State of Obama's Economy

[Juror#8]

I was reading an article by News Week's Andrew Sullivan that is creating a lot of buzz. I don't have the online article, but here is a good reference from NewsBusters:

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/01/15/newsweek-cover-story-why-are-obamas-critics-so-dumb

 

 

In the article Sullivan slams the left and the right for platitudes and uninformed and regurgitated political attacks. I began looking into some of the assertions in the article and ran across a few things that I found interesting:

 

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/05/99136097/tracking-u-s-monthly-unemployment

 

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

 

I think that the second graph in the first link above is interesting ("Monthly Change in Payrolls"). It seems to suggest a steady and progressive economic recovery that has continued for almost 17 months. If there were spikes, maybe it could be construed as anomalous. But it seems measured and to have continuity.

 

I checked out NewsBusters, Heritage and Fox to find counter-points (albeit cursorily) and didn't find much.

 

As a moderate conservative, as someone who has voted Democrat nationally, and as someone who isn't an economist, I'd be interested to hear a different opinion.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Juror#8

[B-Man]

In this ELECTION year, the heavily "invested" media will continue to tout the "recovery" that we are in..........no matter what.

 

The actual unemployment rate would be higher:

 

*if the large number of "discouraged workers" were included among the unemployed.

*if part-time workers who want full-time jobs were counted as partially unemployed.

*if workers who are employed in a job that is substantially below their skill level were counted as partially unemployed.

 

 

This is fairly well known, but will still not be pointed out by the media.

 

The dynamics of the U.S. economy demonstrate that we ALWAYS have recovered from a recession within 2 years, our economic recovery has been slowed by the present administration's policies, not helped.

 

I will re-post the American Thinker article that I put up a week or so ago, in another thread.

 

What the plunging unemployment rate really means for Obamas reelection

By James Pethokoukis

January 6, 2012, 10:00 am

 

Will the Obama reelection campaign take the bait and start running hard on the presidents economic record?

 

New job numbers out today from the Labor Department show the unemployment dropped to a near three-year low of 8.5 percent in December. Whats more, nonfarm payrolls increased by 200,000 last month, way above economists expectations for a 150,000 gain. Those two employment statistics, when added to a likely fourth-quarter GDP number of 3-3.5 percent (which would be the best showing since the second-quarter of 2010) sure make it tempting for the White House to engage in at least a smidgen of economic triumphalism. Something like: Its been a long road and we have a lot further to go, but our plan is working. Four more years.

 

But such a feel-good campaign strategy would be risky. Those headline economic numbers are terribly misleading, hardly reflecting the devastation most Americans still see every day. An 8.5 percent unemployment rate? Please.

 

If the size of the U.S. labor force was as large as it was when Barack Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 10.9 percent.

 

But since so many people have gotten discouraged and stopped looking for work and thus disappeared by government statisticians the jobless number has been artificially depressed. A better gauge of the jobs picture is the broader U-6 rate, which includes part-timers who would rather have full-time jobs. It stands at a whopping 15.2 percent.

 

American Thinker

 

.

Edited January 17, 2012 by B-Man

[/dev/null]

In regards to unemployment, this article from Zero Hedge sums it up perfectly

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/real-jobless-rate-114-realistic-labor-force-participation-rate

 

In regards to GDP, the Fed has been reflating the economy. Near zero rates and round after of Quantative Easing (including Operation Twist) have pumped funny money into the markets to keep them afloat and maintain the mirage of growth. In the short term this has kept us out of Recession but the real danger is what this will do in the long term if all that liquidity isn't mopped up in time.

[DC Tom]

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

[meazza]

Obama created millions jobs...

 

 

At the cost of 287K per job

 

A quarterly White House report estimated Obama's $862 billion economic stimulus package, which he signed last year, has so far lifted employment by between 2.5 million and 3.6 million jobs, while giving growth a big boost.

Edited January 17, 2012 by meazza

[IDBillzFan]

I was reading an article by News Week's Andrew Sullivan that is creating a lot of buzz. I don't have the online article, but here is a good reference from NewsBusters:

 

It would help if people knew the actual article you're discussing, which is found here.

 

The reason the article is creating a lot of buzz is not because of the article, but because of the cover of Newsweek, which has another stoic image of Barack Obama looking upward and holy, with the title "Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?" Once you get a few paragraphs into the article, it's pretty clear that there is little, if anything, in the article that has any real value beyond the facts that (1) Newsweek has briefly found a way to be discussed again and (2) Andrew Sullivan can type a lot of words with a mouthful of presidential choad.

 

Arguing that Obama is smarter than everyone who criticizes him because he inherited problems from Bush is pretty effin' stupid.

 

All you need to know is summed up here:

 

But given the enormity of what he inherited, and given what he explicitly promised, it remains simply a fact that Obama has delivered in a way that the unhinged right and purist left have yet to understand or absorb.

