What now libs? Less than 18,000 jobs and

[SFC Ollie]

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?

You sure about that number. That would be one huge change in one year....

The Obama administration says the government will grow to 2.15 million employees this year, topping 2 million for the first time since President Clinton declared that “the era of big government is over” and joined forces with a Republican-led Congress in the 1990s to pare back the federal work force.

Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million - Washington Times

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Nice list. Of crap. Prove each of them were caused by Barack Obama.

 

[JRK]

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.

Jobless recovery?
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
No-one is complaining about fixing it
ther complaining he has spent 3 trillion dollars more than w had and its as bad now as it was 36 months ago when it started
Bush did not cause this mess
Obama cannot fix it with money, only policy

 

[8537]

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.

Jobless recovery?
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
No-one is complaining about fixing it
ther complaining he has spent 3 trillion dollars more than w had and its as bad now as it was 36 months ago when it started
Bush did not cause this mess
Obama cannot fix it with money, only policy

Yes, jobless recovery. Almost 2 full years after that recession ended the economy was still shedding jobs - and over the course of that decade, the economy created less than 1/2 the number of jobs created in each of the previous three decades.

 

[SFC Ollie]

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.

Jobless recovery?
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
No-one is complaining about fixing it
ther complaining he has spent 3 trillion dollars more than w had and its as bad now as it was 36 months ago when it started
Bush did not cause this mess
Obama cannot fix it with money, only policy

Yes, jobless recovery. Almost 2 full years after that recession ended the economy was still shedding jobs - and over the course of that decade, the economy created less than 1/2 the number of jobs created in each of the previous three decades.

I have a small problem understanding this. you say jobs were not created yet unemployment level was where? Sorry, but most of Bush's 8 years we were at 5% or less unemployment. You don't do this without jobs......

 

[uscitizen]

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.

Jobless recovery?
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
No-one is complaining about fixing it
ther complaining he has spent 3 trillion dollars more than w had and its as bad now as it was 36 months ago when it started
Bush did not cause this mess
Obama cannot fix it with money, only policy

bush did his part to cause this mess and so did both houses of congress, the finiancial industry and virtually all Americans.

 

[8537]

Jobless recovery?
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
No-one is complaining about fixing it
ther complaining he has spent 3 trillion dollars more than w had and its as bad now as it was 36 months ago when it started
Bush did not cause this mess
Obama cannot fix it with money, only policy

Yes, jobless recovery. Almost 2 full years after that recession ended the economy was still shedding jobs - and over the course of that decade, the economy created less than 1/2 the number of jobs created in each of the previous three decades.

I have a small problem understanding this. you say jobs were not created yet unemployment level was where? Sorry, but most of Bush's 8 years we were at 5% or less unemployment. You don't do this without jobs......

Well if you're having problems understanding it let me try to explain it better:

The 2001 recession ended in October of 2001. nonfarm employment declined throughout 2001 and 2002, and the last month of negative job creation during that recovery was in August of 2003.

Between the start of that recession and the peak of job losses, the unemployment rate increased by just shy of 50%.

 

[rightwinger]

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

I've got an idea!

1. Lets cut taxes on the wealthy (cutting taxes on the working poor only drops them below the minimum taxation level and we can't have that)

Once the wealthy get all these new tax breaks they will turn around and hire hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers.

2. Then, after we cut taxes, we can deregulate all business and remove ALL government oversight. This way business can do what they want and will thank us by hiring more workers

3. Then we can remove all environmental regulations and worker safety laws. As more workers become ill and die on the job business will have to hire more to replace them

 

[Immanuel]

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?

500,000 more people on the unemployment line.

What is your point? I thought you were trying to help matters for your god.

That does not have anything to do with a "smaller government" as in being less intrusive into our lives or a smaller fiscal budget.

Immie

 

[SFC Ollie]

Yes, jobless recovery. Almost 2 full years after that recession ended the economy was still shedding jobs - and over the course of that decade, the economy created less than 1/2 the number of jobs created in each of the previous three decades.

I have a small problem understanding this. you say jobs were not created yet unemployment level was where? Sorry, but most of Bush's 8 years we were at 5% or less unemployment. You don't do this without jobs......

Well if you're having problems understanding it let me try to explain it better:

The 2001 recession ended in October of 2001. nonfarm employment declined throughout 2001 and 2002, and the last month of negative job creation during that recovery was in August of 2003.

Between the start of that recession and the peak of job losses, the unemployment rate increased by just shy of 50%.

I believe it peaked at 6.3%. Obama would give his left nut for those numbers.....

 

[8537]

I have a small problem understanding this. you say jobs were not created yet unemployment level was where? Sorry, but most of Bush's 8 years we were at 5% or less unemployment. You don't do this without jobs......

Well if you're having problems understanding it let me try to explain it better:

The 2001 recession ended in October of 2001. nonfarm employment declined throughout 2001 and 2002, and the last month of negative job creation during that recovery was in August of 2003.

