The real Obama jobs index is worse than you thought

posted at 10:01 am on January 11, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

Ed gave us the rather sobering numbers yesterday from the December jobs report. Those were some pretty brutal numbers no matter how you look at them, and they reinforce the fact that you have to look at a lot more than just the published federal unemployment rate to get the full picture. With that in mind, Andrew Malcom (the Prince of Twitter) and the rest of the editorial staff at Investors Business Daily have compiled a full set of employment statistics for the Obama administration, including historical comparisons to previous administrations, recessions and recoveries. If you thought things were bad, you’re right. But you might not have realized just how bad they are. Here’s just a sample.

6.3 million: Net new jobs created since Obama’s recovery started in June 2009
13.8 million: New jobs that would have been created had Obama’s kept pace with the average of the previous 10 recoveries.

3.6%: Growth in private jobs since Obama took office.
43%: Growth in the number of temp jobs.

91.8 million: Number of people not in the labor force as of December.
525,000: Increase since November.
11.2 million: Increase since Obama took office.

6.7%: Jobless rate 54 months into Obama’s recovery.
5.1%: Unemployment rate 54 months into George W. Bush’s “jobless” recovery.

13.1%: Jobless rate in Dec. using a broader measure — U6 — which includes people marginally attached to labor force or working part time for economic reasons.
9.2%: Average U6 rate in Bush’s eight years in office.

There’s plenty more, so you should steel yourself, have a seat and read the entire thing. One of the additional stats which is extremely important, but particularly dismal, is the drop in median household income. During the height of the recession from 2007 to 2009, household income dropped $1,006 annually, as you might expect during such a crisis. But during the “recovery” from then until now, how much did it bounce back? It dropped an additional $2,535 per household.

One reason this is so important is that Congress is getting ready to address the Democrat talking point of “income inequality” this year as the elections approach. As I’ve said before, this is one of the more clever bits of populist marketing that the Democrats have cooked up in a long time. But the reality of income inequality hides what should be a rather obvious truth. The “problem” in this country isn’t that we have too many rich people. The real crisis is that we have too many people who can’t get a decent job and miss out on the opportunity to climb the ladder. Obama has had more than a full term to turn things around, and yet his policies have led to increased poverty, not prosperity. Incomes are going down for the working class, not up. So if you want to fix “income inequality” in America, perhaps you should review the jobs data above and reconsider the policies leading to this unacceptable state of affairs.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I would like to see a chart comparing the increase in the dependency class verse people actually working.

rob verdi on January 11, 2014 at 10:04 AM

Libfree to explain this away with “market forces” and “conservative duplicity” in just minutes.

oldroy on January 11, 2014 at 10:04 AM

the economic disaster that Obama faced was unprecedented…so historical recoveries are not really fair proxies of comparison

nonpartisan on January 11, 2014 at 10:05 AM

the economic disaster that Obama faced was unprecedented…so historical recoveries are not really fair proxies of comparison

nonpartisan on January 11, 2014 at 10:05 AM

Recovery? Every year the economy has been getting worse for the vast majority of americans.

rob verdi on January 11, 2014 at 10:10 AM

nonpartisan on January 11, 2014 at 10:05 AM

Nonsense. Your soft bigotry of low expectations is showing.

Fallon on January 11, 2014 at 10:16 AM

the economic disaster that Obama faced was unprecedented…so historical recoveries are not really fair proxies of comparison

Horse shit!

The Marxist-in-Chief is making MORE people dependent on government handouts.

Another 3 years of this political hack and Zimbabwe will look like an “economic powerhouse”.

GarandFan on January 11, 2014 at 10:18 AM

So nonpartisan, how long does Obama need to “fix” this “unprecedented economic disaster”?

conservative pilgrim on January 11, 2014 at 10:19 AM

the economic disaster that Obama faced was unprecedented…so historical recoveries are not really fair proxies of comparison

nonpartisan on January 11, 2014 at 10:05 AM

Hahhahahhhhahahhahahhaha. Explain in detail how it was unprecedented. And how Obama, being our smartest President ever, responded to it.

oldroy on January 11, 2014 at 10:19 AM

Unprecedented. To have an President with no experience and no credentials is unprecedented. To have the media do no vetting of this guy is unprecedented.

oldroy on January 11, 2014 at 10:22 AM

So nonpartisan, how long does Obama need to “fix” this “unprecedented economic disaster”?

conservative pilgrim on January 11, 2014 at 10:19 AM

He’ll need a third term, pilgrim.

oldroy on January 11, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Absolutely perfect talking point and you, Rob & Fallon insist on engaging a fake person.

Lanceman on January 11, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Since Obama: More people are unemployed. More people are underemployed. Millions have dropped out of workforce. Fewer people have medical insurance. Middle and lower income people have become poorer. More people are on all forms of public assistance. And the dollar has been debased.

And Obama has unilaterally made rich people richer (for now) by propping up the markets with QE-forever.

Damned Republicans!

forest on January 11, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Great post Jazz. Unfortunately the lapdog media will continue to refuse these facts. It would prefer using the dishonest u-3 numbers.

bw222 on January 11, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Oh, any you too, Ol’ Roy, Garand and CP.

Lanceman on January 11, 2014 at 10:25 AM

I would like to see a chart broken down by age level. My 23 college graduate son is having a hard time getting a ‘real’ full time job. I wonder what other college grads are doing for work these days. Temp jobs? Part time?

TeaTrekkie on January 11, 2014 at 10:26 AM

It dropped an additional $2,535 per household.

