Shared publicly  - 
According to new numbers released this morning, the economy added 257,000 private-sector jobs last month, making January the 23rd consecutive month of private-sector job growth.
Eddie Yasi's profile photograham mewburn's profile photoLaVerne Fields's profile photoMaddie Grant's profile photo
Jake Pace
This should be the only campaign poster you need. It's a shame that so many people are too stupid to get it.
Who is Ron Paul? Oh, you mean that Loony old guy?
Alex Quinn
Ron Paul opposed the stimulus that got us back on track. He also opposed extending unemployment benefits which, besides helping people keep their homes, also keeps the economy going as it recovers. So no, Ron Paul would not continue this trend.
If there are so many "new" jobs out there, WHY is the economy still stagnant???
It's too bad that too many people don't actually look at the numbers that make up this chart.

Or realize that the only reason that the unemployment percentage even went down, is not just because of a slight increase in private sector jobs, but also 1.2 million eligible workers, simply stopping their job search, and in turn dropping out of the equation.

Yeah... good news... sigh
All except for my job :( Whirlpool is still moving it's Fort Smith plant to Mexico. Stop that and you can save thousands more jobs from being lost!
+Brad Watts : What makes you think more workers gave up this month compared to last month? On the whole, things are getting gradually better. It's not good to attack the person who's doing all the right things to help.
That chart needs to be on billboards, so people will see it daily until it sinks in.
The United States Department of Labor does not agree with these figures. June, July, August, and September of 2010 were all negative in growth. I say 16 months of growth.
+Gene Renfrow For starters, over 800,000 jobs were lost before this President was sworn in. The downward trend that started in 2007 would take a whole decade to show significant economic recovery.

+Craig Lester That still won't sink on for some, including presidential hopeful Mitt Romney who said on his G+ page today "these numbers can’t hide the fact that the President’s policies have prevented a true recovery".
Though #1. Europe was trying to do what Republicans suggest - cut, cut and then cut some more - for quite a while and it seems that it does not work that well. Latest advice from IMF, do not cut too fast and too deep. Funnily enough, even though arguably US was an epicenter of global meltdown, we are doing much much better than our friends across the pond.
Thought #2. One can argue how much of this progress is due to Obama and how much of it just "natural", but no one should be able to argue the fact that this progress was achieved despite "best" efforts of Republicans in the Congress.
S&P 500 has also grown 60% in the last 3 years.
February 3, 2009: 838
February 3, 2012: 1342
+Alex Quinn That is because the 1.2 million who dropped is the highest single drop in the eligible workforce in 30 years. This is via the Bureau of Labor Statistics (just wanted to clarify so you didn't think i was making numbers up).

Not only that, the chart also does not include the years prior to the drop caused by the housing crash, and how stable it was at around 5-6% unemployment on average during Bush's terms.
Alex Quinn
Sorry for all of the disgruntled Republicans who were hoping the country would do badly so they could benefit in the election. Obama puts the country first.
Now that crybabygirl John Boehner is saying it isn't good enough because the number is above 8%. I remember him saying jobs don't matter and then Teapublicans were sworn in on the promise of job creation.
+Jay Geissberger Or the rebound during the Bush Administration after the DotCom bubble popped when Clinton left office.
+Alex Quinn Really? Yes, the total number of people employed in the US increased... but you also ignore that 1.2 million simply dropped out of looking for a job, I guess that's an inconvenient truth.

And in contrary to your little stereotype, no, I am not happy that the economy is not getting better in the job market, but I am tired of seeing skewed charts and numbers trying to make something "great" out of something that was not.
lol job grow from the major fail of every one losing them
+Steve Anderson You mean the 15.1% unemployment rate then? Yes, it does take into account that number. The "8.3%" does not.

Yes, the rate is going down... slowly... but the current policies are doing nothing to help it, let alone encourage folks to push even harder to get out of unemployment and into the workforce.
Even if this is true (which is questionable) this has much more to do with the market than with Obama.
Duv Jones
+Brad Watts I think that alot of people have been expecting alot of industries to come roaring back. They haven't, and the reason is simple but sad. What caused that sudden drop in workers took years in the making to happen, fixing this will not be fast nor easy...

Expecting such is foolhardy. That said, you are right... this isn't "great" progress. But it is progress, and I would rather that than nothing at all.
prove this is right bro
Thank you +Duvelle Jones, so far your response has been the most thought out and respectful comment yet.