Between the start of that recession and the peak of job losses, the unemployment rate increased by just shy of 50%.

I believe it peaked at 6.3%. Obama would give his left nut for those numbers.....

well yes indeed, he would. But it was 8.2% before he'd even warmed the chair in the oval office.

 

[JRK]

I have a small problem understanding this. you say jobs were not created yet unemployment level was where? Sorry, but most of Bush's 8 years we were at 5% or less unemployment. You don't do this without jobs......

Well if you're having problems understanding it let me try to explain it better:

The 2001 recession ended in October of 2001. nonfarm employment declined throughout 2001 and 2002, and the last month of negative job creation during that recovery was in August of 2003.

Between the start of that recession and the peak of job losses, the unemployment rate increased by just shy of 50%.

I believe it peaked at 6.3%. Obama would give his left nut for those numbers.....

you got that right about the 6.3%
People do not grasp how much the lack of a place for people to invest there money right now is harming the economy and that when it comes to taxes, the more welth I am allowed to keep, the more I will spend
the more I spend the more jobs I will help create

 

[rightwinger]

Well if you're having problems understanding it let me try to explain it better:

The 2001 recession ended in October of 2001. nonfarm employment declined throughout 2001 and 2002, and the last month of negative job creation during that recovery was in August of 2003.

Between the start of that recession and the peak of job losses, the unemployment rate increased by just shy of 50%.

I believe it peaked at 6.3%. Obama would give his left nut for those numbers.....

you got that right about the 6.3%
People do not grasp how much the lack of a place for people to invest there money right now is harming the economy and that when it comes to taxes, the more welth I am allowed to keep, the more I will spend
the more I spend the more jobs I will help create

And the same is true for most working Americans. The more money you have in your pocket, the more you spend. The same is not true for the super wealthy. You reach a point where your spending stops. As to investment, money has been invested in the private sector. But it has not been used to create jobs

 

[JRK]

I believe it peaked at 6.3%. Obama would give his left nut for those numbers.....

you got that right about the 6.3%
People do not grasp how much the lack of a place for people to invest there money right now is harming the economy and that when it comes to taxes, the more welth I am allowed to keep, the more I will spend
the more I spend the more jobs I will help create

And the same is true for most working Americans. The more money you have in your pocket, the more you spend. The same is not true for the super wealthy. You reach a point where your spending stops. As to investment, money has been invested in the private sector. But it has not been used to create jobs

There is no where to invest
we have got to open up places for people to invest there capital
Like Oil shale

 

[expat_panama]

... the unemployment rate increased by just shy of 50%.

I believe it peaked at 6.3%. Obama would give his left nut for those numbers.....

well yes indeed, he would. But it was 8.2% before he'd even warmed the chair in the oval office.

Anyone can click bls.gov and see---

--with unemployment at 6.6%, then Obama get's elected and employers flee. Obama must have a super cold but if it took him a month to warm up his chair...

 

[JRK]

I believe it peaked at 6.3%. Obama would give his left nut for those numbers.....

well yes indeed, he would. But it was 8.2% before he'd even warmed the chair in the oval office.

Anyone can click bls.gov and see---

--with unemployment at 6.6%, then Obama get's elected and employers flee. Obama must have a super cold but if it took him a month to warm up his chair...

Your are not the only person who feels that way
It is amazing how this economy, all of it really fell off the cliff when Obama became the clear leader in the presidential race
Tarp only cost us about 250 billion out the gate and its original intent
we got most of that back
Troubled Asset Relief Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
On October 14, 2008, Secretary of the Treasury Paulson and President Bush separately announced revisions to the TARP program. The Treasury announced their intention to buy senior preferred stock and warrants from the nine largest American banks. The shares would qualify as Tier 1 capital and were non-voting shares. To qualify for this program, the Treasury required participating institutions to meet certain criteria, including: "(1) ensuring that incentive compensation for senior executives does not encourage unnecessary and excessive risks that threaten the value of the financial institution; (2) required clawback of any bonus or incentive compensation paid to a senior executive based on statements of earnings, gains or other criteria that are later proven to be materially inaccurate; (3) prohibition on the financial institution from making any golden parachute payment to a senior executive based on the Internal Revenue Code provision; and (4) agreement not to deduct for tax purposes executive compensation in excess of $500,000 for each senior executive."[12] The Treasury also bought preferred stock and warrants from hundreds of smaller banks, using the first $250 billion allotted to the program.[13]

That stopped the bleeding, the end of the world scenario
the only fix we have from now on is the expansion of places we can invest and grow out economy
like oil shale

 

[JRK]

I believe it peaked at 6.3%. Obama would give his left nut for those numbers.....

well yes indeed, he would. But it was 8.2% before he'd even warmed the chair in the oval office.

Anyone can click bls.gov and see---

--with unemployment at 6.6%, then Obama get's elected and employers flee. Obama must have a super cold but if it took him a month to warm up his chair...

