Obama Should Be applauded On The Economy

[pinqy]

yes its beauty too: 23 million unemployed and his communist health care is about to be declared illegal and anti American.

Except there is nowhere near 23 million unumployed. There are approx 12.3 million unemployed, seasonally adjusted up to 12.7 million. You're including people not trying to work and people who have jobs, but not working as many hours as they'd like.

yes its called U-6 it reflects the true state of BO's depression. Its the number Krugman uses since its plain Nazi- like to lie about what's really going on

Well, the U-6 is useful for looking at the full range of the labor market and how much it could be expanded, but it's NOT a measure of Unemployment. Let's look at the breakdown, using the not seasonally adjusted numbers (to keep things simple, as Marginally Attached aren't seasonally adjusted).
Unemployed: 12,271,000 people currently trying to work. These tell us the actual conditions of the Labor Market...people trying and failing to find work.

Marginally Attached: 2,423,000 people who are willing and able to work, looked in last year, but not last month, and stopped looking mostly due to personal reasons: family obligations, school/training, injury/illness/pregnancy, though the largest single sub-group is discouragement. These are NOT Unemployed because they cannot be employed as they're not trying to work. Useful to look at as people who MIGHT start looking soon and avaialble to join the labor force. Discouraged are useful for PERCEPTION of the Labor Market, but not for the actual conditions. The rest of the Marginally attached are useful as POTENTIAL workers.

Part time for Economic Reasons: 7,837,000 people willing and able to work 35+ hrs/week but working less than that, mostly due to cut hours but also due to not being able to find full time work. Useful for looking at market conditions as companies will cut hours before laying off people in many cases. Closest measure to Underemployment available. But these people are EMPLOYED. You can't call them unemployed.

Take the case of Person A and Person B doing the same job for the same employer. A works 30 hrs a week because that's the desired number of hours. B works 36 hrs/week (officially full time). Times get difficult and the employer cuts B's hours to 30 hrs/week. So now A and B are doing the same job for the same employer for the same number of hours, but you'd call A Employed and B Unemployed as B is Part time for Economic Reasons. Not exactly an objective measure of unemployment. Definitely useful to look at overall market conditions, but not "unemployed."

 

[BDBoop]

 

[Papageorgio]

Liberals please tell me how this policy that Obama wants to put into place would help American corporations and how it will promote employment and growth, here in America.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html

WASHINGTON -- A critical document from President Barack Obama's free trade negotiations with eight Pacific nations was leaked online early Wednesday morning, revealing that the administration intends to bestow radical new political powers upon multinational corporations, contradicting prior promises.

The leaked document has been posted on the website of Public Citizen, a long-time critic of the administration's trade objectives. The new leak follows substantial controversy surrounding the secrecy of the talks, in which some members of Congress have complained they are not being given the same access to trade documents that corporate officials receive.

"The outrageous stuff in this leaked text may well be why U.S. trade officials have been so extremely secretive about these past two years of [trade] negotiations," said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch in a written statement.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has been so incensed by the lack of access as to introduce legislation requiring further disclosure. House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has gone so far as to leak a separate document from the talks on his website. Other Senators are considering writing a letter to Ron Kirk, the top trade negotiator under Obama, demanding more disclosure.

The newly leaked document is one of the most controversial of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact. It addresses a broad sweep of regulations governing international investment and reveals the Obama administration's advocacy for policies that environmental activists, financial reform advocates and labor unions have long rejected for eroding key protections currently in domestic laws.

Under the agreement currently being advocated by the Obama administration, American corporations would continue to be subject to domestic laws and regulations on the environment, banking and other issues. But foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings.

The terms run contrary to campaign promises issued by Obama and the Democratic Party during the 2008 campaign.

"We will not negotiate bilateral trade agreements that stop the government from protecting the environment, food safety, or the health of its citizens; give greater rights to foreign investors than to U.S. investors; require the privatization of our vital public services; or prevent developing country governments from adopting humanitarian licensing policies to improve access to life-saving medications," reads the campaign document.
Yet nearly all of those vows are violated by the leaked Trans-Pacific document. The one that is not contravened in the present document -- regarding access to life-saving medication -- is in conflict with a previously leaked document on intellectual property (IP) standards.

