From 7.6% when Obama came in to 9.1% unemployment now.

[MadHound]

And that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the unemployment disaster.

Yes, Obama inherited an economic catastrophe, there is no doubt about that. But his reaction to that disaster has been disappointing for millions of Americans.

A stimulus package in early '09 was too small and too loaded with tax cuts and tax credits to do much about stimulating the economy or getting jobs back.

The administration then proceeded to squander the large Congressional majorities on a health care reform debate that was dragged out months longer than it should have, sucking all the oxygen out of the room.

By last year, the administration was so paralyzed that its "Recovery Summer" became a bad joke, as more and more people joined the rolls of the unemployed and underemployed. Reduced to putting forth even more tax credits and tax cuts, the administrations actions were ineffectual, and worse, they allowed themselves to be boxed into a corner where no other actions were taken. Instead of coming out swinging, hitting hard and often at the 'Pugs for their obstructionism in the face of a national calamity, Obama continued to pursue his failed course of bipartisanship and settling for half measures at best.

So here we are, with the middle class shrinking, an entire generation scarred by years of unemployment and poverty, and Obama is proposing another "bipartisan" solution.

I'm sorry, but the answer to the jobs situation, the correct, Democratic solution of a WPA style jobs creation program is staring us in the face, waiting to be implemented. No, the president doesn't have a Congressional majority in the House, but he still has the Senate, and better yet, he holds the highest office in the land. It is past time for him to be playing Mr. Nice Guy, time for him to take off the gloves and pound the living shit out of the 'Pugs for their obstructionist ways. Instead of taking off on a thinly disguised "listening tour" of Iowa, he needs to be out in the states of obstructionist 'Pugs, ripping them a new one for their willingness to let millions of people suffer. In this speech he has next week he needs to propose a big, new, WPA style jobs creation program. He needs to put himself squarely on the side of the people, not try to be above the fray.

People love a fighter, a fighter in a just cause, even if that fight is doomed. This fight for jobs in this country is not lost by any means, but it will be if Obama doesn't come out swinging soon. For if Obama's proposal next week is just more milquetoast that gets watered down into thin gruel, even more people will turn away from him in disgust. He is already in bad shape now, with fifty one percent of Americans saying he doesn't deserve a second term. If unemployment numbers continue to hold where they are now, or even rise, with the economy still flat or sinking next year, what do you think his chances of reelection are going to be? Which will leave us to the tender mercies of whatever batshit crazy candidate the 'Pugs put up.

Obama has two clear options staring at him right now. Attack the unemployment problem by coming out big and coming out fighting. If he does this, people will see this, appreciate that he is now in their corner, and he is reelected next year. Or the other option, to continue down the path he is on now, pursuing the same ol' failed party of bipartisan agreement that got him into this mess, and lose, badly.

The choice is his, but sadly it is we the people who will suffer the most from his decision.

[scheming daemons]

1. False meme.. unemployment was 10% just 5 months into his term

Before anything, including the stimulus, could take effect.


Here's the truth.

Unemployment went from 10% down to 8.8% between june of 2009 and april of 2011.

What happened then?

A) new GOP governors began their job killing programs. Walker, Scott, corbet, etc.
B) the govt shutdown brinkmanship in april
C) the debt ceiling brinkmanship in july.

The economy was steadily, albeit slowly, recovering until the GOP did everything in their power to stall it.

[doc03]

2. Tell that to your average low information voter n/t

[FarLeftFist]

115. 10.2% to be exact. So he actually lowered it 1.1%

[villager]

3. all the more reason he needs to quit being "bipartisan" with the GOP, and start fighting them

n/t

[MadHound]

4. And yet last summer, "Recovery Summer" we were supposed to see unemployment drop

Drop below 8 percent. What happened to that?

And rather than giving us an initial stimulus that would have been large enough to actually effect real change, we were given a much smaller stimulus that was made up of over forty percent tax cuts and tax credits, the least effective form of economic stimulus.

Where were the old school Democratic programs, Keynesian job creation programs? Gone in the wind, the money spent on more war, money spent on helping Wall St., not Main St.

Where was Obama, calling the 'Pugs out on their obstructionism?

No, the economy wasn't "recovering". Wall St. recovered, corporations recovered, but the middle class continued to shrink, people continued to lose their jobs, lose their pay, and go from being fully employed to being underemployed to being unemployed.

That's what happened, and no amount of spin can put lipstick on that pig. Obama has, so far, failed on job 1, making sure that the American people are employed and doing well.

[pnorman]

15. "....until the GOP did everything in their power to stall it."

