"I tried to get him to see that the Dems he blindly supported for years contributed to pushing through the very restrictive mining regulations that eventually put his company and thousands of good paying jobs out of business. "

Sounds like West Virginia. For the young people here West Virginia was one of the most Democrat states for most of my lifetime. It was weird living on the Ohio side of the Ohio river and seeing how the Dems controlled Charleston, Huntington, Wheeling, etc. Now WV is one of the biggest red states in the country, at least on the federal level.

Good news! Unemployment down 8.1%. But....actually far fewer new jobs than expected (96,000), which doesn't even keep pace with population growth (@130k). This means that the number goes down, again, because of people stopping looking for work.

BAD NEWS, actually. The rate went down to 8.1% because the government decided not to count 386,000 additional people in the calculation. We only added 96,000 jobs which is simply terrible. And that number is not even really what happened in August, we actually lost jobs in August while June and July numbers were revised upward. We have a jobs crisis like no other. The labor participation rate is now down to 63.5%, the lowest in over 30 years --- horrific.

It is amazing how the government can simply say we are not counting another 386,000 unemployed people in the calculation ......just because they have given up hope of finding a job.

We can do so much better, and we will, beginning January 21, 2013.

130k jobs X 46 months is almost 6M jobs. That's roughly the number of new jobs needed during Obama's term to date just to keep pace with population growth. So those "4.5M new jobs" he loves to tout aren't even keeping pace, much less replacing jobs we lost. There has been absolutely no jobs recovery.

It's remarkable that, after signing a few stimulus bills at the very beginning of his term...had BHO simply taken an extended golfing vacation we'd probably be better off. It's debateable if anything he's done on the fiscal/economic front has even had a neutral impact, and a very strong case can be made that his policies have actually been a drag on the recovery.

Not a strong report today but nothing new. As former chief of President Bush's council of economic advisers, Ed Lazear pleaded at Jackson Hole, the economy is still struggling with sluggish demand. Hopefully this is enough to convince Ben Bernanke to follow his own advice.

However, this months Payroll report is +513,000 better than it was four years ago. So we're better off on that front at least.

BoatShoes;1263692 wrote:Not a strong report today but nothing new.

"Disappointing" is the more common vernacular when it undershoots expectations by about 50%. But you are otherwise technically correct. It wasn't a great report. It wasn't a fantastic report. It wasn't an incredible report.

gut;1263716 wrote:"Disappointing" is the more common vernacular when it undershoots expectations by about 50%. But you are otherwise technically correct. It wasn't a great report. It wasn't a fantastic report. It wasn't an incredible report.

Oh geez the language games we have to play here...

But if we had a Republican in there saying nice, sweet things to the Gut's of the world it would've been better?

Private Payrolls in meany-to-biznezz Obama's first term.




Private Payrolls in Bidnezz friendly President Bush's first term.





And this is private payrolls this year so far.



But your argument is, that if he'd just say nice things and go golfing this would be even higher eh?

We're not where we want to be, but we're on the right track and we're better off than we were at this time four years ago.

You guys, don't be down on Obama. He has a plan, just needs a little more time. Geesh!

gut;1263632 wrote: It's debateable if anything he's done on the fiscal/economic front has even had a neutral impact, and a very strong case can be made that his policies have actually been a drag on the recovery.

:rolleyes: No there isn't. Here's a piece by a guy on your side refuting this notion.

So pop quiz: Would there be more U.S. jobs or fewer today if the government had run a balanced budget, or even just a smaller deficit, for the past four years? All else being equal, it is obvious beyond dispute that there would have been fewer jobs, not more.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-04/republicans-must-choose-less-debt-or-more-jobs.html

se-alum;1263733 wrote:You guys, don't be down on Obama. He has a plan, just needs a little more time. Geesh!

Who cares bout the evidence mirite! Tell me more about how policies contracting aggregate demand are going to do a better job than BHO's policies when even President Bush's economic advisers are arguing that the problem is low demand.

And while we're at it, in a straight comparison to President George W. Bush, a business friendly president from teh bidnezz world, President Obama has had better private sector job growth in his first term and yet we heard nothing about George W. Bush being a failure on the economic front after his first term. If he warranted a second term for economic performance so does President Obama. (And I voted for President Bush fwiw).

BoatShoes;1263734 wrote::rolleyes: No there isn't. Here's a piece by a guy on your side refuting this notion.



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-04/republicans-must-choose-less-debt-or-more-jobs.html

Ummm, we're in a "recovery" and they can't even create enough jobs to keep pace with population growth?

And the hurdle is now Bush? He's a big reason voters couldn't throw out Repubs fast enough, and let's hope they do the same with Dems this time around. The president that popularized "jobless recovery" is how you prop-up Obama job's record?

LMAO, $1T+ deficits "aren't nearly enough" but 96,000 jobs is simply "not strong". Your mathematical calibrations fit nicely only in the world of fuzzy math.