I totally agree. I do not expect some massive uprising in employment, it likely would never happen unless some miracle of science created an industry that could serve everyone.

It is progress, but it is slow progress... very slow progress. The initial crash began back near the middle of the Clinton Administration, and hit at a very bad time. It is expected that recovery will be slow. I only feel that the president's focus is not in the right place to "create jobs." Jobs are created by the market place, and the market place creates jobs based on demand, and demand is created when something is affordable and needed (or even wanted), but something cannot be affordable if the cost to make it, serve it, or create it are continually getting higher. The reason they get higher, partially, in continued red tape and repetative regulations on the same things. Not to mention taxation on every part of every piece of equipment or product before it ever reaches the consumer.
Dems and GOP want Americans to compete Globally with the Chinese who get paid $2.00 per hour? The Chinese have no Enviromental costs, they just pour their TOXIC waste in the nearest creek or pond. HOW DO YOU COMPETE WITH THAT?
+John Bull You hit the nail on the head. Unlike China, we actually (despite popular belief) practice ethical business here in the US (especially in coomparison to China). Not only that, we have standards in place already to protect workers (even without Unions). The problem is finding the right incentive to get workers back here, without another target being made on US companies as "unfair".
We can argue all we want, because we all have reasons to disagree with this one and that one. But I'm just happy we have someone in there who actually acknowledges the economy is a mess. Bush denied it until the last minute, and then handed it over to Obama on the way out. I'll say what I said back then... it doesn't matter who gets elected, people are gonna wanna blame the new guy coming in and even if he does everything right.
+Brad Watts. Umm, from over 17% to a little over 15% in a year is a big move. It's faster than I thought the economy was recovering.

BTW, the U6 isn't an unemployment metric, per se. It's a measure of unemployed and under-employed and is always much higher than the unemployment rate.

The rest of what you wrote is your opinion, and is pretty hard to backup. Feel free to do your best, but until you do, I'll stick with the more likely scenario, that the economy is improving due mostly to policies from the executive branch and the fed, and would probably be much faster if the Republicans in Congress were actually interested in governing, rather than winning elections.
Theses numbers surprised the economists, pundits and confounded the opposition. Despite the nay Sayers the economy continues to trend in the right if only congress can help with housing!
Haters gonna hate!! 
If the Republican representatives in congress would stop obstructing the President's jobs bill, we could kick our recovery into high gear and put a lot MORE people back to work!
ignorant gunna stay ignorant!
+Brad Watts While I appreciate your stating our economic problems are a demand issue (which, clearly, they are), you go right back to pseudo-conservative rhetoric when you say demand would be higher if supply was better.

Demand will improve when there are more jobs. More jobs will come in the middle and lower classes are spending more. We need to make sure that the lower and middle classes get some of the attention the upper class has gotten in the last 30 years to really resolve this issue.

