U.S. added 3.9 million jobs in past 2 years

[Jingthing]

He has a mixed record. He has not objectively failed miserably. He will be running against Romney. If you actually think Romney is better, support him. I am disgusted by your obscene personal attack. Good one, dude.

[Scott]

UG, a con job is better than no job at all, I guess.

[up-country_sinclair]

The best hope for America's future remains Obama, not the radical right wing!

Romney hardly could be considered part of the radical right. In fact, that's why the radical right won't vote for him: he's not one of them.

C'mon, I was an Obama supporter. He has failed miserably in every single area, most especially upholding the constitution.

If Obama had truly failed to uphold the constitution, why weren't impeachment proceedings brought against him by what most would consider to be a hostile House of Representatives? Why hasn't the SCOTUS overturned any laws he and congress passed? Yes, the indidividual mandate will come before the court this year, but most observers think it could go either way. So I'm not sure how you're able to state unequivocally that he hasn't upheld the constitution.

As I'm pretty sure I've stated here before, I'm not an Obama supporter, but IMHO, he's done a pretty good job with the hand he was dealt. Especially with the unemployment numbers. Take a look at the months before he took office and what has happened since his administration took over.

BTW, this chart doesn't include last month's numbers that came out last week.

[midas]

The best hope for America's future remains Obama, not the radical right wing! People are already adjusting to the idea of less affluence and no guaranteed hegemony just being born American.

I don't mean any offence by this, honestly, but it's my opinion in you read someone else writing the claptrap you just wrote you'd rip them apart mercilessly. C'mon, I was an Obama supporter. He has failed miserably in every single area, most especially upholding the constitution. That's not to mention his lies about the economy and wars. He's responsible for killing THOUSANDS of people. I know this is just sport for you, but suck someone else's dick why dontcha?

" In summary, the current unemployment rate of 8.3% is understated by at least 12% (7% + 5% from above). The estimated total rate of 21% is higher than the 18% average experienced during the decade of the Great Depression.

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0212/The-Hidden-Truth-Behind-U.S.-Economic-Recovery.aspx#ixzz1ooEXqDDM

[Jingthing]

Romney is talking now as if he is radical right. Nobody really knows what he actually is politically. Which is why he will never be president. He is a plutocrat and most Americans simply can't relate to him. He won't win. If you wanted someone actually competent, politically coherent, with a recognizable human personality who is somewhat to the right of Obama, it should have been Bloomberg. I think the painting of what Obama actually is and has (not) accomplished as reflected on this thread is TOTALLY HYSTERICAL. He is a slightly left of moderate establishment democrat. He is the type of president that is historically good during hard economic times.

Edited March 11, 2012 by Jingthing

[lannarebirth]

Romney is talking now as if he is radical right. Nobody really knows what he actually is politically. Which is why he will never be president. He is a plutocrat and most Americans simply can't relate to him. He won't win. If you wanted someone actually competent, politically coherent, with a recognizable human personality who is somewhat to the right of Obama, it should have been Bloomberg.

I agree about Bloomberg, but if Romney's a plutocrat (which he is), what's Obama? Someone who's never done anything but was INSTALLED as president. I'll come clean, I drank that Kool aid because i thought the alternative was too horrific to contemplate, but let's be honest here, he's an utter failure. Not only domestically but even more so abroad.

[MaxYakov]

I can't find the link now, I wish I could. On Business Insider Dot Com yesterday someone made THIRTY different significant points about how the employment picture is incredibly worse than it was 5, 10 and even 15 years ago. It was f'ing shocking. This story is bullshit.

Oh, it really is horrible. But no politician has the power to radically change the fundamentals at this point. The expectations have been realistically lowered.

Of course they've been lowered amongst the cognoscenti, but they tell lies repeatedly to the the electorate/proles. You may think that's clever politics but is in fact obscene. It could lead to revolution in due time. I know you can't conceive of that but maybe it's because you've not studied history enough and lived in relatively affluent times.

The best hope for America's future remains Obama, not the radical right wing! People are already adjusting to the idea of less affluence and no guaranteed hegemony just being born American.

Yes, that's right. Adjusting to the idea of being mediocre, poor and helpless. Is it like 'adjusting' (as you put it) to being in prison? A laudable future of 'hope' and 'change' into hopeless mediocrity, eh?

Edited March 11, 2012 by MaxYakov

[TheWalkingMan]

Today's Rasmussen Report:

1. Romney - 48%

Obama - 43%

2. Santorum - 46%

Obama - 45%

Maybe some should hold up on ordering the celebratory champagne until November?

http://www.rasmussen...l_tracking_poll

Continuing your posting signature:

Those that voted for him in 2008 because they are racist will vote for him again because his race (I think you know which half I mean) has not changed.

