Highmark
-
Posts
43,021 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
51
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Highmark
-
-
Another.
The recession ended four years ago, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. So Obamanomics has had plenty of time to produce a solid recovery. In fact, since the American historical record is the worse the recession, the stronger the recovery, Obama should have had an easy time producing a booming recovery by now.
Obama likes to tout that we are doing better now than at the worst of the recession. But every recovery is better than the recession, by definition. So that doesn’t mean much.
The right measure and comparison for Obama’s record is not to compare the recovery to the recession, but to compare Obama’s recovery with other recoveries from other recessions since the Great Depression. By that measure, what is clear is that Obamanomics has produced the worstrecovery from a recession since the Great Depression, worse than what every other President who has faced a recession has achieved since the Great Depression.
In the 10 previous recessions since the Great Depression, prior to this last recession, the economy recovered all jobs lost during the recession after an average of 25 months after the prior jobs peak (when the recession began), according to the records kept by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. So the job effects of prior post Depression recessions have lasted an average of about 2 years. But under President Obama, by April, 2013, 64 months after the prior jobs peak, almost 5½ years, we still have not recovered all of the recession’s job losses. In April, 2013, there were an estimated 135.474 million American workers employed, still down about 2.6 million jobs from the prior peak of 138.056 million in January, 2008.
Ronald Reagan suffered a severe recession starting in 1981, which resulted from the monetary policy that broke the back of the roaring 1970s inflation. But all the job losses of that recession were recovered after 28 months, with the recovery fueled by traditional pro-growth policies. By this point in the Reagan recovery, 64 months after the recession started, jobs had grown 9.5% higher than where they were when the recession started, representing an increase of about 10 million more jobs. By contrast, in April, 2013, jobs in the Obama recovery were still about 2% below where they were when the recession started, about 2 ½ million less, or a shortfall of about 10 million jobs if you count population growth since the recession started, as discussed below.
Obama’s so-called recovery included the longest period since the Great Depression with unemployment above 8%, 43 months, from February, 2009, when Obama’s so-called stimulus costing nearly $1 trillion was passed, until August, 2012. It also included the longest period since the Great Depression with unemployment at 9.0% or above, 30 months, from April, 2009, until September, 2011. In fact, during the entire 65 years from January, 1948 to January, 2013, there were no months with unemployment over 8%, except for 26 months during the bitter 1981 – 1982 recession, which slayed the historic inflation of the 1970s. That is how inconsistent with the prior history of the American economy President Obama’s extended unemployment has been. That is some fundamental transformation of America.
Moreover, that U3 unemployment rate does not count the millions who have dropped out of the labor force during the recession and President Obama’s worst recovery since the Great Depression, who are not counted as unemployed because they are not considered in the work force. Even though the employment age population has increased by 12 million since the recession began, only 1 million more Americans are counted as in the labor force. With normal labor force participation rates, that implies another 7.3 million missing U.S. jobs, on top of the 2 ½ million missing jobs we are still short from when the recession began, for a total of about 10 million missing jobs.
If America enjoyed the same labor force participation rate as in 2008, the unemployment rate in December, 2012 would have been about 11%, compared to the monthly low of 4.4% in December, 2007, under President George Bush and his “failed” economic policies of the past. We will not see 4.4% unemployment again, without another fundamental transformation of America’s economic policies.
The number of unemployed in January, 2013, at the end of President Obama’s first term, was 7.7 million. Another 7.9 million were “employed part time for economic reasons.” The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports, “These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.”
Another 2.3 million were “marginally attached to the work force.” The BLS reports, “These individuals…wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. [But] [t]hey were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.”
That puts the total army of the unemployed or underemployed at nearly 18 million Americans in January, 2013. They are all counted in the BLS calculation of the U6 unemployment rate, which still totaled 13.9% that month.
But the Shadow Government Statistics website also includes in its “SGS Alternative Unemployment Rate” long term discouraged workers, those who wanted and were available for work for more than a year, and had looked for a job, but not in the prior 4 weeks. That is how the BLS U6 unemployment rate was calculated prior to the changes made in the early 1990s under the Clinton Administration. Including these workers as well raises the SGS unemployment rate for April, 2013 to 23%. That seems more consistent with how the economy still feels for the majority of Americans, despite Democrat Party controlled media cheerleading.
This utterly failed jobs record of Obamanomics reflects the more basic reality that the economy has not been growing under President Obama. In the 10 post depression recessions before President Obama, the economy recovered the lost GDP during the recession within an average of 4.5 quarters after the recession started. But it took Obama’s recovery 16 quarters, or 4 years, to reach that point. Today, 21 quarters, or 5 plus years, after the recession started, the economy (real GDP) has grown just 3.2% above where it was when the recession started. By sharp contrast, at this point in the Reagan recovery, the economy had boomed by 18.6%, almost one fifth.