Who are the job creators? Blue collar workers, not the wealthy. 
Wel that is good news. I hope that the rich reach a point were they want to share there wealth
Would it +Susan Dodson? His jobs bill depends mostly on public funds (taxpayer funds) towards public jobs (taxpayer funded jobs) and has nothing to do with the private sector, or growing a real recovery.
It's a proven fact that people that watch Fox news are severely misinformed. 
With $80+ million on hand ( that could employ 1600 people for one year at $50000/y. What jobs could be completed in that one year? What about 3600 for 6 months? Or 3600 for 3 months and keep 1/2 (just in-case GOP gets its head removed from well you know)? How many "issues" could be resolved? If just one of a hundred state or federal issues could be solved, who would need a campaign poster? Maybe Steven Colbert would donate a portion of his PAC money to see. I sure would like to see a presidential candidate do it, especially one who can't possibly loose to the most pathetic competition imaginable (GOP has gone insane). Good luck in 2012. Here's a nice chart:
Do some research it's quite simple. It's all over the Internet. 
+Joe Dean But what does that have to do with this chart? Are you assuming that anyone who is not just spewing joy all over it is a Fox News watching zombie?
Reading on the Internet is dumb then why the heck are posting on it right now?
+Erik Orgell Are you surprised? This was official goal of Republicans in Congress for last 2 year. Not to fix economy, but make sure that mr Obama is not getting re-elected (this and pushing some useless laws aimed to make they base happy - like defunding Planned Parenthood and NPR).
Same reason u are!
to dick around? and have fun?and making ppl mad?
Public sector workers teach our children, fight fires, protect the peace, fight for our freedom, keep our parks clean, and pay out the checks that help families make ends meet until they can find a new job. Government provides important, essential services that keep us civilized. Plus, it sure doesn't help our economy if these folks are on the streets competing for the few private sector jobs that are available.
Nope I'm actually here to make your life a living hell!! And to hear how the president is turning this jacked up economy around. 
oh ok bro you do that
Hey u started it!!
i just said ok bro i didnt ask you
+Susan Dodson That's where the problem is. There are jobs available, it is the skills that are not there to meet them. Public sector jobs are funded, and are services provided via our taxpayer dollars, yes. But you cannot rid this country of it's jobs crisis by hiring 42 million public workers (yes it's an overexajuration, but I'm sure you get my point).
+Brad Watts Yes, you can not solve jobs crisis by hiring 42 million public workers, but you can make it LOT worse by firing even 1 million of them. Just look at UK. Mr Cameron & Co slash and burn they public sector jobs and it did not help one bit. They end up ADDING to deficit no reducing it. They keep the AAA rating, but funnily enough its US AA+ rating which attracts bond buyers these days.
And a GOP president would do better?
+Brad Watts The old, "We'd hire people if we could find people to hire" canard is not the cause of our economic slowdown. It's the lack of demand. So, yes, hiring 42 million public service employees would improve that quite a bit. It would have secondary side-effect that might be bad, but it would have a very strong positive impact in the short to middle term.
To those who think we would be better off without Obama, what actions could have been taken that would have seen an economy doing better than it is now? I think that the stimulus, tarp, etc all helped stave off a depression.
+Buck Bradley You are correct about "stop digging" part, killing Bush tax cuts will be good start. Strangely enough none on Teapublican side wants to talk about it.
+Andrei Tchijov did u hear about how the GOP is talking about impeaching the president if he doesn't extend the bush tax cuts? 
+Joe Dean I do not think that they (Republicans) are that stupid - not after Romney and his 13% tax return. Some idiots on they side may try it, but it is not going to work and they know it. I will be extremely surprised if Bush Tax Cut will survive past the time when it scheduled to expire.
K Cloth
You're an inspiration to us all!! Thank you, Mr. Obama
what's awesome is watching the republican party implode. life can't just be about money and it has finally caught up them.
+Rob Alexander Nothing per say wrong with money. Problem is that people get greedy. Some do not realize that if you get all $$$ and person next to you got nothing, it will make your $$$ worth much less. You will have to deal with crime, you will have to drive roads with potholes in it, you will have to send your kids in boarding school far away from home, ... list goes on.
Good job President Obama, i hope this continues.
Where's the graph about the more than 2 million people who dropped out of the labor force?
not saying there is anything wrong with money however i am saying there is something seriously wrong with a major political party that allows it to dictate policy to the point that the only constituency they CLEARLY support are the wealthy.

