Economically, Could Obama Be America's Best President?

[IlarMeilyr]

What is our actual rate of unemployment COUNTING those who have been discounted because they have given up?

It would be 8% (The U-4 measure ) Though why you would want to count people who aren't trying to work, and couldn't be hired no matter how many jobs are available (because they're not trying to be hired) is a mystery.

They're important to look at as part of overall health and as possible future workers, but they're not unemployed and can't tell us what the labor market is actually like, only what they thought it was like when they quit looking.

No.

The U3 o rU4 doesn't answer the question I specifically asked.

The government gives us bogus bullshit make believe numbers. The unemployment rate is a lot higher that 8%. Folks who have given up even looking are not counted but they are just as unemployed even though the gubmint doesn't count them.

The correct answer is the U6 rate. It is at a miserable ~14%. THAT is the true hallmark of the Obameconomy.

The Obameconomy sucks dick in hell. And it is not all his fault. But he doesn't help.

 

[boedicca]

What is our actual rate of unemployment COUNTING those who have been discounted because they have given up?

It would be 8% (The U-4 measure ) Though why you would want to count people who aren't trying to work, and couldn't be hired no matter how many jobs are available (because they're not trying to be hired) is a mystery.

They're important to look at as part of overall health and as possible future workers, but they're not unemployed and can't tell us what the labor market is actually like, only what they thought it was like when they quit looking.

No.

The U3 orU4 doesn't answer the question I specifically asked.

The government gives us bogus bullshit make believe numbers. The unemployment rate is a lot higher that 8%. Folks who have given up even looking are not counted but they are just as unemployed even though the gubmint doesn't count them.

The Obameconomy sucks dick in hell. And it is not all his fault. But he doesn't help.

Looking at just one statistic or metric in any complex system misses the full picture.

We should be looking at U3 through U6, the labor force participation rate, the mix of jobs being created which are fulltime, temporary, private sector and government sector, and wage trends (to name a few).

I read the full BLS report each month. All of this information is easily accessible. It shows that our job creation is anemic at best due to a severely underperforming economy. Business are not going to invest and create jobs unless they feel confident that there is enough market growth potential for a return on investment. Obamanomics destroys such confidence.

 

[jasonnfree]

Hey you cluelss lefties; $85 Billion a month in printed money fed into the market per month makes for good market, and the market does not equal the economy.

Obama is the worst president in this country's history in every respect, ESPECIALLY in the economy.

$85 billion a month is nothing compared to what your p.o.s. texas half wit costed us in no wmd iraq not counting lost lives and the costs will keep on coming for generations. Also the bush tax cuts and medicare D giveaway to good buddies in big pharma was another nail in the coffin of the economy. Things are better since bush left, you tea baggers know this and to add insult to injury, times are better under a black president. This is what is really driving you repubs into a non stop, four year long, batshit crazy rage.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

It would be 8% (The U-4 measure ) Though why you would want to count people who aren't trying to work, and couldn't be hired no matter how many jobs are available (because they're not trying to be hired) is a mystery.

They're important to look at as part of overall health and as possible future workers, but they're not unemployed and can't tell us what the labor market is actually like, only what they thought it was like when they quit looking.

No.

The U3 orU4 doesn't answer the question I specifically asked.

The government gives us bogus bullshit make believe numbers. The unemployment rate is a lot higher that 8%. Folks who have given up even looking are not counted but they are just as unemployed even though the gubmint doesn't count them.

The Obameconomy sucks dick in hell. And it is not all his fault. But he doesn't help.

Looking at just one statistic or metric in any complex system misses the full picture.

We should be looking at U3 through U6, the labor force participation rate, the mix of jobs being created which are fulltime, temporary, private sector and government sector, and wage trends (to name a few).

I read the full BLS report each month. All of this information is easily accessible. It shows that our job creation is anemic at best due to a severely underperforming economy. Business are not going to invest and create jobs unless they feel confident that there is enough market growth potential for a return on investment. Obamanomics destroys such confidence.