I found it. There is that $2,500 that Obama promise each family would save because of the glories of Obamacare.

Is my math correct?

Walter L. Newton on January 11, 2014 at 10:26 AM

Apropos of the photo, there are now 2 guys standing on the main drag in our small, 4 block strip of a “downtown”, one on each side, holding the corrugated cardboard signs. One says, “veteran in need”, the other guy’s says simply, “help”.

Paul-Cincy on January 11, 2014 at 10:26 AM

Socialist autocrats like The One have a long history of successfully remedying income inequality.

By the time they’re finished remaking nations’ economies to suit themselves and their dogmas, everybody is invariably broke.

This is, by definition, income equality.

They call this state of being Utopia. YMMV.

clear ether

eon

eon on January 11, 2014 at 10:27 AM

Oh, any you too, Ol’ Roy, Garand and CP.

Lanceman on January 11, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Nonpartisan is fake? But, he/she/it graduated from Harvard Law and stuff.

oldroy on January 11, 2014 at 10:28 AM

Nonpartisan is fake? But, he/she/it graduated from Harvard Law and stuff.

oldroy on January 11, 2014 at 10:28 AM

No, that’s libdie.

nonparisian is Allah or some other conservative attempting to generate traffic.

Lanceman on January 11, 2014 at 10:29 AM

the economic disaster that Obama faced was unprecedented…so historical recoveries are not really fair proxies of comparison

nonpartisan on January 11, 2014 at 10:05 AM

.
Well, that didn’t take long . . . . . . . . .
.
Translation: It’s Bush’s fault !

listens2glenn on January 11, 2014 at 10:29 AM

the economic disaster that Obama faced was unprecedented…so historical recoveries are not really fair proxies of comparison

nonpartisan on January 11, 2014 at 10:05 AM

Fine. But the figures prove out that this is no recovery at all. Obama has been able to do next to nothing to improve that “economic disaster?” So what’s your point?

I’m sorry, I get it. Obama has done squat.

Walter L. Newton on January 11, 2014 at 10:30 AM

the economic disaster that Obama faced was unprecedented…so historical recoveries are not really fair proxies of comparison

noforeskin on January 11, 2014 at 10:05 AM

…you just shoot the shit…right into your brain!…I’m surprised you can find a vein there!

KOOLAID2 on January 11, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Aaand this thread just became useless to me.

Lanceman on January 11, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Horse shit!

The Marxist-in-Chief is making MORE people dependent on government handouts.

Another 3 years of this political hack and Zimbabwe will look like an “economic powerhouse”.

GarandFan on January 11, 2014 at 10:18 AM

you need to learn reading comprehension

I never said Obama did a great job with the recovery…I was merely pointing out that it is inane to compare the stats of this once in a lifetime economic disaster (remember, ppl thought the world was going to end…McCain included)

for the record, I don’t think Obama’s done great on the economy. And the supposed focus on income inequality is misdirected imo. Romney would’ve been better for the economy.

nonpartisan on January 11, 2014 at 10:32 AM

Absolutely perfect talking point and you, Rob & Fallon insist on engaging a fake person.

Lanceman on January 11, 2014 at 10:25 AM

How do you know that I’m real? ;-)

Fallon on January 11, 2014 at 10:32 AM

No, that’s libdie.

nonparisian is Allah or some other conservative attempting to generate traffic.

Lanceman on January 11, 2014 at 10:29 AM

No. Libfree doesn’t claim a Harvard law degree. Nonpartisinian does.

oldroy on January 11, 2014 at 10:33 AM

the economic disaster that Obama faced was unprecedented…so historical recoveries are not really fair proxies of comparison

True enough. Which is all the more reason to impugn Obama for his horrible response to our economic issues. Instead of disentangling the TBTF banks his Dodd-Frank bill institutionalized their high risk. Instead of freeing up energy production, Obama has done everything he could to squelch oil and coal production. With ObamaCare he introduced fear, uncertainty and doubt into the business community–causing fewer permanent jobs to be created and reducing the hours of many workers to fewer than 30. Now, with his horrific implementation of ObamaCare, he has further roiled the health care system and eliminated coverage for millions of Americans. Obama has unleashed the federal bureaucracy to hamstring business with tens of thousands of new rules and regulations.

The credit bubble was certainly a major mess (mostly of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac making), but Obama has seemingly dedicated himself to ensuring that the country will never recover.

PD Quig on January 11, 2014 at 10:33 AM

Fine. But the figures prove out that this is no recovery at all. Obama has been able to do next to nothing to improve that “economic disaster?” So what’s your point?

I’m sorry, I get it. Obama has done squat.

Walter L. Newton on January 11, 2014 at 10:30 AM

um, while I’m no proponent of Obama’s economic prowess, you have to give him credit for at the very least stabilising and somewhat reversing the rapid downward hill the economy was falling..or maybe you won’t

nonpartisan on January 11, 2014 at 10:35 AM

The economic disaster which exploded in July 2008 was fomented entirely by liberal policies which, unfortunately, President Bush did too little to oppose.

And after running his campaign on all the bad economic policies of Bush, Obama immediately multiplied all of those exact policies: Increased government spending, increased bond creation, increased regulation and restriction of business, increased welfare and foodstamp participation.

