Widgets Magazine

Go Back   InsideTexas Forums > Other Forums > Politics and Current Events

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-23-2012, 04:42 PM
futures2008 futures2008 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,483
Default Under Obama: 30 Worst Months of Employment in the Past 25 Years

Under Obama: 30 Worst Months of Employment in the Past 25 Years

Quote:
The federal government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes monthly tallies for the employment-population ratio. That stat shows something rather straightforward: Among those who are living in America and are free to pursue employment, what percentage are employed?
Quote:
Interestingly, the 30 (or 32, including ties) worst months for employment in the past 25 years have all come after the most recent recession ended, in June 2009. In other words, they’ve all come during the Obama “recovery.”
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #2  
Old 05-23-2012, 05:56 PM
JG's Avatar
JG JG is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 33,390
Default

Coming of the worst recession in 80 years, isn't it just possible that the recovery might also be the worst in 80 years too?

Consider it this way. Two people were in car accidents. One broke his collarbone and got a black eye. The other one broke both femurs, his right arm, and his skull. Both go to the hospital.

You think just maybe it might take one longer to recover and get back to work?
__________________
#jgknows

Burt Reynolds
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-23-2012, 06:33 PM
TOK2000's Avatar
TOK2000 TOK2000 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 5,415
Default

I was listening to Lou Dobbs tonight about the cronyism in the Obama administration. He said that while all Presidents reward their friends to some degree, that he could not find a President who had directed more business and Govt Loans to his contributors and friends than Obama.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-23-2012, 06:39 PM
UTGrad91 UTGrad91 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,541
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JG View Post
Coming of the worst recession in 80 years, isn't it just possible that the recovery might also be the worst in 80 years too?
Unemployment was higher in the recession of the early 80's that Reagan faced. By this time in 1984, quarterly GDP growth was at an annualized 8% compared with 2% now and a good chance that growth will even be slower in the next few quarters.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-23-2012, 06:53 PM
JG's Avatar
JG JG is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 33,390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UTGrad91 View Post
Unemployment was higher in the recession of the early 80's that Reagan faced.
False.

Keep this in mind - that recession was intentionally caused by the Fed to break inflation. Further, there was a collapse in oil prices when the recovery started. Combine oil prices falling by 75% or more with the Fed relaxing tight money policies, and there was huge difference.

Compare it instead to the Great Depression. Much closer to what happened in 2008-2009.
__________________
#jgknows

Burt Reynolds
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-23-2012, 07:10 PM
Burnt Orange Burnt Orange is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,187
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JG View Post
Coming of the worst recession in 80 years, isn't it just possible that the recovery might also be the worst in 80 years too?

Consider it this way. Two people were in car accidents. One broke his collarbone and got a black eye. The other one broke both femurs, his right arm, and his skull. Both go to the hospital.

You think just maybe it might take one longer to recover and get back to work?
It is unfortunate that we forget how we got here. This is election year, I guess I get it. It bothers me, but I get it.

This anger and hatred for the POTUS is amazing. Having spent the past 4 years tracking the extent of this recession and the problems it has caused, stating that it is akin to a guy who broke both femurs, his right arm and his skull is actually putting it mildly.
We were hemorrhaging from every industry, credit had dried up and every big name bank that we had come to depend on was at the brink of bankruptcy. Every financial firm big and small had exposure and there were entire countries that shut down.

Entire industries in the United States stopped functioning. Housing sector collapsed. Banking sector collapsed. Energy sector came to a standstill because credit collapsed. Money markets started bleeding. The extremely liquid commercial paper market suddenly became illiquid. Every company, over every sector, especially industries that depend on commercial paper for short term transactions were left with no means to fund short term operations.
Fear had started to envelop any financial institution. There was suddenly no accounting of exposure, that was too conservative. Counterparties across the business spectrum suddenly tightened their credit exposure to other counterparties.

Everything came to a grinding halt.

