What now libs? Less than 18,000 jobs and

[boedicca]

Obama Made Things Worse.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I keep hearing how bad job growth was under Bush, Yet right up until he lost the House we had low and steady unemployment numbers. So I suppose that Job growth must have been exactly where it needed to be.

 

[Wiseacre]

What now libs? Less than 18,000 jobs

It’s idiotic to blame lack of job growth on 'libs' or Obama, in office only two and a half years.

Indeed, for the last 11 years, job growth has been poor:

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record
By WSJ Staff

President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.

His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton‘s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Poor job growth can be attributed to the Bush tax cuts, among other factors:

Sluggish private job growth indicates failure of tax cuts

Changes in tax law since 2001 reduced federal government revenue by $870 billion through September 2005. Supporters of these tax cuts have touted them as great contributors to growth in jobs and pay. But, in reality, private-sector job growth since 2001 has been disappointing, and a closer look at the new jobs created shows that federal spending—not tax cuts—are responsible for the jobs created in the past five years.

JobWatch

So what we’re seeing is the aftermath of Bush and GOP fiscal policy. I understand this is frustrating for republicans, conservatives, and others on the right, champing at the bit in anticipation of ‘blaming Obama.’ But he simply hasn’t been in office long enough to have any effect – good or bad – on the economy. Consequently, it will be the administration after Obama that will feel the effects – again, good or bad – from Obama fiscal policy.

Needless to say these facts have nothing to do with partisan politics.

It is beyond ridiculous that you would say this and reference a source that was last updated in January 2006.

 

[Toro]

What now libs? Less than 18,000 jobs

It’s idiotic to blame lack of job growth on 'libs' or Obama, in office only two and a half years.

Indeed, for the last 11 years, job growth has been poor:


Poor job growth can be attributed to the Bush tax cuts, among other factors:

Sluggish private job growth indicates failure of tax cuts

Changes in tax law since 2001 reduced federal government revenue by $870 billion through September 2005. Supporters of these tax cuts have touted them as great contributors to growth in jobs and pay. But, in reality, private-sector job growth since 2001 has been disappointing, and a closer look at the new jobs created shows that federal spending—not tax cuts—are responsible for the jobs created in the past five years.

JobWatch

So what we’re seeing is the aftermath of Bush and GOP fiscal policy. I understand this is frustrating for republicans, conservatives, and others on the right, champing at the bit in anticipation of ‘blaming Obama.’ But he simply hasn’t been in office long enough to have any effect – good or bad – on the economy. Consequently, it will be the administration after Obama that will feel the effects – again, good or bad – from Obama fiscal policy.

Needless to say these facts have nothing to do with partisan politics.

It is beyond ridiculous that you would say this and reference a source that was last updated in January 2006.

It's true, though. Job creation was the weakest coming out of the last recession than it had been since the Great Depression. And by some estimates, up to 40% of the jobs that were created were due to the housing and mortgage finance bubble. I don't blame Bush much since he was responding to the collapse of the Tech Bubble that was not of his doing, but the economic legacy of the 00s is dominated by one of the biggest asset bubbles ever. It's hardly something to crow about.

This is not about partisan politics. We have created serial bubbles over the past 10-15 years. We have gone from an economy that was managed to the inventory cycle to one where authorities rely upon and target asset prices. The aftermath of an asset bubble collapse is very different than the aftermath of a credit tightening which cools demand due to an inventory build-up. We are now dealing with that aftermath. It wouldn't matter if you had the most pro-growth administration ever in Washington. We would still be struggling mightily because that is the nature of economies after asset bubbles collapse.

 

[Wiseacre]

It’s idiotic to blame lack of job growth on 'libs' or Obama, in office only two and a half years.

