Obama economy still improving

Numbers sure do look nice when you don't count all of the people who have stopped looking for work.

Numbers sure do look nice when you don't count all of the people who have stopped looking for work.

airshocker

considering how the stock market seems to work today my guess is the inclusion of these people would cause it to crash hard. Personally I don't yearn for their inclusion for this reason. Serraph105

I don't think it works that way.

Numbers sure do look nice when you don't count all of the people who have stopped looking for work.

airshocker

Typically, recessions are ended and growth is achieved by increasing private sector jobs as well as government jobs. The economy is growing so weakly because the private sector has slow growth, and through spending cuts, government jobs are being lost, not gained.

I wonder how well the economy would be doing now if: a) there was such a push for spending cuts, at least until the economy was on solid footing, and b) Congress actually did anything worthwile other than trying to repeal Obamacare, enact abortion legislation, and get their feet dragging with every appointment of the Obama administration.

Numbers sure do look nice when you don't count all of the people who have stopped looking for work.

airshocker

Things aren't as good as they were before, but they're getting a lot better. Regardless, why would anyone count someone who has stopped looking? If someone has decided that jobs in their area (and the money they pay) are not good enough for them or their family, then why would you count that group of folks?

Typically, recessions are ended and growth is achieved by increasing private sector jobs as well as government jobs. The economy is growing so weakly because the private sector has slow growth, and through spending cuts, government jobs are being lost, not gained.

I wonder how well the economy would be doing now if: a) there was such a push for spending cuts, at least until the economy was on solid footing, and b) Congress actually did anything worthwile other than trying to repeal Obamacare, enact abortion legislation, and get their feet dragging with every appointment of the Obama administration.

jimkabrhel

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

Typically, recessions are ended and growth is achieved by increasing private sector jobs as well as government jobs. The economy is growing so weakly because the private sector has slow growth, and through spending cuts, government jobs are being lost, not gained.

I wonder how well the economy would be doing now if: a) there was such a push for spending cuts, at least until the economy was on solid footing, and b) Congress actually did anything worthwile other than trying to repeal Obamacare, enact abortion legislation, and get their feet dragging with every appointment of the Obama administration.

comp_atkins

Well, since the banking industry pumps so much into lobbying and politics, it's like the government caused the crash. I kid.

"Liberals are cooking the numbers to look good by using the same statistical measures and methods that U.S. economists have always used for every economic analysis ever!"Barbariser

Couldn't care less if it were conservatives or liberals. Misrepresenting the actual unemployment rate is wrong, no matter which party.

Things aren't as good as they were before, but they're getting a lot better. Regardless, why would anyone count someone who has stopped looking? If someone has decided that jobs in their area (and the money they pay) are not good enough for them or their family, then why would you count that group of folks?

shellcase86

Why wouldn't you? They're unemployed, are they not?

thats bullcrap.. unemployment is atleast 18-20%... dont believe the obama manipulated numbers

thats bullcrap.. unemployment is atleast 18-20%... dont believe the obama manipulated numbers

Flubbbs

The Bureau of Labor And Statistics =/= Obama. FFS, learn about how things work.

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]"Liberals are cooking the numbers to look good by using the same statistical measures and methods that U.S. economists have always used for every economic analysis ever!"airshocker

Couldn't care less if it were conservatives or liberals. Misrepresenting the actual unemployment rate is wrong, no matter which party.

One million less people working now, than the day obama became president.

Here in FL, gas was $1.65 the day obama became president.

Insurance rates have risen by 25%, and food is 20% more expensive since obama became president.

More people on food stamps since obama became president than any time in history.

How does that = the economy is "improving"??

One million less people working now, than the day obama became president.

Here in FL, gas was $1.65 the day obama became president.

Insurance rates have risen by 25%, and food is 20% more expensive since obama became president.

More people on food stamps since obama became president than any time in history.

 

How does that = the economy is "improving"??

Born_Lucky

If you are going to spout talking points like that, at least show that Obama is the sole cause of those statistics.

Gas prices have little to do with the policy of this government. I don't see how the President directly affects insurance rates. And considering that the country was in deep recession at the beginning of this President's first term, and Congress has refused to work with him to make the economy better, I don't see how he deserves more than some of the blame.

You have to remember that your Florida goverment also has a lot to do with local changes, so blame Rick Scott too.

One million less people working now, than the day obama became president.

Here in FL, gas was $1.65 the day obama became president.

Insurance rates have risen by 25%, and food is 20% more expensive since obama became president.

More people on food stamps since obama became president than any time in history.

 

How does that = the economy is "improving"??

Born_Lucky

Numbers sure do look nice when you don't count all of the people who have stopped looking for work.

airshocker

See the Bush "bailouts" (weren't they actually loans?) helped the financial sector recover, which eventually helped lead the economy as a whole to make some recovery. The economy could probably be a bit better if some government regulations were changed (For example i've heard that if some changes were made to the Dodd-Frank law, that it could make it easier for banks to lend more money to people).

