Obama, Romney, Jobs

[vel]

• Tweet

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/obama-romney-jobs/

Greg Sargent is rightly outraged by Romney’s claim that Obama is a job destroyer:

Romney’s claim that two million jobs were lost under the Obama presidency is based on the idea that there’s been a net loss of jobs since he took office. In other words, Romney is taking into account the fact that the economy continued hemorraghing jobs at a furious rate after Obama took office — before Obama’s stimulus passed. But the figures show that once it became law, monthly job loss declined over time, and turned around in the spring of 2010, after which the private sector added jobs for over 20 straight months, totaling around 2.2 million of them.

I think this benefits from a figure:



Does this look to you like a president who “lost jobs”, or like a president who inherited an economy in free fall? You can accuse Obama of not doing enough to promote recovery — and I have (although the biggest villain here was Romney’s own party). But to claim that Obama caused the job loss is indefensible.

By the way, that wiggle in the upward climb represents the temporary hiring of Census workers.

Now, if you wanted a more credible case of a president who presided over job losses at this point in his administration, how about this?



And the truth is that I did give Bush a hard time over his job record — although I’m pretty sure I never accused him of destroying jobs, or even of bearing responsibility for the recession that began on his watch.

[vel]

Prediction: Some "conservative" here will completely ignore the facts presented by Krugman and will squeal like a stuck pig about "Krugman blah blah".

[Case_Closed]

I was just wondering who "Fred" is?

[vel]

I was just wondering who "Fred" is?

No you weren't. You were really wondering how you could present some kind of an ad hominem argument because in fact you can't refute these facts and you know that Krugman is correct. "to claim that Obama caused the job loss is indefensible."

You're just not big enough or credible enough to admit any of this.

[Observer]

October 7, 2011
 

After more than two and a half years of the Obama Administration’s destructive policies—including record spending, uncontrolled debt, the constant threat of higher taxes, and excessive regulations—unemployment remains staggeringly high and is showing no signs of getting better.  Today’s labor report reiterates two sad facts that Americans already know:  the economic recovery has stalled and President Obama’s economic policies have failed.

    9.1%:  The unemployment rate for the month of September—the same rate as August and the second highest monthly level in 2011.  Only 2 out of the last 30 months have seen unemployment below 9 percent (February and March 2011).  From March 2009 (the month after the failed $1.2 trillion “stimulus” was signed) through September 2011, unemployment has averaged 9.4 percent.  Prior to President Obama taking office, unemployment had not been above 9 percent in 28 years.

    32:  The number of consecutive months the unemployment rate has been at or above 8 percent—the level the president said unemployment would never reach if the “stimulus” was approved.  Prior to the enactment of the “stimulus,” unemployment had not been above 8 percent for this long since the Great Depression.

    13,992,000:  The number of unemployed Americans looking for work in the month of September, an increase of 25,000 from August and the second highest number of unemployed workers of any month in 2011.  The number of unemployed eclipsed 13 million for the first time in history two months after President Obama took office and has remained above 13 million for 30 straight months.

    2,229,000: The number of net jobs the economy has shed from February 2009—when the Democrats’ “stimulus” was signed into law—through September 2011.  On average, the economy has lost 69,656 jobs each month over that span.

    15.1%:  The official poverty rate in 2010 according to the Census Bureau—up from 14.3 percent in 2009. This was the third consecutive annual increase in the poverty rate and the highest poverty rate since 1993.

    46,200,000:  In 2010, 46.2 million Americans were in poverty, up from 43.6 million in 2009—the fourth consecutive annual increase in the number of people in poverty.  The number of Americans in poverty in 2010 is the largest number in the 52 years in which poverty estimates have been published by the Census Bureau.

    -$3,378:  Inflation adjusted median household income dropped by -$3,378 per U.S. family, falling to its lowest level since 1996.  Household income has fallen by 6.4 percent since 2007.

    45,344,946 :  The number of Americans receiving food stamps as of June 2011, the third month in history with more than 45 million food stamp recipients.  Today, 14 percent of Americans receive food stamps, an increase of 40 percent since President Obama took office.

