Obama's Econmy: Helll in a Hand Basket? with 5.1% Unemployment?

Trump still trying to play champion of the common man wshinimng about how we are going to hel in a hand basket, it's a lie.here are the latest figure bureau of labor stats

LATEST RELEASES

• Consumer Price Index 09/16/2016
• Real Earnings 09/16/2016
• Producer Price Index 09/15/2016
• U.S. Import and Export Price Indexes 09/14/2016

MAJOR ECONOMIC INDICATORS

Consumer Price Index

September 16, 2016
On a seasonally adjusted basis, the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers increased 0.2 percent in August after being unchanged in July. The index for all items less food and energy rose 0.3 percent in August after increasing 0.1 percent in July. Full text: (HTML) (PDF)

Employment Cost Index

August 04, 2016
Compensation costs increased 0.6 percent for civilian workers, seasonally adjusted, from March 2016 to June 2016. Over the year, compensation rose 2.3 percent, wages and salaries are up 2.5 percent, and benefits rose 2.0 percent. Full text: (HTML) (PDF)

Employment Situation

September 02, 2016
Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 151,000 in August, and the unemployment rate remained at 4.9 percent. Employment continued to trend up in several service-providing industries. Full text: (HTML) (PDF)

Producer Price Index

September 15, 2016
The Producer Price Index for final demand was unchanged in August. Final demand prices declined 0.4 percent in July and rose 0.5 percent in June. In August, a 0.1-percent advance in the index for final demand services offset a 0.4-percent decrease in prices for final demand goods. Full text: (HTML) (PDF)

Productivity and Costs

September 01, 2016
Productivity decreased 0.6 percent in the nonfarm business sector in the second quarter of 2016; unit labor costs increased 4.3 percent (seasonally adjusted annual rates). In manufacturing, productivity decreased 0.4 percent and unit labor costs increased 6.7 percent. Full text: (HTML) (PDF)

Real Earnings

September 16, 2016
Real average hourly earnings decreased 0.1 percent in August, seasonally adjusted. Average hourly earnings increased 0.1 percent and the CPI-U increased 0.2 percent. Real average weekly earnings decreased 0.4 percent over the month. Full text: (HTML) (PDF)

U.S. Import and Export Price Indexes

September 14, 2016
U.S. import prices declined 0.2 percent in August, after ticking up 0.1 percent in July. The August downturn was driven by lower fuel prices. Prices for U.S. exports decreased 0.8 percent in August following a 0.2-percent increase in July. Full text: (HTML) (PDF)

Subscribe to the BLS News Service to receive the above news releases by e-mail.

SCHEDULES OF NEWS RELEASES

• Release Calendar

ALL ECONOMIC NEWS RELEASES

ARCHIVES

Caution

Data in archived news releases may have been revised in subsequent releases. The latest data, including any revisions, may be obtained from the databases accessible on the program homepages.

• Archived News Releases

EMPLOYMENT & UNEMPLOYMENT

Monthly

• Employment Situation (HTML) (PDF)
• Commissioner's Statement on the Employment Situation (HTML) (PDF)
• Job Openings and Labor Turnover (HTML) (PDF)
• Mass Layoffs (HTML) (PDF)
• Metropolitan Area Employment and Unemployment (HTML) (PDF)
• Real Earnings (HTML) (PDF)
• Regional and State Employment and Unemployment (HTML) (PDF)

Below is an old post fro, Feb but it was not bad even then.

from Daily Kos Site [1]


Trump has made the statement "The country is going to hell in a hand basket." Let's look at the figures? See those little red stumps on the upper graph? That's Bush's Job growth. One is negative. Obama's much better. It's not as good as Clinton's or even Reagan's (see the graph, Clinton blue) but Obama had a much worse economic crisis that he inherited.



From Fact Check.org 

Summary

Since President Barack Obama first took office:

• The economy has added nearly 8.4 million jobs — more than six times the number gained under George W. Bush.
• The number of job openings doubled, to a record 5.7 million.
• Nearly 15 million fewer people lack health insurance coverage.
• Corporate profits are at record levels; stock prices have more than doubled.
• However, median household income was down 3 percent as of 2014, and the official poverty rate was 1.6 percentage points higher.
• The rate of home ownership has dropped to the lowest point in nearly half a century.
• The federal debt owed to the public has more than doubled — up 107 percent.[2]

The site lists unemployment ratevatv5.1%,  Job openings up 180%,  Business start ups +19%, business failimgs downm 27%

Even a conservative publication such as the Economist says that "the president's record is a lot better than the woes of America's economy suggests." The article points out that Obama faced the most grim economic conditions since 1933, After detailing failure in comic growth and housing market for most of Obama's two terms only picking up late in second term the articles finds all economic recoveries are slow. This a far cry from hell in a hand basket. Since the article is not lauding him as stupendous or berating him for causing every sill since the great depression, it's probably a fairly objective appraisal. [3]

Sources

all sources accessed 2/26/16
[1] Jon Perr, "Obama Has Created Six Times As Many Jobs As Bush," Daily Kos Blog, July 6, 2015,
URL: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/6/7/1391360/-Obama-has-created-six-times-as-many-jobs-as-Bush

[2] Brooks Jackson, "Obama's Numbers (October, 2015)," Fact check .org, Posted on October 6, 2015 , blog URL http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/obamas-numbers-october-2015-update/
Trump's statement was that same month.