Replublicans- The Comedy starring Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, and George W as the Village Idiot. Seriously, that would be awesome.
What you don't mention is that the "Bush" era that is shown was when the Congress was completely controlled by the Dems in both houses, and that it started to rise more when the Reps had one of the houses back after 2010... Not seeing how this helps your campaign any.
How does this correlate with the 1.2 Million people that are no longer qualify for welfare but don't have a job. Would that be a net loss or gain?
@Joshua Weber it doesn't exist unless you believe Orley Tate
It's crazy reading this thread to see how reluctant people are to give the President even the slightest bit of credit. But yet these very same people don't hesitate to assign blame to the CIC for everything under the sun. For a very vocal minority, the President will never do anything right. Employment numbers are improving : "The numbers were cooked". OBL dead, "It was enhanced interrogation that led to that. Also the military deserves all the props". It's comical.
These people can't go further than skin deep...
+Mark Dacre How they can give the President any credit and stick to they script that he is the worst thing that happen to US since.... ever. Giving him any credits would be impossible without them admitting that they were wrong (on so many things). Very few people have enough "balls" (metaphorically speaking) to admin they own mistakes. And it seems that so far none of Republicans ready to do it.
On news of the job report the Dow closed at it's highest since 2008.
+Andrei Tchijov I think I understand what you are saying. I have 1 person that does the right thing. #ronpaulforpresident
Let's not forget the $Billions wasted on "bailouts" that could have been put to better use which would have created even more jobs. Oh, what about all those who lost their homes? Nobody showed them the money.
This chart conveniently covers up the fact that 500,000 fewer people were employed last month in January than when Barack Obama took office in January of 2009. Perhaps more jobs are being added to America's workforce, but even if that growth rate is sustainable (cough*seasonal jobs*cough) we'll need even more jobs to strengthen America's economy. As in more jobs than we had in 2009, not the same amount.
Why hasn't there been catch-up growth?
well fixing the recession was not obamas plan......he does not have one
132,952,000 people working in December... and 130,456,000 in January, that means there were 2.5 million fewer jobs in january, yet unemployment drop from 8.5 to 8.3.... go figure
were adding crappy manufacturing jobs.....not thats not growth, but it isnt in :monetary" terms.....the wall street numbers are actually great....12,ooo is a good number...for employers......but the added jobs arent pay worthy of propper growth for employees....the average worker is the growth and economic pusher of it labor and high profit margin does not push growth
May I ask you all to donate to reelect this awesome President. I just did.
Mr. President +Barack Obama, thank you for doing what you do
it's a good thing that the republican pool is so starkly disconnected and i'd definitely hope beating whoever is their nominee with this record is going to be a slamdunk.
Unfortunately he was given much of the debt load from his predecessor.
Keep up the positive trend. This will surely guarantee a 2nd term.
@ "Caleb Reagor" We have just come out of the administration of the idiot that gave everyone tax cuts, bringing back the federal debt, started two wars, that increased said debt, and you're calling this guy bad. My good sir, you're what we call delusional.
Some people cannot help if they are poor, certain conditions place them there. Even if some people don't have jobs, they still start exist everywhere. Jobs are lacking, however, people are still getting jobs. You just need to be more qualified. And people who may have done something wrong and regretted it, or they have had the blame for something pinned on them, or school wasn't as easy for them and they dropped out, colleges aren't likely to accept them easily, which makes jobs harder to find. GOOD JOBS aren't easy to find with a degree from a community college, but Obama is creating GOOD JOBS for lesser-qualified people. Amen to President Barack Obama. The jobs' destruction is exploded by job creation. The job creation definitely outweighs the job destruction.
I have a job, business is picking up big time, especially in commercial construction. I don't need a chart to see that the economy is turning around.
I just read this in my weekly reader today at school!This is amazing that you are doing this me and my family love you you are my idol.I just dont know what to say to the president me and my sister are in a club calld WATER 4 THE WORLD we raise money to get clean water for the contrys that dont have clean water we already have a well in Milwahii,Africa.Since you do so much we want to make a diffrence too.Keep it up and we love you!!We count on you.
What about the other 10,750,000 unemployed. You are going to be jobless here very soon Mr. President. Around November I'm Guessing.
Caleb you have to be just as poor and uneducated as the people of whom you speak of simply because you need not speak of what you do not know simply.i do not see your name on any preidential ballet so you work for a living or are u a trustfund baby because if u work all your boss has to say is three little words YOU ARE FIRED ¡!!!!!!!!!!
P.S Then who's going to pay your bills 
I agree with Asia, Caleb needs to learn how to read and then interpret what he just read. None of what has happened to the economy was our President's fault and he has done an outstanding job of managing the fiasco he was handed. True.. it still has a long way to go before it is "good", but President Obama has made great strides towards that goal. So, Caleb, pull your head out of your ... and get with it!
To all people who claim that bailouts did not work: first of all, you do not know if this is true. No one knows. I am not claiming that bailouts were most effective way to deal with our economic problems, but I do not know what would be more effective. No one does. If some one keep telling that s/he could do better than mr Obama, s/he has something else to sell you. Secondary, huge chunk of the bailouts was initiated by mr Bush, if your were among very few people who were opposing to the bailouts back then, good for you. At least you are consistent. Unfortunately most of your fellow bailout objectionists - object only bailouts which happen under Obama administration.

Bailouts to financial industry indeed very hard to judge. However there is one industry which is most certainly was saved by government intervention - I am talking about auto industry. If I remember correctly, most of Republicans were very much against feds getting involved with Detroit. Luckily for us, this "bailout" did get through and now we have GM back to #1 car company in the world and Chrysler posting first profit for many many month. For your information, GM directly employes almost 1/4 million people. I would not be surprised, that if it did fold down, 1-2 million people would end up with pink slips (there are quite a few GM suppliers which would not survive without GM). The only reason we still have an auto industry in this country is due to direct federal intervention and this intervention happen under Obama watch.

