Actual Obama Accomplishment

[Quantum Windbag]

Like I said, CON$ will never admit the truth no matter how stupid they have to pretend to be. IBD ASSumes that every worker who left the workforce is a discouraged worker. Only the most stupid people on Earth are gullible enough to swallow that crap. Not only does it ASSume that no one retired, it ASSumes that no one left the workforce because they died, or got sick, or got injured, or left work to take care of a family member who got sick or injured. The IBD ASSumption is so moronic that only a CON$ervative could be stupid enough to swallow it!

You assume it assumes that. Like I said, post some numbers to back your position up, they are all there on bls.gov.

Like I said, CON$ will NEVER admit the truth.

I already posted the U-4 rate 3 times, which is 8.8 to 9.1% and the dishonest IBD came up with 11%. Obviously IBD dishonestly used a LARGER number for discouraged workers. The burden of proof is on you and IBD to prove that every worker who left the workforce left because they were discouraged, and not because they died, retired, moved, got sick or injured, went back to school, etc.

Let me translate your post.

I can't prove what I am saying so I will act like you don't accept the truth in the hope no one will notice I am lying.

 

[edthecynic]

You assume it assumes that. Like I said, post some numbers to back your position up, they are all there on bls.gov.

Like I said, CON$ will NEVER admit the truth.

I already posted the U-4 rate 3 times, which is 8.8 to 9.1% and the dishonest IBD came up with 11%. Obviously IBD dishonestly used a LARGER number for discouraged workers. The burden of proof is on you and IBD to prove that every worker who left the workforce left because they were discouraged, and not because they died, retired, moved, got sick or injured, went back to school, etc.

Let me translate your post.

I can't prove what I am saying so I will act like you don't accept the truth in the hope no one will notice I am lying.

Let me translate your post.

I know IBD dishonestly ASSumed that everyone who leaves the workforce is discouraged, but I love making Obama look worse than he is so much that I don't care how dishonest I have to be or how foolish I look.

 

[LilOlLady]

He made 1,000,000 workers disappear. No one has ever managed to do that before in history.

Initial jobless claims unexpectedly jumped by 24,000 last week to 399,000 as more workers lost their jobs, the Labor Department said Thursday. At the same time, the economy continues to lose workers.

In the 30 months since the recession officially ended, nearly 1 million people have dropped out of the labor force — they aren't working, and they aren't looking — according to data from Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. In the past two months, the labor force shrank by 170,000.

This is virtually unprecedented in past economic recoveries, at least since the BLS has kept detailed records. In the past nine recoveries, the labor force had climbed an average 3.5 million by this point, according to an IBD analysis of the BLS data.

"Given weak job prospects, many would-be workers dropped out of (or never entered) the labor force," noted Heidi Shierholz of the Economic Policy Institute in her analysis of the BLS jobs report issued last Friday. "That reduces the measured unemployment rate but does not represent real improvement."

Unprecedented, Tepid Recovery Under Obama Begs Question: Where Did All The Workers Go? - Investors.com

I believe you are in denial. When Obama took office we were losing more than a half million jobs a month. consistantly. Job loss we are seeing is the result of Bush's 8 years of blunders after blunders. Tax cut for the rich. Two wars. Record borrowing from China and the lost of factories and business going over seas. Took the biggest surplus in history and turned it in to the biggest deficit in history. Get your fact straight. Obama has created jobs consistantly since taking office. Unemployment at 8.5%. When Bush left office the unemplyment rate was 66% higher then when the took office.
You cannot possible be that stupid.


BUSH'S ACCOMPLISHMENT AS PRESIDENT
George W. Bush's Resume

 

[Trajan]

He made 1,000,000 workers disappear. No one has ever managed to do that before in history.



Unprecedented, Tepid Recovery Under Obama Begs Question: Where Did All The Workers Go? - Investors.com

He continues to openly destroy the private sector and bolster the Government and the reliance upon it he favours with redistribution of wealth.

There is NO improvement...but cooking the books to make it look like unemployment is going down as jobs cease to exist.

280,000 government jobs were lost in 2011.

Despite that, 1.6 million jobs were created in 2011. That's the best number since 2006.

uh huh

 

[LilOlLady]

He made 1,000,000 workers disappear. No one has ever managed to do that before in history.