If you know how the whole thing functions, then you know this. It does not matter who was in charge. The federal deficit was going to grow by leaps and bounds. Large scale unemployment was a given. The answer was pretty simple. Whether it was here in the US or in Europe. Governments and federal reserves had to intervene. A broad ranging monetary and fiscal policy had to be enacted where considerable amount of cash had to be doled out. There was significant concern for “Moral Hazard”. But that had to be forgotten, for the greater good. It was unprecedented that the federal reserve actually started buying toxic assets. Never before has the federal reserve used products outside of the treasury securities to move rates. But they had to do it.

This would be akin to being in a car and getting hit by a train.

Where are we today? Unemployment is at 8% and we are growing albeit slowly. It has to be the president’s fault.

But stand tall America. Every one of those that had a hand in this collapse of epic proportions walked away stinking rich. No class warfare here.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-23-2012, 07:29 PM
UTGrad91 UTGrad91 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,541
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JG View Post
False.

Keep this in mind - that recession was intentionally caused by the Fed to break inflation. Further, there was a collapse in oil prices when the recovery started. Combine oil prices falling by 75% or more with the Fed relaxing tight money policies, and there was huge difference.

Compare it instead to the Great Depression. Much closer to what happened in 2008-2009.
Really? The unemployment rate wasn't higher in the early 80's like I said. That must be news to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-23-2012, 07:31 PM
JG's Avatar
JG JG is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 33,390
Default



Holy Crap somebody gets it!
__________________
#jgknows

Burt Reynolds
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-23-2012, 08:19 PM
GammaEta67's Avatar
GammaEta67 GammaEta67 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 4,856
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Burnt Orange View Post
It is unfortunate that we forget how we got here. This is election year, I guess I get it. It bothers me, but I get it.

This anger and hatred for the POTUS is amazing. Having spent the past 4 years tracking the extent of this recession and the problems it has caused, stating that it is akin to a guy who broke both femurs, his right arm and his skull is actually putting it mildly.
We were hemorrhaging from every industry, credit had dried up and every big name bank that we had come to depend on was at the brink of bankruptcy. Every financial firm big and small had exposure and there were entire countries that shut down.

Entire industries in the United States stopped functioning. Housing sector collapsed. Banking sector collapsed. Energy sector came to a standstill because credit collapsed. Money markets started bleeding. The extremely liquid commercial paper market suddenly became illiquid. Every company, over every sector, especially industries that depend on commercial paper for short term transactions were left with no means to fund short term operations.
Fear had started to envelop any financial institution. There was suddenly no accounting of exposure, that was too conservative. Counterparties across the business spectrum suddenly tightened their credit exposure to other counterparties.

Everything came to a grinding halt.

If you know how the whole thing functions, then you know this. It does not matter who was in charge. The federal deficit was going to grow by leaps and bounds. Large scale unemployment was a given. The answer was pretty simple. Whether it was here in the US or in Europe. Governments and federal reserves had to intervene. A broad ranging monetary and fiscal policy had to be enacted where considerable amount of cash had to be doled out. There was significant concern for “Moral Hazard”. But that had to be forgotten, for the greater good. It was unprecedented that the federal reserve actually started buying toxic assets. Never before has the federal reserve used products outside of the treasury securities to move rates. But they had to do it.

This would be akin to being in a car and getting hit by a train.

Where are we today? Unemployment is at 8% and we are growing albeit slowly. It has to be the president’s fault.

But stand tall America. Every one of those that had a hand in this collapse of epic proportions walked away stinking rich. No class warfare here.
No one could rationally dispute the fact that Bush left Obama a train wreck. But how do you grade his response. In effect, the patient was in ER bleeding profusely from multiple wounds. Obama's response? A $5 trillion cash infusion. The result? The patient is still alive, but all the wounds remain, and there is no more money for another transfusion. Wouldn't we have been better off investing some of that $5 trillion addressing the fundamental causes of the illness? i.e. dependence on foreign oil, the worst educational system of any of the industrialized democracies, and the most wasteful and unnecessarily expensive health care system (by far) of any nation on earth?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-23-2012, 08:46 PM
futures2008 futures2008 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,483
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JG View Post
False.

