Obama's job creation policies are working [W:865]

[AdamT]

Yeah or the WH i forget who. The story from the lamestream went like this ...

Quadaffi travelled in a huge motorcade because he had made a deal to surrender, and the motorcade being deliberately large and obvious to the American military. The order was instead given to the DoD to bomb him, as a double cross. Then, when captured only injured, the American military gave the order to the mercs to shoot him.

On top of that, the U.S. completely bombed Libya back to the stone age, destroyed the infrastructure, and slaughtered 10's of thousands of people.

I'd sure like to see a cite for that whacko theory. If it exists you can bet it came from the insanestream media (a/k/a the right).

 

[notquiteright]

Re: Obama's job creation policies are working

I'm on yet another road trip, this time from Pa to Ok. Road crews are like robot bees on the interstates. Rebuilding bridges, expanding lanes, modernizing the routes. I see this as positive, much of our infrastructure has been ignored.

It is interesting to see some ignore the fact that since 2000 or so we have been on a slump, but these same folks expect microwave job creation now that the 'pro-business' presidential candidate lost the election of '08.

Something tells me if the shoe was on the other foot, McCain's over optimistic forecasts would have been forgiven, even with a Republican House. His 'the fundamentals of the economy are sound' sound byte would a bumper sticker of support. The lack of job creation would be blamed on Unions and commie demoncrats, or some such like.

"the parting on the left is now parting on the right" damn if those hippies of my misspent youth have it down cold...

 

[IndepCentristMA]

Re: Obama's job creation policies are working

The argument ended here, If you want to carry it on there, let me know over there.

Actually... the argument ended before that... when I said I was done discussing such a pointless side topic that has nothing to do with the discussion... which is why there was no reply to your useless trolling... I already posted all the proof that was needed, and you proved that your tactics were in disingenuous by editing a quote of mine then falsely attributing it to me... (and when you say “over there”, it’s actually here in this same thread, just left several pages back for irrelevance)

Now, back to the relevant topic...

This called a correlation without causation: Obama enacted ARRA then participation lowered...but there is no there there. Your justification is that the levels of participation did not drop to the same levels under Bush in 01.But if you go back and look at your chart, we peaked in 99, Bush had nearly the same rate of decline as we are seeing in his first term. The decline started before the recession then as it did now. The signing of the ARRA did not change the level of participation 2000-05, I don't see how it caused the decline in 2008 since it was signed later.

This is called being a fool… I already addressed this topic when I pointed out the chart for the last 10 years… which shows a slight decline over the last few years of Bush’s term (with a slight drop from the recession in 2000-2001), then the recession in 2007-2009 having a slightly stronger dip to it… but then after the recession was declared over, and we were growing again, then Obama’s policies lead to a massive decline.

Again, back to the chart…

As you can see…

2002-2007, over Bush’s term, it went from 66.75% to 66%, a decline of 0.75% over 6yrs… 0.125%/yr
2007-2009, during the shared recession, it went from 66% to 65.6%, a decline of 0.4% over 3yrs… 0.133%/yr, of in terms of accuracy, 0.4% over 2.5 years… 0.16%/yr
2009-present, since the recession ended and Obama’s policies have taken effect, it went from 65.6% to 63.75%, a decline of 1.85% over 3 years… 0.616%/yr

Simplifying those results

Bush -0.125%/yr
Recession -0.16%/yr
Obama -0.616%/yr

That’s a significant RAPID decline that began when Obama’s policies took effect, at much more drastic pace than had occurred under Bush, or even during the recession… and it’s continued on steadily at that same pace since…

So, yes… no one said he was responsible for the slight drop in workforce participation that occurred after the 2000-2001 recession, no one said he was responsible for the slight drop in workforce participation during the recession… but clearly there’s a STRONG CORRELATION between the significant drop in the workforce participation rate and when Obama’s policies took effect, at a pace about 4 times as great as it was under Bush and during the recession…

Um, Carter had to deal with massive changes in oil prices, associated inflation...with price controls. We are in nearly an opposite condition, so how Obama has "taken a similar approach" is beyond me.

You seem to have skipped over the part where gasoline prices have doubled under Obama's presidency, or the price controls he insisted upon with the healthcare plan that the Supreme Court should likely overturn...

But, the approach I was speaking of was excessive regulation, and a government knows best approach to the free market... Carter talked down to the American people often, thinking he knew better than they, Obama uses the same approach, with his pointless metaphors... that and a soft world view towards dealing with foreign nations... both met stagnation for results to their economic policies...

