Obama Administration > Economic Disaster

[Kosh]

You can post this after what Bush left behind?

THAT was a TRUE disaster. We were literally hours from abject collapse.

If you're going to blame Obama, you'll also need to blame W.
.

You don't need to blame Bush for Obama's failures.

That being said, you do need to blame him for his own failures. But do note, Clinton's policies were very responsible for the housing collapse as well.

You just said Obama can't blame Bush for what happened during his term and in the very next breath blame Clinton for Bush's housing collapse

Learn to read... I said for his FAILURES, not for everything that happened under his watch.

Obama inherited the Bush economy and two wars

You can't absolve Bush's culpability just because he dumped his FAILURES on someone else

Oh the irony of that post from a far left drone!

 

[protectionist]

12 million new jobs is no myth. Neither is cutting the unemployment rate by 5%

$8 trillion has been added to National debt while $50 trillion has been added to national assets. You have to look at the big picture

The first fallacy of the laughable, alleged 5% unemployment rate is that millions of foreign workers (many of them illegal) being counted as US employed. They are not. They are employees of their home countries (to which they send most of these earnings - $133 Billion/year) This alone could double the so-called unemployment rate.

Then you have the severely UNDERemployed, with which it is debatebale which is worse unemployed or underemployed ?

Then you have a greater share of workers today who are working part time, but want full time work than in the past. They could actually be just as well in the unemployed category as employed, since they are unemployed from full-time work.

There are also a greater number of folks who have given up looking for work because they believe there isn’t anything out there for them.

And lastly, as the nation ages the share of retired workers has increased. People who are working (many part-time) who shouldn't be.

As for the alleged 12 million new jobs., yeah ? And FOR WHOM ? Mexicans ? Chinese ? Indians ? Filipinos ?
Nigerians ? Guatemalans ? And just maybe a FEW Americans sprinkled in.

PS -I still haven't seen any CREDIBLE source for the $50 trillion added to assets

 

[rightwinger]

Ronald Reagan brought forth an annual real GDP growth of 3.5%.
Barack Obama will be lucky to average a 1.55% GDP growth rate.

This ranks Obama as the fourth worst presidency on record.

So that is what you think we deserved

Yes, we got the growth that we deserved. We elected a Congress that was more concerned with who gets to call the shots rather than what can we do to save the economy. Republicans specifically encouraged the economy to sputter in order to enhance their election chances

What should we have done?
Used near zero interest rates, high unemployment and low wages to start massive infrastructure improvements that would have given you the GDP you desire. Instead we played austerity games, threatened to default on debt and reduced government at a time the economy needed an infusion of cash

So, Yes
We got the recovery we deserved

So on one hand you said BO -
Added 13 million jobs
Cut unemployment rate by 5%

But at the same time we should have used high unemployment, low wages and low interest rates to rebuild the infrastructure and then the economy would have grown more than 1.5%.

I'm confused now, are you saying the 13 million jobs BO supposedly created are low wage jobs. You can't have it both ways. You can't credit BO for a robust economy which created millions of good paying jobs, and then say he should have not created those jobs, but rather used depressed wages to rebuild the infrastructure.

And tell me the actions that congress took to sputter the economy.

Dude, you have been reading too many bumper stickers, and I suggest you put the shovel down before you get any deeper.

Tell me how BO put $800 billion into the economy.

Do you understand what the president can do regarding monetary policy? If so, tell me.

There is no evidence that the 13 million jobs are low wage jobs...it is rightwing propaganda. BLS statistics show job growth in all sectors


What did Congress do to sputter the economy?

1. Insisted on tackling the deficit at a time we had 10% unemployment
2. Refused to invest in needed infrastructure at a time of high unemployment and low interest rates
3. Threatened default on our debt
4. Refused to raise minimum wage

Actions, what ACTIONS did congress take to sputter the economy? Insisting on tackling the deficit is only words. What bill to invest in infrastructure did they deny? Threatening to default on debt? When did they do that, and if they did do it, how did that sputter the economy? Any state can raise minimum wage when ever they want, and it should be left to the states. And how does somebody flipping burgers making an additional $50 a week really drive the economy?

You keep making statements and allegations without providing any information via links to support them. You my friend are a walking bumper sticker with the depth of a kiddie pool.

You refuse to address most of my questions-

How BO put $800 billion into the economy?
What influence the POTUS has on monetary policy?
What specifically congress did via bills passed or not passed to adversely effect growth during his presidency. Recall, the Dems controlled congress the first 4 years of his presidency, 2 years it was split, and 2 years it was under GOP control.

Answer those questions or go outside and put more bumper stickers on your Prius.

American Jobs Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. Cutting and suspending $245 billion worth of payroll taxes for qualifying employers and 160 million medium to low income employees.
2. Spending $62 billion for a Pathways Back to Work Program for expanding opportunities for low-income youth and adults.
3. $49 billion - Extending unemployment benefits for up to 6 million long-term beneficiaries.
4. $8 billion - Jobs tax credit for the long term unemployed.
5. $5 billion - Pathways back to work fund.[15]
6. Spending $50 billion on both new & pre-existing infrastructure projects.
7. Spending $35 billion in additional funding to protect the jobs of teachers, police officers, and firefighters
8. Spending $30 billion to modernize at least 35,000 public schools and community colleges.
9. Spending $15 billion on a program that would hire construction workers to help rehabilitate and refurbishing hundreds of thousands of foreclosed homes and businesses.
10. Creating the National Infrastructure Bank (capitalized with $10 billion), originally proposed in 2007, to help fund infrastructure via private and public capital.
11. Creating a nationwide, interoperable wireless network for public safety, while expanding accessibility to high-speed wireless services.
12. Prohibiting discrimination in hiring against persons who are unemployed because of their status as unemployed persons..
13. Loosening regulations on small businesses that wish to raise capital, including through crowdfunding, while retaining investor protections.

So are you blaming the Democratically controlled congress for not passing the Bill? The Bill that Harry Reid stalled-
Legislative historyEdit

American Jobs Act, S. 1549
In the Senate, the bill was stalled by Majority leader Harry Reid on September 27, 2011 who said "I don’t think there’s anything more important for a jobs measure than China trade, and that’s what we’re going to work on next week,"[16] with emphasis on taking up more tenuous[clarification needed] legislation which is less likely to draw political attention.[16][not in citation given] On October 4, 2011, Minority Leader Mitch McConnellattempted to offer the Act as an amendment to the China trade bill, saying that while he disagreed with the bill's approach to job creation, it deserved to be voted on.[17] On October 5, Reid announced a plan to pay for the American Jobs Act with a 5% surtax on incomes of more than $1 million a year.[18]

I mean the Dems had both houses in 2011, so you should be pissed off at them for "sputtering" the economy. I would gain respect for you here if acknowledge the Dems were as responsible as the GOP.

Many Democrats have balked at the bill, siding with the Republicans, especially those facing difficult re-elections in congressional districts where they are hesitant to support unpopular legislation.[50] A majority of the Democrats support individual components of the bill, but are unwilling to commit to the bill in its entirety, despite the White House's disapproval of the weak showing of support. While some Democrats are opposed to the bill because it includes too many tax breaks, others oppose the extent of spending. This opposition from fellow Democrats has given Obama more responsibility to sell the plan first to the American public, as he has done on a very prominent, nationwide speaking tour.[51][52][53]

Both moderate and liberal Democrats have expressed concerns about the bill. Joe Manchin, a more conservative Democrat, has openly voiced his opposition to the Administration by arguing against the inclusion of too much spending, given by his remarks on September 29, "The ugly part of that act is $450 billion of spending, after we've spent, spent, spent." On the other side, liberal Democrat Peter DeFazio argued against the inclusion of nearly $250 billion of tax breaks, saying "Half of it is tax cuts, and quite frankly tax cuts don't work."[54][55]

You missed the 2010 election didn't you?

 

[rightwinger]

12 million new jobs is no myth. Neither is cutting the unemployment rate by 5%

$8 trillion has been added to National debt while $50 trillion has been added to national assets. You have to look at the big picture

The first fallacy of the laughable, alleged 5% unemployment rate is that millions of foreign workers (many of them illegal) being counted as US employed. They are not. They are employees of their home countries (to which they send most of these earnings - $133 Billion/year) This alone could double the so-called unemployment rate.

