The connection between unemployment and the US president

[JakeStarkey]

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?

Because you have not discounted the TARP and the stimulus as finally overcoming GOP stupidity from 1994 to 2006, with a lot of Dem help.

Can you do that? Didn't think so.

 

[Truthmatters]

The economy was looking up in early parts of this year right up until the right pulled the debt ceiling stunt.

Then the numbers went down.

It was the right trying to keep us from recovery so they could win an election.

 

[Truthmatters]

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?

three words Debt ceiling stunt.

that proves you rant wrong

 

[Wiseacre]

I think any president has at least influence over the economy, by way of his policies for energy, the EPA, NLRB, new regulations, tax policies proposed. Beyond that he can also influence the business climate, creating a confrontational or cooperative one. To be sure, he doesn't have total control, not even close, but I'd say he does have an impact one way or another.

 

[Sundial]

The Republicans are absolute hypocrites on this issue.

They say intervention is bad... until the banks fail or the stock market gets skitterish, and then they support it. They criticize Obama for spending money, and claim it "didn't work"... until it does, and then they take credit for it. They say the President is responsible for the economy, because he's president... until it improves, and then they say the president has nothing to do with it.

The truth is that Wall Street and the big banks were going down the toilet, and Obama - along with some Republicans (Mitt, for example was for the bailouts, before he was against them) - stopped it. And they stopped them from taking the rest of the economy down with them.

What's happening now, meaning the economic recovery, is a direct result of the actions Obama took during the first two years of his administration. And the Republicans hate it.

 

[Billy000]

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.....

Obama has made an honest effort to be bi-partisan with his proposals. Not only does that make sense in helping the country, but it also makes sense politically. He needs to please both the House and the Senate for anything to go forward.

If Republicans are so concerned with government spending, then why do they still support the Bush tax cuts? Explain that to me.

 

[Full-Auto]

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.....

Obama has made an honest effort to be bi-partisan with his proposals. Not only does that make sense in helping the country, but it also makes sense politically. He needs to please both the House and the Senate for anything to go forward.

If Republicans are so concerned with government spending, then why do they still support the Bush tax cuts? Explain that to me.

Obama has made an honest effort to be bi-partisan with his proposals

 

[Billy000]

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.....

Obama has made an honest effort to be bi-partisan with his proposals. Not only does that make sense in helping the country, but it also makes sense politically. He needs to please both the House and the Senate for anything to go forward.

If Republicans are so concerned with government spending, then why do they still support the Bush tax cuts? Explain that to me.

Obama has made an honest effort to be bi-partisan with his proposals

Okay, then why am I wrong? It is so tiresome hearing this kind of bull on this forum. Back up what you say. Is it really that hard?

 

[editec]

The connection between unemployment and the US president

I find myself having difficulty believing some of you are really as stupid as your posts indicate.

Have you guys actually ever read the Constiution?

Apparently not.

 

[The Rabbi]

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!

8537 is among the dumbest most ill informed SOB's on economics on this board. He cannot tell the difference between job creation and net job creation. This new meme of his is more Democratic spin: take the amoung of job loss and then compare it with later job gain and come up with some number that is suppsoed to mean Obama is doing a terrific job.
In fact, in the face of very high job losses one would expect tremendous job creation in any recovery, as companies re-hire people laid off when orders pick up. This has not happened. So in fact 8537's metric proves that Obama is worse, far worse, than Reagan ever was.

 

[The Rabbi]

Obama has made an honest effort to be bi-partisan with his proposals. Not only does that make sense in helping the country, but it also makes sense politically. He needs to please both the House and the Senate for anything to go forward.

If Republicans are so concerned with government spending, then why do they still support the Bush tax cuts? Explain that to me.

Obama has made an honest effort to be bi-partisan with his proposals

Okay, then why am I wrong? It is so tiresome hearing this kind of bull on this forum. Back up what you say. Is it really that hard?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/01/i-won-president/

"I won so I trump you."

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

So, you're saying the latest UE numbers are good?? Based on what I've read in the last 2 days,
about 99% of the conservatives and various other Obama-hates say you're full of shit.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

So, you're saying the latest UE numbers are good?? Based on what I've read in the last 2 days,
about 99% of the conservatives and various other Obama-hates say you're full of shit.

Not good, moron. Better. Better doesn't mean good. It just means less bad. And I think they're temporary, as the fallout from Europe and Asia heads this way.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama gave the Republicans the extension of the Bush tax cuts a year ago.

Obama signed the debt ceiling/budget deal in August, the one that Boehner described as the GOP getting 98% of what they wanted.

Yesterday, the GOP and the right have a heyday telling us all how bad the latest UE report was.

Perhaps Obama's mistake has been letting himself agree to too many GOP ideas.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

So, you're saying the latest UE numbers are good?? Based on what I've read in the last 2 days,
about 99% of the conservatives and various other Obama-hates say you're full of shit.

Not good, moron. Better. Better doesn't mean good. It just means less bad. And I think they're temporary, as the fallout from Europe and Asia heads this way.

A guy who still has a Rick Perry avatar calling me the moron.

Priceless!

 

[The Rabbi]

Obama gave the Republicans the extension of the Bush tax cuts a year ago.

Obama signed the debt ceiling/budget deal in August, the one that Boehner described as the GOP getting 98% of what they wanted.

Yesterday, the GOP and the right have a heyday telling us all how bad the latest UE report was.

Perhaps Obama's mistake has been letting himself agree to too many GOP ideas.

The Democrats in Congress wanted the extension as much as the GOP. So Obama compromised with his own party.
He had no choice on the budget deal, which was hammered out AFTER he was asked to leave the room.
He has gone kicking and screaming on everything that he has opposed. He has never sought GOP counsel and never compromised on any position.

 

[Rozman]

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.

If the President is being blocked at any given turn by the Republicans.
And he can't get any legislation passed.In effect he has been totally powerless
in the last three years as the left mentions in all their talking points on all the
cable TV talk shows.....

Then how is it at all possible that he is responsible for the economy showing improvement?

He can't be responsible for the good numbers and
not be responsible for the bad numbers...right lefties.

Unless you're rdean,TM,or sallow.Then they have their rose colored glasses on.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not noted enough is that the "improvement" in the UE figure largely comes from people dropping out of the workforce. The economy created about 150k jobs last month. That is less than the 300k needed just to keep even. What changed was the number of people looking for work, which declined. Workforce participation is now about 63%, which is some kind of record.
This is change you can believe in.

 

[8537]

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.

No, I don't. The establishment data each month is a net.

 

[8537]

Not noted enough is that the "improvement" in the UE figure largely comes from people dropping out of the workforce. The economy created about 150k jobs last month.

no, the economy created about 350,000 jobs last month. Seasonal adjustments reduced that number to 120,000.