Obama’s economic performance has even been much worse than Bush’s. Jeffrey H. Anderson, a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute, writes in Investors Business Daily on January 13, “Prior to Obama, the second term of President Bush featured the weakest gains in the gross domestic product in some time, with average annual (inflation-adjusted) GDP growth of just 1.9%, [according to the official stats at the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)]” But average annual real GDP growth during Obama’s entire first term was less than half as much at a pitiful 0.8%, according to the same official source.
-
Another article.
“Our middle class is shrinking,” one candidate warned during a debate. “Our poor families are becoming poorer, and 70 percent of us are earning the same or less than we were 12 years ago. We need new leadership.”
Another candidate scorned the administration’s happy talk about unemployment falling to just over 5 percent. “What they forgot to tell you,” he told an audience, “is that statistic doesn’t include those people who have given up looking for work, those people who are working part time. Add it all together and real unemployment is over 10 percent.”
Politics being what it is, nobody is surprised when Republicans harshly judge Obama’s handling of the economy. But wait — those quotes come from Democrats. That was former governor Martin O’Malley lamenting that wages haven’t improved in 12 years. It was Senator Bernie Sanders pointing out how bad the jobless numbers really are. With the exception of Hillary Clinton, who told the Globe that she would give Obama an “A” for “saving our economy,” candidates across the spectrum have acknowledged how threadbare this recovery has been.
The Great Recession formally ended in June 2009, just five months after Obama’s inauguration. Nevertheless, polls repeatedly find that large swaths of voters believe the US economy is still suffering from recession. They may be wrong on the technical definition. But they aren’t nearly as wrong on the essence of the matter as the president, who insists the economy is coming up roses.
“The economy, by every metric, is better than when I came into office,” Obama told Jon Stewart during his last appearance on “The Daily Show.” Even PolitiFact, which no one has ever accused of leaning Republican, rated that whopper “Mostly False.”
In truth, a depressing array of “metrics” shows an economy that has yet to get back on its feet, notwithstanding the unprecedented sums spent by Washington in the form of “stimulus,” bailouts, and gargantuan budget deficits.
Six million more Americans live in poverty today than when Obama was elected. Median household income (in real dollars) was no higher at the end of 2015 than at the end of 2007. The labor force participation rate — the share of working-age Americans who have a job or are looking for one — has sunk to 62.5 percent, a level not seen since the Carter administration. Since the recession ended, the economy has grown at an annual rate of just 2.2 percent. That is way below average for post-recession recoveries. Indeed, this has been theweakest recovery in modern times.
It should have been one of the strongest.
In America, the historical pattern has always been that the deeper the recession, the stronger the recovery that follows. After a severe recession like the one Obama inherited, the economy should have come roaring back faster than usual, and quickly regained what had been lost. This isn’t after-the-fact wisdom: It is what the administration itself predicted at the time. Far from anticipating the limping slog of the last seven years, the White House confidently forecast an economic recovery that would feature robust GDP growth of 4 percent or more. It never came close.
More Americans would be working, paychecks would be larger, and public confidence would be sturdier if the economy had bounced back as vigorously as expected. Obama thought he had a better way to fix a recession. Turns out he had a worse way. Live and learn, voters.
-
Progressives like Hillary and Obama want to grow govt. I don't think anyone here would argue that. Problem is in order for govt to grow the economy does too. Sad the left cannot see this.
February 1, 2016
Barack Obama's Sad Record on Economic Growth
By Louis Woodhill
On Friday, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) reported that 2015 U.S. real GDP (RGDP) growth was 2.38%. No matter what revisions are subsequently made, 2015 will have been the tenth year in a row that RGDP growth came in at under 3.0%. The longest previous such run in U.S. economic history was only four years, and the last time that this happened was during the Great Depression (1930 - 1933).Even worse, and this should be the defining issue of the 2016 elections, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is now forecasting that America will never see 3.0% economic growth again. This should be drawing howls of protest, at least from Republicans, but there has been little reaction thus far.
From 1790 to 2000, U.S. RGDP growth averaged 3.79%. America needs at least 3.0% economic growth-the nation cannot defend itself and pay its bills without it. However, America's elites have largely given up on growth, and are now distracting themselves with academic musings about "secular stagnation."Hillary Clinton is trying to position herself as the logical heir to President Obama's "legacy." Hillary is asking the voters to give her the job of protecting and continue Obama's "achievements." In a way, what Hillary is trying to do is odd, but in another way, it isn't. Here's why.
The rate of real economic growth is the single greatest determinate of both America's strength as a nation and the wellbeing of the American people. And, Obama's record in this area has been truly dismal.