Then you have the severely UNDERemployed, with which it is debatebale which is worse unemployed or underemployed ?

Then you have a greater share of workers today who are working part time, but want full time work than in the past. They could actually be just as well in the unemployed category as employed, since they are unemployed from full-time work.

There are also a greater number of folks who have given up looking for work because they believe there isn’t anything out there for them.

And lastly, as the nation ages the share of retired workers has increased. People who are working (many part-time) who shouldn't be.

As for the alleged 12 million new jobs., yeah ? And FOR WHOM ? Mexicans ? Chinese ? Indians ? Filipinos ?
Nigerians ? Guatemalans ? And just maybe a FEW Americans sprinkled in.

PS -I still haven't seen any CREDIBLE source for the $50 trillion added to assets

Underemployment is not an "Economic Disaster"....Your hyperbole not mine
Losing 700,000 jobs a month is an economic disaster

U3 unemployment is calculated the same way it always has been. 11 million illegal aliens did not magically show up in January 2009

$50 TRILLION in added assets

Total National assets today: $123.7 trillion (bottom left hand corner)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Total National Assets on this day 2008: $74.9 trillion
U.S. National Debt Clock 2008

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Economic disaster?

More than doubled the stock market
Saved the banks and auto companies
Added $50 trillion to nations wealth
Added 13 million jobs
Cut unemployment rate by 5%

Some "disaster"

If job security could be summed up by simply throwing out a 5% unemployment rate, the economy would not be an issue among voters this time around. Unless the real economy lies in the type of jobs Americans are finding.


Nearly half of U.S. workers consider themselves underemployed, report says
Three-quarters of those who label themselves as such say they're not working in a job that uses their education and training. One quarter say they are working part time but want full-time work.

Nearly half of U.S. workers consider themselves underemployed, report says

* The unemployment rate for new college grads is 5.6 percent, compared with 5.5 percent in 2007.
* Young high school grads have an unemployment rate of 17.9 percent, compared with 15.9 percent in 2007.
for recent high-school graduates, about one-third are currently underemployed, compared with roughly 27 percent in 2007

Young college grads are suffering from an underemployment rate of 12.6 percent, compared with 9.6 percent in 2007

At the same time, many are entering the workforce with higher levels of debt, thanks to tuition fees that have increased far faster than median family income.

* Recent grads who are "idled" -- neither enrolled in school nor employed -- is still higher than before the recession. For college grads, the rate is now almost 10 percent, compared with 8.4 percent in 2007. About 15.5 percent of young high-school grads are now idled, compared with 13.7 percent in 2007.
* People of color are especially hard-hit. Young black college grads have an unemployment rate of 9.4 percent, compared with 8.9 percent in April 2007.
Job quality has eroded. In 2001, almost 42 percent of new college grads found jobs with pensions. That declined to just over 29 percent in 2015

Welcome to the job market, class of 2016: It still stinks

 

[francoHFW]

Economic disaster?

More than doubled the stock market
Saved the banks and auto companies
Added $50 trillion to nations wealth
Added 13 million jobs
Cut unemployment rate by 5%

Some "disaster"

If job security could be summed up by simply throwing out a 5% unemployment rate, the economy would not be an issue among voters this time around. Unless the real economy lies in the type of jobs Americans are finding.


Nearly half of U.S. workers consider themselves underemployed, report says
Three-quarters of those who label themselves as such say they're not working in a job that uses their education and training. One quarter say they are working part time but want full-time work.

Nearly half of U.S. workers consider themselves underemployed, report says

* The unemployment rate for new college grads is 5.6 percent, compared with 5.5 percent in 2007.
* Young high school grads have an unemployment rate of 17.9 percent, compared with 15.9 percent in 2007.
for recent high-school graduates, about one-third are currently underemployed, compared with roughly 27 percent in 2007

Young college grads are suffering from an underemployment rate of 12.6 percent, compared with 9.6 percent in 2007

At the same time, many are entering the workforce with higher levels of debt, thanks to tuition fees that have increased far faster than median family income.

* Recent grads who are "idled" -- neither enrolled in school nor employed -- is still higher than before the recession. For college grads, the rate is now almost 10 percent, compared with 8.4 percent in 2007. About 15.5 percent of young high-school grads are now idled, compared with 13.7 percent in 2007.
* People of color are especially hard-hit. Young black college grads have an unemployment rate of 9.4 percent, compared with 8.9 percent in April 2007.
Job quality has eroded. In 2001, almost 42 percent of new college grads found jobs with pensions. That declined to just over 29 percent in 2015

Welcome to the job market, class of 2016: It still stinks

No one doubts our economy could be better, though we have the best economy in the world amid a world of recession and continued depression in many places, but whose fault is all this? I'll go with the bought off GOP who started a world depression and have obstructed all the typical solutions for 7 years now. AND continue the 35 year pander to the rich, no real investment in anything for 35 years.

see sig PP1- from 2007- and rolling on...

 

[rightwinger]

Economic disaster?

More than doubled the stock market
Saved the banks and auto companies
Added $50 trillion to nations wealth
Added 13 million jobs
Cut unemployment rate by 5%

Some "disaster"

If job security could be summed up by simply throwing out a 5% unemployment rate, the economy would not be an issue among voters this time around. Unless the real economy lies in the type of jobs Americans are finding.


Nearly half of U.S. workers consider themselves underemployed, report says
Three-quarters of those who label themselves as such say they're not working in a job that uses their education and training. One quarter say they are working part time but want full-time work.

Nearly half of U.S. workers consider themselves underemployed, report says

* The unemployment rate for new college grads is 5.6 percent, compared with 5.5 percent in 2007.
* Young high school grads have an unemployment rate of 17.9 percent, compared with 15.9 percent in 2007.
for recent high-school graduates, about one-third are currently underemployed, compared with roughly 27 percent in 2007

Young college grads are suffering from an underemployment rate of 12.6 percent, compared with 9.6 percent in 2007

At the same time, many are entering the workforce with higher levels of debt, thanks to tuition fees that have increased far faster than median family income.

* Recent grads who are "idled" -- neither enrolled in school nor employed -- is still higher than before the recession. For college grads, the rate is now almost 10 percent, compared with 8.4 percent in 2007. About 15.5 percent of young high-school grads are now idled, compared with 13.7 percent in 2007.
* People of color are especially hard-hit. Young black college grads have an unemployment rate of 9.4 percent, compared with 8.9 percent in April 2007.
Job quality has eroded. In 2001, almost 42 percent of new college grads found jobs with pensions. That declined to just over 29 percent in 2015

Welcome to the job market, class of 2016: It still stinks

Any way you spin it.......a 4.9% unemployment rate is better than a 10% unemployment rate

Dropping unemployment by over 5% is not an "economic disaster"

 

[BuckToothMoron]

So on one hand you said BO -
Added 13 million jobs
Cut unemployment rate by 5%

But at the same time we should have used high unemployment, low wages and low interest rates to rebuild the infrastructure and then the economy would have grown more than 1.5%.

I'm confused now, are you saying the 13 million jobs BO supposedly created are low wage jobs. You can't have it both ways. You can't credit BO for a robust economy which created millions of good paying jobs, and then say he should have not created those jobs, but rather used depressed wages to rebuild the infrastructure.

And tell me the actions that congress took to sputter the economy.

Dude, you have been reading too many bumper stickers, and I suggest you put the shovel down before you get any deeper.

Tell me how BO put $800 billion into the economy.

Do you understand what the president can do regarding monetary policy? If so, tell me.

There is no evidence that the 13 million jobs are low wage jobs...it is rightwing propaganda. BLS statistics show job growth in all sectors


What did Congress do to sputter the economy?

1. Insisted on tackling the deficit at a time we had 10% unemployment
2. Refused to invest in needed infrastructure at a time of high unemployment and low interest rates
3. Threatened default on our debt
4. Refused to raise minimum wage

Actions, what ACTIONS did congress take to sputter the economy? Insisting on tackling the deficit is only words. What bill to invest in infrastructure did they deny? Threatening to default on debt? When did they do that, and if they did do it, how did that sputter the economy? Any state can raise minimum wage when ever they want, and it should be left to the states. And how does somebody flipping burgers making an additional $50 a week really drive the economy?

