The Bush Created Economic Abyss Obama Pulled America Out Of Was Deep, THIS Deep:

[Fred Sanders]

Last edited Fri Feb 7, 2014, 01:31 PM - Edit history (3)

A truly informed America would be down on its knees thanking the President for restoring the economy, restoring family values and compassion in the White House and ending endless American war, demanding these policies be continued. even in the face of massive Republican and mass media obstructionism .......but, no, having an informed America would cause massive profit loss for the media, The Big Game would be like this year's Superbowl first quarter blowout, people would lose interest early in The Big Game, the Perpetual Media Election Cycle and edge of your seat excitement of Who Will Win would suffer, plunging ratings would lose profit, the Citizens United Bonanza would wane....so the CBO media fiasco was an accident, a rare media mea error was it?

How much "progressive" policy could anyone have championed and pushed through to law in the current Idiot America media environment, I ask you who whine about his lack of progressive creed? How many Presidents were subject to the crude attacks of Bill O'Reilly, pretend journalist, obvious propagandist, on a pretend TV "news" station, obvious propaganda, in your face, jaw dropping propaganda, while said media environment stood mutely by IGNORING the obvious?

Don't blame Obama!

The right wing has got that covered.

And remember President Obama has three more years to be President Of America, so caving to the Endless Election Cycle Of The Mass Media is exactly what you should not be doing.

[Thinkingabout]

1. I am thankful I do not have to depend on FOX to hear negatgive news. I am thankful

we have PBO to have fought and a Democrat congress which made the proper decision to bail out the banks though there could have been better rules on the use of the funds and he made the moves to save our auto industry. Had he have been able to move this country forward and the economy could have recovered except for the congress who hoped for his failure. ACA is still a good thing and will be appreciated in the future.

[hfojvt]

31. Hey now.

The bank "bailout" happened when Bush was President, although PBO got to spend a portion of the TARP funds, and he did vote for it as a Senator.

However, it was the other, much derided stimulus, which also provided both a necessary boost to the economy and also gave a boost to "confidence" in the economy.

These economic crises used to be called "panics" and historians would write about "the panic of 1873" or the "panic of 1847". Before the stimulus passed, the economy was losing 700,000 jobs a month and people were panicking. It's like a fire in a crowded theater, the panic can cause as many casualties as the fire.

Both TARP and the stimulus helped to stem the "panic" and provide the steady recovery. It helps to know that fire trucks are on the way. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024400678

[catbyte]

44. Please do not use the term "Democrat" this or "Democrat" that. The proper word is DEMOCRATIC this or

that, Thinkingabout. We aren't DEMOCRAT UNDERGROUND. The shortened word, "Democrat" is a Republican insult and one of my pet peeves.

Thank you.

[LoisB]

46. AMEN!

[Fred Sanders]

54. Ok, did not know that, but why is it an insult? Have Democratics accepted it as an insult?

[Sheepshank]

55. good one haa haa

[Blanks]

61. Good question.

Just because someone has made it their pet peeve doesn't necessarily make it a big deal.

I was taught in high school government that 'democratic' is a form of government, that the 'democrats' were one of the two parties. Also that we live in a democratic republic. Democratic has a very different meaning than democrat. Perhaps my teacher was a republican and was taking swipes at the students from democratic families.

Maybe that was incorrect teaching, but I try to complain about educators around here as little as possible.

My pet peeve is when people use 'should of' instead of should've (and use the incorrect 'there'), but I don't really expect for anyone to care what my pet peeves are.

[catbyte]

73. Excuse the hell out of me. I didn't realize that bagger insults are now acceptable

here. I SHOULD'VE known better.

[Blanks]

90. I've never seen 'baggers' use it as an insult...

But I don't typically spend a lot of time around them.

If calling us democrats instead of referring to us as democratic gets under your skin when your around your bagger relatives - they're probably having a lot of fun at your expense.

But yeah, you should of known

[Agony]

66. an epithet since 1940

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)

[Glitterati]

2. No one on this site is "blaming" him, but...

the only people his work has helped are the rich.

