28
   

Why are the American People punishing Obama?

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2014 09:44 pm
@cicerone imposter,
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/modeledbehavior/files/2014/06/us-comparison-calc-risk-2.jpg
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2014 10:17 pm
@hawkeye10,
How dumb are you? Unemployment numbers have been dropping since Obama took office.

From BLS.
Quote:
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- SEPTEMBER 2014


Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 248,000 in September, and the unemployment rate declined to 5.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in professional and business services, retail trade, and health care.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2014 10:41 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Unemployment numbers have been dropping since Obama took office.


As it had better in a recovery after a near depression, but the unemployment numbers are nearly useless because of flaws in how the number is tabulated. The numbers to watch have to do with hours worked and pay received, as this is how almost all americans finance their lives. Jobs with good pay is what the economy needs to provide in order to complete its mission. Increasingly it does not.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2014 05:30 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

How dumb are you? Unemployment numbers have been dropping since Obama took office.

From BLS.
Quote:
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- SEPTEMBER 2014


Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 248,000 in September, and the unemployment rate declined to 5.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in professional and business services, retail trade, and health care.



The drop in unemployment is not a result of the economy improving, it is a result of individuals dropping out of the work force -- discouraged workers. These workers have tried for so long to find employment become discouraged and stop looking for work, thus they are no longer included in the unemployment numbers. Also no longer included in the unemployment rate are those that are underemployed - workers that previously had full time jobs settling for part-time or a couple of part-time jobs without benefits and lower pay and those taking jobs that are lower salary and benefits than they had previously simply to survive.

201 economics.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2014 05:32 am
@Linkat,
Invincible ignorance . . . so you intend to ignore almost a quarter of a million new employees in one month, huh?
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2014 05:35 am
@Setanta,
No - are you ignoring what I stated - underemployed. What good is it to the economy if people are taking jobs that are part-time vs their previous full time position?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2014 05:49 am
@Linkat,
How do you know these people are underemployed? That's just an assumption conventient to what you want to believe, for which you provide no evidence. The only evidence from that report is that they were preciously unemployed, and now they're employed. If you want to bad-mouth Obama, help yourself, bot don't expect to be taken seriously when you just make claims convetient to your prejudice for which you provide no evidence.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2014 05:51 am
@Setanta,
Par to account for population growth is + 125,000 to 180,000 per month depending on who you listen to, so 250,000 is not fabulous. Also recall that this is in spite of the federal government financing a third of its spending on the kids credit card. I cant say that we are getting much out of their money. With that kind of robbing from the kids we should be living party central.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2014 05:57 am
@hawkeye10,
Oh horseshit--typical Whackeye meaningless babble. I didn't say anything was fabulous--but that doesn't alter that 248,000 people were newly employed in September. I'm not fan of Obama. I remain unimpressed with his record. However, it takes Congress to pass money bills. Mr. Obama cannot write budgets, and the only control he has over spending would be not to disburse money he thinks would be wasted. Since January, 20011, he has had to deal with a hostile and obstructionist Congress. It's incredible to me how little people seem to understand about how the government works.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2014 06:22 am
There is very little that any president can do to affect the economy. Money bills are written by the House, and neither the president nor the Senate can do anything about them other than to obstruct. Clinton successfully played brinkmanship with an irresponsible Republican Congress by letting the government run out of money--but that's an exception that proves the rule, and it can't be done year after year. Bush's tax cuts made as soon as he got into office were a silly propagandistic gesture. Wealthy people don't make their money from salaries, they make it from capital gains. That's why stock options are the favorite benefit among corporate officers. Whether they hold the stock and take the dividends or sell it off, they pay capital gains tax--15%. Tax cuts to the working class and most of the middle class, however, can have a cascading effect. Sales of durable goods inevitably increase. A wealthy man only needs one washer and dryer, and it's a trivial expenditure. Give them a tax cut, and they are unlikely to rush out and buy a washer and dryer. Give the working class and the lower middle class a tax cut, and they are likely to make durable goods purchases. The manufacture of durable goods doesn't just mean jobs in that manufacturing sector, it means jobs in the iron, steel, aluminum and other materials industries. It means jobs in the transport industry. That means more revenue for lower levels of government, too, in sales taxes and fuel taxes.

A president can drive the economy into the toilet, but there is very little any president can do improve the economy, unless the Congress is willing to play ball, and aren't out to just make themselves attractive to the electorate.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2014 07:17 am
@Linkat,
You should actually LOOK at the numbers.

Here is a nice piece on part time vs full time employment.
http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/commentaries/Full-Time-vs-Part-Time-Employment.php

The number working part time has decreased at the same time the unemployment number has gone down.