You keep making statements and allegations without providing any information via links to support them. You my friend are a walking bumper sticker with the depth of a kiddie pool.

You refuse to address most of my questions-

How BO put $800 billion into the economy?
What influence the POTUS has on monetary policy?
What specifically congress did via bills passed or not passed to adversely effect growth during his presidency. Recall, the Dems controlled congress the first 4 years of his presidency, 2 years it was split, and 2 years it was under GOP control.

Answer those questions or go outside and put more bumper stickers on your Prius.

American Jobs Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. Cutting and suspending $245 billion worth of payroll taxes for qualifying employers and 160 million medium to low income employees.
2. Spending $62 billion for a Pathways Back to Work Program for expanding opportunities for low-income youth and adults.
3. $49 billion - Extending unemployment benefits for up to 6 million long-term beneficiaries.
4. $8 billion - Jobs tax credit for the long term unemployed.
5. $5 billion - Pathways back to work fund.[15]
6. Spending $50 billion on both new & pre-existing infrastructure projects.
7. Spending $35 billion in additional funding to protect the jobs of teachers, police officers, and firefighters
8. Spending $30 billion to modernize at least 35,000 public schools and community colleges.
9. Spending $15 billion on a program that would hire construction workers to help rehabilitate and refurbishing hundreds of thousands of foreclosed homes and businesses.
10. Creating the National Infrastructure Bank (capitalized with $10 billion), originally proposed in 2007, to help fund infrastructure via private and public capital.
11. Creating a nationwide, interoperable wireless network for public safety, while expanding accessibility to high-speed wireless services.
12. Prohibiting discrimination in hiring against persons who are unemployed because of their status as unemployed persons..
13. Loosening regulations on small businesses that wish to raise capital, including through crowdfunding, while retaining investor protections.

So are you blaming the Democratically controlled congress for not passing the Bill? The Bill that Harry Reid stalled-
Legislative historyEdit

American Jobs Act, S. 1549
In the Senate, the bill was stalled by Majority leader Harry Reid on September 27, 2011 who said "I don’t think there’s anything more important for a jobs measure than China trade, and that’s what we’re going to work on next week,"[16] with emphasis on taking up more tenuous[clarification needed] legislation which is less likely to draw political attention.[16][not in citation given] On October 4, 2011, Minority Leader Mitch McConnellattempted to offer the Act as an amendment to the China trade bill, saying that while he disagreed with the bill's approach to job creation, it deserved to be voted on.[17] On October 5, Reid announced a plan to pay for the American Jobs Act with a 5% surtax on incomes of more than $1 million a year.[18]

I mean the Dems had both houses in 2011, so you should be pissed off at them for "sputtering" the economy. I would gain respect for you here if acknowledge the Dems were as responsible as the GOP.

Many Democrats have balked at the bill, siding with the Republicans, especially those facing difficult re-elections in congressional districts where they are hesitant to support unpopular legislation.[50] A majority of the Democrats support individual components of the bill, but are unwilling to commit to the bill in its entirety, despite the White House's disapproval of the weak showing of support. While some Democrats are opposed to the bill because it includes too many tax breaks, others oppose the extent of spending. This opposition from fellow Democrats has given Obama more responsibility to sell the plan first to the American public, as he has done on a very prominent, nationwide speaking tour.[51][52][53]

Both moderate and liberal Democrats have expressed concerns about the bill. Joe Manchin, a more conservative Democrat, has openly voiced his opposition to the Administration by arguing against the inclusion of too much spending, given by his remarks on September 29, "The ugly part of that act is $450 billion of spending, after we've spent, spent, spent." On the other side, liberal Democrat Peter DeFazio argued against the inclusion of nearly $250 billion of tax breaks, saying "Half of it is tax cuts, and quite frankly tax cuts don't work."[54][55]

You missed the 2010 election didn't you?

Dems controlled the senate and Reid stalled, does that mean anything?

 

[rightwinger]

There is no evidence that the 13 million jobs are low wage jobs...it is rightwing propaganda. BLS statistics show job growth in all sectors


What did Congress do to sputter the economy?

1. Insisted on tackling the deficit at a time we had 10% unemployment
2. Refused to invest in needed infrastructure at a time of high unemployment and low interest rates
3. Threatened default on our debt
4. Refused to raise minimum wage

Actions, what ACTIONS did congress take to sputter the economy? Insisting on tackling the deficit is only words. What bill to invest in infrastructure did they deny? Threatening to default on debt? When did they do that, and if they did do it, how did that sputter the economy? Any state can raise minimum wage when ever they want, and it should be left to the states. And how does somebody flipping burgers making an additional $50 a week really drive the economy?

You keep making statements and allegations without providing any information via links to support them. You my friend are a walking bumper sticker with the depth of a kiddie pool.

You refuse to address most of my questions-

How BO put $800 billion into the economy?
What influence the POTUS has on monetary policy?
What specifically congress did via bills passed or not passed to adversely effect growth during his presidency. Recall, the Dems controlled congress the first 4 years of his presidency, 2 years it was split, and 2 years it was under GOP control.

Answer those questions or go outside and put more bumper stickers on your Prius.

American Jobs Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. Cutting and suspending $245 billion worth of payroll taxes for qualifying employers and 160 million medium to low income employees.
2. Spending $62 billion for a Pathways Back to Work Program for expanding opportunities for low-income youth and adults.
3. $49 billion - Extending unemployment benefits for up to 6 million long-term beneficiaries.
4. $8 billion - Jobs tax credit for the long term unemployed.
5. $5 billion - Pathways back to work fund.[15]
6. Spending $50 billion on both new & pre-existing infrastructure projects.
7. Spending $35 billion in additional funding to protect the jobs of teachers, police officers, and firefighters
8. Spending $30 billion to modernize at least 35,000 public schools and community colleges.
9. Spending $15 billion on a program that would hire construction workers to help rehabilitate and refurbishing hundreds of thousands of foreclosed homes and businesses.
10. Creating the National Infrastructure Bank (capitalized with $10 billion), originally proposed in 2007, to help fund infrastructure via private and public capital.
11. Creating a nationwide, interoperable wireless network for public safety, while expanding accessibility to high-speed wireless services.
12. Prohibiting discrimination in hiring against persons who are unemployed because of their status as unemployed persons..
13. Loosening regulations on small businesses that wish to raise capital, including through crowdfunding, while retaining investor protections.

So are you blaming the Democratically controlled congress for not passing the Bill? The Bill that Harry Reid stalled-
Legislative historyEdit

American Jobs Act, S. 1549
In the Senate, the bill was stalled by Majority leader Harry Reid on September 27, 2011 who said "I don’t think there’s anything more important for a jobs measure than China trade, and that’s what we’re going to work on next week,"[16] with emphasis on taking up more tenuous[clarification needed] legislation which is less likely to draw political attention.[16][not in citation given] On October 4, 2011, Minority Leader Mitch McConnellattempted to offer the Act as an amendment to the China trade bill, saying that while he disagreed with the bill's approach to job creation, it deserved to be voted on.[17] On October 5, Reid announced a plan to pay for the American Jobs Act with a 5% surtax on incomes of more than $1 million a year.[18]

I mean the Dems had both houses in 2011, so you should be pissed off at them for "sputtering" the economy. I would gain respect for you here if acknowledge the Dems were as responsible as the GOP.

Many Democrats have balked at the bill, siding with the Republicans, especially those facing difficult re-elections in congressional districts where they are hesitant to support unpopular legislation.[50] A majority of the Democrats support individual components of the bill, but are unwilling to commit to the bill in its entirety, despite the White House's disapproval of the weak showing of support. While some Democrats are opposed to the bill because it includes too many tax breaks, others oppose the extent of spending. This opposition from fellow Democrats has given Obama more responsibility to sell the plan first to the American public, as he has done on a very prominent, nationwide speaking tour.[51][52][53]

Both moderate and liberal Democrats have expressed concerns about the bill. Joe Manchin, a more conservative Democrat, has openly voiced his opposition to the Administration by arguing against the inclusion of too much spending, given by his remarks on September 29, "The ugly part of that act is $450 billion of spending, after we've spent, spent, spent." On the other side, liberal Democrat Peter DeFazio argued against the inclusion of nearly $250 billion of tax breaks, saying "Half of it is tax cuts, and quite frankly tax cuts don't work."[54][55]

You missed the 2010 election didn't you?

