The connection between unemployment and the US president

[Billy000]

Does anyone know the actual influence Obama has over the economy? To what extent does an unemployment rate reflect Obama's leadership?

Leave the political rhetoric out of this, guys. This question has a pretty concrete answer. Either you know or you don't.

 

[Vaard]

presidents get alot of blame... and credit.... where none is really due as far as their actions are concerned......

that is just the nature of the presidents position......

 

[Jarhead]

Does anyone know the actual influence Obama has over the economy? To what extent does an unemployment rate reflect Obama's leadership?

Leave the political rhetoric out of this, guys. This question has a pretty concrete answer. Either you know or you don't.

this is not rhetoric although it will sound like it.

But it is fact and using Obamas talk as of late...

The GOP believed little to no government intervention will help the economy grow.

And so they bloacked any legislation...as Obama made clear..as well as Pelosi and Reid.

And the unemployment numbers dropped.

So it seems to me that the President should get absolutely no credit...

He actually criticized those that stood their ground.....

That is a sign of poor leadership in my eyes.

 

[PredFan]

I can't explain it because I'm not an economist but a long time ago, before Obama, before Bush, before even Reagan, an economist friend told me this:

A president cannot do much of anything to spur the US economy, but he CAN hurt it.

I have always remembered that since.

 

[Billy000]

Does anyone know the actual influence Obama has over the economy? To what extent does an unemployment rate reflect Obama's leadership?

Leave the political rhetoric out of this, guys. This question has a pretty concrete answer. Either you know or you don't.

this is not rhetoric although it will sound like it.

But it is fact and using Obamas talk as of late...

The GOP believed little to no government intervention will help the economy grow.

And so they bloacked any legislation...as Obama made clear..as well as Pelosi and Reid.

And the unemployment numbers dropped.

So it seems to me that the President should get absolutely no credit...

He actually criticized those that stood their ground.....

That is a sign of poor leadership in my eyes.

Yeah, okay, so when the recovery is slow it's Obama's fault, but when there is a recovery you can thank the GOP

Typical rhetoric.

 

[Jarhead]

Does anyone know the actual influence Obama has over the economy? To what extent does an unemployment rate reflect Obama's leadership?

Leave the political rhetoric out of this, guys. This question has a pretty concrete answer. Either you know or you don't.

this is not rhetoric although it will sound like it.

But it is fact and using Obamas talk as of late...

The GOP believed little to no government intervention will help the economy grow.

And so they bloacked any legislation...as Obama made clear..as well as Pelosi and Reid.

And the unemployment numbers dropped.

So it seems to me that the President should get absolutely no credit...

He actually criticized those that stood their ground.....

That is a sign of poor leadership in my eyes.

Yeah, okay, so when the recovery is slow it's Obama's fault, but when there is a recovery you can thank the GOP

Typical rhetoric.

Excuse me?

How about you read it this way...

When governemnt intervened for a 2 year period, the economy would not recover.

When the government did not intervene, unempoloyment dropped by over 5%

 

[Billy000]

this is not rhetoric although it will sound like it.

But it is fact and using Obamas talk as of late...

The GOP believed little to no government intervention will help the economy grow.

And so they bloacked any legislation...as Obama made clear..as well as Pelosi and Reid.

And the unemployment numbers dropped.

So it seems to me that the President should get absolutely no credit...

He actually criticized those that stood their ground.....

That is a sign of poor leadership in my eyes.

Yeah, okay, so when the recovery is slow it's Obama's fault, but when there is a recovery you can thank the GOP

Typical rhetoric.

Excuse me?

How about you read it this way...

When governemnt intervened for a 2 year period, the economy would not recover.

When the government did not intervene, unempoloyment dropped by over 5%

You pretend as though the GOP have the best intentions for the country in mind when it comes to legislation. You apparently don't know how politics work. The GOP did not block everything Obama came up with because it was "government legislation." They did it to make Obama look incompetant and weak. Like democrats, they are just as weak (if not more weak) when it comes to the competition in politics.

Tell me, if this issue is so black and white, then why wasn't there any sort of economic recovery in Bush's last year of presidency?

 

[Jarhead]

Yeah, okay, so when the recovery is slow it's Obama's fault, but when there is a recovery you can thank the GOP

Typical rhetoric.

Excuse me?

How about you read it this way...

When governemnt intervened for a 2 year period, the economy would not recover.

