Is the economy getting better?

[TemplarKormac]

You are following the old reactionary talking points, bub. Yes, we are doing slightly better than the end of Dec 2008 in that the lost jobs have been replaced, a million more added, but the sticking point is unemployment for sure.

This will help you. Bureau of Labor Statistics Data You really need to move off talking points and dealing with reality.

Uh. Wrong. At the end of 2008, 143,369K people were employed. As of the end of March 2013, 143,286K people were employed. All of the lost jobs have not been replaced - and we haven't created enough jobs for the growing population.

The civilian non-institutional population was 235,035K in December 2009; in March 2013 it had increased to 244,995K. Nearly 10M more people, of which 60% plus should have been able to find jobs...but there are no jobs for them. That is not Economic Progress.

IOW, we have a jobs deficit of at least 6M jobs.

Heckuva job, Barry!

Sure, if the economy had not crashed. You really should not ignore that important fact. We have replaced the jobs we lost, added another million, but still short of were could be, yes.

The fact is that the far left and the far right are holding us back.

LMAO!!!!

My bold.

Seriously? This is something I would expect Obama's press secretary to say. Please, show us this 1mil increase in jobs? Don't you think the BLS data would reflect something like that?

 

[boedicca]

Yes, the economy crashed - as it has in other recessions.

What's different this time: the worst combination of government policies and interference ever, which has crushed the opportunity for a recovery.

Not ever: it took WWII to recover the American economy from the Great Depression.

And your conclusion is not fact, only opinion.

Our economy is moving forward, however weakly, yet forward.

That is ABSOLUTE POPPYCOCK.

FDR wanted a 2nd New Deal because he feared the economy would reenter the Depression when the soldiers returned home to No Jobs. Fortunately, Congress CUT TAXES instead.

What about World War II? We need to understand that the near-full employment during the conflict was temporary. Ten million to 12 million soldiers overseas and another 10 million to 15 million people making tanks, bullets and war materiel do not a lasting recovery make. The country essentially traded temporary jobs for a skyrocketing national debt. Many of those jobs had little or no value after the war.

No one knew this more than FDR himself. His key advisers were frantic at the possibility of the Great Depression's return when the war ended and the soldiers came home. The president believed a New Deal revival was the answer—and on Oct. 28, 1944, about six months before his death, he spelled out his vision for a postwar America. It included government-subsidized housing, federal involvement in health care, more TVA projects, and the "right to a useful and remunerative job" provided by the federal government if necessary.

Roosevelt died before the war ended and before he could implement his New Deal revival. His successor, Harry Truman, in a 16,000 word message on Sept. 6, 1945, urged Congress to enact FDR's ideas as the best way to achieve full employment after the war.

Congress—both chambers with Democratic majorities—responded by just saying "no." No to the whole New Deal revival: no federal program for health care, no full-employment act, only limited federal housing, and no increase in minimum wage or Social Security benefits.

Instead, Congress reduced taxes. Income tax rates were cut across the board. FDR's top marginal rate, 94% on all income over $200,000, was cut to 86.45%. The lowest rate was cut to 19% from 23%, and with a change in the amount of income exempt from taxation an estimated 12 million Americans were eliminated from the tax rolls entirely.

Corporate tax rates were trimmed and FDR's "excess profits" tax was repealed, which meant that top marginal corporate tax rates effectively went to 38% from 90% after 1945.

Georgia Sen. Walter George, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, defended the Revenue Act of 1945 with arguments that today we would call "supply-side economics." If the tax bill "has the effect which it is hoped it will have," George said, "it will so stimulate the expansion of business as to bring in a greater total revenue."

He was prophetic. By the late 1940s, a revived economy was generating more annual federal revenue than the U.S. had received during the war years, when tax rates were higher. Price controls from the war were also eliminated by the end of 1946. The U.S. began running budget surpluses....

Burt Folsom: Did FDR End the Depression? - WSJ.com

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, the economy crashed - as it has in other recessions.

What's different this time: the worst combination of government policies and interference ever, which has crushed the opportunity for a recovery.

Not ever: it took WWII to recover the American economy from the Great Depression.

And your conclusion is not fact, only opinion.

Our economy is moving forward, however weakly, yet forward.

That is ABSOLUTE POPPYCOCK.

