Economic Facts that Obama Keeps Ignoring

[bripat9643]

Mike, as usual, pens a confusing, mistaken condemnation of the economy and its record the last seven years. Of course he does.

Why are you defending it if you're a "genuine conservative Republican" as you claim?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Under Bush, the U-6 never got above 8 percent!

LIAR!

Bush took Clinton's stable 7.3% U-6 rate and passed on to Obama a skyrocketing 14.2% U-6 rate.
In his 8 years Bush had only 6 months at 8% or less.

Maybe you are right. Show a link.

U6 Unemployment Rate | Portal Seven

Hilariously, the OP linked to GWBush's U3 rate, not the U6 - either a truly dumb error, or the most blatant lying I've seen in a long time.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let me know when 5 million "government" jobs are gone. Let me know when the 85,000 IRS enforcement officers have been fired. Do you realize that we have nearly 15 times as many IRS officers as we do Intelligence Officers!?!?!?

the one million gone that NYcarbineer says have been lost didn't change the level of shitty service provided by the government. Tells me one million people needed to go as they were simply drawing a check.

Why would fewer government jobs make service better?

Redundancy. The sorry level of government service now is not discernibly worse than it was before those one million jobs were gone. Things not getting worse means those no longer in the positions didn't do much. If they did, one would be able to tell a difference based on the volume of jobs lost.

Think, please.

What I said was easy to understand. When the shit level of government efficiency stays the same yet one million government jobs was lost, tells me those in those jobs did nothing.

Have you been all over the nation measuring government efficiency?

You're blaming Obama for fewer government employees, while you're praising the fact of fewer government employees.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Con65 is a very, very confused individual.

 

[Conservative65]

the one million gone that NYcarbineer says have been lost didn't change the level of shitty service provided by the government. Tells me one million people needed to go as they were simply drawing a check.

Why would fewer government jobs make service better?

Redundancy. The sorry level of government service now is not discernibly worse than it was before those one million jobs were gone. Things not getting worse means those no longer in the positions didn't do much. If they did, one would be able to tell a difference based on the volume of jobs lost.

Think, please.

What I said was easy to understand. When the shit level of government efficiency stays the same yet one million government jobs was lost, tells me those in those jobs did nothing.

Have you been all over the nation measuring government efficiency?

You're blaming Obama for fewer government employees, while you're praising the fact of fewer government employees.

I don't give him credit nor blame him for fewer government employees. I seriously doubt, like many things, he actually has a clue as to how many less there are.

Have you been all over the nation measuring it to show what I say is wrong?

 

[edthecynic]

Under Bush, the U-6 never got above 8 percent!

LIAR!

Bush took Clinton's stable 7.3% U-6 rate and passed on to Obama a skyrocketing 14.2% U-6 rate.
In his 8 years Bush had only 6 months at 8% or less.

Maybe you are right. Show a link.

U6 Unemployment Rate | Portal Seven

Hilariously, the OP linked to GWBush's U3 rate, not the U6 - either a truly dumb error, or the most blatant lying I've seen in a long time.

The Right learned that lie from FOX, always use the U-3 rate as the "real" rate for Bush and the U-6 rate as the "real" rate for Obama.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The liberal replies are instructive. We get every excuse from the myth that Republicans have "defunded education" and "job training" to the claim that Republicans have not supported "infrastructure," and we also see many hands-over-eyes denials about the economic facts documented in the OP.

We have thrown hundreds of billions of dollars at supposed "infrastructure" under Obama. Remember the 2009 "stimulus" bill, a sizable chunk of which was for "infrastructure"? Yeah, it turned out that a lot of those supposedly "shovel-ready projects" were not really "shovel-ready" at all, and that a lot of them were of dubious value. So with all this spending on "infrastructure," why is the economy performing so poorly? Why has Obama's recovery been the weakest in modern history? Why has his "recovery" included two entire quarters of negative GDP growth?

 

[mikegriffith1]

In fact, the labor force participation rate has dropped from where it was 12 months ago. It was 62.9 in January 2015. It was 62.6 last month.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

So not only has Obama's recovery included two entire quarters of negative GDP growth, but the LFPR is lower now than it was one year ago. Funny how Obama failed to mention any of these facts in his recitation of economic distortions and myths.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why has Obama's recovery been the weakest in modern history?

liberals are anti-business. They hate corporations and stupidly view them as symbols of greed so of course liberal policies are actually anti business, anti recovery, and anti jobs.

 

[edthecynic]

In fact, the labor force participation rate has dropped from where it was 12 months ago. It was 62.9 in January 2015. It was 62.6 last month.

