90,609,000 not included in work force

[daveman]

The economy is better today than it was in January, 2009. This is a fact. Celebrate the good news, nutters.

23,116,928 to 20,618,000: Households on Food Stamps Now Outnumber All Households in Northeast U.S. | CNS News

I bet these people are celebrating the fuck out of your good news.

 

[The Rabbi]

The economy is better today than it was in January, 2009. This is a fact. Celebrate the good news, nutters.

23,116,928 to 20,618,000: Households on Food Stamps Now Outnumber All Households in Northeast U.S. | CNS News

I bet these people are celebrating the fuck out of your good news.

There are more people on disability than 2009. There are more people on foodstamps. There are fewer people working. Average household income is lower. Average household wealth is lower. People are retiring earlier and delaying entry into the job market more because of poor conditions.
Yeah, that's cause for celebration.
Dolt.

 

[daveman]

The economy is better today than it was in January, 2009. This is a fact. Celebrate the good news, nutters.

23,116,928 to 20,618,000: Households on Food Stamps Now Outnumber All Households in Northeast U.S. | CNS News

I bet these people are celebrating the fuck out of your good news.

There are more people on disability than 2009. There are more people on foodstamps. There are fewer people working. Average household income is lower. Average household wealth is lower. People are retiring earlier and delaying entry into the job market more because of poor conditions.
Yeah, that's cause for celebration.
Dolt.

Gobama!

 

[edthecynic]

There's about ten million less in the workforce now than when Obama took office.
Some of that is due to retirement, but not all.
If at least some of these millions were counted the unemplyment rate would be higher.

I think the only number that really tells us anything is the number of jobs created month by month.

When that number is over 125,000 we are creating more jobs than population growth. Less than that, we are falling behind.

So that is the only trend that really matters to me as far as employment numbers goes.

After that, what matters most is the wages people are receiving for the new jobs. Are they part time, low wage jobs, or are higher paying jobs rising?

If you look, you will find that job growth has been sluggish since before Obama. It has been sluggish since 2000. Under Bush, only 3 million jobs were created in 8 years, where 25 million were created during Clinton's two terms.

I believe a big reason for that is that in 2000 total public and private debt crossed 260% of GDP. Studies have shown that when that happens, excessive debt blocks the main channel of monetary influence on economic activity.

Not sure where you are getting your info
Under Clinton there was 22 milion created with a GOP congress for 6 of those years
In fact while we had a GOP congress (excpet 00-02) we created 30 million jobs
Under GWB while we had a GOP congress we created 8 million
in the last year we lost most all of those of course (2008)
we are still below those numbers
Dec 6, 2012 - The proof is in the pudding over the Bush tax cuts. They were followed by a record 52 straight months of job creation, producing 8 million new ...

The problem with that "logic" is the Bush tax cuts were still in effect during all those job losses!!!!! When you include Bush's doubling of the number of unemployed he had a net job loss as a result of his tax cuts.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think the only number that really tells us anything is the number of jobs created month by month.

When that number is over 125,000 we are creating more jobs than population growth. Less than that, we are falling behind.

So that is the only trend that really matters to me as far as employment numbers goes.

After that, what matters most is the wages people are receiving for the new jobs. Are they part time, low wage jobs, or are higher paying jobs rising?

If you look, you will find that job growth has been sluggish since before Obama. It has been sluggish since 2000. Under Bush, only 3 million jobs were created in 8 years, where 25 million were created during Clinton's two terms.

I believe a big reason for that is that in 2000 total public and private debt crossed 260% of GDP. Studies have shown that when that happens, excessive debt blocks the main channel of monetary influence on economic activity.

Not sure where you are getting your info
Under Clinton there was 22 milion created with a GOP congress for 6 of those years
In fact while we had a GOP congress (excpet 00-02) we created 30 million jobs
Under GWB while we had a GOP congress we created 8 million
in the last year we lost most all of those of course (2008)
we are still below those numbers
Dec 6, 2012 - The proof is in the pudding over the Bush tax cuts. They were followed by a record 52 straight months of job creation, producing 8 million new ...

The problem with that "logic" is the Bush tax cuts were still in effect during all those job losses!!!!! When you include Bush's doubling of the number of unemployed he had a net job loss as a result of his tax cuts.

That's why Obama and the Democrats extended them?
Dolt.

 

[edthecynic]

There's about ten million less in the workforce now than when Obama took office.
Some of that is due to retirement, but not all.
If at least some of these millions were counted the unemplyment rate would be higher.

There are 9 million more retirees since Obama took office.

