Posted by Tina
The Obama non-recovery recovery has resulted in lost revenue to government and lost dollars for the American people. Wall Street Journal:
Unfortunately, America is experiencing nothing like a normal recovery. Government figures show that payroll employment is still 2.9 million below the pre-recession levels and 12.7 million below what a normal recovery would have delivered. The average real income of every individual is $702 less today than five years ago and $4,837 short of what an average post World-War II recovery would have generated. Compared with 2007, federal revenues in 2012 are down 5% nominally, and down 14% after inflation.
Obama and the Democrats must change course if they want the economy to boom.
Unfortunately, Reid’s proposals don’t signal even the slightest intention to address budget problems.
Anyone who believes we’re headed in the right direction is still riding the kiddie rides at the fun park or truly wants this country to become a granny-like state.
The rest of us adults are preparing with cash on hand, survival gardens and pantries, and for our safety. This state and this country is headed for a bigger crash than its ever had. Just look at Detroit and Stockton to see the Dust Bowl of the past and what the future could be for even more cities and states.
This administration declared the Bush Recession ended in June 2009. If the actual and not massaged numbers were used this self-declared Obama Recovery is really the Obama Depression.
A 50 year old commercial.
Says you! 7.7 is a substantial improvement over the 9.8 the OA inherited.
And the Fed has announced that it will continue to buy back BushCo incipient, bad bank debt until we get to 6-point-something, somewhere in 2015.
Shit.
Libby, You like Chris are entitled to your opinions but not to your own facts. Instead of doing your fly-by sniders, how about actually contributing something to the discussion.
If the Obama actual unemployment rate was being provided by the same factors as the Reagan unemployment rate it would show it is 14.4% and not 7.8%. The method of reporting was changed in 1994 under the Clinton administration, so let’s compare apples to apples and not oranges.
Even a novice with little understanding of economics can figure out unemployment can not be dropping while the number of people looking for jobs is rising and those going on food stamps and other assistance programs is at a historical high per percentage of the population.
We are now into year four of the Obama recovery, since he declared the Bush recession over in June 2009, and experts are saying it will last thru 2015 before any real growth is seen. That’s not growth that’s failure.
Under Obama our credit rating was down graded for the first time ever, and reports are saying it will happen again. Under Reagan’s leadership our economy ranked first in the world. While Obama’s leadership and policies have completely failed and we are all suffering because of them.
“In 1988, the United States ranked first in the world in the Economist Intelligence Unit “quality of life index” and third in the Economic Freedom of the World Index.[32]”
Hey, at least we do agree on one thing. This administration really is Bull S….
Here’s the real unemployment rate
Government’s ‘headline’ statistics hide true conditions:
NEW YORK – “The real unemployment rate for December 2012 is closer to 23 percent, not the 7.8 percent reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, according to economist John Williams.
Williams, author of the Shadow Government Statistics website, argues that the federal government manipulates the reporting of key economic data for political purposes, using methodologies that tend to mask bad news.
Williams recreates a ShadowStats Alternative unemployment rate reflecting methodology that includes the “long-term discouraged workers” that the Bureau of Labor Statistics removed in 1994 under the Clinton administration.
The U6 unemployment rate is the BLS’s broadest measure. It includes those marginally attached to the labor force and the “under-employed,” those who have accepted part-time jobs when they are really looking for full-time employment. Also included are short-term discouraged workers, those who have not looked for work in the last year because there are no jobs to be had.
Since 1994, however, the long-term discouraged workers, those who have been discouraged for more than one year, have been excluded from all government data.
While the BLS was reporting seasonally adjusted headline unemployment in December 2012 was only 7.8 percent, it was also reporting the broader U6 seasonally adjusted unemployment in December 2012 was 14.4 percent.”
http://mobile.wnd.com/2013/01/heres-the-real-unemployment-rate/#GlwkSSLxk6ruDfSo.99
Obama’s Unemployment Rate:
Unemployment expected to remain high until 2015:
“In addition, policymakers believe the nation’s economic growth will be modest for the rest of 2013 through 2014. The economy is expected to grow between 2.3 percent and 2.8 percent this year, which is not enough to reduce unemployment. In 2014, the Fed expects growth ranging from 2.9 percent to 3.4 percent.”
http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/morning_call/2013/03/unemployment-expected-to-remain-high.html
Unemployment impact on American households, February 7, 2013, NY Times reports Rutgers study, Nearly a quarter layed off, Recession all consuming, Real unemployment rate:
“The following is a decent article from the NY Times except for the fact that it fails to accurately reflect the real unemployment rate. That is, the large number of people who have dropped out of the workforce, i.e., the large drop in the Labor Force Participation Rate.
