June Job Numbers Round Out A Weak 2nd Quarter for 2012
After decent growth averaging 226,000 nonfarm jobs a month in the first quarter of the year the 80,000 jobs created in June made for a second quarter average of just 75,000 jobs. Job growth is far less than needed to even keep up with population growth. Job growth was below expectations again.
There's almost no good economic news coming out lately and the Employment Situation Summary follows that pattern. The mild winter pulled a lot of jobs forward contributing to a lower job growth quarter but the entire economy is still feeling the drag from uncertainty in Europe as well. The only good news lately it seems is that gasoline prices have been falling for several weeks in a row. Even that trend seems to be reversing itself slightly this week.
There are a couple of positive things in the BLS report. Hourly wages and average workweek both grew in June. Discouraged workers decreased by 161,000 as well. You know it's a bad report when those things seem to be the only good news.
Parts of Europe are already in recession it seems like, and some economists are suggesting the US entered a recession a few weeks back. On the other hand the housing market continues to hit bottom and some economists are growing more positive about improvements there. Housing will dramatically improve the economy if we can avoid a full blown recession this year.
As of now the economy isn't hurting President Obama's chances for re-election since it is still growing. It's just not giving him that extra boost folks like myself were hoping it would. Polls aren't showing a large amount of blame for the slow economy being placed on Obama's shoulders but he's looking for ways to take positive credit, not just for folks to remind us it's not all his fault.
Obama will need to frame a clear vision for what four more years of his administration will mean for the future economy compared to Romney's vision. He'll have to keep asking folks if they want to move forward with the people who gave us policy that turned the recession around and prevented a depression or return the same set of folks to power that oversaw this mess to start with.
Posted by Adam Ducker at July 6, 2012 9:21 AM
What occurs to me is that what the Republicans aren’t saying about what they intend to do is more important than what they do say.
Their message has constantly been to say that the stimulus didn’t work. Why? Because if it did work, people would ask for more of it. Conservative movement would have reached the threshold of its own recession.
Most independent economists, though, say it worked. The CBO, a research arm of Congress and not the White House, says it worked.
Ah, but the bad press continues. Socialism, Failure, Solyndra (never mind how well the rest of the solar industry’s doing). Rather than propose alternative policy, they loudly bash Obama’s policies.
But then what do they do? They go to the old standbys. Taxes, deregulation, destroying social programs.
The problem is that as Republicans blame the decline of our fortunes on high taxes, big government, and those lucky duckies getting all our money, The Rich they want us to feel so badly for are doing better than they ever have, especially in comparison to the rest of us.
If they keep on doing better, and that’s not working wonders for the rest of us, why is the is the better alternative? Just because? In a Democracy like ours, the responsibility for shaping the government is substantively with the citizens. We can be distracted or decieved by those better off and more powerful than us, but the choices remain with us. When we voted our interests, we were rewarded with a society where we were better off. When we started getting too worried about corporate bottom lines, we stopped doing so well and started seeing the Middle Class’s fortunes decline.
The trouble is, now, that we have the small government Republicans promised us, employing no more people in non-defense capacities than it did in Reagan’s time. But a great amount of the smallness of our government has come in the form of a corrupt emphasis on the benefit of a few politically connected folks at everybody else’s expense. Republicans talk about crony capitalism and Solyndra, and the individual, nameable nature of the scandal helps keep it going.
What about their cronyism with Exxon Mobil, BP, and dozens of other energy companies, shaping a policy that made these companies rich at our expense?
What bout their cronyism with the Pharmaceutical companies? When they rewrote the laws and changed the way the FDA regulated drugs, that alone helped them make millions at the expense of the health of millions of Americans. That’s not even to speak of the billions they make now because Bush and the GOP voted in a drug program that made it illegal for the Federal Government to do what every other healthcare provider does with drug companies: bargain.
On the other side, how about the decision to expand Medicare coverage by administrating the new funds with private insurance companies, who have turned out to be inefficient with taxpayer funds, costing much more than Medicare takes to deal with the same funds. Billions of dollars a year have gone to subsidize those companies, giving folks no benefit for that taxpayer cost.
How many billions did Republicans push to defense contractors for weapons systems we have no enemy to make necessary?
Big lies, big cronyism, big deficits they were content to rationalize until a Democrat got into office.
And when they get back in there? Nothing. Republicans protesting the corruption under pre-1994 Democrats arguably made things worse with their need to be eager to please with businesses. An economy that was growing fast under clinton saw its growth cut in half, with job creation suffering even worse, even if you don’t count all the job killing that accompanied his two recessions.
And what is it that Republicans want to do, if you really ask them? Continue the same policies, and create more along the same lines.
The rich got theres, obviously. The rest of us are expected to muddle along until things get better on their own.
Ah, but that’s not what they’re going to lead with. They’re going to lead with “the other guy’s a failure.”
The problem for Republicans is that although growth is anemic, it’s there, and the previous recession is over. People remember the last guy actively making things worse. Obama’s worse crime, is not making things better quickly enough.
How can you enthusiastically sell benign neglect in a climate like this? Obama can sell benign interventionalism, because that’s what people want. At the end of the day, Republicans are at a disadvantage, as they can neve truly give poeple what they want, and what they want, at best, is to purposefully do what they’ve forced Democrats to do for the most part: nothing.
I believe the American people want politicians to lead, follow or get out of the way on repairing the economy, and Republicans are poised to do none of the above.
3.5 years Stephen and what has YOUR PEOPLE done? You had 2 years to get job bills passed but NOOOOO YOUR PEOPLE had to get a unpopular H.C. bill passed. A stimulous bill that did almost NOTHING, debt in excess of 15 trillion, and you have the gaul to blame Republicans. Stephen when are you going to admit your liberal policies suck. Above 8% enemployment for almost as long as YOUR MAN took over. Get out of your haze your policies SUCK.
Sure will be glad when the election is over. This constant “blame Bush” and “hate the rich” rhetoric won’t be missed at all.
I wouldn’t fret too much over the numbers, they will get better as we get closer to November.
Hell, even if a miracle happens and Romney somehow wins, it will only slow the leftist path we are on, not end it.
I know it will seem weird to you to be condemning numbers you now paint as rosy, but hey, at least you guys would have another “stolen election” to preach about again.
phx8, I was looking for a good laugh, thanks for providing that with your link to Maddow’s laughable attempt to create a ‘case closed’ condition on the stimulus. Lord knows that had there not been a stimulus there never would have been a recovery. All the recoveries in the past that happened without such a stimulus were all flukes…
BTW, I can make those same charts show that after the Mark-to-Market rules were finally relaxed in the spring of 2009 and billions of dollars were put back on the ledgers of the banks who could now start lending money again is when things started turning around, but would you buy it? I doubt it… So why do you think these say something that YOU want it to say when it could apply to both things?
Well I’ve heard a steady drumbeat that jobs numbers were being faked by Obama so he could get re-elected. These not so great numbers don’t quite support that.
Not to worry - Kctim is out early insinuating that the cooking the books is being pushed back closer to the election.
So I’ll just say this: A Romney presidency will definitely lead to total depression and if it appears otherwise it will all be an elaborate scam with falsified data.
This is exactly the playing field Rush the right wing media have established for Obama.
By your logic, we shouldn’t trust antibiotics, because people got better without them sometimes, right?
Let me pose another question. You say that the change in accounting rules was responsible. Okay. But did lending pick up appreciably in 2009 and 2010, enough to fuel a turnaround?
First, 9 trillion of that debt came from Republican administrations, who Republicans at the time did not openly question about their fiscal policies, even when they almost immediately turned a surplus into deficit.
Second, of that new debt, much of it comes off of Republican Policies and Republican spending increases.
Third, we started out with the Stimulus, a job creating bill. Political pressure to reduce spending, though, meant we have to wait and see on the ultimate effects. Your people, though, never waited, and don’t even want to look at the statistics. Besides, we started on Healthcare in Late Spring of 2009, but Republicans stalled us in endless negotiations about their votes, stringing us along on false promises of delivering filibuster breaking votes. The delays allowed the Healthcare townhall debacles to occur, and the delays and everything took things up to March 2010. Even so, the stimulus was still in effect, and the other side was refusing one again, much less one so soon.
On a final note? You really need to get your argument out of middle school rhetoric. Our policies are policies that have gotten things back to where we first found them. We need to do better than that, but at least that’s better than the policies that left us in the hole we’ve had to struggle out of in the first place. No amount of unpremised demands for agreement will change that.
Get off the blame someone else for YOUR PEOPLES screw ups. You sound like a little kid, Stephen, It’s not my fault, It’s all George’s fault. YOUR MAN don’t know what to do about the economy and you know it. Maybe 9trillion came from Republicans but YOUR PEOPLE drove up the debt faster then they did. Some of that 9 T was from a Democrat admin. because Bush only raised it 5 T. in 8 years and YOUR MAN did it in 3 years. That is total BS about the H.C. YOUR PEOPLE had a majority in both houses, tell the truth YOUR MAN had to buy votes from from some of YOUR PEOPLE to get it passed. YOUR POLICIES SUCK all YOUR PEOPLE want to do is TAX and SPEND. I’d agree with raiseing TAXES if the economy was better.
By your logic, we shouldn’t trust antibiotics, because people got better without them sometimes, right?