    1.7%:  The annual GDP growth rate the Office of Management and Budget now expects for 2011, according the Mid-Session Review of the president’s budget.  GDP growth expectations are down a full percentage point from an expected 2.7 percent growth rate when the president’s budget was first released in February 2011.

    40.5:  The average number of weeks it takes for job seekers to find a job—the longest average time that Americans have been unemployed since the statistic was first recorded in 1948.

    34.2:  The number of hours in an average work week in September, down from 34.3 percent in June and July, a sign of a greater slowdown in activity than economists had expected.

    9,270,000:  The number of Americans who worked only part-time in September because they could not find full time employment, an increase of 444,000 from August.  The number of people working part time for economic reasons reached 8 million for the first time in history in February 2009, the month the “stimulus” was enacted, and has remained above 8 million for 31 consecutive months.

    6,242,000:  The number of Americans unemployed and searching for work for more than 27 weeks in the month of September.  Since President Obama took office in January 2009, the number of people unemployed for more than 27 weeks has increased by 132 percent.

    1,327,000:  The number of job seekers that are new to the workforce and have yet to find a job.  The number of new workers who cannot find a job has been above 1 million for two years.

    24.6%: The unemployment rate among job seekers between the ages of 16 and 19. Youth unemployment has been above 24 percent for 27 months, the longest streak since the Great Depression.

    16.0%: The unemployment rate among African Americans in September, up 27 percent since President Obama took office.

    11.3%: The unemployment rate among Hispanics and Latinos, an increase of 14 percent since President Obama took office.

    14%:  The unemployment rate among Americans without high school diplomas, an increase of 15 percent since President Obama took office.

    6.5%: The level at which the Obama administration claimed unemployment would be today if the “stimulus” was signed into law.

    $1,172,000,000,000:  The total cost of the Democrats’ “stimulus.”  CBO estimates the cost of the bill will reach $825 billion and interest on the debt for the bill will be at least $347 billion.


LINK

[vel]

How typical of you to regurgitate GOP talking points.

If you were actually capable of using your brain and engaging in actual analytical thought, the question you wouldn't be able to refute is "Does this look to you like a president who “lost jobs”, or like a president who inherited an economy in free fall? You can accuse Obama of not doing enough to promote recovery — and I have (although the biggest villain here was Romney’s own party). But to claim that Obama caused the job loss is indefensible."

So what did you actually mindlessly regurgitate here?

Obsurder's Regurgitation 1:  9.1%:  The unemployment rate for the month of September—the same rate as August and the second highest monthly level in 2011.  Only 2 out of the last 30 months have seen unemployment below 9 percent (February and March 2011).  From March 2009 (the month after the failed $1.2 trillion “stimulus” was signed) through September 2011, unemployment has averaged 9.4 percent.  Prior to President Obama taking office, unemployment had not been above 9 percent in 28 years.

Analysis: Yes, the unemployment rate has been high. It has been very high, but does this suggest that Obama caused job losses? Why no. It does not suggest that Obama caused job losses.


Obsurder Regurgitation #2:    32:  The number of consecutive months the unemployment rate has been at or above 8 percent—the level the president said unemployment would never reach if the “stimulus” was approved.  Prior to the enactment of the “stimulus,” unemployment had not been above 8 percent for this long since the Great Depression.

Analysis: Yes, the unemployment rate has been high. It has been very high, but does this suggest that Obama caused job losses? Why no. It does not suggest that Obama caused job losses.

And what is it that you think President Obama should have said, dumbass? Think for once. You don't go around predicting doom and gloom when you're president.

As Krugman has said, there should have been more stimulus. You're whining here because Krugman (and I) were right. You and your stupid "conservatives" on the other hand have absolutely no answer and you would have played 1936 all over again. Why? Because you're stupid. That's only reason I can come up with.

Obsurder Regurgitation #3:    13,992,000:  The number of unemployed Americans looking for work in the month of September, an increase of 25,000 from August and the second highest number of unemployed workers of any month in 2011.  The number of unemployed eclipsed 13 million for the first time in history two months after President Obama took office and has remained above 13 million for 30 straight months.

Analysis: Yes, the unemployment rate has been high. It has been very high, but does this suggest that Obama caused job losses? Why no. It does not suggest that Obama caused job losses.