Dems controlled the senate and Reid stalled, does that mean anything?

Republicans took the House and filibustered this bill in the Senate

It never came to a vote

 

[francoHFW]

There is no evidence that the 13 million jobs are low wage jobs...it is rightwing propaganda. BLS statistics show job growth in all sectors


What did Congress do to sputter the economy?

1. Insisted on tackling the deficit at a time we had 10% unemployment
2. Refused to invest in needed infrastructure at a time of high unemployment and low interest rates
3. Threatened default on our debt
4. Refused to raise minimum wage

Actions, what ACTIONS did congress take to sputter the economy? Insisting on tackling the deficit is only words. What bill to invest in infrastructure did they deny? Threatening to default on debt? When did they do that, and if they did do it, how did that sputter the economy? Any state can raise minimum wage when ever they want, and it should be left to the states. And how does somebody flipping burgers making an additional $50 a week really drive the economy?

You keep making statements and allegations without providing any information via links to support them. You my friend are a walking bumper sticker with the depth of a kiddie pool.

You refuse to address most of my questions-

How BO put $800 billion into the economy?
What influence the POTUS has on monetary policy?
What specifically congress did via bills passed or not passed to adversely effect growth during his presidency. Recall, the Dems controlled congress the first 4 years of his presidency, 2 years it was split, and 2 years it was under GOP control.

Answer those questions or go outside and put more bumper stickers on your Prius.

American Jobs Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. Cutting and suspending $245 billion worth of payroll taxes for qualifying employers and 160 million medium to low income employees.
2. Spending $62 billion for a Pathways Back to Work Program for expanding opportunities for low-income youth and adults.
3. $49 billion - Extending unemployment benefits for up to 6 million long-term beneficiaries.
4. $8 billion - Jobs tax credit for the long term unemployed.
5. $5 billion - Pathways back to work fund.[15]
6. Spending $50 billion on both new & pre-existing infrastructure projects.
7. Spending $35 billion in additional funding to protect the jobs of teachers, police officers, and firefighters
8. Spending $30 billion to modernize at least 35,000 public schools and community colleges.
9. Spending $15 billion on a program that would hire construction workers to help rehabilitate and refurbishing hundreds of thousands of foreclosed homes and businesses.
10. Creating the National Infrastructure Bank (capitalized with $10 billion), originally proposed in 2007, to help fund infrastructure via private and public capital.
11. Creating a nationwide, interoperable wireless network for public safety, while expanding accessibility to high-speed wireless services.
12. Prohibiting discrimination in hiring against persons who are unemployed because of their status as unemployed persons..
13. Loosening regulations on small businesses that wish to raise capital, including through crowdfunding, while retaining investor protections.

So are you blaming the Democratically controlled congress for not passing the Bill? The Bill that Harry Reid stalled-
Legislative historyEdit

American Jobs Act, S. 1549
In the Senate, the bill was stalled by Majority leader Harry Reid on September 27, 2011 who said "I don’t think there’s anything more important for a jobs measure than China trade, and that’s what we’re going to work on next week,"[16] with emphasis on taking up more tenuous[clarification needed] legislation which is less likely to draw political attention.[16][not in citation given] On October 4, 2011, Minority Leader Mitch McConnellattempted to offer the Act as an amendment to the China trade bill, saying that while he disagreed with the bill's approach to job creation, it deserved to be voted on.[17] On October 5, Reid announced a plan to pay for the American Jobs Act with a 5% surtax on incomes of more than $1 million a year.[18]

I mean the Dems had both houses in 2011, so you should be pissed off at them for "sputtering" the economy. I would gain respect for you here if acknowledge the Dems were as responsible as the GOP.

Many Democrats have balked at the bill, siding with the Republicans, especially those facing difficult re-elections in congressional districts where they are hesitant to support unpopular legislation.[50] A majority of the Democrats support individual components of the bill, but are unwilling to commit to the bill in its entirety, despite the White House's disapproval of the weak showing of support. While some Democrats are opposed to the bill because it includes too many tax breaks, others oppose the extent of spending. This opposition from fellow Democrats has given Obama more responsibility to sell the plan first to the American public, as he has done on a very prominent, nationwide speaking tour.[51][52][53]

Both moderate and liberal Democrats have expressed concerns about the bill. Joe Manchin, a more conservative Democrat, has openly voiced his opposition to the Administration by arguing against the inclusion of too much spending, given by his remarks on September 29, "The ugly part of that act is $450 billion of spending, after we've spent, spent, spent." On the other side, liberal Democrat Peter DeFazio argued against the inclusion of nearly $250 billion of tax breaks, saying "Half of it is tax cuts, and quite frankly tax cuts don't work."[54][55]

You missed the 2010 election didn't you?

Dems controlled the senate and Reid stalled, does that mean anything?

For 24 days in session, all trying to pass ACA. A GOP great recession is no time to raise any taxes etc. And who knew Massachusetts would have a brain fart (Scott Brown)? Dammit!

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

That is about all you could could call it. I would hate to have seen McCain or Romney become president, both of whom I despise, but it's undeniable but obama has made a complete mess of the economy, almost as bad as he's been on national security. (and that's pretty bad)

On the wealth gap,according to a report from the Pew Research Center, in 2014 upper income households had almost seven times the wealth of middle class households. That is the largest gap between these respective groups in the three decades the Fed has collected such data. Yes, it's even higher than the "Evil 80s" under Reagan.

Recall President Obama's campaign exchange with Joe the Plumber when he stated, "And I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Yet, lower and middle class Americans, groups with which Democrats so often claim allegiance, have fallen further down the economic ladder under President Obama. Consider this staggering comparison: In 2007, the average household income in America was $55,627. In 2014, that figure had slipped to $53,880 -- Americans earned less on average than they did seven years prior. So, what has happened is that the average American family has been earning less than it did when the great Recession began. All the while, over that same period prices of practically everything else we buy rose.

According to government data, in 2007 the lowest quintile of earners in America made up 3.4% of total earnings. That means the lowest 20% of earners in America only collected 3.4% of the total earnings pie in 2007.

In 2013 (the latest available data), that figure had dropped to 3.2%. Bear with me on the math, because it is damning evidence of Obama's Utopian economic failure. That reduction from 3.4% to 3.2% of total earnings means these folks have seen a 6.25% reduction in the slice of their total earnings pie over that period.

What about the highest earning quintile? Over that same period, their slice of the pie actually swelled from 49.7% in 2007 to 51.0% in 2013.

The New York Times, cited a National Employment Law Project study in an April article in which it was noted that a million jobs in middle-income industries were lost during the Great Recession. The article added that those million workers then often found themselves either unemployed or flipping burgers at a minimum wage job.

And the scorecard for Blacks ? (who so overwhelmingly support him and Hillary Clinton) >>> Some Obama supporters will defend him by saying that the Black unemployment rate has dropped from 12.7% when he took office to 11.1% as of November 2014, the latest reported month. At first glance, that might appear impressive. However, the reason that figure has dropped is because so many Blacks have actually dropped out of the labor force.

In January 2009, there were 10,312,000 Blacks not in the labor force. As of November 2014, the latest available data, that figure had swelled to 11,923,000. That represents more than a 15% increase in Black Americans who have exited the workforce

Look at SNAP (commonly known as "food stamps." The program, has grew from $54.8 billion in 2009 to $69.4 billion in 2014. In January 2015, the number of beneficiaries receiving food stamps topped 46 million for 38 straight months, with 14.6 percent of the population and 19.7 percent of all households receiving food stamps. This represents an increase of 1516.96 % over the 2.9 million Americans participating in the food stamp program in 1969. Not good Barrack.