Typically, recessions are ended and growth is achieved by increasing private sector jobs as well as government jobs. The economy is growing so weakly because the private sector has slow growth, and through spending cuts, government jobs are being lost, not gained.

I wonder how well the economy would be doing now if: a) there was such a push for spending cuts, at least until the economy was on solid footing, and b) Congress actually did anything worthwile other than trying to repeal Obamacare, enact abortion legislation, and get their feet dragging with every appointment of the Obama administration.

jimkabrhel

Anyway though, I don't really know what Congress could do to improve the economy, maybe they could do something like the corporate tax holiday in 2004 (which actually lead to increased government revenue) to encourage corporations to bring more of their assets into the country, thus creating more jobs. Also the House has passed a number of "jobs bills" but many of them are still stuck in the Senate.

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

Typically, recessions are ended and growth is achieved by increasing private sector jobs as well as government jobs. The economy is growing so weakly because the private sector has slow growth, and through spending cuts, government jobs are being lost, not gained.

I wonder how well the economy would be doing now if: a) there was such a push for spending cuts, at least until the economy was on solid footing, and b) Congress actually did anything worthwile other than trying to repeal Obamacare, enact abortion legislation, and get their feet dragging with every appointment of the Obama administration.

whipassmt

Anyway though, I don't really know what Congress could do to improve the economy, maybe they could do something like the corporate tax holiday in 2004 (which actually lead to increased government revenue) to encourage corporations to bring more of their assets into the country, thus creating more jobs. Also the House has passed a number of "jobs bills" but many of them are still stuck in the Senate.

If you want to see how the economy would be with just austerity measures, look at Europe and see how well that's gone. The GOP being recalitrant on just spending cuts across the board won't cut it. Look at what's happened with sequestration. Is anyone happy about it? That's going to provide more to cut the debt down the road than anything else, and people are angry about it.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

Typically, recessions are ended and growth is achieved by increasing private sector jobs as well as government jobs. The economy is growing so weakly because the private sector has slow growth, and through spending cuts, government jobs are being lost, not gained.

I wonder how well the economy would be doing now if: a) there was such a push for spending cuts, at least until the economy was on solid footing, and b) Congress actually did anything worthwile other than trying to repeal Obamacare, enact abortion legislation, and get their feet dragging with every appointment of the Obama administration.

jimkabrhel

Anyway though, I don't really know what Congress could do to improve the economy, maybe they could do something like the corporate tax holiday in 2004 (which actually lead to increased government revenue) to encourage corporations to bring more of their assets into the country, thus creating more jobs. Also the House has passed a number of "jobs bills" but many of them are still stuck in the Senate.

If you want to see how the economy would be with just austerity measures, look at Europe and see how well that's gone. The GOP being recalitrant on just spending cuts across the board won't cut it. Look at what's happened with sequestration. Is anyone happy about it? That's going to provide more to cut the debt down the road than anything else, and people are angry about it.

Is the sequester really a spending cut anyway, i've heard from some people that it isn't, because we're actually still spending more money this year than we did last year. Is that true?

And the Republicans are not being "recalcitrant about spending cuts across the board" - they are trying to change things so that the spending cuts are smarter and more targeted.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

Numbers sure do look nice when you don't count all of the people who have stopped looking for work.

Rattlesnake_8

Why don't you ask them?

Did anyone actually click on the original poster's link? Smells like spam to me.

Did anyone actually click on the original poster's link? Smells like spam to me.

WhiteKnight77

It is, but why not turn this into an interesting thread?

While the economy might be growing now, I think that could change in a few more months. On August 1 the HHS mandate goes into effect for religious organizations, which means that these organizations will have to either comply with the mandate (and the organizations have said they will not comply) or be fined the absurdly punitive amount of $100 per employee per day (which means for example that the Archdiocese of New York would be fined $200 million a year). Obviously fining these organizations this much money will probably force them to lay off workers.

Although, while the mandate technically takes effect for these organizations on August 1, there are still mutliple cases of lawsuits filed against the government contesting the mandate, so the actual enforcement of the mandate will be tied up in litigation.

There have been, and are, attempts in the Congress to either repeal the mandate (by amending Obamacare to include a conscience-clause), or to remove the fines from the mandate.

Now if the courts uphold the mandate, which I don't think is likely, then there is the question of whether or not Obama will actually impose the fines (after all I don't think it would be good PR for the Democrats heading into the 2016 or 2014 to have the federal government fining dioceses and charities) and whether the religious groups will pay the fines. Many religious leaders have said that if attempts to defeat the mandate through legislation or litigation fail, then they will be forced to resort to civil disobedience (which may mean they may refuse to pay any fines incurred), also it is likely that the next Republican president would pardon those who disobey the HHS mandate so those fines will probably be forgiven.

Did anyone actually click on the original poster's link? Smells like spam to me.

