Unexpectedly: The New York Times discovers that many don’t have to work in the age of Obama

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Bush did campaign on the rise in home ownership, which some conflate with F&F. The truth is, the manipulations of F&F had little to do with the rise in home ownership, which is far more effected by other economic factors such as interest rates and the overall economy. Fortunately, somebody actually looked into this. At the conclusion of the study data, it states:

"In sum, this study casts doubt on the efficiency of subsidizing mortgage interest rates and down payments to raise the homeownership rate or eliminate homeownership gaps among race/ethnic groups because economic fundamentals and sociodemographic features are the main drivers of homeownership. The government is leveraging instruments which have proved to have little impact on homeownership rates" Homeownership Rate Impact of Liquidating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

So to dumb it down for Leftists, this means that F&F had almost nothing to do with the rise in home ownership that became a campaign feature in Bush's candidacy.

 

[Spare_change]

You know it's not that I don't consider this working participation problem a significant one, it's that I think it is completely stupid the rightwing thinks it's all that matters. You people think it alone serves as proof the economy is bad.

Hey guess what is apparent about the economy under Obama? Over 10 million private jobs have been created. The stock market is doing better now more than ever. Just admit it: if we had a republican president right now you would not even be talking about this issue. You would harp on the facts I just told you.

There are multiple reasons for the labor participation being low and food stamps is not the reason. It is because of more people retiring, going on disability, and yes, discouragement from working. However, people are discouraged from working because wages are too low. Obama tried to fix that by raising the minimum wage.

Oh and let's not forget that this stat has been declining since before Obama was president. Where was your outrage then?

I understand your point, but I think there's another way to look at this ....

Keep in mind that the unemployment rate (no matter all the machinations and finagling to make it look good) is a percentage, based on a fraction - unemployed looking for work (ULW) divided by total workforce (WF) The 'workforce' is defined as the sum of 'ULW' plus those employed'.

Now, the announced unemployment rate is not an actual measurement of activity - it is the result of a survey of 60,000 homes. The collected data is the interpolated to reflect the whole country. This is all explained at: How the Government Measures Unemployment

But ... if people drop out of the workforce - quit looking for work, retire, go on disability, whatever - the denominator is reduced by 1, while the numerator is also reduced by 1. The impact?

Assume the workforce consists of 100 people - 90 working and 10 looking. The unemployment rate is 10/100 = 10%. Now, one unemployed person gives up and quits looking for work - we need to reduce both sides of the formula by1 --- 9/99 = 9.09%.

How about if 5 people dropped out .... 5/95 = 5.2% - a great unemployment rate, even though we created no jobs - but rather, created 5 more loads on society. You can see why the labor participation rate is, actually, a very important measurement.The "Not Looking For Work" creates a drain on our economy, and as that % increases, the drain gets worse.

You will note, I'm sure, that I said that 5 people retiring, going on disability, quit looking, created '5 loads on society'. I don't mean that negatively ... instead, they are no longer contributors to the economy. People who retire pay less taxes, they don't generate a product to be sold, they don't employ people, they start to consume their retirement assets, making those assets less available to be invested or loaned out, or whatever - the same applies for those disabled - they generate no contribution to the GNP, they consume money (even if it's from insurance companies, and not from the government) that is less available to be invested, etc.

And, for those who just go on welfare, the load on the economy they generate is well documented. Facilitating the withdrawal by removing the incentive to work (thru food stamps, or whatever) only aggravates the drop-out problem. I'm not proposing we cancel food stamps --- but I am saying that we need to put limits on the length of time, or demand some return on investment for the payments (put them to work doing something - anything).

 

[Billy000]

You know it's not that I don't consider this working participation problem a significant one, it's that I think it is completely stupid the rightwing thinks it's all that matters. You people think it alone serves as proof the economy is bad.

Hey guess what is apparent about the economy under Obama? Over 10 million private jobs have been created. The stock market is doing better now more than ever. Just admit it: if we had a republican president right now you would not even be talking about this issue. You would harp on the facts I just told you.

There are multiple reasons for the labor participation being low and food stamps is not the reason. It is because of more people retiring, going on disability, and yes, discouragement from working. However, people are discouraged from working because wages are too low. Obama tried to fix that by raising the minimum wage.

Oh and let's not forget that this stat has been declining since before Obama was president. Where was your outrage then?

I understand your point, but I think there's another way to look at this ....

Keep in mind that the unemployment rate (no matter all the machinations and finagling to make it look good) is a percentage, based on a fraction - unemployed looking for work (ULW) divided by total workforce (WF) The 'workforce' is defined as the sum of 'ULW' plus those employed'.