Right now, the nation is probably already in a recession. The BEA's first estimate of 4Q2015 RGDP growth was only 0.69%, and there is mounting evidence that this will later be revised downward. However, making the wildly optimistic assumption that 2016 RGDP growth will come in at the CBO's current forecast (2.67%), Obama will be the only U.S. president in history that did not deliver a single year of 3.0%+ economic growth.
Again, assuming 2.67% RGDP growth for 2016, Obama will leave office having produced an average of 1.55% growth. This would place his presidency fourth from the bottom of the list of 39*, above only those of Herbert Hoover (-5.65%), Andrew Johnson (-0.70%) and Theodore Roosevelt (1.41%)
No matter what happens in 2016, Obama's record on economic growth will be considerably worse than that of the much-maligned George W. Bush. Bush 43 delivered RGDP growth averaging 2.10%, with two years (2004 and 2005) above 3.0%.
By the way, the economic growth superstar among all U.S. presidents was none other than Rutherford B. Hayes (1877 - 1880). Hayes delivered an average of 7.71% RGDP growth, and none of his four years in office was below 3.0%.
So, it seems a bit surprising that Hillary Clinton would be running for president by promising the nation the equivalent of a third Obama term. However, in another way, it isn't.
Hillary is a progressive. Progressives believe in "progressively" expanding the size, power, and reach of government. And, Obama has done more to further the progressive cause of anyone since FDR. So, yes, in that sense, it is completely authentic for Hillary to be promising "more Obama" if she wins.
With respect to the economy, both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are offering what amounts to "hospice care." Their "tax the rich" redistributionist proposals are not intended to restore strong growth. They are designed to make the middle class more comfortable in the face of economic stagnation. "Hey, you may be unemployed after you graduate, but at least college was free!"
The only way that the voters will elect a Democrat as president in the fall is if the Republicans nominate someone that seems crazy and dangerous, or if they run on budget-cutting "austerity." If confronted with a choice between hospice care and "surgery without anesthesia," the electorate will opt for the hospice care, and try to survive until the next election.
As the implications of the CBO's latest projections sink in, Republican candidates will hear the political Sirens singing songs about the need to "cut entitlements." If Republicans offer a credible program to restore rapid economic growth, they will win. If they offer austerity, they will lose-and, they will deserve to lose.
*There have been 44 presidents, but only 39 presidencies. Some terms were shared by two people, as a result of death or resignation.
-
Yet the same people upset about this will not admit how corrupt the dems and Hillary are. Priceless.
-
3 hours ago, Mileage Psycho said:
I'll bet you feel the same way about Trump's suits LOL
Trump doesn't go around claiming the things she does. Big difference.
-
1 hour ago, Mainecat said:
The Republican party's days are numbered. After losing the presidency to a black man and then to a woman must be the worst feeling in the world for the tight ass whitey party. Jesus that must suck.
JMO
(the solution is simple just listen to the majority of Americans)
More racist and sexist insinuation from a liberal. Big surprise. Why I hate the left so much.
-
6 minutes ago, GGNHL said:
That's from 2012...
Many are worse now.
-
Or how about this gem.
-
15 hours ago, Mileage Psycho said:
I wonder if Hillary and Barack are going to use that continually and effectively during the campaign against Trump?
Probably as much as Trump will use ones like this.
-
15 hours ago, Mileage Psycho said:
Her ability to be POTUS, let's see she was an active First Lady for 8 years, served two terms in the United Sates Senate, and was Secretary of State for 4 years, with that kind of experience of course she has the ability to be POTUS.
Now you may come back and highlight her mistakes as SoS but with that you have to highlight her accomplishments and give her credit for the things she did right along with her legendary endurance she has displayed in her working life, an example would be her visiting 112 countries while SoS, to say she did a poor job as SoS is just nonsense.
Accomplishments? Like what? Libya which is an absolute train wreck? That was all her doing and I'm not talking about Benghazi. Honestly, no Google list her accomplishments Vince.
-
2 minutes ago, Mainecat said:
I have never in my life seen so many hi rise cranes operating in Boston. Its amazing the development going on there.
Someone better let them know the economy sucks.
So one segment of the economy in a few cities means the economy is good?
People brag how mfg is the heart of our economy.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/21/for-the-us-economy-bad-news-is-actually-bad-news.html
The Philadelphia Fed's manufacturing index registered a negative reading at -3.5, confirming that the sector on a national level is in a recession. Worse, the six-month forward outlook in the survey hit 19.1, its lowest point since November 2012, as did the employment component. While manufacturing is just 12 percent or so of the U.S. economy, contraction in the sector has been "very predictive of underlying turning points in the broader economy," said Joseph LaVorgna, chief U.S. economist at Deutsche Bank.
