Milestone: More private sector jobs today than when Obama took office.

there are far fewer private sector jobs than when obama took office and the unemplment is 20% when you count those the gov sneekily classifies as leaving the labor force

 

Obama wasn't president in January 2008.

Why are you blaming him for the recession?

How would regulations, immigration, tax policies, etc., increase demand for your products?

They have created some demand which arguably helped turn the economy around.

Exactly why we need to make lowering the deficit the number one priority.

That's OK. The idea of stimulus spending isn't to be permanent. It is to get the economy going again in and after a recession, and then you back off the stimulus (preferably slowly) while the private sector picks back up.

It created demand at a time the economy was contracting and prevented millions more from joining the unemployment lines which would have resulted in the unnecessary destruction of more business.

 

If one were to actually study "right wing economics" instead of "left wing dogma", one would find that it is much better than the left wing dogma.

1. Private-sector jobs have increased by an average of just 105,000 over the past three months and by just 89,000 a month during the entire Obama Recovery.

In 1983 and 1984, during the supply-side Reagan Boom, private sector jobs increased by an average of 292,000 a month. Adjusted for population, that number is more like 375,000 private-sector jobs a month

2. If the labor force participation rate for May had just stayed where it was in April, the unemployment rate would have risen to 8.4%. As it is, the U.S. economy is suffering is longest sustained bout of 8% unemployment or higher since the Great Depression.

3. Private-sector GDP rose just 2.7% in the first quarter, after rising a measly 1.2% last year.

By contrast, private-sector GDP rose 3.8% in 1983 and 6.5% in 1984 during the supply-side Reagan Recovery.

 

Right wing economics gave us the stupidity of monetarism, the ineptness of supply side economics and the folly of neo-liberalism. Let's hope they stick to plain ole authoritarianism in future!

 

Since Obama took office we have lost an average of 13,000 jobs per month. If you average in the jobs needed to keep even it comes to 138,000 per month.

It is true that Obama is not responsible for the housing bubble anymore than Bush is responsible for it. It is ludicrous to think that one party is responsible for the world recession and debt crisis, and crisis it is since everyone has been living on credit and the bank has run out of places to borrow.

What is essential is how this crisis is handled and the current Administration's answer to that is to not provide any answer's to this other than more "investments" (spending), the Keynesian panacea pandering to the voters instead of the future.

 

Is that what your right wing propaganda source is telling you?

Total private sector
Jan 2009 110.985 million
Aug 2012 111.400 million
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

Your statement is flat our wrong.

You reach wrong conclusions when you rely on wrong information. You should consider getting your information from a more reliable source.

 

All the cumulative jobs lost were lost in his very first month in office. Why are you blaming Obaaaaaaaaaaama for the recession he inherited?

And the only reason we have any job loss is because the Republican dominated states have cut hundreds of thousands of cops and teachers rather than raise taxes on the rich.

Under Obama, today we have half a million more private sector jobs than when he took office. And that is about 1.5 million better than the last Republican to hold the WH.

 

...

Is it any more fragile than in 1932 when the top tax rate was raised from 25% to 62%?

 

Not sure where you ever read that I said Obama caused the recession?

All those government issues have a cost-effect on products and services. If costs can be reduced, this allows better competition potential.

Government created demand is temporary...only lasting as long as the government money flows.

Reducing the deficit and/or debt cannot be approached until the economy hires about 10 million more workers.

I look at the economy differently than you and your politics allows. I don't look at the economy as if I own it or can control it or manipulate it. I treasure the private economy on it's own merits which includes successes and failures. I don't believe the private economy owes anyone anything...it is what it is and everyone is not going to fit. And I know the private economy is going to fluctuate meaning enjoy the good times and SAVE AND PREPARE for the down times...unfortunately most of us don't SAVE AND PREPARE. And most of us won't accept responsibility for our lack of actions...

 

yes!....................

 

Hardly. In 1932 the economy was in the third year of the depression, and GDP tanked -13% real -- a shocking -23% in actual dollars. Unemployment was at 24%.

 

I'm not sure where you ever read I said you said that.

I asked why you were blaming Obama for the recession.

Feel free to substantiate your assertions if you want them given any credit.

Good for you. I don't look at things simply throught the moral prism of my own political preferences, but instead look at things like how "trickle down" policies that raised taxes on the poorer/middle class and slashed taxes for the uber wealthy, weakened unions, and were factors that resulted in most of the growth of the nations wealth and income going to the richest, and how the the weakened middle class now doesn't have the income to power a robust recovery.