The federal debt is projected to nearly double under President Obama, with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis chart showing it has increased from $11.1 trillion in the first quarter 2009 to $18.9 trillion in the fourth quarter 2015.

Despite Obama’s promises that the implementation of Obamacare would lower health-care costs, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis chart shows the Consumer Price Index, CPI, for medical care services has continued a straight-line increase since the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The CPI for medical care services has increased from 149.952 in January 2009 to 186.961 in February 2016.

The labor-force participation rate has fallen consistently under the Obama administration as an increasing percentage of those out of work and looking for work simply give up and quit looking. The labor-force participation rate has dropped from 65.7 percent in January 2009 to 62.9 percent in February 2016. Beware of false reports of drops in the unemployment rate, as reported by Obama's Bureau of Labor Statistics. These have become virtually meaningless, with the Obamans having adopted a policy of making unemployment percentages look artificially low by increasing the number of workers considered no longer in the work force.
Actually, these workers ARE a part of the workforce, in that they WANT a job, but have stopped looking because of a repetitive inability to get hired (no thanks to Obama's immigration-friendly policies)

John Williams, an economist known for arguing the government reports manipulate “shadow statistics” of economic data for political purposes. Williams writes in his subscription newsletter on ShadowStats.com. ““The broad economic outlook has not changed, despite the heavily-distorted numbers that continue to be published by the BLS,”The unemployment rates have not dropped from peak levels due to a surge in hiring; instead, they generally have dropped because of discouraged workers being eliminated from headline labor-force accounting.”

The federal debt is projected to nearly double under President Obama, with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis chart showing it has increased from $11.1 trillion in the first quarter 2009 to $18.9 trillion in the fourth quarter 2015. At the end of the George W. Bush presidency in January 2009, the federal debt stood at $10.6 trillion. It is projected to exceed $20 trillion by the end of Obama’s presidency in January 2017.

While Quantitative Easing, the Federal Reserve policy of printing money to buy U.S. Treasury Department-issued government debt, known among economists as QE, began under President George W. Bush, it took off under President Obama. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis chart shows the adjusted monetary base of the United States rose from $1.772 trillion on Jan. 14, 2009, to $3.996 trillion as of March 16, 2016.

Real median household income in the United States has declined from a height of $57,357 in 2007 under President George W. Bush to $53,657 in 2014 under President Obama. The calculation takes into consideration the “Obama economic recovery,” in that real median household income in the United States by 2013 rose to $54,426 in 2013, from a low of $52,605 in 2012, only to fall back again in 2014.

Home ownership under Obamanomics has continued a straight-line decline that began with the collapse of the substandard real estate market during George W. Bush’s second term in office. The home-ownership rate has declined from 67.4 percent in 2009 to 63.7 in the second quarter 2015. On July 28, 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported that the rate of home ownership in the second quarter 2015 hit a 48-year low, reflecting the reality that fewer middle class Americans can afford to buy a home. Under Obama, an increasing number of Americans are living in rented homes, with the American dream of owning a home no longer an economic reality.

Comparing wages, etc to 2007? Let it up to a whiner to ignore the Bush recession.

The LPR does not necessarily mean being lower is a bad thing. It was much lower in the 50's during good economic times. Two examples.

I have a good job & sup[port my kids & my stay-at-home wife. My company has a massive layoff due to poor economic times. The only work I can get does not pay as much & my wife goes to work. The LPR just went up.

After a year, I get called back to my old job & I make good money & my wife no longer has to work & returns to being a stay-at-home mom. The LPR just went down.

Until protectionist can account for the 50 million retirees, 12 million handicapped and 20 million teens and stay at home moms........Labor Participation Rate is a bogus tool to evaluate employment

You do realize the tracking of unemployment is based upon those who "qualify" to receive that benefit. There are also those who have been part of a lay off reduction of force multiple times during those 8 years. Job.numbers doesn't differentiate between long term employment or 3 month employment. So are we talking about workers finally receiving long term employment or the same worker trying his luck with another position? This is why simply throwing out one unemployment number is hardly a reliable gauge, in determining the true state of how well Americans are recovering in a recession.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Economic disaster?

More than doubled the stock market
Saved the banks and auto companies
Added $50 trillion to nations wealth
Added 13 million jobs
Cut unemployment rate by 5%

Some "disaster"

If job security could be summed up by simply throwing out a 5% unemployment rate, the economy would not be an issue among voters this time around. Unless the real economy lies in the type of jobs Americans are finding.


Nearly half of U.S. workers consider themselves underemployed, report says
Three-quarters of those who label themselves as such say they're not working in a job that uses their education and training. One quarter say they are working part time but want full-time work.

Nearly half of U.S. workers consider themselves underemployed, report says

* The unemployment rate for new college grads is 5.6 percent, compared with 5.5 percent in 2007.
* Young high school grads have an unemployment rate of 17.9 percent, compared with 15.9 percent in 2007.
for recent high-school graduates, about one-third are currently underemployed, compared with roughly 27 percent in 2007

Young college grads are suffering from an underemployment rate of 12.6 percent, compared with 9.6 percent in 2007

At the same time, many are entering the workforce with higher levels of debt, thanks to tuition fees that have increased far faster than median family income.

* Recent grads who are "idled" -- neither enrolled in school nor employed -- is still higher than before the recession. For college grads, the rate is now almost 10 percent, compared with 8.4 percent in 2007. About 15.5 percent of young high-school grads are now idled, compared with 13.7 percent in 2007.
* People of color are especially hard-hit. Young black college grads have an unemployment rate of 9.4 percent, compared with 8.9 percent in April 2007.
Job quality has eroded. In 2001, almost 42 percent of new college grads found jobs with pensions. That declined to just over 29 percent in 2015

Welcome to the job market, class of 2016: It still stinks

No one doubts our economy could be better, though we have the best economy in the world amid a world of recession and continued depression in many places, but whose fault is all this? I'll go with the bought off GOP who started a world depression and have obstructed all the typical solutions for 7 years now. AND continue the 35 year pander to the rich, no real investment in anything for 35 years.

see sig PP1- from 2007- and rolling on...

I'd go back further to changing of CRA in 1994, using race to force banks to lend to those who were shown to have a very poor credit history, and the democrats failure to pursue strict oversight of Fannie and Freddie who were mismanaging funds and later collapsed to begin the downward spiral towards this Great Recession. Then again blaming Bush or the rich ones easier, over rooting out the cause of the two government agency's collapse ... and comes as no surprise.

 

[bodecea]

You can post this after what Bush left behind?

THAT was a TRUE disaster. We were literally hours from abject collapse.

If you're going to blame Obama, you'll also need to blame W.
.

I blame Bush for MANY things. (not just the economy) But Bush was 2001- 2008. This is 2016. Get it ?

Yes..and we are better off than we were 8 years ago.

 

[rightwinger]

That is about all you could could call it. I would hate to have seen McCain or Romney become president, both of whom I despise, but it's undeniable but obama has made a complete mess of the economy, almost as bad as he's been on national security. (and that's pretty bad)

On the wealth gap,according to a report from the Pew Research Center, in 2014 upper income households had almost seven times the wealth of middle class households. That is the largest gap between these respective groups in the three decades the Fed has collected such data. Yes, it's even higher than the "Evil 80s" under Reagan.

Recall President Obama's campaign exchange with Joe the Plumber when he stated, "And I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Yet, lower and middle class Americans, groups with which Democrats so often claim allegiance, have fallen further down the economic ladder under President Obama. Consider this staggering comparison: In 2007, the average household income in America was $55,627. In 2014, that figure had slipped to $53,880 -- Americans earned less on average than they did seven years prior. So, what has happened is that the average American family has been earning less than it did when the great Recession began. All the while, over that same period prices of practically everything else we buy rose.

According to government data, in 2007 the lowest quintile of earners in America made up 3.4% of total earnings. That means the lowest 20% of earners in America only collected 3.4% of the total earnings pie in 2007.

In 2013 (the latest available data), that figure had dropped to 3.2%. Bear with me on the math, because it is damning evidence of Obama's Utopian economic failure. That reduction from 3.4% to 3.2% of total earnings means these folks have seen a 6.25% reduction in the slice of their total earnings pie over that period.