[3]  Editor, "End of Term Report,"  The Economist, Sep 2012, online URL:
http://www.economist.com/node/21561909

My take on the debate

 


When I was in high school and college debate we had a saying, used at both levels, "who won on the flow?" "The flow" refers to the flow sheet, the legal pads almost all debaters use upon which we would take a special kind of notes designed to getting down everything in that debate format. The reason we distinguished between winning 'on the flow' and 'on the ballot' is becuase there's a disparity. Often we would win the issues according logic an evidence and lose because the judge was not a debater, didn't understand what we were talking about, and would vote on whatever extraneous factor she find, like who was most handsome or the color of a tie. In the Presidential debates last night it seems the spin doctors and the press are saying Romney won. I supposed he may have won on the ballot but he didn't win on the flow.

I think what happened is most people expected Obama to put Romney away. Romney has said some stupid things (we forget the 47% quote was a candied shot after an event--he didn't say it to the public and he's not stupid, he's not going to say that in the debate!). When he came out, spoke well, smiled, looked confidence and knew how many beans make five, it seemed like he's winning. Obama looked tried and apprehensive. That make him look frustrted and being frustrated make it seem he's losing. I felt he was thinking "this misconception of Rowney's is too complicated to explain here." So in other words I don't believe Obama lost, but he looked like he was losing.

Are we going to let little extraneous factors determine the outcome? Are we voting who tie we like the best? Probably. Hey I still content that's why Reagan won. I suggest we nominate David Letterman, I like his ties. The trust of it is Obama did not put Romney away even on the issues. I never thought Romeny was a fool. He's an opportunist and will be much more likely to side with the right than the left. The few reasonable seeming things he did as governor or Massachusetts were probably due to the fact that the legislature was overwhelmingly Democrat. Actually, I have to admit I don't think Romney lost all that badly on the flow (on the issues). I do think he lost, but it was close. It was the closeness that makes people just feel Obama lost. If in fact people feel that. So far I have sen a lot pundits telling me how I feel but little evidence of how people really feel.

One problem that made debating the issues difficult is that Romney's basic ideology is republican trickle down theory. That means that they automatically equate saved money for the rich with stimulus and investment that creates jobs, they don't equate it with lack of revenue. So all of the Republican nominee's estimates about what he will cover, what he will do, how he will pay for things he's assuming something that has never worked out historically. For example in the 80s Regan tax cuts for Steel industry were not spent on updating plants, they were spent investing in oil; this gave the inverter profits but created few jobs. Another assumption Romney made is that 'green energy' doesn't produce jobs, which it does. At several points he kept saying how much money Obama was wasting investing in green energy. He knows the average voter doesn't know about the multiplier effect and doesn't trust green energy, and doesn't see the necessity of it. Romney stated flatly "I'm interested in clean coal." Clean coal doesn't' exist. It requires every expensive scrubbers to clean it an those are not mandated so they don't have to use them. They are cost prohibitive so they wont install them. Coal is the most polluting form of energy. The first study to quantify deaths from pollution was largely quantifying coal pollution, that was the Leave and Suskin study of the early 70s. Yet Obama seemed too tired to answer this so he let it go with minimal defense of green energy as a choice.Americans have been groomed by Republican administrations not to trust global warming senierios so he President was probably leery of getting bogged down in a  debate about that.

Another point at which I feel Obama won on the flow was about raising revenue. At one point Romney said "I will not raise taxes on high income" he also said he would not raise taxes middle income. He kept saying they would pay for programs by not spending differently, obviously he means cutting social programs. Obama did talk about they wont have the revenue and the elderly will be on the street. Romney asserts his play will grow the economy and we will have revenue because wee will be creating jobs and the economy will be growing. That's a good dream on paper but what if it works like he Regan tax cuts which allowed the rust belt to determinate and put steel industry out of business? Historically that's what happens when you cuts taxes for the right, they do not create jobs they invest in non labor intensive profit making ventures. Obama did allude tot his but he didn't clarify. Yet he did npoint out the capital short fall. He pointed out the Romey voucher program will cost the average elderly person six thousnd dollars years in permiums and medicine and repealling the health care reform will take away the cheap meds for the elderly. Romney did not respond.