The poor and middle class is STILL waiting for his policies to trickle down from his rich pals to US.

We're hurting. It's year 6 of his Presidency. At some point, it has to be OUR turn to feel the effects of Barack Obama.

I'm sorry, on a personal level I love the man, but my daily life is just getting harder and harder and harder.

WE NEED RELIEF.

[Victor_c3]

3. I was getting ready to point out the same thing

Whatever happened to all of those benefits that were promised us via trickle down?

[Glitterati]

5. I'm done with excuses

I just expected soooo much more from him and I will no longer hide my disappointment.

[Gary 50]

49. It was a lie.

Trickle down economics was designed to send all of the money to the top one percent while devastating the middle class. It has worked perfectly. They, the trickle down proponents, must be laughing their asses off.

[cali]

4. exactly. whoopee. The stock market is up.

He's another corporate politician.

[ProSense]

6. You know

the extended unemployment benefits that expired and Congress is now trying to extend? President Obama signed them into law December 2012.

You know the SNAP increases that expired in November, they were part of the stimulus (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024449718#post12).

Krugman: Obama and the One Percent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024391415

Paul Krugman Calls Barack Obama The Most Consequential President Since Reagan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024432508

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. Shhhh ...

As someone that works in HR, I see (literally) 10-20 Offer Letters/day extending job offers to folks (earning in the $40,000-$60,000 range), 30% of which (as of last week) refuse the offer in favor of another (usually, better paying) job (n=70%).

You know what the person is really saying ... Right? "I have not personally benefited, so President Obama has done nothing for us."

[B2G]

19. Extending benefits to those who can't get a job

solves WHAT exactly?

We. Need. Jobs.

[ProSense]

22. Well,

"Extending benefits to those who can't get a job solves WHAT exactly? We. Need. Jobs."

...it keeps people from starving and doesn't exacerbate an already tenuous economic recovery.

Republicans kill unemployment benefits for 1.7 million Americans. Twice.

by Laura Clawson

<...>

The Senate voted twice more on whether to restore emergency unemployment insurance for 1.7 million (and counting) Americans who've been jobless for six months or more Thursday afternoon, and Republicans blocked the aid twice more.

A cloture vote on an amendment giving Republicans much of what they'd claimed to require to support an unemployment bill fell just one vote short of the 60-vote supermajority required. (Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid subsequently changed his vote to no for procedural reasons, so the final vote was technically 58 to 40.) Republican Sens. Dean Heller of Nevada, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire voted in favor of unemployment aid. Immediately after, Republicans again blocked the underlying bill without the set of concessions that hadn't been enough for them. In that vote, Heller was the only Republican voting yes.

The first vote was on an amendment in which Democrats gave Republicans much of what they said they wanted in exchange for extending unemployment insurance, but it wasn't enough:



At a certain point—a point we're well past—you just have to conclude that, regardless of what they're demanding at any given point, Republicans simply don't want aid for people struggling with long-term unemployment in an economy with nearly three job seekers for every available job.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/06/1275587/-Republicans-kill-unemployment-benefits-for-1-7-million-Americans-Twice

Senate Republicans once again blocked emergency unemployment aid for Americans unemployed six months or longer. In fact, Senate Republicans filibustered an extension of the jobless benefits into November, and they blocked a three-month extension. After the votes, Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) pointed out that the CBO had estimated that the longer aid extension would create 200,000 jobs.

- more -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/14/1269647/-Republicans-block-two-unemployment-aid-bills

Last week, Labor Secretary Thomas Perez convened a group of the long-term unemployed to share their stories with members of his department's staff. All were over 50 and once held white-collar jobs; some earned six-figure salaries. The session was heartbreaking but also inspiring -- and it made me wonder why Democrats aren't screaming louder, in sheer outrage, about this GOP exercise in gratuitous inhumanity.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024328810

Why Is It So Important to Extend Unemployment Insurance? Take A Look At These Four Numbers:



http://www.whitehouse.gov/share/four-numbers-unemployment-insurance

[Fred Sanders]

56. But the Mass Media is reporting it as "Senate Fails To Extend....", again not just misleading

bit purposely lying about why the extension for long term unemployment benefits that Obama signed into law one year ago and all Democratics (is that the right word, or is it "Democrats"?) support did not pass yet another Republican blockade and filibuster, not even permitting the issue to be debated.