 

And here:

 

The right claims the stimulus failed because it didn’t bring unemployment down to 8 percent in its first year, as predicted by Obama’s transition economic team. Instead, it peaked at 10.2 percent. But the 8 percent prediction was made before Obama took office and was wrong solely because it relied on statistics that guessed the economy was only shrinking by around 4 percent, not 9. Remove that statistical miscalculation (made by government and private-sector economists alike) and the stimulus did exactly what it was supposed to do. It put a bottom under the free fall. It is not an exaggeration to say it prevented a spiral downward that could have led to the Second Great Depression.

 

You see, when Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, Obama's top economic advisers at the time, released the statement about how the stimulus would keep unemployment at eight percent, it took place on Jan. 9, 2009. Obama wasn't actually sworn in until 11 days later. So you see, you can't really blame Obama for something his presidential economic team released prior to him actually being sworn in as president. So Sullivan argues that it's "not an exaggeration to say it prevented a spiral downward," but it IS an exaggeration to say that the the 8 percent prediction was made by Obama's administration because he wasn't president yet, and further was wrong not because it was actually wrong, but because it "guessed" wrong.

 

You'd think a moderate conservative like yourself would have figured that out.

 

This is likely a last gasp for Newsweek to survive. Don't be surprised if you find the next issue tied up in a plastic bag with rocks, sitting in your driveway with coupons to remove your popcorn ceilings starting at only $99 a room.

Edited January 17, 2012 by LABillzFan

[GG]

Look up the economic concept of the dead cat bounce.

[DC Tom]

It would help if people knew the actual article you're discussing, which is found here.

 

The reason the article is creating a lot of buzz is not because of the article, but because of the cover of Newsweek, which has another stoic image of Barack Obama looking upward and holy, with the title "Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?" Once you get a few paragraphs into the article, it's pretty clear that there is little, if anything, in the article that has any real value beyond the facts that (1) Newsweek has briefly found a way to be discussed again and (2) Andrew Sullivan can type a lot of words with a mouthful of presidential choad.

 

Arguing that Obama is smarter than everyone who criticizes him because he inherited problems from Bush is pretty effin' stupid.

 

All you need to know is summed up here:

 

 

 

And here:

 

 

 

You see, when Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, Obama's top economic advisers at the time, released the statement about how the stimulus would keep unemployment at eight percent, it took place on Jan. 9, 2009. Obama wasn't actually sworn in until 11 days later. So you see, you can't really blame Obama for something his presidential economic team released prior to him actually being sworn in as president. So Sullivan argues that it's "not an exaggeration to say it prevented a spiral downward," but it IS an exaggeration to say that the the 8 percent prediction was made by Obama's administration because he wasn't president yet, and further was wrong not because it was actually wrong, but because it "guessed" wrong.

 

You'd think a moderate conservative like yourself would have figured that out.

 

This is likely a last gasp for Newsweek to survive. Don't be surprised if you find the next issue tied up in a plastic bag with rocks, sitting in your driveway with coupons to remove your popcorn ceilings starting at only $99 a room.

 

 

Next week's cover: "Obama's Republican Opposition has Cooties."

 

Lies, damned lies, statistics, and mother!@#$ing Newsweek.

[3rdnlng]

Obama created millions jobs...

 

 

At the cost of 287K per job

 

[/size][/font]

 

No, he "lifted employment" by 2.5-3.6 million jobs, according to the White House report. So, how many were created and how many were saved with that 862 billion dollar farce?

[/dev/null]

You'd think a moderate conservative like yourself would have figured that out.

Anytime I see a message board post, Facebook update, blog, etc by anyone claiming to be a "moderate conservative/liberal" or "lifelong Republican/Democrat", most of the time it's a somebody of the opposite persuasion trying to garner some credibility.

[3rdnlng]

Anytime I see a message board post, Facebook update, blog, etc by anyone claiming to be a "moderate conservative/liberal" or "lifelong Republican/Democrat", most of the time it's a somebody of the opposite persuasion trying to garner some credibility.

 

Juror #8 is an enigma. He claims to be a conservative but his positions on numerous things are always just a little bit off if he truly is a conservative.

[Juror#8]

It would help if people knew the actual article you're discussing, which is found here.

 

.......

 

You'd think a moderate conservative like yourself would have figured that out.[/b]

This is likely a last gasp for Newsweek to survive. Don't be surprised if you find the next issue tied up in a plastic bag with rocks, sitting in your driveway with coupons to remove your popcorn ceilings starting at only $99 a room.

 

I'll do this one time, and hope that it's enough to curtail what appears to be an attempt to redirect a request for erudite discussion into a microchasm of domestic partisan political debate.