 

[edthecynic]

Not sure where you are getting your info
Under Clinton there was 22 milion created with a GOP congress for 6 of those years
In fact while we had a GOP congress (excpet 00-02) we created 30 million jobs
Under GWB while we had a GOP congress we created 8 million
in the last year we lost most all of those of course (2008)
we are still below those numbers
Dec 6, 2012 - The proof is in the pudding over the Bush tax cuts. They were followed by a record 52 straight months of job creation, producing 8 million new ...

The problem with that "logic" is the Bush tax cuts were still in effect during all those job losses!!!!! When you include Bush's doubling of the number of unemployed he had a net job loss as a result of his tax cuts.

That's why Obama and the Democrats extended them?
Dolt.

The GOP held unemployment insurance hostage if they weren't extended and the Right insists this has been a jobless recovery with the Bush tax cuts extended.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...-not-until-Bush-tax-cuts-pass-Senate-GOP-says

Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says

 

[Dragonlady]

The loans of course were not bad when they were being made. RIsing real estate values and low rates made the deals look reasonable at the time. Gov't set the stage for it. People simply followed the incentives given.

The loans were pieces of shit from Day 1. People were loaned mortgages for 100% of the purchase price, at artificially low interest rates, without proof of income to service the debt. In many cases, borrowers were encouraged to lie about their income so mortgage brokers could earn fat fees. It was assumed that house values would continue rising thereby creating equity out of thin air to make these loans safe.

This was a giant Ponzi scheme that was never going to end well. When interest rates went up and borrowers couldn't afford the payments which had doubled or tripled over their initial costs. The bubble burst and people walked away because they owed more on the houses than they were worth and they had none of their own money in the property anyway.

 

[JRK]

I think the only number that really tells us anything is the number of jobs created month by month.

When that number is over 125,000 we are creating more jobs than population growth. Less than that, we are falling behind.

So that is the only trend that really matters to me as far as employment numbers goes.

After that, what matters most is the wages people are receiving for the new jobs. Are they part time, low wage jobs, or are higher paying jobs rising?

If you look, you will find that job growth has been sluggish since before Obama. It has been sluggish since 2000. Under Bush, only 3 million jobs were created in 8 years, where 25 million were created during Clinton's two terms.

I believe a big reason for that is that in 2000 total public and private debt crossed 260% of GDP. Studies have shown that when that happens, excessive debt blocks the main channel of monetary influence on economic activity.

Not sure where you are getting your info
Under Clinton there was 22 milion created with a GOP congress for 6 of those years
In fact while we had a GOP congress (excpet 00-02) we created 30 million jobs
Under GWB while we had a GOP congress we created 8 million
in the last year we lost most all of those of course (2008)
we are still below those numbers
Dec 6, 2012 - The proof is in the pudding over the Bush tax cuts. They were followed by a record 52 straight months of job creation, producing 8 million new ...

The problem with that "logic" is the Bush tax cuts were still in effect during all those job losses!!!!! When you include Bush's doubling of the number of unemployed he had a net job loss as a result of his tax cuts.

So 5 and 7 year old tax policy caused inflated assets and people loaning people money that neither had any business doing?
net job loss?
from 2003 to the end of his term there was 4 million jobs added
now we can ignore GWB bottom number, but then the same goes for BHO
That means to date during his term we have added about 400k and if we go back to 08 numbers we are still millions behind
BTW Fracking has added wekll over 1 million jobs alone
we know how much BHO has done to support this
www.businessweek.com/.../fracking-boom-seen-raising-u-dot-s-dot-inco...*

Sep 4, 2013 - In 2012, the energy boom supported 2.1 million jobs, added almost $75 ... domestic product and lifted household income by more than $1,200, ...
9-11 had nothing to do with GWB early years of course and he was that person who made all of those bad loans also

 

[JRK]

The problem with that "logic" is the Bush tax cuts were still in effect during all those job losses!!!!! When you include Bush's doubling of the number of unemployed he had a net job loss as a result of his tax cuts.

That's why Obama and the Democrats extended them?
Dolt.

The GOP held unemployment insurance hostage if they weren't extended and the Right insists this has been a jobless recovery with the Bush tax cuts extended.

Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says - CSMonitor.com

Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says

now here you go again saying that a group that holds 33% of the power in Washington is dictating policy

 

[JRK]

The loans of course were not bad when they were being made. RIsing real estate values and low rates made the deals look reasonable at the time. Gov't set the stage for it. People simply followed the incentives given.

The loans were pieces of shit from Day 1. People were loaned mortgages for 100% of the purchase price, at artificially low interest rates, without proof of income to service the debt. In many cases, borrowers were encouraged to lie about their income so mortgage brokers could earn fat fees. It was assumed that house values would continue rising thereby creating equity out of thin air to make these loans safe.

