Obama/Reagan On Jobs, Growth & Investing

[Sallow]

How damn sad that they have to go ALL THE WAY back to Reagan. what, 20-30 years ago to make Obambam out to be that guy that walks water. He was sent to LORD over us from the heavens....and walla we are saved

I think that 70% of the people who disapproves of Dear Leader might not swallow the bs propaganda

Actually..you can't compare Obama's economy with Bush's because that is like comparing gold to shit.

And Reagan's a right wing god.

However, a more accurate comparison would be Clinton's economy, which was pretty good.

Considering what Obama had to deal with? His outcome, thus far, is superior.

 

[Sallow]

Now, as to the actual information in the OP, here is a chart that was provided at the link. That chart pretty much says it all:

Only a fool thinks that chart says it all. How many people are underemployed, on disability or dropped out of the job market altogether? Those are important factors to consider, ignoring them is propaganda.

It's funny that this is the first administration where "underemployed, or dropped out of the job market" has been treated as a serious metric, by anyone (It's generally only the scope of the right wing).

And underemployed has some pretty broad implications. Underemployed means, "Well yeah, I was unemployed, got a new job and aren't making as much when at the job I was fired from.."

Which by the way? Almost always happens. You don't make more when you get employed again after being fired. Generally? You are starting over.

 

[Stephanie]

this was one of the comments on the article at the site

SNIP:

Rob, quite an interesting use of statistics. How about telling us how debt to GDP changed from the time Reagan took office to the time he left, and comparing it to that for Obama? How about not cherry picking dates and looking at average real gas prices during Obama’s presidency compared to GW? How about looking at something simple, like total jobs created, over the course of the presidency? There is a certain dishonesty involved in beginning with a conclusion and cherry picking your data to try to fit it. I am not prepared to say that Reagan’s presidency was the best for the economy, or that Obama’s is the worst, or even that changes in economic statistics over the course of a president’s term should all be attributed to him. But you have demonstrated nothing other than a disturbing tendency to misuse statistics.

 

[Faun]

Now, as to the actual information in the OP, here is a chart that was provided at the link. That chart pretty much says it all:

Only a fool thinks that chart says it all. How many people are underemployed, on disability or dropped out of the job market altogether? Those are important factors to consider, ignoring them is propaganda.

Of course Statistheilhitler is an illiterate masquerading as a buffoon.
Here are two charts that speak volumes: Notice that during Reagan's recovery the participation rate increased. This is because a rising economy encourages people to re enter the workforce. The opposite of Obama.

Only an imbecile would look at those charts and ignore the impact of retiring baby boomers on the latter.

 

[The Rabbi]

Now, as to the actual information in the OP, here is a chart that was provided at the link. That chart pretty much says it all:

Only a fool thinks that chart says it all. How many people are underemployed, on disability or dropped out of the job market altogether? Those are important factors to consider, ignoring them is propaganda.

Of course Statistheilhitler is an illiterate masquerading as a buffoon.
Here are two charts that speak volumes: Notice that during Reagan's recovery the participation rate increased. This is because a rising economy encourages people to re enter the workforce. The opposite of Obama.

Only an imbecile would look at those charts and ignore the impact of retiring baby boomers on the latter.

Only an imbecile would pick one talking point and think it explains everything. Then again, look who's posting: Faun, the Fail of USMB.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Ahh, Rabbi is wailing. Again. Lol. ..

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Iceweasel]

And as a response to Hartung's article:

Economic Growth Obama Vs. Reagan Investing.com
Last week, Adam Hartung qualified for the "Mark Twain Award" if there was such a thing. In his article, "Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth & Investing," Adam goes to some length to try and show that unemployment rate, the S&P 500 and economic growth are currently better under the current administration than they were during the Reagan administration.

Adam's first mistake was in the use of the Bureau Of Labor Statistics measure of unemployment (U3) as a comparative benchmark of success as President. To wit:

"“President Obama has achieved a 6.1% unemployment rate in his 6th year, fully one year faster than President Reagan did. At this point in his presidency, President Reagan was still struggling with 7.1% unemployment, and he did not reach into the mid-low 6% range for another full year. So, despite today’s number, the Obama administration has still done considerably better at job creating and reducing unemployment than did the Reagan administration."

While this is "technically true," it falls within Twain's category of a "statistical lie."

The BLS's measure of unemployment has become obfuscated by the rise in the number of individuals that are no longer counted as part of the labor force. As I discussed in "Why The Unemployment Rate Is Irrelevant," the measure of labor force participation is markedly different between Reagan and Obama.