Now, the announced unemployment rate is not an actual measurement of activity - it is the result of a survey of 60,000 homes. The collected data is the interpolated to reflect the whole country. This is all explained at: How the Government Measures Unemployment

But ... if people drop out of the workforce - quit looking for work, retire, go on disability, whatever - the denominator is reduced by 1, while the numerator is also reduced by 1. The impact?

Assume the workforce consists of 100 people - 90 working and 10 looking. The unemployment rate is 10/100 = 10%. Now, one unemployed person gives up and quits looking for work - we need to reduce both sides of the formula by1 --- 9/99 = 9.09%.

How about if 5 people dropped out .... 5/95 = 5.2% - a great unemployment rate, even though we created no jobs - but rather, created 5 more loads on society. You can see why the labor participation rate is, actually, a very important measurement.The "Not Looking For Work" creates a drain on our economy, and as that % increases, the drain gets worse.

You will note, I'm sure, that I said that 5 people retiring, going on disability, quit looking, created '5 loads on society'. I don't mean that negatively ... instead, they are no longer contributors to the economy. People who retire pay less taxes, they don't generate a product to be sold, they don't employ people, they start to consume their retirement assets, making those assets less available to be invested or loaned out, or whatever - the same applies for those disabled - they generate no contribution to the GNP, they consume money (even if it's from insurance companies, and not from the government) that is less available to be invested, etc.

And, for those who just go on welfare, the load on the economy they generate is well documented. Facilitating the withdrawal by removing the incentive to work (thru food stamps, or whatever) only aggravates the drop-out problem. I'm not proposing we cancel food stamps --- but I am saying that we need to put limits on the length of time, or demand some return on investment for the payments (put them to work doing something - anything).

I already told you I agree the labor participation matters. However again it has been declining since before Obama became president.

Sure it skews the unemployment rate - no doubt. However, over 10 million private jobs have been created since Obama came to office. Isn't the job growth record important to you? Don't you think it matters? We lost 8 million jobs from one recession. We regained those jobs and more.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well it is thank a liberal day they say. So we should thank them for helping in DESTROYING our country. Way to go Barak what a LEGACY

SNIP:
You already knew that Mitt Romney was right about just about everything.
He was right when he called Russia America’s “number one geopolitical foe.” With Moscow occupying sovereign foreign territory in Europe for the first time since 1989, and as American tanks and possibly even nuclear weapons are headed back to the European front, the 1980s called and they clearly got their foreign policy back.

He was right to warn about the expansion of Islamic extremists into formerly obscure places like Northern Mali. Despite being mocked by the unduly self-assured for his insistence that Islamic radicalism in North Africa was a threat to global security, France introduced troops into that country in 2013 at the behest of Mali’s president in order to quell the raging conflict between Islamist insurgents and government forces.
He was right about Detroit. When the Motor City became the biggest metropolis in American history to declare bankruptcy last year, many recalled the headline which The New York Times assigned to a Romney op-ed in which he had recommended that the city’s automobile manufacturers undergo a structured bankruptcy in 2009. “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt,” the headline read.


But this latest source of vindication for the former Republican presidential nominee may just be the sweetest.


In 2012, Romney was dogged by comments he made to a closed-door meeting of donors. There, the former Massachusetts governor said that 47 percent of the public would never vote for him because they pay no income tax and are more satisfied to support the party which promises them federal assistance in order to ease their financial burden. For these comments he was called callous, cruel, and indifferent to suboptimal conditions faced by the nation’s working poor.


Two years after his defeat, The New York Times has discovered that Mitt Romney had a point.
“Working, in America, is in decline,” The Times reported on Friday. “The share of prime-age men — those 25 to 54 years old — who are not working has more than tripled since the late 1960s, to 16 percent.”
“The United States, which had one of the highest employment rates among developed nations as recently as 2000, has fallen toward the bottom of the list,” the report continued.

ALL of it here:
Unexpectedly The New York Times discovers that many don t have to work in the age of Obama Hot Air

Did you know that Romney's proposed across the board income tax cut would have ADDED to the 47% number of Americans who pay no income tax?

Of course you didn't.

 

[BluesLegend]

BS. He and Pubs were bragging about how many new homeowners there were. Back to SNL, Pub dupes.

The fact is EVERYONE was to blame for the housing fiasco, Democrats, Republicans, banks, lenders, AND the American people who acted stupidly knowingly buying more home than they could afford and taking out 2nd mortgages and spending stupidly thinking double digit housing values would go on forever and that their house couldn't go down in value. Then BOOM it blew up in their faces creating a 10-15 year housing market hang over. Yes Bush tried to step in several times but he and the Republicans were also cheering this on when the bubble was forming.