If you had any sense at all you would know that: a) the population is increasing so the number of new jobs necessary to keep up with that increase is somewhere above the number of jobs we have produced in Obama's 30 consecutive of job increases (as opposed to the 750,000 jobs a month we were losing under Bush).

Do you have any concept of the magnitude of the problems President Obama inherited as a direct and proximate result of your stupid bubble producing "conservative" policies over the past 30 years?

Why no. You have no concept and no need to even consider any such thing. You are stupid, at least in part, by choice.

Obsurder's Regurgitation #4:    2,229,000: The number of net jobs the economy has shed from February 2009—when the Democrats’ “stimulus” was signed into law—through September 2011.  On average, the economy has lost 69,656 jobs each month over that span.

Analysis: So what? You're so stupid that you can't fathom the notion that this statistic is meaningless. It is not jobs lost that matter. Jobs are lost all the time and if you understood your own misapplication of the theory of creative destructionism you wouldn't be arguing.

But hell, you aren't "arguing" anything. You're mindless regurgitating.

Obsurder's Regurgitation #5    15.1%:  The official poverty rate in 2010 according to the Census Bureau—up from 14.3 percent in 2009. This was the third consecutive annual increase in the poverty rate and the highest poverty rate since 1993.

Analysis: When did this trend start, dumbass? To what is it attributable and what are you dumbasses going to do to reverse it? Nothing? More of the same crap you've given us to enrich the top 1% at the expense of everyone else? More tax cuts for the top 1%? More wars to enrich "conservative" donors and cronies? More anti-union legislation?

You're really an idiot.

Obsurder's Regurgitation #6   46,200,000:  In 2010, 46.2 million Americans were in poverty, up from 43.6 million in 2009—the fourth consecutive annual increase in the number of people in poverty.  The number of Americans in poverty in 2010 is the largest number in the 52 years in which poverty estimates have been published by the Census Bureau.

Analysis: Again, what do you attribute this to? How do you avoid the fact that this is a trend started very clearly under President Bush?

Of course, again, you have no answer because you've never actually bothered to think about it. And what do you care? You worship the rich. You don't believe in God and yet you believe in this "natural" kind of "invisible hand" crap. And of course you worship Ayn Rand. So what's the difference?

Obsurder's Regurgitation #7    -$3,378:  Inflation adjusted median household income dropped by -$3,378 per U.S. family, falling to its lowest level since 1996.  Household income has fallen by 6.4 percent since 2007.

Analysis: Again, a trend started during Reagan's term, only to be disrupted for a few years under Clinton. Oh, and greatly accelerated under Bush, but you don't bother to mention that either.

Obsurder's Regurgitation #8    45,344,946 :  The number of Americans receiving food stamps as of June 2011, the third month in history with more than 45 million food stamp recipients.  Today, 14 percent of Americans receive food stamps, an increase of 40 percent since President Obama took office.

Analysis: Again, a trend started during Reagan's term, only to be disrupted for a few years under Clinton. Oh, and greatly accelerated under Bush, but you don't bother to mention that either.

Obsurder's Regurgitation #9    1.7%:  The annual GDP growth rate the Office of Management and Budget now expects for 2011, according the Mid-Session Review of the president’s budget.  GDP growth expectations are down a full percentage point from an expected 2.7 percent growth rate when the president’s budget was first released in February 2011.

Analysis: And what would GDP be if Bush and President Obama hadn't acted to save the economy? You, of course, ignore the charts I posted probably because you can't process the information in those charts. It's just an accident, right, that the employment picture started to improve and continued to improve after President Obama took office?

Well, actually, it isn't an accident. You just ignore any evidence that doesn't comport with your uber-partisanship and extreme ideology.

We wouldn't have any growth if you "conservatives" had your way.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your cut and paste because I have real work to do, and you're just too boring and too stupid. The bottom line here is that you have not refuted Krugman.

Of course you never ever do.

[Observer]

How typical of you to regurgitate GOP talking points.

This, from someone who has his head stuck up Krugman's ass.   

[vel]

This, from someone who has his head stuck up Krugman's ass.   

