what the public needs to realize...

Cancel 2016.2

Cancel 2016.2

The Almighty
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/do...oving-forward-9-reasons-why-it-really-doesnt/

Except the data show a recovery in reverse, headed the wrong way.

1. More jobs were created per month last year than this year (and pitifully few in both years). Since the start of the year, job growth has averaged 139,000 per month vs. an average monthly gain of 153,000 in 2011. At this year’s pace, it will take 11 years to bring the unemployment rate back down to 5%.

2. Back in 2009, the incoming Obama administration predicted sub-6% unemployment in 2012 if Congress passed the $800 billion stimulus plan. Instead, we’ve had 43 straight months of 8%-plus unemployment. And that high level of sustained joblessness is likely contributing to a deterioration in the U.S. labor force and higher structural unemployment.

3. The labor force participation rate is lower today than at the start of the year, and lower than at the start of 2011. Yes, the economy has created private-sector jobs every month for the past 30 months, since February 2010. But during that span, labor force participation has continued to drop. If the participation rate were the same today as it was in February 2010, when the job market supposedly bottomed, the unemployment rate would be 10.1%.

4. The unemployment-population ratio, which looks at what portion of the working-age population has a job, is also lower today than it was at the start of the year and seems dead in the water:

As JPMorgan economist Michael Feroli argues:

The more comprehensive employment-to-population ratio ticked down to 58.3%; this measure is a mere 0.1% above its cycle trough, indicating that once one takes account of population growth there has been essentially no progress in repairing the labor market after the recent downturn.

5. Average hourly earnings were unchanged in the August jobs report, and are up just 1.7% over the past year. Not only does that match the slowest pace on record, but one you account for inflation, wages are flat to down.

6. Last year, the economy, adjusted for inflation, grew by 1.8%. Right now, it’s on track to do about the same this year. Another year of sub-normal growth, below 3%, means the output gap between where GDP is and where it should be (if the economy were growing merely at trend) continues to grow. If GDP growth in 2011 and 2012 were 3% and not a bit less than 2%, the economy would be $350 billion bigger in 2013 than where it is headed to be.

7. The American economy is less competitive than it was last year or the year before, according to the latest competitiveness report from the World Economic Forum: ”The United States continues the decline that began a few years ago, falling 2 more positions to take 7th place this year.”

The United States now ranks 7th in the WEF rankings out of 144 nations vs. 5th in 2011, 4th in 2010, and number 1 in 2008. Two growing problems: a) wasteful and ineffective government and b) crony capitalism.

8. The day of fiscal reckoning grows ever nearer as the national debt grows, and Washington fails to constrain out-of-control entitlement spending. Indeed, some economists think the debt is already slowing growth.

9. Growth is so slow right now that if anything goes wrong, we are likely to slip back into recession and problems 1-8 above get even worse.

America is not stuck in a sluggish or disappointing economic recovery. It’s in the middle of an economic emergency with more trouble on the way. And it’s time for Washington to start acting like it.
Click to expand...
 
ZappasGuitar said:
What the public needs to realize is you just posted another opinion piece written by another RightWing shill.

That's just another fear mongering Op-ed piece that doesn't get beyond listing the same tired Republican talking points again.
Click to expand...

Oh, poor Zappa... tell us genius, which of those facts do you disagree with? Yes, opinion is mixed in, which is why I bolded the facts in the piece. So which do you claim are incorrect?
 
Superfreak said:
Oh, poor Zappa... tell us genius, which of those facts do you disagree with? Yes, opinion is mixed in, which is why I bolded the facts in the piece. So which do you claim are incorrect?
Click to expand...

Well, if they just call facts "talking points" they might be able to get people to believe them.
 
Damocles said:
Well, if they just call facts "talking points" they might be able to get people to believe them.
Click to expand...

He picked up that habit from Dung. Just attack the messenger, declare the source invalid and ignore the actual content of what was written... pure Dung style.
 
of course in your and the articles opinion, obama is to blame for all of this

not a word about the do nothing congress or the failed bushco policies that got us in to this mess or that mittens wants to restore those policies...

also, not a word about people going hungry in the richest nation in the world...where repugs want to reduce funding for food stamps and medicaid - programs designed to aid people who are in poverty, of which we have a lot due to the failed policies of congress and the repugs and the greed of the financial empire
 
If that's the best that this guy can come up with for why things are getting worse and not better, I am extremely confident that things are in fact getting better and not worse.
 