Keep this in mind - that recession was intentionally caused by the Fed to break inflation. Further, there was a collapse in oil prices when the recovery started. Combine oil prices falling by 75% or more with the Fed relaxing tight money policies, and there was huge difference.

Compare it instead to the Great Depression. Much closer to what happened in 2008-2009.

Series Id: LNS12300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment-Population Ratio
Labor force status: Employment-population ratio
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over


Download:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1981 59.1 59.2 59.4 59.6 59.5 59.0 59.1 59.1 58.7 58.8 58.6 58.2
1982 58.2 58.2 58.1 57.9 58.2 57.8 57.7 57.8 57.6 57.4 57.3 57.2
1983 57.2 57.1 57.1 57.3 57.3 57.8 58.1 58.2 58.4 58.4 58.7 58.8

From Dec 1981 thru Aug 1983, the employment-population ratio was lower than any of the 30 months covered by my original post -- UTgrad is right and you are wrong.



Contrast that with the Obama recovery
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #11  
Old 05-23-2012, 08:53 PM
JG's Avatar
JG JG is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 33,390
Default

Apples and oranges. It wasn't just a train wreck, it was a train crash into a crowded station.

Take a look at how far the economy dropped each time. The drop in '08-'09 was more than twice what it was in 81.
__________________
#jgknows

Burt Reynolds
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-23-2012, 08:53 PM
JG's Avatar
JG JG is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 33,390
Default

And I don't see $1 a gallon gas. That's about the drop that benefitted the country in the early 80s.
__________________
#jgknows

Burt Reynolds
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-23-2012, 09:02 PM
futures2008 futures2008 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,483
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JG View Post
Coming of the worst recession in 80 years, isn't it just possible that the recovery might also be the worst in 80 years too?

Consider it this way. Two people were in car accidents. One broke his collarbone and got a black eye. The other one broke both femurs, his right arm, and his skull. Both go to the hospital.

You think just maybe it might take one longer to recover and get back to work?
President Obama said it best in an interview in 2009 right after he took office.

Here's how long he thought it would take him to fix the economy.

Here's his pledge on the deficit.

Obama's problem is that while we know very little about him prior to his ascension to the presidency, he now has a record with which we are all too familiar. Some may think he's done a good job - others may not.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-23-2012, 09:05 PM
cctxfan cctxfan is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 9,858
Default

futures, one story your graph doesn't tell is that baby boomers have started to retire at fairly significant numbers. And the recession probably drove quite a few of those to retire early. None of those millions are going to reenter the workforce. Not to mention, we've still got another 15 years of baby boomer retirement.
__________________
We politely request that you refrain from feeding the trolls
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-23-2012, 09:06 PM
JG's Avatar
JG JG is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 33,390
Default

I think he over-promised, considering how bad things really were.

I get it, because his approach was to reassure people that things were going to be ok when things were in crisis, but it left him wide open to folks on the right like you, trying to portray things as not really bad...when they really were.
__________________
#jgknows

Burt Reynolds
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-23-2012, 09:10 PM
Burnt Orange Burnt Orange is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,187
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GammaEta67 View Post
No one could rationally dispute the fact that Bush left Obama a train wreck. But how do you grade his response. In effect, the patient was in ER bleeding profusely from multiple wounds. Obama's response? A $5 trillion cash infusion. The result? The patient is still alive, but all the wounds remain, and there is no more money for another transfusion. Wouldn't we have been better off investing some of that $5 trillion addressing the fundamental causes of the illness? i.e. dependence on foreign oil, the worst educational system of any of the industrialized democracies, and the most wasteful and unnecessarily expensive health care system (by far) of any nation on earth?