I agreee. I don't mean to suggest we should ever look at just one metric. But if we had to pick one, it would be the U6.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Hey you cluelss lefties; $85 Billion a month in printed money fed into the market per month makes for good market, and the market does not equal the economy.

Obama is the worst president in this country's history in every respect, ESPECIALLY in the economy.

$85 billion a month is nothing compared to what your p.o.s. texas half wit costed us * * * *

'nuff said.



jason, you are free of the burden of having even the first tiny speck of credibility.

 

[regent]

The president that handled the American economy the worst,according to the Siena history poll was Hoover, second worst-surprise, surprise- was Bush.

 

[AmazonTania]

Things are better since bush left,

Yeah, no, not really.

you tea baggers know this and to add insult to injury, times are better under a black president. This is what is really driving you repubs into a non stop, four year long, batshit crazy rage.

Is the fact that they brought TGIFridays back a testament of how times are better under a black president? That's about the only upside I see.

 

[pinqy]

What is our actual rate of unemployment COUNTING those who have been discounted because they have given up?

It would be 8% (The U-4 measure ) Though why you would want to count people who aren't trying to work, and couldn't be hired no matter how many jobs are available (because they're not trying to be hired) is a mystery.

They're important to look at as part of overall health and as possible future workers, but they're not unemployed and can't tell us what the labor market is actually like, only what they thought it was like when they quit looking.

No.

The U3 o rU4 doesn't answer the question I specifically asked.

The U-4 is exactly what you asked. it is unemployed plus those who gave up looking for work

Folks who have given up even looking are not counted but they are just as unemployed even though the gubmint doesn't count them.

No, they're not. The point of counting unemployed is to count people who are trying and failing to get work that one month. Those who have given up could not be hired even if there were plenty of jobs because they're not trying to work. At best, they tell us how hard they thought it was when they stopped. It's not objective or timely.

The correct answer is the U6 rate. It is at a miserable ~14%. THAT is the true hallmark of the Obameconomy.

The U-6 includes all marginally attached, which means people who stopped looking for personal reasons, not just giving up, and it includes people who have jobs, so that could hardly be considered giving up. So no, that doesn't't fit what you asked.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama is one of the biggest cult leaders ever

 

[Toro]

The problems in this economy aren't political. They were due to too many homes being built and the excess debt that accompanied the building which fed a bubble. After the bubble collapsed, what this economy needed was time to absorb the excesses created in the last decade. Household formation in this country is about 1.1-1.2 million a year. We were building 2 million homes a year, so we built too many. Then, housing starts collapsed to 300,000 a year, which allowed the excess inventory to be absorbed into the economy. This is process is nearly over and we are coming back into equilibrium. It would have happened regardless who was elected President. Everything else is on the margins.

And FTR, the heavy lifting to "save" the economy happened under the Bush administration, not under Obama.

 

[AmazonTania]

The problems in this economy aren't political. They were due to too many homes being built and the excess debt that accompanied the building which fed a bubble. After the bubble collapsed, what this economy needed was time to absorb the excesses created in the last decade. Household formation in this country is about 1.1-1.2 million a year. We were building 2 million homes a year, so we built too many. Then, housing starts collapsed to 300,000 a year, which allowed the excess inventory to be absorbed into the economy. This is process is nearly over and we are coming back into equilibrium. It would have happened regardless who was elected President. Everything else is on the margins.

And FTR, the heavy lifting to "save" the economy happened under the Bush administration, not under Obama.

According to certain polls it is housing, not stocks, which makes Americans feel wealthy.

Why do you want to ruin our housing bubble?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

With the stock market hitting new highs, some people have already forgotten about the Great Recession.

I can absolutely guarantee that no one who lived through 1929 ever forgot about it, no matter how good the market is now.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Liberals literally have no functional brains, they're Obama Zombies

 

[Synthaholic]

As has been said before the stock market is doing well right now because the Fed is holding interest rate at near zero basically forcing people to put their money in the market.

It's a castle built on sand.

Weren't all the conservative economists predicting inflation of 10%, caused by Obama's stimulus?