I being a conservative sold at the top of the market then sat on the fence for 5 years and purchased at the bottom, that's how we roll.

 

[francoHFW]

That's all he has left. He is not in possession of the facts.

"Altogether, accounting for both the TARP and the Fannie and Freddie bailout, $613B has gone out the door—invested, loaned, or paid out." Of which 187 billion went to F+F. Since you can't look at the figures, brainwashed fools.

BTW, the tab for Reagan's brilliant deregulated S+L economy was 293 billion. Great job!

 

[francoHFW]

Altogether, accounting for both the TARP and the Fannie and Freddie bailout, $613B has gone out the door—invested, loaned, or paid out." F+F, 187 billion. BTW, Reagan's S+L dereg debacle cost 293 billion....
Google "Final bailout totals of Fannie and financial institutions". My computer is having a breakdown. That quote comes from the first link.

 

[francoHFW]

• Bailout Scorecard | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica
  projects.propublica.org/bailout/
  ProPublica
  
  Dec 1, 2014 - 40.0% of total. Banks and other Financial Institutions $245B. 30.6%.Fannie and Freddie $187B. 13.0%. AIG

• Bailout List: Banks, Auto Companies, and More | Eye on the ...
  projects.propublica.org/bailout/list
  ProPublica
  
  Dec 1, 2014 - Companies that failed to repay the government and resulted in a loss are shaded red. ... Total revenues from dividends, interest, and other fees.

• Adding Up the Government's Total Bailout Tab - Interactive ...
  www.nytimes.com/.../20090205-bailout-totals-grap...
  The New York Times
  
  Jul 24, 2011 - Adding Up the Government's Total Bailout Tab ... Includes direct investments in financial institutions, purchases of high-grade corporate debt and purchases of mortgage-backed securities issued by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac ...
  You visited this page on 12/14/14.

• Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - Wikipedia
  en.wikipedia.org/.../Federal_takeover_of_Fannie_Mae_and_Fr...
  Wikipedia
  
  8 Effects on the subprime mortgage crisis; 9 Financial condition of Fannie and ... turn into the biggest and costliest government bailout ever of private companies". .... The law raised the Treasury's debt ceiling by US$800 billion, to a total of ...

• Follow the money: Bailout tracker - CNNMoney.com
  money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/.../bailouttracker/
  CNNMoney
  
  Aim is to provide liquidity to foreign financial institutions. Fed pumps out more ...Stimulus total, $1.2 trillion, $577.8 billion ... Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout.

 

[francoHFW]

So where'd all the loudmouth dupes go? Boooshie crony financial institutions got 2 1/2 times the bailouts of F+F, and all kinds of other aid besides...Functional MORONS.

 

[Listening]

So where'd all the loudmouth dupes go? Boooshie crony financial institutions got 2 1/2 times the bailouts of F+F, and all kinds of other aid besides...Functional MORONS.

They got tired of trying to figure out what you are arguing.

You suck.

 

[Spare_change]

So where'd all the loudmouth dupes go? Boooshie crony financial institutions got 2 1/2 times the bailouts of F+F, and all kinds of other aid besides...Functional MORONS.

LOL ---- of course you don't mention the $290 billion of bad mortgages purchased by the Federal Reserve and Treasury Dept in order to ensure they didn't show up as losses on F + F. Nor do you mention that F + F still owe $138 billion in unpaid bail-out money, whereas most of the other receivers have paid it back. (Both of those facts are included in your references ... if you look)

Man, you are WAY out of your league --- you have a 3rd grade understanding of government economics. You're trying to patch together an argument, because you got your ego bruised, by finding selective facts that SEEM to support you, but in fact, when presented the way you present them, actually are simply false.

I'm not going to argue with you --- I'm tired of trying to guide you to understand. I understand, you got your feelings hurt, and you're trying to recover. Just accept that your knowledge base is woefully short in this area. Please don't come back here with more half-assed arguments - you'll just embarrass yourself, and all you'll hear is crickets.

 

[SwimExpert]

Every single person who has posted so far is looking for easy excuses and easy answers. The American economy is broken. Plain and simple. It's not a Bush thing. It's not an Obama thing. It's far more systemic. It's as deep as the very food you eat, every single day.

Our food?
Was there something wrong with the omelette and coffee I had for breakfast?

Something wrong with it? You'd have to tell me.

My point is that the sickness festering in our economy is deeply soaked into every vein, artery, and capillary.