Indeed, for the last 11 years, job growth has been poor:


Poor job growth can be attributed to the Bush tax cuts, among other factors:

So what we’re seeing is the aftermath of Bush and GOP fiscal policy. I understand this is frustrating for republicans, conservatives, and others on the right, champing at the bit in anticipation of ‘blaming Obama.’ But he simply hasn’t been in office long enough to have any effect – good or bad – on the economy. Consequently, it will be the administration after Obama that will feel the effects – again, good or bad – from Obama fiscal policy.

Needless to say these facts have nothing to do with partisan politics.

It is beyond ridiculous that you would say this and reference a source that was last updated in January 2006.

It's true, though. Job creation was the weakest coming out of the last recession than it had been since the Great Depression. And by some estimates, up to 40% of the jobs that were created were due to the housing and mortgage finance bubble. I don't blame Bush much since he was responding to the collapse of the Tech Bubble that was not of his doing, but the economic legacy of the 00s is dominated by one of the biggest asset bubbles ever. It's hardly something to crow about.

This is not about partisan politics. We have created serial bubbles over the past 10-15 years. We have gone from an economy that was managed to the inventory cycle to one where authorities rely upon and target asset prices. The aftermath of an asset bubble collapse is very different than the aftermath of a credit tightening which cools demand due to an inventory build-up. We are now dealing with that aftermath. It wouldn't matter if you had the most pro-growth administration ever in Washington. We would still be struggling mightily because that is the nature of economies after asset bubbles collapse.

To suggest that the Bush Tax Cuts are in any way responsible for poor job growth over the past decade, up to and including now, is preposterous. There was a very nice run up in employment between 2003 and 2008 before the recession hit. I would not claim that those tax cuts were soley responsible, but it could have had a significant impact.

It is my opinion that a pro growth administration would have made a big difference coming out of the recession, with policies almost the exact opposite of what Obama did. Maybe not back to what life was like back in the roaring 90s, but better than what we've got now. One wonders however what the political environment would have been, maybe there would have been no Tea Party.

 

[JRK]

At what point is the liberal going to realize that GWB is not the president anymore?
That he presided over 9-11
2 wars
6 major hurricanes in 24 months

The liberal is trying to compare the events of 1990s with the events of the 00s

And just ignore Obama, his policies and what he has done sense he has been president
"Never allow a crises go to waste"

what did GWB have to do with the jobs report May and June 2011?
its one thing to only create 18,000 jobs
but to spend the amount of cash we have went thru in the last 30 months? and you people keep trying to convince us that a housing bubble created all of those jobs when GWN was in the white house?

 

[Toro]

It is beyond ridiculous that you would say this and reference a source that was last updated in January 2006.

It's true, though. Job creation was the weakest coming out of the last recession than it had been since the Great Depression. And by some estimates, up to 40% of the jobs that were created were due to the housing and mortgage finance bubble. I don't blame Bush much since he was responding to the collapse of the Tech Bubble that was not of his doing, but the economic legacy of the 00s is dominated by one of the biggest asset bubbles ever. It's hardly something to crow about.

This is not about partisan politics. We have created serial bubbles over the past 10-15 years. We have gone from an economy that was managed to the inventory cycle to one where authorities rely upon and target asset prices. The aftermath of an asset bubble collapse is very different than the aftermath of a credit tightening which cools demand due to an inventory build-up. We are now dealing with that aftermath. It wouldn't matter if you had the most pro-growth administration ever in Washington. We would still be struggling mightily because that is the nature of economies after asset bubbles collapse.

To suggest that the Bush Tax Cuts are in any way responsible for poor job growth over the past decade, up to and including now, is preposterous. There was a very nice run up in employment between 2003 and 2008 before the recession hit. I would not claim that those tax cuts were soley responsible, but it could have had a significant impact.

It is my opinion that a pro growth administration would have made a big difference coming out of the recession, with policies almost the exact opposite of what Obama did. Maybe not back to what life was like back in the roaring 90s, but better than what we've got now. One wonders however what the political environment would have been, maybe there would have been no Tea Party.