Truth like that will get Americans to abandon watching the Game.

[okaawhatever]

24. You are confusing what PBO has done with other things that were done. PBO bailed out the car

manufacturers. Like it or not, that helped the auto workers and manufacturing base. PBO fought for an extension to the SS tax cut that put an extra $1500 in the pocket of the average American. There are other things, but saying that what PBO did helped the 1% isn't true. There are policies still in effect going back to Reagan that help them. PBO fought hard for tax increases to the 1%. Not only has the cap gains tax gone back up to 20%, the upper tax limit went from 35 to 39. There is also now a medicare tax on high earners of 3.9% without cap on a lot of it. That is what is helping pay for the tax credits and other proposals in the ACA.

Just because the recovery hasn't helped the bottom 80% as much as the others doesn't mean that it's PBO's fault. Mostly it's the fault of Congress for not passing more measures to stimulate the economy. The Republicans know that a strong economy in 2014 or 2016 kills their chances of reelection. That is why they are working so hard to slow the recovery. They stand no chance if the economy rebounds. Remember Clinton's "It's the economy, stupid"? Every politician out there knows that good economic times mean an incumbent party gets reelected and the Republicans are fighting hard to make sure that doesn't happen. A full recovery for the 80% is the kiss of death for the Republican party.

The recovery is going slowly but surely. Even if people all go back to work we have to fight against the minimum wage, labor laws, and other things to benefit the middle class. This isn't just a one person job (the President). I know it's discouraging but remember that all data shows a slow but sure recovery. The only thing to really jump start it will be stimulus bills passed through Congress, an increase in minimum wage and other legislation that quite frankly is in the hands of Congress right now. Don't give up, I know you're tired and angry. We all are. Just remember the victories and the future. They're both better than they seem.

[hfojvt]

26. that simply is NOT true

7.5 million jobs have been created in the last four years.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024400678

The people who got those jobs have certainly been helped.

The poor and unemployed who have gotten things like increased amounts in food stamps and multiple extensions of unemployment benefits have certainly been helped too.

Obama keeps pushing for, signing and then bragging about policies that help the upper 20% far more than they help the bottom 80% and I strongly object to that, but it is certainly NOT true that the bottom 80% has gotten NOTHING.

My own daily life, even though I now have a tooth that is bothering me, and a car to dig out of the snow, and a washer that seems to have conked out, my own daily life has not gotten harder and harder. Even if it had, I am not sure what you are expecting Obama or Congress to do about it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

42. The population grew by 9.1 million people in that period. n/t

[Glitterati]

69. Right, NOT

So, when Obama didn't like the Iran sanctions going against him in Congress, he managed to control Congress long enough to shut that shit down.

But, when the Senate plays political theater with 1.2 million unemployed today, just for a cause to campaign on, he can't control those very SAME people.

We're NOT stupid. And, we are most definitely NOT blind.

And, one would have to be BLIND AND STUPID not to see exactly what kind of political theater was played with the lives of poor people today.

And, Obama just couldn't find his veto pen for that big give away to rich farmers which CUT FOOD STAMPS yesterday.

ENOUGH.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

33. maybe if we libs got our act in high gear to fight the rw propaganda before 2010 midterms....

we'd be seeing more results now.



fucking pukes took the house in 2010. I remember the waves of nihilism. Cynical jerks plugging away at the useless dems, liberal "purity", don't bother to vote the midterms......blah blah FUCKING blah.

I'm sick of their shit being blamed on PBO.

[Cha]

64. "rich pals.." that's ignorant propaganda. President Obama

has helped people like me. And, the reason more Poor and Middle class aren't helped is because of the teabagger a$$holes in the Senate and Congress.

But, the President gets blamed because he's such a handy fucking target instead of actually putting the blame squarely on the republicons where it belongs.