That the period between then and now has been called a recovery is a shameless lie from multiple angles. Inflation up, wages down, purchasing power far down, upward mobility in the job force destroyed, businesses forced to contract and reorganize instead of expand and invest. But the stock market is up, and that proves that all is ok, right? Funny how the liberals always screamed about how using market measures to indicate prosperity was disingenuous. Until it was the only thing they could claim was going right.

The traitorous media refusing to cover the truth of all of these issues is the largest problem in the nation over the last 5 years. Far larger than a President whose policies are destructive, because if the truth were told, those policies couldn’t have held.

Freelancer on January 11, 2014 at 10:37 AM

The credit bubble was certainly a major mess (mostly of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac making), but Obama has seemingly dedicated himself to ensuring that the country will never recover.

PD Quig on January 11, 2014 at 10:33 AM

Obama and his race shakedown buddies had a hand in pushing those lending policies. The Bush administration tried to change those lending policies throughout their tenure and were obstructed by the Dems in Congress.

oldroy on January 11, 2014 at 10:37 AM

it’s a good time for amnesty.

Oil Can on January 11, 2014 at 10:38 AM

you need to learn reading comprehension

I never said Obama did a great job with the recovery…I was merely pointing out that it is inane to compare the stats of this once in a lifetime economic disaster (remember, ppl thought the world was going to end…McCain included)

for the record, I don’t think Obama’s done great on the economy. And the supposed focus on income inequality is misdirected imo. Romney would’ve been better for the economy.

nonpartisan on January 11, 2014 at 10:32 AM

The who concept of “income inequality” is misnamed and misguided. If you want to obtain “income equality” then either everyone has to be able to earn a CEO salary each year of everyone should earn some minimum wage… across the board.

It’s another one of those socialist talking points that totally obscure reality. So me ANYPLACE where EVERYONE makes the same salary?

Walter L. Newton on January 11, 2014 at 10:41 AM

But, but, Pajama Boy in a Promise Zone! How can anyone complain when there’s THAT?

Lourdes on January 11, 2014 at 10:41 AM

um, while I’m no proponent of Obama’s economic prowess, you have to give him credit for at the very least stabilising and somewhat reversing the rapid downward hill the economy was falling..or maybe you won’t

nonpartisan on January 11, 2014 at 10:35 AM

There is simply no truth to what you are saying. Just a plain bold-faced lie. There has been no stabilization. There has been no reversal. Throw out only the U3 number and look at everything else. The economic disaster is Obama. Not Bush.

Every policy of the Obama administration has made things worse not better.

Total number of jobs, and total percentage working is the real number. Not the U3 bullshit. The U6 doesn’t even mean anything anymore because so many have given up.

oldroy on January 11, 2014 at 10:42 AM

The who concept of “income inequality” is misnamed and misguided. If you want to obtain “income equality” then either everyone has to be able to earn a CEO salary each year of everyone should earn some minimum wage… across the board.

It’s another one of those socialist talking points that totally obscure reality. So me ANYPLACE where EVERYONE makes the same salary?

Walter L. Newton on January 11, 2014 at 10:41 AM

Who – whole
So = show

I need to have my first cup of coffee before I start typing anything on a blog.

Walter L. Newton on January 11, 2014 at 10:43 AM

nonpartisan on January 11, 2014 at 10:35 AM

We had a choice of a V or a L recovery and Bush AND Obama & Company chose the L… Thwarting the creative destruction of capitalism is just plain stupid. Temporary reversal by interfering in the market causes prolonged misery and no real recovery.

“Too big to fail.”

*spit*

Fallon on January 11, 2014 at 10:44 AM

But, but, Pajama Boy in a Promise Zone! How can anyone complain when there’s THAT?

Lourdes on January 11, 2014 at 10:41 AM

And, the balkanization of America continues… Period.

Fallon on January 11, 2014 at 10:45 AM

He’ll need a third term, pilgrim.

oldroy on January 11, 2014 at 10:23 AM

And a fourth, a fifth…..unlimited really. His “work” will never be complete.

conservative pilgrim on January 11, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Based upon Obama’s efforts to improve the economy — Golf course maintenance should be a booming job sector.

Dasher on January 11, 2014 at 10:47 AM

No. Libfree doesn’t claim a Harvard law degree. Nonpartisinian does.

oldroy on January 11, 2014 at 10:33 AM

I doubt either were ever even in Mass.

But libdie is a real person(s).
np is phony.

In other words, whatever you read over its name is not what the person typing it believes.

It’s a type of Bishing, as it were. I like Bishing every now and then. But only to catch one of the regulars. I can’t maintain it for long. I’m simply not good at inventing crap I don’t believe.

Whoever does np is doing it entirely to drive traffic. Even they ain’t good at inventing stuff, hence the very perfect and verbatim talking points that one might hear DWS use.

Yes, once in a while they will feebly attempt to disprove what I just said.
I just wish you all would just ignore it. Alas.

Lanceman on January 11, 2014 at 10:47 AM

nonpartisan on January 11, 2014 at 10:32 AM

The who concept of “income inequality” is misnamed and misguided. If you want to obtain “income equality” then either everyone has to be able to earn a CEO salary each year of everyone should earn some minimum wage… across the board.

It’s another one of those socialist talking points that totally obscure reality. So me ANYPLACE where EVERYONE makes the same salary?

Walter L. Newton on January 11, 2014 at 10:41 AM


It’s another one of those socialist talking points that totally obscure reality. So me ANYPLACE where EVERYONE makes the same salary?