That certainly wasn’t my ‘logic’, perhaps you aren’t actually getting what I’m saying…
There is no proof that the stimulus did anything more than not having a stimulus would have done. There is some evidence that other things (like the mark-to-market rules) had a much bigger effect.
With antibiotics, we used science, reasoning and proof (though many years of trials, etc) to determine how they work, why they work and what their limitations are.
We have NOT done this with the ‘stimulus’, evidence sits on different sides of the argument and we do not KNOW what the effect was, if it exists at all.
Because of that, your attempt to link a scientific based factual result of the effect of antibiotics with the unscientific attempt to use cause/effect to make a proof is anything BUT logic…
You say that the change in accounting rules was responsible. Okay. But did lending pick up appreciably in 2009 and 2010, enough to fuel a turnaround?
If you remember the ‘panic’ was that businesses would fail because they didn’t have the ability to borrow to make daily expenses. There is some argument as to that being a good way to run a business, but TARP was needed to combat this. Remember, though, that once the rules relaxed, most banks gave back the TARP funds they had been given because they weren’t needed anymore. Had the rules been relaxed then, TARP wouldn’t have been needed at all, other than to help win the election (which is did) for the Democrats…
So yes, lending did pick up but better than that, banks were able to operate without government help AND in better financial position than they were when the market collapsed with the rules in place that wiped all of that money from the books.
surplus into deficit
There was never a ‘surplus’.
And Stephen, once Obama was elected and the House and Senate were controlled by Democrats, anything that was law before from ‘Republican administrations’ could have been altered, changed, ended, etc. At that moment, in January 2009, every dime spent and borrowed from that point is on their hands. Attempting to blame Republicans for what you fail to change is pathetic and turns most people who you may convince to vote for you off.
Sure I’m getting what you’re saying. If something has recovered naturally at some point, then your logic says we MUST let it recover that way. People can recover naturally from bacterial infections, therefore we MUST let them recover naturally.
You say there’s some evidence that the mark to market rules improved things. Two things: the natural test for that would be increased lending. Did that occur? Second, even if that did help, there’s a hidden price for that, in the form of more inaccurate accounting, which in essence was our trouble in the first place. So, really, it was a quick fix, but not necessarily a wise decision.
Additionally, you leave out the action of the Fed in basically buying trillions of dollars worth of bad real estate assets off the hands of the banks. You tell me, mark to market or not, wouldn’t your bottom line improve, too, if you had all the underperformers bought out of your portfolio, dollar per dollar?
We can argue that the Stimulus made a few hundred billion dollars worth of difference that year, and then the next. This in spite of the effects of more than 650,000 layoffs in the public sector. The predicted unemployment was going to be something like 11.5% it was ultimately just 10% By contrast, a recession half as bad, Reagan’s, reached 10.8% before cresting.
Besides, the Stimulus was designed for a smaller recession itself, so in essence it fought greater forces than it was designed for, and still made an economically significant dent in our current situation.
Besides, playing games with deregulation is how we got into this mess in the first place. The problem was a failure of trust in Wall Street’s assets, which turned into a bank failure when we let Lehman Brothers collapse. Now it’s no longer a bank problem, they’re doing moderately well again if they don’t screw it up. No, the real problem is that you have millions chronically out of work, but that’s not something you’d actually do a thing to resolve, because that would be too liberal.
As for comment 347913, let ask this: if Obama and the Democrats actually got the votes to shut down the Iraq and Afghanistant Wars, the Medicare Drug Benefit, and the Bush Tax cuts instantly the moment he got into office, would you recommend this at a time of financial crisis?
I read all the reasons why our economy is not recovering faster but the bottom line is…it isn’t. The party in power and the president must take the blame, one can hardly blame the party out of power. Reps have controlled the house since 2010 but can’t get most legislation past the senate.
Four years is enough time to test new economic policies and, they are not working. The drug has been administered and the patient is still sick.
Let’s add a couple more thoughts:
“47% Consider Obama’s Political Views Extreme, 31% Say Same of Romney”
“Housing Predictor: 10 Million Foreclosures Through 2012”
“As of now the economy isn’t hurting President Obama’s chances for re-election since it is still growing. It’s just not giving him that extra boost folks like myself were hoping it would. Polls aren’t showing a large amount of blame for the slow economy being placed on Obama’s shoulders but he’s looking for ways to take positive credit, not just for folks to remind us it’s not all his fault.”
No, he’s looking for ways to pass the blame to anyone else.
“Obama will need to frame a clear vision for what four more years of his administration will mean for the future economy compared to Romney’s vision. He’ll have to keep asking folks if they want to move forward with the people who gave us policy that turned the recession around and prevented a depression or return the same set of folks to power that oversaw this mess to start with.”
I have an idea, why don’t Obama run on “Hope and Change”. Oh, sorry, been there done that. Okay, how about “are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?” Oh crap, can’t use that one…
I don’t think we can handle another 4 years of socialism, JMHO.
Royal, remember the dems controlled the congress for the last 2 years of Bush’s presidency. So the dems have had control for almost 6 years; considering Reid blocks the House bills from coming to thefloor of the Senate.
The Obama doldrums continue. It is like sailing in the horse latitudes when we have Obama as captain.
C&J, the link doesn’t work.
Republican policy is ineffectual and naive. That simple. Those who argue that slow growth is argument for a change, should have to answer this question: what has improved about Republican policy since you were in office?
As it turns out, Republican insistence on being harder on consumer debtors may have played a role in setting this crash in motion.
As for foreclosure?Recently plunged to a five year low, after bankers were forced to pay a settlement The REALTYTrac numbers from three years ago. How useful!
What, do you want Obama to do more?
Here’s the thing: Your entire plan to create more jobs, reduce foreclosures, save the world, etc. is pass our agenda wholesale, and angels will come down from heaven and bless us with prosperity for doing things like conservatives want.
That’s all. Follow the Agenda of those who halved growth coming off of Clinton, who created only a little over a million jobs net, and eight million gross in the same time Clinton created twenty million with hardly any months of lost jobs, and we’ll magically do better.
It is not unreasonable to ask people to seek out better alternatives when the alternative at hand isn’t working, but A)they have to be better, and B) the first alternative, given the circumstances, has to be truly obnoxious.
It’s not. This socialism **** is just a figment of the diseased imaginations of a right-wing punditry afraid to see an end to the nice run of holding power they had.
More to the point, Republicans have done their plum best to sabotage any and all measure Obama could take to make the economy better, on the grounds than anything they let through would give him credit, and credit would give him a second term. In a wierd, obnoxious sort of way, the situation we’re dealing with now is very much their responsibility. Obama could do more, but they did their level best to tie his hands.
And if you say, no, we didn’t tie his hands, I can show you the eighty percent of bills your side killed.
It’s time to once again repudiate stupid and naive policy. And by that, so no wiseass with pretensions to cleverness can say differently, I mean the Republican policies, which have been built on the now discredited notion that if the rich get richer than ever, they’ll give us all jobs. Well, they’re richer than ever, and unemployment is still at 8%.
Stephen, YOUR PEOPLE had 2 years to get the economy better, but what did they do, go after a H.C. bill that was unpopular to a majority of people. Pass a stimulous that had little effect on the economy. But YOUR MAN did give his Union buddies a boost by bailing out GM and Chrysler. He got Bin Laden but if it wasn’t for Clinton and Bush that would have never happened. How many months now of 8%+ unemployment. Yet you still blame Republicans. Democrat Liberal policy SUCKS. When is it not going to be Republicans fault, and Democrats take responsibility for their own failed policies? It’s been over 3 years now Stephen, that YOUR MAN has been in office.
SD wrote, “Obama could do more, but they did their level best to tie his hands.”
Thank God the reps did tie his hands. Without that, we would be more trillions in debt and still no relief.
SD is all caught up in the old dem maxim…throw money at a problem and all is fixed.
The dems have poured trillions of dollars into the war on poverty. Do we have more or less poverty today?
The dems have poured trillions into entitlement programs. Do we have more or fewer people dependent upon government largess?
Dems have poured many billions into education. Are we better or worse educated?
The dems have poured many billions into our big cities. Are they mostly prospering or failing?
Dems have poured billions into job creation schemes…do we have more jobs or are we stagnant or even worse, if true unemployment is the measuring stick?
Dems have passed thousands of useless and job killing regulations. Are we better or worse off?
SD and his lib friends wish to live in the past while most thinking Americans are dealing with today and tomorrow. obama has a plan to spend more money. Wow…what a plan. More pain for working Americans, more wasted money to buy $400,000 make-work jobs, more debt that soon must be repaid and more socialism foisted upon the American public.
Stephen thinks that more money equals more result. He thinks that if we spend $10 more we get more than $10 in value. Of course, he seems to believe this only about government.
KAP: “Get off the blame someone else for YOUR PEOPLES screw ups.”
So what should Obama have done to better clean up the steaming pile of poo your folks left for him?
C&J: “The Obama doldrums continue.”
Remember that time Reagan created 1 million jobs simply by being Reagan? The guy who raised taxes and grew the debt? Your problem and KAP’s is you give no credit to Obama for things that he has done right and expect him to take the blame for all the things he hasn’t been able to fix just 3 years after the worst economic conditions of our lifetime so far.
Kctim: “I wouldn’t fret too much over the numbers, they will get better as we get closer to November.”