Another thing
those numbers come from the first week of the following month
Obama really should get no more blame than GWB
the housing bubble and all of the bad things that went with it caused that mess
todays mess is 100% Obama's
"never let a crises go to waste"

 

[Trajan]

heres an idea-


Our National Jobs Emergency
Immediate government spending cuts would only make things worse. A new jobs tax cut for companies repatriating their profits could help.

snip-

The horrific June employment number made it two in a row. With the latest revisions, job growth in May is now estimated to have clocked in at only 25,000 jobs. So that's 25,000 and 18,000 in consecutive months. Given the immense size of total U.S. payroll employment (around 131 million) and the sampling error in the survey, those numbers are effectively zero. Job creation has stopped for two months.

If we were at 5% unemployment, two bad payroll reports in a row would be of some concern yet tolerable. But when viewed against the background of 9%-plus unemployment, they are catastrophic. And going beyond the headline jobs numbers reveals an even bleaker picture.

The fraction of the population that is employed (58.2%) is now lower than it was when the recession officially ended in June 2009 (59.4%). The share of the unemployed who have been jobless for more than six months is now a stunning 44.4%. In a strong labor market, that number would be in the teens. I could go on.

snip-
We may be on the verge of doing much worse. If we crash into the national debt ceiling next month, Washington will be forced to reduce its rate of spending by 40%-45% immediately. Do the math. The implied reduction in federal spending would be equal to about 10%-11% of gross domestic product. If cutbacks of that magnitude were maintained for more than a very brief period, it is hard to see how we could avoid another serious recession.

snip-
A variant may hold more promise in the current political environment. Major corporations are clamoring for a tax holiday that would let them repatriate profits held abroad at a bargain-basement tax rate. They claim that all kinds of wonderful things would happen if this money came home. Trouble is, we've seen this play before, in 2004, and nothing wonderful happened—unless you were a shareholder or executive of one of the beneficiary corporations.

However, the tax holiday idea can be married to the new jobs tax credit. Suppose we allow firms to repatriate profits at some super-low tax rate, but only to the extent that they increase their wage payments subject to Social Security. For example, if XYZ Corporation paid wages covered by Social Security of $1.5 billion in 2011, and then boosted that amount to $1.6 billion in 2012, it would be allowed to repatriate $100 million at a tax rate of 5% or 10% instead of the usual 35% rate. The tax savings to the company would thus be $25 million-$30 million for raising its payroll by $100 million. That's a powerful incentive.

There are two main reasons for using Social Security wages as the base. The first is administrative simplicity: Every company already reports this number to the government, and it is next-to-impossible to "game" it without committing outright fraud. The second reason is fairness. Companies would be able to claim the full tax credit only for earnings under (in 2011) $106,800. No subsidies for raising executive pay.

more at-
Alan S. Blinder: Our National Jobs Emergency - WSJ.com

 

[rightwinger]

I believe it peaked at 6.3%. Obama would give his left nut for those numbers.....

well yes indeed, he would. But it was 8.2% before he'd even warmed the chair in the oval office.

Anyone can click bls.gov and see---

--with unemployment at 6.6%, then Obama get's elected and employers flee. Obama must have a super cold but if it took him a month to warm up his chair...

As the goalpost moves...

Obama is now responsible for the economy before he even took office

Just a question, what was the employment trend in Nov 2008? positive or negative?

 

[rightwinger]

well yes indeed, he would. But it was 8.2% before he'd even warmed the chair in the oval office.

Anyone can click bls.gov and see---

--with unemployment at 6.6%, then Obama get's elected and employers flee. Obama must have a super cold but if it took him a month to warm up his chair...

Your are not the only person who feels that way
It is amazing how this economy, all of it really fell off the cliff when Obama became the clear leader in the presidential race
Tarp only cost us about 250 billion out the gate and its original intent
we got most of that back
Troubled Asset Relief Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
On October 14, 2008, Secretary of the Treasury Paulson and President Bush separately announced revisions to the TARP program. The Treasury announced their intention to buy senior preferred stock and warrants from the nine largest American banks. The shares would qualify as Tier 1 capital and were non-voting shares. To qualify for this program, the Treasury required participating institutions to meet certain criteria, including: "(1) ensuring that incentive compensation for senior executives does not encourage unnecessary and excessive risks that threaten the value of the financial institution; (2) required clawback of any bonus or incentive compensation paid to a senior executive based on statements of earnings, gains or other criteria that are later proven to be materially inaccurate; (3) prohibition on the financial institution from making any golden parachute payment to a senior executive based on the Internal Revenue Code provision; and (4) agreement not to deduct for tax purposes executive compensation in excess of $500,000 for each senior executive."[12] The Treasury also bought preferred stock and warrants from hundreds of smaller banks, using the first $250 billion allotted to the program.[13]

That stopped the bleeding, the end of the world scenario
the only fix we have from now on is the expansion of places we can invest and grow out economy
like oil shale

As the goalpost moves even further to the left

Now Obama is responsible for the economy just because he was "running" for president