EXACTLY. In Communism, everyone’s on a dole. EVERYone. Castro took over all private property, “redistributed” housing space so everyone had “free housing” (so-called). The original property owners either died in the ocean trying to get away or they stayed and suffered other perils, among which was not being paid for their property.

Castro also doles out something called something like “Food Cards” or thereabouts. The equivalent of Food Stamps, EBT Cards, etc. here in the US. People can eat, “get food” only by the dole from the govt. and for nearly all his term per the revolution, Castro made it illegal for anyone to grow their own food, claiming the “ownership” issue was offensive. No, if Cubans want to eat, they had to let Castro feed them what Castro deemed they should eat or else they faced jail or a firing squad (Nancy Pelosi’s threat about jail to those declining Obamacare comes to mind here).

In Communism, the top is government, every other human being is doing what and only what — and how with what — the top determines for them.

So, “income equality” is simply Communist jargon for “submit to Communism” for your income. Your income is what Communists atop the rest deem you deserve or ‘should’ receive, and independent industry is punished. No variations from the top-rule.

“Income equality” is a Communist concept and a Communist demand.

Lourdes on January 11, 2014 at 10:48 AM

The basic premise of income equality is flawed and just a bit of common sense will show that it is nothing more than an empty slogan. If everybody has the same number of “beans”, the beans will lose all value.

oldernwiser on January 11, 2014 at 10:50 AM

But, but, Pajama Boy in a Promise Zone! How can anyone complain when there’s THAT?

Lourdes on January 11, 2014 at 10:41 AM

And, the balkanization of America continues… Period.

Fallon on January 11, 2014 at 10:45 AM

Comments at 10:41 AM above should have been followed by the “/sarc” phrase, sorry…

I DO consider Obama’s “Promise Zones” idea and plans to be terrorizing intrusion. Seriously, quite seriously, it’s a perimeter-establishing plan.

Lourdes on January 11, 2014 at 10:52 AM

the economic disaster that Obama faced was unprecedented…so historical recoveries are not really fair proxies of comparison

nonpartisan on January 11, 2014 at 10:05 AM

Hogwash! Go peddle that nonsense to your liberal buddies.

rplat on January 11, 2014 at 10:55 AM

the economic disaster that Obama faced was unprecedented…so historical recoveries are not really fair proxies of comparison

nonpartisan on January 11, 2014 at 10:05 AM

I love when people say this. Exactly why was it unprecedented? I can think of two instances (one in my lifetime ) that was as bad if not worse then this. The depression of 1929-1939 and the Carter years of 1976-1980. So it is not “Unprecedented”. The difference between this one and late 70′s is the President made better policy choices in the 80′s.

JKotthoff on January 11, 2014 at 10:57 AM

I DO consider Obama’s “Promise Zones” idea and plans to be terrorizing intrusion. Seriously, quite seriously, it’s a perimeter-establishing plan.

Lourdes on January 11, 2014 at 10:52 AM

And those who draw an association between Obama’s “Promise Zones” plan with Jack Kemp’s “‘supply-side economics,’ enterprise zones,” are inaccurate in doing so because Kemp’s entire process and approach was based upon removing or relaxing regulations, lowering taxes, such that private enterprise could prosper. Obama’s idea is to literally form possessive presence of areas in the US via federal ‘funding’ and thereby control in order to weaken independent action and strengthen political influence. BIG difference from what Kemp promoted and attempted.

Lourdes on January 11, 2014 at 10:57 AM

Just about the only areas of the country where median household income has increased are where there’s fracking going on, and that’s an activity that is banned in some Democrat-run areas.

The democrats’ method is to find whatever businesses are doing well, then try to interfere with them. In the case of their efforts against the gun industry, this has hugely backfired.

juliesa on January 11, 2014 at 10:58 AM

the economic disaster that Obama faced was unprecedented…so historical recoveries are not really fair proxies of comparison

nonpartisan on January 11, 2014 at 10:05 AM

Next we’ll hear those FALLING VICTIMS of 9/11 were jumping because they lost value in their 401s, conditions were “worse than the Great Depression” /sarc.

Lourdes on January 11, 2014 at 10:59 AM

The depression of 1929-1939 and the Carter years of 1976-1980. So it is not “Unprecedented”. The difference between this one and late 70′s is the President made better policy choices in the 80′s.

JKotthoff on January 11, 2014 at 10:57 AM

Those who are not in touch with the conditions suffered by so many during both those episodes are pitifully out of touch with their fellows — never knew a grandparent who survived the Great Depression, never talked with someone else who did; wasn’t around during Carter years, missed that whole “waiting in the lines that stretched around city blocks for ten gallons of gas in the car” times during Carter. And lost their jobs due to all the layoffs occurring during Carter.

The Left today seems to be largely voiced by people who never knew these circumstances and who today mostly deny that they even occurred.

Lourdes on January 11, 2014 at 11:02 AM

So nonpartisan, how long does Obama need to “fix” this “unprecedented economic disaster”?

conservative pilgrim on January 11, 2014 at 10:19 AM
I don’t know if we can afford any more of Obama’s fixes. They all seem to consist of large money transfers to donors and cronies.

yesiamapirate on January 11, 2014 at 11:02 AM

it’s a good time for amnesty.

Oil Can on January 11, 2014 at 10:38 AM

Oh, the Olde THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE, THROW MORE GASOLINE ON IT response.

Lourdes on January 11, 2014 at 11:05 AM

It dropped an additional $2,535 per household.