Yes, another way apparently that Obama is a failure is that he failed to cook the books better so everything is more rosy. He also couldn’t take the layers out of his PDF when he faked his birth certificate. The man is clearly incompetent and in over his head.
Billinflorida: “Okay, how about ‘are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?’ Oh crap, can’t use that one…”
Remind me again how folks are worse off now than four years ago.
Royal Flush: “Thank God the reps did tie his hands. Without that, we would be more trillions in debt and still no relief.”
Yes, because as we all know Republicans are very good at controlling spending.
We would give credit for what Obama has done right, we just are not sure what that is. The Obama line, that it would have been worse, is not easily demonstrated.
IF we had done nothing, it would have been worse. Nobody was advocating doing nothing. We believe that a more able president would have done thing better.
Consider the real record. President Obama expended much of his political capital on passing a health care bill that a majority of Americans did not like. Was this the most urgent thing he could do? Was setting off a divisive debate in the first part of his term a smart move to get the country moving?
I know you blame Republicans for not jumping on the Obama band wagon, but we have the example of Reagan, Clinton and even GW Bush who faced terrible opposition and yet managed to craft policies that brought some of the opposition on board.
Obama just screwed up. He didn’t understand the economy or the use of his power.
Rather than accept this, you guys keep on telling us his failure was not his fault. People who succeed don’t need to make such excuses.
C&J: “Nobody was advocating doing nothing.”
Is that right though? Folks on Watchblog have quoted the insane ramblings of Peter Schiff who advocated doing nothing. It used to be easier to tell the kooks from the mainstream in the Republican party.
“We believe that a more able president would have done thing better.”
Any clues on what that might be? I can’t recall anyone on Watchblog being able to tell us what Obama should have done differently other than drop out in 2008 and endorse John McCain.
Adam, Simple, JOBS, ECONOMY, THEN H.C. Getting people working would have emproved the economy then work on H.C. Maybe then more people would have been more receptive to Obama. But wasting 2 years on a H.C. Bill that a majority of people dislike was ignorant.
Billinflorida: “Okay, how about ‘are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?’ Oh crap, can’t use that one…”
Remind me again how folks are worse off now than four years ago.
Posted by: Adam Ducker at July 7, 2012 2:06 AM
Uh, that’s a tough one Adam: perhaps unemployment above 8% for 3 years, loss of wages, loss of personal wealth, industry production down, loss of jobs, increased taxes, and inflation.
I’ll tell you what Adam, why don’t you contact the Obama administration and suggest that Obama run on the ticket “are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?”
By the way Adam what has the “Campaigner in Chief” done for the economy? Failed stimulous, bailed out his union buddies, spent half a billion on a bankrupt green energy company, 8%+ unemployment, a H.C. law that is full of TAXES. What else Adam?
There have been several times when the Democrats on WB have accused the Republicans of being obstructionists in the Congress, for not rubber stamping Democrat Bills. It has been brought out that all Bills are stuffed full of amendments and objectionable added laws. This doesn’t matter to the left, because they still consider this as obstructionism. Well here is a good example:
“A tiny amendment buried in the federal transportation bill to be signed today by President Barack Obama will put operators of roll-your-own cigarette operations in Las Vegas and nationwide out of business at midnight.”
I don’t smoke, so I don’t really have a dog in this fight; but this is a perfect example of loaded Bills. With the stroke of a pen on a Transportation Bill, Obama put a lot of people out of work. I would doubt it was a Republican who added the amendment. It would more likely be a Democrat, who wants to control more American lives. But the point is, if Republicans had blocked the Bill because of this amendment; the news would have been, “Republicans Obstruct Transportation Bill”.
Fast and decisive action was taken while George Bush was still president. The Fed expanded the money supply. In fact, this is what stopped the free-fall of the economy.
Re a more able president - I have real trouble explaining this. I myself have run diverse operations. I have observed others doing it in politics, business and the military. I have tried to figure out what separates the great, from the good from the poor. It is like the Supreme Court definition of pornography. You know it when you see it.
Great leaders often appear to be lucky. Things just go well for them more often. Bad leaders often appear to be working harder. But they lack vision and the knack of getting the RIGHT things done.
I don’t know if McCain would have done better. We cannot know. But I observed in Obama many of the prime characteristics of a bad leader. He lacked experience but thought he knew more than others. This was exacerbated by his ability to articulate what looked like big visions but were not actionable. He was and is a near perfect campaigner for that reason. I will also touch the third rail here (and you can attack if you want) but he was greatly helped by his race. It is very difficult in our current reality to criticize an articulate black man. I think this is one reason why his confidence seems to exceed his competence. He does not possess real leadership skills and did not have to develop them because of his protected status.
When you have changes in leadership, you can see changes in behaviors all around. When lots of things go wrong and lots of things seem to be the fault of others, it is usually the leadership that is to blame.
There is a poster I say showing a chain with a broken link. The caption said, “the only thing consistent in all your failed relationships is you”. According to the Obama folks, lots of people are out to get him. Maybe there is a reason.
I have my doubts that McCain would have been a good president. He was of the Republican establishment mindset that it was his turn. Which I totally disagreed with.
Obama “talked the talk, but couldn’t walk the walk”; he was the first black man to run for president, who actually had a chance and nobody wanted to be the one who voted against the black guy. He used his race to get in the WH; he ran on a ticket that he would do away with racism; and he has been the cause of setting our country back 50 years when it comes to racism. If Romney was to create an politica ad aimed at white people and say as Obama did in a new Obama-endorsed ad aimed at blacks, which began running nationally this week, features a narrator telling the audience that it’s time to stand up and “show the president we have his back”; how would the left have received the ad?
Obama has been the most derisive president to ever sit in the WH. He has completely lied when it’s comes to his promises of being a uniter and not a divider.
Those pesky facts:
“In 2010, influenced by the Tea Party and its focus on fiscal issues, 17 states elected Republican governors. And, according to an Examiner.com analysis, every one of those states saw a drop in their unemployment rates since January of 2011. Furthermore, the average drop in the unemployment rate in these states was 1.35%, compared to the national decline of .9%, which means, according to the analysis, that the job market in these Republican states is improving 50% faster than the national rate.
Since January of 2011, here is how much the unemployment rate declined in each of the 17 states that elected Republican governors in 2010, according to the Examiner:
Kansas - 6.9% to 6.1% = a decline of 0.8%
Maine - 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6%
Michigan - 10.9% to 8.5% = a decline of 2.4%
New Mexico - 7.7% to 6.7% = a decline of 1.0%
Oklahoma - 6.2% to 4.8% = a decline of 1.4%
Pennsylvania - 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6%
Tennessee - 9.5% to 7.9% = a decline of 1.6%
Wisconsin - 7.7% to 6.8% = a decline of 0.9%
Wyoming - 6.3% to 5.2% = a decline of 1.1%
Alabama - 9.3% to 7.4% = a decline of 1.9%
Georgia - 10.1% to 8.9% = a decline of 1.2%
South Carolina - 10.6% to 9.1% = a decline of 1.5%
South Dakota - 5.0% to 4.3% = a decline of 0.7%
Florida - 10.9% to 8.6% = a decline of 2.3%
Nevada - 13.8% to 11.6% = a decline of 2.2%
Iowa - 6.1% to 5.1% = a decline of 1.0%
Ohio - 9.0% to 7.3% = a decline of 1.7%
On the other hand, the unemployment rate in states that elected Democrats in 2010 dropped, on average, as much as the national rate decline and, in some states such as New York, the unemployment rate has risen since January of 2011.
This is yet another example of how the so-called “blue state” model is not working.”
What were the libs saying about Republican policy?
Do you reckon Obama will be trying to take the credit?
KAP: “Simple, JOBS, ECONOMY, THEN H.C.”
The problem with your continued insistence that healthcare somehow came at the expense of the economy is that it ignores reality. Obama’s first actions were taken to fix the economy. His next actions were taken while the economy was recovering. By the time it was clear ARRA would not have the impact hoped your side had already voted in a congress full of tea bagging idiots.
Bill: “Uh, that’s a tough one Adam: perhaps unemployment above 8% for 3 years, loss of wages, loss of personal wealth, industry production down, loss of jobs, increased taxes, and inflation.”
Unemployment will most likely be lower in November than it was when Obama took office. It’s the same now. Industrial production is actually way up from where it was when Obama took office. Inflation is only slightly higher. Taxes are lower. GDP is up. The markets are up. More private sector jobs have been created than lost under Obama. People are buying houses again. People are buying cars again. Your problem is you think that by listing things that are worse that somehow cancels out all the other things that are better. Things are better for Americans now by a long shot and all you have to measure to see that is how hard folks like yourself have to spin to make things look bad.
KAP: “By the way Adam what has the ‘Campaigner in Chief’ done for the economy? Failed stimulus, bailed out his union buddies, spent half a billion on a bankrupt green energy company, 8%+ unemployment, a H.C. law that is full of TAXES. What else Adam?”
The results speak for themselves. See the list above I gave to Bill.
Frank: “He used his race to get in the WH…”
That’s hilarious, Frank. Yes, everyone knows how you get that extra boost at the polls by being a black man running for president. Romney may try black face to get that bump.
Bill on state unemployment:
Unemployment in states has been falling for years. You’d need a little more to go on than simply saying Republicans or Democrats took office in January 2010. Looking at the drop from election day to today doesn’t say anything about the policies of the governors in office. It’s one thing to point out the drop. It’s another to suggest the cause. The only thing pesky there is your logic.