I didn't say that we had weak job growth because of the Bush tax cuts. What I'm saying is that we had the weakest job growth since the Depression despite the Bush tax cuts. Tax cuts are not a panacea.

People do not understand that nature of this recession, nor this economy. And I would argue most economists don't understand it either, given that they are still stuck in their general equilibrium models where asset markets are of little importance. From WWII to about the mid-90s, economic growth was affected by the business cycle, which was influenced by inventory levels and credit. It was fairly typical. Overheating of demand lead to higher inflation, which was met by tight interest rates, which slowed demand, which meant a build-up of inventories, which meant slower production and a clearing away of inventories, which meant lay-offs, which meant slowing demand, which meant lower inflation, which meant lower interest rates, which meant cheaper credit, which meant increased demand for credit, which meant increased investment, which meant greater hiring, which meant increased demand, which meant increased production, which meant increased inflation, which meant increased interest rates, etc., etc., etc. This cycle is still very much with us, but some time around the rescue of Long-term Capital Management, asset prices became more important to the economy. Some might argue that this dynamic really began after the 1987 market crash. It's long and it's involved, but the upshot is that when asset markets overheat and crash, the prior bubble creates way too much capacity that needs to be absorbed in the economy. Only time will do that. Tax cuts are stimulative in response, but they are a minor bearing on this dynamic. Tax cuts didn't clear out the excess dark bandwidth left over from the tech bubble. They didn't bring back all the vapourized capital from dotcom companies. Nor do tax cuts do much to stimulate demand for houses, of which there are too many now.

This recovery is very much in line with the other 15-20 balance sheet recession recoveries experienced in the developing world over the past century. It hasn't mattered much what the politics or prescriptions in response have been to this type of recession. The nature is always very similar.

A competitive tax regime is important but it is an article of religion amongst the right in America that tax cuts are the answer to most, if not all economic problems. We had tax cuts a decade ago and now we are in the worst crisis since the Depression. Tax cuts aren't responsible for this mess, but they certainly aren't the answer either.

 

[boedicca]

It’s idiotic to blame lack of job growth on 'libs' or Obama, in office only two and a half years.

Indeed, for the last 11 years, job growth has been poor:


Poor job growth can be attributed to the Bush tax cuts, among other factors:

So what we’re seeing is the aftermath of Bush and GOP fiscal policy. I understand this is frustrating for republicans, conservatives, and others on the right, champing at the bit in anticipation of ‘blaming Obama.’ But he simply hasn’t been in office long enough to have any effect – good or bad – on the economy. Consequently, it will be the administration after Obama that will feel the effects – again, good or bad – from Obama fiscal policy.

Needless to say these facts have nothing to do with partisan politics.

It is beyond ridiculous that you would say this and reference a source that was last updated in January 2006.

It's true, though. Job creation was the weakest coming out of the last recession than it had been since the Great Depression. And by some estimates, up to 40% of the jobs that were created were due to the housing and mortgage finance bubble. I don't blame Bush much since he was responding to the collapse of the Tech Bubble that was not of his doing, but the economic legacy of the 00s is dominated by one of the biggest asset bubbles ever. It's hardly something to crow about.

This is not about partisan politics. We have created serial bubbles over the past 10-15 years. We have gone from an economy that was managed to the inventory cycle to one where authorities rely upon and target asset prices. The aftermath of an asset bubble collapse is very different than the aftermath of a credit tightening which cools demand due to an inventory build-up. We are now dealing with that aftermath. It wouldn't matter if you had the most pro-growth administration ever in Washington. We would still be struggling mightily because that is the nature of economies after asset bubbles collapse.

And the bubbles of the 00s were enabled by misguided government policy.

 

[KissMy]

And the bubbles of the 00s were enabled by misguided government policy.

Even the dot com bubble was due to bad Fed policy. To much easy money at the wrong time.

 

[Toro]

It is beyond ridiculous that you would say this and reference a source that was last updated in January 2006.