Max - Your quote is too short... You should have included - Those that did not vote for him in 2008 because they are racist will not vote for him again because of his race (I think you know which half I mean) has not changed.

[MaxYakov]

The best hope for America's future remains Obama, not the radical right wing!

Romney hardly could be considered part of the radical right. In fact, that's why the radical right won't vote for him: he's not one of them.

C'mon, I was an Obama supporter. He has failed miserably in every single area, most especially upholding the constitution.

If Obama had truly failed to uphold the constitution, why weren't impeachment proceedings brought against him by what most would consider to be a hostile House of Representatives? Why hasn't the SCOTUS overturned any laws he and congress passed? Yes, the indidividual mandate will come before the court this year, but most observers think it could go either way. So I'm not sure how you're able to state unequivocally that he hasn't upheld the constitution.

As I'm pretty sure I've stated here before, I'm not an Obama supporter, but IMHO, he's done a pretty good job with the hand he was dealt. Especially with the unemployment numbers. Take a look at the months before he took office and what has happened since his administration took over.

BTW, this chart doesn't include last month's numbers that came out last week.

It also doesn't include the smell of cooked books in the BLS kitchen. Do you believe everything you read and every statistic you see? What was that quote about 'useful idiots'? Even this chart looks alarming. I would rather see a solid ramp-up in employment, not the sputtering green mediocrity (there's that word again) I see in this particular statistical rendition. Has it kept up with the job growth required just to employ college grads and new immigrants?

Rhetorical question. In an election year (and perhaps any time), we won't get the truth out of this or any other administration.

Edited March 11, 2012 by MaxYakov

[MaxYakov]

Today's Rasmussen Report:

1. Romney - 48%

Obama - 43%

2. Santorum - 46%

Obama - 45%

Maybe some should hold up on ordering the celebratory champagne until November?

http://www.rasmussen...l_tracking_poll

Continuing your posting signature:

Those that voted for him in 2008 because they are racist will vote for him again because his race (I think you know which half I mean) has not changed.

Max - Your quote is too short... You should have included - Those that did not vote for him in 2008 because they are racist will not vote for him again because of his race (I think you know which half I mean) has not changed.

Yes, excellent point. I should have included them as well. I also omitted those who didn't like his style, obfuscation (sealed records), voting record, acquaintances, choice of Church and minister, etc. ... but they were probably so few of those thoughtful and perceptive voters to mention.

Edited March 11, 2012 by MaxYakov

[up-country_sinclair]

As I'm pretty sure I've stated here before, I'm not an Obama supporter, but IMHO, he's done a pretty good job with the hand he was dealt. Especially with the unemployment numbers. Take a look at the months before he took office and what has happened since his administration took over.

Do you believe everything you read and every statistic you see? What was that quote about 'useful idiots'?

It's certainly your prerogative to not believe information released by the US Governement's Bureau of Labor Statistics, but I'm not sure what you hope to gain by hurling personal insults at other members of the forum.

[midas]

Romney is talking now as if he is radical right. Nobody really knows what he actually is politically. Which is why he will never be president. He is a plutocrat and most Americans simply can't relate to him. He won't win. If you wanted someone actually competent, politically coherent, with a recognizable human personality who is somewhat to the right of Obama, it should have been Bloomberg.

I agree about Bloomberg, but if Romney's a plutocrat (which he is), what's Obama? Someone who's never done anything but was INSTALLED as president. I'll come clean, I drank that Kool aid because i thought the alternative was too horrific to contemplate, but let's be honest here, he's an utter failure. Not only domestically but even more so abroad.

doesn't sound very hopeful for a an undisputed election?

Edited March 11, 2012 by midas

[chuckd]

If Obama had truly failed to uphold the constitution, why weren't impeachment proceedings brought against him by what most would consider to be a hostile House of Representatives? Why hasn't the SCOTUS overturned any laws he and congress passed? Yes, the indidividual mandate will come before the court this year, but most observers think it could go either way. So I'm not sure how you're able to state unequivocally that he hasn't upheld the constitution.

As I'm pretty sure I've stated here before, I'm not an Obama supporter, but IMHO, he's done a pretty good job with the hand he was dealt. Especially with the unemployment numbers. Take a look at the months before he took office and what has happened since his administration took over.

BTW, this chart doesn't include last month's numbers that came out last week.

