The US needs to borrow almost $300 billion this week

Bush and Republicans left office with the housing bubble having reached its absurd level and starting to implode, which is what caused deficits to explode.

 

Some of us actually use a grey matter. Unlike you. Don't take it personally. Stop making excuses for Messiah. I hope you will learn something. For example, how easy was to manipulate you.

The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment
http://news.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx

Here's something that many Americans -- including some of the smartest and most educated among us -- don't know: The official unemployment rate, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, is extremely misleading.

Right now, we're hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is "down" to 5.6%. The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.

None of them will tell you this: If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job -- if you are so hopelessly out of work that you've stopped looking over the past four weeks -- the Department of Labor doesn't count you as unemployed. That's right. While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and tragically may never find work again, you are not counted in the figure we see relentlessly in the news -- currently 5.6%. Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren't throwing parties to toast "falling" unemployment.

There's another reason why the official rate is misleading. Say you're an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 -- maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn -- you're not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

Yet another figure of importance that doesn't get much press: those working part time but wanting full-time work. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find -- in other words, you are severely underemployed -- the government doesn't count you in the 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

There's no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.

And it's a lie that has consequences, because the great American dream is to have a good job, and in recent years, America has failed to deliver that dream more than it has at any time in recent memory. A good job is an individual's primary identity, their very self-worth, their dignity -- it establishes the relationship they have with their friends, community and country. When we fail to deliver a good job that fits a citizen's talents, training and experience, we are failing the great American dream.

Gallup defines a good job as 30+ hours per week for an organization that provides a regular paycheck. Right now, the U.S. is delivering at a staggeringly low rate of 44%, which is the number of full-time jobs as a percent of the adult population, 18 years and older. We need that to be 50% and a bare minimum of 10 million new, good jobs to replenish America's middle class.

I hear all the time that "unemployment is greatly reduced, but the people aren't feeling it." When the media, talking heads, the White House and Wall Street start reporting the truth -- the percent of Americans in good jobs; jobs that are full time and real -- then we will quit wondering why Americans aren't "feeling" something that doesn't remotely reflect the reality in their lives. And we will also quit wondering what hollowed out the middle class.

Jim Clifton is Chairman and CEO at Gallup.

 

This is from back in 2015 when Gallup was pushing its own alternative measure of unemployment to be used as an indicator, and thus the attempt to discredit the BLS numbers.

Note he doesn't say that BLS numbers are false, but that they are "misleading" because U-3 doesn't include certain categories of people, such as people working part time.

That's a fair opinion, however, the BLS also produces several other measures of un or under employment that do. The fact that many may not understand exactly what U-3 represents doesn't make it a "lie", but, of course, it is far more newsworthy when you do.

And since you brought up lack of grey matter, I'll point out that U-3 has been the metric mostly commonly used since at least the Reagan administration, and has nothing to do with the Obama administration, nor does your article support such a notion.

 

GOP deficits ran throughout the Bush Presidency.

Like Trump, Bush pushed a radical tax cut bill that cut revenue at the same time he exploded borrowing.

Then he started an unnecessary war in the wrong country, and screwed it up.

The GOP tried to pretend that the war was free by listing its cost "off the books" and not counting its cost towards the deficit (a fiction right wingers still falsify Bush's record with).

The GOP ran a deficit in 2008 too, and left the economy in free fall and borrowing exploding even worse on their way out the door.

BTW, contrary to your false claim, they did not "force"sequester..It wasn't even their idea. But they did try and default in US debt in the middle of a depression. Almost as irresponsible as Trump's trade gimmicks.

 

My point stands.

The methodology for measuring the unemployement rate was last changed in 1984.

I asked you to document your claim that economic statistic were falsified by the Obama administration. I'm still waiting.

 

Kind of like ranking the best turd in the bowl.

 

Well most in my position disagree to put it nicely, the Obama recovery was horrible. Everybody knows about the crash, unemployment numbers were a horrible indicator of recovery because of the workforce that dropped out of the system and you know that. There was some recovery no doubt, it was anemic to say the least. What's amazing for people like me that manufacture products is that the past year has been amazing, surpassing all time company highs. It's not always just policies but also the people to start opening their wallets. You want to compare any year Obama or Bush had to on Trump's past 12 months and you'll be laughed out of the room by people who actually have skin in the game.