Thank goodness we’re all going to save that much on our healthcare now!

rightside on January 11, 2014 at 11:07 AM

I DO consider Obama’s “Promise Zones” idea and plans to be terrorizing intrusion. Seriously, quite seriously, it’s a perimeter-establishing plan.
Lourdes on January 11, 2014 at 10:52 AM

I’m still waiting for an explanation why OkieHoma’s tiny “Choctaw Nation” is slated for yet another infusion of our tax dollars while omitting the poorest and largest of America’s Indian Reservations, like the Navajo Nation and the Lakota Sioux. Oh ya, what about Detroit? Never Mind, they always vote straight Leftist politicians fo mo of “Obama’s stash”.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 11, 2014 at 11:15 AM

the economic disaster that Obama faced was unprecedented…so historical recoveries are not really fair proxies of comparison

nonpartisan, Juris Doctor on January 11, 2014 at 10:05 AM

And skeet guns are non-lethal.

NotCoach on January 11, 2014 at 11:16 AM

I love when people say this. Exactly why was it unprecedented? I can think of two instances (one in my lifetime ) that was as bad if not worse then this. The depression of 1929-1939 and the Carter years of 1976-1980. So it is not “Unprecedented”. The difference between this one and late 70′s is the President made better policy choices in the 80′s.

JKotthoff on January 11, 2014 at 10:57 AM

Dude, nonintelligent has a Harvard Law degree. Do you?

NotCoach on January 11, 2014 at 11:18 AM

the economic disaster that Obama faced was unprecedented…so historical recoveries are not really fair proxies of comparison

partisan liberal dope on January 11, 2014 at 10:05 AM

Your stupidity is exceeded only by your partisanship. Obama is an economic ignoramus, and his socialist-leaning economic policies have produced what socialism always produces — failure. This dope has actually diminished the pent-up energy of the upside business cycle; I would have thought it impossible until I watched this idiot do it.

With the Federal Reserve committing institutional suicide by debt to inflate the Dow and create an illusion of optimism from investors, O’Bozo has done enormous damage while giving nitwits like you the tools of illusion for your liberal talking points. Impressive and awful.

Jaibones on January 11, 2014 at 11:21 AM

I would like to see a chart broken down by age level. My 23 college graduate son is having a hard time getting a ‘real’ full time job. I wonder what other college grads are doing for work these days. Temp jobs? Part time?

TeaTrekkie on January 11, 2014 at 10:26 AM

Many are taking jobs they don’t like. My son, a marketing major, is working as a mortgage salesman. He hates it, his pay fluctuates greatly as he is primarily on commission, but it’s a job and he has benefits.

It’s far different than when we graduated from college.

bw222 on January 11, 2014 at 11:25 AM

um, while I’m no proponent of Obama’s economic prowess, you have to give him credit for at the very least stabilising and somewhat reversing the rapid downward hill the economy was falling..or maybe you won’t

nonpartisan on January 11, 2014 at 10:35 AM

The only “stabilizing” has been provided by government printing of fiat dollars out of thin air to prop up Bammy’s buddies on Wall Street.

Every other metric has had a flat line, or negative economic indicator, since he took office.

Anyone with this type of performance in the private sector would have been fired long ago.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on January 11, 2014 at 11:27 AM

he economic disaster that Obama faced was unprecedented…so historical recoveries are not really fair proxies of comparison

partisan liberal dope on January 11, 2014 at 10:05 AM

The most descriptive screen name ever. Your lack of knowledge of history is unbelievable.

bw222 on January 11, 2014 at 11:27 AM

the economic disaster that Obama faced was unprecedented…so historical recoveries are not really fair proxies of comparison

nonpartisan on January 11, 2014 at 10:05 AM

This is the same pathetic excuse they will use if you ever let the dims get their AGW policies in place. Or in fact any policy they enact. They’re already using it on Zerocare.

rik on January 11, 2014 at 11:28 AM

Test.

Patriot Vet on January 11, 2014 at 11:30 AM

Nonpartisan is fake? But, he/she/it graduated from Harvard Law and stuff.

oldroy on January 11, 2014 at 10:28 AM

Yes, and I am going to be the Detroit Tigers starting shortstop this year.

bw222 on January 11, 2014 at 11:33 AM

Lourdes on January 11, 2014 at 10:52 AM

No sarc tag needed, I got you. The “Period” at the end of my statement was in response to Obama’s past “promises.” Hubby says I need to come with a Fallonese-to-English translator, at times…

Fallon on January 11, 2014 at 11:34 AM

Test.

Patriot Vet on January 11, 2014 at 11:30 AM

Positive.

Fallon on January 11, 2014 at 11:34 AM

I’mma move me an my chirrens to a Obama Promise Zone.

mmm mmmm mmm

Obama – he fix everything!

Key West Reader on January 11, 2014 at 11:36 AM

nonpartisan

So maybe, just maybe, Obama wasn’t qualified to take on this “unprecedented” crisis. Maybe he wasn’t, and isn’t, the right man for the job. That’s not racism. It’s an honest evaluation of a man’s qualifications based on past performance. If I’m on a battleship in the middle of a typhoon I wouldn’t want a Captain who has never even rowed a canoe.

teacherman on January 11, 2014 at 11:37 AM

Positive.

Fallon on January 11, 2014 at 11:34 AM

Ha! Good one! No, a couple posts haven’t shown up and I wanted to see if a post without a link could get through.

Patriot Vet on January 11, 2014 at 11:38 AM

the economic disaster that the Democrats who controlled Congress gave my Cult Leader was unprecedented…so historical recoveries are not really fair proxies of comparison

nonintelligent on January 11, 2014 at 10:05 AM

Fixed.