The House of Representatives can only propose that impeachment trials take place. The Senate then votes on guilt or innocence and it is markedly Democratic and has been for the last five years. Impeachment would not be an issue just yet.

SCOTUS is set to hear the constitutionality issue on Obamacare in July and would rule on it at some point thereafter.

[MaxYakov]

As I'm pretty sure I've stated here before, I'm not an Obama supporter, but IMHO, he's done a pretty good job with the hand he was dealt. Especially with the unemployment numbers. Take a look at the months before he took office and what has happened since his administration took over.

Do you believe everything you read and every statistic you see? What was that quote about 'useful idiots'?

It's certainly your prerogative to not believe information released by the US Governement's Bureau of Labor Statistics, but I'm not sure what you hope to gain by hurling personal insults at other members of the forum.

My skepticism of information promulgated by any government is certainly not limited (in this case) to the BLS. Nor is my skepticism limited to the government sector. And, yes, it is more than my 'prerogative'. I'm hoping it is still a 'right'.

By the way, I worked for the Department of Labor for over a year as a contractor and got to see first-hand the misrepresentation and political infighting that occurs. After that experience, I could only conclude that anything is possible in such an environment.

I have nothing to gain by 'hurling personal insults' at other members of the forum. But if I did so, it is possible they could gain from it ... if it caused a reappraisal of their position, for example. I asked up-country_sinclair two questions. Answering them is, of course, optional.

Edited March 11, 2012 by MaxYakov

[Heimdallr]

US is slowly recovering but the fact is the whole Midwest and much of the South are much more sluggish - which is one reason for the vast discontent in Obama in those areas. I do believe and hope he will win, though, because let's get real... Without Bloomberg the republicans can only offer batshit crazy or porridge.

[GentlemanJim]

Romney is talking now as if he is radical right. Nobody really knows what he actually is politically. Which is why he will never be president. He is a plutocrat and most Americans simply can't relate to him. He won't win. If you wanted someone actually competent, politically coherent, with a recognizable human personality who is somewhat to the right of Obama, it should have been Bloomberg.

I agree about Bloomberg, but if Romney's a plutocrat (which he is), what's Obama? Someone who's never done anything but was INSTALLED as president. I'll come clean, I drank that Kool aid because i thought the alternative was too horrific to contemplate, but let's be honest here, he's an utter failure. Not only domestically but even more so abroad.

doesn't sound very hopeful for a an undisputed election?

Love the Video. Ron Paul's policies are the ONLY ones that can have any hope of saving the US in it's current situation.

[flying]

doesn't sound very hopeful for a an undisputed election?

Same as it ever was.................

While TPTB do what they need to do to keep elections confined to THEIR

choices of who THEY will install.

Many folks will fight that same old Right/red vs Left/blue race never realizing they

are being dupped into thinking they have a choice.

Obama? Romni/Santorum? Matters not........ puppets of the same masters.

Edited March 11, 2012 by flying

[rakman]

...and the official unemployment rate is still 8.3%.

The unofficial rate is something over 14% but nobody knows for certain.

I agree but the way the stats are determined apply no matter who is in power. People are starting to feel things really are going in a good DIRECTION now. Two term Obama -- it's in the bag.

Add to that he doesn't really have any competition!

The feeling is still "ABO" "Anybody But Obama"

A couple of things:

1) except for the last 3 months of this "recovery", the number of jobs added were way less than the number of jobs required to keep the job market stable. Only about 200,000 jobs have been available to get the unemployment level lower. Most of the unemployment rate change has been due to people falling off unemployment, retiring or filing for disability for depression from being stressed from being unable to find a job for so long.

2) the price of gas is going to reverse the direction of the recovery.

If the job participation rate was going up, then there would be some hint of a recovery.

[rakman]

The best hope for America's future remains Obama, not the radical right wing!

Romney hardly could be considered part of the radical right. In fact, that's why the radical right won't vote for him: he's not one of them.

C'mon, I was an Obama supporter. He has failed miserably in every single area, most especially upholding the constitution.

If Obama had truly failed to uphold the constitution, why weren't impeachment proceedings brought against him by what most would consider to be a hostile House of Representatives? Why hasn't the SCOTUS overturned any laws he and congress passed? Yes, the indidividual mandate will come before the court this year, but most observers think it could go either way. So I'm not sure how you're able to state unequivocally that he hasn't upheld the constitution.

As I'm pretty sure I've stated here before, I'm not an Obama supporter, but IMHO, he's done a pretty good job with the hand he was dealt. Especially with the unemployment numbers. Take a look at the months before he took office and what has happened since his administration took over.