It's true, though. Job creation was the weakest coming out of the last recession than it had been since the Great Depression. And by some estimates, up to 40% of the jobs that were created were due to the housing and mortgage finance bubble. I don't blame Bush much since he was responding to the collapse of the Tech Bubble that was not of his doing, but the economic legacy of the 00s is dominated by one of the biggest asset bubbles ever. It's hardly something to crow about.

This is not about partisan politics. We have created serial bubbles over the past 10-15 years. We have gone from an economy that was managed to the inventory cycle to one where authorities rely upon and target asset prices. The aftermath of an asset bubble collapse is very different than the aftermath of a credit tightening which cools demand due to an inventory build-up. We are now dealing with that aftermath. It wouldn't matter if you had the most pro-growth administration ever in Washington. We would still be struggling mightily because that is the nature of economies after asset bubbles collapse.

And the bubbles of the 00s were enabled by misguided government policy.

Primarily misguided monetary policy.

 

[JRK]

It's true, though. Job creation was the weakest coming out of the last recession than it had been since the Great Depression. And by some estimates, up to 40% of the jobs that were created were due to the housing and mortgage finance bubble. I don't blame Bush much since he was responding to the collapse of the Tech Bubble that was not of his doing, but the economic legacy of the 00s is dominated by one of the biggest asset bubbles ever. It's hardly something to crow about.

This is not about partisan politics. We have created serial bubbles over the past 10-15 years. We have gone from an economy that was managed to the inventory cycle to one where authorities rely upon and target asset prices. The aftermath of an asset bubble collapse is very different than the aftermath of a credit tightening which cools demand due to an inventory build-up. We are now dealing with that aftermath. It wouldn't matter if you had the most pro-growth administration ever in Washington. We would still be struggling mightily because that is the nature of economies after asset bubbles collapse.

And the bubbles of the 00s were enabled by misguided government policy.

Primarily misguided monetary policy.

Deficits do not matter when there 2% of GDP and your fighting 2 wars, thats the part you left out about Cheney's comment
policy has nothing to do with a person approving a loan to a person who cannot pay for it
that would be root cause and at some point within that transaction many laws where broke

policy has nothing to do with rolling up that loan that should have never been approved to a person who could never pay it off and calling it a security
Policy has nothing to do with moody's rating those securities AAA, as far as I know not even today that has been addressed

So Toro,

What happened to holding the individual in account
Toro anything else you want to blame on GWB?
I am still waiting for you to explain to me what it is about tax policy I do not understand, the things you thought yesterday that was so funny

I guess you have no worries about employment nor you tax bill at the end of the year, hell just blame it on W
See what happens if you think instead of attacking people you do not agree with?
and 1 more thing
Your blaming GWB on the economy creating 18,000 jobs 30 months and trillions of dollars spent after Obama took office and 54 months after the Left took over the senate?
And you think the way I see tax policy funny?

 

[finebead]

Bush presided over a "jobless recovery" out to 2004, although the 2001 recession was small and short, despite his tax cuts in 2001, and again in 2003 because the ones from 2001 failed to create jobs. We got interest rates down to 1% in 03 and 04, and that caused more recovery than the tax cuts. Then the repubs over stimulated the housing market and the SEC relaxed the capital requirements on the big investment banks, which gave them room to buy all the bad mortgages and extend their debt to capital ratio from 15:1 to 45:1, which led them to fail within 4 years.

That created the great recession they handed to Obama, much worse shape than what Bush and the repubs inherited from Clinton, a balanced budget and a mild recession. Now the repubs complain because Obama can't fix it in a couple of years, when Bush couldn't even fix a mild recession in a couple of years. What a bunch of wusses. Job creation is slow, even after an $800 billion stimulus and record low interest rates.

What most miss is that this is NOT about tax policy, govt. spending, or interest rates, and it has not been for the last 15 years. It is not about repubs and dems, unless you simply don't look at ALL of the factors, OBJECTIVELY.