[Glitterati]

68. Timothy Geithner. Enough. Said.

n/t

[Cha]

74. No, that's simplistic propagandistic bull puck..

[Glitterati]

75. Really?

So how many Democrats voted for the Ag bill Obama signed yesterday CUTTING FOOD STAMPS FOR THE 2ND TIME IN AS MANY MONTHS?

What the hell happened to Obama's veto pen? Oh no, there not only wasn't a veto of that bullshit, he traveled all the way to Michigan to insult the poor there IN PERSON while he signed it!

Right, not political theater when the President travels to a bankrupt city where the poor are homeless and starving to shove ANOTHER FOOD STAMP CUT RIGHT IN THEIR FACE!!!!!!

You can buy that, I'm done. I'm all out of Yes, We Can.

No. We. Can't.

[babylonsister]

65. You know what?

You're full of it. If you were truly outraged, you'd blame the rethugs who are blocking everything. You're good; you're on a Dem website and have the balls to blame this on Dems?
Why not be angry at the real culprits?

[Glitterati]

67. I am out of hope

For 6 long years, I've patiently hung on, juggling bills to pay for medication, struggling and worrying if they're going to shut off the power or the heat this month because I needed meds I could cut in half to make them last 2 months instead of one.

When Obama got the nomination I believed Yes, We Can.

I truly believed our first black President would be one of our best ever Presidents.

I was filled with hope and pride.

But, 6 years later, I'm just plain out of hope. I'm tired of struggling with only hope to get me through another month. I'm tired of watching my daughter work her ass off to graduate a year early from HS as class valedictorian to watch her get a job paying $7.25/hr. where they lie to her about Obamacare.

I'm tired. I'm out of hope. I'm tired of waiting my turn which never comes. I'm still waiting for ANYthing good to come to those of us who have patiently supported this man while he bails out Wall Street and we get screwed more every day. I'm finished watching Democrats make political theater out of 1.2 million unemployed workers so they have an issue to run on in November.

I'm just flat out of hope.

No. We. Can't.

[babylonsister]

71. I'm

sympathetic, but the Dems did NOT make political theater out of this. They tried several times to get benefits passed for the unemployed and the rethugs wouldn't have any of it.

Like I said, be angry at the people who deserve it. And I'd see what can be done at the local level for you. I don't even know where you live, but help is out there.

[Glitterati]

72. So, he could control Congress over Iran sanctions

but he couldn't control Congress over the 2nd CUT TO FOOD STAMPS IN AS MANY MONTHS?

And he couldn't control Congress long enough to say "1.2 million unemployed are not your playthings!"

Nope, he was too damned busy signing the cut to food stamps.

[babylonsister]

78. You need to do some research. I'm

not doing it for you.

[Glitterati]

80. Not necessary

I've watched it. I've lived it.

As have the people who worked so hard to elect this man, twice.

Here's all the research I need:

1. Yesterday's political theater in the Senate was a Harry Reid/Democratic bill. The DEMOCRATS were behind playing games with 1.2 million unemployed. Harry Reid controls what bills come to the floor. Harry Reid knows the whip count before a bill is brought to the floor. Harry Reid KNEW he was playing games. What's to research?

2. Barack Obama went to Michigan for more political theater to sign the farm bill which cut food stamps AGAIN. Even said he came there to prove Detroit is "open for business" and then signed the bill standing on the shoulders of the poor and homeless while cutting food stamps.

I could go on and on. The poor are stage props for Democrats now. I refuse to be a stage prop for them any longer.

I'm not on food stamps nor unemployment.

But, I'll not stand by while MY PARTY mistreats those who are.

I'll not stand by and cheer them on.

I'll not defend these abhorrent actions by the party I support.

I'll not stand by mute while these people destroy the hopes of people who are just trying to SURVIVE.

I'm not a Democratic Cheerleader. I am a human being first. Democrat last.