QUOTE]
America@work, 1999-2005
The U.S. economy has 3.2 million fewer jobs today than it did when President George W. Bush took office, including 2.5 million fewer manufacturing jobs. Bush appears headed for the dubious distinction of being the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a decline in total employment during his term in office.



Manufacturing jobs traditionally have provided high wages and good benefits that allow workers to care for their families. But 2.5 million manufacturing jobs have disappeared since President Bush took office in early 2001.

American Jobs: Going, Going...

 

[asaratis]

He made 1,000,000 workers disappear. No one has ever managed to do that before in history.



Unprecedented, Tepid Recovery Under Obama Begs Question: Where Did All The Workers Go? - Investors.com

This is the only reason that the White House can claim the unemployment rate has gone down. The unemployment rate is expressed as a percentage of the work force. The workforce consists of all employed civilian workers, all military and government employees and all those actively looking for work. When people quit looking, they leave the work force number and unemployment appears to have been reduced. Obama takes credit for reducing unemployment! Typical liberal bullshit! Just like Bill Clinton's alleged surplus...typical liberal bullshit!

It was a surplus. You obviously know nothing of economics...

No. There was no real surplus. Voodoo economics created one for Clinton.

Liberals can't admit to the truth!

You don't seem to understand on-budget and off-budget spending. Perhaps an economics course is in the future for you.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus, Part II

There Was No Surplus

There is no two ways about it: A real surplus would cause the total national debt to go down.

Had the trust funds contributed $248.7 billion in excess funds and the government had reduced the public debt by $250 billion, that would mean it used all of the trust funds' excess funds to reduce the public debt and also used a real $1.3 billion federal surplus to reduce the public debt. That would've reduced the national debt by $1.3 billion and been a real surplus.

But if intragovernmental debt goes up faster than the public debt goes down (as it did in 2000), it means the government is simply borrowing and spending money from trust funds and will have to pay it back later. That's not a surplus, it's just borrowing money from trust funds instead of the public. The money was still borrowed to make up a deficit in the government's general fund.

The bottom line is that there was never a real surplus. As I said in my original article, Clinton's best year still represented a $17.9 billion deficit. Only by using misunderstood government accounting that doesn't clearly disclose trust fund income can one presume to claim there was a surplus.

The most accurate and useful way to calculate a surplus or deficit is simply to look at net change in the total national debt. It really is that simple. Since the total national debt went up every year under Clinton, there wasn't a real surplus. The government just borrowed money from trust funds instead of from the public, called the borrowed money income, and claimed to have a surplus.

Note: There is a discrepancy that I have not yet been able to resolve: Table 2 of the September 2000 MTS indicates that the public debt was reduced by $222.7 even though the public debt was reduced by $230.8 billion (a difference of $8.1 billion); additionally, table 6 schedule D reports increased intragovernmental debt of $246.4 billion even though intragovernmental debt actually increased by $248.7 billion (a difference of $2.3 billion). This represents a net discrepancy of $5.8 billion. I'm certain this can be resolved with the numbers in the MTS but, at this point, I have not been able to get the numbers to add properly to account for the difference. If anyone is able to account for the mysterious $5.8 billion, please let me know.

Note: The Clinton administration is not the only one that has used this rather deceptive form of accounting. All modern presidents have. To see the real deficits of Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and G.W. Bush, please read this article.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He made 1,000,000 workers disappear. No one has ever managed to do that before in history.

Initial jobless claims unexpectedly jumped by 24,000 last week to 399,000 as more workers lost their jobs, the Labor Department said Thursday. At the same time, the economy continues to lose workers.

In the 30 months since the recession officially ended, nearly 1 million people have dropped out of the labor force — they aren't working, and they aren't looking — according to data from Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. In the past two months, the labor force shrank by 170,000.

This is virtually unprecedented in past economic recoveries, at least since the BLS has kept detailed records. In the past nine recoveries, the labor force had climbed an average 3.5 million by this point, according to an IBD analysis of the BLS data.

"Given weak job prospects, many would-be workers dropped out of (or never entered) the labor force," noted Heidi Shierholz of the Economic Policy Institute in her analysis of the BLS jobs report issued last Friday. "That reduces the measured unemployment rate but does not represent real improvement."