Why has that not entered into the calculations of some of the knee-jerk Obama-bashers on DU?

[villager]

37. ..or the knee-jerk compromisers in the current administration?

:shrug:

[stockholmer]

38. it's not Obama bashing, it is facing a partial reality (I say partial because the real UE rate is

much higher than is reported, due to complete manipulation of the numbers via such fictions as the birth/death ratio http://www.zerohedge.com/news/birth-death-adds-87k-todays-nfp-miss-491k-jobs-past-year-due-statistics and focusing on the U3 number, which doesn't count the millions of discouraged workers who have simply given up looking.

If you had a Republican president, you would still be fed the same cocked-up numbers.

much more accurate UE numbers here:

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

[uponit7771]

48. It's Obama bashing to ignore the EFFECTS of a crazy bagger congress.

[stockholmer]

64. The stimulus/further bailouts under complete Democratic control was a multi-trillion $ fail, but

Republicans would have had the same effect, perhaps from different tacks of course. Both Democrats and Republicans have sold the nation out at so many levels.

The US so-called 2 party system is a sham, but it is NOT broken (as so many love to say), it is functioning exactly as the top echelons of concentrated neo-Pharaohnic power desire.

At their core, both parties are all about a continuity of agenda, with bitter partisanship over issues that the systemic controllers know will rip the country asunder at explosive touch-points used as modern day 'bread and circuses' to divert attention through rages at the shallows.

The truly large, meta-narratives all remain the same in their ever-increasing trajectories, no matter if control is under Democratic or Republican whip-hands. These overarching, utterly poisonous distortions include (but are certainly not limited to) empiric wars, destruction of civil liberty constitutional protections, debasement of the currency, entrenchment of the police/surveillance state, de-industrialization of the nation via the 'absolute-advantage' model of free trade (as opposed to the 'comparative advantage' model), the rise of the banking fiends into unheard of positions of unchecked power, and turning the citizens in chattel debt slaves through both public and private explosions in borrowing.


----------------------------------



"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy."

- Carrol Quigley, Tragedy and Hope (1966)

[uponit7771]

68. Again, losing 700k jobs a month to gaining 50k jobs a month=fail to bashers, baggers and fudrs who..

...have no credibility any longer because of their hatred of reality

[polmaven]

113. That's why they call it

knee-jerk...facts are not a factor.

[itsallhappening]

17. It wasn't until October 2009 that the unemployment reached 10%.

Where is the "steadily, albeit slowly" recovery?

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

2009
7.8
8.2
8.6
8.9
9.4
9.5
9.5
9.7
9.8
10.1
9.9
9.9

2010
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.8
9.6
9.5
9.5
9.6
9.6
9.7
9.8
9.4

2011
9.0 (Republicans take the House)
8.9
8.8
9.0
9.1
9.2
9.1
9.1

[uponit7771]

23. 10.1 to 9.1 = no progress?!!? You're kidding right?! Hate reality much?

[itsallhappening]

28. It's not 10.1 to 9.1.

It started at 7.8% and climbed for eleven months, then hit 10.1% and is now at 9.1%. It's dropped below 9% for one out of the last twenty-two months.

No, I don't see that as progress.

[uponit7771]

31. Again, NO THINKING ADULT is going to blame the 10.1 on Obama!! Just baggers, bashers and FUDrs

... who want to spin the whole recession as Obama's fault.

That's stupid, you guys can take the shit back to the factory...it's broke.

[itsallhappening]

34. You sound angry and frustrated.

If at some point you find a talking point that addresses the actual numbers, let me know.

[uponit7771]

39. Fact NOT in dispute: BEFORE Obama stimulus - LOSING 700k jobs a month, AFTER Obama Stimulus GAINING

...50k jobs a month.

...that's progress no?

[itsallhappening]

49. Do you believe that?

Honestly.

Look at the BLS stats.

Forget politics for a minute. Just think math.

How could we be gaining 50k jobs/month and have the numbers go from 9.6% to 9.8%, or 8.8% to 9.1%.

How does that work, mathematically?

[uponit7771]

52. Because UE rate is DIFFERENT from how job GAINS are calculated.

[itsallhappening]

56. If you add 50k jobs, how does the UE rate go up?

[uponit7771]

Churn

[itsallhappening]

102. Thought so.

[tritsofme]

110. This is incredibly plausible.

The payroll jobs number and unemployment rate are calculated through two separate non-related surveys.

Usually they move in tandem, but they do capture different metrics.

