Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You clearly don't mistrust statistics, you simply choose to dismiss any set of facts that don't justify your talking points. Your argument above is a clear illustration of that.
Jobs added are jobs added. Jobs subtracted are jobs subtracted. You can whine about civilian labor force and population growth all you want, but we picked four years of information and the methodology to collect the information has not been changed in decades anyway. But I won't dismiss your need to include civilian labor force as well. Adding that piece of statistics to previously provided data:
2007:
Growth in Civilian Labor Force: +774K
Growth in Private Sector Payroll: +583k.
2008:
Growth in Civilian Labor Force: +551K
Growth in Private Sector Payroll: -3.88m.
2011:
Growth in Civilian Labor Force: +637K
Growth in Private Sector Payroll: +1.97m.
So, how exactly are we doing worse today in this regard than 3-4 years ago? Are you claiming that 1.97 million jobs in 2011 is less than -3.88 million jobs in 2008, or 583K > 1.97m?
Statistics have their uses as long as the same stats are being used by all discussing the same issue and the same rules are applied.
But statistics are not reality. The are trends and generalizations.
I actually blundered on this issue in 2008. I more than doubled my annual income from 2004 to 2008. But I saw that massive downturn in the economy and although I knew that both parties were equally to blame, George W Bush did not take the right action despite warning signs of trouble. And I blamed him for irresponsibly getting into Iraq and then staying way too long. For that and a number of other reasons, I set aside some ideological differences and voted for Obama.
The odds of me doubling my income during Obama's presidency is roughly equal to a snowball's chance in hell. Obama presided over the slowest recovery from an economic downturn since the Great Depression -- this in spite of the fact that the collapse at it's worst was not the deepest since the Great Depression. At its worst, his did not get as bad as the mess in the 1980's. That collapse peaked at 10.8% unemployment, then recovered more just as rapidly as it collapsed -- actually a little faster.
That is not what we saw under Obama. In Obama's case the unemployment rate flattened out and stayed very high. We hear excuses. Obama claims this was the worst thing ever since the Great Depression. I'm not sure I'm buying that one. He was claiming that the recovery was slow because of George W Bush, which made no sense. Bush was no longer president and no longer was affecting economic policy. The more likely case: Though he meant well, most if not all of Obama's policies to make things better backfired and made things worse, or at least stifled the natural recovery process.
I am very curious to know why you or anyone else would object to asking such a simple question: Am I better off now that I was 4 years ago??
Why do you and others object so strongly to this line of questioning? I'm left to assume that you believe the same thing I do: The vast majority of Americans are actually worse off, not better. That would be bad for Obama obviously -- so if you are a big supporter of his, this is a dangerous question to your candidate of choice.
Personally I don't see much difference between Obama and Romney other than Obama is already the president.
And to answer the question of whether I am better off than 4 years ago, I am. I make way more money. I got a 15K raise recently and will more than likely get 3K more in a few months. We are all healthy and doing well.
But like you said this depends on the individual and my husband and I were smart enough to not buy an uber expensive house, we live way below our means and so even during the years where we weren't making much money (2007-2009) we were able to live without debt and not foreclose on our house or be in any financial straits because, I as the money manager of the house, will not spend more money than I have to on basic necessities. I also worked in banking and know about lending laws and about loan/mortgage products so even though people did try to get us to buy more house than we wanted to, we did not fall for that particular okey doke.
This always makes me laugh. And hard. What is it I'm supposed to envy again? YOU? Newt? Mit? Those who've made their living through organized crime corrupting governance?
Kick the lobbyist wh*res of Babylon to the curb. Get out of my house.
Would that include the Bain executive that Obama put in charge of his economic team?
Look at the wording. Anyone who actually likes Romney more isn't going to vote. I won't cast a vote in such cases. It basically tells me I have to accept Obama as the second coming of Christ and Romney as Satan himself. It's meaningless.
You clearly don't mistrust statistics, you simply choose to dismiss any set of facts that don't justify your talking points. Your argument above is a clear illustration of that.
Jobs added are jobs added. Jobs subtracted are jobs subtracted. You can whine about civilian labor force and population growth all you want, but we picked four years of information and the methodology to collect the information has not been changed in decades anyway. But I won't dismiss your need to include civilian labor force as well. Adding that piece of statistics to previously provided data:
2007:
Growth in Civilian Labor Force: +774K
Growth in Private Sector Payroll: +583k.
2008:
Growth in Civilian Labor Force: +551K
Growth in Private Sector Payroll: -3.88m.
2011:
Growth in Civilian Labor Force: +637K
Growth in Private Sector Payroll: +1.97m.
So, how exactly are we doing worse today in this regard than 3-4 years ago? Are you claiming that 1.97 million jobs in 2011 is less than -3.88 million jobs in 2008, or 583K > 1.97m?
Here's the thing. Nobody is disputing that in 2008 we were in a full-fledged recession. The experts tell us the recession started in December 2007. The normal course of recessions post-WWII is that they reverse in about 18 months. And, in fact, that is precisely what happened to the last recession. By June 2009 the economy had turned positive. The Obama administration had nothing to do with that. The nearly-$1 trillion stimulus that had just passed could not and did not have any significant impact on the course of the economy at that point. The recession had simply run its course. By the way, the canard that Obama has been peddling since he was elected that the 2008-2009 recession was the worst since the Great Depression is pure bull. The recession that Reagan inherited was much worse.
