Obama is bragging that unemployment is now at the same dismal 7.8% rate it was at four years ago when he took office and we are supposed to be happy that it's not WORSE? No change. That's his idea of progress. The only problem is that it IS worse!
First, the 7.8% unemployment figure reported for September is not accurate. It didn't include the UE numbers for Calfornia which has the highest population, and one of the highest UE rates in the country, but failed to get the figures in to the Bureau of Labor Staistics in time. Coincidentally, the guy responsible for submitting those figures just happens to be a big Obama supporter and campaign contributer. It also just happens to be the last report before the election.
In truth, the number of jobs created last month was smaller than the month before and those numbers were smaller than the month before that. So not only are the numbers wrong, they are also going in the wrong direction!
Second, the 7.8% now is not the same number as the 7.8% reported four years ago. Millions of unemployed workers have either settled for early retirement, or stopped looking for work. These people are no longer counted as unemployed (even though they are unemployed). If they were counted, as they were in 2008, the reported figure would be about 12%.
Third, in many cases, the jobs we do have now pay much less than the jobs we had then. Higher paying manufacturing and service industry jobs have been lost and replaced with near-minimum wage jobs, so many people are working fewer hours and for less money. If you lost a full time $20/hour job and are now working a $10/hour part time job, you are not counted among the unemployed. If we include the under-employed and those that we have stopped counting, then about 25% of Americans are either unemployed or not making enough money to support themselves.
In Topeka alone, Hallmark Cards is closing it's plant (500 jobs lost), Josten's, which makes high school year books and class rings just closed (372 jobs lost) and in the public sector the U.S. Post office is eliminating 1200 jobs here. This is NOT progress!
I haven't even mentioned "Taxageddon" coming on January 1 when the Bush tax cuts are set to expire and dozens of new taxes relating to Obamacare are set to kick in (conveniently timed to take effect right AFTER the election). The non-partisan CBO says that this will plunge us back into recession and increase the unemployment rate by about 1.5%. Starbucks has announced that it will cut workers hours to avoid being forced to pay for their healthcare.
There are many companies that want to expand and hire, but they are waiting until after the election to see what it will cost them. If Romney is elected you will see an immediate drop in unemployment. He created a bunch of jobs with Bain Capital. As head of the Olympic Commitee, the Salt Lake Winter Olympics was the first in a long time to turn a profit. As Governor of Massachusettes, he made the schools the best in the nation, introduced REAL healthcare reform (at the State level where it should be done), and balanced the state budget--all while working with a congress that was over 80% Democrat! Can he do what he has promissed for America? I'm not sure, but I do know that Obama can't. The President has failed to lower the unemployment rate, failed to grow the economy, failed to reduce the deficit and failed to make Amercans safer at home and abroad. Romney has a proven track record and America cannot afford four more years of Obama. He at least deserves a shot at fixing the mess Obama will be leaving behind.
After reading my previous post, surely you now see how it ISN'T! :D
Originally Posted by chief31
Originally Posted by TopekaRoy
Spinning away and making excuses does.not convince me of anything except for your unwillingness to look at things without your partisan view.
The wage decreases have been going on since we embraced the short term success of Reaganomics, which started us down this path of insane debt.
It takes a whole lot of work and time to fix.thirty years of hth parties' willingness to head for bankruptcy.
And neither party has the fortitude to actually make the changes that need to be made.
Taxes on luxury income must be raised.considerably, to accompany some large spending cuts.
Neither party is willing to do it because it is unpopular.
I'm trying to find anything in this post that has anything to do with the unemployment rate and I can't. Like a typical liberal, you change the subject and talk about the deficit and taxes.
Originally Posted by chief31
It is a fact that fewer people are working now than when Obama took office. It is a fact that the average work week and weekly pay are down. It is a fact that the economy grew at a slower rate last year (1.7%) than it did in 2010 (3.0%). This isn't spin. It's common knowledge among people who study the numbers and don't just listen to the "talking points" spouted by mainstream media news sources.