"Bush was better than Obama on this," said Judit Rius, U.S. manager of Doctors Without Borders Access to Medicines Campaign, referring to the medication rules. "It's pathetic, but it is what it is. The world's upside-down."

In a statement provided to HuffPost, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative downplayed the concerns.

"This administration is committed to ensuring strong environmental, public health and safety laws," said USTR spokesperson Nkenge Harmon. "Nothing in our TPP investment proposal could impair our government's ability to pursue legitimate, non-discriminatory public interest regulation, including measures to protect public health, public safety and the environment."

Words like "legitimate" and "nondiscriminatory" can have flexible interpretations among international tribunals, however, which have recently ruled that U.S. dolphin-safe tuna labelling and anti-teen smoking efforts are unfair barriers to trade, according to prior trade pacts. The new investment rules, for instance, extend to government contracting negotiations, eliminating so-called "Buy American" preferences for domestic manufacturers.

USTR has previously stated that it does not comment on the terms of an allegedly leaked document.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative insists that while broad standards require many medical patents and IP rules that would increase the price of medications, the U.S. intends to work with countries involved in the Trans-Pacific talks to ensure that the agreement does not restrict access to life-saving drugs.

That statement is belied somewhat by recent American efforts in other international negotiations to establish controversial medical patents that grant companies long-term monopolies on life-saving medications. Those monopolies increase drug prices, which impede access to medications, particularly in developing nations. The World Health Organization and dozens of nonprofit public health groups have objected to the standards sought by the Obama administration. Two United Nations groups recently urged global governments not to agree to trade terms currently being advocated by the Obama administration, on the grounds that such rules would hurt public health.

Such foreign investment standards have also come under fire at home, from both conservative sovereignty purists and progressive activists for the potential to hamper domestic priorities implemented by democratically elected leaders. The North American Free Trade Agreement, passed by Congress in 1993, and a host of subsequent trade pacts granted corporations new powers that had previously been reserved for sovereign nations and that have allowed companies to sue nations directly over issues.

While the current trade deal could pose a challenge to American sovereignty, large corporations headquartered in the U.S. could potentially benefit from it by using the same terms to oppose the laws of foreign governments. If one of the eight Pacific nations involved in the talks passes a new rule to which an American firm objects, that U.S. company could take the country to court directly in international tribunals.

Public Citizen challenged the independence of these international tribunals, noting that "The tribunals would be staffed by private sector lawyers that rotate between acting as 'judges' and as advocates for the investors suing the governments," according to the text of the agreement.

In early June, a tribunal at the World Bank agreed to hear a case involving similar foreign investment standards, in which El Salvador banned cyanide-based gold mining on the basis of objections from the Catholic Church and environmental activists. If the World Bank rules against El Salvador, it could overturn the nation's domestic laws at the behest of a foreign corporation.

Speaking to the environmental concerns raised by the leaked document, Margrete Strand Rangnes, Labor and Trade Director for the Sierra Club, an environmental group said, "Our worst fears about the investment chapter have been confirmed by this leaked text ... This investment chapter would severely undermine attempts to strengthen environmental law and policy."

Basic public health and land-use rules would be subject to challenge before an international tribunal, as would bank regulations at capital levels that might be used to stymie bank runs or financial crises. The IMF has advocated the use of such capital controls, which would be prohibited under the current version of the leaked trade pact. Although several countries have proposed exceptions that would allow them to regulate speculative financial bets, the U.S. has resisted those proposals, according to Public Citizen.

Trans-Pacific negotiations have been taking place throughout the Obama presidency. The deal is strongly supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the top lobbying group for American corporations. Obama's Republican opponent in the 2012 presidential elections, Mitt Romney, has urged the U.S. to finalize the deal as soon as possible.

Again liberals, how does this policy help America or American interests and why would Obama want to move forward with this policy?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Definitely useful to look at overall market conditions, but not "unemployed."