Professor Krugman is one of our leading, most highly regarded economists. Unlike you, he actually understands economics. I am not what I would consider to be an expert on economics but, unlike you, I also have a decent education and a decent understanding of the subject matter.

Professor Krugman puts economics in terms that people of at least average intelligence can understand. Mostly what I post of his comports to my understanding of economics, learned not from Professor Krugman but rather from my professors at the University of Illinois.

I do not post talking points. I actually understand the subject.

I know that's something you, with your limited intellect, cannot understand or appreciate. But it's nevertheless the way it is. I'm sorry you're such a dullard, but again that's just how it goes.

[Case_Closed]

Are you aware that Professor Krugman has never had a job in his life outside of academia, that Professor Krugman got his ideas on economics from Isaac Asimov, and that Professor Krugman, Raging Liberal, has been described by The Economist as "his relentless partisanship is getting in the way of his argument"?

In other words, Professor Krugman is a howling, barking Moonbat...just like you.

[vel]

Are you aware that Professor Krugman has never had a job in his life outside of academia, that Professor Krugman got his ideas on economics from Isaac Asimov, and that Professor Krugman, Raging Liberal, has been described by The Economist as "his relentless partisanship is getting in the way of his argument"?

In other words, Professor Krugman is a howling, barking Moonbat...just like you.

What the hell are you talking about?

Being a columnist for the NYT isn't a real job outside of academia? And even if it wasn't, so what? Is a job in academia any worse than being a corporate raider?

I predicted you would try to trash Professor Krugman. I don't give a shit what you or some unnamed fascist schmuck (just like you) at The Economist think of him. This isn't about him. This is about the concepts he relates.

You know, the ones you can't understand well enough to actually refute.

[Case_Closed]

Being a columnist for the NYT isn't a real job outside of academia? And even if it wasn't, so what? Is a job in academia any worse than being a corporate raider?

Has he ever been a business owner?

No?

*Case Closed*

[Case_Closed]

You know, the ones you can't understand well enough to actually refute.

For that matter, have YOU ever been a business owner where you had more than a secretary?

Here Krugman is opining about the situation of over 300 Million dickheads and I'll bet he doesn't even know how to create an invoice from Quickbooks.

Oh, no doubt he is "smart enough" to read about it in a fucking manual, of course.   

[vel]

For that matter, have YOU ever been a business owner where you had more than a secretary?

Here Krugman is opining about the situation of over 300 Million dickheads and I'll bet he doesn't even know how to create an invoice from Quickbooks.

Oh, no doubt he is "smart enough" to read about it in a fucking manual, of course.   

For that matter, I have owned a business where I have had more than a secretary. Moreover I have consulted with about 40 or so business owners at a high level. I know way more about running a business than you will ever know, but, of course, that has nothing to do with anything.

Here Krugman is citing facts. And knowing QuickBooks, an accounting program designed for people who don't know accounting and that's not even a true duel entry system, would also have nothing to do with anything.

You're really reaching. You're not doing a very good job of it.

[Case_Closed]

For that matter, I have owned a business where I have had more than a secretary. Moreover I have consulted with about 40 or so business owners at a high level. I know way more about running a business than you will ever know, but, of course, that has nothing to do with anything.

Here Krugman is citing facts. And knowing QuickBooks, an accounting program designed for people who don't know accounting and that's not even a true duel entry system, would also have nothing to do with anything.

You're really reaching. You're not doing a very good job of it.

What I'm trying to tell you, sir, and you are missing it is this:  I would hold the opinion of someone in economy of a higher value who was completely absent of a political affiliation...for starters.

I would also feel a lot more comfortable knowing the guy didn't get his "base point" in his theories from I, Robot.

[vel]

What I'm trying to tell you, sir, and you are missing it is this:  I would hold the opinion of someone in economy of a higher value who was completely absent of a political affiliation...for starters.

I would also feel a lot more comfortable knowing the guy didn't get his "base point" in his theories from I, Robot.

That's because you don't have any interest in the subject and you don't know anything about it. You don't really want to know anything about it.

Economics isn't about running a business. Economics isn't about finance. Economics isn't about accounting. Business administration, accounting, and finance are separate schools in most, if not all, universities.

But you wouldn't know that.