Look at this chart and pay particular attention to Employment as a percentage of population Rate (black line). Notice that the rate is not only much lower that it was when Obama took office, it has also leveled off since unemployment peaked at 10%.
In this case, 8 is not better than 10.
The question I have, and am asking legitimately because I really don't know, is: How can the economy be built from the middle out? I'm not an economist so I really don't know the ends and outs of economic growth. The reason I'm confused is because I don't understand how a demographic with limited resources can grow the economy. I, better, understand how lowering taxes and deregulating, to a degree, in essence unties the hands of the job creators allowing those with the resources necessary to invest in stimulating the economy by making it profitable for them to create more jobs here. Again, I ask this question in earnest because I really don't know.
Good question Chiefster.
Originally Posted by Chiefster
Let me start by telling you how you don't grow the economy. You don't grow the economy with government stimulus packages. There are two problems with stimulus spending. The first is that it doesn't put any more money into the economy because every dollar spent by the government must first come out of the private sector, so you are not really increasing spending; you are just changing where the spending comes from.
The second problem is that government spending doesn't increase the demand for products in the long term, so as soon as the stimulus money runs out, the unemployment rate goes back up. it doesn't increase consumer demand for products; it just lets the government decide which products will succeed or not.
This is clearly illustrated by the fact that Obama told us we must pass the stimulus package to keep the unemployment rate from going above 8%. It subsequently went up to 10%. Later, Obama laughed that "I guess shovel ready jobs weren't as shovel ready as we thought, heh heh." Meanwhile, over $800 billion was wasted and much of that money went to produce jobs overseas (outsourcing taxpayer dollars).
Are you worried that Big Bird will lose his job if Romney gets elected? Don't Be. Obama already took care of him with over $1 million in the stimulus package. The money was to come out of the heath and human services section to promote healthy eating. it produced 1.47 jobs. No that's not a misprint. The decimal point is supposed to be there.
There is no big secret to stimulating the economy. The economy is stimulated when people spend more money on things they want to buy. There are two ways to accomplish this. One is to lower taxes so that people keep more of the money they earn. Obama thinks you can grow the economy "from the middle out," but most of the middle class are in debt and will use any small tax cuts to pay off their debts faster, rather than use that money as disposable income to buy more "stuff." Romney's plan is to cut taxes "across the board" so that not only the middle class have more money to spend, but the wealthy will have more money to produce and sell their products and services: which means more people have money to buy other peoples goods and services.
The second way to increase consumer spending is to lower the expenses for consumers. One of these biggest expenses is gasoline. Romney wants to increase domestic drilling which will immediately produce jobs in the oil industry. of course these people will buy stuff which will increase demand for other products and put more people to work, and increasing demand for other products and so on ...But the other benefit is that is will eventually lower the price of gas, allowing people to keep more of the money they earn, so they can buy more stuff.
The side benefit of more people working (and paying taxes) is that the government revenues increase and that extra money can be used to reduce the deficit--if politicians use that money responsibly. We saw government revenues increase when Reagan cut taxes and again when Bush cut taxes after 9/11. We know it works because we have seen it work in the past.
Thank you for the response but, really, I acknowledged as much in my question but am no closer to the answer of exactly how one grows the economy from the middle out. I've heard and understood that it is the Presidents economic plan and it sounds great as a campaign slogan, but have not heard how he will accomplish this. I understand the premise behind Romney's plan but not the Presidents.
Originally Posted by TopekaRoy
That's completly understandable. Romney's plan works. The President's plan doesn't!
Originally Posted by Chiefster
Thoughts on the last debate?
I thought Romney missed an opportunity to hold the presidents feet to the fire over the handling of the Libyan consulate situation with regard to the timeline and what was explained to the American public. Other than that there were no big surprises, I think each candidate performed as expected. I think that Obama energized his base while Romney maintained his, somewhat disappointing those on the far right. However, I don't think either candidate moved the needle much with regard to the coveted "Undecided" demographic who, I think, at this point in the game are only claiming to be so. I think most people have pretty much made up their minds.