Another area where Obama won hands down was the issue of leaving medicaid to the states. That will be a total disaster. Romney's answer indicates he doesn't understand the issue. He talks about how the states want that. He indicates that because that's what the states would prefur that means they will do a better job. It doesn't dawn on him (or does it?) the reason they want it is because it will enable them to put that money in other things they can't pay for now and cut befits to the poor and elderly. The states with Republican governors are the reason the stimulus package didn't work. They spent the money on things already being done that they couldn't pay for. What would change that with Romney? Especially since he so enthusiastic about leaving it tot he states. Obama pointed this out but he didn't point out that in the sixties the state administration was one of the major means of circumventing the war on poverty. then you have places like Texas where they have raised raiding the funds to an art form. Perry is now in a suit where a state legislator is charging that he took from the education fund to pay for other things, and denuded state education. We know that will happen again. So leaving it to the states is a disaster.

The horror that awaits us from a Romney administration is clear, but in last nights debate it was well disguise beneath a confident smile, affable manner, and competent seeming air. I still think this was all just window dressing and if one studies Romney's answers one sees it's not pretty what he's leading us into. Obama won on the flow and we should understand and take it seriously.

Racist Implications stirring anti-Obama votes?

Some idiot in Dallas hung an empty chair form a tree with an American Flag. then he claims he can't see the racist implications. He made some veg excuse like "It' just there to show the greatness of America." The empty chair symbolizes President Obama because Clint Eastwood talked to an empty chair at the Republican convention pretending that Obama was in it.

What else did Texans used to hang from trees? why the use to hang blacks form trees. Like this moron doesn't know that. what does this mean that it's for the glory of America? He wants to lynch the President for the glory of America?

I think we have handled these tea party guys with kid gloves long enough. We need to start calling them on their true motivations for hating the President.

I'm in the wrnog 47 percent!

Obama draws crowd of 75,000

I am a victim and I'm entitled. I'm largely a victim of my own stupidity and I'm entitled to all the rights granted in the bill of rights. I don't see why everyone should not be entitled to or granted the basic right to food, medicine, shelter, and safety. Why should I deny myself what I am willing to grant others? 

The major mistake made by the Obama 47 is that they are too obstinate to ask their parents for money. If they would barrow that money form their parents no one would be poor. The economy is still bad and people are still hurting but things are going to pick up in the next couple of years. On ABC News today they talked about five million jobs will be added to the economy in the next two years. Here are a couple of other sources that echo that news.



 White planes

America's economy will continue its recovery this year and next as it adds nearly 5 million jobs and unemployment falls below 8 percent, say University of Michigan economists.
"The performance of the U.S. economy during much of 2011 did nothing to alter the perception that we were mired in a sluggish recovery," said U-M economist Joan Crary. "Indeed, by late summer economists were considering the likelihood of a double-dip recession.
"The economy regained some momentum during the fall, however, with the closing quarter registering some of the best economic readings of the year. Although the economy is growing at a subpar rate to begin 2012, we expect the pace of economic activity to accelerate over the next two years as the economic headwinds that have plagued the recovery begin to abate."

In their annual spring forecast update of the U.S. economy, Crary and colleagues Daniil Manaenkov and Matthew Hall say that employment rises at a moderate pace, consumer spending increases, the housing market picks up, vehicle sales improve and inflation remains in check in 2012 and 2013.
They predict that payroll employment will rise by 2.5 million jobs during 2012 and 2.3 million during 2013, an average of 200,000 jobs per month.

 Obama can't take all the credit because part of it is due to lower energy prices due to the boom in natural gas mined form shale (such the boom in gas drilling in Ft. Worth). Lower energy prices have contributed to boom in productivity and thus in sexpots, according to Scot Malone. (Boston, Reuters). Neither can he take all the blame. The stimulus packed did help and Republicans are holding the jobs bill back and thus negating a million Job increase that would come from that (Daily Kos)

A year ago today, Republicans began blocking the passage of the American Jobs Act. This is not a happy anniversary. Without Republican obstruction, the very jobs report that Republicans are crowing about as proof of the President's failings would instead show an increase in hiring and GDP.