Again, I'll refer yo back to your chart, the declines occurred 2000 through 05, and from 2008 onward. This recession is much worse than 2001.

Yes, it’s far more similar to the one under Carter… But clearly, you’re ignoring the fact that the recession ended in 2009… So when you say 2008 onward, it ignores the fact that during the recession the rate of decline was 0.16%/yr while since the recession ended, under Obama, while he’s celebrating job creation… a significantly larger percentage of the workforce has stopped participating, at a rate of decline of 0.616%/yr since the recession ended… Those are Obama’s supposed good times… where the GDP was growing, and jobs were being created, right? Only, they weren’t… or which is it?

....or the fact that nearly 4 are unemployed for every job opening...on average.

If that were the case… then the trend of unemployed per job opening would be increasing, right? But, that’s not the case…

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...Y7Kwx4&sig=AHIEtbQwzxgQVBq4_fP5CxAmVanAXcrFVg

Economy Track

So the ratio of unemployed to the number of openings is actually decreasing at the same time that the workforce participation rate is also decreasing… In fact, the same rate of decrease also begins right at about the same point, the end of the recession, and the beginning of Obama’s policies taking place…

So yes, there’ve been job openings at low end jobs, shovel ready projects, that people aren’t doing, because they get more money being on unemployment sitting around doing nothing, rather than working…

Are you still clinging to the "Obama's UI caused participation declines"....even though declines started long ago?

Graph of US Civilian Labor Participation Rate from 1948 to 2011 by gender. Men are represented in light blue, women in pink, and the total in black.
File:US Labor Participation Rate 1948-2011 by gender.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh how I love the inclusion of this useless graphic, which separates these things by gender… ooo how fancy… yes, there’s a long term pattern of increasing percentages of females and minorities in the workplace (which naturally will bring the percentage of white males only down)… thanks for including that irrelevant fact to THIS DISCUSSION…

only…

IT STILL SHOWS A RAPID DECLINE ACROSS ALL GENDERS AFTER THE RECESSION IN 2010!!! And doesn’t include 2010-2012… so it’s fairly USELESS FOR DISCUSSING OBAMA’S TERM AS PRESIDENT!!!… There’s far more decline to be discussed there… and clearly you’d rather just keep attempting to distract the point, because it speaks to Obama’s failures in job creation…

 

[AdamT]

Re: Obama's job creation policies are working

Umm, you realize that the trend in baby boomer retirements is accelerating because the meat of the boomer generation is just now hitting retirement age, right? Rocket science it ain't.

Economists maintain that half or more of the decrease in LFPR is due to demographic factors.

 

[puma237]

Re: Obama's job creation policies are working

I think that all that matters is what voters say in November.

no, that does not matter at all. in november the bleating majority of voters will go to the polls and choose either column a, (democrat) or column b, (republican)

no matter which one wins, the fed will still be in business, the irs will still be extorting and the u.n. will still be directing the use of our military.

so, vote for who has the nicest tie. that's about what that's worth.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Re: Obama's job creation policies are working

Actually... the argument ended before that... when I said I was done discussing such a pointless side topic that has nothing to do with the discussion... which is why there was no reply to your useless trolling... I already posted all the proof that was needed, and you proved that your tactics were in disingenuous by editing a quote of mine then falsely attributing it to me... (and when you say “over there”, it’s actually here in this same thread, just left several pages back for irrelevance)

LOL....the "editing" consisted of compressing your verbose responses into manageable heaps. The point still is that you lied as shown.

Now, back to the relevant topic...This is called being a fool… I already addressed this topic when I pointed out the chart for the last 10 years… which shows a slight decline over the last few years of Bush’s term (with a slight drop from the recession in 2000-2001), then the recession in 2007-2009 having a slightly stronger dip to it… but then after the recession was declared over, and we were growing again, then Obama’s policies lead to a massive decline.Again, back to the chart…As you can see...2002-2007, over Bush’s term, it went from 66.75% to 66%, a decline of 0.75% over 6yrs… 0.125%/yr
2007-2009, during the shared recession, it went from 66% to 65.6%, a decline of 0.4% over 3yrs… 0.133%/yr, of in terms of accuracy, 0.4% over 2.5 years… 0.16%/yr
2009-present, since the recession ended and Obama’s policies have taken effect, it went from 65.6% to 63.75%, a decline of 1.85% over 3 years… 0.616%/yr Simplifying those results Bush -0.125%/yr Recession -0.16%/yr Obama -0.616%/yr That’s a significant RAPID decline that began when Obama’s policies took effect, at much more drastic pace than had occurred under Bush, or even during the recession… and it’s continued on steadily at that same pace since…So, yes… no one said he was responsible for the slight drop in workforce participation that occurred after the 2000-2001 recession, no one said he was responsible for the slight drop in workforce participation during the recession… but clearly there’s a STRONG CORRELATION between the significant drop in the workforce participation rate and when Obama’s policies took effect, at a pace about 4 times as great as it was under Bush and during the recession…

Why would you call yourself a fool?