Del Dolemonte on January 11, 2014 at 11:43 AM

this once in a lifetime economic disaster that the Democrats who controlled Congress created

nonintelligent on January 11, 2014 at 10:32 AM

Edited to reflect reality.

Del Dolemonte on January 11, 2014 at 11:44 AM

you have to give him credit for at the very least stabilising and somewhat reversing the rapid downward hill the economy was falling..or maybe you won’t

nonintelligent on January 11, 2014 at 10:35 AM

“stabilising”? Thanks for admitting you’re not American.

Del Dolemonte on January 11, 2014 at 11:47 AM

I never said Obama did a great job with the recovery…I was merely pointing out that it is inane to compare the stats of this once in a lifetime economic disaster (remember, ppl thought the world was going to end…McCain included)

nonpartisan on January 11, 2014 at 10:32 AM

And unprecedented? – only if you’re about 12 years old.
Anyone old enough to remember the Carter years – the same level of unemployment, double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, mile long lines at the gas stations in some places, and plenty more.
Libtards who still live in Mom’s basement have no clue about what I or isn’t “unprecedented”.

dentarthurdent on January 11, 2014 at 11:47 AM

I would like to see a chart broken down by age level. My 23 college graduate son is having a hard time getting a ‘real’ full time job. I wonder what other college grads are doing for work these days. Temp jobs? Part time?

TeaTrekkie on January 11, 2014 at 10:26 AM

It depends on what kind of work people are willing to do – as well as experience and what kind of degree they have – and where they are.
In Colorado:
My 23 year old son graduated from college last May with a business degree – working his @ss off, in a suit and tie every day, at Enterprise Rent-a-car as a “Management Trainee” (what they call all entry level people) – but making over $30K / year.
My 21 year old son never went to college, has several years experience in restaurants, and was hired away from Costco and back to a restaurant where he used to work as a waiter, now as a salaried Assistant Manager making over $30K / year. Just bought his first house.
They both work a lot of hours doing work that a lot of other people don’t want to do, or can’t handle.

dentarthurdent on January 11, 2014 at 11:57 AM

I never said Obama did a great job with the recovery…I was merely pointing out that it is inane to compare the stats of this once in a lifetime economic disaster (remember, ppl thought the world was going to end…McCain included)

nonpartisan on January 11, 2014 at 10:32 AM

And referencing what McCain thinks sure as hell won’t get you any credibility here….

dentarthurdent on January 11, 2014 at 12:00 PM

the economic disaster that Obama faced was unprecedented…so historical recoveries are not really fair proxies of comparison

nonpartisan on January 11, 2014 at 10:05 AM

Hyperbole aside, the economic challenges the nation faced in the last 18 months of the Carter Administration compared quite evenly to the June 2008-June 2009 recession effects. But admitting that would defeat the revisionist meme that you are lamely trying to spin.

In fact, with the massive rise in interest rates (since the Fed handled 1978-1980 differently), and inflation, a case can be made that solving that recession was substantially more challenging than the June 2008-2009 recession. What made solving the more recent recession a challenge was in large part a major denial of the core reasons for the housing bubble burst and subsequent crisis resulting from mortgage securities defined as AAA by Fannie / Freddie and turned out to be worthless – largely because of progressive policies to ensure ‘fairness’ and ‘social justice’.

Athos on January 11, 2014 at 12:00 PM

74,000 jobs where 70% of them are part time and temporary. So approximately 22,200 actual job-jobs were created if my math is right.

Here is a sobering fact: There ain’t no such thing as a permanent job anymore.

dogsoldier on January 11, 2014 at 12:12 PM

And unfortunately, it’s not going to get any better. I retired, but I really worry about my kids.

COgirl on January 11, 2014 at 12:23 PM

nonpartisan on January 11, 2014

The recession ended a few months into Obama’s first term and had little to do with any of his efforts. So try again honey”rolls eyes”.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 11, 2014 at 12:23 PM

nonpartisan needs to wipe its chin of Obama’s spunk. How embarrassing.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 11, 2014 at 12:24 PM

The illegal president promised to fundamentally transform America….. you voted for your own job losses you moron liberals. Twice!

ultracon on January 11, 2014 at 12:26 PM

mewhat reversing the rapid downward hill the economy was falling..or maybe you won’t

nonpartisan on January 11, 2014 at 10:35 AM

Again, it had already hit bottom and was stabilizing before his policies took any real effect. ~~rolls eyes~~

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 11, 2014 at 12:32 PM

Nonpartisan gets all wet and gooey on these type of threads. Shehe cannot wait to come defend her boy. How pathetic do you have to be? Defending the indefensible?

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 11, 2014 at 12:34 PM

And unfortunately, it’s not going to get any better. I retired, but I really worry about my kids.
COgirl on January 11, 2014 at 12:23 PM

Yet another reason why I am childless by choice. Foresight!
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 11, 2014 at 12:40 PM

the economic disaster that Obama faced was unprecedented…so historical recoveries are not really fair proxies of comparison

nonpartisan on January 11, 2014 at 10:05 AM

Didn’t take long until the first Obama-fellating sub-moronic idiot posted.