When the government did not intervene, unempoloyment dropped by over 5%

You pretend as though the GOP have the best intentions for the country in mind when it comes to legislation. You apparently don't know how politics work. The GOP did not block everything Obama came up with because it was "government legislation." They did it to make Obama look incompetant and weak. Like democrats, they are just as weak (if not more weak) when it comes to the competition in politics.

Tell me, if this issue is so black and white, then why wasn't there any sort of economic recovery in Bush's last year of presidency?

you obviously have not read many of my posts regarding congress in the past. I do not beleive the president has any control over the economy. Only congress does. And as for congress, I am one of those that see them as a bunch of children wearing big boy clothes....all of them.

Now...that being said...

I am a firm believer that government intervention can nothelp the economy....but it most certainly can hurt it.

I watched a congress with a majority rule of those with an ideology of "government can fix things" do all they can with top fix the economy.....and nothing got better....nyumbers actually got worse.

Now....I am a conservative...so when a conservative politician speaks I do not hear it with spin....Ihear what they say.....so during the 2010 campaigns, I heard the GOP politicians say "vote for me and I will ensure the demiocratic policies will no longer stunt economic growth."

NONE had a "plan to fix the economy". They all had the plan of "let the private sector do as they do best"

Sure...their opponents spun it and said "he doesnt have a plan"....but that WAS the plan....the GOP candidates made it clear that their plan was to block any further legislation that spends money to fix the economy becuase SUCH ACTIONS DO NOT WORK.

So they acheived a majority in the house and sure enough they did exactly what they said they would do...BLOCK ANY DEMOCRATIC INITIATIVES THAT WERE DESIGNED TO GROW THE ECONOMY BECUASE THEY DID NOT BELIEVE THEY WOULD WORK AND TO THE CONTRARY SLOW DOWN THE RECOVERY, IF ANYTHING...

So when you say that I pretend to believe the GOP had the best intentions for the country.....well...first oif all...THAT is rhetoric from you so I suggest you practice what you preach......but all I know is that they did exactly what they said they would do....and based on the numbers that came out today, it seems it is working.

As for Bush's last year...irrelevant....but a recession takes 6-18 months to recover if NOT TOUCHED BY THE GOVERNMENT......so I did not expect a recopvery until 2009.......unfortunately, as I expected, the stimulus stymied the recovery.....

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah, okay, so when the recovery is slow it's Obama's fault, but when there is a recovery you can thank the GOP

Typical rhetoric.

Excuse me?

How about you read it this way...

When governemnt intervened for a 2 year period, the economy would not recover.

When the government did not intervene, unempoloyment dropped by over 5%

You pretend as though the GOP have the best intentions for the country in mind when it comes to legislation. You apparently don't know how politics work. The GOP did not block everything Obama came up with because it was "government legislation." They did it to make Obama look incompetant and weak. Like democrats, they are just as weak (if not more weak) when it comes to the competition in politics.

Tell me, if this issue is so black and white, then why wasn't there any sort of economic recovery in Bush's last year of presidency?

the recession started in August or so of 2008. Bush was out of office by Jan 2009. When was the recovery supposed to happen?

Obama undoubtedly is the most anti business president in history, at least post WW2. His rhetoric and policies have scared businesses and discouraged hiring. There is no doubt about that.

 

[Jarhead]

Excuse me?

How about you read it this way...

When governemnt intervened for a 2 year period, the economy would not recover.

When the government did not intervene, unempoloyment dropped by over 5%

You pretend as though the GOP have the best intentions for the country in mind when it comes to legislation. You apparently don't know how politics work. The GOP did not block everything Obama came up with because it was "government legislation." They did it to make Obama look incompetant and weak. Like democrats, they are just as weak (if not more weak) when it comes to the competition in politics.

Tell me, if this issue is so black and white, then why wasn't there any sort of economic recovery in Bush's last year of presidency?

the recession started in August or so of 2008. Bush was out of office by Jan 2009. When was the recovery supposed to happen?

Obama undoubtedly is the most anti business president in history, at least post WW2. His rhetoric and policies have scared businesses and discouraged hiring. There is no doubt about that.

Actually, the recession began in first quarter 2008....the financial meltdown that had nothiung to do with the recession became evident in late second quarter 2008...

If not for the financial meltdown spurred by the housing bubble bursting, the recession would likely have entered a recovery by first quarter 2009. However, at that point, government intervention did exactly what I thought it would do....it prevented a recovery.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

I think a president can somewhat influence an economy, but the economy doesn't go the way of the president. However as the president-the buck stops there.