Lets not over complicate things and cherry pick the data, OK Mr. Harvard?

During Bush's first term, LFPR declined by 1.2% (67.2% on 1/2001, 66% In May of 2004)

During Obama's first term, LFPR declined by 1.9% (65.7% on 1/2009, 63.8% in May of 2012)

If you want to argue that the ARRA caused a 0.7% difference in labor force participation rate, go right ahead, I'm not sure if it is statistically significant, especially since as I already showed, participation was in decline BEFORE Bush was sworn in and was in decline BEFORE Obama was sworn in.....and AGAIN, before the ARRA was signed or implemented.

You have to show a CAUSAL relation, you have not, you only showed a COINCIDENCE.

You seem to have skipped over the part where gasoline prices have doubled under Obama's presidency, or the price controls he insisted upon with the healthcare plan that the Supreme Court should likely overturn...

And you are forgetting the oil price spikes during Bush's term...and the fact that the SCOTUS is ruling on MANDATED PAYMENT, not cost controls.

But, the approach I was speaking of was excessive regulation, and a government knows best approach to the free market... Carter talked down to the American people often, thinking he knew better than they, Obama uses the same approach, with his pointless metaphors... that and a soft world view towards dealing with foreign nations... both met stagnation for results to their economic policies...

You are just so wrong, as far as GDP or private employment, both admins saw great improvements.

Yes, it’s far more similar to the one under Carter… But clearly, you’re ignoring the fact that the recession ended in 2009… So when you say 2008 onward, it ignores the fact that during the recession the rate of decline was 0.16%/yr while since the recession ended, under Obama, while he’s celebrating job creation… a significantly larger percentage of the workforce has stopped participating, at a rate of decline of 0.616%/yr since the recession ended… Those are Obama’s supposed good times… where the GDP was growing, and jobs were being created, right? Only, they weren’t… or which is it?

Uh...private employment has gain a lot, it has been public employment that has dragged everything down. We are seeing the effects of "austerity" in the public sector, state and local govt has laid off huge numbers and the private market is not absorbing them at the same rate.

You really don't understand this?

If that were the case… then the trend of unemployed per job opening would be increasing, right? But, that’s not the case…

Uh, no, it had been HIGHER, at or above 7 seekers per opening, it has been declining as you graph shows.

So the ratio of unemployed to the number of openings is actually decreasing at the same time that the workforce participation rate is also decreasing… In fact, the same rate of decrease also begins right at about the same point, the end of the recession, and the beginning of Obama’s policies taking place…So yes, there’ve been job openings at low end jobs, shovel ready projects, that people aren’t doing, because they get more money being on unemployment sitting around doing nothing, rather than working…

LOL....are the unemployed supposed to organize themselves into crews and start infrastructure work?

Oh how I love the inclusion of this useless graphic, which separates these things by gender… ooo how fancy… yes, there’s a long term pattern of increasing percentages of females and minorities in the workplace (which naturally will bring the percentage of white males only down)… thanks for including that irrelevant fact to THIS DISCUSSION… only… IT STILL SHOWS A RAPID DECLINE ACROSS ALL GENDERS AFTER THE RECESSION IN 2010!!! And doesn’t include 2010-2012… so it’s fairly USELESS FOR DISCUSSING OBAMA’S TERM AS PRESIDENT!!!… There’s far more decline to be discussed there… and clearly you’d rather just keep attempting to distract the point, because it speaks to Obama’s failures in job creation…

Slow down there ICMA, don't get wound up, that chart in no way describes race, it only describes labor participation by gender and total. Again, I posted it to show that the decline began BEFORE Bush was sworn in, BEFORE Obama was sworn in, BEFORE the ARRA went into effect.

Your argument is still coincidence without causation.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

Re: Obama's job creation policies are working

Umm, you realize that the trend in baby boomer retirements is accelerating because the meat of the boomer generation is just now hitting retirement age, right? Rocket science it ain't.

