CSNbbs

I believe the BLS report is due on Friday.

ADP National Employment Report

Got to hand it to Obama, he turned a 2 year recession into a 6 year recession.

2x that amount if we would tax and spend less.

(01-07-2015 06:15 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote: [ -> ]Got to hand it to Obama, he turned a 2 year recession into a 6 year recession.

You couldn't be more wrong. Recessions are defined measurable things. What has been termed as "The Great Recession" lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, or 18 months. And you'll notice that the bulk of that time, George W. Bush was president.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

July + 218,000
Aug + 204,000
Sept + 213,000
Oct + 230,000
Nov + 321,000
Dec + 241,000

Obama = worst commie ever

(01-08-2015 02:46 PM)UofMemphis Wrote: [ -> ]July + 218,000
Aug + 204,000
Sept + 213,000
Oct + 230,000
Nov + 321,000
Dec + 241,000

Obama = worst commie ever

While the numbers are normally similar, I think you're commingling the ADP number with prior BLS numbers.

(01-08-2015 11:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2015 06:15 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote: [ -> ]Got to hand it to Obama, he turned a 2 year recession into a 6 year recession.

You couldn't be more wrong. Recessions are defined measurable things. What has been termed as "The Great Recession" lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, or 18 months. And you'll notice that the bulk of that time, George W. Bush was president.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

And coincidentally, democrats controlled the Senate.

(01-08-2015 02:46 PM)UofMemphis Wrote: [ -> ]July + 218,000
Aug + 204,000
Sept + 213,000
Oct + 230,000
Nov + 321,000
Dec + 241,000

Obama = worst commie ever

Absolutely.

(01-08-2015 11:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2015 06:15 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote: [ -> ]Got to hand it to Obama, he turned a 2 year recession into a 6 year recession.

You couldn't be more wrong. Recessions are defined measurable things. What has been termed as "The Great Recession" lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, or 18 months. And you'll notice that the bulk of that time, George W. Bush was president.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

From last January...

After Five Years Of Obamanomics, A Record 100 Million Americans Not Working



When 100 million people aren't working, I think they would call that a recession.

Quote:The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) jobs report for December counted 74,000 jobs created last month. That was less than half the 200,000 new jobs expected.

Nevertheless, the BLS reported those 74,000 new jobs as reducing at least what it calls the U3 unemployment rate by three tenths of a percentage point, from 7.0% to 6.7%. That was because 347,000 workers fled the work force altogether last month, and so were no longer counted as unemployed.

Those 347,000 workers leaving the workforce altogether were almost 5 times (4.689) the 74,000 new jobs created. But the BLS, and the New York Times, still count that as headline unemployment plummeting on net to 6.7% from 7.0%. In fact, all of the decline in the U3 headline unemployment rate since President Obama entered office has been due to workers leaving the work force, and therefore no longer counted as unemployed, rather than to new jobs created.

Those 347,000 for December, 2013, however, are still out there not working, and suffering. Indeed, they joined a near record of more than 102 million Americans not working in December, all still out there and suffering without jobs. Those 102 million Americans are the human face of an employment-population ratio stuck at a pitiful 58.6%. In fact, more than 100 million Americans were not working in Obama’s workers’ paradise for all of 2013 and 2012.

The 102.159 million Americans not working in December is not the all-time record of Americans not working. That all-time record was set in October, 2013, at 102.896 million. The employment-population ratio that month was an even more pitiful 58.2%.

That was the lowest in 30 years, all the way back to 1983, the first year of the recovery from Reagan’s recession, which finally slayed the historic double digit inflation of the 1970s. The employment-population ratio of 57.9% in 1983 was up by the fifth year of Reagan’s recovery to 61.5%, on its way to 63.0% in 1989. That represented an increase of 17 million jobs since that recession started in July, 1981.

But that was when America was following pro-growth economic policies. Today we have President Obama emphasizing equality rather than growth, and after 5 years of Obama as President, we still have not recovered all of the jobs lost since the recession began in 2007. When the recession began in December, 2007, the economy was employing 146.273 million Americans. Today, after 5 years of Obamanomics, in December, 2013 the number of Americans employed was still only 144.586 million, about 1.7 million fewer jobs.

President Obama is not the only President to be challenged by a recession while in office. Since the Great Depression, there have been 10 other recessions before this last one. On average, all the jobs lost in those recessions were recovered within two years after the recession started, as reflected in the official historical data, which is well presented on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. But here we are today under President Obama, more than 6 years after the recession started, and we still have not recovered all of the lost jobs!

Moreover, Obama apologists cannot say that Obama’s recovery from the recession is so bad because the recession was so bad. The historical record for the American economy has always been the worse the recession, the stronger the recovery. America has forgotten that experience, because Reaganomics produced 25 years of steady, often booming growth, from 1982 to 2007, with only two, short, shallow recessions. But under every other President in U.S. history, going back for well over a century at least, the economy was in a booming recovery within 5 years as President Obama has had, even under Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression!

Today’s economic reality is better represented by what the BLS calls the U6 unemployment rate. That rate includes discouraged workers who have given up looking for a job in the past 4 weeks, and others the BLS considers marginally attached to the work force. It also includes involuntary part time workers who want a full time job but could only find part time work. That U6 unemployment rate was 13.1% in December.

But the full reality is best understood by recognizing that over the past 8 years the U.S. working age population has increased by 19.3 million, but the number of jobs in America has grown by only 1.8 million during that time. That is what never recovering from the recession means in the real world.