[econoclast]

7. Pulled America out of?

Still mired near the bottom. The attached link is a graph from the St Louis Fed showing full-time employees as a percent of the population. Looks like we are still bumping along the bottom. While showing some slow, small improvement, full-time employees as a percent of the population is still down at levels not seen since the depths of the 1980's recession.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=nKb

[econoclast]

8. And its not because of retirees

Before someone floats that idea ... The labor participation rates of those 65 and older are going up, not down.

[ProSense]

9. Isn't it a

"While showing some slow, small improvement, full-time employees as a percent of the population is still down at levels not seen since the depths of the 1980's recession. "

...tad disingenuous to be comparing apples to oranges? I mean, based on the premise of your statement (and the chart), employment levels during Bush were higher than during Carter. Under Bush, no jobs were created. Under Carter, 10 million jobs were added.

The chart is a completely different metric from the one in the OP. If you look at the peeks and valleys of your chart, it creates the impression that the previous recessions, in terms of the hole created, were worse than the current, which is not the case.

Also, the state of the economy when the President took office matters: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024459258

[Fred Sanders]

10. The Job Creation/Loss chart is the most informative because it counts PEOPLE.

So others will avoid it and deflect with statistically created charts, ignoring the raw numbers.

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. The employment to population ratio is the best measure of labor distress

So no, I'm not ready to get down on my knees to thank the people responsible for this.

[ProSense]

12. It is not the "best measure" of the impact of a President's policies.

Again, Bush didn't have to do shit for that ratio to remain higher during his Presidency.

The President has no control over the rate of population growth. So population growth could remain constant or increase, and if zero jobs are created it could look great or devastating.

[lumberjack_jeff]

13. True enough. The president isn't solely responsible for where we are.

But yes, the president does have some degree of control over population growth. Our population is growing entirely because of immigration.

[ProSense]

17. Yes,

"But yes, the president does have some degree of control over population growth. Our population is growing entirely because of immigration. "

..."some degree," but that doesn't tell you anything about the impact of policies on job creation. What it does explain is why Bush's numbers remained high when he created no jobs. From the piece you posted.

In its annual state population estimates, the Census Bureau said Thursday that there were 313.9 million people in the United States on July 1. That is up 2.3 million from a year earlier, a growth rate of 0.75%.

<...>

Nationwide, the number of new immigrants during the 1990s averaged about 1 million a year, but that fell to a low of 725,530 in the year that ended in July 2009 amid the weak U.S. economy and stronger growth in developing countries.

As for the chart the other DUer posted in comment 7, compare the jump during Reagan and Clinton. Yet Clinton created millions more jobs that Reagan.

[seveneyes]

32. The bottom line is "How are we doing now?"

And right now we leaking and the bailing is not keeping up. Most people do not care who or what party gets credit, results and a comfortable life are their goals. They want it, and they want it now. No spin or past facts matter. Forward.

[ProSense]

37. Yes, the "bottom line" is we should be doing better.

"And right now we leaking and the bailing is not keeping up. Most people do not care who or what party gets credit, results and a comfortable life are their goals. "

Right, but one would have to be blind not to see that Republicans have done everything to sabotage the recovery.

The Jobs Program That Wasn’t

Macroeconomic Advisers on the American Jobs Act, proposed a year ago:

We estimate that the American Jobs Act (AJA), if enacted, would give a significant boost to GDP and employment over the near-term.

-The various tax cuts aimed at raising workers’ after-tax income and encouraging hiring and investing, combined with the spending increases aimed at maintaining state & local employment and funding infrastructure modernization, would:
-Boost the level of GDP by 1.3% by the end of 2012, and by 0.2% by the end of 2013.
-Raise nonfarm establishment employment by 1.3 million by the end of 2012 and 0.8 million by the end of 2013, relative to the baseline

Of course, it that had happened, Obama would be more or less a lock for reelection. Instead, having blocked the president’s economic plans, Republicans can point to weak job growth and claim that the president’s policies have failed.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/the-jobs-program-that-wasnt/

Now, I certainly would give "credit" to Republicans if they helped to pass a clean jobs bill.