Economists maintain that half or more of the decrease in LFPR is due to demographic factors.

You do realize that the BLS, based on accurate Census information, already calculated that the total decrease in the LFPR due to boomer retirements over the 10 year period 2005-2014 would be 0.4%. As the Recession period 2008-2012 isn't half that, one could accurately project that 0.2% would be the attributable drop for those years. As the drop in LFPR has been 10 times that amount, then boomer retirments are not much the issue ....... at all.

On second thought, maybe you did not realize that.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/11/art3full.pdf

 

[Prof. Peabody]

Re: Obama's job creation policies are working

Umm, you realize that the trend in baby boomer retirements is accelerating because the meat of the boomer generation is just now hitting retirement age, right? Rocket science it ain't.

Economists maintain that half or more of the decrease in LFPR is due to demographic factors.

Job creation less than 200,000 (high estimate) a month, new unemployment benefits claims over 350,000 (low estimate). When those numbers reverse, then the economy is recovering. So far all the Democrats have accomplished is slow down the sinking of the ship. Maybe that's why Pennsylvania Rep. Mark Critz, West Virginia Democrats, Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, Sen. Joe Manchin, Rep. Nick Rahall, New York Democratic Reps. Bill Owens and Kathy Hochul have all decided to opt out of the Democratic National Convention. $5 trillion in new debt will take years to reverse. The size of government at all levels will need to be reduced by at least 25%.

 

[AdamT]

Re: Obama's job creation policies are working

You do realize that the BLS, based on accurate Census information, already calculated that the total decrease in the LFPR due to boomer retirements over the 10 year period 2005-2014 would be 0.4%. As the Recession period 2008-2012 isn't half that, one could accurately project that 0.2% would be the attributable drop for those years. As the drop in LFPR has been 10 times that amount, then boomer retirments are not much the issue ....... at all.

On second thought, maybe you did not realize that.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/11/art3full.pdf

I don't have time to read the whole report right now, but it actually seems to say is that the boomer related change is projected to be 0.2% PER YEAR — not 0.4% total. I also notice that the report is outdated. They say they produce that report every two years so there should be versions from '07 and '09.

And.... The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post

 

[Eighty Deuce]

Re: Obama's job creation policies are working

I don't have time to read the whole report right now, but it actually seems to say is that the boomer related change is projected to be 0.2% PER YEAR — not 0.4% total. I also notice that the report is outdated. They say they produce that report every two years so there should be versions from '07 and '09.

And.... The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post

Nope. It shows 0.4% for the total impact over the 10 years span. But further, your quip that "it seems to be outdated" is a farce. We are talking about counting folks born 1945-1965. That does not change, whether counted in 2005, 2010, or 2015.

Your link does not assign a value to boomers, as the BLS so easily does. Its all available in official census numbers. It was not hard for the BLS to compute. Which they deliberately did.

 

[AdamT]

Re: Obama's job creation policies are working

Nope. It shows 0.4% for the total impact over the 10 years span. But further, your quip that "it seems to be outdated" is a farce. We are talking about counting folks born 1945-1965. That does not change, whether counted in 2005, 2010, or 2015.

Your link does not assign a value to boomers, as the BLS so easily does. Its all available in official census numbers. It was not hard for the BLS to compute. Which they deliberately did.

Can you post a quote, or at least a page number, from the the report supporting your assertion?

 

[Eighty Deuce]

Re: Obama's job creation policies are working

Can you post a quote, or at least a page number, from the the report supporting your assertion?

There is plenty to read. But if you want to start first with the number, Table 5, the top line, shows the rise and fall of the LFPR since 1984, and then through 2014, using Census numbers and other prior counts to make that projection. Its all in the fine print, and you can read plenty to see how they arrived at those numbers. However, what table 5 shows is what is to be expected based on boomer retirements and all other aging and demographic factors when totaled. They explain the methodology of it all in the text. What I will remind folks is that they had the hard numbers to count for every age group that makes up the LFPR in 2005, as 1998 would be the last birth year impacting 2014, as the LFPR begins with 16 year-olds.

I also explained it a couple weeks ago here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...keeps-downgrade-negativ-6.html#post1060577856

 

[washunut]

Re: Obama's job creation policies are working

Show me when as many people lived in poverty as do today? Put up or shut up!




So you expect seniors and the working class to embrace their benefits and wages being cut so the 1% can get even bigger tax cuts as pledged by the GOP?