FDR wanted a 2nd New Deal because he feared the economy would reenter the Depression when the soldiers returned home to No Jobs. Fortunately, Congress CUT TAXES instead.

What about World War II? We need to understand that the near-full employment during the conflict was temporary. Ten million to 12 million soldiers overseas and another 10 million to 15 million people making tanks, bullets and war materiel do not a lasting recovery make. The country essentially traded temporary jobs for a skyrocketing national debt. Many of those jobs had little or no value after the war.

No one knew this more than FDR himself. His key advisers were frantic at the possibility of the Great Depression's return when the war ended and the soldiers came home. The president believed a New Deal revival was the answer—and on Oct. 28, 1944, about six months before his death, he spelled out his vision for a postwar America. It included government-subsidized housing, federal involvement in health care, more TVA projects, and the "right to a useful and remunerative job" provided by the federal government if necessary.

Roosevelt died before the war ended and before he could implement his New Deal revival. His successor, Harry Truman, in a 16,000 word message on Sept. 6, 1945, urged Congress to enact FDR's ideas as the best way to achieve full employment after the war.

Congress—both chambers with Democratic majorities—responded by just saying "no." No to the whole New Deal revival: no federal program for health care, no full-employment act, only limited federal housing, and no increase in minimum wage or Social Security benefits.

Instead, Congress reduced taxes. Income tax rates were cut across the board. FDR's top marginal rate, 94% on all income over $200,000, was cut to 86.45%. The lowest rate was cut to 19% from 23%, and with a change in the amount of income exempt from taxation an estimated 12 million Americans were eliminated from the tax rolls entirely.

Corporate tax rates were trimmed and FDR's "excess profits" tax was repealed, which meant that top marginal corporate tax rates effectively went to 38% from 90% after 1945.

Georgia Sen. Walter George, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, defended the Revenue Act of 1945 with arguments that today we would call "supply-side economics." If the tax bill "has the effect which it is hoped it will have," George said, "it will so stimulate the expansion of business as to bring in a greater total revenue."

He was prophetic. By the late 1940s, a revived economy was generating more annual federal revenue than the U.S. had received during the war years, when tax rates were higher. Price controls from the war were also eliminated by the end of 1946. The U.S. began running budget surpluses....

Burt Folsom: Did FDR End the Depression? - WSJ.com

Your entitled to your opinion but the facts contradict you and the writer. And the final title about "Did FDR End the Depression?" had nothing to do with my statement. He did not, it was the war and demand for production that ended the Depression.

 

[boedicca]

Not ever: it took WWII to recover the American economy from the Great Depression.

And your conclusion is not fact, only opinion.

Our economy is moving forward, however weakly, yet forward.

That is ABSOLUTE POPPYCOCK.

FDR wanted a 2nd New Deal because he feared the economy would reenter the Depression when the soldiers returned home to No Jobs. Fortunately, Congress CUT TAXES instead.

What about World War II? We need to understand that the near-full employment during the conflict was temporary. Ten million to 12 million soldiers overseas and another 10 million to 15 million people making tanks, bullets and war materiel do not a lasting recovery make. The country essentially traded temporary jobs for a skyrocketing national debt. Many of those jobs had little or no value after the war.

No one knew this more than FDR himself. His key advisers were frantic at the possibility of the Great Depression's return when the war ended and the soldiers came home. The president believed a New Deal revival was the answer—and on Oct. 28, 1944, about six months before his death, he spelled out his vision for a postwar America. It included government-subsidized housing, federal involvement in health care, more TVA projects, and the "right to a useful and remunerative job" provided by the federal government if necessary.

Roosevelt died before the war ended and before he could implement his New Deal revival. His successor, Harry Truman, in a 16,000 word message on Sept. 6, 1945, urged Congress to enact FDR's ideas as the best way to achieve full employment after the war.

Congress—both chambers with Democratic majorities—responded by just saying "no." No to the whole New Deal revival: no federal program for health care, no full-employment act, only limited federal housing, and no increase in minimum wage or Social Security benefits.

Instead, Congress reduced taxes. Income tax rates were cut across the board. FDR's top marginal rate, 94% on all income over $200,000, was cut to 86.45%. The lowest rate was cut to 19% from 23%, and with a change in the amount of income exempt from taxation an estimated 12 million Americans were eliminated from the tax rolls entirely.