What about the highest earning quintile? Over that same period, their slice of the pie actually swelled from 49.7% in 2007 to 51.0% in 2013.

The New York Times, cited a National Employment Law Project study in an April article in which it was noted that a million jobs in middle-income industries were lost during the Great Recession. The article added that those million workers then often found themselves either unemployed or flipping burgers at a minimum wage job.

And the scorecard for Blacks ? (who so overwhelmingly support him and Hillary Clinton) >>> Some Obama supporters will defend him by saying that the Black unemployment rate has dropped from 12.7% when he took office to 11.1% as of November 2014, the latest reported month. At first glance, that might appear impressive. However, the reason that figure has dropped is because so many Blacks have actually dropped out of the labor force.

In January 2009, there were 10,312,000 Blacks not in the labor force. As of November 2014, the latest available data, that figure had swelled to 11,923,000. That represents more than a 15% increase in Black Americans who have exited the workforce

Look at SNAP (commonly known as "food stamps." The program, has grew from $54.8 billion in 2009 to $69.4 billion in 2014. In January 2015, the number of beneficiaries receiving food stamps topped 46 million for 38 straight months, with 14.6 percent of the population and 19.7 percent of all households receiving food stamps. This represents an increase of 1516.96 % over the 2.9 million Americans participating in the food stamp program in 1969. Not good Barrack.

The federal debt is projected to nearly double under President Obama, with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis chart showing it has increased from $11.1 trillion in the first quarter 2009 to $18.9 trillion in the fourth quarter 2015.

Despite Obama’s promises that the implementation of Obamacare would lower health-care costs, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis chart shows the Consumer Price Index, CPI, for medical care services has continued a straight-line increase since the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The CPI for medical care services has increased from 149.952 in January 2009 to 186.961 in February 2016.

The labor-force participation rate has fallen consistently under the Obama administration as an increasing percentage of those out of work and looking for work simply give up and quit looking. The labor-force participation rate has dropped from 65.7 percent in January 2009 to 62.9 percent in February 2016. Beware of false reports of drops in the unemployment rate, as reported by Obama's Bureau of Labor Statistics. These have become virtually meaningless, with the Obamans having adopted a policy of making unemployment percentages look artificially low by increasing the number of workers considered no longer in the work force.
Actually, these workers ARE a part of the workforce, in that they WANT a job, but have stopped looking because of a repetitive inability to get hired (no thanks to Obama's immigration-friendly policies)

John Williams, an economist known for arguing the government reports manipulate “shadow statistics” of economic data for political purposes. Williams writes in his subscription newsletter on ShadowStats.com. ““The broad economic outlook has not changed, despite the heavily-distorted numbers that continue to be published by the BLS,”The unemployment rates have not dropped from peak levels due to a surge in hiring; instead, they generally have dropped because of discouraged workers being eliminated from headline labor-force accounting.”

The federal debt is projected to nearly double under President Obama, with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis chart showing it has increased from $11.1 trillion in the first quarter 2009 to $18.9 trillion in the fourth quarter 2015. At the end of the George W. Bush presidency in January 2009, the federal debt stood at $10.6 trillion. It is projected to exceed $20 trillion by the end of Obama’s presidency in January 2017.

While Quantitative Easing, the Federal Reserve policy of printing money to buy U.S. Treasury Department-issued government debt, known among economists as QE, began under President George W. Bush, it took off under President Obama. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis chart shows the adjusted monetary base of the United States rose from $1.772 trillion on Jan. 14, 2009, to $3.996 trillion as of March 16, 2016.

Real median household income in the United States has declined from a height of $57,357 in 2007 under President George W. Bush to $53,657 in 2014 under President Obama. The calculation takes into consideration the “Obama economic recovery,” in that real median household income in the United States by 2013 rose to $54,426 in 2013, from a low of $52,605 in 2012, only to fall back again in 2014.

Home ownership under Obamanomics has continued a straight-line decline that began with the collapse of the substandard real estate market during George W. Bush’s second term in office. The home-ownership rate has declined from 67.4 percent in 2009 to 63.7 in the second quarter 2015. On July 28, 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported that the rate of home ownership in the second quarter 2015 hit a 48-year low, reflecting the reality that fewer middle class Americans can afford to buy a home. Under Obama, an increasing number of Americans are living in rented homes, with the American dream of owning a home no longer an economic reality.

Comparing wages, etc to 2007? Let it up to a whiner to ignore the Bush recession.

The LPR does not necessarily mean being lower is a bad thing. It was much lower in the 50's during good economic times. Two examples.

I have a good job & sup[port my kids & my stay-at-home wife. My company has a massive layoff due to poor economic times. The only work I can get does not pay as much & my wife goes to work. The LPR just went up.

After a year, I get called back to my old job & I make good money & my wife no longer has to work & returns to being a stay-at-home mom. The LPR just went down.

Until protectionist can account for the 50 million retirees, 12 million handicapped and 20 million teens and stay at home moms........Labor Participation Rate is a bogus tool to evaluate employment

You do realize the tracking of unemployment is based upon those who "qualify" to receive that benefit. There are also those who have been part of a lay off reduction of force multiple times during those 8 years. Job.numbers doesn't differentiate between long term employment or 3 month employment. So are we talking about workers finally receiving long term employment or the same worker trying his luck with another position? This is why simply throwing out one unemployment number is hardly a reliable gauge, in determining the true state of how well Americans are recovering in a recession.

You do realize that U3 unemployment has been measured the same way for decades

By no measure, can a 5% unemployment rate be an "Economic Disaster"

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

That is about all you could could call it. I would hate to have seen McCain or Romney become president, both of whom I despise, but it's undeniable but obama has made a complete mess of the economy, almost as bad as he's been on national security. (and that's pretty bad)

On the wealth gap,according to a report from the Pew Research Center, in 2014 upper income households had almost seven times the wealth of middle class households. That is the largest gap between these respective groups in the three decades the Fed has collected such data. Yes, it's even higher than the "Evil 80s" under Reagan.

Recall President Obama's campaign exchange with Joe the Plumber when he stated, "And I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Yet, lower and middle class Americans, groups with which Democrats so often claim allegiance, have fallen further down the economic ladder under President Obama. Consider this staggering comparison: In 2007, the average household income in America was $55,627. In 2014, that figure had slipped to $53,880 -- Americans earned less on average than they did seven years prior. So, what has happened is that the average American family has been earning less than it did when the great Recession began. All the while, over that same period prices of practically everything else we buy rose.

According to government data, in 2007 the lowest quintile of earners in America made up 3.4% of total earnings. That means the lowest 20% of earners in America only collected 3.4% of the total earnings pie in 2007.

In 2013 (the latest available data), that figure had dropped to 3.2%. Bear with me on the math, because it is damning evidence of Obama's Utopian economic failure. That reduction from 3.4% to 3.2% of total earnings means these folks have seen a 6.25% reduction in the slice of their total earnings pie over that period.

What about the highest earning quintile? Over that same period, their slice of the pie actually swelled from 49.7% in 2007 to 51.0% in 2013.

The New York Times, cited a National Employment Law Project study in an April article in which it was noted that a million jobs in middle-income industries were lost during the Great Recession. The article added that those million workers then often found themselves either unemployed or flipping burgers at a minimum wage job.

And the scorecard for Blacks ? (who so overwhelmingly support him and Hillary Clinton) >>> Some Obama supporters will defend him by saying that the Black unemployment rate has dropped from 12.7% when he took office to 11.1% as of November 2014, the latest reported month. At first glance, that might appear impressive. However, the reason that figure has dropped is because so many Blacks have actually dropped out of the labor force.

In January 2009, there were 10,312,000 Blacks not in the labor force. As of November 2014, the latest available data, that figure had swelled to 11,923,000. That represents more than a 15% increase in Black Americans who have exited the workforce

Look at SNAP (commonly known as "food stamps." The program, has grew from $54.8 billion in 2009 to $69.4 billion in 2014. In January 2015, the number of beneficiaries receiving food stamps topped 46 million for 38 straight months, with 14.6 percent of the population and 19.7 percent of all households receiving food stamps. This represents an increase of 1516.96 % over the 2.9 million Americans participating in the food stamp program in 1969. Not good Barrack.