Where I come from, if you are going to report the truth about unemployment and the impact on American households, you do not omit that important fact.
The unemployment rate fell by .2 percent only because the labor force participation rate dropped .2 percent to record lows.”
http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/labor-force-participation-rate-drops-to-record-low-unemployment-still-over-8-percent-2-percent-drop-in-labor-force-lowers-unemployment-rate-white-house-brags/
“Here is the acid test, the bottom line on Obama and the Democrats impact on jobs.
When the Democrats took control of congress in January 2007, the unemployment rate was 4.6 percent.
When Obama took control of the White House in January 2009, the unemployment rate was 7.8 percent.
The stated current unemployment rate is 8.3 percent.
That is job creation???
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
And that is not all.
The Labor Force Participation Rate has dropped. If that rate had not dropped, the unemployment rate would have been significantly higher.
When the Democrats took control of congress in January 2007, the Labor Force Participation Rate 66.4 percent.
When Obama took control of the White House in January 2009, the Labor Force Participation Rate was 65.7 percent.
The Labor Force Participation Rate currently is 63.7 percent.”
http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/08/05/obama-job-facts-august-5-2012-obama-lies-about-jobs-created-fewer-jobs-since-obama-and-democrats-took-control-higher-unemployment-lower-labor-force-participation/
Reagan’s Unemployment Rate:
“Prior to the Reagan administration, the United States economy experienced a decade of rising unemployment and inflation (known as stagflation).
GDP per working-age adult, which had increased at only a 0.8% annual rate during the Carter administration, increased at a 1.8% rate during the Reagan administration. The increase in productivity growth was even higher: output per hour in the business sector, which had been roughly constant in the Carter years, increased at a 1.4% rate in the Reagan years.[2]”
According to a 1996 study by William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore:[34] On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years. Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years. Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency. The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but lower in the post-Reagan years.[34]
Stephen Moore stated, “No act in the last quarter century had a more profound impact on the U.S. economy of the eighties and nineties than the Reagan tax cut of 1981.” He claims that Reagan’s tax cuts, combined with an emphasis on federal monetary policy, deregulation, and expansion of free trade created a sustained economic expansion creating America’s greatest sustained wave of prosperity ever. He also claims that the American economy grew by more than a third in size, producing a $15 trillion increase in American wealth. Consumer and investor confidence soared. Cutting federal income taxes, cutting the U.S. government spending budget, cutting useless programs, scaling down the government work force, maintaining low interest rates, and keeping a watchful inflation hedge on the monetary supply was Ronald Reagan’s formula for a successful economic turnaround.[34]
Milton Friedman stated, “Reaganomics had four simple principles: Lower marginal tax rates, less regulation, restrained government spending, noninflationary monetary policy. Though Reagan did not achieve all of his goals, he made good progress.”[51] Entrepreneurs flourished as a result of Reaganomics[citation needed]: Lower tax rates and inflation coupled with less regulation favored improved environments for market-based funding, risk-taking, access to labor (leading to greater employment), and a more level playing field between these entrepreneurs and large corporations.[citation needed]
Further, the Heritage Foundation stated, “the U.S. government must allow the entrepreneur to enjoy the rewards of success. If taxes take away most profit, then the entrepreneur will have less incentive to take a risk. If there are great restrictions on how the entrepreneur can use his profit, then there is little reason for the entrepreneur to take a risk. The entrepreneur’s courage to take a risk is what leads to new American discoveries and what drives the U.S. economy forward. Reaganomics knows this. It is one of the reasons why Ronald Reagan has reduced American taxes dramatically.”[52]
Many economists have stated that Reagan’s policies were an important part of bringing about the second longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history, and followed by an even longer 1990s expansion that began under George H.W. Bush in 1991.[25][26] This economic expansion continued through the Clinton administration with unemployment rates steadily decreasing throughout his presidency (7.3% at the start of his presidency and 4.2% at the culmination, with the lowest rate reaching 3.9% in 2000).[27] During the Reagan administration, the American economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988 (in constant 2005 dollars),[28] which reduced the unemployment rate by 1.6%, from 7.1% in 1980 to 5.5% in 1988, but with peaks of around 10.8% in 1983.[27][29] A net job increase of about 21 million also occurred through mid-1990. Reagan’s administration is the only one not to have raised the minimum wage.[30]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
Debt is a result of spending more than we take in. We can all agree on that I would hope. The best way to measure success or failure is by measuring debt to GDP ratios. In that light I give you this from an article by James K. Glassman in Forbes:
Please note that Clinton’s success was a result of fiscal restraint and reforms he agreed to when the Republicans took over the house in 1994 and the defeat of Hillarycare.