As I have pointed out before the numbers dropping out of the workforce closely correlate to the increase in the number of persons over 64.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2014 07:28 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Par to account for population growth is + 125,000 to 180,000 per month depending on who you listen to, so 250,000 is not fabulous. Also recall that this is in spite of the federal government financing a third of its spending on the kids credit card. I cant say that we are getting much out of their money. With that kind of robbing from the kids we should be living party central.

Well, most of the children under 1 don't have jobs and you fail to account for the fact that there are more people over 64 every year as well. From 2000 to 2010 the fastest growing segment of the US Population was the 62 and older age group of which all would now be over 65.

Quote:
Between 2000 and 2010, the population under the age of 18 grew at
a rate of 2.6 percent. The growth rate was even slower for those
aged 18 to 44 (0.6 percent). This contrasts with the substantially
faster growth rates seen at older ages. The population aged 45 to
64 grew at a rate of 31.5 percent. The large growth in this age group
is primarily due to the aging of the Baby Boom population.2
Finally, the population aged 65 and over also
grew at a faster rate (15.1 percent) than the population under age 45

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf

So the population is growing at over 150,000 per month but the population is adding about 80,000 per month to the over 64 crowd. That means the under 65 crowd is only growing by 70,000.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2014 12:19 pm
@Setanta,
The San Jose Mercury News publishes the stock trades made by the honchos companies in Silicon Valley. I think last weeks gains were in the neighborhood of over $31 million. Sometimes it's as low as below $10 million, but from my estimate, the average weekly trade runs close to $20 every week.

That's the silly part of greed; if they had shared the profit of the company with all their workers, our economy would be booming today.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2014 12:20 pm
@Linkat,
You really don't know what you're talking about. How about providing some reliable sources for your conclusions? YOU CAN'T; THAT'S A FACT.

You need to stop listening to FAUX NOOZE.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2014 12:29 pm
@parados,
I am not familar with the website or organization but even say it is true - it still does not tell the full picture - another aspect of underemployment is those that have taken a full time job that is still significantly less than what they had previously made also in many cases without benefits or significantly less benefits.

The unemployment rate itself is not an entirely good indicator of the economy although it generally is a leading indicator that the economy is begining to recover. Though in my life time -- this is the first I have experienced and seen people (even those not getting laid off at all) where each year their net salary decreases even while they may be getting raises. The increasing cost of health care in the past year has caused many working people to make a good amount less than they have previously.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2014 12:38 pm
@Linkat,
You are hung up on the past that doesn't necessarily carry over into the future forever. That's what economics teaches us; that the variables change based on the fundamentals of supply and demand, government intervention, and how the business world treats its customers and workers. The world economy is forever connected, and when one country's economy is affected, all are affected in many different ways.

The new norm might be what we're experiencing now; the US economy seems to be the only economy that seems to maintain some growth in a world where the other big economies are suffering from a reduction in their GDP growth.

Based on that world view, we can't expect the US to continue growing beyond the performance of other economies of the world. When Germany and Japan suffers, the US suffers. That's Econ 101.

These graphs are from BLS. FYI, that's from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
http://i1369.photobucket.com/albums/ag215/Tak_Nomura/scan0001_zpsf8ce592a.jpg

Where do you get your info from?
Prove me wrong.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2014 03:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

and the stock market growing at a good pace.


Not lately. Since you want to give him credit for it's prior rise, I'm sure you'll give him the blame for it's current decline.

Or will you?

0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2014 03:22 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Simple answer. They think he's doing a lousy job.

Must be all the negativity from the Obstructionist Republicans. It's turned over 50% of Americans into racists!
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2014 03:33 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
That's only partially the cause - according to some polls. Many do not think Obama has been doing a good job on foreign affairs saying it is rudderless, his delays on immigration reform, and what Chris Matthew said. After Obama got elected, he said "thank you," and "now, watch and see how smart I am."

The latest polls scores Obama with 49% approval and 49% disapproval.

It seems like a tossup, but according to what the political pundits are saying about democrats running for office are staying away from Obama, it has to be a negative message about Obama. They're running scared of their own 'leader.'

parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2014 04:07 pm
@Linkat,
Now you are just making excuses rather than checking facts. Everything is there in the numbers from BLS. The average earnings per hours have gone up. The average hours per week worked have gone up. That doesn't mean everyone has gone up but it means for those that it has gone down for others it has gone up.

Health care was decreasing earnings in the 90s. What's your point?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/29/2021 at 04:28:13