like a light switch?
the increase in federal spending has been minimal
Hmm, you don't understand the difference between GDP and employment? What is it about conservatism that creates such confusion? If you want "shovel ready" projects and lowered unemployment, then demand them from your Congress critters. Lowered demand with corporate profits way up isn't going to drive private industry to invest in markets that are not expanding.
Hmm, you don't understand the difference between GDP and employment? What is it about conservatism that creates such confusion? If you want "shovel ready" projects and lowered unemployment, then demand them from your Congress critters. Lowered demand with corporate profits way up isn't going to drive private industry to invest in markets that are not expanding.
You didn't answer my question. If we were a socialist country I probably would blame the president, but since we are a capitalist country I don't. BTW, only a small portion of the stimulus was devoted to shovel ready jobs and about 1/3 was devoted to tax relief.
You didn't answer my question. If we were a socialist country I probably would blame the president, but since we are a capitalist country I don't. BTW, only a small portion of the stimulus was devoted to shovel ready jobs and about 1/3 was devoted to tax relief.