 

I REALLY want to believe that your tempermental stomach can tolerate articles posted on here that are not vitriolic and critical of the Administration (even though I didn't post the article, but rather a criticism piece from a conservative blog that I frequent). I really want to believe that you can argue a point without innuendo. I really want to believe that the extent of your political understanding is not limited to what you picked up from diatribes by some bigot articulating pre-menstrual neo-Orwellian theory while liquored up on Grundy, VA potato moonshine.

 

I WANT TO BELIEVE IT.

 

But when you introduce innuendo into an otherwise antiseptic convo, I question you LA. I. Question. You.

 

And in doing so, I necessarily question myself. Like "negligent entrustment" question. And both questions have a dearth of answers.

 

I don't want that for either of us: the dearth; the innuendo; the negligence; the potato moonshine.

 

Are we in a better place now?

Edited January 17, 2012 by Juror#8

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

It's not easy cleaning up Bush's mess!

[Juror#8]

Anytime I see a message board post, Facebook update, blog, etc by anyone claiming to be a "moderate conservative/liberal" or "lifelong Republican/Democrat", most of the time it's a somebody of the opposite persuasion trying to garner some credibility.

 

So what interpretation do you gather from the fact that I also mentioned voting for a D?

[Juror#8]

Juror #8 is an enigma. He claims to be a conservative but his positions on numerous things are always just a little bit off if he truly is a conservative.

 

My politics are complicated. I'll acknowledge that.

 

Much of it has to do with growing up in in the city and in poor neighborhoods.

 

Now my situation is different. And everyday I work with a conservative Congressman.

 

That dichotomy had had a profound influence on my politics.

 

I didn't vote for Obama. I won't vote for him in 12 either. But I'll fairly appraise the landscape when determining who will get my vote. And I exclude candidates based on fair and competent analysis - not hullabaloo by people who were predisposed not to like the guy from the beginning and who regurgitate talking points without context.

 

When folks criticize an article, not on the merits, but because it is a prima facie favorable article about someone that they don't like - then those are the folks referenced in the bolded point above.

 

I criticized folks on the left for unfairly criticizing Bush. It is happening amongst Republicans towards Obama in a way worse than what what was done to Bush. There are plenty reasons to criticize the man, but also lots that just seem like subterfuge.

 

Obama won't get my vote not because of his handling of the economy. He won't get it for the same reason that he didn't in 08. Because I feel that the conservative vision, slightly tweeked, presents a better course for this country's future.

 

As a last thought on this, if Obama wins this election, it will partly be because independents were never given an actual reason to disagree with the Administration...a reason that didn't seem as if it came from some odious and irascible place.

[meazza]

I criticized folks on the left for unfairly criticizing Bush. It is happening amongst Republicans towards Obama in a way worse than what what was done to Bush. There are plenty reasons to criticize the man, but also lots that just seem like subterfuge.

 

Incorrect.

Edited January 17, 2012 by meazza

[/dev/null]

It's not easy cleaning up Bush's mess!

That line is always funny.

Usually it's "Funny Ha Ha" because it's so overused it's a joke

 

But this time it's "Funny tragic" because Sheeple like you actually believe it

[B-Man]

I criticized folks on the left for unfairly criticizing Bush. It is happening amongst Republicans towards Obama in a way worse than what what was done to Bush. There are plenty reasons to criticize the man, but also lots that just seem like subterfuge.

 

 

Not even close to correct.......you bring the candor of all your other statements into question with this alone.

 

 

 

 

As a last thought on this, if Obama wins this election, it will partly be because independents were never given an actual reason to disagree with the Administration...a reason that didn't seem as if it came from some odious and irascible place.

 

 

Just of the top of my head.....are you forgetting how Obamacare was forced through...few Independents approved of that process.

 

Among independents who don’t lean toward either party, only 29 percent support Obamacare — a remarkable figure

Kaiser Health Tracking Poll

 

 

.

[DC Tom]

I criticized folks on the left for unfairly criticizing Bush. It is happening amongst Republicans towards Obama in a way worse than what what was done to Bush. There are plenty reasons to criticize the man, but also lots that just seem like subterfuge.

 

I won't be as knee-jerk "nuh-UH" in my response as others...but that's a very debatable statement. I haven't seen any documentary films hit the theaters yet on how Obama is in bed with world communism, analogous to Fahrenheit 911, for just one example. Has anyone yet called Obama a war criminal?

 

As a last thought on this, if Obama wins this election, it will partly be because independents were never given an actual reason to disagree with the Administration...a reason that didn't seem as if it came from some odious and irascible place.

 

Not entirely unlike 2004...the only real drum the Democrats had to beat was "Iraq War," which would have been more effective if half of them hadn't supported the war when it was politically expedient.

[Chef Jim]

It's not easy cleaning up Bush's mess!

 

So Obama is the Dick Juron of the White House? Yeah, that's about right.