Unemployment up but the media claims that is good news.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Federal government employment is up 2,000 from January 2009 and down 5,000 from his first full month on the job in February 2009. So it is basically flat, despite population growth.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2...9091000001.txt

But you said we should focus on private sector rather than public sector job growth. That appears to be exactly what we are doing.

yeah just not a very good job being that umemployment is basically where it is from the day he took office in 2009.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

yeah just not a very good job being that umemployment is basically where it is from the day he took office in 2009.

Not in the private sector. That is only true if you include the cuts to the public sector, which again, conservatives are supposed to support.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Not in the private sector. That is only true if you include the cuts to the public sector, which again, conservatives are supposed to support.

The hiring in the private sector has been anemic as a result of a weak GDP. No matter how you look at it, we have had a weak recovery.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

The hiring in the private sector has been anemic as a result of a weak GDP. No matter how you look at it, we have had a week recovery.

No, its been recovering for more than 7 days.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

No, its been recovering for more than 7 days.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

The hiring in the private sector has been anemic as a result of a weak GDP. No matter how you look at it, we have had a weak recovery.

Job growth during the last three recoveries divided into private and public sector:





So we are doing far better in private sector employment than when we came out of the last recession and almost as well as when we came out of the 1990 recession. We are losing more public sector jobs than coming out of either recession.

[gatorman_07732]

You can put all the graphs you want md, but the fact is we have barely broke 3% GDP the entire recovery. There has not been a lot of hiring with the look of a contracting economy. Well actually Q4 showed a contraction

[ThePlayer]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

The Obama recovery is working so well that two-thirds say they're delaying retirement.

22.7 million Americans are either unemployed or underemployed.

Wait until Obamacare kicks in and we move to an entire nation full of part-time employees.

[gatorman_07732]

Hell, even politico admits the guy has a GDP problem

Obama's GDP headache

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2...re-155645.html

Today's news of a 0.1 percent shrink in the 4th Quarter Gross Domestic Product is ambiguous in terms of the economics -- the fall was largely due to a drop in government spending and some shuffling of private inventories.

Nonetheless, the politics are unambiguously terrible for Barack Obama. This was a White House humming along with its "Recovery Winter" storyline, and Wednesday's bad number forces them into a defensive crouch after an early 2013 spent on offense. The words "unexpected contraction of the GDP" are never music to a White House, especially a White House singing new tunes on immigration, guns, et al.

Recovery......not

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Hell, even politico admits the guy has a GDP problem



http://www.politico.com/politico44/2...re-155645.html



Recovery......not

Again, a fall in government spending. You just posted an article that says that from an economic standpoint, the recent fall was mostly due to declines in government spending.

So when are you going to stop advocating for declines in government spending then?

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

You can put all the graphs you want md, but the fact is we have barely broke 3% GDP the entire recovery. There has not been a lot of hiring with the look of a contracting economy. Well actually Q4 showed a contraction

You are able to understand what the graphs show right? They show that there has been a decent amount of hiring in the private sector but not in the public sector. Our hiring in the private sector has actually been closer to the best case scenario in coming out of a recession than the worst case scenario (as we endured in the last recession).

The big difference has been a lower amount of public sector hiring. Again, I would have thought a small government conservative would be happy about lower public sector economy. At least they would be if they were worried about being even vaguely consistent.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Again, a fall in government spending. You just posted an article that says that from an economic standpoint, the recent fall was mostly due to declines in government spending.

So when are you going to stop advocating for declines in government spending then?

Good point, in that the only reason we got the weak recovery we did was because of the big gov spending.

[surfn1080]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Again, a fall in government spending. You just posted an article that says that from an economic standpoint, the recent fall was mostly due to declines in government spending.

So when are you going to stop advocating for declines in government spending then?

MD please pretend you have any idea what these numbers really mean...

First of all, the participation rate virtually was unchanged. And yes it is because of some governmental layoffs (we continue to lose 350k+ jobs a week) which will hopefully mean we are cutting spending which we all know is not the real case. However once the government stops kicking in so much money, its only going to get worse and on top of that our GDP is showing signs of slowing down!

If we don't start showing any true signs of improvement, the feds will have to stop printing money or we risk inflation and that is when we will see real problems. The sad part is Obama is showing no real signs he cares to change anything around. What we having going right now IS NOT WORKING. Is the answer really to keep printing and throwing money at the problem?!?

[ThePlayer]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Again, a fall in government spending. You just posted an article that says that from an economic standpoint, the recent fall was mostly due to declines in government spending.

So when are you going to stop advocating for declines in government spending then?

That decline came from a decrease in defense spending and inventories.
As a liberal weasel...don't you enjoy hearing our defenses are down?

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Good point, in that the only reason we got the weak recovery we did was because of the big gov spending.

You don't get to have it both ways. If you want to claim that you want to cut government spending, then you can't complain when GDP (which includes government spending) goes down while we cut government spending. You also don't get to complain about the aggregate state of a labor market that is doing pretty well coming out of a recession for the private sector because the public sector is losing jobs.

You either want smaller government or you don't. You don't get to advocate for small government and then complain about the effects of smaller government on GDP and employment while still advocating for the policy. That is hypocritical.

[surfn1080]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

You don't get to have it both ways. If you want to claim that you want to cut government spending, then you can't complain when GDP (which includes government spending) goes down while we cut government spending. You also don't get to complain about the aggregate state of a labor market that is doing pretty well coming out of a recession for the private sector because the public sector is losing jobs.

You either want smaller government or you don't. You don't get to advocate for small government and then complain about the effects of smaller government on GDP and employment while still advocating for the policy. That is hypocritical.

The point is most repubs never want gov to get involved as much as they did. Now that our economy is so dependent on the gov, we are screwed once we are forced to stop the spending.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by ThePlayer

That decline came from a decrease in defense spending and inventories.
As a liberal weasel...don't you enjoy hearing our defenses are down?

Oh name calling. Not a replacement for a good argument. Says more about the name caller than others. But you probably already know that.

Defense spending declines were part of the decline in government spending. I would prefer to cut defense spending, as the Keynesian multipliers for defense are only high when the unemployment rate is especially high.

http://www.stanford.edu/~johntayl/CCTW_100108.pdf

[g8trjax]

It's an obama mandate, no bad news will ever be reported. Dow at 14,000 and the economy is barely limping along, come on, no one sees that as bizarre?

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by surfn1080

The point is most repubs never want gov to get involved as much as they did. Now that our economy is so dependent on the gov, we are screwed once we are forced to stop the spending.

And yet, when having total control of government for years, Republicans massively increased the number of people working in the public sector. And now, when it is cut, Republicans are taking the opportunity to attack Democrats for presiding over that decline in government spending.

So if a group increases government spending, and then complains about the negative consequences of cutting government, can you really say they are for cutting government, even if they claim to be?

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by g8trjax

It's an obama mandate, no bad news will ever be reported. Dow at 14,000 and the economy is barely limping along, come on, no one sees that as bizarre?

When something looks bizarre, perhaps it is time to look at the underlying premises. The Dow is definitely around 14,000, so that is accurate. Therefore, you only have one premise which needs examination.