Adam, You and Stephen related? Unemployment lower by November? You better hope so, because if it isn’t Obama is in deep crap? You have a list of achievements, must be a short list because I didn’t find it. Besides what achievements you give there are 10 failures.
“The problem with your continued insistence that healthcare somehow came at the expense of the economy is that it ignores reality. Obama’s first actions were taken to fix the economy. His next actions were taken while the economy was recovering. By the time it was clear ARRA would not have the impact hoped your side had already voted in a congress full of tea bagging idiots.”
What arrogance; Obama had 2 years to do something and the only thing he did was shove Obamacare down our throats. This is what caused the Congress to be infiltrated with “tea bagging idiots”. Hmmm, that would be about 60 of them I believe; and why don’t you tell us about the “idiots” who voted them in; or perhaps the 17 states (from previous article) who gave their governorships to Republicans in the same year. I especially like this one, “his next actions were taken while the economy was recovering”. What recovery??? Oh, you must mean when Obama was telling the American people “YOU…ARE…RECOVERING…UH, UH….FROM THE GREATEST ALMOST WORST DEPRESSION SINCE THE…UH, UH, GREAT DEPRESSION”, by the way it was read from the official presidential teleprompter.
Bill: “Uh, that’s a tough one Adam: perhaps unemployment above 8% for 3 years, loss of wages, loss of personal wealth, industry production down, loss of jobs, increased taxes, and inflation.”
“Unemployment will most likely be lower in November than it was when Obama took office.”
Unemployment was 7.6% when your messiah took office; last month it was 8.1% and this month it’s 8.2%. You better get working on the numbers, their going the wrong direction.
“Industrial production is actually way up from where it was when Obama took office.”
A play on words Adam; the best the index can do is down at least 5% since Sep 2007. Projections are 95.7 in November.
“Recent values (16 May 2012)
• Previous peak: Sep 2007, 100.9
• Previous trough: Apr 2009, 82.8 (down 18% from peak)
• Apr 2012, 95.8 (still down 5% from peak)
“Inflation is only slightly higher.”
Inflation numbers are fudged and you know it;
“The Bureau of Labor Statistics lies.
Inflation numbers are intentionally manipulated to keep cost-of-living numbers low.
If the average chief executive officer cooked balance sheet numbers the way the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates the Consumer Price Index, the CEO would be in jail, even without Sarbanes-Oxley reporting standards.
Why does the federal government lie about inflation?
Again, the direct answer is simple.
Telling the truth about inflation would require the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates and that would be bad for economic growth.
Besides, hundreds of billions of dollars in government entitlement payment outflows depend on the inflation number.
For instance, federal law mandates that Social Security checks increase thanks to “cost-of-living adjustments,” or COLAs, that are supposed to compensate for inflation.
So, higher inflation numbers cost the federal government millions more in increased Social Security payments.
But when the Bureau of Labor Statistics intentionally rigs the Consumer Price Index calculations to low-ball the inflation rate, Social Security entitlement payments are kept level.
As a result, retirees quietly lose billions of dollars that should have been paid out, had the cost of living numbers been reported honestly. But the government saves the expense.”
Go here to read how the Feds cook the books on inflation:
“Taxes are lower.”
Is Obama going to extend the Bush tax cuts again? Do you have inside information that he will; if not, then taxes will go up. Not to mention the Obamatax taxes that kicks in. Sorry Adam, taxes increase
“GDP is up.”
GDP is down and projected to go further down through the end of 2012.
“The markets are up.”
Markets don’t mean a thing; too much can affect them. Not an accurate read of the economy.
“More private sector jobs have been created than lost under Obama.”
Last month 80,000 private sector jobs created and 87,000 people filed for SSI disability. That’s 7,000 in the hole. 80,000 won’t put people to work and by the way, that number is also going down.
“People are buying houses again.”
“ People are buying cars again.”
Not a good indicator, cars wear out and have to be renewed.
“Your problem is you think that by listing things that are worse that somehow cancels out all the other things that are better. Things are better for Americans now by a long shot and all you have to measure to see that is how hard folks like yourself have to spin to make things look bad.”
Your problem is you are trying to “make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear”, you are trying your best to make Obama look successful. He is an idiot and his policies have failed, and it’s time to fire him. You need to get out of that little liberal bubble you and SD live in and see the real world. Things are not good for America, unless you are talking about the 50 million on food stamps.
Adam, I am fast putting you in the idiot column with Stephen Daugherty. You say, ” Unemployment in states has been falling for years.”
Unemployment numbers peaked in 2010, you know, when Republican governors were elected. Here is the chart from the BLS:
Perhaps you could provide some proof that unemployment numbers were falling in states prior to 2010? If not, I will have to assume you and SD are twin brothers.
You are trying to say that states did not follow national unemployment graphs. What an idiot.
It appears to me that both SD and Adam were cloned from an obama scab. How else could they possibly write the lies they do? obama speaks…they write it down. No thought process required. A breath of fresh air to them would be an obama fart to us.
Maybe it’s just me… It appears that Bill is willing to excoriate you AND the BLS in one breath, and in the next use the BLS to prove his own point.
It’s fun watching conservatives try to talk up Republican Governors while at the same time denying the economy is improving, at Obama should receive no credit. Good times! I love it! Pass the popcorn!
So you think anybody speaking of seeing better numbers is only accussing Obama of cooking the books? Mighty defensive position for the Obama can do no wrong crowd.
Don’t know if you care or not, but record numbers of people have retired or have simply given up. Tons of people have been going to school. The summer months are when hiring of college grads is high.
The public sector has been shedding jobs, but alot of states are doing better and employment is going to pick up.
The travesty known as the ACA requires a ton of employees.
The ONLY “conspiracy alert” you can toss around is that the media is going to hype like crazy all the way up to November. THAT is something I do believe.
Bill: “What arrogance; Obama had 2 years to do something and the only thing he did was shove Obamacare down our throats … What recovery???”
When Obama took office we were losing an average of 761,000 jobs a month in the three months prior. We had lost 4.4 million jobs in just 12 months. In the 4th quarter alone before Obama took office GDP grew at -8.9%. The recession ended and the economy started growing again. Just because you find fault in the strength of the recovery doesn’t mean you get to say there is no recovery.
“Unemployment was 7.6% when your messiah took office; last month it was 8.1% and this month it’s 8.2%.”
Actually unemployment was 8.3% at the first measurement taken after Obama took office. The BLS reference week for January 2009 is before Obama was sworn in. He’s not my messiah though, by the way. I have a messiah and he’s not President Obama who I simply voted for and I believe has done a good job given the cards he was dealt.
“A play on words Adam; the best the index can do is down at least 5% since Sep 2007. Projections are 95.7 in November.”
A play on words? You didn’t ask how we were in 2007 at the peak. You have to reset your range in order to make Obama look like he’s failed to get it up over the previous peak now. Moving the goal posts? None of this is completely Obama’s doing of course but the simple truth is (like many economic indicators you try and ignore) when Obama took office the index was way down and today it’s back up near it’s peak.
“GDP is down and projected to go further down through the end of 2012.”
I’m not sure what you mean by down. GDP growth certainly slowed midway last year but it’s been growing since then. GDP reached a new high exceeding pre-recession values a few quarters ago and any quarter there is not negative growth is a new peak.
“Last month 80,000 private sector jobs created and 87,000 people filed for SSI disability. That’s 7,000 in the hole. 80,000 won’t put people to work and by the way, that number is also going down.”
Actually I’m not citing 80,000 nonfarm but 84,000 private sector which excludes the -4,000 loss in the government sector. Private sector jobs were hit the hardest of course since there’s many more of them. We’re still 4.4 million jobs in the hole there from the start of the recession and 84,000 will not cut it, I agree. But as far as being better off under Obama, he has seen a net increase of 160,000 these jobs during his term.
“Markets don’t mean a thing; too much can affect them. Not an accurate read of the economy.”
… Not a good indicator, cars wear out and have to be renewed.”
Right. Of course not. Cars. Houses. Jobs. Markets. GDP. Pfft. What do they have to do with the struggling economy anyway, right? You’d prefer to cite only those that make your case that our economy is in the crapper and President Obama is jiggling the handle.
“Inflation numbers are fudged and you know it…”
Just like with unemployment numbers, you folks on the right always seek to adjust measurements of key indicators like inflation so that it looks as bad as possible and then you call that “true unemployment” or “true inflation” and you actually take the time to suggest I’m the one in a bubble. Funny stuff. Don’t cite World Net Daily if you want to look like you’re making a rational, fact based argument.
“Unemployment numbers peaked in 2010, you know, when Republican governors were elected. Here is the chart from the BLS”
What is strange is that the chart you linked shows you’re wrong. Remember that the election was November 2010 and new governors took office in January 2011. Unemployment peaked Oct 2009, 13 months before the election and 15 months before any new governor took office.
“Perhaps you could provide some proof that unemployment numbers were falling in states prior to 2010?”
BLS breaks it down by state: http://www.bls.gov/lau/
Now for the data based on your list of states. A few states did peak in 2010 but not a single state peaked after the election or after the governor took office. The argument is just faulty.