I think it is very likely the official unemployment rate will have to move higher before it can move lower. When there is finally some improvement in the economy, discouraged workers will re-enter the labor force and push unemployment number higher, and it will be a positive thing.

Unfortunately none of that is happening right now, we are stalled.

[pintobean]

89. Or, those of us who believed him.

[ProfessorGAC]

73. Not Too Famililar With Time Sequenced Data Huh?

Have you calculated the lag associated with fiscal and monetary measures taken to impact economic growth and employment gains?

The answer is:

Obviously, not.
GAC

[itsallhappening]

103. LOL

How does that change the fact that the OP (and several others here) are saying there was progress?

[sce56]

86. Also Official counts do not take into account those that have given up and no longer are looking!

I see them all the time at the corners pan handling!

[itsallhappening]

104. Yep. The REAL number is likely a lot higher.

[frazzled]

81. self-delete

[Broderick]

33. Gallop has a much better picture

because it includes those that have dropped off the reporting roles when they stop receiving unemployment benefits.

These numbers sucks regardless. The underemployed is 16 or more percent, and the real unemployment is likely at 10% if not higher.


ZERO jobs reported and they always revise down it seems. So there is likely negative territory. NOT good news.


Can't make shit smell good.

[itsallhappening]

36. That's the most worrisome part of all of this.

It's hard to know how many people out there aren't even being counted as unemployed.

Of course, this is true in any economic downturn. Nothing new. It's just that the situation we're in now is the one that matters.

[Broderick]

45. That's why Gallop's numbers

are quite higher as a percent than the official government numbers.

I see the pain out there first hand on a daily basis. People scraping. People getting evicted. People losing their cars, homes, etc. The for sale signs on foreclosed homes dot the landscape more than the trees do here.

Nope, this is a travesty and some people want to paint the picture with a pretty color. The country is in the shitter. And if you complain you will be called names here because some people really wear the rose colored glasses.

[itsallhappening]

54. That type of reaction you mention comes from people who have pledged their loyalty

to one person. It's dangerous.

[Broderick]

60. I am not gonna play his/her game by calling names

or obfuscating reality. They are not recognizing the tragedy going on in this country.

[newspeak]

59. he had "reputable" economists inform him that he needed a massive

stimulus to really get the economy going and those * tax cuts are absolutely obscene and do nothing but hurt this country more. How many years are the repukes going to keep saying that those tax cuts create jobs, when all it does is create more wealth for the have mores and the money leaves the country so they can exploit some other poor country?

Having control of the house, however, shows just what kind of sociopaths we are dealing with; because they'd rather take down the country and the majority of the american people just to have a chance to gain power. To me, they are truly disturbed.

[Broderick]

63. I think that ship sailed long ago as far as tax cuts

creating jobs. Just like that ship sailed that stimulus to the bankers, other countries, and pet projects like 500M to a green firm that went belly up in record time, bankrupting on the government loan. WHERE THE FUCK DID THE STIMULUS MONEY GO!!!!!!

[newspeak]

78. the stimulus money went to states, especially to help infrastructure

In Nevada, we have a road project and the sign states funded by stimulus funds. But, places like Texas, I heard that Perry used the stimulus to make up for the tax decrease he gave to the business community. So, some of the repugs may be abusing what the stimulus was to be used for and then claim how it doesn't work.

I do know if they keep cutting government jobs which many make decent wages, while giving our services to their global corporate buddies, we are going to be in deep shite. Because if the truly disturbed get their way, we stand to lose over 100,000 more jobs. I swear I cannot understand why any working american would vote for these gits. It's like some kind of stockholm's syndrome.

However, what I call rational economists, informed Obama that the stimulus needed to be bigger to jumpstart the economy. The bailout to the banks, did not help small businesses. My hubby worked for a subcontractor, who attempted to get a loan from one of those banks that got bailed out--not giving loans. So, I think, the banks have not helped the economy--some have become misers when it's loaning to small businesses.

[Broderick]

79. I can attest to the loan process being tight

Not necessarily personally, but some business owner friends that have been in business for many years were declined.

[uponit7771]

41. BLS doesn't report on STATE RUN unemeployment benefits. The level of ignorant bashng is baggerish

..and the BLS does have U6 rate that goes with real UE number and its gone from 18 to 16% during Obama's watch.

That's progress no matter HOW you spin it.

[Broderick]

57. The gallop number is closer to 10% because it reports ALL

Not those on the unemployment roles. Jobless claims are running at a pace of 410K consistently. That is abysmal. Paint it as nicely as you want, but the country is in the toilet. What's the foreclosure numbers running at this last quarter? ZERO JOB GROWTH. Which means we lost 125K plus jobs last month, because you have to have that many to keep pace. WE ARE LOSING JOBS.