Ultimately what you're seeing in this country is a result of many different things. Some of the main things are:

-Companies exporting US jobs overseas, or simply getting rid of them. Nowadays you're lucky if you get anybody on the phone if you call a company for support-even one located in India.

-Consumers buying products made from China (and other nations). Let's face it, their wages are so low that it's cheaper for US companies to buy products from there and have them in stores. It's why when you look at all of the great deals at a Walmart-most of the great deal items were made in China. Buying from products from China vs US obviously hurts the economy here at home-but the irony is in a hurt economy many people have to buy chinese made products

-Newer technologies replacing jobs. Workers with the help of newer technologies are now able to make the same amount of a product at manufacturing plants (and many places), with less manpower used. The lower the manpower used, the lower number of employees the higher the profit.

-Personal responsibility not being taken by individuals. So many Americans are maxing out their credit cards, taking mortgages at what they can afford (without leaving themselves any buffer room)-or worse mortgages they can't afford. It's all about now-never about tomorrow. The consequences of the actions of many are starting to catch up to them, and ironically most of them point the finger elsewhere.

In these scenarios the president didn't really cause any of them-but could have prevented most of them.

 

[Ravi]

presidents get alot of blame... and credit.... where none is really due as far as their actions are concerned......

that is just the nature of the presidents position......

Yep. And since everything has been blamed on Obama for the last three years, if the rightwingloons were consistent they'd be praising him every time the stock market goes up or unemployment goes down or consumer confidence goes up, etc.

 

[Jarhead]

presidents get alot of blame... and credit.... where none is really due as far as their actions are concerned......

that is just the nature of the presidents position......

Yep. And since everything has been blamed on Obama for the last three years, if the rightwingloons were consistent they'd be praising him every time the stock market goes up or unemployment goes down or consumer confidence goes up, etc.

Actually Ravi...I am not blaming Obama as the President. I am blaming what the media refers to as "Obama Policies".

Likewise, seeing as the demoicraticv party has been saying for the last 3 or 4 months (paraphrased)

'the gop is blocking all we need to do to fix the economy"...I must give the GOP credit for the drop in unemployment...it seems blocking government intervention in the private secotr worked.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Excuse me?

How about you read it this way...

When governemnt intervened for a 2 year period, the economy would not recover.

When the government did not intervene, unempoloyment dropped by over 5%

You pretend as though the GOP have the best intentions for the country in mind when it comes to legislation. You apparently don't know how politics work. The GOP did not block everything Obama came up with because it was "government legislation." They did it to make Obama look incompetant and weak. Like democrats, they are just as weak (if not more weak) when it comes to the competition in politics.

Tell me, if this issue is so black and white, then why wasn't there any sort of economic recovery in Bush's last year of presidency?

you obviously have not read many of my posts regarding congress in the past. I do not beleive the president has any control over the economy. Only congress does. And as for congress, I am one of those that see them as a bunch of children wearing big boy clothes....all of them.

Now...that being said...

I am a firm believer that government intervention can nothelp the economy....but it most certainly can hurt it.

I watched a congress with a majority rule of those with an ideology of "government can fix things" do all they can with top fix the economy.....and nothing got better....nyumbers actually got worse.

Now....I am a conservative...so when a conservative politician speaks I do not hear it with spin....Ihear what they say.....so during the 2010 campaigns, I heard the GOP politicians say "vote for me and I will ensure the demiocratic policies will no longer stunt economic growth."

NONE had a "plan to fix the economy". They all had the plan of "let the private sector do as they do best"

Sure...their opponents spun it and said "he doesnt have a plan"....but that WAS the plan....the GOP candidates made it clear that their plan was to block any further legislation that spends money to fix the economy becuase SUCH ACTIONS DO NOT WORK.

So they acheived a majority in the house and sure enough they did exactly what they said they would do...BLOCK ANY DEMOCRATIC INITIATIVES THAT WERE DESIGNED TO GROW THE ECONOMY BECUASE THEY DID NOT BELIEVE THEY WOULD WORK AND TO THE CONTRARY SLOW DOWN THE RECOVERY, IF ANYTHING...

So when you say that I pretend to believe the GOP had the best intentions for the country.....well...first oif all...THAT is rhetoric from you so I suggest you practice what you preach......but all I know is that they did exactly what they said they would do....and based on the numbers that came out today, it seems it is working.