I believe that Obama and Rahm Emanuel and Nancy Pelosi were well aware of the coming economic turnaround when they passed the Stimulus. That's why there was nothing stimulative about that measure. It was designed, pure and simply, as a reward for those constituencies that got Obama elected, namely, labor and the environmentalists. "Shovel-ready" merely meant ready to shovel money into the coffers of labor unions, including the NEA and state and municipal union types. In terms of helping the economy grow, that money had little, if any, impact.
What did impact the economy, though, has been Obama's relentless assault on bankers, Wall Street, corporations, corporate CEO's--anyone and anything integral to the functioning of the American economy. And that impact has been decidedly negative. The recovery has essentially flatlined since June 2009--and that is all Obama. History tells us that the deeper the recession the steeper the recovery. Economists speak of "V-shaped" recessions and recoveries. It happened after the Carter recession, after the GHW Bush recession and after the Clinton recession of 2000. Not this time and that is all Obama.
Perhaps Obama and his re-election team can flimflam the American electorate and make the election about the Republican candidate. But the bottom line is that this president has inflicted a lot of pain on ordinary Americans and he doesn't deserve four more years to do even more damage.
Statistics have their uses as long as the same stats are being used by all discussing the same issue and the same rules are applied.
Which is something I did. Rules and standards didn't change. So, quit whining.
Quote:
But statistics are not reality. The are trends and generalizations.
At least something to base discussions upon rather than fart pulled out of thin air and presented as greatness.
Quote:
I actually blundered on this issue in 2008. I more than doubled my annual income from 2004 to 2008.
Except that this ain't about individuals, but economic health of MY country. There are plenty of people who benefited, and many who benefit from such disasters (and can't wait for the next one). But as a whole, it ain't healthy to dismiss facts and learning from the past much less present that disaster in a positive light.
Quote:
But I saw that massive downturn in the economy and although I knew that both parties were equally to blame, George W Bush did not take the right action despite warning signs of trouble. And I blamed him for irresponsibly getting into Iraq and then staying way too long. For that and a number of other reasons, I set aside some ideological differences and voted for Obama.
Fortunately for me, I try to think deeper than you do. It helps me avoid mistakes. Clearly, that doesn't apply to you. You go on whimsical ideas, the present and without really investing much time in the realities presented.
Quote:
The odds of me doubling my income during Obama's presidency is roughly equal to a snowball's chance in hell. Obama presided over the slowest recovery from an economic downturn since the Great Depression -- this in spite of the fact that the collapse at it's worst was not the deepest since the Great Depression. At its worst, his did not get as bad as the mess in the 1980's. That collapse peaked at 10.8% unemployment, then recovered more just as rapidly as it collapsed -- actually a little faster.
That is a heavy load of BS. The 1982-83 was a controlled demolition. And the unemployment rate was higher at the time and for an extended period. In fact, Obama's first three years have been better than the last three years under Reagan (the first of three were a handed down massive downturn, with nearly 5 million jobs lost in just that year and 3.8 million before it).
Quote:
That is not what we saw under Obama. In Obama's case the unemployment rate flattened out and stayed very high. We hear excuses.
That is because you can't see but only want to hear what you... want to. You may want to start with realization that there were only 36K private sector jobs lost in 1980, and 200K private sector jobs gained in 1981. The recession started in 1982 and that would be during Reagan's second year in office. Obama didn't have the benefit of only a stagnant economy, he had to deal with an economy that was losing 750K jobs/month. But hey, don't worry about it, I understand that not everybody can get it.
Quote:
I am very curious to know why you or anyone else would object to asking such a simple question: Am I better off now that I was 4 years ago??
Why do you and others object so strongly to this line of questioning? I'm left to assume that you believe the same thing I do: The vast majority of Americans are actually worse off, not better. That would be bad for Obama obviously -- so if you are a big supporter of his, this is a dangerous question to your candidate of choice.
I am better off, not because of my personal gains, but because my country is in a better shape today than it was 3-4 years ago. Your issue with the questioning has to do with the difference in our take on what economic health entails... at a personal level versus at national level. I'm speaking for the nation as a whole, you're sticking to what I fully expect in "conservatism"... what is in it for me?
Here's the thing. Nobody is disputing that in 2008 we were in a full-fledged recession. The experts tell us the recession started in December 2007.
Ahem, the post I responded to with facts was dwelling in four years, and I chose to go back to 2007. Show me that post wasn't doing that, and you'd have a point.
Quote:
The normal course of recessions post-WWII is that they reverse in about 18 months. And, in fact, that is precisely what happened to the last recession. By June 2009 the economy had turned positive. The Obama administration had nothing to do with that. The nearly-$1 trillion stimulus that had just passed could not and did not have any significant impact on the course of the economy at that point. The recession had simply run its course. By the way, the canard that Obama has been peddling since he was elected that the 2008-2009 recession was the worst since the Great Depression is pure bull. The recession that Reagan inherited was much worse.
Things aren't set in stone as you'd like to believe in. Reagan didn't inherit a recession... that would be a lie since that recession started during his second year in office. He inherited a stagnant economy. In fact, Bush didn't inherit a recession either (that recession started in Feb 2001). He inherited an economy heading towards a recession. Had Obama taken office in 2007, instead of 2009, you could have said the same that he didn't inherit the recession (which started in Dec 2007). If you can't even get the starting date of recessions right, the last thing you should be worrying about it is putting a number over which recessions are supposed to last.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Newt?
Mit?
Those who've made their living through organized crime corrupting governance?