Something else is going on. Globalization, or jobs are being sent overseas. Automation, our jobs are being taken by computers and robots. Overpopulation, people keep producing too many offspring; there are more people and fewer jobs, especially manual labor jobs. None of this has anything to do specifically with repub or dem, or tax policy or interest rates. Why would we expect changing tax policy or interest rates to solve these long term issues? They won't. It will just give demagogues something to bitch about and cite irrelevant statistics with no cause and effect relationship to what is going on, and offer it as HAVING some cause and effect, and preventing most from accurately diagnosing what is going on and attempting to deal with it.

Think for yourself. Analyze all of the data. Don't listen to the talking heads.

 

[rdean]

Ongoing loss of government jobs is a major factor in the job growth weakness and has been for years.

Why aren't you small government conservatives happy? You should be, your agenda IS advancing,

and this is the result.

I've been trying for months to explain this to you people. Smaller government, whatever else it is, is a job killer, not a job creator.

You're wrong. Obamanomics is a Job Killer, and here's the score:

9.2% — unemployment rate for June.

0.1% — increase since May.

16.2% — underemployment rate for June.

0.4% — increase since May.

8% — conventional wisdom for the maximum allowable unemployment rate to win reelection.

15 — remaining BLS reporting months before Election Day.

255,000 — net jobs that must be created each and every month to reach 8%.

18,000 — net jobs created last month.

44,000 — downward revision to April and May job creation.

3,825,000 — total net jobs needed before Election Day.

2,100,000 — jobs created in the last fifteen months.

11.2% — unemployment rate if the labor participation rate was as high as it was in January, 2009.

290,000 — best monthly net jobs gain during Obama administration.

231,000 — real best gain, minus temporary Census hiring.

14 — months since best monthly gain.

1% — decrease in DJIA in the opening minute of trading, day that jobs figures released.

$1,200,000,000,000 — cost of ARRA “stimulus,” with interest.

1,900,000 — net jobs lost since ARRA was signed.

2 — quantitative easing programs since 2008.

~$2,000,000,000,000 — total of first QE program during Great Recession.

$600,000,000,000 — total of second QE program, just ended.

40% — increase in federal debt since January, 2009.

30% — increase in annual federal spending since January, 2009.

20% — decrease in federal revenues since January, 2009.

12% — decline in value of US dollar since January, 2009.

37% — increase in number of Americans on food stamps since January, 2009.

62% — increase in Misery index since January, 2009.

800 — days since the Senate passed a budget.

1.9% — last quarterly GDP increase.

2.5% — consensus projection for last quarterly GPD increase.

2.7% — official White House projection.

3.0% or better — GDP growth needed to dent unemployment.

3.6% — official White House GDP growth projection for 2012.

2.7% — IMF GDP growth projection for 2012.

30% — federal debt held by public as percentage of GDP, 2005.

60% — federal debt held by public as percentage of GDP, 2010.

180% — federal debt held by public as percentage of GDP, CBO estimate, 2035.

0% — odds of current path being sustainable.


Vodkapundit » The Bistromath Economy

Oops, you left out the part where Republicans have a plan.

 

[sparky]

44,000 LESS THAN REPORTED IN MAY
Liberals have used every excuse they can find with my other threads to ignore the events and facts of the situations we face today
U.S. Payrolls Rise 18,000; Jobless Rate Hits 9.2% - Bloomberg
Jobs stall, setting back recovery hopes - Yahoo! Finance
US stocks dive after dismal June jobs report - Yahoo! Finance

It's somewhere bettween amusing and sad that the economy is constantly a partisan issue fought bettween the looney left and the rabid right

i often find myself fascinated by either factions ability to connect with it, to blame the other bantering point of time stats in what are almost a century old in flux doctrine


Topheavy countries obtain disparity by greed and ignorance, the evidence of which elevates itself to a clear and present danger of national security if you believe the marriage of $$$ and power is counterproductive to democratic order, the pursuit of happiness, together we stand, divided we fall, or however else one would back up the American Dream

 

[Toro]

And the bubbles of the 00s were enabled by misguided government policy.