U-6 is 25 million; its higher than ever and we have a more liberal president ( 2 communist parents and voted to left of Bernie Sanders) than ever. What does that tell you

 

[pinqy]

Definitely useful to look at overall market conditions, but not "unemployed."

U-6 is 25 million; its higher than ever and we have a more liberal president ( 2 communist parents and voted to left of Bernie Sanders) than ever. What does that tell you

Well, the u-6 is really a percent, not a level, and it's certainly not at its highest. And since it has only been a measure under : presidents so far and 2 of them are liberals, that 's not really saying much

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Definitely useful to look at overall market conditions, but not "unemployed."

U-6 is 25 million; its higher than ever and we have a more liberal president ( 2 communist parents and voted to left of Bernie Sanders) than ever. What does that tell you

Well, the u-6 is really a percent, not a level, and it's certainly not at its highest. And since it has only been a measure under : presidents so far and 2 of them are liberals, that 's not really saying much

so does that mean BO has done a good job given that only 25 million are unemployed??

 

[Trajan]

Obama took over the worst economic disaster from Bush in the history since the Great Depression and only had 1 month of double digit unemployment compared to 10 months of double digit unemployment under Reagan. And businesses are making record profits.

Q- should Reagan be applauded for his first 4 years?

 

[Oldstyle]

Obama took over the worst economic disaster from Bush in the history since the Great Depression and only had 1 month of double digit unemployment compared to 10 months of double digit unemployment under Reagan. And businesses are making record profits.

What's amusing about this post is it's complete ignorance of economic history. Yes, Ronald Reagan had a prolonged stretch of double digit unemployment but that was because he was handed rampant stagflation from Jimmy Carter and he chose to attack the inflation side of that first by tightening up the money supply which caused unemployment to rise. Once inflation was brought down substantially Reagan attacked unemployment with tax cuts and the economy went on the longest sustained period of growth we've had SINCE the Great Depression. You see, Reagan actually understood economics unlike our current President. Now did you want to make the point that some policy that Barry's implemented is going to cause the same increase in growth that Reagan's policies did? If so TS...I'd LOVE to hear which policy it is that's going to do that?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Obama took over the worst economic disaster from Bush in the history since the Great Depression and only had 1 month of double digit unemployment compared to 10 months of double digit unemployment under Reagan. And businesses are making record profits.

Q- should Reagan be applauded for his first 4 years?

but Reagan turned the recession into a huge huge boom while BO is pointing us into another recession.

BO's strategy is sound though. If he can keep this going for 10 years he'll rival FDR as one of the greatest liberal presidents!! If he can cap the depression with a world war that will be icing on the cake. Liberals would love him forever.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Obama took over the worst economic disaster from Bush in the history since the Great Depression and only had 1 month of double digit unemployment compared to 10 months of double digit unemployment under Reagan. And businesses are making record profits.

Q- should Reagan be applauded for his first 4 years?

but Reagan turned the recession into a huge huge boom while BO is pointing us into another recession.

BO's strategy is sound though. If he can keep this going for 10 years he'll rival FDR as one of the greatest liberal presidents!! If he can cap the depression with a world war that will be icing on the cake. Liberals would love him forever.

um actual Reagan inherited a growing economy
and the only reason wed go into a double dip is because we electec gopers

 

[Oldstyle]

Q- should Reagan be applauded for his first 4 years?

but Reagan turned the recession into a huge huge boom while BO is pointing us into another recession.

BO's strategy is sound though. If he can keep this going for 10 years he'll rival FDR as one of the greatest liberal presidents!! If he can cap the depression with a world war that will be icing on the cake. Liberals would love him forever.

um actual Reagan inherited a growing economy
and the only reason wed go into a double dip is because we electec gopers

Reagan inherited a "growing economy"? Sorry, my young friend, but I was around back then and the economy when Reagan took over SUCKED! The so called "misery index" originated from the Carter Administration because things were SO bad.

The reason that we're apt to go into a double dip recession is that despite all the claims of "months of growth" that progressives like yourself like to credit Barry for...the amount of growth is so minuscule that a small hiccup in Europe or China or some clueless person thinking it's time to rescind the Bush tax cuts could very easily put us right back into a recession.