I am not blaming anyone, so take the namecalling and shove it. But, I sure in the hell feel it and it has to be stopped!

[uponit7771]

62. I'll take the long tried and international U rates vs Gallops calculations that don't have the

...ability to garner the U rates like the BLS does

[Broderick]

69. I live in the real world.

I see the pain all around me. I see the homes being lost. I see people begging for a job at my business. Offering to do anything. These people had good jobs and could support their family. Now they see everything going away. So, 9.1 is good? It sucks! I asked what was the foreclosure rate right now? It's getting worse, and always much worse than expected. The country is in the shitter. Pure and simple.

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

128. BINGO

nt

[disillusioned73]

5. K&r..

The choices are quite simple, sadly I have lost hope that these metaphorical "gloves" will ever come off :(

[TwilightGardener]

6. The numbers won't improve, because they're working for Republicans--one term President.

Nothing will pass that will have a big impact, because half of Congress is delighted with the current situation.

[EstimatedProphet]

72. This

[frazzled]

7. February 2009 (less than 1 month into office) unemployment was 8.1%

By March, less than two months into his office and before the stimulus was passed and took effect, it rose to 8.5%. There were more than 650,000 jobs per month LOST in his first two months of office.

By July--before any stimulus funds went out--it was already at 9.5%, reaching over 10% by November that year. The stimulus then began to stabilize and lower the rate, pushing it back into the low 9's and even below for a few months. It's been persistently stuck since that time.

But don't you dare suggest that the surge in unemployment was due to anything Obama did: it was the recession that began in late 2007 and reached crisis proportions in 2008 that caused the spike. Battling it back down is proving hard and slow, especially with a Republican opposition hell bent on preventing further stimulative measures.

[amborin]

24. undeniable that the original stimulus was 35% USELESS tax cuts to please Rethugs & Obama got Zero

Rethug votes, after caving to them

that was one of MANY early signs that he did and would CAVE to Rethugs

that has been the sad story of his presidency

[frazzled]

82. Undeniable that the stimulus did a tremendous amount to help the economy

Where'd you get your economics degree from, Sears and Roebuck?

[amborin]

87. Krugman: 40% of the stimulus was on USELESS tax cuts & tax breaks

your post is sure nasty and uncivil

is that how you live your life

[coalition_unwilling]

121. It's not what Obama 'did' ( a sin of commission), it's what he did not

do (a sin of omission): his 2009 ARRA stimulus bill was too small by a factor of 2-3 times, according to Nobel economists like Paul Krugman.

What we needed in 2009 was a Second New Deal. What we got instead was the worst of all possible worlds: a stimulus program so small that it was guaranteed to not work, thereby allowing Repukes to argue that government stimulus is a waste.

Way to go, Rahm. Obama does not deserve a second term.

[uponit7771]

8. ****BIG TIME UNREC****.went from LOSING 700k jobs a month to gaining on average 50k jobs a month!!!!

Another Bullshit Obama bashing, congress ignoring, right wing talking point post right here at DU......at what time are you guys going to notice that your obvious?

UE rate went to 10.1% 7 months after Obama got into office you gonna blame that on him too?

Now it's at 9.1 after the worst recession since the great depression and bashers, baggers and FUDrs refuse to call it progress?!?! Thinking people refuse to call your logic...

you people are pathetic

[MadHound]

11. And guess what, we're still in a situation where we are at a net loss for job growth

You need to have job growth at 125,000-150,000 jobs created each month just to keep up with the growth of the labor force. With an average of 50k jobs created each month we aren't keeping up with the need for jobs and it shows. Fifty one percent of 16-24 year olds are not employed. College grads go begging for McJobs, much less jobs that put their degrees to work.

What is pathetic is the defense of the indefensible by some folks, when the public knows, and the numbers show, that for the past two and a half years Obama and the Dems have failed to do a damn thing that would truly alleviate our unemployment problem.

[uponit7771]

18. 100% Irrelevant to my point, where we're at has NOTHING to do with the OP not mentioning ACCURATLY..

...were we came from.

[MadHound]

46. What was inaccurate about what I said

I stated that when Obama took office, he had 7.6% unemployment, and inherited an economic situation that wasn't his fault.

I also stated that unemployment is now at 9.1%, and that he has put forth no serious or effective plan to bring that down, rather he has put forth programs loaded with tax cuts and tax credits, programs very short on actual job creation.

Where is the inaccuracy?