Midas on January 11, 2014 at 12:40 PM

the economic disaster that Obama faced was unprecedented…so historical recoveries are not really fair proxies of comparison
nonpartisan on January 11, 2014 at 10:05 AM

► Didn’t take long until the first Obama-fellating sub-moronic idiot posted.
Midas on January 11, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Obviously “nonpartisan” knows no one who survived the Great Depression.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 11, 2014 at 12:43 PM

As highlighted on Powerline, even a liberal leaning organization, Economic Policy Institute, is highlighting the disastrous results of Obamanomics particularly since the recession officially ended in June 2009.

In the 54 months since the recession officially ended, and if the workers who are defined as having dropped out of the labor force were actually still counted as being in the labor force, the “official” unemployment rate would be virtually unchanged from its 2009 level.

As of November 2013, to return to the job level prior to the implementation of Obamanomics, we would have needed to have 7.9 million new jobs created.

The EPI paper on the stagnant Obama recovery also lays to rest the canard that much of the challenges with job creation is the result of a skills mismatch….

There has been a great deal of careful research on whether skills mismatch is a driver of today’s weak jobs recovery, and the strong consensus is that the weak labor market recovery is not due to skills mismatch, but instead to the fact that businesses have not seen demand for their goods and services pick up in a way that would require significantly more hiring. …

Nor is ‘government austerity’ a cause for the dismal labor market…

First, EPI’s own numbers indicate that only 1.5 million out of a total jobs shortfall of 7.9 million, or 19%, is in the public sector. Second, total government spending increased from $4.9 trillion in 2007 to $6.1 trillion in 2013, a jump of nearly 25%. If that is austerity, I would hate to see profligacy. Third, the assumption that K-12 education jobs should have risen with population growth is fallacious, since public school enrollment has been stagnant in recent years.

Barack Obama’s policies have been in effect, fully in effect, for 54 months – and reflect his agenda, his ideology, and his vision towards using government to expand ‘fairness’, ensure ‘social justice’, and that government can effectively centrally manage an economy.

The failures are the result of these policies, not the effects of a recession that ended 54 months ago. As noted by Jazz above…

During the height of the recession from 2007 to 2009, household income dropped $1,006 annually, as you might expect during such a crisis. But during the “recovery” from then until now, how much did it bounce back? It dropped an additional $2,535 per household.

…that had nothing to do with the ‘lingering effects’ of an ended recession…and everything to do with a failed agenda and vision centered around massive government expansion, power, and control.

Only rabid and vapid ideologues will dispute those results…and their rebuttal will consist of canards, spin, and baseless equivocations.

Athos on January 11, 2014 at 1:52 PM

91.8 million: Number of people not in the labor force as of December.
525,000: Increase since November.
11.2 million: Increase since Obama took office.

But don’t you see how much Obama has helped people retire? He should be praised for this but you Rethuglicans can’t see his goodness.

nonboot-lickingpartisan

NOMOBO on January 11, 2014 at 2:30 PM

Obamath.

2Tru2Tru on January 11, 2014 at 2:46 PM

the economic disaster that Obama faced was unprecedented…so historical recoveries are not really fair proxies of comparison

nonpartisan on January 11, 2014 at 10:05 AM

nonboot-licking-partisan,

I am so flukeing sick of these impudent young pups trying to float this inane meme. The Carter recession was much harder on the people, and much worse statistically. I speak from experience having gone through both recessions as a married adult with children.

Reagan was able to get us back on track in under four years from the worst recession in American history. I know you were just your mother’s fleeting nightmare so you wouldn’t know, but I remember going to the grocery store and seeing canned vegetables with price stickers a quarter inch high because they were repriced on a daily basis. I remember paying 13% on my home mortgage. I remember paying 24% on my business loan. People were getting hammered mercilessly by double digit unemployment, double digit inflation, and double digit interest rates. And now you children complain of a recession because you can only get your Starbuck’s once a week.

Why don’t you get your thumb out of your behind and start asking some people over 60 to compare the two recessions. If they are honest it is no contest which was worse–Carter’s. The only reason you might think that Obama’s recession is worse is because Reagan ended Carter’s recession in under four years while Obama has spent five years making his worse.

NOMOBO on January 11, 2014 at 2:47 PM

the economic disaster that Obama faced was unprecedented…so historical recoveries are not really fair proxies of comparison

nonpartisan on January 11, 2014 at 10:05 AM

That tears it. Just chalk me up in the “nonpartisan is a sock puppet for [whomever]” column. No one can be this ignorant or illogical… or so unintentionally hilarious. The latest cited above is not only ahistorical and easily disproven (cf. NOMOBO at 2:47 PM; Athos at 12:00 PM; JKotthoff on at 10:57 AM, et. al.), but the malapropisms keep piling up. What the hell is a “proxy of comparison”? Sounds erudite, but it’s really inapt. And inept. “Proxy” is not a synonym for “basis” or “example” or whatever the poster is trying to say by “proxies of comparison.” You could look it up.

My favorite malaprop remains “my Harvard pedigree”:

why are you so obsessed with my Harvard pedigree?

this is why I hate telling people IRL I graduated from Harvard, because their inferiority complex and envy inevitably seeps through

whenever someone asks where I went to school, I try to reply nonchalantly as possible, “Harvard”, but you can almost always tell by their eye reaction the mental adjustment they have to make factoring that I went to Harvard…it’s priceless

nonpartisan on December 26, 2013 at 9:47 AM

Not even the most charitable construction of his tropic intent can get you from a Harvard law degree to a “pedigree.” You could look it up (as nonpartisan will probably need to look up “tropic” as the adjectival form of “trope”).