Superfreak said:
Oh, poor Zappa... tell us genius, which of those facts do you disagree with? Yes, opinion is mixed in, which is why I bolded the facts in the piece. So which do you claim are incorrect?
Click to expand...


sure...

1...Makes ASSUMPTIONS...assumptions are not facts.

2...And the number continues to drop, PROVING the recovery is indeed taking place.

3..."If the participation rate were the same today..." IF the participation rate...? IF?? right...and if wishes were horses then beggars would ride...Supposition is not a fact.

5...Are you REALLY going to blame Obama for the actions of private industry? wait...of COURSE A partisan shill is going to do that...sorry.

7...One tiny problem...the supposed "problems" you claim are facts, are your OPINION.
 
Don Quixote said:
of course in your and the articles opinion, obama is to blame for all of this
Click to expand...

To blame for the recession? No. To blame for little to no improvement (or a decline in some areas) over the past several years... yes. He is the President.

not a word about the do nothing congress or the failed bushco policies that got us in to this mess or that mittens wants to restore those policies...
Click to expand...

Funny. Because it is the do nothing Dems that have done nothing to get us out of this mess. All you want to do is point to the Rep led House for the past 18 months and blame them. Two years Obama had Dem supermajorities. Yet you still blame the Reps. Two years the Dems had control of Congress prior to the economic meltdown, yet you still blame just Bush. I recognize Bush was a failure fiscally. I also see the inept manner in which Obama governs. Do you?

Also, the current policies enacted by Obama are failures... time for change.

also, not a word about people going hungry in the richest nation in the world...where repugs want to reduce funding for food stamps and medicaid - programs designed to aid people who are in poverty, of which we have a lot due to the failed policies of congress and the repugs and the greed of the financial empire
Click to expand...

Yeah... that is a product of the failures of Obama and the Dems. More people on food stamps than ever before. Time for change.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Attack the messenger...isn't that what you and Damo just did?
Click to expand...

No Zappa, I commented on your comments. Which was nothing but attacking the messenger. As I stated, if you would like to discuss the CONTENT of the article, if you would like to dispute what was said, we can certainly discuss it. But as of right now, you haven't done anything but attack the messenger, which is why I pointed that out.
 
Superfreak said:
To blame for the recession? No. To blame for little to no improvement (or a decline in some areas) over the past several years... yes. He is the President.
Click to expand...

And since when can the President act without Congress?


Superfreak said:
Funny. Because it is the do nothing Dems that have done nothing to get us out of this mess. All you want to do is point to the Rep led House for the past 18 months and blame them. Two years Obama had Dem supermajorities. Yet you still blame the Reps. Two years the Dems had control of Congress prior to the economic meltdown, yet you still blame just Bush. I recognize Bush was a failure fiscally. I also see the inept manner in which Obama governs. Do you?
Click to expand...

Obama didn't have supermajorities for two years. He had a supermajority for a few months. And the Reps haven't done anything since 2010 but get in the way of pretty much anything being done. Also, too, the Democrats were in office for 11 months before the recession hit.

Superfreak said:
Also, the current policies enacted by Obama are failures... time for change.
Click to expand...

Which policies are those and how would Romney's proposed policies produce better results? Which economists support that view?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
sure...

1...Makes ASSUMPTIONS...assumptions are not facts.
Click to expand...

What assumptions? He states several facts in the article, point to one specifically and we can discuss.

2...And the number continues to drop, PROVING the recovery is indeed taking place.
Click to expand...

LOL... the unemployment rate is dropping because the labor participation rate is dropping. Not because we are actually recovering jobs. That said, take a look at the data on the jobs that have been added... they are trending to be low wage jobs.

3..."If the participation rate were the same today..." IF the participation rate...? IF?? right...and if wishes were horses then beggars would ride...Supposition is not a fact.
Click to expand...

LOL... you really are desperate. He is showing that the unemployment rate would be above 10% if not for the FACT that people are dropping out of the labor force. You do understand that don't you? It shows that we are not recovering... instead, people are simply giving up looking for work in this abysmal environment.

5...Are you REALLY going to blame Obama for the actions of private industry? wait...of COURSE A partisan shill is going to do that...sorry.
Click to expand...

Show me where I did that. Again, you should be specific if you want to actually discuss something. Otherwise we have to assume you are creating a straw man.
 
Superfreak said:
No Zappa, I commented on your comments. Which was nothing but attacking the messenger. As I stated, if you would like to discuss the CONTENT of the article, if you would like to dispute what was said, we can certainly discuss it. But as of right now, you haven't done anything but attack the messenger, which is why I pointed that out.
Click to expand...