BoatShoes;1263744 wrote:Who cares bout the evidence mirite! Tell me more about how policies contracting aggregate demand

Because it's offset by people stuffing money under the mattress with a clear eye on the looming double-dip due to anti-business policies. Aggregate demand is not being created with all this deficit spending. The corporate and personal welfare dollars go out and right into the mattress. There's no multiplier effect. All their targets for GDP and unemployment were based on historical estimates of that multiplier effect, and that we've fallen horribly short is clear indication of an illusory multiplier effect. Or I could just point at the mountain of cash businesses are sitting on.

gut;1263760 wrote:Ummm, we're in a "recovery" and they can't even create enough jobs to keep pace with population growth?

And the hurdle is now Bush? He's a big reason voters couldn't throw out Repubs fast enough, and let's hope they do the same with Dems this time around. The president that popularized "jobless recovery" is how you prop-up Obama job's record?

LMAO, $1T+ deficits "aren't nearly enough" but 96,000 jobs is simply "not strong". Your mathematical calibrations fit nicely only in the world of fuzzy math.

You want to play the language games and yet you can't delineate between phrases such as "better off" and "not there yet." I too have lamented that it's not a enough job growth. However, what you think is a good idea would beyond dispute result in worse job growth.

Job growth that is not good enough is better than the massive job loss in that same report four years ago.

gut;1263767 wrote:Because it's offset by people stuffing money under the mattress with a clear eye on the looming double-dip due to anti-business policies. Aggregate demand is not being created with all this deficit spending. The corporate and personal welfare dollars go out and right into the mattress. There's no multiplier effect. All their targets for GDP and unemployment were based on historical estimates of that multiplier effect, and that we've fallen horribly short is clear indication of an illusory multiplier effect. Or I could just point at the mountain of cash businesses are sitting on.

You're right. People just stuff their Food Stamps under their mattress.

BoatShoes;1263770 wrote:Y However, what you think is a good idea would beyond dispute result in worse job growth.

But it is in dispute. Your argument is based on a dubious assumption of a multiplier effect, and illusory one that has many economists jumping off the keynesian titanic.

The economy is cyclical, and once things were stabilized (kudos, BO, for being able to sign your name) there is job recovery that absolutely will happen without any govt intervention or stimulus. And when you look at the lagging GDP and job growth it's far from open and shut that the policies have contributed positively.

Another thing to consider. That "jobless recovery" observed in the Bush years. What happened? IT and B2B transformed business, companies were able to run much more efficiently. Now forward to the Obamaconomy, which has more natural "bounce" with a sharper and deeper contraction. But you already have many lean and mean companies, and yet we still don't see the expected bounce even after an obvious overcorrection and unnecessarily deep cuts.

There is such a thing as flushing money down the toilet, and govt is far more effective at it than most businesses. And there's ample evidence trillions of dollars have been flushed down the toilet. The stimulus created a lot of temporary jobs. TEMPORARY. It was structurally poorly designed. So those temporary jobs don't get added in, but then they aren't subtracted out. What you are left with is the natural job growth, hampered under crushing fiscal and regulatory policy...and all those temporary jobs, like the money flushed down the toilet to create them, hasn't moved the needle.

BoatShoes;1263772 wrote:You're right. People just stuff their Food Stamps under their mattress.

No, but the store did (again, notice the pile of money business is sitting on). The multiplier affect assumes those dollars are turned over multiple times. It wasn't, that's why keynesians are all scratching their head and with no answers just claiming it wasn't enough.

BoatShoes;1263734 wrote::rolleyes: No there isn't. Here's a piece by a guy on your side refuting this notion.



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-04/republicans-must-choose-less-debt-or-more-jobs.html

Uh, you might want to check the author of the article. Who's "side" is he on again? :laugh:

BoatShoes;1263744 wrote: and yet we heard nothing about George W. Bush being a failure on the economic front after his first term.

You obviously didn't get out much in 2004.

Jobs reports under Obama....horrible. I'm gonna vote for the guy who made a good living in outsourcing American jobs... and fix the problem:laugh:. Soooo good in fact, he won't even show the American people his tax returns.

*romneyed**

BoatShoes;1263744 wrote: Tell me more about how policies contracting aggregate demand

That's your problem, the policies we are advocating would not contract aggregate demand, you just think they would. Our policies will ultimately remove about $1 trillion in government inefficiency and reallocate resources to where they are most effective, and, when coupled with pro-growth initiatives in a business friendly environment, will unleash our innovative and productive abilities to generate substantial growth and demand.

Or, we can continue listing without leadership and hope the central bankers make things all better ......................... hahahahahahaha --- how's that workin' out?

QuakerOats;1263915 wrote: Or, we can continue listing without leadership and hope the central bankers make things all better ......................... hahahahahahaha --- how's that workin' out?