This was a giant Ponzi scheme that was never going to end well. When interest rates went up and borrowers couldn't afford the payments which had doubled or tripled over their initial costs. The bubble burst and people walked away because they owed more on the houses than they were worth and they had none of their own money in the property anyway.

stupid people loaned stupid people wealth that was inflated
as Apple was 700 a share last year it was also 380 a share this year
so ones wealth goes from A to B and GWB had nothing to with that
it is that simple

 

[The Rabbi]

The loans of course were not bad when they were being made. RIsing real estate values and low rates made the deals look reasonable at the time. Gov't set the stage for it. People simply followed the incentives given.

The loans were pieces of shit from Day 1. People were loaned mortgages for 100% of the purchase price, at artificially low interest rates, without proof of income to service the debt. In many cases, borrowers were encouraged to lie about their income so mortgage brokers could earn fat fees. It was assumed that house values would continue rising thereby creating equity out of thin air to make these loans safe.

This was a giant Ponzi scheme that was never going to end well. When interest rates went up and borrowers couldn't afford the payments which had doubled or tripled over their initial costs. The bubble burst and people walked away because they owed more on the houses than they were worth and they had none of their own money in the property anyway.

Every loan that went bad was a 100% NINA loan? No, I dont think so.
Your ignorance is showing.

 

[The Rabbi]

The loans of course were not bad when they were being made. RIsing real estate values and low rates made the deals look reasonable at the time. Gov't set the stage for it. People simply followed the incentives given.

The loans were pieces of shit from Day 1. People were loaned mortgages for 100% of the purchase price, at artificially low interest rates, without proof of income to service the debt. In many cases, borrowers were encouraged to lie about their income so mortgage brokers could earn fat fees. It was assumed that house values would continue rising thereby creating equity out of thin air to make these loans safe.

This was a giant Ponzi scheme that was never going to end well. When interest rates went up and borrowers couldn't afford the payments which had doubled or tripled over their initial costs. The bubble burst and people walked away because they owed more on the houses than they were worth and they had none of their own money in the property anyway.

stupid people loaned stupid people wealth that was inflated
as Apple was 700 a share last year it was also 380 a share this year
so ones wealth goes from A to B and GWB had nothing to with that
it is that simple

To the libs, someone must bear the blame for bad decisions. Usually that someone is George W Bush.

 

[JRK]

The loans were pieces of shit from Day 1. People were loaned mortgages for 100% of the purchase price, at artificially low interest rates, without proof of income to service the debt. In many cases, borrowers were encouraged to lie about their income so mortgage brokers could earn fat fees. It was assumed that house values would continue rising thereby creating equity out of thin air to make these loans safe.

This was a giant Ponzi scheme that was never going to end well. When interest rates went up and borrowers couldn't afford the payments which had doubled or tripled over their initial costs. The bubble burst and people walked away because they owed more on the houses than they were worth and they had none of their own money in the property anyway.

stupid people loaned stupid people wealth that was inflated
as Apple was 700 a share last year it was also 380 a share this year
so ones wealth goes from A to B and GWB had nothing to with that
it is that simple

To the libs, someone must bear the blame for bad decisions. Usually that someone is George W Bush.

It amazes me that me keeping more of my wealth is a bad thing and is the cause for these trillion dollar deficts

 

[Nova78]

The economy is better today than it was in January, 2009. This is a fact. Celebrate the good news, nutters. Urge your representatives to work toward making things better...regardless of who occupies the WH.

Be Americans who root for America to succeed. It will feel good. I promise.

17 trillion debt reasons your full of shit..... and 47 million on welfare reasons your full of shit.....

 

[JRK]

The economy is better today than it was in January, 2009. This is a fact. Celebrate the good news, nutters. Urge your representatives to work toward making things better...regardless of who occupies the WH.

Be Americans who root for America to succeed. It will feel good. I promise.

17 trillion debt reasons your full of shit..... and 47 million on welfare reasons your full of shit.....

Census: 49% of Americans Get Gov?t Benefits; 82M in Households on Medicaid | CNS News
49% on the govt nickel and things are good?
we spent 162 billion more than we brought in with the last GOP budget, 2007
by 2009 that number was over 1.3 trillion
UE from the 80s to 08 was around 5% with a couple of 6-7% years and some 4% years
It is, well in reality somewhere between 7-12%
I think U6 is at 14 now
U6 Unemployment Rate | MacroTrends
with 90 million not included

 

[Dragonlady]

W's entire presidency was an economic clusterfuck of multiple bad ideas that taken in total, destroyed the US economy and created this recession. Reagan had the good sense to realize his tax cuts hadn't worked and late in his second term signed the biggest tax bill in US history but not W. Bush and his buddies were too busy outsourcing government to Haliburton and other companies owned by members of the administration and robbing the treasury.