Such clumsy malaprops indicate that either the poster is semi-educated beyond his understanding or… or else is putting us on. rogerb and others concluded the latter some time back. I’ve been willing to extend the benefit of the doubt and charitably assume that nonpartisan is a badly-educated dunce who is in over his head on this site, but I’m forced to concede the likelihood that he is less likely a pretentious jerk than a deliberate joke.

de rigueur on January 11, 2014 at 3:56 PM

Socialist autocrats like The One have a long history of successfully remedying income inequality.

By the time they’re finished remaking nations’ economies to suit themselves and their dogmas, everybody is invariably broke.

eon on January 11, 2014 at 10:27 AM

Not quite “everybody”. The ruling elite (and their closest buddies) somehow always manage to become rich, even though the rest of the country is dragged down into egalitarian poverty.

Hugo Chavez was a billionaire, when he finally croaked. The ruling elite of the Communist countries always seemed to live very well, despite their theoretical dislike of income inequality. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others….

SubmarineDoc on January 11, 2014 at 5:55 PM

If we lift any man up we must have a fulcrum, or point of reaction. In society that means that to lift one man up we push another down. The schemes for improving the condition of the working classes interfere in the competition of workmen with each other. The beneficiaries are selected by favoritism, and are apt to be those who have recommended themselves to the friends of humanity by language or conduct which does not betoken independence and energy. Those who suffer a corresponding depression by the interference are the independent and self-reliant, who once more are forgotten or passed over; and the friends of humanity once more appear, in their zeal to help somebody, to be trampling on those who are trying to help themselves.

William Graham Sumner 1840–1910

roflmmfao

donabernathy on January 11, 2014 at 6:00 PM

I would like to see a chart broken down by age level. My 23 college graduate son is having a hard time getting a ‘real’ full time job. I wonder what other college grads are doing for work these days. Temp jobs? Part time?

TeaTrekkie on January 11, 2014 at 10:26 AM

BLS makes the following available…
Civilian labor force participation rates by age, sex, race, and ethnicity

ITguy on January 11, 2014 at 6:51 PM

the economic disaster that Obama faced was unprecedented…so historical recoveries are not really fair proxies of comparison

nonpartisan on January 11, 2014 at 10:05 AM

Flat wrong.

Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of the Congressional Democrats inherited a GOOD economy when they took majority control of Washington, D.C.!

Your frame of reference is 1/20/2009, but that is NOT when the balance of power shifted from majority Republican to majority Democrat. The true date of the balance of power shift was 1/3/2007.

The truth is that (then-Senator) Obama HELPED CREATE the bad economy that (then-pResident) Obama “inherited” from himself!

One can’t blame the Fannie/Freddie crisis on Republicans, when Republicans raised warnings and tried to reform Fannie/Freddie to PREVENT that very crisis, but Democrats obstructed, falsely accused Republicans of racism (a so-called “political lynching of Franklin Raines”, who is black) and falsely claimed that there were no “safety and soundness issues” at Fannie/Freddie!

Barack Obama came in the top 3 of Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008, exceeded only by Chris Dodd and John Kerry, and if you consider that Obama was only campaigning for Federal office for five of those 20 years (2004-2008), whereas Dodd and Kerry covered all 20 of those years (1989-2008), Obama’s per year receipts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions easily tops the list!

Barack Obama played a central role in the Fannie/Freddie mess.

Barack Obama supported 3 hikes to the minimum wage in 3 years, and the employment-population ratio went down each time the minimum wage was raised.

Obama has no one to blame but himself and his fellow Democrats for taking a 63.4% employment level they inherited on 1/3/2007 and driving it into a ditch where it has stayed at or below 58.6% for well over four years.

ITguy on January 11, 2014 at 7:14 PM

…charitably assume that nonpartisan is a badly-educated dunce who is in over his head…

de rigueur on January 11, 2014 at 3:56 PM

…like the Harvard Law alumnus in the White House, who is also a badly-educated dunce who is in over his head…

And for anyone who would try to argue that Obama is not a badly-educated dunce, please produce his college transcripts to show what stellar grades he received at Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard. If the grades are stellar, why withhold the transcripts? What is it that Obama wants to conceal?

ITguy on January 11, 2014 at 7:30 PM

The December jobs report – more ugly
by Steve Eggleston | January 11th, 2014

ITguy on January 11, 2014 at 7:36 PM

…charitably assume that nonpartisan is a badly-educated dunce who is in over his head…

de rigueur on January 11, 2014 at 3:56 PM

…like the Harvard Law alumnus in the White House, who is also a badly-educated dunce who is in over his head…

ITguy on January 11, 2014 at 7:30 PM

Bears repeating over and over:

There is no and never was a man behind the curtain. Barack Obama is a shallow, conceited, poorly educated man; his oratory is empty, his sincerity is absent; and his character is mimetic. He plays at various roles (community organizer, intellectual, law lecturer, state legislator, Senator, President) but fulfills none. He is not capable of fulfilling any. To traduce Gertrude Stein’s phrase, he is our Oakland President; there is no there there.

Zhombre

And once again, I repeat myself, but, ain’t Affirmative Action a wonderful invention?

Social promotion based solely on skin color because, after all, those wonderfully tolerant leftists know, deep down, the black man just isn’t smart enough to get there on his own.

obama was a fellow leftist traveler, and promoting him socially was better than pulling the nearest black out of the ghetto. obama is little more than Jesse Jackson with a whiter speech pattern.

Lanceman on January 11, 2014 at 11:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 2