During Reagan's Presidency, workers that were unemployed longer than 52-weeks were still part of the labor force. This inclusion gave a more accurate measure of the relative size of the labor force overall. However, in 1994, Clinton removed individuals from the labor force that were currently unemployed for longer than 52-weeks. This adjustment immediately improved the overall measure of unemployment by shrinking the labor force by some 500,000 individuals. Since then, the number of individuals no longer counted as part of the labor force has swelled to more than 92 million individuals, or roughly 45% of the working age population (16-54) as of the end of 2013

In other words, a large part of the drop in the U-3 unemployment rate is due to the increase in the number of individuals excluded from the workforce. In theory, if the dropout rate continued at the current pace, the unemployment could fall towards zero allowing the Federal Reserve to win the battle of unemployment, but losing the war of economic prosperity.

The chart below shows the annual change in those not counted as part of the labor force by President from 1981-Present.

 

[pinqy]

Here are two charts that speak volumes: Notice that during Reagan's recovery the participation rate increased. This is because a rising economy encourages people to re enter the workforce. The opposite of Obama.

Now let's put these in the larger context:

Looking at the larger scale, and with men and women separated, we see that the participation rate has followed long term trends. The ups and downs within a single presidency are pretty irrelevant.

 

[The Rabbi]

Bullshit excuse.
The participation rate has declined faster under Obama than at any other time. This is due to Democrat policies that discourage work and encourage government dependence.
Like this:

 

[Meathead]

Now let's put these in the larger context:

Looking at the larger scale, and with men and women separated, we see that the participation rate has followed long term trends. The ups and downs within a single presidency are pretty irrelevant.

I don't know why separating men and women matter, but aside from that Obama has failed to deliver employment opportunities as evident in the continued decline since 2009.

Fewer people are working and more people have become dependant on government. I cannot fathom why anyone would find a growing population coupled with fewer jobs an acceptable trend.

 

[boedicca]

Fun to watch Righties squeal over hard numbers. Very, very fun.

When you present "hard numbers" that arent cherry picked we can talk. Meanwhile chew on these hard numbers:

The hard numbers?

Over 92M adults "not in the labor force".

Labor Force Participation Rate of 62.8%.

$7T of additional debt.

2% economic growth after a deep recession.

And how about the Progs' favorite issue, Inequality? Obama's policies have made it worse.

Hopenchange!

 

[boedicca]

Looking at the larger scale, and with men and women separated, we see that the participation rate has followed long term trends. The ups and downs within a single presidency are pretty irrelevant.

That's utter nonsense. A demographic that has particularly suffered due to Obamanomics is young workers. The lack of job creation is something they will suffer from their entire careers (or lack thereof).

 

[Faun]

Now, as to the actual information in the OP, here is a chart that was provided at the link. That chart pretty much says it all:

Only a fool thinks that chart says it all. How many people are underemployed, on disability or dropped out of the job market altogether? Those are important factors to consider, ignoring them is propaganda.

Of course Statistheilhitler is an illiterate masquerading as a buffoon.
Here are two charts that speak volumes: Notice that during Reagan's recovery the participation rate increased. This is because a rising economy encourages people to re enter the workforce. The opposite of Obama.

Only an imbecile would look at those charts and ignore the impact of retiring baby boomers on the latter.

Only an imbecile would pick one talking point and think it explains everything. Then again, look who's posting: Faun, the Fail of USMB.

Only an imbecile would try to dismiss retirees as a "talking point."

 

[Statistikhengst]

Here are two charts that speak volumes: Notice that during Reagan's recovery the participation rate increased. This is because a rising economy encourages people to re enter the workforce. The opposite of Obama.

Now let's put these in the larger context:

Looking at the larger scale, and with men and women separated, we see that the participation rate has followed long term trends. The ups and downs within a single presidency are pretty irrelevant.

There you go. You did it now. You ruined their last argument.

Good.

 

[Zander]

Fun to watch Righties squeal over hard numbers. Very, very fun.

Speaking of hard numbers.....

The poll shows Americans say 52-42 that Obama has been more of a failure than a success. Among registered voters, the gap is even bigger -- at 55-39 -- with four in 10 (41 percent) saying they "strongly" believe Obama has been a failure.

Those saying Obama has been a failure include one in four Democrats (25 percent), nearly three in 10 liberals (29 percent) and the vast, vast majority of conservative Republicans (92 percent). Nearly one in five liberals (18 percent) say they feel "strongly" that Obama has been a failure.

A majority of Americans say Obama 8217 s presidency is a 8216 failure 8217 - The Washington Post

 

[Jroc]

I gotta go to work Unlike some of you people, but any idiot who thinks this economy is doijng well is seriously delusional. incomes are not rising, almost half the jobs created are part time jobs and Obamacare isn't even fully implemented yet, which will make things worst. The black unemployment rate is almost 12%. There is no comparison to the boom of the Reagan economy none..... The very "rich" are doing quite well under Obama. they like the artificially propped up stock market, they make lots of money

That's just awful.

So. What's doing better? The pencils or the apples you are selling?