[uponit7771]

61. "A stimulus package in early '09 was too small and too loaded with tax cuts and tax credits to do...

... much about stimulating the economy or getting jobs back."

Again, we went FROM losing 700k to GAINING 50k on average...that's called getting the jobs back...not enough right now but POSITIVE jobs growth no matter how you guys try to spin it.

[MadHound]

65. Well, most of the top notch economists, including a Nobel Prize winner,

Were stating that very fact at the time the stimulus was being crafted. Furthermore, they are still saying it now.

And again, fifty thousand jobs created a month is not positive growth, not when your labor pool is expanding by 125-150,000 a month. That is net job loss.

[uponit7771]

71. Right, don't address the progress and your false statement just repeat what some economist

...say in regards to your point.

and going FROM LOSING 700k to GAINING 50k = progress to people who give a damn...

Your point was there was NO ...NO .....NO progress from the stimulus package and that is false.

Whether or not the number beats churn is irrelevant to my point.

[MadHound]

80. WHAT PROGRESS?!

We are still losing net jobs when monthly job growth numbers fail to keep up with the expansion of the labor pool.

Yes, the bleeding has slowed, but that only means that the patient is dying at a slower rate. Progress is when the patient stops bleeding at all and is starting to heal. We, as a country, are not starting to heal, not by a long shot.

[Broderick]

95. Tell someone who just had their house taken from them

that we slowed the bleeding. That ship sailed for them.

[MadHound]

55. Furthermore,

The plain fact is that creating 50,000 jobs a month is simply not keeping up with the growth of the labor force. Again, what is inaccurate about that?

[phleshdef]

74. A +750,000 jobs per month turn around simply can not be minimalized.

You can't deny that Obama oversaw a complete stemming of the massive layoffs.

We went from completely bleeding out to being critical but somewhat stable.

We are still weak, but before, we were literally dying in a pool of our own blood.

The jobs problem is way bigger than the President's inability to get any real action on jobs post-stimulus. It goes way beyond the financial crisis. We had no real job growth for 8 solid years. Its become something that is deeply systemic. Even if we repair the damage done by the economic collapse and we tamp down on outsourcing of jobs, I still don't think the problem will be fixed.

[MadHound]

83. We have no job growth now

Again, basic math. We need 125-150k new jobs created each and every single month in order to keep up with the expansion of the labor pool. We are only averaging 50k a month, if that. That adds up to a net loss in jobs each and every month, somewhere around 75-100k.

All that has happened over the past two and a half years is that the bleeding has slowed. It has stopped, we're not in recovery, we're not stable. We are still sinking, albeit at a slower pace.

[phleshdef]

91. That depends on what base line you are using. I'm talking about one administrations performance.

In my opinion, any administration should be measured mostly by the difference after their first year in office. The first year is largely dictated by the actions taken by the previous administration and that administrations budget and policies. If you look at the numbers within that frame, there is still a great amount of reversal that they deserve credit for. And any progressive minded person should want that fact to become widely spoken as it vindicates what even a paltry amount of government stimulus spending can do.

[MadHound]

98. Again, we are experiencing net job loss,

No matter when you look at the numbers, the simple stark fact is that there has not been a single month that we've matched the rate of expansion in the labor pool. Not one. Not this year, not last year, not the year before that.

That is reality, and any sane, normal person should want to deal in reality.

[phleshdef]

118. I don't care. That does not negate the stark turn around from what this administration walked into.

[itsallhappening]

21. False: "UE rate went to 10% 5 months after Obama got into office"

See post #17

[uponit7771]

25. ...and YOU read post #23, 10.1 to 9.1 unemployment means progress to any thinking person

[itsallhappening]

29. Sure, any thinking person who is only thinking about two data points.

[uponit7771]

30. Again, FUDrs and bashers and baggers are the ones who want everyone to ignore ANY progress...

...and I'll take a little of something vs a whole lot of nothing...called wisdom

[itsallhappening]

32. If citing the actual numbers accurately is "bashing," then I guess I'm a basher.

[uponit7771]

35. No you're not...you're not stating we were losing 700k jobs BEFORE Obamas stimulus...

...because Bashers, baggers and fudrs would like everyone to forget about that fact.

You're also not stating that we were already in an economic crash BEFORE Obama was elected and had a chance to make a positive impact.

You guys lose constantly when facts are placed against the spin

[itsallhappening]

42. We were losing 700k jobs per month before Obama took office.

That's a fact. You're right.

But looking at the actual numbers during his watch, it's impossible to argue that things haven't gotten worse.