Primarily misguided monetary policy.

Deficits do not matter when there 2% of GDP and your fighting 2 wars, thats the part you left out about Cheney's comment
policy has nothing to do with a person approving a loan to a person who cannot pay for it
that would be root cause and at some point within that transaction many laws where broke

policy has nothing to do with rolling up that loan that should have never been approved to a person who could never pay it off and calling it a security
Policy has nothing to do with moody's rating those securities AAA, as far as I know not even today that has been addressed

So Toro,

What happened to holding the individual in account
Toro anything else you want to blame on GWB?
I am still waiting for you to explain to me what it is about tax policy I do not understand, the things you thought yesterday that was so funny

I guess you have no worries about employment nor you tax bill at the end of the year, hell just blame it on W
See what happens if you think instead of attacking people you do not agree with?
and 1 more thing
Your blaming GWB on the economy creating 18,000 jobs 30 months and trillions of dollars spent after Obama took office and 54 months after the Left took over the senate?
And you think the way I see tax policy funny?

JRK, I'd suggest you not take things so personally and learn to let things go.

 

[Immanuel]

tax breaks for the wealthy have been going on for over a decade now and the great job stream promised has never materialized.

Cutting the size of government has also been going on and no job stream apparent as claimed.


Why should we keep doing things that have already failed?

We've been cutting the size of the government? Are you smoking crack?

Do you have any links to back that statement up?

Immie

actually every month "gov." has been shedding jobs, 39K last month....now these could be also from attrition etc. but payrolls have been dropping.



Government employment fell by 39,000, the eighth drop in a row, following declines in all levels of government struggling to close budget gaps.

Worries Grow Over U.S. Jobs - WSJ.com

Well, I would have to disagree with your point in this way, number of bureaucrats (most of those who lost there jobs being low paid "clerks" anyway) does not in my book equal smaller government. In my opinion, and I may be wrong here, the government size is based upon budget and control of our lives. The government is getting bigger in my way of thinking not smaller.

Immie

 

[rdean]

Still waiting for that Republican plan.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Still waiting for that Republican plan.

Well rdean, to put it simply, the opposite of what this administration has done. Since obviously whatever they have done hasn't worked.

 

[rdean]

Still waiting for that Republican plan.

Well rdean, to put it simply, the opposite of what this administration has done. Since obviously whatever they have done hasn't worked.

When Obama took office, the US was losing 800,000 jobs a month. Now they're not. The stock market has shot through the roof. Oil companies are making huge profits.

The Bush tax cuts were extended (otherwise millions of Americans would have lost their unemployment). Nearly half the stimulus was tax cuts. Obama has had to deal with the filibuster party. He has no choice. Republicans have no problem taking the American middle class hostage, threatening their unemployment and wanting to end Medicare proves that. You know it and I know it. Caring for the country is Obama's weak spot from the right wing perspective.

 

[rdean]

We've been cutting the size of the government? Are you smoking crack?

Do you have any links to back that statement up?

Immie

actually every month "gov." has been shedding jobs, 39K last month....now these could be also from attrition etc. but payrolls have been dropping.



Government employment fell by 39,000, the eighth drop in a row, following declines in all levels of government struggling to close budget gaps.

Worries Grow Over U.S. Jobs - WSJ.com

Well, I would have to disagree with your point in this way, number of bureaucrats (most of those who lost there jobs being low paid "clerks" anyway) does not in my book equal smaller government. In my opinion, and I may be wrong here, the government size is based upon budget and control of our lives. The government is getting bigger in my way of thinking not smaller.

Immie

How do you explain 500,000 fewer government workers under Obama?