Why are wing-nuts too stupid to understand demographics?

See chart 4:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/09/art3full.pdf

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In fact, the labor force participation rate has dropped from where it was 12 months ago. It was 62.9 in January 2015. It was 62.6 last month.

Why are wing-nuts too stupid to understand demographics?

See chart 4:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/09/art3full.pdf

dear the Fed is very concerned about LFPR. Yellen is not a wing nut. Do you understand?????????

Yellen: " Indeed, the flattening out of the labor force participation rate since late last year could partly reflect discouraged workers rejoining the labor force in response to the significant improvements that we have seen in labor market conditions. If so, the cyclical shortfall in labor force participation may have diminished".

 

[edthecynic]

In fact, the labor force participation rate has dropped from where it was 12 months ago. It was 62.9 in January 2015. It was 62.6 last month.

Why are wing-nuts too stupid to understand demographics?

See chart 4:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/09/art3full.pdf

dear the Fed is very concerned about LFPR. Yellen is not a wing nut. Do you understand?????????

Yellen: " Indeed, the flattening out of the labor force participation rate since late last year could partly reflect discouraged workers rejoining the labor force in response to the significant improvements that we have seen in labor market conditions. If so, the cyclical shortfall in labor force participation may have diminished".

Sweetie, the FED takes into account demographics regarding the LFPR which is why they are raising rates, which they wouldn't do if the LFPR was as bad as you pretend it is!

 

[Siete]

During his state of the union (SOTU) address a few days ago, President Obama, as usual, painted a misleading, incomplete picture of the economy and his economic record. Of course, this is nothing new. Obama and his apologists have been doing this for years. Anyway, here are some facts that Obama didn't get around to sharing in his SOTU mythology:

* Although the standard (U-3) unemployment rate is at 5.0 percent, the U-6 unemployment rate, which gives a much more complete employment picture, is at 9.9 percent, and has gone up .3 percentage points since November (from 9.6 to 9.9). The U-3 does not count the long-term unemployed/those who have given up on finding work and those who are under-employed because they can't find full-time work, whereas the U-6 includes these people.

* The average U-6 rate under Bush was a good 2 points lower than it has been under Obama. Under Bush, the U-6 never got above 8 percent! Under Obama, the U-6 has averaged right around 11 percent.

U6 Unemployment Rate | Portal Seven

Unemployment Rate | President : George Walker Bush

* The labor force participation rate (LFPR) has been trending markedly downward since 2009, even soon after the start of Obama’s “recovery.”

United States Labor Force Participation Rate | 1950-2016 | Data | Chart (use the "max" view option)

Record 94,610,000 Americans Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Lowest in 38 Years

In contrast, during the Reagan and Clinton years, the LFPR trended markedly upward. And you can’t blame Obama's LFPR drop all on retiring Baby Boomers. Indeed, many Baby Boomers have found it necessary to keep working or to re-enter the workforce because of the weak economy and/or declining retirement income caused by the Fed’s unnaturally low interest rates (my own parents saw their retirement income drop by about $700 a month because of the drop in interest rates).

* Given these facts, some might be wondering how Obama could claim, as he did during his SOTU speech, that the economy has added 14 million jobs on his watch. Well, the simple fact is: it hasn’t. Obama cooked up this number by ignoring the worst economic months on his watch and then counting from there! No kidding. Even CNN has admitted that that’s how Obama came up with the figure of 14 million new jobs (see http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/13/news/economy/obama-jobs-state-of-the-union/ ).

Obama’s real job-creation number is 9.3 million. Never mind that many of those jobs have been created in spite of Obama’s policies, not because of them, Obama’s record pales in comparison to Reagan’s and Clinton’s records. Reagan created 12.6 million new jobs, and Clinton created nearly 21 million new jobs.

Both Reagan and Clinton raised a few taxes but slashed other taxes, and both signed several deregulation bills to ease the regulatory burden on American businesses. Overall, Reagan slashed the top two marginal tax rates by nearly 300% and also substantially cut taxes for the middle class. Clinton, although he allowed a modest increase in the top two marginal rates, cut the capital gains tax by a whopping 28 percent, created a new $500 child tax credit, raised the income limit for deductible IRAs, and nearly doubled the estate tax exemption (funny that liberals never mention these things when they praise Clinton’s economic record).