Hilarious...my pointing out your supposed "factual" post is nothing but another Op-ed is attacking the messenger...only in the mind of delusional Righties.

THEN you purposefully ignore my post that refutes the "facts" in your Op-ed piece and you choose to again attack the messenger instead of responding to my comments.
 
Superfreak said:
What assumptions? He states several facts in the article, point to one specifically and we can discuss.



LOL... the unemployment rate is dropping because the labor participation rate is dropping. Not because we are actually recovering jobs. That said, take a look at the data on the jobs that have been added... they are trending to be low wage jobs.



LOL... you really are desperate. He is showing that the unemployment rate would be above 10% if not for the FACT that people are dropping out of the labor force. You do understand that don't you? It shows that we are not recovering... instead, people are simply giving up looking for work in this abysmal environment.



Show me where I did that. Again, you should be specific if you want to actually discuss something. Otherwise we have to assume you are creating a straw man.
Click to expand...


Each one of my responses is numbered to correspond with the supposed "facts" you bolded...apparently even that was too difficult for you to figure out.
 
Superfreak said:
To blame for the recession? No. To blame for little to no improvement (or a decline in some areas) over the past several years... yes. He is the President.



Funny. Because it is the do nothing Dems that have done nothing to get us out of this mess. All you want to do is point to the Rep led House for the past 18 months and blame them. Two years Obama had Dem supermajorities. Yet you still blame the Reps. Two years the Dems had control of Congress prior to the economic meltdown, yet you still blame just Bush. I recognize Bush was a failure fiscally. I also see the inept manner in which Obama governs. Do you?

Also, the current policies enacted by Obama are failures... time for change.



Yeah... that is a product of the failures of Obama and the Dems. More people on food stamps than ever before. Time for change.
Click to expand...

so you want a change back to the failed policies of bushco

also, the dems lost their super majority in the senate when kennedy died, but you repugs still to like to claim that the dems had a super majority for two years...just one of many repug lies

i expected better from you

also, where are the jobs that bushco's tax cuts were supposed to create
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
And since when can the President act without Congress?
Click to expand...

LOL... kind of funny given all the attempts by Obama to circumvent Congress. That said, yes, he needs Congress... yet even when he had his party in control of both houses he did not address the economy. When the House went Rep he reverted to the 'call Reps obstructionists (aka not doing what I want)' line of crap and here we sit. His do nothing Senate leader can't even pass a simple budget.


Obama didn't have supermajorities for two years. He had a supermajority for a few months. And the Reps haven't done anything since 2010 but get in the way of pretty much anything being done. Also, too, the Democrats were in office for 11 months before the recession hit.
Click to expand...

LMAO... he had 59 in the Senate for two years. It is truly funny, no matter how much power the Dems have, they always blame Reps as obstructionists, just like you (their faithful parrot) and pretend that they simply do not have enough power.

Which policies are those and how would Romney's proposed policies produce better results? Which economists support that view?
Click to expand...

It is a sum total of his policies, every economist that looks at the current state of unemployment/labor participation etc... can verify.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Hilarious...my pointing out your supposed "factual" post is nothing but another Op-ed is attacking the messenger...only in the mind of delusional Righties.

THEN you purposefully ignore my post that refutes the "facts" in your Op-ed piece and you choose to again attack the messenger instead of responding to my comments.
Click to expand...

Yes, there was no question that it was an op-ed piece. You do understand that op-eds can contain facts do you not? You attempted to dismiss the article solely because it had opinion mixed in. You attacked the type of article and pretended that somehow negated the facts within the article.
 
Don Quixote said:
so you want a change back to the failed policies of bushco
Click to expand...

LMAO... tell us Don... what policies are those?

also, the dems lost their super majority in the senate when kennedy died, but you repugs still to like to claim that the dems had a super majority for two years...just one of many repug lies
Click to expand...

LMAO... as I mentioned to Dung... they still had 59 seats... it is never enough for you Dems. No matter how much power you have, you pretend it is not enough.

also, where are the jobs that bushco's tax cuts were supposed to create
Click to expand...

As I have stated many times, tax cuts without spending cuts are not sustainable long term. Why is it you all continue to harp on Bush? I have stated many times what a fiscal failure he was. Yet you continue to pretend that Obama, who is essentially running Bush's third term, is somehow managing things differently. Yet Obama's tax cut extension kept Bush's tax cuts going .... why is that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top