On September 8, 2011..........President Obama laid out a series of policy proposals known collectively as the American Jobs Act. The plan included stimulus spending in the form of immediate infrastructure investments, tax credits for working Americans and employers to encourage consumer spending and job growth, and efforts to shore up state and local budgets to prevent further layoffs of teachers, firefighters, police officers, and other public safety officials. The American Jobs Act never became law....because Republicans opposed it from the start, blasting it as another form of “failed stimulus” that wouldn’t help the economy. (They ignored the fact that the first “failed stimulus,” the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, wasn’t a failure at all.) One month later, the GOP blocked the bill in the Senate, preventing the creation of more than a million jobs and the added growth that multiple economists predicted would occur if the bill passed:
    –Moody’s Analytics estimated the American Jobs Act would create 1.9 million jobs and add two percent to gross domestic product.
    –The Economic Policy Institute estimated it would create 2.6 million jobs and protect an addition 1.6 million existing jobs.
    –Macroeconomic Advisers predicted it would create 2.1 million jobs and boost GDP by 1.5 percent.
    –Goldman Sachs estimated it would add 1.5 percent to GDP.

My Wounded Inner Conservative and What He Tells me About the Current Mess

I do have a conservative side. I hate to admit it after having been a Marxist and having published an academic journal about Marcuse and the Frankfurt school. I do have a wounded inner conservative. The meaning of the term "conservative" has been lost in modern politics. Most people think of it as right wing, really something more like a libertarian (which in my political glossary just means "confused"). The true meaning of the term was defined for me by the late Gavin Hambly a historian of some note from Cambridge for whom I was teaching assistant for a year. He said it was the influence of Rudyard Kipling who brought the concept of conservatism into focus. The original idea was a kind of nostalgia, a fond feeling for a time or the way things used to be and the desire to order events in an attempt to bring back that way.

This fits with Webster's second and third definitions of conservatism:

Definition of CONSERVATISM

1

capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party

2

a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)

3

: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

Although that institutionalizes what Hambly felt was a nostalgic feeling.I would suggest that that definition is flawed. It has the right idea about established order and resisting change but all the lower tax stuff is not really part of conservatism. That's the mark of the modern era, what conservatives have become. The original concept was less about preserving institutions and more about ideals. It was about honor, a revererence for the past, trying to hold on to things that were worth holding on to, but they were intangibles. Both sides have lost thier ideas, that's the problem. conservatives have traded in their penchant for honor and vlues for a tax revolt. Every nation of earth, even the most conservative, the Dutch of the 17th century for example, had some form of welfare policy. Even the puritans in American had some means of looking after those who could not take care of themselves. While liberals have lost thier ability to fight and mistake stuborn refusal for political fighting.

When I think of it from that point of view I am reminded of the politics of my childhood. The time when first began to take note of political issues I was in grammar school, it was the 1964 elections, Johnson vs. Goldwater. My parents being good Democrats and good Texans were totally behind Johnson. They were so staunchly Texan and Church of Christ they voted for Johnson ni place of Kennedy in 1960 elections. They wrote in his name even though he was the VP candidate with Kennedy. Of course they would have voted for a yellow dog before a republican, which is why I have that yellow dog in the upper right side bar. That particular dog looks almost exactly like my old dog "Mutt," (1969-1985).

Yet one feature of politics in that era that is totally absent from today's politics is that there were statesmen on both sides and Republicans and Democrats respected each other. Goldwater (1909-1998) was painted as a nut case by the Johnson campaign but he was actually a fine statesman. He was extreme some ways, but being irrational and ready to bomb the Viet Kong with nuclear weapons was not one of them. Geroge McGovern (07/19/1922--still living), who got the Goldwater treatment form Nixon in the 1972 campaign, the major arch liberal of the era, characatured as the liberal nut case, was a good friend of Goldwater's. You could not find two more diametrically opposed political opponents yet they were good friends. Everett Dirksen
was the minority leader (republican) in the 1960s. I would never vote for him,but even today I feel a sense of reverence just looking him up. He was a statesman. He was the kind of guy would you would not feel bad about leaving in charge in an emergency even though you may not agree with his views.

We don't have that today. Today we have raving lunatics who can't agree on anything. We have a segment of the Republicans who seem bent on playing "rule or ruin." The idea of closing tax loopholes on the rich is off the table and the tea party guys are still not willing to compromise. They know that if the economy goes down the tubes totally Obama will be blamed regardless of his current willingness to compromise. That means they are willing to ruin everything just to score political victory. We know there are equal inflexible Democrats but they are kept in check by Obama to some extent. Obama has given up the tax the rich centerpiece of his campaign several times now and we have yet to get a major concession out of the tea party nucleus of the Republicans. How many old and disabled people have to go without their ability to buy food and pay rent and bills next week to satisfy the tea party need to ruin Obama?

My nostalgia is for a day when politics made sense. There was a time when there were honorable people on both sides. This is what we have to get back to, a time when we are willing to tolerate disagreement. I think it's our selfishness that has put us here. We are not wiling to tolerate the other side becuase we are so desperate to get what we crave (the American dream, or just a secure situation) that everything else must take second place to that. The media panders to the situation becuase that builds viewers or readers. The nature of American politics has imploded, and is feeding off itself.