[kelliekat44]

16. But you do know, don't you, that PBO can just pull policies out of thin air and some them into law

anytime he wants to. And by trying really hard to keep the banks and auto industry afloat he really is kissing off the rest of the country AND the fact that the total population is growing much faster than jobs can be created because people are living and working longer and the children of the boomers are entering the job market at really fast rates; and PBO didn't pass a huge windfall tax on the wealthies all by himself is no excuse for just a 6.6% unemployment rate and the failure to extend unemployment for millions.....

[okaawhatever]

27. Yeah, and come to think of it, PBO shouldn't have rejected the first bailout offer GM presented. How

dare he demand that the CEO be fired and that the auto industry come up with higher mileage standards in exchange for the bailout. We all know that if he approves the Keystone pipeline he hasn't done a thing for the environment. (sarcasm, don't know where the sarcasm thingee is.)

[Fred Sanders]

14. You are going to have to back up your claim of

"The employment to population ratio is the best measure of labor distress", an excellent theory that needs more research and a definition of "labor distress".

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. Labor is a commodity subject to supply and demand.

So long as there's a big pool of labor available, it gives capital the leverage to buy it at a price of their choosing.

This isn't edgy speculation, it's patently and demonstrably true.

[Fred Sanders]

20. How many fish & size of the pool and is more important than the ratio of predator fish to prey fish.

[lumberjack_jeff]

39. The OP is analagous to counting the number of prey fish eaten each month.

Context, such as the number of fish in the school, is lacking.

In 2000 almost 65% of the working age population were employed. Today it is less than 59%. .59/.65 = 90.7%

About 10 percent of the people employed in 2000 are not employed today. Optimistically there are 20% more potential workers than jobs in this economy and capital likes it that way.

So no. I don't see anything here to cheer about.

[econoclast]

21. Not most informative

Hi Fred. You have to keep in mind 2 things. 1). All jobs are not created equal. The total non farm payroll numbers includes both full time and part time employees. The graphic from the St Louis Fed is full-time employees only. And as a measure of economic well being I think that is a better, more informative metric. 2). The population keeps growing. We need to be adding something like 130,000 jobs a month just to keep pace with population growth. So just counting employed noses doesn't quite tell the whole story. The real question is 'in a healthy economy, given the increasing population, how many employed noses SHOULD we expect to count?'

Given 1 & 2, I prefer to look at full-time employees as a percent of population as my go-to measure of employment condition.

[reddread]

23. church

I definitely prefer the church of the super-genius.
thanks!

[ProSense]

25. The economy

"We need to be adding something like 130,000 jobs a month just to keep pace with population growth."

...added an average 194,000 jobs per month in 2013.

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 113,000 in January. In 2013, employment growth averaged 194,000 per month. In January, job gains occurred in construction, manufacturing, wholesale trade, and mining. (See table B-1.)

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

[econoclast]

28. So net of population growth

That gives 64,000 jobs a month. Not all those are full-time. Hence my "slow, small improvement" language. Which is exactly what the graph from St Louis Fed shows. QED

[ProSense]

29. Again,

"So net of population growth

That gives 64,000 jobs a month. Not all those are full-time. Hence my "slow, small improvement" language. Which is exactly what the graph from St Louis Fed shows. QED"

...the two are apples and oranges. Population growth doesn't tell one anything about the impact of policies on job creation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024459758#post17

[econoclast]

34. Not apples and oranges at all.

Hi Pro ... I think that we can agree that, net of jobs needed to keep pace with the increasing population, we are digging ourselves out of a REALLY BIG hole at the rate of 64,000 jobs a month ... (And not all of them full time jobs ). What do you think of the policies that yielded those results?

[ProSense]

43. Yes,

"Hi Pro ... I think that we can agree that, net of jobs needed to keep pace with the increasing population, we are digging ourselves out of a REALLY BIG hole at the rate of 64,000 jobs a month ... (And not all of them full time jobs ). What do you think of the policies that yielded those results?"

...we can agree that "jobs needed to keep pace with the increasing population." Still, that is a complete different metric from the OP's point. It's a metric that doesn't tell you anything about the impact of policies on job creation.