Obama’s job-creation record does top Bush’s: 9.3 million to 5.7 million. However, Bush’s numbers were affected by four events that were beyond his control: the huge economic damage done by 9/11, the enormous economic damage done by six of the 10 costliest hurricanes in American history (four of them are in the top six, including the most expensive of them all: Katrina; in contrast, Obama has had one top-ten hurricane: number 7, Irene), the recession that began soon after he took office (which obviously had nothing to do with anything he had done), and the Great Recession that began in 2008, which was largely caused by federal mortgage lending and securitization policies that Bush had repeatedly tried to stop (see, for example, The Real Culprits In This Meltdown ; How Government Housing Policy Led to the Financial Crisis ).

* Under Obama, real median household income has dropped sharply and is still nowhere near its average during the Reagan, Clinton, and Bush years. During the Bush years, it averaged nearly $56K, whereas under Obama it has averaged below $54K.

Real Median Household Income in the United States (use the "max" view option)

* Under Obama, the national debt has skyrocketed and is now well over $18 trillion. Obama has piled up nearly double the amount of debt that Bush did, and he’s done so in only 7 years compared to Bush’s 8 years. Bush added $4.9 trillion to the national debt during his 8 years in office, from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.6 trillion in January 2009. Obama has added $8.3 trillion to the national debt since taking office, from $10.6 trillion in January 2009 to $18.9 trillion as of December 2015.

And don’t let anyone tell you that some of Obama’s new debt is Bush’s fault because of the gigantic FY 2009 spending increase, as some liberals (such as Rex Nutting) have falsely claimed. In point of fact, the huge FY 2009 spending hike was done by the Democratic-controlled Congress. The Democrats stalled nine of the 12 spending bills until after Obama took office because Bush was going to veto them. Just go look at who signed nine of those 12 spending bills—it was Obama, not Bush (see http://dailysignal.com/2012/05/24/the-truth-about-president-obamas-skyrocketing-spending/ ).

* Blacks have done especially poorly in Obama’s economy. From median household income to poverty to employment, blacks are markedly worse off now than they were when Obama took office.

Larry Elder - Under Obama, Blacks Are Worse Off -- Far Worse

Blacks Lose Ground under Obama, by Deroy Murdock, National Review

Tavis Smiley: On Every Leading Economic Issue Black Americans Have Lost Ground Under Obama (VIDEO) - The Gateway Pundit

no matter how many times you explain debt/deficit and unemployed/out of work force to these IDIOTS they still have NO earthly idea WTF they are talking about.

amazing the total stupidity in the RW rank ..

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

amazing the total stupidity in the RW rank ..

if they are stupid why are they the ones for freedom while lefties are for govt and welfare?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the FED takes into account demographics regarding the LFPR

I'll pay you $10,000 if I disagreed. Do you know what a strawman is?

 

[Siete]

amazing the total stupidity in the RW rank ..

if they are stupid why are they the ones for freedom while lefties are for govt and welfare?

freedom as in no more Obamacare so taxpayers can foot the bills at County Hospitals because people don't have an insurance policy to pay for their illness?

that kind of freedom, stupid ?


back to debt/deficit/unemployment/out of work force idiots ...

 

[francoHFW]

amazing the total stupidity in the RW rank ..

if they are stupid why are they the ones for freedom while lefties are for govt and welfare?

Freedom to die in the gutter during ANOTHER corrupt Pub bubble/bust, dupe?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Freedom to die in the gutter during ANOTHER corrupt Pub bubble/bust, dupe?

dear, Fan/Fred were liberal and held 75% of subprime and Atl A mortgages at time of bust. Did you get that in your GED class yet?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

that kind of freedom, stupid ?
.

freedom from govt as our Founders intended, not freedom to get soviet welfare and a soviet standard of living!! A child would know that but not a liberal. Why is that?

Would you want to honeymoon is the USSR as Bernie did? Would you give Stalin the bomb as our liberals did?

 

[mikegriffith1]

In fact, the labor force participation rate has dropped from where it was 12 months ago. It was 62.9 in January 2015. It was 62.6 last month.

Why are wing-nuts too stupid to understand demographics?
See chart 4:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/09/art3full.pdf

I cite the actual numbers, and you cite a chart from 2002?

By the way, if you look at the BLS employment reports for January 2009 and December 2016, you'll find that the total number of employed persons of the civilian workforce has gone up by only 7.8 million, from 142,099,000 to 149,929,000. Under Bush, the total number of employed persons of the civilian workforce rose from 135,999,000 to 142,099,000, an increase of 6.1 million, and Bush's numbers were impacted by 9/11, the 2002 and 2008 recessions, and six of the 10 costliest hurricanes in American history (four of them are in the top six, including Katrina, the most expensive of all time).