Kansas: Peaked July 2009, 18 months before
Maine: Peaked Jan 2010, 12 months before
Michigan: Peaked Aug 2009, 17 months before
New Mexico: Peaked Aug 2010, 6 months before
Oklahoma: Peaked Jan 2010, 12 months before
Pennsylvania: Peaked Mar 2010, 10 months before
Tennessee: Peaked June 2009, 19 months before
Wisconsin: Peaked Jan 2010, 12 months before
Wyoming: Peaked Oct 2009, 15 months before
Alabama: Peaked Sep 2009, 16 months before
Georgia: Peaked Oct 2009, 15 months before
South Carolina: Peaked Nov 2009, 14 months before
South Dakota: Peaked Dec 2009, 13 months before
Florida: Peaked Jan 2010, 12 months before
Nevada: Peaked Oct 2010, 4 months before
Iowa: Peaked Sep 2010, 5 months before
Ohio: Peaked July 2009, 18 months before
“Adam, I am fast putting you in the idiot column with Stephen Daugherty.”
Right, call me the idiot after you cited information multiple times that proved your argument wrong. You do understand that simply citing a source does not make you right? You need that source to actually show you’re right? Right?
You can start the personal attacks all you like but you’re wrong and you just don’t know it. I don’t think the economy is great and it’s certainly not great this quarter. But is it better now than it was when Obama took office? Yes, in many more ways than not. In November will it be better than it was four years ago? We’ll have to wait and see.
You seem to be attacking the messenger here. I’m not the one crying about fomulas every month like the right does. As you know I write every month at least about jobs. Every month it’s the same thing from the right on WB. Any negative number is cheered and promoted and any positive number is shot down as “fudged” or phony and we’re given the “true” value which involves changing the formula some way in order to make it look worse for Obama. The trouble is the right, like Bill, want to mix and match these new values. Whether you change the way you calculate inflation or unemployment when you measure it the same way at two time periods you get the same result: An economy in recovery that has been slowed by a crappy housing market and a series of shocks overseas.
Adam, I’m not one for polls or numbers, I observe what is going on in my surroundings and from what I see the numbers and polls are full of Crap. When I go to the grocery store the first 2 weeks of the month the shelves are picked clean by those who are on food stamps and that is a good indication of the number of people who need government assistance and a good indication of how the unemployment figures are full of crap or at least don’t tell the whole story. After retirement I tried to get a part time job, even McDonald’s wasn’t hireing. I remember long lines at lunch at those places like McDonalds, not anymore. Now in the summer months you would figure road crews would be out fixing our Highways, but in my area not as much as in past years and some of the roads I have traveled are in need of repair. I live in a subburb of a major city that is going broke because industry has left and now tries to rely on Gambiling to draw people but even that isn’t doing to good because people don’t have the funds. YOUR PEOPLE say the economy is recovering? BULLS**T!!!!!
KAP: “I’m not one for polls or numbers, I observe what is going on in my surroundings and from what I see the numbers and polls are full of Crap.”
From that statement it’s clear you base your information on anecdotal evidence and that’s not very useful in my opinion. If I did the same in my area I’d tell you the economy was fantastic. Rogers Arkansas has some of the lowest unemployment in the nation, gas prices are $3.16 a gallon, the housing market is rebounding, and business is good. We know the reality lies somewhere outside of what you and I can observe just in our back yards.
“YOUR PEOPLE say the economy is recovering? BULLS**T!!!!!”
Remember that recovering doesn’t mean recovered. It would take years even with a robust recovery and this one has been anything but robust. Millions of Americans have gone back to work since the recession ended but millions still are going to keep feeling the pain for quite some time.
Over the weekend we heard Obama and his surrogates trying their best to spin bad numbers to sound good. This is the same thing Adam Ducker and the rest of the libs are doing. Obama talking heads spin…WB liberals spin.
80,000 jobs added last month and 87,000 filed for SSI disability. 80k jobs is nothing, it don’t even make a dent in the unemployment.
Obama out there over the weekend talking credit for the states that have increased jobs and dropped unemployment, thank you Republican governors for improving the states; the Obama taking heads pushing how Obama helped certain states (the ones with Republican governors); and the WB liberal talking heads pushing the Obama success in certain states. How come the Democrat liberal states didn’t have the same success? How does Obama help one state over another or better yet, why would Obama help Republican run states? Wouldn’t Obama’s policies help all states; but why is it that only Republican run states improved?
“Now for the data based on your list of states. A few states did peak in 2010 but not a single state peaked after the election or after the governor took office. The argument is just faulty.”
The data shows the states improving under Republican governors; but you can’t handle the truth, can you Adam?
Adam, 7.3% unemployment in Rogers Lowell area is still not good. If you consider that fantastic, I wonder what you would call phenominal? Gas prices $3.16 a gallon is lower than my area but still way to high. Like I said I live in a subburb of a major city while my little area is doing great outside of it is bleak. When you have to rely on Casino’s to draw people is not what I would call growth. I can go out and poll 1000 people in my area and the numbers would favor Obama because my area is predominitly Democrat. So numbers to me mean nothing because it depends where and whom they polled. That is why I rely more on observings than Polls.
You can complain that we don’t create jobs, but when save millions of jobs, your complaint is that they were Union jobs? **** that. Jobs are jobs, regardless of whether they’re politically correct. One thing is for sure: if it had been up to Mitt Romney and his pals at Bain Capital, those would have been LOST jobs.
Republicans have opposed simple, straightfoward, paid-for measures to increase employment. They’ve killed jobs in the public sector by hundreds of thousands, setting back the recovery. Their job killing is why we’re not below eight percent yet. Their refusal to allow the President the opportunity to stimulate the economy again and get people back to work is what has us in this position.
You can overcapitalize all the words you want to, but a job creating plan whose immediate focus is on killing jobs is a contradiction in terms. Yet that is what your Tea Party Leaders have inflicted on us with the Debt ceiling deal they forced.
You can’t celebrate tying his hands, then ask why he wasn’t doing more.
As for throwing money at people, let me ask you a question, what else are your tax cuts supposed to be doing? You gave the rich trillions of dollars, but never attached any job creation strings to that tax break.
Our approach is little different in a fiscal sense, in terms of the fact that we’re spending money out of a deficit in order to stimulate the economy. The main difference is that you just hand the money to the rich folks and go, okay, you don’t have to do anything or actually employ anybody, but it would be niced if you did it, hmm?
Didn’t work out that way, and we have the dismal job record to prove it.
Democratic Party antipoverty programs cut poverty in half. Our education system was doing relatively well outside the inner cities, before Republicans like yourselves started your program of standardized test strangulation, aiming to get sectarian schools vouchers as you “proved” the other schools unworthy.
You chip away at programs, chip away at job creation, do your level best to undermine any kind of policy change from that which got us into trouble, but then you turn around and criticize us for not succeeding.
Kind of a racket. The truth is, sometimes throwing money at a problem doesn’t help. But the only economic recovery you can get for free is one that takes decades while deficits remain and economic progress remains behind.
I think you have to choose how you spend the money wisely. Not all spending is equal. But what I also believe is that there’s no such thing as a free lunch.
What is your plan? How predictably close to the GOP’s standard, Bush-Era agenda plan is it? I think it would probably be pretty close. More cutting down of environmental regulations, more free room for Wall Street to play its gams.
Yeah, more of what I saw during the Bush years.
All Republicans seem to do these days is fail miserably, or when deprived of power, sabotage everybody else’s policy and criticize them while doing it.
You smugly, arrogantly condescend to us about how terrible Obama was about the economy after eight years of supporting the nations worst economic leader since Hoover.
You wonder why I dig in my heels. Why should I accept criticism from those who see no irony or hypocrisy in their charges of incompetence?
Your argument smacks of ignorance of how such an Amendment would come to be in the bill. The rider would either have to be, at the very least, passed by a majority vote of whatever house it was in, if not passed through committees.
You’ve decided it could only be Democrats, and while I wouldn’t rule that out, I wouldn’t rule the GOP out, either. We pay a ****load of taxes on cigarrettes and other such items in Texas- it’s a sin tax as they call them, and even in GOP-controlled Texas, they pass them, as nobody can say that preventing smoking is a bad thing.
You’re looking at things through a very narrow lens.
Averages are dangerous things. Kansas, Maine, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota saw their unemployment decline slower than they did for the nation as a whole. So you have 13 states that saw better increases.
How many of them remain above the national average? Michigan, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, and Nevada. Five to twelve.
How many are related to the energy industry, a factor that would exist independent of election of Republican Governors? Four: Olkahoma, South Dakota, Pennsylvania, Wyoming.
How many could have been helped by the resolution of the Auto industry problem by Obama? Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin. Three.
In fact, let’s take a look at something here: What were the reductions from peaks in 2009 to 2011?
If the idea is somehow things are getting better just because of GOP Governors, let’s make sure there isn’t some other cause behind it.
Kansas- Peaked at 7.6%, July 2009. 7.0% by Dec. 2010. .6% difference, vs. .8%
Maine: peaked at 8.4%, Dec 2009 to Mar. 2010. 8.0% by Dec. 2010. .4% improvement vs. .6%
Michigan- Peaked at 14.2%, Aug 2009. 11.2% by Dec. 2010, a difference of 3.0% vs. 2.4% (Yes, you were recovering faster before Snyder)
New Mexico- peaked at July to Oct 2010 at 8.0%, 7.8% by Dec. 2010 .2% difference, vs 1.0%
Oklahoma- peaked at 7.2% Dec. 2009 to Feb. 2010, 6.4% by Dec. 2010, .8% difference vs. 1.4%
Pennsylvania- Peaked at 8.7% Feb.-Mar. 2010, down to 8.1% by December 2010. .6% difference vs. .6% (No difference)
Tennessee- Peaked at 11% Jun-july 2009 down to 9.6% by Dec. 2010, a difference of 1.4%, vs. 1.6%
Wisconsin- peaked at 9.2%, jun/july 2009, down to 7.8% in Dec. 2010, a a difference of 1.4% vs. .9% (You were growing jobs faster under Walker’s predecessor!)