For example, it's possible to create 250,000 to 300,000 jobs per month, but if the population grows at a more rapid pace, the ratio would be lower.

[econoclast]

45. If the population

Is growing faster than the 250-300K jobs being created than the jobs policy is a failure.

[ProSense]

47. Huh? n/t

[econoclast]

60. Ok. Lets try it this way ....

Regardless of the raw number of jobs created. 100,000, 200,000, 300,000, 500,000....If the economy fails to produce enough jobs to keep up with the growth of the population, then whatever the jobs policy is ... That policy is a failure. Example. If population goes up by 400,000 and only 300,000 jobs were created then there are still 100,000 people without a job and that is a big problem. In our current real world situation as we just described, net of population growth, in 2013 there were about 64,000 jobs created per month. (And not all of them full time jobs ) Given the size of the hole we are digging out of, that is awfully small and slow improvement. It sure beats Losing jobs ... But it isn't a performance to write home about.

[ProSense]

62. No,

"Regardless of the raw number of jobs created. 100,000, 200,000, 300,000, 500,000....If the economy fails to produce enough jobs to keep up with the growth of the population, then whatever the jobs policy is ... That policy is a failure. Example. If population goes up by 400,000 and only 300,000 jobs were created then there are still 100,000 people without a job and that is a big problem. In our current real world situation as we just described, net of population growth, in 2013 there were about 64,000 jobs created per month. (And not all of them full time jobs ) Given the size of the hole we are digging out of, that is awfully small and slow improvement. It sure beats Losing jobs ... But it isn't a performance to write home about."

...not a failure, but inadequate. Job creation of 300,000 to 500,000 jobs cannot be a policy failure. During the Clinton years, job creation averaged about 2.8 million per year or about 236,000 per month.

FDR created 18 million in three terms (1.5 million per year or 125,000 per month). If you extrapolate for population growth on the high end, that would be equivalent to about 45 million today (or 3.75 million per year or 312,000 per month).

Since 1939, the economy added 500,000 jobs in a month only 16 times (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002643728).

Job creation of more than 350,000 per month is well above average.

To the point: Population can decline or increase independent of job creation. If 3 million jobs are being created year to year, and the population surges in a subsequent year, that level of job creation will likely be inadequate. If the rate of population growth returns to the level of the of the years prior to the surge, it returns to being excellent job creation.

[lumberjack_jeff]

48. Obama's policies helped create jobs and thus stop digging the hole deeper.

But the immediately practical question for the individual worker is how job creating policy impacted them individually.

Without knowing the effect of changes in population, the "number of jobs created each month" is irrelevant to that person.

The meaningful question is "how much competition there is for each new job?" From the perspective of each working age person, there are effectively 10% fewer jobs than there were in 2000, It's premature to celebrate.

[ProSense]

50. That number

"The meaningful question is 'how much competition there is for each new job?' From the perspective of each working age person, there are effectively 10% fewer jobs than there were in 2000, It's premature to celebrate."

...has dropped from a high of about 7 per job opening down to 3 per job opening.

Right, this is nothing to "celebrate," especially given that there is likely no potential for Congressional action.

[Coyotl]

30. K&R

[seveneyes]

38. Unemployment rate since 1950

[Coyotl]

53. Sometimes, correlation is causation!

Thanks Bush!

[seveneyes]

59. Not sure how I messed that link up. This is what I intended...

[Fred Sanders]

57. That is the best graph so far of the ones posted, I love 10 year graphs, it is The Big Picuture

[econoclast]

41. Excellent visual

Until there is more green than red on that graphic we still have a LOT of work to do.

[Bluenorthwest]

35. Bush and his Republican policies drove this country to the brink of ruin.

Republican policies and Republican stupidity, remember John McCain on the morning the market first crashed?

[Armstead]

58. With Democratic help

If Clinton and the centrist Democrats had not pushed for a lort of really bad policies, Bush and the GOP would not have been able to do the damage they did.