Wall Street greed also contributed. With a corrupt administration leading the way, everybody was out for what they could get. Corporations outsourced American manufacturing to Third World countries and pocketed huge profits. No thought was given to reports of slave labour, child labour, or health or safety conditions coming out of those countries. Loss of jobs in the US was blamed on union demands and excessive regulations but it was greed. The price of goods sold didn't go down because costs were cut. The corporations simply increased profits to historic levels and Wall Street cheered.

Earned income credits which Bush enshrined in the tax code were in answer to those who wanted the minimum wage in the US increased. In other words, they were a subsidy to big business to keep wages in the service industry as low as possible. Now conservatives rail that 47% of Americans pay no tax and these people are "takers".

In order to buy the votes of retires, W came up with Medicare Part D - a huge boon to the elderly, but completely unfunded. Adding to the deficit. He kept his wars off the books to hide those expenses and the American people had no idea how large the deficit truly was.

Huge increases in military spending helped fuel job creation. There were so many soldiers deployed overseas that members of the reserves were called into active service and shipped to Iraq.

When home ownership fell to the lowest levels in years due to the erosion of disposable income for the working class, the solution wasn't to raise working class wages, but rather to artificially lower interest rates and, as has already been explained, this lead to the housing bubble.

Bush and his buddies were too busy lining their pockets with taxpayers' money to know or care what the long term effects of these policies would be. They were getting richer and corporations were getting richer. That was all that mattered.

It all came crashing down in the run up to the 2008 elections. When Obama took over, the economy was in free fall, jobs were being lost in unprecedented numbers and banking institutions were failing left and right.

There was never going to be a quick fix to this mess. And no matter what Obama and the Democrats were able to do, this train wreck was never going to turn around quick enough to satisfy the American public. Jobs losses continued unabated through the first two years of Obama's presidency as consumers just stopped spending, banks stopped lending, corporations stopped hiring, and housing prices were in the toilet.

Republicans made no secret of their intentions. They were going to make sure Obama was a one term President. So much for getting the country out of the mess. They filibustered every bill, delayed and obstructed every piece of legislation. And they gerrymandered relentlessly in Republican states. The economy and the American people be damned.

Once they reclaimed Congress in the midterm elections, they blocked every jobs bills proposed by the President. And that continues to this day.

Republicans have been obstructing, delaying and make ridiculous demands, while voting endlessly to repeal the ACA. At every opportunity, they go on TV to complain about Obama and the left wing media. Media Matters found that television appearances by Republicans outnumbered those by Democrats by 3 to 1.

Despite all of their efforts, Obama was re-elected. You can't gerrymander the Presidential election.

And yet Obama hasn't really repudiated the Friedman economic policies that got the US into this mess in the first place. Large corporations and high income earners are still paying much lower effective tax rates than the middle class. He just appointed a Friedman acolyte to head up the Federal reserve. Large service and retail industry corporations are using food stamps and Medicaid to subsidize minimum wages paid to workers.

Unless and until American corporations stop shipping jobs overseas, unemployment will remain high. Until wages for low income workers, which have been losing purchasing power since Reagan came to power, start increasing, the recovery will have little impact on 80% of the American public.

This is W's long term legacy. One that the Republican Party is determined to preserve no matter what the cost.

 

[boedicca]

You are a loon.

SRSLY

 

[edthecynic]

Not sure where you are getting your info
Under Clinton there was 22 milion created with a GOP congress for 6 of those years
In fact while we had a GOP congress (excpet 00-02) we created 30 million jobs
Under GWB while we had a GOP congress we created 8 million
in the last year we lost most all of those of course (2008)
we are still below those numbers
Dec 6, 2012 - The proof is in the pudding over the Bush tax cuts. They were followed by a record 52 straight months of job creation, producing 8 million new ...

The problem with that "logic" is the Bush tax cuts were still in effect during all those job losses!!!!! When you include Bush's doubling of the number of unemployed he had a net job loss as a result of his tax cuts.

So 5 and 7 year old tax policy caused inflated assets and people loaning people money that neither had any business doing?
net job loss?
from 2003 to the end of his term there was 4 million jobs added

So you finally admit Bush's tax cuts had nothing to do with job gains or losses, but instead it was inflated assets that increased jobs as the bubble inflated and lost jobs after it burst.

 

[edthecynic]

That's why Obama and the Democrats extended them?
Dolt.

The GOP held unemployment insurance hostage if they weren't extended and the Right insists this has been a jobless recovery with the Bush tax cuts extended.

Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says - CSMonitor.com

Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says

now here you go again saying that a group that holds 33% of the power in Washington is dictating policy

And here you go again pretending that there is no such thing as a filibuster.