The federal debt is projected to nearly double under President Obama, with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis chart showing it has increased from $11.1 trillion in the first quarter 2009 to $18.9 trillion in the fourth quarter 2015.

Despite Obama’s promises that the implementation of Obamacare would lower health-care costs, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis chart shows the Consumer Price Index, CPI, for medical care services has continued a straight-line increase since the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The CPI for medical care services has increased from 149.952 in January 2009 to 186.961 in February 2016.

The labor-force participation rate has fallen consistently under the Obama administration as an increasing percentage of those out of work and looking for work simply give up and quit looking. The labor-force participation rate has dropped from 65.7 percent in January 2009 to 62.9 percent in February 2016. Beware of false reports of drops in the unemployment rate, as reported by Obama's Bureau of Labor Statistics. These have become virtually meaningless, with the Obamans having adopted a policy of making unemployment percentages look artificially low by increasing the number of workers considered no longer in the work force.
Actually, these workers ARE a part of the workforce, in that they WANT a job, but have stopped looking because of a repetitive inability to get hired (no thanks to Obama's immigration-friendly policies)

John Williams, an economist known for arguing the government reports manipulate “shadow statistics” of economic data for political purposes. Williams writes in his subscription newsletter on ShadowStats.com. ““The broad economic outlook has not changed, despite the heavily-distorted numbers that continue to be published by the BLS,”The unemployment rates have not dropped from peak levels due to a surge in hiring; instead, they generally have dropped because of discouraged workers being eliminated from headline labor-force accounting.”

The federal debt is projected to nearly double under President Obama, with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis chart showing it has increased from $11.1 trillion in the first quarter 2009 to $18.9 trillion in the fourth quarter 2015. At the end of the George W. Bush presidency in January 2009, the federal debt stood at $10.6 trillion. It is projected to exceed $20 trillion by the end of Obama’s presidency in January 2017.

While Quantitative Easing, the Federal Reserve policy of printing money to buy U.S. Treasury Department-issued government debt, known among economists as QE, began under President George W. Bush, it took off under President Obama. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis chart shows the adjusted monetary base of the United States rose from $1.772 trillion on Jan. 14, 2009, to $3.996 trillion as of March 16, 2016.

Real median household income in the United States has declined from a height of $57,357 in 2007 under President George W. Bush to $53,657 in 2014 under President Obama. The calculation takes into consideration the “Obama economic recovery,” in that real median household income in the United States by 2013 rose to $54,426 in 2013, from a low of $52,605 in 2012, only to fall back again in 2014.

Home ownership under Obamanomics has continued a straight-line decline that began with the collapse of the substandard real estate market during George W. Bush’s second term in office. The home-ownership rate has declined from 67.4 percent in 2009 to 63.7 in the second quarter 2015. On July 28, 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported that the rate of home ownership in the second quarter 2015 hit a 48-year low, reflecting the reality that fewer middle class Americans can afford to buy a home. Under Obama, an increasing number of Americans are living in rented homes, with the American dream of owning a home no longer an economic reality.

Comparing wages, etc to 2007? Let it up to a whiner to ignore the Bush recession.

The LPR does not necessarily mean being lower is a bad thing. It was much lower in the 50's during good economic times. Two examples.

I have a good job & sup[port my kids & my stay-at-home wife. My company has a massive layoff due to poor economic times. The only work I can get does not pay as much & my wife goes to work. The LPR just went up.

After a year, I get called back to my old job & I make good money & my wife no longer has to work & returns to being a stay-at-home mom. The LPR just went down.

Until protectionist can account for the 50 million retirees, 12 million handicapped and 20 million teens and stay at home moms........Labor Participation Rate is a bogus tool to evaluate employment

You do realize the tracking of unemployment is based upon those who "qualify" to receive that benefit. There are also those who have been part of a lay off reduction of force multiple times during those 8 years. Job.numbers doesn't differentiate between long term employment or 3 month employment. So are we talking about workers finally receiving long term employment or the same worker trying his luck with another position? This is why simply throwing out one unemployment number is hardly a reliable gauge, in determining the true state of how well Americans are recovering in a recession.

You do realize that U3 unemployment has been measured the same way for decades

By no measure, can a 5% unemployment rate be an "Economic Disaster"

That's why underemployment comes as such a shock to left because the unemployment rate is SO reliable. Economists aren't going to look at just the unemployment rate, without looking into other contributing factors, use some intelligence.

 

[pinqy]

You do realize the tracking of unemployment is based upon those who "qualify" to receive that benefit.

That has never been true. Where on earth did you get that idea?

There are also those who have been part of a lay off reduction of force multiple times during those 8 years. Job.numbers doesn't differentiate between long term employment or 3 month employment.

Because it's a monthly figure. Duration of unemployment is tracked though.

So are we talking about workers finally receiving long term employment or the same worker trying his luck with another position? .

why does that make a difference to just counting the total number employed for a month?

 

[rightwinger]

That is about all you could could call it. I would hate to have seen McCain or Romney become president, both of whom I despise, but it's undeniable but obama has made a complete mess of the economy, almost as bad as he's been on national security. (and that's pretty bad)

On the wealth gap,according to a report from the Pew Research Center, in 2014 upper income households had almost seven times the wealth of middle class households. That is the largest gap between these respective groups in the three decades the Fed has collected such data. Yes, it's even higher than the "Evil 80s" under Reagan.

Recall President Obama's campaign exchange with Joe the Plumber when he stated, "And I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Yet, lower and middle class Americans, groups with which Democrats so often claim allegiance, have fallen further down the economic ladder under President Obama. Consider this staggering comparison: In 2007, the average household income in America was $55,627. In 2014, that figure had slipped to $53,880 -- Americans earned less on average than they did seven years prior. So, what has happened is that the average American family has been earning less than it did when the great Recession began. All the while, over that same period prices of practically everything else we buy rose.

According to government data, in 2007 the lowest quintile of earners in America made up 3.4% of total earnings. That means the lowest 20% of earners in America only collected 3.4% of the total earnings pie in 2007.

In 2013 (the latest available data), that figure had dropped to 3.2%. Bear with me on the math, because it is damning evidence of Obama's Utopian economic failure. That reduction from 3.4% to 3.2% of total earnings means these folks have seen a 6.25% reduction in the slice of their total earnings pie over that period.

What about the highest earning quintile? Over that same period, their slice of the pie actually swelled from 49.7% in 2007 to 51.0% in 2013.

The New York Times, cited a National Employment Law Project study in an April article in which it was noted that a million jobs in middle-income industries were lost during the Great Recession. The article added that those million workers then often found themselves either unemployed or flipping burgers at a minimum wage job.

And the scorecard for Blacks ? (who so overwhelmingly support him and Hillary Clinton) >>> Some Obama supporters will defend him by saying that the Black unemployment rate has dropped from 12.7% when he took office to 11.1% as of November 2014, the latest reported month. At first glance, that might appear impressive. However, the reason that figure has dropped is because so many Blacks have actually dropped out of the labor force.

In January 2009, there were 10,312,000 Blacks not in the labor force. As of November 2014, the latest available data, that figure had swelled to 11,923,000. That represents more than a 15% increase in Black Americans who have exited the workforce

Look at SNAP (commonly known as "food stamps." The program, has grew from $54.8 billion in 2009 to $69.4 billion in 2014. In January 2015, the number of beneficiaries receiving food stamps topped 46 million for 38 straight months, with 14.6 percent of the population and 19.7 percent of all households receiving food stamps. This represents an increase of 1516.96 % over the 2.9 million Americans participating in the food stamp program in 1969. Not good Barrack.

The federal debt is projected to nearly double under President Obama, with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis chart showing it has increased from $11.1 trillion in the first quarter 2009 to $18.9 trillion in the fourth quarter 2015.

Despite Obama’s promises that the implementation of Obamacare would lower health-care costs, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis chart shows the Consumer Price Index, CPI, for medical care services has continued a straight-line increase since the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The CPI for medical care services has increased from 149.952 in January 2009 to 186.961 in February 2016.