BTW, this chart doesn't include last month's numbers that came out last week.

It also doesn't include the smell of cooked books in the BLS kitchen. Do you believe everything you read and every statistic you see? What was that quote about 'useful idiots'? Even this chart looks alarming. I would rather see a solid ramp-up in employment, not the sputtering green mediocrity (there's that word again) I see in this particular statistical rendition. Has it kept up with the job growth required just to employ college grads and new immigrants?

Rhetorical question. In an election year (and perhaps any time), we won't get the truth out of this or any other administration.

What is so incredible during the job fall, the BLS had used a computer program that did only "expect a job created for each job lost". So the actual decrease in jobs wasn't known for many months until the someone figured out the numbers were bogus.

With all the people that work for BLS, how could that kind of BS pervade an agency?

Or take NASA's development of a new return to the moon program, where the booster was going to take 15 years to develop. HUH?

Is this a government or jobs program?

Makes me think the Federal Government really has become too big.

[rakman]

I can't find the link now, I wish I could. On Business Insider Dot Com yesterday someone made THIRTY different significant points about how the employment picture is incredibly worse than it was 5, 10 and even 15 years ago. It was f'ing shocking. This story is bullshit.

Oh, it really is horrible. But no politician has the power to radically change the fundamentals at this point. The expectations have been realistically lowered.

Of course they've been lowered amongst the cognoscenti, but they tell lies repeatedly to the the electorate/proles. You may think that's clever politics but is in fact obscene. It could lead to revolution in due time. I know you can't conceive of that but maybe it's because you've not studied history enough and lived in relatively affluent times.

The best hope for America's future remains Obama, not the radical right wing! People are already adjusting to the idea of less affluence and no guaranteed hegemony just being born American.

Socialism only lasts until other people's money runs out.

Obama's budget projections with wildly optimistic GDP growth rates still has over $ 1 Trillion deficits for the next 10 years. Estimation is for $15 Trillion in additional National Debt in 10 years, doubling the Debt.

ObamaCare will cost many times more than the wildly optimistic, and wrong, "savings" that were initially projected.

Obama has done a massive power grab to the Executive branch of the Federal government.

1) Student loans program

2) Obamacare

3) Obama SOTU speach: “The executive branch also needs to change. Too often, it’s inefficient, outdated and remote. That’s why I’ve asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy so that our Government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people.”

4) Executive orders to force business to provide "free" items to a class of citizens

5) Recess appointments when the Senate is still in session

6) GM and Chrysler "takeover" by the Federal Government, the violation of law with regard to bond holders

Obama's statements about the Constitution are disturbing.

While he says he wants the price of gasoline to go down, his policy makers are driving it up.

He said he wants government regulations to help business create jobs his chief regulation creator is making more regulations to stifle business.

He's also being effective in raising the cost of electricity, especially that produced by coal.

His use of crony-capitalism is hideous, the "green" technology funding continues to be a huge waste of money.

It's a shame that the progressive movement has set the US on the path it is on, it fails when it's tried time and time again.

[koheesti]

The best hope for America's future remains Obama, not the radical right wing!

Romney hardly could be considered part of the radical right. In fact, that's why the radical right won't vote for him: he's not one of them.

C'mon, I was an Obama supporter. He has failed miserably in every single area, most especially upholding the constitution.

If Obama had truly failed to uphold the constitution, why weren't impeachment proceedings brought against him by what most would consider to be a hostile House of Representatives? Why hasn't the SCOTUS overturned any laws he and congress passed? Yes, the indidividual mandate will come before the court this year, but most observers think it could go either way. So I'm not sure how you're able to state unequivocally that he hasn't upheld the constitution.

As I'm pretty sure I've stated here before, I'm not an Obama supporter, but IMHO, he's done a pretty good job with the hand he was dealt. Especially with the unemployment numbers. Take a look at the months before he took office and what has happened since his administration took over.

BTW, this chart doesn't include last month's numbers that came out last week.

Instead of focusing on who was president, the chart should show who controlled Congress. This job loss chart coincides well with when Democrats took control of Congress. The Republicans had majorities in both the House and Senate until Jan 2007 (Nov '06 election) after the Democrats won majorities in both and held that majority for four years from Jan 2007 until Jan 2011. To make matters worse for the Democrats, for two solid years they held a Super Majority in both houses of Congress from Jan 2009 - Jan 2011. That means the Reps didn't have enough votes to stop anything the Democrats wanted to do. The Dems have had control over the Senate for FIVE years. The Republicans only took control of the House in Jan 2011. Interesting that when the Republicans (with help of the Tea Party) won in the November 2010 election, it gave such high hopes to businesses that just one month later job growth started again.