But many just prefer to blame Obaaaaama or whoever whatever the other side is.

 

If you think Herbert Hoover's economic policies are sound, then... okay.

I'd rather not try to lead economic recovery through the policies Hoover and FDR applied. Eisenhower makes more sense - you hold down spending, you balance the budget, then you cut taxes to help economic growth. You don't increase taxes because that hampers economic growth, and you don't cut taxes when you have a major deficit. You ride out the storm, cut all waste and needless expenditures, and cut taxes to get the economy going. Once the economy is moving along at a nice pace, you can increase some taxes to feed off that new revenue. But you don't increase taxes when the economy is moving at a crawl as it is.

 

We didn't stop losing jobs until March of 2010.

 

The Obama Job Loss Average.

 

According to your data: "Since Obama took office we have lost an average of 13,000 jobs per month."

13,000 per month times 42 months in office = 546,000 jobs lost. That is not accurate, but we can accept it for purposes of my post.

Total nonfarm employment:
Jan 2009 133.561 million
Feb 2009 132.837 million
Jobs lost in Obama's first month in office: 724,000
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

And now we can see that what I wrote is exactly correct:

"All the cumulative jobs lost were lost in his very first month in office."

And thus the question remains pending: Why are you blaming Obaaaaaaaaaaama for the recession he inherited?

 

According to your data: "Since Obama took office we have lost an average of 13,000 jobs per month."

13,000 per month times 42 months in office = 546,000 jobs lost. That is not accurate, but we can accept it for purposes of my post.

Total nonfarm employment:
Jan 2009 133.561 million
Feb 2009 132.837 million
Jobs lost in Obama's first month in office: 724,000
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

And now we can see that what I wrote is exactly correct:

"All the cumulative jobs lost were lost in his very first month in office."

And thus the question remains pending: Why are you blaming Obaaaaaaaaaaama for the recession he inherited?

 

What is this chart supposed to represent?

 

The chart represents each month's unemployment announcement along with the jobs needed just to stay even which according to Robert Reich is 125,000 a month. If you took that number out entirely, the number averages to a little over 13,000 a month job loss to this point. Add them together and you get around 138,000 a month job loss since Obama took office Jan 2009. The chart the WH puts out only shows each months announcement and not the aggregate.

Again, we did not get a positive job number until March of 2010 so the job losses continued until then.

 

Why would you suppose I think that? Because I point out that a large tax increase in the heighth of the great depression demontrates that conservative claims about a tax increasing hurting the economy are just as wrong now as they were in 1993 adn 1932 somehow means I think Hoover's economic policies are sound?

What kind of bizarre logic leads you to that conclusion?

Makes sense, but Eisenhower didn't inherit the worst recession in 80 years.

Since when? Feel free to prove this right wing propganda driven conservative mythology.

Cutting government spending during a recession is a sure way to make the recession worse.

Why not? The economy was in the toilet in mide 1932 when taxes were raised, and the economy was crawling in 1993 when they were raised as well.

In both cases, conservatives told us the same crap we hear today, about how the tax increase is going to hurt the economy. In both cases, the economy soared.

I know the mantra that tax increases hurt the economy and tax cuts promote stronger growth has been repeated so many times by conservative propaganda that even many liberals believe it. But history shows it is not true, at least within tax rates we've had over the past several decades.

 

That chart is wrong. Unemployment hit 15 million in 2009. Who produced that chart?

That is true.

But today, all the cumulative job losses we have since Obama became president were all generated in the first month he was in office.

 

you lie!!!

 

No, I don't. You've simply been mislead by the RW propaganda you get your information from and so you wrongly think I'm lying.

Unemployed:
Oct 2009 15.421 million [peak unemployed level]
Aug 2012 12.544 million
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm


Total nonfarm employment:
Jan 2009 133.561 million
Feb 2009 132.837 million
Aug 2009 133.300 million

Total decrease since Obama took office: -261,000
Jobs lost in Obama's first month in office: -724,000
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

The above data proves that of the 261,000 total decrease in nonfarm jobs since Obama took office, all of that loss and much more can be attributed to the first month he was in office, when 724,000 jobs were lost. And if you add back in the 1/2 million government jobs the Republican dominated state governments have destoryed, you end up with a positive number.

So you see, I didn't lie at all. Everything I wrote was true, supported by reliable sources.

Which just shows that you claiming I lied was baseless and ignorant.

You might consider getting your information from more reliable sources before you go around accusing people of lying, and you would look so foolish getting proved that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

Now there are 310 million spoiled and self-serving Americans who are incapable of sacrifice...