The spinners will say things "would have been" or "could have been" worse. Maybe. But things are worse than they were two and a half years ago. No question about that...when you adhere to the actual numbers.

[uponit7771]

47. Going from LOSING 700k to GAINING 50k jobs = gotten worse?!?!? WTF?! You guys still beleive there

...were WMDs in Iraq?

[itsallhappening]

51. See post #49 and explain the math.

[uponit7771]

53. I did, google U1 through U6 unemployment rate, its actually an international calculation

...that's based on a number of static questions.

[phleshdef]

77. Your point is just as ignorant as the tea baggers who try to attribute 2009 debt numbers to Obama.

No President should really get blame/credit for the economic dynamics that first 3-6 months in office. Just like budget/debt numbers, most of it is a reflection of activity for the prior year and thus, the prior administration. Everyone knows this or at least they should. The nature of the way budgets work, in and of itself, pretty much dictates this as a rule.

[itsallhappening]

106. Not responsible for 3-6 months? Hell, I gave the guy a year.

We're moving up on three years now.

Results are bad.

[phleshdef]

119. The unemployment picture has turned around dramatically in that time, just not enough.

No matter how much you want to discount the fact that Obama dug us out of a 700,000+ job a month slide into oblivion, he did. The fact that the job picture still isn't good enough does not and will not ever negate that fact.

[coalition_unwilling]

122. *****BIG TIME REC**** to counter your Unrec and your blatant

mis-statement of the historical record.

The worst recession since the Great Depression was in 1980-81 when Reagan was Prez.

The UE rate was 7.6% when Obama took office. As of today, it's 9.1%. Just where the fuck does the buck stop in your moral universe?

[deacon]

9. It's all the GOP's fault. They are the job killers. They are anti jobs. n/t

[MadHound]

13. No, this has been a bipartisan debacle.

The 'Pugs have put getting Obama out of office ahead of the good of the country. The Dems, including Obama, have failed to fight for the good of the people.

[uponit7771]

27. LOFL!!! That's what FUDrs want dems to believe, America was IMPROVING before baggers got in office

[MadHound]

50. First of all, what are FUD'rs?

Second of all, where did I say that anything was improving, either before 2010 or 2008?

[uponit7771]

67. Google FUDrs, well known term... also, my point is you did NOT say anything was improving in your...

...narrative and said the jobs were not coming back after Obama's stimulus...

That's false.

[EstimatedProphet]

75. I googled FUDrs, and found nothing that didn't link back to your posts

If you don't mind, I'd like it spelled out too...

[MadHound]

88. They're not coming back,

We're still losing a net 75-100k jobs a month since we're failing to keep up with the rate of growth in the labor pool.

And again, was is a FUDr? I'm not finding it, so please, enlighten us.

[Broderick]

107. Fear, Uncertainty, and doubt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt


When millions are affected by job loss, underemployment, foreclosure, eviction, etc etc etc, its painfully hard to say "It could be worse, or look how great things are"

[hfojvt]

10. hey I suggested a WPA type program

even said how it could be funded http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/164

It didn't get a lot of traction even here.

[Broderick]

66. A much better program

than what the stimulus went for. Shovel ready jobs that cost a million per job??? HA

We have been fleeced once again.

[court jester]

12. It was more important to pass a law requiring all serfs to buy inflated health insurance

from for profit corporations than worry about how the stupid serfs would pay for it.

And these are the same people that thought it would be better not to manufacture anything.

Few if any of them have a single monetary worry in their blissful wingtip shoed world.

How could anyone NOT have an extra $500 bucks at the end of the month to contribute to a company that pays their CEO >$10 million per year?

It's going to get worse before it gets any better.

Ins. Co. & CEO With 2007 Total CEO Compensation

Aetna Ronald A. Williams: $23,045,834
Cigna H. Edward Hanway: $25,839,777
Coventry Dale B. Wolf : $14,869,823
Health Net Jay M. Gellert: $3,686,230
Humana Michael McCallister: $10,312,557
U.Health Grp Stephen J. Hemsley: $13,164,529
WellPoint Angela Braly (2007): $9,094,271
L. Glasscock (2006): $23,886,169

http://www.healthreformwatch.com/2009/05/20/health-insurance-ceos-total-compensation-in-2008/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R-z-fFnuh0

[TwilightGardener]

14. Two things: that health care law had to be passed while we held both the House and Senate.

Obama had a very short window in which to pass his agenda. And the law that was passed was what could GET passed with "Democrats" such as Ben "Insurance Exec" Nelson. It was the best he could do with the lineup he had. Unless you would have liked a repeat of 1994 and the Clintons' efforts that went NOWHERE.

