Typical of this administration, 288k new jobs in June

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Unfortunately, it is not at all typical of this administration:

Unemployment by month since 1948. 2/2009 and onward is Obama's.

http://online.wsj.com/news/interacti...06820001315034

Seriously Joey 2009-2010? Please tell us how the downside momentum of a near economic collapse can be stopped on a dime and turned around. A Noble Prize in Economics awaits you if you do.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

Seriously Joey 2009-2010? Please tell us how the downside momentum of a near economic collapse can be stopped on a dime and turned around. A Noble Prize in Economics awaits you if you do.

Didn't say that it could be stopped that soon, but it also didn't even decelerate. If Obama is to get some time to turn it around, then so would any president, and people were all over Reagan when it took some time to reverse Carter's mess.

Regardless, even if I choose to concede the point, it is now 2014. It is not a "typical" state of affairs for this administration to have job growth. Quite the opposite.

And counting up part-time jobs that people need to have more than one of, and they still can't make up for the lost full-time salary of their last job, doesn't seem like something to celebrate.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Didn't say that it could be stopped that soon, but it also didn't even decelerate. If Obama is to get some time to turn it around, then so would any president, and people were all over Reagan when it took some time to reverse Carter's mess.

Regardless, even if I choose to concede the point, it is now 2014. It is not a "typical" state of affairs for this administration to have job growth. Quite the opposite.

And counting up part-time jobs that people need to have more than one of, and they still can't make up for the lost full-time salary of their last job, doesn't seem like something to celebrate.

So you bang the table for capitalism on behalf of the Pro-Business party and then blame the other side when jobs get shipped to China and India and H1B's continue unabated. Well played Sir, well played. My feelings are that this administration has done NOTHING to stem the tide of business destroying the economic foundation of the country but the alternative I'm afraid would have accelerated the slide towards the bottom. Heads we lose Tails we lose faster.

One thing this administration is great at is knowing the media and playing the headline game. Don't like the statistics then change how they are calculated.

http://www.maxkeiser.com/2014/07/man...l-you-make-it/

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Didn't say that it could be stopped that soon, but it also didn't even decelerate. If Obama is to get some time to turn it around, then so would any president, and people were all over Reagan when it took some time to reverse Carter's mess.

It wasn't Carter's mess. The economic problems predated his Administration. Remember Ford's WIN buttons? Or him declaring inflation public enemy number one in 1974? (Okay, I don't either because I was too young- my first political memory is a Ford-Carter debate, but he did.)

From, of all things, a poster on Yahoo ("Mr Smartypants" is his nom de plume, I believe), but he's right, so here:

"The Republicans succeeded in blaming it on Carter in the public's consciousness simply by repeating over and over that it was all Carter's fault, until the media picked it up and began repeating it for them.

Reagan 'fixed' the economy by tripling the entire pre-existing national debt. Anyone can live high off the hog for a while if they don't mind going into serious debt. Well into his second term, Reagan was still cheerfully predicting that revenue boosts from his tax cuts would pay for the debt. There was a modest increase in revenue but it didn't even pay the interest on the new debt."

That's what makes me nuts about GOP in the White House- they scream "fiscal conservatism!" right up until the moment they're in the WH, then it's all "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" to quote the former VP and they spend without end on giveaways to their connections (Iraq, Medicare Part D, etc.) Rinse, repeat. The only one who actually was a big boy and raised taxes because it needed to be done was George HW Bush and see how that worked out for his reelection.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

It wasn't Carter's mess. The economic problems predated his Administration. Remember Ford's WIN buttons? Or him declaring inflation public enemy number one in 1974? (Okay, I don't either because I was too young- my first political memory is a Ford-Carter debate, but he did.)

From, of all things, a poster on Yahoo ("Mr Smartypants" is his nom de plume, I believe), but he's right, so here:

"The Republicans succeeded in blaming it on Carter in the public's consciousness simply by repeating over and over that it was all Carter's fault, until the media picked it up and began repeating it for them.

Reagan 'fixed' the economy by tripling the entire pre-existing national debt. Anyone can live high off the hog for a while if they don't mind going into serious debt. Well into his second term, Reagan was still cheerfully predicting that revenue boosts from his tax cuts would pay for the debt. There was a modest increase in revenue but it didn't even pay the interest on the new debt."

That's what makes me nuts about GOP in the White House- they scream "fiscal conservatism!" right up until the moment they're in the WH, then it's all "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" to quote the former VP and they spend without end on giveaways to their connections (Iraq, Medicare Part D, etc.) Rinse, repeat. The only one who actually was a big boy and raised taxes because it needed to be done was George HW Bush and see how that worked out for his reelection.

I think we are reaping what was down with 'trickle down economics'. The middle and lower classes are barely even getting a trickle any more. More like a droplet or two every now and then.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

I think we are reaping what was down with 'trickle down economics'. The middle and lower classes are barely even getting a trickle any more. More like a droplet or two every now and then.

Yet in this country the poorest of the poor have subsidized, housing, food, water, heat, air-conditioning, schooling, healthcare (including birth control) cell phone and in some instances even WI-FI and cable TV ALL paid for by the taxpayer.

There is plenty of trickling down going on and most is getting flushed down a subsidized toilet.

'Strike the violins'

[OldDog]

"What is Poverty in the United States Today?"

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...hat-is-poverty

And free weed.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local...265632571.html

[Danzig]

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/04/oba...rterly-update/

I googled net jobs Obama administration.

Its from a year ago, but I didn't see anything newer.

Now, although more jobs than under last pres, more are on food stamps, I would think due to underemployment. And pay hasn't kept up either.

We celebrate capitalism, our products tion is incredibly high...with less pay and more automation. It used to be when demand was high, companies added jobs, now they just add more and faster machines.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Reagan 'fixed' the economy by tripling the entire pre-existing national debt. Anyone can live high off the hog for a while if they don't mind going into serious debt. Well into his second term, Reagan was still cheerfully predicting that revenue boosts from his tax cuts would pay for the debt. There was a modest increase in revenue but it didn't even pay the interest on the new debt."

That's actually not quite true. Reagan did cut the income tax rates, but the revenue collected actually tripled by 1989. So there was more money coming in.

However, the government (Reagan AND the Democratically held Congress) outspent the new higher revenue level, resulting in higher yearly deficits and accumulated national debt.

They are two separate things, and the conclusion would be easier if the revenue went down by slashing tax rates, but that's not what happened. More money left tax sheltering for investments, creating jobs (here then as opposed to abroad) and boosting the economy. But we did try to win the Cold War so military spending went up, social spending has never gone down. It all adds up.

It was a net negative but not due to loss of revenue - the spending exceeded the increased revenue resulting in a shortfall. Like most years except 1969 under Nixon and that is not a good thing.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by joeydb

That's actually not quite true. Reagan did cut the income tax rates, but the revenue collected actually tripled by 1989. So there was more money coming in.

Except by 1989 Reagan had raised taxes in other ways, many of which were much more regressive and put more stress on the middle class. The tax cuts didn't increase revenue; he had to broaden the tax base to try to make up some of the lost revenue.