Economy added 255,000 jobs in July

Federal government spending versus all government jobs.

It is irrelevant. During the recovery under Reagans, governments added almost 900,000 jobs to the economy. Under Obama, over half a million were eliminated.

If you are contending that a net swing of 1.3 million jobs doesn't affect the economy, you're going to have to demonstrate that one.

 

There is a chart of a compilation of economists, the consensus is apparent.

- - - Updated - - -

Because it's all a pile of dung.

 

Rebuilding the military was part of Reagan's economic boom but if that was the significant factor our economy now would be booming with all the money obama has spent on wars. Obviously other factors such as Reagan being pro business and pro capitalism as opposed to Obama's anti business anti capitalism policies come into play.

 

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12032194

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12005977

If you notice those working PT who want a FT job has decreased while those who only want PT work has increased, so your link in support of another poster's false claim that people who want to work FT are now working 2 PT jobs to explain the increase in employment is clearly deliberately deceptive because it does not separate those who only want PT jobs from those who want FT work.

 

Actually, the "consensus" is only slightly more, if a WSJ "study" is believable, than the range I linked to that actually shows how the number was calculated, and not just some opinion with no data to back it.

 

Out military was never "emaciated" and the USSR fell thanks to Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika policies. St Ronnie only takes credit for the efforts of others.

 

No, I just mean it doesn't make sense. That was like saying spending $9.50 instead of $10.00 on a pizza ended up making the Pizza salty(In this case, the economic downturn as a result of the 0.53 less spending.)

If a downturn in hiring(or any substantial subtractions) would occur, you'd think it'd be with a MUCH bigger slice of the pie than not even one percent of cuts.

Put another way: This chart kind of reaffirms what Aki is saying: The US Government could never stop spending, and the only way it'll be deficit-neutral, is if the economy is chugging at such a rate that it's double our spending rate.

I don't want to imagine a US that basically has no financial flexibility moving forward.

 

And what would those be?

 

So now we are left wondering why would someone choose to work part time I stead of full time. Maybe because its a crappy job and they are better off staying part time so they still qualify for government benefits?

- - - Updated - - -

Thank-you for the standard revisionist history spread by the left.

 

We could start with the keystone pipeline and move on to " you can build a new coal plant but you'll go broke if you do". Then we can add

"Anti-business policies have unfortunately become the norm for the Obama Administration. From the Affordable Care Act to Dodd-Frank, the last six years have been hard for job creators across the United States, even as they strive to hire new workers and lift an anemic economic recovery.
Anti-competitive regulations have taken center stage in recent days with the implementation of a new rule by President Obama’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The aptly named “ambush” election ruling, which came into effect on April 14, allows labor bosses to call organizing elections in as few as 13 days – down from the previous average of 38 days.
This policy change has no practical explanation, other than it is repayment to union bosses who spent $1 billion to help elect and re-elect President Obama. As union membership has declined in recent years, President Obama has stacked the NLRB with Big Labor cronies who have continually enacted policies that make it significantly harder for employers, particularly small businesses. The “ambush” election ruling is just the latest iteration of an anti-business agenda enacted by the Obama’s Labor Board at the behest of union bosses.
According to the NLRB’s own data, the shorter the election time, the more likely it will be for a shop to approve unionization. Between 2004 and 2014, labor bosses were successful in 60 percent of elections that occurred within 36 to 42 days. However, when elections were held in under 21 days, they were victorious an incredible 86 percent of the time. Moving up election times disproportionately tips the scales toward union bosses – exactly what Big Labor and the Obama Administration intends.
While this policy is bad for all employers, small businesses would be acutely affected. These companies, which account for nearly 50 percent of private sector employment, often operate on razor-thin margins. Under the “ambush” election rule, union bosses will be able to lay the groundwork for months to prime workplaces for elections, putting small businesses on the defensive. Unfortunately, smaller companies frequently do not have in-house labor lawyers and will not have adequate time to obtain the necessary counsel to ensure they are complying with all laws.
Additionally, under the new “ambush” rules, union organizers can approach any worker for their support, but voter eligibility will not be determined until after the election. This is a stark change from tradition, which allowed workers ample time to secure information prior to the election. Worse, employers’ automatic post-election NLRB review will now be eliminated, replaced by discretionary reviews. Looking at the new rule as a whole, it is clear that the Obama Labor Board has done everything it can to ensure union bosses are significantly better off.
Earlier this year, pro-business members of both the U.S. House and Senate passed a bill that would have overruled the NLRB on the “ambush” ruling. Predictably, President Obama vetoed the bill – making it only the fourth piece of legislation that he has rejected. Despite famously calling for a new way of doing business in Washington, D.C., President Obama continues to show an unwavering proclivity for helping Big Labor at the expense of American small business owners.
These policies are seriously hurting the very backbone of our economy. And they must be stopped."