That's an interesting point. The central bankers have been probably the main cause (of many) for the last two recessions. But, you know, when you drop money from helicopters not ALL of it blows away.

gut;1263781 wrote:No, but the store did (again, notice the pile of money business is sitting on). The multiplier affect assumes those dollars are turned over multiple times. It wasn't, that's why keynesians are all scratching their head and with no answers just claiming it wasn't enough.

Incorrect again; things like food stamps have a multiplier of around 1.5 to 1.8. A grocery store with reliable buyers on food stamps isn't "sitting on cash" in the same way that say a Best Buy is because there's low demand for T.V.'s etc.

fish82;1263842 wrote:Uh, you might want to check the author of the article. Who's "side" is he on again? :laugh:




You obviously didn't get out much in 2004.

Uhh... I said he's on Gut's side because he's an inflation hawk and more of a balanced budget type guy. Just because he was on the "left" side on Crossfire doesn't mean he's on my side.

And, in 2004, I most remember liberals talking about the War...not that President Bush was an unmitigated economic failure...but that's just me.

gut;1263779 wrote:But it is in dispute. Your argument is based on a dubious assumption of a multiplier effect, and illusory one that has many economists jumping off the keynesian titanic.

The economy is cyclical, and once things were stabilized (kudos, BO, for being able to sign your name) there is job recovery that absolutely will happen without any govt intervention or stimulus. And when you look at the lagging GDP and job growth it's far from open and shut that the policies have contributed positively.

Another thing to consider. That "jobless recovery" observed in the Bush years. What happened? IT and B2B transformed business, companies were able to run much more efficiently. Now forward to the Obamaconomy, which has more natural "bounce" with a sharper and deeper contraction. But you already have many lean and mean companies, and yet we still don't see the expected bounce even after an obvious overcorrection and unnecessarily deep cuts.

There is such a thing as flushing money down the toilet, and govt is far more effective at it than most businesses. And there's ample evidence trillions of dollars have been flushed down the toilet. The stimulus created a lot of temporary jobs. TEMPORARY. It was structurally poorly designed. So those temporary jobs don't get added in, but then they aren't subtracted out. What you are left with is the natural job growth, hampered under crushing fiscal and regulatory policy...and all those temporary jobs, like the money flushed down the toilet to create them, hasn't moved the needle.

I mean, the evidence just doesn't disagree. Take the lame American Jobs Act...which you would call just more money being flushed down the toilet. Macroeconomic advisers said it would create 1.5 million jobs and increase gdp 1.5%; Moody's said it would add 2.1 million jobs and increase gdp by 2%; Goldman Sachs said it would increase gdp by 1.5%; You combine that with Republicans not firing people and you're getting close to full employment. You would have called this flushing money down the toilet.

If you're going to make your policy on reasoned policy analysis...you rely on this and act...not on esoteric assertions in the wall street journal editorial page that business is being "crushed by fiscal and regulatory policy" when there's no similar analyses by these types of firms suggesting that to be true.

Footwedge;1263865 wrote:Jobs reports under Obama....horrible. I'm gonna vote for the guy who made a good living in outsourcing American jobs... and fix the problem:laugh:. Soooo good in fact, he won't even show the American people his tax returns.

*romneyed**

Wow, so many things wrong with such a short post, I didn't think that was possible!

It has already been proven that Romney left Bain before the major outsourcing acquisition(s) happened.
Romney most certainly has shown his tax returns. Just because he hasn't shown his last 30 years worth to appease the hard core liberals like yourself, doesn't mean that he hasn't shown his tax returns.

BoatShoes;1263966 wrote:Incorrect again; things like food stamps have a multiplier of around 1.5 to 1.8. A grocery store with reliable buyers on food stamps isn't "sitting on cash" in the same way that say a Best Buy is because there's low demand for T.V.'s etc.

SMH....Then why don't we give everybody food stamps? Surely that would be a net positive for the economy, it's not possible that there are crowding out effects, offsets or - gasp - actually a multiplier less than 1? C'mon Boat, Obama is running trillion dollar deficits yet it's the slowest, most anemic recovery since the Great Depression. Multipliers of 1.5+?!? If it worked, where's the tax revenues Boat? Receipts fell off a cliff, so there's not tax revenue coming in from this. Corporate profits are at an all-time high, but why was the % of GDP flat in 2010 at 15.1% and up just a smidgeon to 15.4% in 2011? Where's your multiplier effect?

Where is you're vaunted multiplier effect? Because it doesn't exist (at least this go around), after 30 years no one is fooled any more. Let's see if we can walk you thru understanding why:
1) What is the key principle in keynesian economics that has not been practiced?

2) Why is that fundamental to the foundation of the theory?

3) And what does classical theory say about deficit spending year after year with no end in sight?

Even Krugman admits the stimulus didn't work, so why can't you? Now whether it was the design/structure of the stimulus or diminishing returns/tipping point, the fact is it didn't work and all we have to show is trillions more in debt.