Man, is this going to be the best election season or what? The showdown between the arrogance of the 1% and the desperation of the 99%. This is going to be one of the most poetic elections in history!

Epic, man, epic! Please keep playing your part!

Just wondering who do you think pays $40K to go to a dinner party with the President. Do you really think the 99% are represented by anyone?

 

[Kane]

Re: Obama's job creation policies are working

Yeah or the WH i forget who. The story from the lamestream went like this ...

Quadaffi travelled in a huge motorcade because he had made a deal to surrender, and the motorcade being deliberately large and obvious to the American military. The order was instead given to the DoD to bomb him, as a double cross. Then, when captured only injured, the American military gave the order to the mercs to shoot him.

On top of that, the U.S. completely bombed Libya back to the stone age, destroyed the infrastructure, and slaughtered 10's of thousands of people.

I'd sure like to see a cite for that whacko theory. If it exists you can bet it came from the insanestream media (a/k/a the right).

a few different views here ...

Violating Qaddafi’s white flag of truce/surrender—a flagrant war crime.....By Wayne Madsen
Violating Qaddafi

"The world's largest human rights organization asserted Saturday that murderers of Colonel Muamar al-Gaddafi are war criminals who must be brought to justice if he was captured and killed, which is how he died as reported by Reuters and other credible sources. 'Bombing Libya back to the stoneage" and bombing 80,000 civilians in Sirte alone have been conducted in President Barack Obama's illegal war without congressional vote or approval. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton laughed about the murder of Libya's leader who, according to medical sources, was captured alive and killed by gunshot wounds in his abdomen and brain."
'War criminals' kill Gaddafi, bomb 80,000 civilians: PSYOPs working - National Human Rights | Examiner.com

 

[AdamT]

Re: Obama's job creation policies are working

There is plenty to read. But if you want to start first with the number, Table 5, the top line, shows the rise and fall of the LFPR since 1984, and then through 2014, using Census numbers and other prior counts to make that projection. Its all in the fine print, and you can read plenty to see how they arrived at those numbers. However, what table 5 shows is what is to be expected based on boomer retirements and all other aging and demographic factors when totaled. They explain the methodology of it all in the text. What I will remind folks is that they had the hard numbers to count for every age group that makes up the LFPR in 2005, as 1998 would be the last birth year impacting 2014, as the LFPR begins with 16 year-olds.

I also explained it a couple weeks ago here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...keeps-downgrade-negativ-6.html#post1060577856

Well, it appears that what they're doing is assuming that the increasing number of older people will be offset by a higher level of participation by older workers, which has been a trend for a while. I can see how the economy may have altered that assumption, as a lot of older workers have probably opted to take early retirement.

In any case, if you just plot a linear trend in the LFPR from 1997 to the start of the recession, and extend it to the present, what you get is a drop of about 1% — or about half reduction in the LFPR, which is what economists have said.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Obama's job creation policies are working

Once again, if all that participation drop is retirees, whose getting their jobs? That would mean tremendous job opportunities...except it doesn't.
Now, I'm expecting someone from the left side of the fence to argue, "But companies found they could function without those employees". That doesn't argue for a strong job market then, does it?

Reposting since the liberals all seem to want to claim its boomers retiring but failing address that their jobs they are leaving behind are not getting filled---meaning either their theory is wrong or the economy is not growing as much as they want to think and say it is.

 

[AdamT]

Re: Obama's job creation policies are working

Reposting since the liberals all seem to want to claim its boomers retiring but failing address that their jobs they are leaving behind are not getting filled---meaning either their theory is wrong or the economy is not growing as much as they want to think and say it is.

If the jobs are not being filled then that's reflected in the unemployment numbers, which I think may have been discussed once or twice.

 

[Boo Radley]

Re: Obama's job creation policies are working

Reposting since the liberals all seem to want to claim its boomers retiring but failing address that their jobs they are leaving behind are not getting filled---meaning either their theory is wrong or the economy is not growing as much as they want to think and say it is.

The much-publicized announcement by United Parcel Service (UPS) last week that it will need to hire 25,000 new employees over the next five years to replace retiring baby boomers raises the specter of similar staffing issues to come for a number of employers. As odd as it may seem to be concerned about jobs going unfilled at a time when unemployment is nearly 10%, experts suggest that in some industries, employees may soon begin retiring at a much faster rate than they can effectively be replaced, a situation which could endanger corporate profitability. Where those new workers will come from and the cost of training them are employers' two top concerns.