 

[Papageorgio]

Q- should Reagan be applauded for his first 4 years?

but Reagan turned the recession into a huge huge boom while BO is pointing us into another recession.

BO's strategy is sound though. If he can keep this going for 10 years he'll rival FDR as one of the greatest liberal presidents!! If he can cap the depression with a world war that will be icing on the cake. Liberals would love him forever.

um actual Reagan inherited a growing economy
and the only reason wed go into a double dip is because we electec gopers

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19810119,00.html

 

[pinqy]

U-6 is 25 million; its higher than ever and we have a more liberal president ( 2 communist parents and voted to left of Bernie Sanders) than ever. What does that tell you

Well, the u-6 is really a percent, not a level, and it's certainly not at its highest. And since it has only been a measure under : presidents so far and 2 of them are liberals, that 's not really saying much

so does that mean BO has done a good job given that only 25 million are unemployed??

Except, no, there are NOT 25 million unemployed. We've been over this. You're adding 12.7 million unemployed, 8.1 million Employed who aren't working as many hours as they want, and 2.4 million people who were Unemployed, stopped trying to work, and may, or may not, start looking again. It's just dishonest to call all of them Unemployed.

And you're also mistaken about being the highest level. First, because the population increases, looking at levels on anything but a month to month change isn't all that useful. For example, because we have a lot more people in total now, we have more Unemployed than they did during the Depression. But as a percent of the Labor Force, we're nowhere close to Depression rates.

The highest rate (and level) for the U6 was 17.2% in Oct 2009. Up from 14.2% when Obama took office, back down now to 14.8% (was 14.5% in April).

The Labor Market was already going bad when Obama took office, and it's pure debate and conjecture whether or not the President's policies made things worse or better. Has he done a good a job by getting the U6 lower than it was? I don't know if his policies or actions had anything to do with it or if it would have been lower still if better policies had been pursued.

 

[expat_panama]

Obama took over the worst economic disaster from Bush in the history since the Great Depression and only had 1 month of double digit unemployment compared to 10 months of double digit unemployment under Reagan...

True, as shown by the actual numbers:

The numbers also show that Reagan's double digit rate was a short lived spike and that the rate had fallen below 8% in less than two years. The important part is the fact that Reagan's rate included the entire workforce and it went down because employment actually rose.

In today's economy the rate that's still above 8% is single digit only because so much of the workforce has simply been ignored:

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

The news hit yesterday after the Secretary of State announced it to the media.

4.8% Unemployment after dropping from 5.2%! That is amazing and despite all of the detractors, we absolutely KNOW without a doubt, that the Chief Executive is responsible. Course, I have to say that her team has had some very bad press (it is of course, very liberal) and we've had to listen to how it wasn't going to work. Yes, I said HER.

You see I forgot to mention that the 4.8% unemployment is for the STATE OF OKLAHOMA. The REDDEST state in the union and the Chief Executive is Mary Fallon. We've seen an influx of new companies moving to Oklahoma City and to Tulsa, mostly from the west and east coast and from the rust belt (We are right to work). We've seen a call for more welders, pipe fitters, teachers and construction workers. Even though we're right to work, union membership is growing in those fields. The budget for state government actually was the same as last year with several government agencies being combined into one (Oh my GAWD, you should have heard the Democrats whine on that one!).

Now before you members of the historicaly bankrupt left start talking about how Obama had something to do with it, let's remember that when he came to Oklahoma, the governor and the legislature just 'happened' to be out of state at the time. Additionally, we returned the 54 million meant to start Obamacare and passed a law that makes it unlawful to implement in this state (I don't know how legal that is, but symbolically it's huge!). We have a Republican super majority in both houses of the legislature along with our Republican governor. Our only Democratic Congressman is retiring because as HE said, he's blue dog and conservative. He ends up voting more with Republicans than with the Democrats and he's tired of how far left the Democrats have gone. The governor has ordered the Attorney General to keep tabs on the EPA in this state and to bring suit if they feel they overstep their boundaries. Open-Carry begins in November and the anti-gun lobby is in melt-down mode - it's hilarious. I can almost assure you that if Barry and boys want it in Washington, we do the absolute OPPOSITE here. Primarily, just to show that we can...