Wyoming- peaked at 7.5%, Oct 2009 to jan 2010, down to 6.4% by December 2010, a difference of 1.1% vs. 1.1% (no difference)
Alabama- peaked at 10.6%, Sep 2009 to dec 2009, down to 9.3% by December 2010, a difference of 1.3% vs. 1.9%
Georgia- peaked at 10.5%, oct 2009 to Jan 2010, down to 10.2% by December 2010, a difference of .3% vs. 1.2%
South Carolina- peaked at 12%, nov 2009 to dec 2009, down to 10.7% by December 2010, a difference of 1.3% vs. 1.5%
South Dakota- peaked at 5.3%, dec 2009 to feb 2010, down to 5.0% by December 2010, a difference of .3% vs. .7%
Florida- peaked at 11.4%, jan 2010 to feb 2010, down to 11.1% by December 2010, a difference of .3% vs. 2.3%
Nevada- peaked at 14.0%, Oct 2010, down to 13.9% by December 2010, a difference of .1% vs. 2.2%
Iowa- peaked at 6.3%, nov 2010, down in December 2010 to 6.2%, a difference of .1%, vs 1.0%
Ohio- peaked at 10.6% july 2009 to jan 2010, down in december 2010 to 9.2%, a difference of 1.4% vs. 1.7%
So, the differences on your list run like this
1) Kansas: +.2%
2) Maine: +.2%
3) Michigan: -.6%
4) New Mexico: +.8%
5) Oklahoma: +.6%
6) Pennsylvania: No difference
7) Tennessee: +.2%
8) Wisconsin: -.5%
9) Wyoming: No difference
10) Alabama: +.6%
11) Georgia: +.9%
12) South Carolina: +.2%
13) South Dakota: +.4%
14) Florida: +2.0%
15) Nevada: +2.1%
16) Iowa: +.9%
17) Ohio: +.3%
In only 13 states on your list is there actual improvement. The two flagship Tea Party States, Michigan and Wisconsin have slowed in their improvements! Pennsylvania and Wyoming have improved no faster than they were before.
Of those states, 4 (Kansas, Maine, Tennessee, South Carolina) only grew at an additional .2% on top of what they were growing before. That’s not terribly impressive, especially considering that we have an improving economy that could explain that.
So you have nine states with improvement more significant than that. If you exclude states whose improvement was .5% or less, you lose Ohio and South Dakota. Ohio’s growth can be explained like the other rustbelt states by the rejuvenation of manufacturing under Obama, and South Dakota, which never left full employment to begin with, can only explain its ridiculously low unemployment because of its Oil and Gas Boom.
Seven states, then. three of them continue even now to be above the national average: Florida, Nevada, Georgia. Why should Republican Governors be boasting, especially when Republican Governors preceded them?
Okay, four then:
New Mexico, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Iowa. Iowa peaked at 6.3%, Oklahoma at 7.2%, New Mexico at 8.0%, and Alabama at 10.6%. Oklahoma is beneficiary to the oil and gas boom, and Iowa never strayed far from complete employment.
So, you have New Mexico and Alabama.
You talk about me befuddling people with BS, but that’s what this list amounts to.
It includes states that never had a real recession to recover from, States in the Midwest that obviously benefited from Obama’s Bailout, and whose growth has slowed under the Tea Party Governors. It includes states that are playing catchup to the national unemployment rate even now. It includes states benefiting from external factors like Oil and gas booms, states that have experience no increase in job growth from more liberal policies.
It also includes states whose increases are slight at best.
In short, it’s propaganda produced by people who never expected the liberals confronted with it to go in and actually compare and analyze things. It feels intimidating at first, but underneath, it’s crap.
Let’s take the claim about the Democratic States.
California- December 2010: 12.2%, 10.8% now- 1.4% decreases
That’s more of an improvement than many on the list, and this from a Republican Governor!
Connecticut- December 2010: 9.4%, down to 7.8%, 1.6% improvement. Again, a better improvement than most Republican governors on the list.
New York, is doing worse, but it’s the only turnover state that was that bad.
Minnesota, which was as bad as 8.3% at the height of the recession is now down at 5.6%, down from 7.0%, an improvement of 1.4%
Virginia has improved from 6.5% to 5.6%, consistent with average improvements of .9%
Hawaii has improve from 6.7% to 6.3%, but in fairness, 6.7% isn’t that bad.
Vermont improved from 6.1% to 4.6%, an improvement of 1.5%. Again, better than most of the Republican improvements.
As for your more general claims, yes, the jobs started coming back in 2010. Unemployment started going down in earnest in APRIL, several months before the Republicans were elected. In fact, we’d add almost a million jobs that spring alone. Then from October to April 2011, we saw an unbroken stretch of job creation, averaging about 184 thousand jobs a month. By some strange coincidence, as the Republicans took us through that God-Forsaken debt crisis, we saw the job numbers drop down to the double digits, and they didn’t come back up until September 2011. From there to Spring of this year, we got about 196,000 jobs a month.
Now the big thing threatening jobs isn’t added regulations. It isn’t holding banks accountable, or reducing the cost of healthcare. It’s either an external debt crisis overseas made worse through austerity measures that didn’t live up to their promise, or its going to be that austerity your people are about to force on us in this coming year.
I think both Adam and I follow these charts much better than you, and we don’t make the false assumption that people start governing six months prior to their election.
What’s it going to be now, some magic confidence factor?
Bill: “The data shows the states improving under Republican governors; but you can’t handle the truth, can you Adam?”
Sorry, Bill. You cited data thinking it proved your point without noticing it actually disproved your point. I think we both know which one of us can’t handle the truth.
KAP: “Adam, 7.3% unemployment in Rogers Lowell area is still not good.”
Rogers is actually at about 5.6% according to Google. I’d say that’s pretty good.
“That is why I rely more on observings than Polls.”
I don’t mean to sound like I’m personally attacking you but I have to say that explains why your view of the state of the economy and the nation in general is so distorted.
Adam, Polls can be distorted as well as say unemployment figures. Drive around my area of the country called the rust belt Pa, Ohio, Michigan and see the places closed down and deserted factories, major cities which once had close to a million in population now have barely 400k. Police and fire and rescue personnel being laid off because of lack of funds. No Adam distorted is not what it is, it is REALITY.
Stephen, Your right jobs are jobs but picking and choseing what jobs live or die is not the answer to creating them.
KAP: “Adam, Polls can be distorted as well as say unemployment figures.”
Distorted by those reporting the numbers perhaps. There is no motivation for a poll to be distorted or unemployment numbers to be fudged as some have said. There are only differing measurements and methodologies and that’s why you look at a large number of polls or economic indicators to determine the status of such things.
You can complain that we don’t create jobs, but when save millions of jobs, your complaint is that they were Union jobs? **** that. Jobs are jobs, regardless of whether they’re politically correct.
Stephen, it was tax dollars that bailed out the unions and the union pensions and in return, the unions used member’s dues to funnel back to Obama’s re-election campaign. Gm and Chrysler should have been allowed to go through the process. Obama didn’t bail out all companies, just some; the ones who benefited him. Our complaint is that Obama didn’t give a rat’s ass about GM or Chrysler, or the investors or bondholders; he only cared about his union buddies. You’re wasting your breath trying to convince us that it was for the corporations.
“Republicans have opposed simple, straightfoward, paid-for measures to increase employment.”
Stephen, you’re a complete fool; would you like to tell me one single thing that the government does that is “paid for”?
“Democratic Party antipoverty programs cut poverty in half. Our education system was doing relatively well outside the inner cities”
Again Stephen, you are a fool: Why have we been fighting poverty and throwing money at it for the past 65 years and still the is poverty. In fact poverty is worse now than it was 65 years ago. A record 50 million on food stamps in America. The Democrats control education in the inner city school districts, because the democrats control the cities. The Republicans control rural school districts. So I wonder why the school systems outside the inner cities are “doing relatively well”? Stephen, you are such a dingbat.
Averages are dangerous things.”
You know what Stephen; averages are a dangerous thing, polls are a dangerous thing, and BLS numbers are a dangerous thing…if they are being presented by a conservative; but if it’s you or your socialist friends quoting them, they are good thing.
Concerning you’re comments on state unemployment or increased jobs; to this I say BS. You are again wasting everyone’s time by doing the very thing you accuse conservatives of doing; trying to twist the facts to show an advantage to Obama. To you and Adam Drucker I say, Obama has had nothing to do with any improvement in the economy. He’s done nothing for states and he’s done nothing for the country. He is trying to claim an improvement that he had nothing to do with and you are trying to make him look like he knows what he’s doing. Sorry, but that dog don’t hunt. Everything Obama has done has actually slowed done recovery, and I know you will hate to hear this of one of your patron saints, but Obama is like FDR who did nothing to help the economy, in fact FDR’s policies extended the problems and if we had not gotten involved in WWII, the economic problems would have lasted even longer.