 

You mean the democratic congress started a unnecessary war right?

 

I agree the recovery could/should have been stronger.

The American people chose to elect into control of Congress folks who were more interested in austerity than a strong recovery (remember when Republicans pretended they cared about the deficit?).

However, there is no doubt that most Americans were much better off in 2016 than they were in 2009.

 

The Democrats took the Congress January of 2007 and increased spending 9% in 2008 and then 18% in 2009 exploding the last Republican deficit of $161B to their whopping $1,400B.

 

Trying to dodge again instead of refuting again I see.

 

Not 2008 and 2009 perhaps you are unaware they took the Congress January of 2007 a year before the recession. As contrary to your claims the Democrats had no problem nor do posters here blaming the Sequester in the Republicans.

 

Perhaps you need to remind yourself that tbe Democrats took control of the Congress January of 2007 not January of 2009.

 

The economy was built on a house of cards that had already started tanking before the Dems took office.

Your attempt to blame them for the GR when housing prices shot up to their absurd levels under Republican leadership is typical partisanship.

 

Please google when Obama became president. thanks.

 

Trying to dodge again instead of refuting again I see.

The fact you could not even address, much less deny, the facts I pointed out in my post is all the evidence needed.

 

The DEMOCRATS took the Congress January of 2007 and they cut Bush out of the 2009 budget it was their budget not Bush's. Why do you keep ignoring the facts?

"In FY2009, Congress did not complete work by September 30, 2008. President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009.

The Democrats purposely held off on the appropriations process because they hoped they could come into 2009 with a new Democrat-friendly Congress and a President who would sign bloated spending bills. Remember, President Obama was in the Senate when these bills were crafted and he was part of this process to craft bloated spending bills. CQ reported that “in delaying the nine remaining bills until 2009, Democrats gambled that they would come out of the November 2008 elections with bigger majorities in both chambers and a Democrat in the White House who would support more funding for domestic programs.” And they did.
The Truth about President Obama's Skyrocketing Spending


"Unlike last year, when Bush forced Democrats to accept lower spending figures, this year could prove more difficult for the president. The fiscal year begins Oct. 1, less than four months before he leaves office.

"He doesn't have us over a barrel this year, because either a President Clinton or a President Obama will have to deal with us next year," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We are not going to be held hostage to the unreasonableness of this president."

Much of the president's plan has little chance of passage, lawmakers and budget experts say. Nearly $200 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings need congressional approval, which Democrats are unlikely to provide. "Dead on arrival," vowed Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-03-bush-budget_N.htm

 

I have no need to it does not change the fact the Democrats took control of the Congress and the budget in 2007.

 

I gave you a lenghty rebuttal while you twist and turn in the wind now.

 

You've post this same blather 100 times, and every time you fail to post this from your source:

CQ estimated that the final spending bill “provided about $31 billion more in discretionary funding than was included in the fiscal 2008 versions of the nine bills” which is “about $19 billion more than Bush sought.” I would argue that Obama gets credit for the whole $31 billion in new spending. The most damning fact from the CQ piece is that “Bush had threatened to veto spending bills that exceeded his request.”

Yeah, I'll grant that Obama was responsible for $31 billion of the FY2009 spending.

But that is spit in the bucket from the $3.5T already in play from existing programs before he took office.

 

Nice dodge. My post was about what conditions were like when Obama took office.

Are you purposefully trying to mischaracterize my posts? <Mod Edit- Rule 4>

Or are you purposefully trying to divert the subject? <Mod Edit- Rule 4>

 

How about than they were in January of 2007 when the Democrats took back the Congress from the Republicans?

 

Nope. The last time that the debt actually declined was because Clinton didn't just raise taxes but made the increases retroactive creating a surplus which took the GOP about a year to squander.

 

GOP: We need A LOT more money for the military! We have parades to put on!

 

Just as you post your boiler plate text which I routinely refute. The Democrats took control in 2007 its not a matter of when Obama moved to the White House. You keep trying to ignore the facts DEMOCRATS took control of the Congress January of 2007. By theirbown admittance Bush prevented them from even higher spending in 2008 and they cut him out in 2009 completely so stop pretending those were Bush or Republican deficits