As for Bush's last year...irrelevant....but a recession takes 6-18 months to recover if NOT TOUCHED BY THE GOVERNMENT......so I did not expect a recopvery until 2009.......unfortunately, as I expected, the stimulus stymied the recovery.....

That is some spin, Jarhead.

 

[Jarhead]

You pretend as though the GOP have the best intentions for the country in mind when it comes to legislation. You apparently don't know how politics work. The GOP did not block everything Obama came up with because it was "government legislation." They did it to make Obama look incompetant and weak. Like democrats, they are just as weak (if not more weak) when it comes to the competition in politics.

Tell me, if this issue is so black and white, then why wasn't there any sort of economic recovery in Bush's last year of presidency?

you obviously have not read many of my posts regarding congress in the past. I do not beleive the president has any control over the economy. Only congress does. And as for congress, I am one of those that see them as a bunch of children wearing big boy clothes....all of them.

Now...that being said...

I am a firm believer that government intervention can nothelp the economy....but it most certainly can hurt it.

I watched a congress with a majority rule of those with an ideology of "government can fix things" do all they can with top fix the economy.....and nothing got better....nyumbers actually got worse.

Now....I am a conservative...so when a conservative politician speaks I do not hear it with spin....Ihear what they say.....so during the 2010 campaigns, I heard the GOP politicians say "vote for me and I will ensure the demiocratic policies will no longer stunt economic growth."

NONE had a "plan to fix the economy". They all had the plan of "let the private sector do as they do best"

Sure...their opponents spun it and said "he doesnt have a plan"....but that WAS the plan....the GOP candidates made it clear that their plan was to block any further legislation that spends money to fix the economy becuase SUCH ACTIONS DO NOT WORK.

So they acheived a majority in the house and sure enough they did exactly what they said they would do...BLOCK ANY DEMOCRATIC INITIATIVES THAT WERE DESIGNED TO GROW THE ECONOMY BECUASE THEY DID NOT BELIEVE THEY WOULD WORK AND TO THE CONTRARY SLOW DOWN THE RECOVERY, IF ANYTHING...

So when you say that I pretend to believe the GOP had the best intentions for the country.....well...first oif all...THAT is rhetoric from you so I suggest you practice what you preach......but all I know is that they did exactly what they said they would do....and based on the numbers that came out today, it seems it is working.

As for Bush's last year...irrelevant....but a recession takes 6-18 months to recover if NOT TOUCHED BY THE GOVERNMENT......so I did not expect a recopvery until 2009.......unfortunately, as I expected, the stimulus stymied the recovery.....

That is some spin, Jarhead.

how is it spin?

It is not what I said...it is what Reid, Pelosi and Obama said.

They claimed the reason the economy is not recovering is becuase the GOP is blocking progress in congress.

Yet there are signs now that the economy is recovering.

So they admittedly can not say it is becuase of Democratic policies....they havent been able to enact them becuase of the GOP.

So it must be the GOP blocking everything that is responsible....

So how is that spin?

 

[Euro]

Does anyone know the actual influence Obama has over the economy? To what extent does an unemployment rate reflect Obama's leadership?

Leave the political rhetoric out of this, guys. This question has a pretty concrete answer. Either you know or you don't.

Their are large differences between each state in unemployment, it’s just bad circulation in the job market. E.g a state like North Dakota has unemployment 3.5% that’s nothing, it’s just circulation between jobs. Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming has almost no unemployment

It’s mostly bad circulation in the job market when you see the differences in unemployment between the states. If people can start moving to the states where the jobs are and improve the circulation in the job market the unemployment could be much lower.

It is probobaly hard to find a job in Nevada with 13.4% unemployment, but if that person moves to North Dakota(3.5%) he’s sure to find a job. The free market can’t work if people don’t move to the places where the jobs are e.g Vermont, Dakota etc.

List of U.S. states by unemployment rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Jarhead]

Does anyone know the actual influence Obama has over the economy? To what extent does an unemployment rate reflect Obama's leadership?

Leave the political rhetoric out of this, guys. This question has a pretty concrete answer. Either you know or you don't.

Their are large differences between each state in unemployment, it’s just bad circulation in the job market. E.g a state like North Dakota has unemployment 3.5% that’s nothing, it’s just circulation between jobs. Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming has almost no unemployment

It’s mostly bad circulation in the job market when you see the differences in unemployment between the states. If people can start moving to the states where the jobs are and improve the circulation in the job market the unemployment could be much lower.