[Mojambo]

16. I personally would have preferred nothing get done. n/t

[TwilightGardener]

19. Oh well, Not me. Especially since my kids might need to stay on our

health insurance plan past college graduation, the way things are going jobwise for college grads. The law allows that to happen.

[uponit7771]

22. The poster most likely doesn't have kids or isn't taking advantage of that...what selfishness

[TwilightGardener]

26. I don't know that it's selfishness, so much as principle overriding all potential benefit.

A lot of people are simply uncompromising--either it's 100% what they wanted, or fuck it.

[Mojambo]

44. Or that they see that the potential harm in the legislation overrides the smaller benefit.

In my assessment, that is the case.

[phleshdef]

120. Thats a selfish assessment on your part. The good in HCR FAR outweigh the bad.

You want to tell me that family member with pre-existing should be discriminated against for health insurance because of your hatred for the mandate? You can go screw yourself if thats what you believe.

Banning of pre-existing discrimination, getting rid of rescissions, getting rid of lifetime limits, setting up state exchanges and subsidizing health insurance costs based on a progressive income scale plus funding for thousands of free medical clinics. All that and more. Your assessment is petty and anti-progressive.

[uponit7771]

20. You and the republicans and baggers. NO wisdom in giving up adequate for good or perfect

[Mojambo]

40. I find nothing about this legislation to be adequate.

In fact, I think in the long term fight for something that WILL work, it's going to be incredibly harmful.

[uponit7771]

58. Getting my kids health insurance on CHAMPUS is adequate. The baby is wet and crying on the floor

[coalition_unwilling]

123. "Blissful wingtip shoed world" - what an image. Perfectly sums up

the moral decadence of the ruling class in a single image.

[woo me with science]

43. K&R nt

[EstimatedProphet]

70. And?

I agree that a new WPA is just what we need. But let's be clear here - the repubs aren't going to allow it. They've said publicly that their mission is to make Obama a one-term president. If Obama implements a new WPA they lose, and they have the power through the purse-strings of Congress to make sure they won't lose.

If we have to rely on private sector job creation, we won't be seeing any new significant job growth until after the election in 2012. That's the way the corporate assholes want it. And guess what? We have to rely on private sector job creation, period.

[Demonaut]

76. another depressing synopsis given over and over again

so sick of it

[Broderick]

85. Reality is reality

Saying how much worse it could have been ain't flying anymore. People are getting restless. Saying what could have been to folks losing their homes, cars, jobs, and livelihood is getting tiresome. Folks struggling with housing, grocery and gas prices aren't saying whew, just think how much worse I could be off. Most people don't live in the bubble of political echo chamber message boards.

[FrenchieCat]

90. What is tiresome are those folks helping Republicans

instead of understanding the nuance and getting others to understand it,
both on the ground as well as on so-called progressive message boards.

[Broderick]

93. Painting pretty pictures is disingenuous

Most people don't live in the echo chamber bubble O' happy days. This needs to be fixed if there is any hope of re-election. Period.

[FrenchieCat]

84. Hard at work, I see!

Being intellectually dishonest appears to agree with you!


New CBO Report Finds Up to 2.9 Million People Owe Their Jobs to the Recovery Act
August 30, 2011

A new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report estimates that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) increased the number of people employed by between 1.0 million and 2.9 million jobs as of June. <1>

In other words, between 1.0 million and 2.9 million people employed in June owed their jobs to the Recovery Act. This estimate, by Congress' non-partisan economic and budget analysts, is more comprehensive than the 550,000 jobs that ARRA recipients reported in July, CBO explains.

While the report focuses primarily on the second quarter of 2011, CBO also includes new projections of the Recovery Act's jobs impact through 2012. It finds that in the current quarter (the third quarter of 2011), there are 0.8 million to 2.5 million more people employed because of ARRA.

The CBO report indicates that ARRA succeeded in its primary goal of protecting the economy during the worst of the recession. As the economy recovers, ARRA's effects will continue to decrease. CBO estimates that ARRA's impact on employment peaked in the third quarter of 2010, when between 1.4 million and 3.6 million people owed their jobs to the Recovery Act.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3567&emailView=1

MEET MY REPLACEMENT!

[Broderick]

92. Let's roll with the low number

1.0 million jobs


How much was that stimulus again?

800 Billion? 800,000 per job?



Even if we said 2.9M jobs created. At a cost of 275,862 PER JOB!