Recent optimism over the jobs outlook was tempered by a rise in weekly jobless claims to their highest level in six months. That came on top of data earlier in the week showing the economy is still not generating a healthy inflation level, some 6 ½ years after the end of the Great Recession.
-
1 hour ago, Mileage Psycho said:
Bold #1 This isn't just about the folks who voted for him in the primary, this is now about the GE and just look at the bitch slapping he has received from the GOP regarding Judge Curiel.
Bold #2 The state of the economy is pretty good and it's the reason the President's approval rating is at 51%.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx
Now you can continue on with your Trumpian fantasy but I will continue to bring forth the facts of political reality through the eyes and minds of conservative politicians and commentators, as you will note that the Trump topics I have posted are Republicans talking about your candidate, these are not librul talking points...well of course it's all stuff the libruls will be using
I have no doubts that conservatives have reservations regarding Trump as do I of which I've stated on here a number of times however, IMHO he is still better for the country than Hillary. Past lies, the email scandal, poor job as SoS, the Clinton foundation scandals, the list goes on and on. Not even for a second Vince you doubt her ability to be POTUS?
-
Freightliner is laying off 800 in NC. Anyone who thinks the economy is strong is kidding themselves.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/freightliner-laying-off-about-800-workers/ar-BBtVFna
-
People seem to forget how many more illegals would be here if we didn't have NAFTA. Reality is for every job that is put in Mexico by America its one less illegal that comes here. I see more of a need to gain a better balance with China or other Asian countries than Mexico. Fact is Mexico doesn't steal 1/10th the IP that China does as well and we should have a hard line stance with China because of the hacking issues that come from their as well.
IMHO trade with Mexico is a good thing.
Goes back to the old gumball video on youtube. We need to help countries there not bring them here to help them.
-
25 minutes ago, Anler said:
He has a valid point. Everybody knows now that they can rattle Trump and he will likely respond with childish banter. eventually he is going to put his foot in his mouth and wont be able to remove it. His only chance is for someone to reel him in on his rhetoric. And I am not playing sides here, I am very well established as a Hillary hater...
A huge amount of Trump supporters simple don't care if he puts his foot in his mouth. He has many times over already. It will come down to who they hate more and how bad they want a vote to count. Some polls show Clinton thought of as more untrustworthy as Trump and that says a lot. The list of reasons why Trump can win is still long.
People continue to underestimate factors like how tough it is for a party winning 3 terms in a row and the state of the economy will be put on Hillary's shoulders. Those two alone play a big role.
-
1
-
-
-
7 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:
there are, however, worst outcomes.
Yes, there are worse outcomes. By no means is Trump a great candidate but saying Hillary is good is laughable.
.jpg.173adf706251a9c9641acd4b6d26cdde.jpg)
.jpg.e9a8bc14f08062895646f20d7d2cbee0.jpg)
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, Mainecat said:
Trump wants to send every one of them back. You do understand they import more from us right?
Anyone that supports a racist is a racist. Sorry his past has been laden with racism and he has spewed nothing but racist remarks.
You should be embarrassed. Vote for someone else.
I guess you and Vince are liar's then and please don't try and tell us that Sniper fire is not a liar.
-
-
4 minutes ago, Ebsell said:
You're an idiot plain and simple.
How is that so different?
-
41 minutes ago, Mainecat said:
Hes out there on this. Not seeing Trump for what he is is just fuckin dumb
Explained many times there are things I disagree with Trump. To senile to remember?
I'll take a hard line stance on illegals over the open border policy that idiot you support wants. Think about that dumb fuck.
-
2 hours ago, Mileage Psycho said:
And just to get you uo to speed to what Trump's stance surely is, he is on the record saying he will deport all 11 million.....IOW fuck the farm, hospitality industries, etc....
And Bernie would make college free.
Just what do you think giving citizenship to illegals would do without secure borders? Open the floodgates more than they already are.
-
3 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said:
Nope you're wrong..it's all on the zoo.
You sound like a lib!
Sorry but you do on this. Libs never think anyone should be responsible for anything except the wealthy.
There are plenty of dangerous places for 4 year olds that all it takes is a bit of parental supervision for them to be safe. Kid can walk away from mom and dad at the mall and end up in a world of hurt. How about crossing the street? We can't protect everyone from themselves.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Momorider said:
And you think you can judge anything
Don't be too hard on Snowbevis, his white guilt makes him what he is.
.jpg.5972ae2e272da080d7153f4b134950c6.jpg)
Barack Obama's Sad Record on Economic Growth
in Current Events
Posted
Like what regarding economic policy? Give some specific examples.
You seem to forget the dems held all the power for the 1st 2 years he was in office.