Jobs have increased every month for the last two years in manufacturing. Debt IS a matter of all the interest racked up by Reagan, GHW, W, and Republicans, not just “dems”. Two wars didn’t help that any. So, now that the economy IS improving, but just not enough to satisfy the 1% at the top ripping off all the “profits” in the last 30 years, the middle class grunts aren’t smart enough to see the REAL problems.
Gotta love Democratic Underground’s comments, especially this one:
" That’s some pretty creative spinning there…I assume they are taking the 3-4% variation in the labor participation rate over the last 30 years and applying it to the unemployment rate – adding or subtracting from the mean to create a higher or lower “implied” unemployment rate…which after complaining about the BLS fudging numbers is rather amusing.
So what they are saying is that Reagan understated unemployment, while Clinton and Bush reported it as worse than it really was, and now Obama is understating it again…because, well, just because you can stick a couple of different graphs together and that’s how it comes out. If you can’t make good news sound quite bad enough (and the repugs on the campaign trail have been loudly trying their best), apparently a barrage of confused statistics is the next best thing!"
Sorry guy, the participant rate reflects primarily changes in the percentage of the population retired as baby-boomers leave the work force. that this rate was going to fall has been known from well before the current downturn.
Consumer confidence is increasing, along with employment. Gasoline prices have decreased. Despite Republican efforts to re-sink the economy, President Obama’s efforts (not as strong as they would’ve been with a co-operative Congress) have pulled the car out of the ditch, set it on the road, and it is moving forward again.All the chicken-hawks who voted for Bush-Cheney need to apologize first and then we may listen to them as they explain how the Romney-Perry ticket will be better than our current administration.
“I use liberal sources to prove my points when I can because it means what I’m saying is SO incontrovertible even they can’t ignore it.”
And the sad part is that you can’t even read the very same graphs that you are using to slam the president. Your BLS graphs are saying that the economy is improving. unemployment rates, jobs in different sectors, and employment-population ratio are going up. So why does a lower participation rate (which includes retirements, people over 65, and college students) equate to a disasterous economy despite it having more jobs(which was the question that DU poster was asking)? You can avoid the question (as usual) by call me names and telling me I don’t understand a thing.
d_legendary1 over 12 years ago
Unless the economy incorporates Obama will win by default.
Dtroutma over 12 years ago
Jobs have increased every month for the last two years in manufacturing. Debt IS a matter of all the interest racked up by Reagan, GHW, W, and Republicans, not just “dems”. Two wars didn’t help that any. So, now that the economy IS improving, but just not enough to satisfy the 1% at the top ripping off all the “profits” in the last 30 years, the middle class grunts aren’t smart enough to see the REAL problems.
petergrt over 12 years ago
Against GW Bush . . . . of course!
pirate227 over 12 years ago
His only competition…
Jason Allen over 12 years ago
^ Blah blah blah. All Presidents take vacations and foreign visits and summits are part of the job.
aguirra3 over 12 years ago
And you notice…the libs fall silent! God job!
d_legendary1 over 12 years ago
Gotta love Democratic Underground’s comments, especially this one:
" That’s some pretty creative spinning there…I assume they are taking the 3-4% variation in the labor participation rate over the last 30 years and applying it to the unemployment rate – adding or subtracting from the mean to create a higher or lower “implied” unemployment rate…which after complaining about the BLS fudging numbers is rather amusing.
So what they are saying is that Reagan understated unemployment, while Clinton and Bush reported it as worse than it really was, and now Obama is understating it again…because, well, just because you can stick a couple of different graphs together and that’s how it comes out. If you can’t make good news sound quite bad enough (and the repugs on the campaign trail have been loudly trying their best), apparently a barrage of confused statistics is the next best thing!"
d_legendary1 over 12 years ago
The guys and gals of Democratic Underground can smell BS when its posted.
So come one pops. Tell me again how using Democratic Underground when I use it is invalid, yet when you cite it becomes undeniable proof.
pdchapin over 12 years ago
Sorry guy, the participant rate reflects primarily changes in the percentage of the population retired as baby-boomers leave the work force. that this rate was going to fall has been known from well before the current downturn.
BrianCrook over 12 years ago
Consumer confidence is increasing, along with employment. Gasoline prices have decreased. Despite Republican efforts to re-sink the economy, President Obama’s efforts (not as strong as they would’ve been with a co-operative Congress) have pulled the car out of the ditch, set it on the road, and it is moving forward again.All the chicken-hawks who voted for Bush-Cheney need to apologize first and then we may listen to them as they explain how the Romney-Perry ticket will be better than our current administration.
d_legendary1 over 12 years ago
“I use liberal sources to prove my points when I can because it means what I’m saying is SO incontrovertible even they can’t ignore it.”
And the sad part is that you can’t even read the very same graphs that you are using to slam the president. Your BLS graphs are saying that the economy is improving. unemployment rates, jobs in different sectors, and employment-population ratio are going up. So why does a lower participation rate (which includes retirements, people over 65, and college students) equate to a disasterous economy despite it having more jobs(which was the question that DU poster was asking)? You can avoid the question (as usual) by call me names and telling me I don’t understand a thing.
d_legendary1 over 12 years ago
“Are you aware the US population grows 3 million people per year? "Didn’t know babies were apart of the work force.