Note too that Reagan was successful despite a Democrat controlled Congress that had been dominant in the Congress for about 50 years.
“Libby, You like Chris are entitled to your opinions but not to your own facts. Instead of doing your fly-by sniders, how about actually contributing something to the discussion.”
The current rate of unemployment is not 7.7?
No, Libby it’s not when the same method of evaluation is used prior to 1994 which includes the Reagan administration it’s 14.4% and the REAL unemployment rate for December 2012 is closer to 23 percent, .
Here is a part of what I posted if you don’t want to take the time to read it all.
The U6 unemployment rate is the BLS’s broadest measure. It includes those marginally attached to the labor force and the “under-employed,” those who have accepted part-time jobs when they are really looking for full-time employment. Also included are short-term discouraged workers, those who have not looked for work in the last year because there are no jobs to be had.
Since 1994, however, the long-term discouraged workers, those who have been discouraged for more than one year, have been excluded from all government data.
While the BLS was reporting seasonally adjusted headline unemployment in December 2012 was only 7.8 percent, it was also reporting the broader U6 seasonally adjusted unemployment in December 2012 was 14.4 percent.”
The Obama administration inherited a recession. because of the banking crisis and because of the political crisis advantage he could stir up in the populace he likes to claim its the worse recession since the great depression…others think the Carter recession was worse. Others point to the 911 crisis on the heels of the Clinton recession (yes he passed one along too) made GW’s recession just as difficult. Who cares.
The point is that the policies enacted by Clinton working with republicans in 1994, Reagan with democrats in 1984ish, and GW with republicans all resulted in more robust recovery and plenty of jobs to get us back to “normal” (around 4%) within about 18 months.
The recession Obama inherited ENDED in the Spring of 2009…our economy still stinks, unemployment is still high, the only sector making money is Wall Street (1%), energy and grocery prices are high with further inflation on the horizon once Ben quits printing, healthcare insurance and health care costs set to rise dramatically next year, and there is little evidence that the Obama administration has any intention of changing course.
His promises are not reflected in reality. The “fundamental transformation” of America is right on track…shared misery is the order of the day.
And by the way, before we were shut down for over a month I was in conversation with Chris who indicated that under GWB lowering taxes resulted in less revenue in an attempt to prove you can’t get more money to government by lowering taxes. GWB gave tax cut rates to everyone and took some lower income workers off the tax rolls. Revenues to government increased every single year from 3.7 trillion in 2000 to 5.2 trillion in 2007. If you recall Pelosi took the House and Reid the Senate in 2006. In 2008 revenues to government dropped to 4.7 trillion as we fell off the world under the housing bubble.
TAX CUTS AND BUSINESS FRIENDLY POLICIES SPUR PRIVATE SECTOR GROWTH AND RESULT IN MORE REVENUE TO GOVERNMENT BECAUSE OF THE GROWTH. If our legislators lowered the rates, canned excessive unnecessary regulation, and managed the money responsibly we could pay down the debt without great harm to programs.
Oh, and by the way…there would be plenty of JOBS!
One more thing. Revenue to government under Obama:
2008 2.5 trillion (Bush Obama)
2009 2.1 trillion
2010 2.2 trillion
2011 2.3 trillion
2012 2.5 trillion
The economy is slogging along. the stock market is doing okay partly due to the cash Ben Bernanke is pumping out.
Can there be any question as to why the unemployment numbers remain high?