Whahappened???

And here it is, 4 years later, and inflation? What inflation?

Go cry wolf somewhere else. You don't support Dodd-Frank, or anything meaningful to rein in Wall Street.

The inflation is in securities prices.

You being obtuse on purpose?

What's the current inflation rate? 10% like all the RW-ers predicted?

 

[Synthaholic]

I love it, everything is pure chit so the Obama-bots decide to play the card that Obama is "the best" President in US history.... If you're going to lie, lie fucking big, right?

The only areas where markets are doing well are areas where the Government/FEDR dump stimulus/money. Housing is once again on the rise despite income levels dipping... It's IMPOSSIBLY STUPID. The UE rate goes down despite every single month LESS PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY WORKING.

So again, if you're gonna lie, lie fuckin big.... but realize most of us here know your still lying.

^^^^thinks Forbes.com are Obama-bots.

 

[regent]

Liberals literally have no functional brains, they're Obama Zombies

Of the nineteen presidents beginning with Teddy Roosevelt, historians have ranked Coolidge 14th. of the 19 and Reagan as 9th. of the 19. First place went to FDR and second place to Teddy Roosevelt. Take heart tho, TR was a Republican, liberal as they come but a Republican.
Harding as usual was rated the worst, and Bush was just above Harding.

 

[Synthaholic]

As has been said before the stock market is doing well right now because the Fed is holding interest rate at near zero basically forcing people to put their money in the market.

It's a castle built on sand.

Weren't all the conservative economists predicting inflation of 10%, caused by Obama's stimulus?

Whahappened???

And here it is, 4 years later, and inflation? What inflation?

Go cry wolf somewhere else. You don't support Dodd-Frank, or anything meaningful to rein in Wall Street.

I don't give a shit if an economist is conservative.

Will ever be able to think outside of your two dimensional ovine stable?

It's not rocket science why people are throwing their money into the stock market. There is no choice if looking for any kind of return.

You should be concerned because don't you think that the stock market is just like Vegas and that people should heave a safe place to put their money you know away from all those evil guys on Wall Street?

Then why aren't you so-called conservatives demanding that the House pass a jobs bill?

Didn't Boehner campaign for the 2010 Speakership by saying "Where are the jobs, Mr. President?"

Now he is in charge of all money spent in Washington.

Where are the jobs, Mr. Speaker?

 

[Synthaholic]

Economically, Could Obama Be America's Best President?

cries out the thread headline offered by Handsome Tranny/SimplyAssholic.



To even ask that absurd question disqualifies Tranny from further serious discussion.



What is our national debt, again?

What is our actual rate of unemployment COUNTING those who have been discounted because they have given up?

Oh, never mind. Tranny doesn't give a shit about reality.

^^^thinks Forbes.com are Liberals.

 

[Synthaholic]

Holy Cow...how blind-stupid can some people be?
Bush was a terrible economic President...Obama is almost a 100% carbon copy of Bush's policies...to the tee.
So where is the "Could Bush be the best economic President" thread?

Let's see...

One of them tanked the economy, leaving office with 750,000 people being laid off per month, and the Dow plunging to 6,000.

The other has seen growth in employment in every month he's been in office and the Dow has surged to over 15,000 during his administration.

 

[Synthaholic]

The problems in this economy aren't political. They were due to too many homes being built and the excess debt that accompanied the building which fed a bubble. After the bubble collapsed, what this economy needed was time to absorb the excesses created in the last decade. Household formation in this country is about 1.1-1.2 million a year. We were building 2 million homes a year, so we built too many. Then, housing starts collapsed to 300,000 a year, which allowed the excess inventory to be absorbed into the economy. This is process is nearly over and we are coming back into equilibrium. It would have happened regardless who was elected President. Everything else is on the margins.

And FTR, the heavy lifting to "save" the economy happened under the Bush administration, not under Obama.

In this case:

Heavy lifting = Socialism.

Isn't that what conservatives call it when government bails out a company instead of letting the market dictate winners and losers?