REGISTER | LOGIN
Weekdays noon - 3pm et / weekends 9am - noon et
Sirius | XM Satellite Radio
Call Andrew at 1-866-95-patriot
Book AndrewFree Trial

Today's Show » PSA on Unemployment

marnesdad
2 years, 4 months ago
Just to add to the conversation Wilkow and Thad had on Friday about the 'official' unemployment numbers, what neither of them thought was relevant was to say that the U5 (the measurement of unemployment that includes all the data they talked about) is ALSO declining steadily. Their entire conversation almost made it sound as if using the U5 would show that unemployment is getting worse, not better. Of course, that's not the case... but that's up to you to figure out on your own. For those keeping score, the U5 has dropped by 1.1% since last summer (even better than the official unemployment rate)...
nav68
2 years, 4 months ago
Amid constant reports of a slow but sure economic recovery comes the April jobs report - not good. Unemployment rate drops to 8.1%. Job creation is indicated, but the total employment level actually fell. A drop in labor force participation is believed reponsible. "In the weakest recpvery since the Great Depression, more than four fifths of the reduction in unemplloyment has been accomplished by a dropping adult labor force participation rate...", this from U. of Maryland economist Peter Morici (www.cnbc, 5/4/12). However one reads it, the economy is as stale as Obama's ideas on how to cure the problem. It isn't likely to change significantly this year.
marnesdad
2 years, 4 months ago
The article is inaccurate... The official unemployment rate doesn't count marginally attached (people without a job and not looking for one, but would take one) or discouraged workers (a subset of marginally attached who don't want work because they can't get the work they want). This official unemployment rate is calculated the same way it's been for decades... The U5 (the measurement Republicans want to use now) includes marginally attached and discouraged workers... and the U5 has ALSO dropped a point to 9.5. The U6 is the measurement that stayed flat at 14.5, and it includes all marginally attached, discouraged and people who have taken part-time or lesser paying jobs for economic reasons (they need money). Since the official rate AND the rate that includes discouraged and marginally attached dropped this month, and the U6 stayed the same, what took place last month is people took part-time or lesser paying work... Nothing to write home about -- but certainly not what the article claims.
nav68
2 years, 4 months ago
Bottom line - the economy sucks, it isn't getting anywhere near what could be called better, and it won't. Whatever this administration inherited from Bush, the continuing whine about it constitutes an embarassing admission that they aren't capable of improving it. That's the reality. The election of a person with virtually no significant experience at anything is now in open view for all to behold. I believe that Obama will go the way of Jimmy Carter - absolutely crushed come November. He's a loser with nothing but a flashy front. Americans don't particularly like that.
marnesdad
2 years, 4 months ago
To say that the economy isn't 'better' now than it was in January 2009 is the definition of ridiculous. What this administration inherited from Bush was the worst economy since the Great Depression -- hands down. Worse than the recession Bush walked in on, and worse the the recession Reagan had to deal with. Now, you can complain all you want about what Obama has/hasn't done and how he is to blame for the miserable economy not being cleaned up yet -- that's entirely subjective. But, to say that the economy isn't 'better' wouldn't be my theme for running against the guy... As for Obama being 'crushed' in November, that's unlikely. Romney is vulnerable from every side, and his theme seems to be like yours --- the economy. And, all the left has to do is pound the American public with the ACTUAL NUMBERS and Romney's going to have to adjust to 'okay, it's better, but should be much better' mid-stream, and no one is going to buy it. In short, Romney needs to acknowledge how far we've come first and then drive home that he would do better/faster... and, even then, it's going to be close.
nav68
2 years, 4 months ago
PLease. I'm a bit tired of the "BLame It On Bush" crap. Numbers can be, and are, juggled to fit anything. The unemployment rate has not dropped significantly. We have effectively no significant energy policy that is likely to ease the burden down the road. The lack of such a policy means more of the same that we're experiencing now. Had Obama layed out an intelligent policy, we'd be three+ years closer to some kind of evolution into a more energy independent state. The list goes on. You can scrooch around numbers all day. The bottom line is that confidence in Obama is bad and getting worse. Dems can point to numbers. Romney can simply ask, are you better off now than when he took office? Most are going to answer no, because that's the simple truth.
marnesdad
2 years, 4 months ago
Of course you're 'tired' of it. You can't argue anything to the contrary. Did Obama inherit the worst recession since the Great Depression? Of course he did. Now we're talking about the entirely subjective -- where should we be now in the recovery? As for the suggestion that Romney ask 'are you better off now'.... Not such a great idea. In January 2009, more then 750,000 folks were losing their jobs every month... now 200,000 are finding jobs. It's pretty risky to ask that question when nearly a million people -- every thirty days -- are already numerically better off... Also, if you look at just about every economic indicator, the economy is better off... but, of course, those are just the facts.
nav68
2 years, 3 months ago
Gee, Marnes, I guess you'd have to define "better off". The point is that someone with an idea or two about business, not some hack-assed lawyer surrounded by a bunch of those "fat cats" who are just a tad ethically challenged, would have provided for more in the way of consumer confidence and general overall confidence than Obama has. Numbers? His aren't good, Romey's are getting better. Moving an inch in 3+ plus years may be technical progress. Most see it as failure to lead. They're right. Whether Romey's the answer or not, we'll find out when he bounces Obama.
marnesdad
2 years, 3 months ago