Corporate tax rates were trimmed and FDR's "excess profits" tax was repealed, which meant that top marginal corporate tax rates effectively went to 38% from 90% after 1945.

Georgia Sen. Walter George, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, defended the Revenue Act of 1945 with arguments that today we would call "supply-side economics." If the tax bill "has the effect which it is hoped it will have," George said, "it will so stimulate the expansion of business as to bring in a greater total revenue."

He was prophetic. By the late 1940s, a revived economy was generating more annual federal revenue than the U.S. had received during the war years, when tax rates were higher. Price controls from the war were also eliminated by the end of 1946. The U.S. began running budget surpluses....

Burt Folsom: Did FDR End the Depression? - WSJ.com

Your entitled to your opinion but the facts contradict you and the writer. And the final title about "Did FDR End the Depression?" had nothing to do with my statement. He did not, it was the war and demand for production that ended the Depression.

I see your reading comprehension is as lacking as your reason and intellect.

 

[JakeStarkey]

boedicca is now conceding the point as she moves to the only position left, ad hom personality smears. Smart of her.

ps: not that I have not done that myself

edit: we will leave her to her trolling

 

[boedicca]

You can't read. What a moron you are.

 

[TemplarKormac]

boedicca is now conceding the point as she moves to the only position left, ad hom personality smears. Smart of her.

ps: not that I have not done that myself

edit: we will leave her to her trolling

Notice how you are not arguing your point anymore.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You are following the old reactionary talking points, bub. Yes, we are doing slightly better than the end of Dec 2008 in that the lost jobs have been replaced, a million more added, but the sticking point is unemployment for sure.

This will help you. Bureau of Labor Statistics Data You really need to move off talking points and dealing with reality.

Really now? I'll find the same statistics bigR did. A decline in labor force participation rate to 63.3%, lowest in almost 40 years, and a fact that you, with all your self flagellating cannot deny.

Bush had a higher UE in his last month than BHO has now, we have replaced all the jobs we have lost, added an extra million, all with an increase in 13mm in the population since 2007. Interesting that.

Your problem is that you can't see the glass is half full. You want it completely full without accepting the fact that a far right GOP Congress and two compliant Presidents plus compliant Dems broke the economy.

What is that?

See, you claim to be neutral but are taking sides. You are nothing but a tool in the Liberal shed. Here you are trying to rationalize the failures of the current administration.

Is there something wrong with wanting the glass to be completely full?

Once again you claim we have replaced all of the jobs lost., without backing this claim up.

Then why are there 11 million people still out of work? The whole fact of the matter is that Clinton started this mess, if you don't believe me, look it up.

 

[foxyladi]

Briefly stated; the economy is definitely getting better. But not for me. And unless you are among the One Percent it's not getting better for you, either.

Basically, what is happening is precisely what was intended to happen when Ronald Reagan was positioned to commence disassembly of the New Deal, to undermine the union movement, and to disassemble the hard-won Middle Class.

It's taken them awhile to get it done, but they are doing it.

OH so now it's Reagans fault.
OMG

Everyone but them.

 

[pinqy]

We have replaced the jobs we lost, added another million, but still short of were could be, yes.
.

No, we haven't. Yes, we're above the jobs level when Obama took office, but we're still almost 3 million short of the pre-recession jobs level.

 

[pinqy]

Nope. In fact it is the same as it was, if not worse than in December 2008. Don't try that Liberal talking point, all you're essentially doing is placing blame.

You are following the old reactionary talking points, bub. Yes, we are doing slightly better than the end of Dec 2008 in that the lost jobs have been replaced, a million more added, but the sticking point is unemployment for sure.

This will help you. Bureau of Labor Statistics Data You really need to move off talking points and dealing with reality.

Uh. Wrong. At the end of 2008, 143,369K people were employed. As of the end of March 2013, 143,286K people were employed. All of the lost jobs have not been replaced - and we haven't created enough jobs for the growing population.

The civilian non-institutional population was 235,035K in December 2009; in March 2013 it had increased to 244,995K. Nearly 10M more people, of which 60% plus should have been able to find jobs...but there are no jobs for them. That is not Economic Progress.

IOW, we have a jobs deficit of at least 6M jobs.

Heckuva job, Barry!

