Werthless wrote:

Grotewold wrote:It seems naive to me to compare this recession to previous ones. I feel like there are major systemic problems (for which the parties share blame) which have taken us here and that most people instinctively understand we aren't going back to the 50s or 90s anytime soon.

So anything less than horrible economic news is good news for a mostly likeable president.

That's typical talk in every recession and growth period. This is a "New Economy," and we throw all the old rules out the door. A newsweek headline of that nature occurs every 5 years or so.

What are some of the structural hurdles slowing GDP growth and a jobs recovery, and which ones are government related (not just the President's fault, but Congress's fault)? Romney's argument is that many of them are tied to government policy.

Romney's argument is on what Obama focused on in his time with a Democratic congress. Repeal of Glass-Steagall? Lowering of corporate tax rates and eliminating rent-seeking loopholes? Revamping of Fannie Mac? No, we got Cash for Clunkers, the stimulus bill, the healthcare law, and we spent all our time debating how much the CEO of Citi should make. Oh, and the Obama administration made sure to circumvent bankruptcy law and ensure that the autoworkers union got ownership in GM and Chrysler ahead of bondholders.

(I havent looked closely at Dodd-Frank, which is the foundational financial legislation passed during his term.)

td11 wrote:

pacino wrote:Sure would be nice if we didn't cut all those government jobs

The best news anywhere in the U.S. economy over the past three months has been in the government sector, where unemployment has dropped dramatically from 5.7 percent in July to 5.1 percent in August to 4.3 percent in September, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/unemplo ... nt-workers

MoBettle wrote:this wasn't a typical recession though. if you disagree with what was done, that's fine, but simply comparing it to what is said during "every recession and growth period" is incomplete.

2009-2012: Opposition party congresspersons make it their top priority to unseat the president in the next election, which included sabotaging the economy whenever possible.

Bucky wrote:

2009-2012: Opposition party congresspersons make it their top priority to unseat the president in the next election, which included sabotaging the economy whenever possible.

You forgot one line

Werthless wrote:

MoBettle wrote:this wasn't a typical recession though. if you disagree with what was done, that's fine, but simply comparing it to what is said during "every recession and growth period" is incomplete.

2008: housing prices drop 30% peak to trough, banking system instability/failures, stocks drop 40%
2001: post terrorist attack coinciding with an epic stock market crash (NASDAQ crashed nearly 80% peak to trough!)
1981: High inflation and high unemployment, both over 10%. Savings and Loan crisis as interest rate risk caused many to fail.
1973: fall of Bretton Woods system, US suspends convertibility of currency to gold, many currencies went from fixed to floating, quadrupling of OPEC oil prices
1945: ramping down war-time production, releasing price controls, and readjusting millions back into the workforce. Keynesians predict widespread employment and return to depression.

Yes, 2008 was uniquely unique, and explains the tepid recovery in job creation and economic growth.

Werthless wrote:

MoBettle wrote:this wasn't a typical recession though. if you disagree with what was done, that's fine, but simply comparing it to what is said during "every recession and growth period" is incomplete.

2008: housing prices drop 30% peak to trough, banking system instability/failures, stocks drop 40%
2001: post terrorist attack coinciding with an epic stock market crash (NASDAQ crashed nearly 80% peak to trough!)
1981: High inflation and high unemployment, both over 10%. Savings and Loan crisis as interest rate risk caused many to fail.
1973: fall of Bretton Woods system, US suspends convertibility of currency to gold, many currencies went from fixed to floating, quadrupling of OPEC oil prices
1945: ramping down war-time production, releasing price controls, and readjusting millions back into the workforce. Keynesians predict widespread employment and return to depression.

Yes, 2008 was uniquely unique, and explains the tepid recovery in job creation and economic growth.

Werthless wrote:

Grotewold wrote:It seems naive to me to compare this recession to previous ones. I feel like there are major systemic problems (for which the parties share blame) which have taken us here and that most people instinctively understand we aren't going back to the 50s or 90s anytime soon.

So anything less than horrible economic news is good news for a mostly likeable president.

That's typical talk in every recession and growth period. This is a "New Economy," and we throw all the old rules out the door. A newsweek headline of that nature occurs every 5 years or so.

Werthless wrote:C+ plus C+ equals A in my book. The fewer words I post, the better my posts are. And graphs... lots of graphs.

jerseyhoya wrote:

td11 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:If labor force participation rate was the same as when Obama took office, U3 rate would be 10.7%. If labor force participation was the same as it was in January 2012, it'd be 8.3%.

this is the first month in four years where the total employed/population ratio went up and you wanna bring up when the pres first took office and we were still bleeding jobs from the recession?

It's important to keep the numbers in perspective. Where we've come from tells us a lot about where we are. Also brought up January of this year.

Monkeyboy wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

td11 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:If labor force participation rate was the same as when Obama took office, U3 rate would be 10.7%. If labor force participation was the same as it was in January 2012, it'd be 8.3%.

this is the first month in four years where the total employed/population ratio went up and you wanna bring up when the pres first took office and we were still bleeding jobs from the recession?

It's important to keep the numbers in perspective. Where we've come from tells us a lot about where we are. Also brought up January of this year.

Did you factor in the unprecedented republican obstruction that made it difficult for him to act quickly and effectively? We were bleeding jobs and republican leaders were flat out saying that they didn't care about the jobs, just getting Obama out of office. Did you factor any of that in? I only ask because I don't recall ever in my life hearing something like that from a major politician during a time of crisis. Usually in a time of crisis the two sides pull together, like they did during 9/11, for example. Remember the dems giving Bush everything he wanted, even the stuff they didn't agree with? Yeh, that didn't happen this time. Getting back the presidency was more important to the republican congress than getting people back to work. These guys were PRAYING for a double dip recession. So I'm wondering if you included that in your Obama-failed equation.

jerseyhoya wrote:What does that have to do with the labor force participation rate's effect on the unemployment rate?

Who are you yelling at/responding to?

TenuredVulture wrote:The other thing is, as the chart regarding who is hurting the worst, some of the problem is that the skills in demand don't match the skills people have--I believe the term is secular unemployment. Anyway, for many those people, I'm guessing things have felt pretty recessionary since 2000 or so.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

td11 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:If labor force participation rate was the same as when Obama took office, U3 rate would be 10.7%. If labor force participation was the same as it was in January 2012, it'd be 8.3%.

this is the first month in four years where the total employed/population ratio went up and you wanna bring up when the pres first took office and we were still bleeding jobs from the recession?

It's important to keep the numbers in perspective. Where we've come from tells us a lot about where we are. Also brought up January of this year.

Did you factor in the unprecedented republican obstruction that made it difficult for him to act quickly and effectively? We were bleeding jobs and republican leaders were flat out saying that they didn't care about the jobs, just getting Obama out of office. Did you factor any of that in? I only ask because I don't recall ever in my life hearing something like that from a major politician during a time of crisis. Usually in a time of crisis the two sides pull together, like they did during 9/11, for example. Remember the dems giving Bush everything he wanted, even the stuff they didn't agree with? Yeh, that didn't happen this time. Getting back the presidency was more important to the republican congress than getting people back to work. These guys were PRAYING for a double dip recession. So I'm wondering if you included that in your Obama-failed equation.

What does that have to do with the labor force participation rate's effect on the unemployment rate?

Who are you yelling at/responding to?

Speaking with National Journal magazine about Republican Party priorities for the 2008-2010 Congress, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell explained that "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." [36]