[Glitterati]

70. And those Republicans stole his veto pen yesterday, right?

So he just had to sign that bill which cut food stamps to the poor yesterday.

Maybe he needs to get the Secret Service looking for that veto pen one day.

[Maedhros]

36. The recovery has benefited Corporate America many, many times more

than it has ordinary working Americans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/13/uneven-financial-crisis-recovery-charts_n_3913882.html

[ProSense]

40. Gotta love the "Bush expansion 2002 to 2007"

Does that reflect the two massive tax cuts he gave to the rich? The tax cuts that Obama ended for the top one percent?

Krugman: Obama and the One Percent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024391415

Also, the heatlh care law raised the payroll tax for high income earners and taxed investment income.

Net Investment Income Tax

A new Net Investment Income Tax goes into effect starting in 2013. The 3.8 percent Net Investment Income Tax applies to individuals, estates and trusts that have certain investment income above certain threshold amounts. The IRS and the Treasury Department have issued proposed regulations on the Net Investment Income Tax. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail or hand delivered to the IRS. For additional information on the Net Investment Income Tax, see our questions and answers.

Additional Medicare Tax

A new Additional Medicare Tax goes into effect starting in 2013. The 0.9 percent Additional Medicare Tax applies to an individual’s wages, Railroad Retirement Tax Act compensation, and self-employment income that exceeds a threshold amount based on the individual’s filing status. The threshold amounts are $250,000 for married taxpayers who file jointly, $125,000 for married taxpayers who file separately, and $200,000 for all other taxpayers. An employer is responsible for withholding the Additional Medicare Tax from wages or compensation it pays to an employee in excess of $200,000 in a calendar year. The IRS and the Department of the Treasury have issued proposed regulations on the Additional Medicare Tax. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail or hand delivered to the IRS. For additional information on the Additional Medicare Tax, see our questions and answers.

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Affordable-Care-Act-Tax-Provisions

[bravenak]

51. Thank you Fred Sanders!!

This charts will be saved and shown to everyone I know.

[underpants]

52. I've got TWO jobs since 2009

Man am I glad I worked so hard to get him elected.

Thanks for the post Fred.

[Cha]

63. Thanks Fred!! And,

Thanks Obama!

[grahamhgreen]

76. What is the total per month?

[Corruption Inc]

77. You should read the book "1984"

Note the fictional yet applicable use of the term "ministry of propaganda".

[KG]

79. bush didn't create the conditions for the recession, the prez has done fuck all to pull out of it.

ludicrous assertions

[Glitterati]

81. Besides, 6 years IN, It's Bush's Fault no longer works

George W. Bush didn't bring a senate bill playing with the lives of the unemployed to the senate floor yesterday, Harry Reid did.

George W. Bush didn't sign the farm bill yesterday in Michigan, standing on the shoulders of the poor and homeless in that state, while cutting food stamps for the second time in as many months. Obama did.

[KG]

83. but let's pretend it's just the repukes working against working people

[ProSense]

87. It is the fucking Republicans.

No one has to pretend shit, see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017174341

[ProSense]

84. Reality:

CNN Poll: Americans Still Blame Bush For Struggling Economy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024456555

George W. Bush didn't bring a senate bill playing with the lives of the unemployed to the senate floor yesterday, Harry Reid did.

George W. Bush didn't sign the farm bill yesterday in Michigan, standing on the shoulders of the poor and homeless in that state, while cutting food stamps for the second time in as many months. Obama did.

Maybe you could recruit Bush for 2016. I mean, clearly you believe he values "lives."

[ProSense]

85. Translation: Apologize for Bush, Obama sucks. n/t

[KG]

86. imagine my surprise.

[ProSense]

88. "Surprise" that apologizing for Bush is being called out?

Which part of his Presidency did you admire?

[KG]

89. 'Which part of his Presidency

did you admire? '

certainly you can do better than that.

[ProSense]

91. Wait,

"'Which part of his Presidency did you admire? '

certainly you can do better than that"

..."better than" this: "bush didn't create the conditions for the recession"

No I can't, you won.

[KG]

82. oop