The labor-force participation rate has fallen consistently under the Obama administration as an increasing percentage of those out of work and looking for work simply give up and quit looking. The labor-force participation rate has dropped from 65.7 percent in January 2009 to 62.9 percent in February 2016. Beware of false reports of drops in the unemployment rate, as reported by Obama's Bureau of Labor Statistics. These have become virtually meaningless, with the Obamans having adopted a policy of making unemployment percentages look artificially low by increasing the number of workers considered no longer in the work force.
Actually, these workers ARE a part of the workforce, in that they WANT a job, but have stopped looking because of a repetitive inability to get hired (no thanks to Obama's immigration-friendly policies)

John Williams, an economist known for arguing the government reports manipulate “shadow statistics” of economic data for political purposes. Williams writes in his subscription newsletter on ShadowStats.com. ““The broad economic outlook has not changed, despite the heavily-distorted numbers that continue to be published by the BLS,”The unemployment rates have not dropped from peak levels due to a surge in hiring; instead, they generally have dropped because of discouraged workers being eliminated from headline labor-force accounting.”

The federal debt is projected to nearly double under President Obama, with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis chart showing it has increased from $11.1 trillion in the first quarter 2009 to $18.9 trillion in the fourth quarter 2015. At the end of the George W. Bush presidency in January 2009, the federal debt stood at $10.6 trillion. It is projected to exceed $20 trillion by the end of Obama’s presidency in January 2017.

While Quantitative Easing, the Federal Reserve policy of printing money to buy U.S. Treasury Department-issued government debt, known among economists as QE, began under President George W. Bush, it took off under President Obama. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis chart shows the adjusted monetary base of the United States rose from $1.772 trillion on Jan. 14, 2009, to $3.996 trillion as of March 16, 2016.

Real median household income in the United States has declined from a height of $57,357 in 2007 under President George W. Bush to $53,657 in 2014 under President Obama. The calculation takes into consideration the “Obama economic recovery,” in that real median household income in the United States by 2013 rose to $54,426 in 2013, from a low of $52,605 in 2012, only to fall back again in 2014.

Home ownership under Obamanomics has continued a straight-line decline that began with the collapse of the substandard real estate market during George W. Bush’s second term in office. The home-ownership rate has declined from 67.4 percent in 2009 to 63.7 in the second quarter 2015. On July 28, 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported that the rate of home ownership in the second quarter 2015 hit a 48-year low, reflecting the reality that fewer middle class Americans can afford to buy a home. Under Obama, an increasing number of Americans are living in rented homes, with the American dream of owning a home no longer an economic reality.

Comparing wages, etc to 2007? Let it up to a whiner to ignore the Bush recession.

The LPR does not necessarily mean being lower is a bad thing. It was much lower in the 50's during good economic times. Two examples.

I have a good job & sup[port my kids & my stay-at-home wife. My company has a massive layoff due to poor economic times. The only work I can get does not pay as much & my wife goes to work. The LPR just went up.

After a year, I get called back to my old job & I make good money & my wife no longer has to work & returns to being a stay-at-home mom. The LPR just went down.

Until protectionist can account for the 50 million retirees, 12 million handicapped and 20 million teens and stay at home moms........Labor Participation Rate is a bogus tool to evaluate employment

You do realize the tracking of unemployment is based upon those who "qualify" to receive that benefit. There are also those who have been part of a lay off reduction of force multiple times during those 8 years. Job.numbers doesn't differentiate between long term employment or 3 month employment. So are we talking about workers finally receiving long term employment or the same worker trying his luck with another position? This is why simply throwing out one unemployment number is hardly a reliable gauge, in determining the true state of how well Americans are recovering in a recession.

You do realize that U3 unemployment has been measured the same way for decades

By no measure, can a 5% unemployment rate be an "Economic Disaster"

That's why underemployment comes as such a shock to left because the unemployment rate is SO reliable. Economists aren't going to look at just the unemployment rate, without looking into other contributing factors, use some intelligence.

Sorry pal....but losing 700,000 jobs a month qualifies as an "Economic Disaster"
Underemployment does not

The reported unemployment number is reliable....it is measured the same way it always has

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You do realize the tracking of unemployment is based upon those who "qualify" to receive that benefit.

That has never been true. Where on earth did you get that idea?

There are also those who have been part of a lay off reduction of force multiple times during those 8 years. Job.numbers doesn't differentiate between long term employment or 3 month employment.

Because it's a monthly figure. Duration of unemployment is tracked though.

So are we talking about workers finally receiving long term employment or the same worker trying his luck with another position? .

why does that make a difference to just counting the total number employed for a month?

Read for yourself.
Maybe rightwinger can learn something too

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the government uses the number of people collecting unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under state or federal government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.

How the Government Measures Unemployment

This is why you can NOT use the unemployment rate as an accurate stand alone means to judge the state of the economy. This is precisely why you should be knowledgeable to what the unemployment rate actually covers before you start spouting figures.

 

[rightwinger]

You do realize the tracking of unemployment is based upon those who "qualify" to receive that benefit.

That has never been true. Where on earth did you get that idea?

There are also those who have been part of a lay off reduction of force multiple times during those 8 years. Job.numbers doesn't differentiate between long term employment or 3 month employment.

Because it's a monthly figure. Duration of unemployment is tracked though.

So are we talking about workers finally receiving long term employment or the same worker trying his luck with another position? .

why does that make a difference to just counting the total number employed for a month?

Read for yourself.
Maybe rightwinger can learn something too

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the government uses the number of people collecting unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under state or federal government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.

How the Government Measures Unemployment

This is why you can NOT use the unemployment rate as an accurate stand alone means to judge the state of the economy. This is precisely why you should be knowledgeable to what the unemployment rate actually covers before you start spouting figures.

U3 is still U3

It measures the same thing it always has

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Economic disaster?

More than doubled the stock market
Saved the banks and auto companies
Added $50 trillion to nations wealth
Added 13 million jobs
Cut unemployment rate by 5%

Some "disaster"

If job security could be summed up by simply throwing out a 5% unemployment rate, the economy would not be an issue among voters this time around. Unless the real economy lies in the type of jobs Americans are finding.


Nearly half of U.S. workers consider themselves underemployed, report says
Three-quarters of those who label themselves as such say they're not working in a job that uses their education and training. One quarter say they are working part time but want full-time work.

Nearly half of U.S. workers consider themselves underemployed, report says

* The unemployment rate for new college grads is 5.6 percent, compared with 5.5 percent in 2007.
* Young high school grads have an unemployment rate of 17.9 percent, compared with 15.9 percent in 2007.
for recent high-school graduates, about one-third are currently underemployed, compared with roughly 27 percent in 2007

Young college grads are suffering from an underemployment rate of 12.6 percent, compared with 9.6 percent in 2007

At the same time, many are entering the workforce with higher levels of debt, thanks to tuition fees that have increased far faster than median family income.

* Recent grads who are "idled" -- neither enrolled in school nor employed -- is still higher than before the recession. For college grads, the rate is now almost 10 percent, compared with 8.4 percent in 2007. About 15.5 percent of young high-school grads are now idled, compared with 13.7 percent in 2007.
* People of color are especially hard-hit. Young black college grads have an unemployment rate of 9.4 percent, compared with 8.9 percent in April 2007.
Job quality has eroded. In 2001, almost 42 percent of new college grads found jobs with pensions. That declined to just over 29 percent in 2015

Welcome to the job market, class of 2016: It still stinks

Any way you spin it.......a 4.9% unemployment rate is better than a 10% unemployment rate

Dropping unemployment by over 5% is not an "economic disaster"

I'm sure that's why Bernie was a hit with the youth. They have the more difficult time finding work associated with their degree, so they have to accept a lower pay part time job in order to pay tutition costs. This is why Hillary never seems to be able to obtain that strong solid gain In the polls, that resonates with voters concerned about the economy. You are having to contend with an individual, who's not even a politician from Washington, and Hillary is struggling now more than any candidate has done in a prior presidential race. I'd be willing to bet even Obama had stronger polling numbers against Romney, or as just mere nominee against Hillary. That has got to be humiliating for her.