Note that I never mentioned Bush in what I wrote. Your response distresses me even more. This is what is endemic across our national intellectual spectrum. We have whittled down our arguments around whether we like a person or not. Instead of gaining context, we want to remember events that help us reinforce what we want to believe.

This was never about Bush. This was about a president that faced an unprecedented crisis. And how he dealt with it. How do I grade his response? I think he saved my job and likely the jobs of most people on this board. He pulled us back from the edge of the cliff. Do I think Bush would have not done that? I am not sure. One thing I do know is that Bush started TARP. Obama took it a step further.



Quote:
Originally Posted by GammaEta67 View Post
Wouldn't we have been better off investing some of that $5 trillion addressing the fundamental causes of the illness? i.e. dependence on foreign oil, the worst educational system of any of the industrialized democracies, and the most wasteful and unnecessarily expensive health care system (by far) of any nation on earth?

No!
None of the three things that you talk about caused the crisis. Your line of questioning actually suggests that you along with most people do not really appreciate the true scope of the crisis we faced. I don’t think most people ever will. Suffice it to say that this can be easily compared to the folks in Indonesia that faced a wall of water coming their way. Any actions that did not ensure immediate survival was utterly meaningless.

So no I don’t think they could have done things differently. This was an economic tsunami and we were in full blown crisis mode. We had to throw every “moral hazard” we faced under the bus. We had to survive. This was not about debating. This was about acting. Even house conservatives understood that.

I pride myself as a fiscal conservative. Always living my life well within my means while respecting my commitments. But I have the humility to accept that Obama faced an unprecedented crisis and dealt with it with considerable alacrity.

I don’t have an issue if people don’t like him. But hate him for the right reasons.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-23-2012, 09:14 PM
futures2008 futures2008 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,483
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cctxfan View Post
futures, one story your graph doesn't tell is that baby boomers have started to retire at fairly significant numbers. And the recession probably drove quite a few of those to retire early. None of those millions are going to reenter the workforce. Not to mention, we've still got another 15 years of baby boomer retirement.
Quote:
Among those who are living in America and are free to pursue employment, what percentage are employed? (The bureau excludes those who are under 16 years old, are active-duty military, or are — in the bureau’s own words — “inmates of institutions (for example, penal and mental facilities, homes for the aged),” from its tallies
I agree that boomers are retiring and at least some portion of that is reflected in the BLS number. However, the ratio was lower during the Reagan recession when boomers were all working-I don't believe that the current employment picture can be explained by boomer retirement.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-23-2012, 09:16 PM
horn78 horn78 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,466
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by futures2008 View Post
I agree that boomers are retiring and at least some portion of that is reflected in the BLS number. However, the ratio was lower during the Reagan recession when boomers were all working-I don't believe that the current employment picture can be explained by boomer retirement.
You are absolutely correct, Futures.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-23-2012, 09:31 PM
futures2008 futures2008 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,483
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JG View Post
I think he over-promised, considering how bad things really were.

I get it, because his approach was to reassure people that things were going to be ok when things were in crisis, but it left him wide open to folks on the right like you, trying to portray things as not really bad...when they really were.
No one coerced him into saying he would fix the economy in one term.

No one coerced him into saying he would cut the debt in half in one term.

Folks on the left like you need to stop apologizing for Obama and understand that he has a record. The electorate will weigh what he said to get elected in 2008 and compare what he said to his actual performance. OK, so maybe I'm giving the electorate more credit than it deserves, but here's hoping.

Last edited by futures2008; 05-23-2012 at 11:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-23-2012, 09:53 PM
GammaEta67's Avatar
GammaEta67 GammaEta67 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 4,856
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Burnt Orange View Post
Note that I never mentioned Bush in what I wrote. Your response distresses me even more. This is what is endemic across our national intellectual spectrum. We have whittled down our arguments around whether we like a person or not. Instead of gaining context, we want to remember events that help us reinforce what we want to believe.