So, Obama is flat out lying when he blames Republicans in Congress for blocking him during the first 24 months of his presidency.

[Pedzie]

It is obvious from your posting history that the people you hang out with are Obama averse and fixed in that state.

No actually most of them voted for Obama & I rib them constantly about it

OK, but what is Romney going to run on, restricting contraception?

It is more than mildly amusing that with the US economy in taters, debt growing at an inconceivable rate, one war ongoing and another due to kick off, unemployment, foreclosures, etc etc that the main election issues seem to be religion, abortion, contraception and allowing gay marraige. The country is screwed. it's not if it collapses, but when.

Couldn't agree more with that Jim.

[koheesti]

It is more than mildly amusing that with the US economy in taters, debt growing at an inconceivable rate, one war ongoing and another due to kick off, unemployment, foreclosures, etc etc that the main election issues seem to be religion, abortion, contraception and allowing gay marraige. The country is screwed. it's not if it collapses, but when.

Obama and the Dems know that if they run on the important economic issues you list, then they won't stand a chance in November, However, they stand a much better chance if they can distract the country enough with social issues, where the Republicans can look like religious zealots (especially during the primaries when they need to cater to the party's more conservative base to get their votes). The mainstream media is more than happy to help.

[Ulysses G.]

Couldn't agree more with that koheesti.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted.

This topic is about jobs. Stick to the topic or face a suspension.

[midas]

we now have even the Wall Street Journal questioning the integrity of the alleged job numbers

" Something about the U.S. economy isn't adding up."

"How can an economy that is growing so slowly produce such big declines in unemployment?"

http://online.wsj.co...1466314018.html

Edited March 12, 2012 by midas

[Jingthing]

Fair enough, but it's also fair to mention that the WSJ will be endorsing whatever republican candidate that sorry party comes up with.

[midas]

Fair enough, but it's also fair to mention that the WSJ will be endorsing whatever republican candidate that sorry party comes up with.

we already know your strong tendency to almost always introduce a political dimension to everything but this becomes a bit insignificant

in this case when you even have the likes of Steve Keen ( Professor of Economics and Finance at the University of Western Sydney )

raising similar points because I don't think he could give a fig as to who is in the White House

Edited March 12, 2012 by midas

[up-country_sinclair]

we now have even the Wall Street Journal questioning the integrity of the alleged job numbers

" Something about the U.S. economy isn't adding up."

"How can an economy that is growing so slowly produce such big declines in unemployment?"

http://online.wsj.co...1466314018.html

What do you mean, even the Wall Street Journal is questioning the jobs numbers? That's like saying, "even the New York Times thinks that Guantanamo should be closed." As mentioned above, the WSJ has traditionally been a newspaper which sides with Republican causes and candidates. And even more so since Rupert Murdoch bought it a few years back.

That said, I don't know if there is anything amiss with the jobs numbers. Has the calculation which determines official unemployment figures been changed since President Obama took office in 2009? It may be different from 20 years ago, but If I had to guess, it's exactly the same calculation which was used while President Bush was in office.

[midas]

we now have even the Wall Street Journal questioning the integrity of the alleged job numbers

" Something about the U.S. economy isn't adding up."

"How can an economy that is growing so slowly produce such big declines in unemployment?"

http://online.wsj.co...1466314018.html

What do you mean, even the Wall Street Journal is questioning the jobs numbers? That's like saying, "even the New York Times thinks that Guantanamo should be closed." As mentioned above, the WSJ has traditionally been a newspaper which sides with Republican causes and candidates. And even more so since Rupert Murdoch bought it a few years back.

That said, I don't know if there is anything amiss with the jobs numbers. Has the calculation which determines official unemployment figures been changed since President Obama took office in 2009? It may be different from 20 years ago, but If I had to guess, it's exactly the same calculation which was used while President Bush was in office.

what a sad state of affairs in USA when the results of economic analysis ( which I always thought

was a social science ) is only believed if you are of a certain political persuasion

" an economic system whose primary growth comes from lower order jobs is hardly the recipe for long-term affluence and global preeminence. Don't get me wrong - all of these jobs are very necessary and they require hard work which is most respectable. That is not my point. What is important here is understanding the shift that has occurred and the impact on the future of the economy. "

http://www.streettal...change/749.html

I think what he is getting at is that none of these people are likely to be able to qualify for mortgages! shhhhh

the silence is deafening

Edited March 13, 2012 by midas