Research by economist Barry Bluestone, dean of the School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs at Northeastern University, predicts labor shortages over the next eight years to the tune of more than 5 million job vacancies, including 2.4 million in the education, health care, government and nonprofit sectors.

"If the baby boom generation retires from the labor force at the same rate and age as current older workers, the baby bust generation that follows will likely be too small to fill many of the projected new jobs," says Bluestone's report, After the Recovery: Help Needed - The Coming Labor Shortage and How People in Encore Careers Can Help Solve It.

Retiring Boomers Will Leave a Huge Hole in the Job Market - DailyFinance

Will this Obama's fault? Democrats? Republicans? liberals? Congress? Who controls birth rates?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Obama's job creation policies are working

The much-publicized announcement by United Parcel Service (UPS) last week that it will need to hire 25,000 new employees over the next five years to replace retiring baby boomers raises the specter of similar staffing issues to come for a number of employers. As odd as it may seem to be concerned about jobs going unfilled at a time when unemployment is nearly 10%, experts suggest that in some industries, employees may soon begin retiring at a much faster rate than they can effectively be replaced, a situation which could endanger corporate profitability. Where those new workers will come from and the cost of training them are employers' two top concerns.

Research by economist Barry Bluestone, dean of the School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs at Northeastern University, predicts labor shortages over the next eight years to the tune of more than 5 million job vacancies, including 2.4 million in the education, health care, government and nonprofit sectors.

"If the baby boom generation retires from the labor force at the same rate and age as current older workers, the baby bust generation that follows will likely be too small to fill many of the projected new jobs," says Bluestone's report, After the Recovery: Help Needed - The Coming Labor Shortage and How People in Encore Careers Can Help Solve It.

Retiring Boomers Will Leave a Huge Hole in the Job Market - DailyFinance

Will this Obama's fault? Democrats? Republicans? liberals? Congress? Who controls birth rates?

No offense but the Post office is in a declining volume industry. They wont need as many people because mail has been declining for the last decade.

 

[AdamT]

Re: Obama's job creation policies are working

No offense but the Post office is in a declining volume industry. They wont need as many people because mail has been declining for the last decade.

Post Office =/= UPS

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Obama's job creation policies are working

Post Office =/= UPS

Well, hell, Im gonna get another beer.

 

[Boo Radley]

Re: Obama's job creation policies are working

No offense but the Post office is in a declining volume industry. They wont need as many people because mail has been declining for the last decade.

Swoooooosh!

You missed the point entirely.

 

[HoongLoong]

Re: Obama's job creation policies are working

Obama's policies are not only working, they are booming. We have never seen this many jobs! Now you won't hear that from the GOP smear campaign, but the facts are clear. The mood of the country has never been this optomistic about the future.

Let's start off with a few facts to dispell the pro-Obami Salami Crappola:

According to Dick Morris during the last 7 days or so on the O'Reilly Factor:

(1) ~500,000 fewer jobs now then when Obama became President.

(2) Presently 50,000 enter workplace when only 69,000 jobs are created.

(3) USA's Household's Wealth has been reduced by 40% under Obama's Administration.

(4) Re Middleclass: 5 years ago Net Wealth of Middleclass Family was $126,000. It is now $77,000.

(5) With Obama's recent Specialized Dream Amnesty to Illegal Immigrants age ~16 - 30 : 800,000 new workers are added on to the job market in spite of the present unemployment of American citizens.

(6) 40 cents out of every dollar spent is borrowed from foreign sources. Obama blatantly declares that even more money must be spent on his governmental stimulus agenda than has been already spent by his Administration.

(7) Dubya spent $4 trillion in 8 years. Obama spent $5 1/2 Trillion in 3 1/2 years. In other words, in 3 1/2 years Obama has spent more than TWICE the rate Bush spent the tax money. And, Obama blatantly declares that considerably MORE needs to be spent.

(8) On Greta van Sustern's show:

FACT: Obami Salami spent $9 BILLION for the creation of 931 jobs in his Greenery projects.

General info: Gov Romney in Mass. had 4% unemployment compared to Obummer's average of 8.2 (?)

 

[AdamT]

Re: Obama's job creation policies are working

Let's start off with a few facts to dispell the pro-Obami Salami Crappola:

According to Dick Morris

:rofl

Now there's an unbiased source.

 

[HoongLoong]

Re: Obama's job creation policies are working

:rofl

Now there's an unbiased source.

Everyone of us is probably biased.

The essential point is: whatever our bias, are the facts we state irrefutable ?

Name me a single FACT I quoted that is false.