You're confusing Jobs and Employment. Different concepts, different definitions, and samples and time frame. He is correct that "jobs", meaning non-farm payroll jobs is higher than December 2008. Not sure why he chose that particular month, though. So we do have more jobs now than when Obama took office, but we have not recovered the jobs lost under Bush's last year in office.

Total employment, which you're citing, is as you say. But again, they're not the same thing. "Jobs" is more accurate, but "Employment" is broader. "Jobs" excludes agriculture, the self-employed, people who work in other people's houses, and unpaid family working in a family business/farm. It also counts jobs, not people, so someone with 2 jobs gets counted twice. "Employment" covers everyone 16 and older (excluding military) but also has a much larger margin of error.

 

[Nova78]

I am showing the facts.

We have 1mm more jobs than just before the economy tanked.

I posted above. The 13mm growth covers your 12mm growth, leaving 1mm more jobs.

Yea ,and we have 30 million more illegals sucking the life out of this Country.

 

[pinqy]

I am showing the facts.

We have 1mm more jobs than just before the economy tanked.

I posted above. The 13mm growth covers your 12mm growth, leaving 1mm more jobs.

Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail [In thousands]
Choose Total Nonfarm and Seasonally Adjusted.
January 2008 (start of the recession and the high point of jobs) 138,056,000 nonfarm payroll jobs.
March 2013 was 135,195,000 jobs. So that's a change of -2,861,000

I have no clue where you're getting 13 million or 12 million from. Or why you were citing total population when that's never used for Labor Force statistics...only Adult Civilian non-institutional population.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have no clue where you're getting 13 million or 12 million from. Or why you were citing total population when that's never used for Labor Force statistics...only Adult Civilian non-institutional population.

Go back and read the entire OP then because it is quite clear. Those stats were figured then compared against a 2007 composite. The total population had to be figured in.

 

[pinqy]

I have no clue where you're getting 13 million or 12 million from. Or why you were citing total population when that's never used for Labor Force statistics...only Adult Civilian non-institutional population.

Go back and read the entire OP then because it is quite clear. Those stats were figured then compared against a 2007 composite. The total population had to be figured in.

1st post: bigrebnc1175 cites the employment population ratio and the employment status of the civilian population from BLS. The Population figure used is the Adult Civilian Non-Institutional Population: those 16 and older not in the military, prison, or an institution.

3rd post, you cite total US population. What's the relevance?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pinqy, the second part of his post did not account for the increase in population. The figures would have been different.

Go back. I am not going to do it for you. Figure 2007 and 2012 from base population, account for job loss, job growth and numbers.

You can't have it both ways.

You ALWAYS have to double check bigrebnc's "evidence", because it often contradicts his OP.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Why argue over stupid semantics? Shit sucks, pray it gets better.

 

[pinqy]

Pinqy, the second part of his post did not account for the increase in population. The figures would have been different.

What are you talking about. They include the change in population.

Go back. I am not going to do it for you. Figure 2007 and 2012 from base population, account for job loss, job growth and numbers.

But he wasn't using base population. He chose particular months. Now, it was incorrect to compare November and March Not Seasonally Adjusted figures, but the differences are minor. But the numbers he cites are correct.

I have no idea what your objections are or what kind of comparison you're proposing. Looking at total population makes no sense whatsoever.

Yes, we do have 1.178 million more Employed (jobs and employment are different concepts...don't confuse the two). But he was pointing out the percentage of the population. Which is a legitimate analysis.

You ALWAYS have to double check bigrebnc's "evidence", because it often contradicts his OP.

I do. He was making no particular conclusion in the OP other than the fact that the Labor Force Participation rate and the employment-population ratios are worse. Which they are. Employment or Job level is a seperate issue.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pinqy, we are not playing charades. The economy is now in better shape than the day before Bush left office, when it was on its way down down down, but the economy remains fragile and can still fail.

 

[pinqy]

Pinqy, we are not playing charades. The economy is now in better shape than the day before Bush left office, when it was on its way down down down, but the economy remains fragile and can still fail.

It depends. "The Economy" is a complex matter and it's not always as simple as "better" or "worse." And while the Labor Market is generally better than when Obama took office, and clearly better than the worst, it's not as healthy as the pre-recession Labor Market.

The decline in the Labor Force Participation rate is a difficulty, and it's hard to pin down the significance. It's been declining since 2000.