http://www.insidesources.com/anti-business-agenda-obama-administration/

 

Or maybe they are students, or retirees who don't want to work so many hours any more, etc., but whatever the reason they do not want to work full time by choice.

 

You actually need to do some research somyou can understand what actually caused the banking collapse.

 

Actually you might enjoy some actual data comparing the performance of various Presidents as compiled by the Motley Fool. Pay particular attention to the ratings for corporate profit growth. Hint, Obama rates much better than Reagan.

http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/...-for-the-economy.aspx?source=iaasitlnk0000003

 

number one thing to take a look at is consumer spending and secondary to that is the CC debt level. If consumer spending doens increase or at the very least CC debt doesnt decrease then people arent getting the benefits of these jobs you say are being added to the economy.

I ean if you add 200k jobs give 100k to h1b visas and another 100k to illegals then it really has no impact on the people out of work.

Once consumer spending goes up then people will be a lot happier with politicians.

 

Would you be denigrating Obama if these figures were negative? No. So why should I give a hoot what you say when they're positive?

 

http://www.marketplace.org/2012/03/...dio/does-president-actually-influence-economy

Does the president actually influence the economy?
By Stephen Dubner
March 07, 2012 | 12:00 AM

Kai Ryssdal: Time now for a little Freakonomics Radio. It's that moment every couple of weeks where we talk to Stephen Dubner, the co-author of the books and blog of the same name -- it is the hidden side of everything.

Dubner, how are ya?

Stephen Dubner: I've been worse.

Ryssdal: You have? All right, OK.

Dubner: I'm doing all right.

Ryssdal: You know why you're doing all right, though? Because Super Tuesday's behind you, man. You don't have to worry about politics anymore.

Dubner: That is a big part of it. You know how I feel about the presidency.

Ryssdal: That's where I was going, because generally, you think it's overrated, right?

Dubner: I do. I believe that the office of the president of the United States, it just matters a lot less than most people think. Now I will say, when I make this argument, I get hate mail from both sides of the aisle. Conservatives accuse me of "covering" for President Obama, and liberals accuse me of kind of preempting criticism of some future Republican nominee.

Ryssdal: Well the man is the leader of the free world, so to speak. So what's the actual truth here, dude?

Dubner: Look, personally, I have no horse in any race -- I dislike both political parties about equally. But here's the thing: We're heading into a presidential campaign now that is likely to focus on the economy, and rightly so. And I'm here to tell you and your listeners that of all the areas in which the president's influence is overrated, the economy is probably No. 1.

I'd like you here to listen to Austan Goolsbee, who's a former chairman of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers.

Austan Goolsbee: I think the world vests too much power -- certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general -- for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Ryssdal: I love the way he talks, by the way. Sounds like a mafia guy, doesn't he? But wait listen, you were around in the '92 election? You were paying attention, yes?

Dubner: I was a sentient being then, yes.

Ryssdal: So Clinton, "It's the economy, stupid" -- that's why the guy won.

Dubner: It's a fantastic campaign slogan -- you get to brag about how you'll raise employment and lower gas prices -- as if, Kai, there's some magical set of buttons in the Oval Office that you get to push once you're elected. A 'More Jobs' button.

But as Austan Goolsbee points out, the president's ability to actually change the shape and direction and velocity of the macroeconomy is extremely limited.