(01-07-2015 06:15 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote: [ -> ]Got to hand it to Obama, he turned a 2 year recession into a 6 year recession.

Yeah and gas is over $1/gallon. What's wrong with that fool!

(01-08-2015 03:21 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-08-2015 11:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2015 06:15 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote: [ -> ]Got to hand it to Obama, he turned a 2 year recession into a 6 year recession.

You couldn't be more wrong. Recessions are defined measurable things. What has been termed as "The Great Recession" lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, or 18 months. And you'll notice that the bulk of that time, George W. Bush was president.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

From last January...

After Five Years Of Obamanomics, A Record 100 Million Americans Not Working



When 100 million people aren't working, I think they would call that a recession.

Quote:**Unsourced meaningless article removed**

No, they don't. A recession isn't something you just make up. IT HAS A DEFINITION. One based on facts and numbers. It lasted 18 months and ended in 2009. Not surprised that you can't understand this.

(01-08-2015 03:02 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-08-2015 02:46 PM)UofMemphis Wrote: [ -> ]July + 218,000
Aug + 204,000
Sept + 213,000
Oct + 230,000
Nov + 321,000
Dec + 241,000

Obama = worst commie ever

While the numbers are normally similar, I think you're commingling the ADP number with prior BLS numbers.

ah, thought they were the same...nm

(01-08-2015 03:11 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-08-2015 11:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2015 06:15 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote: [ -> ]Got to hand it to Obama, he turned a 2 year recession into a 6 year recession.

You couldn't be more wrong. Recessions are defined measurable things. What has been termed as "The Great Recession" lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, or 18 months. And you'll notice that the bulk of that time, George W. Bush was president.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

And coincidentally, democrats controlled the Senate.

Meaningless. He laid this at the foot of the President. The senate is not a president.

Tom, we need to be prepared for the next recession, so what did Obama do to fix the one we had?

(01-08-2015 11:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2015 06:15 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote: [ -> ]Got to hand it to Obama, he turned a 2 year recession into a 6 year recession.

You couldn't be more wrong. Recessions are defined measurable things. What has been termed as "The Great Recession" lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, or 18 months. And you'll notice that the bulk of that time, George W. Bush was president.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

Why are you angling for the POTUS to receive credit for positive growth when he spent the first 6 months of his presidency blaming his predecessor?

(01-09-2015 08:22 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-08-2015 11:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2015 06:15 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote: [ -> ]Got to hand it to Obama, he turned a 2 year recession into a 6 year recession.

You couldn't be more wrong. Recessions are defined measurable things. What has been termed as "The Great Recession" lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, or 18 months. And you'll notice that the bulk of that time, George W. Bush was president.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

Why are you angling for the POTUS to receive credit for positive growth when he spent the first 6 Years of his presidency blaming his predecessor?

Fixed it !

(01-09-2015 08:22 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-08-2015 11:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2015 06:15 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote: [ -> ]Got to hand it to Obama, he turned a 2 year recession into a 6 year recession.

You couldn't be more wrong. Recessions are defined measurable things. What has been termed as "The Great Recession" lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, or 18 months. And you'll notice that the bulk of that time, George W. Bush was president.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

Why are you angling for the POTUS to receive credit for positive growth when he spent the first 6 months of his presidency blaming his predecessor?

Why are you not chiding ERC for posting factually challenged information and blaming Obama for something that doesn't exist instead of questioning me for my response to his false narrative?

I never gave Obama credit for anything in this thread. I just posted the jobs numbers from ADP.

(01-09-2015 08:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-09-2015 08:22 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-08-2015 11:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2015 06:15 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote: [ -> ]Got to hand it to Obama, he turned a 2 year recession into a 6 year recession.

You couldn't be more wrong. Recessions are defined measurable things. What has been termed as "The Great Recession" lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, or 18 months. And you'll notice that the bulk of that time, George W. Bush was president.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

Why are you angling for the POTUS to receive credit for positive growth when he spent the first 6 months of his presidency blaming his predecessor?

Why are you not chiding ERC for posting factually challenged information and blaming Obama for something that doesn't exist instead of questioning me for my response to his false narrative?

I never gave Obama credit for anything in this thread. I just posted the jobs numbers from ADP.

I'm sure ERC is smart enough to understand the definitions of a recession and by that methodology we are out of it. People who are defining progress by a return the where the economy was prior to 2008 don't have a good grasp of how overvalued all markets were relative to standard growth projections.

With that out of the way, I'd like to draw your attention the your bolded statement. If you aren't trying to give credit, then why include this part about Bush? You're inferring that the economy tanked under his watch. It isn't necessary unless you're trying to assign blame for the crash.

BECAUSE HE BROUGHT UP OBAMA...AND BLAMED HIM FOR A RECESSION THAT WAS UNDER BUSH MOSTLY. I was just pointing that out to him to further prove how ridiculous his statement was. Nevermind that making that statement to begin with pretty clearly demonstrates that no, he doesn't understand the definitions of a recession.

And finally...who else could you assign blame to for the tanked economy and recession which started before Obama was elected?

That being said, I don't blame Bush alone...Congress (both parties) played right along in the fiasco.

It's the same thing going on now with all of the New taxes Obama has starting this year and new higher tax tables for 2015 that didn't have one Republican Vote. Most all will not be noticed until people file next year for tax return. Many tables are going from 15% to 39% brackets. This will be in Obama's last year in office and Elections taking place so the media probably will be blaming a republican controlled congress for the coming Recession from loss of spending power by consumers.