I gotta go to work Unlike some of you people, but any idiot who thinks this economy is doijng well is seriously delusional. incomes are not rising, almost half the jobs created are part time jobs and Obamacare isn't even fully implemented yet, which will make things worst. The black unemployment rate is almost 12%. There is no comparison to the boom of the Reagan economy none..... The very "rich" are doing quite well under Obama. they like the artificially propped up stock market, they make lots of money

I sure would like to see you post a link to the BLS showing that almost half the jobs created under Obama are part time.....

yes, that could be interesting...

You're welcome...

Part-Time Work Made Up More Than 65 Percent Of New Jobs Created In July



WASHINGTON — The 162,000 jobs the economy added in July were a disappointment. The quality of the jobs was even worse.

A disproportionate number of the added jobs were part-time or low-paying – or both.

Part-time work accounted for more than 65 percent of the positions employers added in July. Low-paying retailers, restaurants and bars supplied more than half July's job gain.

Part-time work has made up 77 percent of the job growth so far this year. The government defines part-time work as being less than 35 hours a week.

Part-Time Work Made Up More Than 65 Percent Of New Jobs Created In July

Holyfuckingshit!

That was just one month. You're seriously trying to gauge part time employment under Obama based on one month?? Talk about rightarded.

The vast majority of jobs created during Obama's presidency have been full time jobs. Your earlier post that almost half were part time jobs was stupid enough, but this post of yours is sheer insanity.

I guess you missed this part of the article

Part-time work has made up 77 percent of the job growth so far this year. The government defines part-time work as being less than 35 hours a week.

 

[Jroc]

I gotta go to work Unlike some of you people, but any idiot who thinks this economy is doijng well is seriously delusional. incomes are not rising, almost half the jobs created are part time jobs and Obamacare isn't even fully implemented yet, which will make things worst. The black unemployment rate is almost 12%. There is no comparison to the boom of the Reagan economy none..... The very "rich" are doing quite well under Obama. they like the artificially propped up stock market, they make lots of money

That's just awful.

So. What's doing better? The pencils or the apples you are selling?

I gotta go to work Unlike some of you people, but any idiot who thinks this economy is doijng well is seriously delusional. incomes are not rising, almost half the jobs created are part time jobs and Obamacare isn't even fully implemented yet, which will make things worst. The black unemployment rate is almost 12%. There is no comparison to the boom of the Reagan economy none..... The very "rich" are doing quite well under Obama. they like the artificially propped up stock market, they make lots of money

I sure would like to see you post a link to the BLS showing that almost half the jobs created under Obama are part time.....

yes, that could be interesting...

You're welcome...

Part-Time Work Made Up More Than 65 Percent Of New Jobs Created In July



WASHINGTON — The 162,000 jobs the economy added in July were a disappointment. The quality of the jobs was even worse.

A disproportionate number of the added jobs were part-time or low-paying – or both.

Part-time work accounted for more than 65 percent of the positions employers added in July. Low-paying retailers, restaurants and bars supplied more than half July's job gain.

Part-time work has made up 77 percent of the job growth so far this year. The government defines part-time work as being less than 35 hours a week.

Part-Time Work Made Up More Than 65 Percent Of New Jobs Created In July

Holyfuckingshit!

That was just one month. You're seriously trying to gauge part time employment under Obama based on one month?? Talk about rightarded.

The vast majority of jobs created during Obama's presidency have been full time jobs. Your earlier post that almost half were part time jobs was stupid enough, but this post of yours is sheer insanity.

I guess you missed this part of the article


Part-time work has made up 77 percent of the job growth so far this year. The government defines part-time work as being less than 35 hours a week.



Generally liberal sites like the Huffington post bury the best part deeper in the piece. that should have been the headline actually doesn't make much sense to put the the latter as the headline crazy

 

[Faun]

Fun to watch Righties squeal over hard numbers. Very, very fun.

When you present "hard numbers" that arent cherry picked we can talk. Meanwhile chew on these hard numbers:

The hard numbers?

Over 92M adults "not in the labor force".

Labor Force Participation Rate of 62.8%.

$7T of additional debt.

2% economic growth after a deep recession.

And how about the Progs' favorite issue, Inequality? Obama's policies have made it worse.

Hopenchange!

86 million of those 92 million don't want to work.

 

[Sallow]

Bullshit excuse.
The participation rate has declined faster under Obama than at any other time. This is due to Democrat policies that discourage work and encourage government dependence.
Like this:

Actually it didn't.

That's complete bullshit.

And during the Bush administration, almost as many people went on food stamps.

Most people on foodstamps? They work.

They just don't get paid enough.

And conservatives want to keep it that way.

 

[pinqy]

I guess you missed this part of the article

Part-time work has made up 77 percent of the job growth so far this year. The government defines part-time work as being less than 35 hours a week.

Except that's not true. Wasn't even true in July. Historical Table A-9

Usually works full time (seasonally adjusted)
January 2014: 117,656,000
August 2014: 118,616,000
Change: +960,000

Usually works part time (seasonally adjusted)
January 2014: 27,540,000
August 2014: 27,743,000
Change: +203,000

You don't even have to do any math to see that part time growth was not 77% of total job growth.