Stephen, I will continue to say; reading your posts are like reading the talking points of the left. Whatever Obama says, his talking heads repeat, and then you say the same things. You have no original thought, you cannot debate, and you are not near as smart as you think you are. You simple repeat what someone else says.
Adam, You and Stephen must be related. You say distorted by those reporting the numbers like say the MSM, the presidents people, and those that want a bleak report to look rosey? Adam there are things in those government reports that are left out, you know it and so do I so lets quit with the Bulls**t and spin. The economy sucks, job outlook sucks, and Obama’s policies suck.
So which is it Bill? The economy hasn’t improved? Or it has improved but Obama’s not responsible? Obama’s done nothing for the states and the country? Or Obama’s done things that have hurt the states and the country? There is no recovery? Or there is a recovery and it’s been slowed down by Obama? You seem to be all over the board this time.
We know there is a recovery and the economy has turned around dramatically since the recession bottomed out. Some of that is due to Obama’s policies. Some of that is due to the Fed. Some is just because we have a resilient population and economies bounce back. There’s a lot of factors. The primary question is are you better today than you were when Obama took office? You have to ignore a large amount of data to the contrary to suggest as you have that things are not better.
KAP: “You say distorted by those reporting the numbers like say the MSM, the presidents people, and those that want a bleak report to look rosey?”
That’s why I like to write about the numbers instead of quoting the reporting on the numbers. If I’m going to spin I’m going to spin from the source and not just spin someone else’s spin.
“Adam there are things in those government reports that are left out, you know it and so do I….”
They weren’t getting the investors necessary to do Chapter 11, so doing things your way meant liquidation under Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.
You can take your “union kickbacks” theory and stick it. It’s a bitter, bitter attempt to avoid acknowledging one of the most positive success stories of the Obama Administration, not just in the fact that we didn’t lose GM or Chrysler, but in the fact that we haven’t had to keep their asses on life support, either, spending tens of billions of dollars every few months to avoid a disastrous collapse. Obama’s intervention didn’t keep GM on the government dole, but moved it quickly back to independence.
As for poverty? Just look at what the numbers were before your people broke the system. I’m not lying. I know you always assume it, but I don’t lie about these things. You know why? So I can enjoy seeing folks like you squirm, and go into denial.
As for the inner city problem? Look up “White Flight”. Money can’t buy students happiness, but a collapsed tax base can really screw things up. How cutting funds, laying off teachers or closing schools will save students… well, you talk about competition, but most of what I’ve heard about is teaching to the test (which means a lot of rote information that doesn’t sink in), or Administrators cheating in order to get the bonuses and other stuff.
Meanwhile, your side is pushing the whole vouchers line of BS, which has me thinking that improvements you’re talking about are kind of besides the point. Sectarian groups seem to be the most interested in the voucher system, which is kind of interesting, because it allows them to further separate their children from everybody else in society.
I wonder why they’re doing that, if they think their values are so compellingly correct?
Stephen, I will continue to say; reading your posts are like reading the talking points of the left. Whatever Obama says, his talking heads repeat, and then you say the same things. You have no original thought, you cannot debate, and you are not near as smart as you think you are. You simple repeat what someone else says.
So interesting that you have to insist. Did some talking head tell me to go out and dissect the actual numbers? No. I did that myself, painstakingly going through each state’s unemployment numbers, comparing them with your numbers. I didn’t simply take somebody’s word for it, not even Adams! I went further than he did, way into the weeds of the job numbers.
Nobody told me to do this, it just came as a hunch to me, because I knew that the central crux of your point, the impression you’re trying to give, is that all this magnificent growth is magnificent, and is the result of putting Republican Governors, in particular Tea Party Governors into office.
But what do the facts say when we look closer? That job numbers are now recovery more slowly in Wisconsin and Michigan than they were before! That nothing’s changed in Pennsylvania and Wyoming. That in three of the seventeen cited states, job growth is slower than it is for the nation in general!
Why are we just learning these things now? Because the people who did this work made a first order assumption and went no further. That assumption is that this all represents impressive growth, and that Republican governors must be responsible. They didn’t do actual comparisons between what these states started with and what they got afterwards. They didn’t look at what other factors like energy, the Auto industry rescue and whatever else might have changed the employment scene.
No, they made what we could call a propagandists mistake. They went no further in developing their argument than what would give an emotional kick. If they knew what they were doing, they’re liars, if they did, then they were sloppy, and wrong in their inference on many levels.
Now you say all this stuff about me, but you know what you’re really saying? “I can’t match Stephen Daugherty on the facts, on his command of the information that tests the truth of my arguments, so I’m just going to insist over and over again how bad he is at it, and hope somebody agrees before they read too much of what he has to say”
Your BS is an admission of defeat, a concession to the need to discredit the opponent. Since you don’t counter any of my assertions, you can only bluster out generalities. You can tell the folks who are drowning by their thrashing, and you thrash like nobody else on this site.
Keep on sticking it to him. Let’s leave him doing nothing but decrying liberal bias, because he needs everybody’s pity to win.
Which is it Adam Left wing sources or what Obama says like Stephen spins or Independent sources. Must be the left wing sources because if someone on the right produces a government source or independent source you and Stephen debunk it. Like the real unemployment figures that should include those who gave up and those underemployed, the TAXES hid in the H.C. bill just to name a couple.
It always seems like you’re arguing based on other people being hypocrites. You seem to be trying to push people into oversimplified gotcha points.
Look at what I do as an alternative. I don’t try to deny things have gotten worse in New York, but I instead show counter examples from states that went Democratic.
I don’t just SAY that his sources twist the facts, I demonstrate where his assumptions are false, pointing out where unemployment is still greater than the national rate, where growth was faster under the previous administrations, where Obama’s efforts on GM and Chrysler’s behalf can explain a greater part of the growth.
You, by contrast are always aiming your point at the people you’re arguing against. You’re doing a kinder, gentler version of what Billinflorida does.
The question is not whether I’m debunking it, it’s whether my debunk is right. If it’s right, you might not like it, but it’s the truth. Do you ever bother to verify any of my points before just dismissing them on account of the fact you feel we aren’t giving you or them the hearing you think you deserve?
KAP: “Like the real unemployment figures that should include those who gave up and those underemployed…”
Underemployment is different than unemployment but BLS measures both. It’s not missing from any reports. Obama’s critics love unemployment because they get to say “real unemployment” is actually much much higher than regular unemployment. In fact underemployment is always about 1.8 times higher than unemployment when times are good or bad. That’s why whether you look at unemployment or you look at underemployment you see both have declined from their highs. The right goes wrong when they start with unemployment then toss in underemployment to make it look like unemployment is twice as bad as anyone lets on.
Stephen Daugherty said:
“You can take your “union kickbacks” theory and stick it. It’s a bitter, bitter attempt to avoid acknowledging one of the most positive success stories of the Obama Administration, not just in the fact that we didn’t lose GM or Chrysler, but in the fact that we haven’t had to keep their asses on life support, either, spending tens of billions of dollars every few months to avoid a disastrous collapse. Obama’s intervention didn’t keep GM on the government dole, but moved it quickly back to independence.”
Okay Stephen, let’s look at GM; your side loves to taut the success of GM and how GM is doing great and paid back their loans, right?
GM was into the union pension plans for 10’s of billions of dollars or in other words, GM was in debt to the unions. Payment for “the debt was only part of the automaker bailout package. Through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the Treasury gave GM $49.5 billion, most of which was converted into an ownership stake in the form of stock. Through this equity stake, the government still owns 61 percent of GM.”
Secondly, did the bailout money go for the unions? Yes it did, in the amount of 10’s of billions:
“The UAW was a significant factor in the automakers’ decline: It had raised Detroit’s labor costs 50 percent to 80 percent above other automakers, such as Toyota and Nissan. In 2006, General Motors paid its unionized workers $70.51 an hour in wages and benefits. Chrysler paid $75.86 an hour. Added to mistakes by management, these labor costs were a major reason the automakers went bankrupt.
However, through the bailout, the Obama Administration insulated the UAW from most of the sacrifices unions usually make in a bankruptcy—at taxpayer expense.
GM and Chrysler owed billions to a trust fund they had created to provide UAW members with gold-plated retiree health benefits. In bankruptcy, these funds should have been paid proportional to other unsecured creditors. Instead, while the Administration paid other creditors only a fraction of what they were owed, it gave the UAW trust fund assets worth tens of billions—including partial ownership of both companies. The U.S. Treasury should have received these assets.
Bankruptcy law also enables reorganizing companies to improve their post-bankruptcy situation by renegotiating union contracts to competitive rates.
If the UAW had been treated normally under bankruptcy law, the automakers’ average labor costs would have fallen to the same levels as the foreign-based carmakers, approximately $47 an hour. While this is still 40 percent higher compensation than the average manufacturing worker, it would have reduced UAW members’ standard of living. And the Administration wouldn’t allow that. So while the UAW accepted huge pay cuts for new hires, the Administration kept the pay structure of existing UAW members at GM intact.