Ryssdal: Let me go back then to the actual politicians who say otherwise. You had Clinton and now you've got Mitt Romney -- former CEO, a business guy. Goes out, every stump speech he makes and says, 'I know what to do in the economy. I've been there, I've created jobs, I've fired people, blah blah blah.' You're not buying that?

Dubner: I buy that he believes that to be true. A lot of people have believed that to be true in the past; this kind of common idea of the last 10, 15 years is 'president as CEO.' But it doesn't work that way. We set it up to not work that way. When it comes to unilateral decision making, there's no comparison between what a CEO can do and what a president can try to get done. Here's another way of looking at it, with some actual data, which is what we like to do.

Ryssdal: I was waiting for the data, man.

Dubner: In the 2004 Bush-Kerry election, you may recall there was a little bit of a snafu concerning the early exit polls.

Ryssdal: Oh yeah, Kerry was the winner for like, three-something hours, four hours?

Dubner: That's exactly right. It was announced it was Kerry but it turned out to be Bush. And the economist Justin Wolfers took advantage of that mix-up for a study he did.

Justin Wolfers: 2004 was a social scientist's dream. What you have is four hours -- I'm a Democrat, so I'll say four beautiful hours -- in which we basically had a Kerry presidency. And it was random.

Dubner: So what Wolfers did is he looked at how the stock markets reacted to first the news of a Kerry presidency, and then the new -- turned out to be correct -- news of a Bush presidency.

Wolfers: You see, in fact, that stocks fell a little bit during the four hours of the Kerry presidency and then they rose a bit when it became the Bush presidency.

Dubner: Now, the difference between a new Democratic president and a new Republican president in the space of four hours was actually pretty small -- about 1.5 percent. That is just a sliver of evidence, but it does suggest that the people who pay the most attention to the working economy -- which is to say the Wall Street investors -- didn't really care all that much about which president they got. And most economists will tell you that the president's role when it comes to the economy is much closer to let's say a cheerleader than a CEO.

Ryssdal: Yeah, but you're never going to see Obama or Romney out there saying, 'I can do nothing!' Right?

Dubner: No, you won't. They've got their self interests, but just once I'd love a presidential candidate to get up there on the stump and say: 'My fellow Americans, I can't control the U.S. economy. I've got a little bit of influence but mostly it does what it does. So if it gets worse on my watch, you shouldn't blame me -- and if it happens to get better, you probably shouldn't give me too much credit either.'

Ryssdal: Ladies and gentlemen, the next president of the United States, Stephen Dubner.

Dubner: I think not. Now you know why I'm free to be on your radio show -- nobody in Washington wants to touch me.

Ryssdal: That's exactly right. Freakonomics.com is the website. See you in a couple weeks.

Dubner: Thanks Kai.

 

The Wall St Journal has been around since 1889, they are a quite believable or they wouldn't have been around for 127 years.

 

So you basically pick and choose which ones you want to believe.

 

I tend to listen to media that has been around that long, the left leaning media is an absolute bad joke and their ratings and circulation shows it.

 

The WSJ has not been credible since 2007 when it changed its focus from business to commerciality and ideology.

 

So the fact that the New York Times has been around 162 years makes them thirty percent more credible?

 

Is the economy as good as the last time the Republicans controlled the government? Hardly. Is it improving since they have taken back the Congress, slowly. So why do you give credit for this to Obama? It is our finally having budgets again and the halting the rain of new regulations and increasing cost of employment and giving employers at least some confidence that may finally be getting us into a recovery. The danger is we are due for a recession. Can the Republicans head that off? Will Obama get out of the way?

 

Under the standard means of tallying such numbers yes we still have this huge deficit of people in the work place. It may be turning around now that we have the Republicans actually try to fix things and get the government house in order.

 

Who had been sitting as Speaker of the House and Pesisent if the Senate for 18 months prior to July 08 already having reversed course of the government.

Presidents aren't kings you know.

 

And Democrats don't try to win elections? So if you are going to revisit that then post who said it, the occassion at which it was uttered, to whom he was speaking and the ENTIRE statement.