It is probobaly hard to find a job in Nevada with 13.4% unemployment, but if that person moves to North Dakota(3.5%) he’s sure to find a job. The free market can’t work if people don’t move to the places where the jobs are e.g Vermont, Dakota etc.

List of U.S. states by unemployment rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I may be wrong, but to follow your premise......unemployment will still be at the national number....just the states would have more equal rates.

If you have ten piles of sticks with a total of 100 sticks.....some piles with as few as 1 and others with as many as 15....you can move sticks around and equal out the piles...each having ten....but there are still 100 sticks.

 

[8537]

this is not rhetoric although it will sound like it.

But it is fact and using Obamas talk as of late...

The GOP believed little to no government intervention will help the economy grow.

And so they bloacked any legislation...as Obama made clear..as well as Pelosi and Reid.

And the unemployment numbers dropped.

So it seems to me that the President should get absolutely no credit...

He actually criticized those that stood their ground.....

That is a sign of poor leadership in my eyes.

Yeah, okay, so when the recovery is slow it's Obama's fault, but when there is a recovery you can thank the GOP

Typical rhetoric.

Excuse me?

How about you read it this way...

When governemnt intervened for a 2 year period, the economy would not recover.

When the government did not intervene, unempoloyment dropped by over 5%

During that two year period, job losses went from 800,000 per month to job creation. GDP went from losing 9% annualized to gaining 5% annualized.

 

[Jarhead]

Yeah, okay, so when the recovery is slow it's Obama's fault, but when there is a recovery you can thank the GOP

Typical rhetoric.

Excuse me?

How about you read it this way...

When governemnt intervened for a 2 year period, the economy would not recover.

When the government did not intervene, unempoloyment dropped by over 5%

During that two year period, job losses went from 800,000 per month to job creation. GDP went from losing 9% annualized to gaining 5% annualized.

unemployment went as high as 10% and until this month never dropped below 9%.
You confuse the "job created" number with the "net job" number.

If company A goes out of business, but company B is able to stay in business becuase it got a big stimulus check and a government contract as well...and company B has no competition now becuase company A went out of business, company B has a larger market share and is able to hire more employees to fill the demand created by the loss of company A.

So company A loses 100 jobs...but company B hires all 100 of them....there are 100 jobs created due to the stimulus but a net 0 MORE jobs actually resulting from the stimulus.

Come on man....you are smarter than that!

Heck...you are smarter than me!

 

[Euro]

Does anyone know the actual influence Obama has over the economy? To what extent does an unemployment rate reflect Obama's leadership?

Leave the political rhetoric out of this, guys. This question has a pretty concrete answer. Either you know or you don't.

Their are large differences between each state in unemployment, it’s just bad circulation in the job market. E.g a state like North Dakota has unemployment 3.5% that’s nothing, it’s just circulation between jobs. Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming has almost no unemployment

It’s mostly bad circulation in the job market when you see the differences in unemployment between the states. If people can start moving to the states where the jobs are and improve the circulation in the job market the unemployment could be much lower.

It is probobaly hard to find a job in Nevada with 13.4% unemployment, but if that person moves to North Dakota(3.5%) he’s sure to find a job. The free market can’t work if people don’t move to the places where the jobs are e.g Vermont, Dakota etc.

List of U.S. states by unemployment rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I may be wrong, but to follow your premise......unemployment will still be at the national number....just the states would have more equal rates.

If you have ten piles of sticks with a total of 100 sticks.....some piles with as few as 1 and others with as many as 15....you can move sticks around and equal out the piles...each having ten....but there are still 100 sticks.

I think their is a larger demand for labour in e.g North Dakota or Vermont than Nevada. And it’s also a question about the right labour. That North Dakota has 3.5% unemployemnt is low and basically circulation between jobs, I would say the unemployment 3.5% is to low because their is to little circulation then. The number 3.5% represents basically people between jobs, it’s healhty to have some circulation in the job market.

But it’s also a question about the right labour, an unemployed mechanich in Nevada could well be needed in North Dakota. That will lower the national unemployment if he starts to work in ND when he can’t find a job in NV.

If people moves to where the jobs are,the unemployment will be lower. And the free market want work if people don’t move and that’s a problem.

Oil boom brings high-paying jobs to North Dakota - Sep. 28, 2011