Even Stephen Rattner, President Obama’s “car czar,” has admitted that “We should have asked the UAW to do a bit more. We did not ask any UAW member to take a cut in their pay…
Instead, more than $26 billion went out the door and into the UAW’s pockets. Let’s put that in perspective: The amount of the subsidy given directly to the UAW was bigger than the budget of the entire State Department. It was bigger than all U.S. foreign aid spending. It was 50 percent more than NASA’s budget.
None of that money kept factories running. Instead, it sustained the above-average compensation of members of an influential union, sparing them from most of the sacrifices typically made in bankruptcy—a bankruptcy they contributed to. President Obama engaged in special interest spending at its worst.
The Administration did not bail out GM and Chrysler. It bailed out the United Auto Workers.”
“The Treasury Department estimates that taxpayers will lose $23 billion on the auto bailout. Sherk and co-author Todd Zywicki find that none of these losses came from saving jobs, but instead went to prop up the compensation of some of the most highly paid workers in America. They write:
“We estimate that the Administration redistributed $26.5 billion more to the UAW than it would have received had it been treated as it usually would in bankruptcy proceedings. Taxpayers lost between $20 billion and $23 billion on the auto programs. Thus, the entire loss to the taxpayers from the auto bailout comes from the funds diverted to the UAW.”
Read their full article here:
Next question Stephen; did GM pay back the $49.5 billion? Answer, yes and NO:
They paid back cash, but the taxpayers still own 61% of GM stock.
“The Wall Street Journal reports that Treasury is beginning to admit the truth. Treasury claims the source of the funds was “clearly disclosed” all along. Well, that might be technically true. However, to understand the disclosure you have to be a sophisticated investor with time to pore over the fine print buried in massive SEC filings and government reports prepared by independent watchdogs with teams of auditors. The average citizen, on the other hand, just sees the GM CEO saying that GM has paid back the taxpayer “in full.” The truth is that GM originally received over $49 billion from the US government and many billions remain to be recouped. That is why we were told at the Senate Finance Committee hearing that TARP losses related to the auto companies are expected to exceed $30 billion.
The timing of this maneuver also is troubling. The administration’s so-called Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee, a TARP excise tax intended to recover TARP losses, was the subject of the Finance Committee hearing. The Office of Management and Budget, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, estimate that overall taxpayer TARP losses will exceed $100 billion, and the auto companies will account for over 30 percent of that amount, more than $30 billion. So why does the president exclude the auto companies from his TARP excise tax proposal? I raised this issue at the hearing. I noted that GM refused to testify. The next day we learned that GM, with the permission of Treasury, withdrew billions from the TARP escrow fund and accelerated the repayment of the entire GM TARP loan. Immediately, GM and the administration launched a public relations campaign touting “repayment.”
Regardless of the motive, this situation is a perfect example of the shenanigans caused by excessive government intervention in the economy. Being honest with the American people is not optional. The sooner these extraordinary entanglements between taxpayers and the private sector are over, the better.
U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa is the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee and a senior member of the Judiciary and Budget Committees.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/23/did-general-motors-really-repay-taxpayer-bailout/#ixzz20An7QPCt
Question, does Obama profit from bailing out the UAW? Yes he does:
“Labor union’s have lavished big bucks on the presidential campaign of Barack Obama since January of 2007 and only a piddling amount on the campaign of presumptive Republican nominee John McCain.
On the eve of Labor Day, a Times analysis of Federal Election Commission data shows Obama scooped up $8.1 million from union political action committees through July 2008 while McCain garnered just $54,100 from organized labor and employee PACs so far in this presidential election cycle.
The all-or-nothing bet unions are placing on Obama repeats the strategy of heavily backing Democratic candidate John Kerry in the 2004 election.
“There is that huge split because there is a huge split in what Obama and McCain represent,” said Tom Balanoff, President of Chicago-based Service Employees Union Local 1. “Barack Obama understands the needs of working families.”
During and immediately after the primary season, SEIU political action committees were by far the largest organizational contributors to the Obama campaign, dropping a combined $7.26 million in his campaign war chest.
Of all the political action committee donations made to the Obama campaign, 89.3 percent were from unions. Of all the political action committee donations made to the McCain campaign, just 2.9 percent came from unions and employee PACs.”
Should we believe anything has changed since he bailed them out?
Final question; is GM selling vehicles?
Yes, China is their #1 client and #2 is Obama forcing the government to buy GM cars and trucks.
“They paid back cash, but the taxpayers still own 61% of GM stock.”
You seem to have liked this figure so much you repeated it twice in your post.
Unfortunately it’s wrong.
Had you bothered to check your sources you would have noticed your “facts” were more than two years old. The Treasury owns 30% of GM and they are not involved in the day to day running of GM and haven’t been since before it came out of bankruptcy.
“The UAW was a significant factor in the automakers’ decline: It had raised Detroit’s labor costs 50 percent to 80 percent above other automakers, such as Toyota and Nissan. In 2006, General Motors paid its unionized workers $70.51 an hour in wages and benefits. Chrysler paid $75.86 an hour. Added to mistakes by management, these labor costs were a major reason the automakers went bankrupt.”
GM was the largest manufacturer of cars in the world from 1939 to 2008.
Do you really think GM got to be #1 by paying “average” manufacturing wages?
GM and the UAW bargained in good faith, and as a point of fact, most of the problem GM had was with the pensions plan, not with the current employees.
As of last month GM was working on a “lump sum” payout to those retirees on their pension. The move would be a significant cost cutting measure for GM.
BTW, GM sold over 9 million cars last year, VW the next competitor sold 8.5.
Let’s start with the assumption about how much those workers are taking home: those assumptions are based on misleading figures obtained not by averaging actual worker wages and benefits, but by dividing hours worked by today’s workers by ALL costs associated with labor, including the healthcare and other costs associated with RETIRED workers as well. Retired workers, who I might add, contributed much to the company’s earlier profitability in order to earn those benefits.
The wages, to put it plainly, are not 70 dollars typically about about 28 dollars, with maybe ten dollars worth of benefits added on. Guess what? According to the linked article, foreign auto maker plants in the US pay almost as much to their workers. So your side exaggerates for the purposes of effect once again.
What I thought was especially cute was how you badmouthed the automakers in the process of its recovery. Nice thing to do, politicize rescuing an industry. We may take a loss on it, we may not. But they are making record profits at this point, and if they don’t pay us back with a full repayment of the loans, they’ll pay us back by being a going concern for the next few decades, rather than a hole in American employment and corporate culture.
You guys can’t seem to handle anybody supporting their own interests instead of yours, particularly labor interests. You expect people making maybe a few tens of thousands of dollars a year to content fairly with multibillion dollar corporations to set their wages and benefits in the marketplace. I think that’s either incredibly naive, or a disingenuous argument by those who know that American workers will suffer, and don’t care.
We cannot support a top heavy economy, where most of the economic activity is supposed to come out of the top few percent. People need to earn enough to afford on a cash and carry basis the basic necessities. Credit ought to be something you only have to rely upon for big purchases, not something you have to rely upon in order to eat and purchase consumer goods on a regular basis.
By continually passing burdens onto Americans, and forcing them to pay for them out of less cash, by making Credit a necessity for dealing with expenses, rather than an option, the financial policies of the past few decades have created our current system, with overleveraged Americans who can’t even afford to deleverage themselves and support a consumer economy at the same time. Finance is swallowing up too much of a share of America’s wealth, when finance is supposed to be a support industry, not a main money maker. People should be making money mainly by doing real world business, real world commerce, not betting in the stock market like it was a day in the horse races.
Your attitudes are indicative of a culture that claims that the biggest liabilities are the labor force. But since you can’t do practically any business without relying on those people, it seems to be a rather abstracted, unrealistic way to look at things.
I don’t see why. We’re not getting sold those cars, the Chinese are. We’re talking hundreds of thousands of vehicles. Should GM be selling fewer cars there?
The problem with unions is NOT the money paid to workers. It is the silly union rules that hinder good management of the workforce and misallocate resources.
Unions lock decision into a static system. They make it difficult to reassign workers, changes tasks or introduce labor saving technologies. The UAW is unenthusiastic about introducing machines that will increase productivity, since it inevitably means fewer UAW members. Ultimately, all wealth depends on productivity, which means less input creates greater output. The long term goal should be to require fewer workers and smaller resources to make each car.
When our country was founded, most people were involved in agriculture. Today, we produce many times as much food as we did 200 years ago, but we do it with fewer people. The same long term trend is at work in industrial processes. The goal is to produce autos with almost no auto workers. This means that the once mighty UAW just will not matter very much. I can understand why they get upset about this, but imagine if farm workers had a strong union back in 1865 that kept out better methods. We would have lots of farm workers and a much poorer society.
Stephen, just curious, and I don’t really know the answer to this question; but there are a lot of complaints about US corporations who have moved their businesses overseas, which allows them to keep profits in foreign countries (some say as much as $2 trillion). There has also been the complaint that foreign companies (i.e. Toyota/Honda/VW/etc.) send their profits back to their home countries. My question is, will GM, who has sent part of their production to China, keep their profits in China, to avoid paying taxes in the US, or will they bring those profits back to the US?
They already have. It’s part of their bottom line.
Some technology saves labor, and some just pushes it to the side. The long term goal should be to create a product whose value sells well.
Of course, you haven’t answered one key question: How much labor-saving can you do before people are unable to buy the products you’re selling?
Programming good judgment is a lot more difficult than people think. Simple processes will get automated easier, more complicated processes will require more thought, either on the front end or the back end.