Apparently, it's working... and I know how bad that pisses off the left.

 

[pinqy]

The numbers also show that Reagan's double digit rate was a short lived spike and that the rate had fallen below 8% in less than two years. The important part is the fact that Reagan's rate included the entire workforce and it went down because employment actually rose.

In today's economy the rate that's still above 8% is single digit only because so much of the workforce has simply been ignored:

Ummm, there has been only one definitional change for Labor Force between Reagan and Obama: Under Reagan, people who had been hired but had not yet started work were considered Unemployed regardless of whether or not they had looked for work in the previous 4 weeks. Since 1994, that exception was dropped and even if someone had been hired (but not yet employed), they were still required to have looked for work in the previous 4 weeks to be considered Unemployed. This change did not have a significant effect on the Unemployment numbers.

No one in the Labor Force has been "ignored."

 

[hortysir]

The numbers also show that Reagan's double digit rate was a short lived spike and that the rate had fallen below 8% in less than two years. The important part is the fact that Reagan's rate included the entire workforce and it went down because employment actually rose.

In today's economy the rate that's still above 8% is single digit only because so much of the workforce has simply been ignored:

Ummm, there has been only one definitional change for Labor Force between Reagan and Obama: Under Reagan, people who had been hired but had not yet started work were considered Unemployed regardless of whether or not they had looked for work in the previous 4 weeks. Since 1994, that exception was dropped and even if someone had been hired (but not yet employed), they were still required to have looked for work in the previous 4 weeks to be considered Unemployed. This change did not have a significant effect on the Unemployment numbers.

No one in the Labor Force has been "ignored."

I know it's difficult for you to admit that numbers are being manipulated under this administration. But please TRY to look at unbiased sources, that don't support your preconceived conclusion, for some honest information.

 

[pinqy]

The numbers also show that Reagan's double digit rate was a short lived spike and that the rate had fallen below 8% in less than two years. The important part is the fact that Reagan's rate included the entire workforce and it went down because employment actually rose.

In today's economy the rate that's still above 8% is single digit only because so much of the workforce has simply been ignored:

Ummm, there has been only one definitional change for Labor Force between Reagan and Obama: Under Reagan, people who had been hired but had not yet started work were considered Unemployed regardless of whether or not they had looked for work in the previous 4 weeks. Since 1994, that exception was dropped and even if someone had been hired (but not yet employed), they were still required to have looked for work in the previous 4 weeks to be considered Unemployed. This change did not have a significant effect on the Unemployment numbers.

No one in the Labor Force has been "ignored."

I know it's difficult for you to admit that numbers are being manipulated under this administration.

Because they're not. The methodology has not changed. If you have evidence of manipulation, please present it. But there is none. The Obama administration has made no changes that would effect the UE rate or levels etc. More data has been added, and collection of duration of unemployment has improved, but the methodology hasn't changed.

The administration doesn't even have access to the data until the night before release, when the report has already been written.

But please TRY to look at unbiased sources, that don't support your preconceived conclusion, for some honest information.

I have. I've looked at the unbiased sources, and there is no manipulation. Stop reading bloggers who have never studied labor statistics and read the actual methodolgy yourself.

 

[expat_panama]

...No one in the Labor Force has been "ignored."

The hell you say.

Think about how many times Obama's bragged about all the jobs he's created. The fact is that since he took office there are fewer employees and this means jobs have been destroyed not created. Contrast that to Reagan's soaring employment levels:

Something even more important is understanding the causes of falling employment at the beginning of each term. In '80 we had stagflation, a recession with both double digit unemployment and double digit inflation. Inflation had to be stopped before employment could return.

None of that was happening in '08, but what we did have was a war declared on employers. This is what's got to stop before hiring can start back up again.

 

[Toro]

Obama took over the worst economic disaster from Bush in the history since the Great Depression and only had 1 month of double digit unemployment compared to 10 months of double digit unemployment under Reagan. And businesses are making record profits.

lol