Unprecedented, Tepid Recovery Under Obama Begs Question: Where Did All The Workers Go? - Investors.com

I believe you are in denial. When Obama took office we were losing more than a half million jobs a month. consistantly. Job loss we are seeing is the result of Bush's 8 years of blunders after blunders. Tax cut for the rich. Two wars. Record borrowing from China and the lost of factories and business going over seas. Took the biggest surplus in history and turned it in to the biggest deficit in history. Get your fact straight. Obama has created jobs consistantly since taking office. Unemployment at 8.5%. When Bush left office the unemplyment rate was 66% higher then when the took office.
You cannot possible be that stupid.


BUSH'S ACCOMPLISHMENT AS PRESIDENT
George W. Bush's Resume

Do you also believe in Santa Clause and unicorns?

 

[edthecynic]

This is the only reason that the White House can claim the unemployment rate has gone down. The unemployment rate is expressed as a percentage of the work force. The workforce consists of all employed civilian workers, all military and government employees and all those actively looking for work. When people quit looking, they leave the work force number and unemployment appears to have been reduced. Obama takes credit for reducing unemployment! Typical liberal bullshit! Just like Bill Clinton's alleged surplus...typical liberal bullshit!

It was a surplus. You obviously know nothing of economics...

No. There was no real surplus. Voodoo economics created one for Clinton.

Liberals can't admit to the truth!

You don't seem to understand on-budget and off-budget spending. Perhaps an economics course is in the future for you.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus, Part II

There Was No Surplus

There is no two ways about it: A real surplus would cause the total national debt to go down.

Had the trust funds contributed $248.7 billion in excess funds and the government had reduced the public debt by $250 billion, that would mean it used all of the trust funds' excess funds to reduce the public debt and also used a real $1.3 billion federal surplus to reduce the public debt. That would've reduced the national debt by $1.3 billion and been a real surplus.

But if intragovernmental debt goes up faster than the public debt goes down (as it did in 2000), it means the government is simply borrowing and spending money from trust funds and will have to pay it back later. That's not a surplus, it's just borrowing money from trust funds instead of the public. The money was still borrowed to make up a deficit in the government's general fund.

The bottom line is that there was never a real surplus. As I said in my original article, Clinton's best year still represented a $17.9 billion deficit. Only by using misunderstood government accounting that doesn't clearly disclose trust fund income can one presume to claim there was a surplus.

The most accurate and useful way to calculate a surplus or deficit is simply to look at net change in the total national debt. It really is that simple. Since the total national debt went up every year under Clinton, there wasn't a real surplus. The government just borrowed money from trust funds instead of from the public, called the borrowed money income, and claimed to have a surplus.

Note: There is a discrepancy that I have not yet been able to resolve: Table 2 of the September 2000 MTS indicates that the public debt was reduced by $222.7 even though the public debt was reduced by $230.8 billion (a difference of $8.1 billion); additionally, table 6 schedule D reports increased intragovernmental debt of $246.4 billion even though intragovernmental debt actually increased by $248.7 billion (a difference of $2.3 billion). This represents a net discrepancy of $5.8 billion. I'm certain this can be resolved with the numbers in the MTS but, at this point, I have not been able to get the numbers to add properly to account for the difference. If anyone is able to account for the mysterious $5.8 billion, please let me know.

Note: The Clinton administration is not the only one that has used this rather deceptive form of accounting. All modern presidents have. To see the real deficits of Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and G.W. Bush, please read this article.

The problem is CON$ have been claiming for more than a decade that THEY produced a surplus during the Clinton years!!! In fact there is a Snooty Newtie ad running right now that claims HE reduced the national debt by $400 billion!!!!!!!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It is a sad but unalterable fact that the longer a person remains unemployed the less desirable an employee they become. Typical how this article never actually makes an attempt to explain exactly how it is Obama's fault, I guess it is up to the reader to fill in that blank.

Also unmentioned are the 3MILLION jobs created and/or saved by Obama's policies.

That's okay though. We're about to elect a "job creator" and everything will be okay.

(Note to RW voters - stuff your heads back into the sand._

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It is a sad but unalterable fact that the longer a person remains unemployed the less desirable an employee they become. Typical how this article never actually makes an attempt to explain exactly how it is Obama's fault, I guess it is up to the reader to fill in that blank.

Also unmentioned are the 3MILLION jobs created and/or saved by Obama's policies.

That's okay though. We're about to elect a "job creator" and everything will be okay.

(Note to RW voters - stuff your heads back into the sand._

So $850B plus $5 Trillion in QE for 3mm jobs is a good deal?