This was never about Bush. This was about a president that faced an unprecedented crisis. And how he dealt with it. How do I grade his response? I think he saved my job and likely the jobs of most people on this board. He pulled us back from the edge of the cliff. Do I think Bush would have not done that? I am not sure. One thing I do know is that Bush started TARP. Obama took it a step further.


No!
None of the three things that you talk about caused the crisis. Your line of questioning actually suggests that you along with most people do not really appreciate the true scope of the crisis we faced. I don’t think most people ever will. Suffice it to say that this can be easily compared to the folks in Indonesia that faced a wall of water coming their way. Any actions that did not ensure immediate survival was utterly meaningless.

So no I don’t think they could have done things differently. This was an economic tsunami and we were in full blown crisis mode. We had to throw every “moral hazard” we faced under the bus. We had to survive. This was not about debating. This was about acting. Even house conservatives understood that.

I pride myself as a fiscal conservative. Always living my life well within my means while respecting my commitments. But I have the humility to accept that Obama faced an unprecedented crisis and dealt with it with considerable alacrity.

I don’t have an issue if people don’t like him. But hate him for the right reasons.
Of all your responses on this board, that is by far the most political, so naturally I am surprised and disappointed. No one can rationally dispute the fact that the crisis Obama faced in 2008 was the cumulative result of forty years of foolish economic choices in the area of energy, education, and health care, the net effect of which was a steady loss of jobs and industries to overseas competition, the steady loss of manufacturing capacity in the United States and, therefore, the steady erosion of the fundamental strength of the American economy. Pumping $5 trillion of borrowed money into the economy definitely kept the dying patient alive, but it did not address the causes of the terminal illness. Unless we find a way to reinvigorate American manufacturing competitiveness and therefore reverse the loss of jobs and industries, reverse the trade deficit, and reverse the budget deficit, there will not be sufficient borrowing capacity to keep the dying patient alive for very much longer.

Please don't allow yourself to fall in the trap of superficial analysis, false assumptions, and knee jerk responses. (We have far too much of that on this board already.) The fact of the matter is that I have never hated Barack Obama. I have always liked Obama as an individual, and I still do. Anyone on this board will tell you that. In fact, most people here will tell you that I was the first on this board to suggest that he would become president of the United States. His rhetorical skills are truly extraordinary, and in many respects I still think he is a truly delightful and compelling human being. And certainly no one, especially me, can seriously underestimate the challenges Obama faced when he was elected in 2008.

The truth of the matter is that Obama campaigned for, won, and assumed the captaincy of a stricken ship at the height of an unprecedented economic storm, promising "Change We Can Believe In". However, instead of addressing the fundamental problems of our economy and setting a sure and certain course out of the dangerous waters we found ourselves in, Obama increased the national debt by $5 trillion and created a false sense of prosperity with borrowed money. Hence the ship is still afloat. But we have not changed course and the fundamental causes of the economic problems we face have not been addressed, and they are, as I have outlined above: (1) dependency on foreign oil that siphons hundreds of billions of dollars every year out of our economy and has caused us to spend literally trillions of dollars securing our oil supply lines in the middle east; (2) an educational system that has fallen over the last forty years from number one among major industrialized nations in science and math to number 16 and number 23, respectively; and (3) a health care system that costs in excess of $3 trillion annually and represents more than %17 of our annual GDP. No other major industrialized nation has fundamental problems of this magnitude, and we cannot continue to borrow money to cover them up. The day of reckoning is at hand, and in fact it was staring us all in the face when Americans went to the voting booth in 2008.

Unfortunately, instead of change we can believe in, Obama has given us the illusion of prosperity created by borrowed money. Our situation today is very much like someone who has maxed out their credit card, but failed to analyze and address the reason they had a need to borrow money in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing personal about any of this. I still like Barack Obama as a human being. The truth is that he failed to do what he promised to do, and it is time for him to be replaced.

Last edited by GammaEta67; 05-23-2012 at 10:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:22 PM.

Widgets Magazine Widgets Magazine

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Ad Management by RedTyger