I hope people are making that much, so we can tax the shit out of them.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MadHound]

94. First of all, what work do you think I'm up to?

Secondly, why not look at what Nobel Prize winning economist has to say
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1858317>

Third, how are the numbers of jobs created/saved calculated? That number has been in dispute for two years now, and the wildly different figures, the wildly different calculations all lead one to believe that the number is on the low side, the very low side.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/us/05stimulus.html>

And since we're only averaging creation of 50k jobs a month, while the labor force expands by 125-150k people each month, that means there's a net loss of over two million jobs since Obama has taken office.

That's not jobs gained, or saved. That's people, millions of people, in dire suffering and pain. And that's not even taking into account those who are no longer looking for work, those who are underemployed and/or underpaid.

Reality, what a novel concept.

[Safetykitten]

97. Why your talking about reality of course! That's bad.

[Demonaut]

100. Michele Bachmann said she could fix this in one quarter!

Nader/Bachmann 2012







on edit:sarcasm:

[Broderick]

105. Snicker

and gas prices will be under 2 bucks a gallon.


Nadar? Another snicker.

[TK421]

126. you are awesome!

at posting pictures

[Maven]

96. Barring some primary election miracle, we need to work like hell to get this man re-elected.

And then we need to make damn sure the next person we nominate is absolutely nothing like him.

[daa]

99. Carter = +10.3 million jobs -- Obama = -2.4 million jobs nt

[spin]

108. It's all Bush's fault. (n/t)

[jefferson_dem]

109. Largely true.

Though many here have forgotten about that fella. They have a new bogeyman in the Oval Office.

[MadHound]

112. Again, nobody denies that Bush got us into this mess,

But after two and a half years in office, and for two of those years having large Democratic majorities in Congress, this president has done very little to alleviate the suffering of millions of people. The sheer simple numerical reality of the jobs report alone is proof of that.

[spin]

114. Is there really someone new in the White House?

I voted for a man who I felt was the greatest campaigner I had ever seen in my life and since I am 65, I have seen a few. He offered hope and change and I believed he could deliver on his promises.

After almost three years I see an individual on my TV who looks like this person I voted for except that he is a little grayer. I keep hoping for change but I don't see much. The United States is still a big playground for the rich and the big corporations. The middle class is still endangered and I see a lot more poor people in my neighborhood who now are unemployed.

I had great hopes for a new healthcare program that would be less expensive and far more efficient than the one we had. We do have a new healthcare program, but my son in law and daughter's medical insurance is now more expensive and their co-pay is so high they avoid going to the doctor. My daughter paid just $27 for some antibiotics that she paid $10 for in June.

I understand that the Republicans, who after the midterm elections gained control of the House, are stopping many of Obama's plans, but we had control of both the Senate and the House prior to the midterms.

I suspect that many of the people we elect to the House and the Senate are bought and owned by the rich and the big corporations. However, I expected this very charismatic person I elected to the Presidency would use his skills and the bully pulpit of his office to rally Americans and force change.

I fully expected that Obama would become one of our truly great Presidents. He still has time to start an improvement in the economy and if he does he should easily win election.

However, he needs to get his mojo back and he needs to get it back now!

[jefferson_dem]

116. Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Your points are well-taken. Tough to quarrel with any of that. Hopefully, we'll all be on the same page soon enough.

[spin]

117. I sure hope we all end up on the same page as you suggest ...

I try to be an optimist.

[blkmusclmachine]

111. "Bi-partisanship" is a handy tool for Obama to use to cover his RW philosophy:

On Public Education, Workers, Unions, Environment, Spying, Torture, Civil Rights, Economy, Infrastructure, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Numerous Wars of Choice, Middle Class, Wall Street, Main Street, Shielding Known Criminals From Prosecution, Appointing GOP State Attorneys General (TX & UT come to mind), Continued Animosity Toward the DEM Base ... Somebody please go tell Mr. Obama that he's a closeted REPUBLICAN.

[krabigirl]

124. It doesn't matter who is president. The economy will suck for decades imo.

[roamer65]

125. How many times do we have to tell people that presidents...

do not directly control economic booms and busts? That control lies squarely at the Federal Reserve.

Easy Al Greenspan created this mess and who was he an appointee of? Raygun, Bu$h 1, Clinton and Bu$h 2.

Baron Mayer Rothschild:

"I care not what puppet is placed on
the throne of England to rule the Empire, ...
The man that controls Britain's money
supply controls the British Empire.
And I control the money supply."

[Creideiki]

127. Health CARE Reform would have been a jobs program

as it would lift the burden of caring for the workforce from employers. What we got instead was Health INSURANCE Reform which imposes burdens on individuals and employers alike and does nothing to help anything.