You're exactly correct... 'better' is a subjective description. I just think that going from losing three-quarters-of-a-million jobs every thirty days to gaining 200,000 jobs is a pretty good example of 'better'... perhaps you disagree. Business Confidence going from 35.2% in January 2009 to 58.2% now is also a good example of 'better'... Consumer Confidence going from 37% to 69.5%... to me.... 'better'. As you said, 'better' is entirely subjective. My point is that Romney needs to have more than his, and your, opinion of what is 'better' in order to beat Obama. Right now, it seems that pretending things are far worse than they are is his schtick... Good luck with that.
nav68
2 years, 3 months ago
My point is about perception. The greater part of Obama's presidency has been mired as much in his mistakes anything he inherited from Bush. The 13 point turnaround in favor of Romney over Obama is a case in point. So is Obama's lackluster showing in Kentucky. 58% of Democrat votes isn't good. I believe something on the order of 4 out of ten listed themselves as uncommitted. Not good. The economy can creep along a its slow pace, and it isn't going to do Obama much good. His many mistakes are why he's not campaigning on his economic record. Apparently, he's going to have another go at the "I Got Bin Laden" movie, to be produced, it looks like, by some of his Hollywood Bro's. The perception of him isn't good, and it isn't getting better. He got elected through an electronic/showbiz shuck. It isn't going to work a second time.
nav68
2 years, 3 months ago
Sorry, the 13 pt. spin was in Florida.
marnesdad
2 years, 3 months ago
You keep referencing these 'many mistakes' made by Obama. What are some? And, he IS campaigning on his economic record. You obviously don't think Obama has a chance and you're convinced that your perception is widely shared. Both subjective thoughts. We'll see...
nav68
2 years, 3 months ago
I surely think that Obama has a chance. I just think that the slight of hand show is over. As for his mistakes, I generally point to mistakes/failures of leadership. We won't agree on it, but we are paying for it now. I say that without minimizing the problems that he faced when he took office. My opinion is that he was the wrong man for the job, I believe that this is the growing opinion of him, and that it will unseat him in November (barring Romney shooting himself in both feet).
marnesdad
2 years, 3 months ago
My recollection is that the other choice at the time was McCain. So, while I agree that Obama may not have been the best choice ever, he beat McCain hands down. I'm clearly not as critical of Obama considering my understanding of the pile of crap he was handed. And, as far as mistakes go, I still have yet to see anyone actually point to one. Most complaints are just as benign as your "failure to lead" thought. I'm hopeful that Romney can offer something better, but until he opens his mouth and spits out something he'd DO rather than the ad nauseum on what he WOULDN'T do, I'm going to stick with the devil I know.
pickupdapride
2 years, 3 months ago
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
nav68
2 years, 3 months ago
Jonathan Frum highlighted some. I agree with him, so I'll summarize him. He essentially let Congress write his fiscal stimulus for him. The result was a package loaded with "ancient Democratic wish lists utterly irrelevant to the crisis at hand: 15 billion for more Pell Grants, bailout money for states who overspent on Medicaid, renewable energy tax grants, etc. Only a fairly small part went to infrastructure projects. About $140 billion went to tax rebates that he was warned would not do much to stimulate the economy. "Abdication of decision making in 2009." Failure to mobilize the Federal Reserve to support the fiscal stimulus, when it was needed in 2010. It goes on. He has not been a forceful leader in the international community. His comments have amounted to a refutation of American exceptionalism, an apology for thinking we're better than everyone, even though the evidence is there for the fact that we are. I don't believe he has shown Putin, an arch thug, that he's playing with fire by acting as he has. And on and on. As Ed Klein says, Obama is an amateur, unfit to sit in the Oval Office. However much you might not like John McCain as a politician, he was/is far more competent for the job than Obama.
marnesdad
2 years, 3 months ago
A while back, the Right made a huge deal about the CBO adjusting their low-end estimates of the effect of the stimulus... The low end estimates were reduced by a couple of percentage points. That low-end estimate STILL credited the stimulus with more than $1 trillion in economic growth. The high end estimates credit the stimulus with generating nearly $2 trillion in growth. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/05-25-Impact_of_ARRA.pdf ...... Your opinion on Obama and foreign policy and the tired nonsense of 'apologizing' to the rest of the world are just noise -- not evidence of any 'mistakes' that have been made that have failed to help or have hurt the economy. McCain and his 'vision' were a disaster, which is why he was rejected by the American people. All McCain/Palin showed was a rightwing willingness to let the economy be someone elses' problem for four years...
nav68
2 years, 3 months ago
Whatever. Vote for Obama so we can have 4 more years of enlightened leadership. Or you can step back, take an honest look, and see him and his administration, and the current Dems in Congress for the disaster that they are.
marnesdad
2 years, 3 months ago
If I think Romney will amount to something better, I'll vote for him... If he stops pretending that 'not being Obama' is enough to get elected, he may have a chance... But, I'm not going to pretend that the last four years haven't been night-and-day better than the four prior. You shouldn't either...
nav68
2 years, 3 months ago
I'm not defending Bush, although I'd have preferred him to Obama. Bush was managing a lot of armed conflict. Whether you agree with those wars or not, they were a reality he had to deal with. The Democrats,for the most part, came to hamper him in that effort including truly scurrilous attacks, and for for purely political advantage. Obama came in facing a lot, but he had a congressional majority that had (unfortunately) been in place for two years. He had a full house to play with, yet he failed to corral the forces available to him. That's why the economy is still stale, unempoyment just jumped again, and it ain't gonna get better. NOW, he's onto congress about getting off its ass. A day late and a dollar short. Whether you agree with what they did or not, Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan LED, and they got a lot of their agendas done. Obama does not know how to lead. He has no experience worthy of the name at doing so, and he has shown a tendency to not learn from his mistakes. That's because, in his mind, he doesn't make mistakes. Everyone else does, thus hampering him.

Post a Reply

Please login to post a reply.