WhiteKnight77

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Did anyone actually click on the original poster's link? Smells like spam to me.

whipassmt

I didn't click on it, but I assumed for a level one that it was spam. LOL Spicy Entertainment. 

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Did anyone actually click on the original poster's link? Smells like spam to me.

whipassmt

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Did anyone actually click on the original poster's link? Smells like spam to me.

jimkabrhel

I didn't click on it, but I assumed for a level one that it was spam. LOL Spicy Entertainment.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Did anyone actually click on the original poster's link? Smells like spam to me.

jimkabrhel

I didn't click on it, but I assumed for a level one that it was spam. LOL Spicy Entertainment.

It is still improving, but do the ends really justify the means? Machiavelli be damned. Increasing spending is fine in times of recession, but those government jobs won't be temporary like they should be, The Fed's obsessive focus on employment while letting inflation run rampant can't help in the long run either (don't give me Bernanke's bullsh!t inflation statistic that no economist takes seriously, the commodities/natural resources that are being grossly inflated aren't included), and other factors might contribute to further issues down the road.

but he is a communist and it does not work

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Did anyone actually click on the original poster's link? Smells like spam to me.

WhiteKnight77

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

Numbers sure do look nice when you don't count all of the people who have stopped looking for work.

Serraph105

I don't think you understand the stock market.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

Numbers sure do look nice when you don't count all of the people who have stopped looking for work.

Rattlesnake_8

Well, is unemployement still 99 weeks? And foodstamps are at a record distribution level i believe.

You don't even have to call in to say you are trying to look for work anymore either.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]considering how the stock market seems to work today my guess is the inclusion of these people would cause it to crash hard. Personally I don't yearn for their inclusion for this reason. airshocker

I don't think it works that way.

I'm not so sure about that, we have seen the stock market rise and fall based on mere suggestions from the president and Ben Bernanke.

The U.S. economy has been out of recession for a while now and wouldn't go back in unless there are more large spending cuts or something really bad happens to the Eurozone. It would have been nice if it had had a faster, stronger recovery but any chance of that happening was long gone when the G.O.P. seized a filibuster-capable minority in the Senate and a majority in the House. Don't expect an accelerated recovery until 2014 or pray that the G.O.P. becomes amenable to working with Democrats before then. [QUOTE="airshocker"]

Numbers sure do look nice when you don't count all of the people who have stopped looking for work.

Barbariser

Except Goldman just came out saying that current method isn't accurate in measuring broad labor market conditions.

And the Fed knows that the unemployment rate is skewed at the moment due to the amount of inactives and is considering this in their policy making decisions.

Yeah using the current method is fine when the amount of inactive is relatively low, constant, or irrelevant, but that's no the case right now.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

Numbers sure do look nice when you don't count all of the people who have stopped looking for work.

Rattlesnake_8

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]The U.S. economy has been out of recession for a while now and wouldn't go back in unless there are more large spending cuts or something really bad happens to the Eurozone. It would have been nice if it had had a faster, stronger recovery but any chance of that happening was long gone when the G.O.P. seized a filibuster-capable minority in the Senate and a majority in the House. Don't expect an accelerated recovery until 2014 or pray that the G.O.P. becomes amenable to working with Democrats before then. [QUOTE="airshocker"]

Numbers sure do look nice when you don't count all of the people who have stopped looking for work.

SpartanMSU

Except Goldman just came out saying that current method isn't accurate in measuring broad labor market conditions.

And the Fed knows that the unemployment rate is skewed at the moment due to the amount of inactives and is considering this in their policy making decisions.

Yeah using the current method is fine when the amount of inactive is relatively low, constant, or irrelevant, but that's no the case right now.

Eff that. The whole government is corrupt. I don't believe any numbers they report on.

Eff that. The whole government is corrupt. I don't believe any numbers they report on.

ristactionjakso

[QUOTE="Rattlesnake_8"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

Numbers sure do look nice when you don't count all of the people who have stopped looking for work.

sonicare

Borrowed government spending now means money taken out of the private sector in the future.  Every penny that the government spends has to be taken out of the private sector at some point in the future, unless they simply "print" the money.  I don't believe the numbers, but even then 7% is still way too high in my opinion.  1-2% should be the goal and that isn't going to happen if government keeps paying people to not have a job.  I know someone who chose not to get a job because the type of job he could get pays less than what the government did.  

Look at all the usual suspects trying their hardest to poo-poo these relatively good numbers. It's also funny that whip is trying to so hard to defend Bush's legacy ITT.

Look at all the usual suspects trying their hardest to poo-poo these relatively good numbers. It's also funny that whip is trying to so hard to defend Bush's legacy ITT.

GreySeal9

Are you surprised by wither of thos things?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Look at all the usual suspects trying their hardest to poo-poo these relatively good numbers. It's also funny that whip is trying to so hard to defend Bush's legacy ITT.

jimkabrhel

Are you surprised by wither of thos things?

I'm not sure what you mean.