Lets now talk about other side. Republicans were more or less in control of the congress for last 2 years. What did they achieve? 112th congress ( did pass bunch of laws attaching different names to courthouses, libraries and post offices. They have not fulfilled single promise which got them elected in 2010. Worst part, I am sure that they smart enough to realize back in 2020 that they could not do it. Still there keep promising and promising. And now I see the very same pattern in Republican Primaries. Permanent moon base proposed by mr Gingrich is by far most realistic thing promised by Republican candidates.

You keep telling people who are ready to give the President any credits, to stop drinking kool-aid. Maybe you should do it first?
A ballet, you say? I look forward to the pas de duex and tutus.
I thought Googler+ was going to be free of political junk. Please post this on FB instead.
+GlennCheri Daniel I think pretty much - none. If I remember correctly there is freeze on government hiring. Also, if you look at the chart legend - its PRIVATE jobs only.
Irrelevant. He applied Keynesian economic principals. Tax payer funded jobs was kind of the point. The government's job in a recession, as Keynes argued, was to help get its country out of the hole by spending a bunch of money. Just preemptively I will say that tax cuts do count as government spending.
You are the HERO of the century. Keep it up......
+Dee Are Dub-Ya OT: Have you looked in so called "high deductible" plans? If you reasonably healthy, it may be not a bad choice. It would not cover most of minor things, but if you need something really serious, you will not have to go bankrupt.
Obama 2012 indeed and then Elizabeth Warren 2016!!!
You Mr. President you can really add more jobs by "Legalizing Marijuana", did you know that ?
and its funny you say that because "unemployment also remains higher than it has been for any presidential election since the Great Depression." So you saying this won't get my vote !
Wow, so many ignorant people who don't read beyond a headline. Then again, that's how you got elected. If you look at the number of people who simply dropped out of the workforce and stopped looking for work, the reality is exposed.
this is bullshit.... do you really believe this crap?
is it really the case?
but Obama is grt i like to muchhhhhhhhh
I suppose the only the only thing left of the recession will be a populace of people with defeatist attitudes. Oh, and underpaid young adults with crushing student debt.
Danny T
do u realize taht this is jobs created, and that the unemployment rate has gone WAY down since he came into office
yes. what we need is a republican. sure to solve all. wave that wand and poof! economy set. the hole the morons dug will take a long time to change. too long for the instant grat blogosphere that is this generation. 
it has the checkmark by his name -__- that means he is verified. im still smh about him on tumblr! D:<
+john willis +Spencer Scott Look at the numbers I posted earlier about the U6 report. It includes the figures you are concerned about, and others, including under-employment. It's still better then last month, and it's decreased by 2.2% in the last year.

You can kvetch all you want - the economy is getting better, and more people have jobs. Those are facts.
Fact is the supposed jobs are minimum wage jobs that by a long shot don't pay the bills!!! We need jobs that pay...plain and simple
What the mainstream media isn't paying attention to is the fact that the employment participation rate is at 65%. A 30 year low! Good luck with increasing your tax revenue America
How many billion did it take to accomplish this? Oh, yeah - 787 BILLION. And that was just in the first major stimulus package. Lets take an honest look at the Return on Investment.

# Unemployed at the height of the last 4 year cycle: About 15.7 Million
# Currently Unemployed: About 12.8 Million
Difference = 2.9 Million

Amount Spent in only 1 stimulus package: 787 Billion

Amount paid per job by your tax dollars: About $271,000/job

AND there has been a whole lot more spent than just that one package, driving the amount per job even higher.

I know I haven't made that in the last SIX years.
+Kevin McClain Unfortunately, most of the bailout $$$ were not spend on job creation, but they were spend on making sure that we still have financial sector and auto industry (and that quite a lot of people do not have to foreclose). It is hard to calculate how many jobs bailout created, but it is easy to imagine that situation would be much much worth if banks did collapse and GM did go bust. You can argue for next hundred years that bailout were not necessary, but you will newer be able to prove that you are right. No one can.
+Kevin McClain How would you measure ROI on something like this? What dollar amount would you put on the social stability associated with a healthy labor market? It’s not infinity, no doubt, but adding hundreds of thousands of jobs seems like it’d be worth quite a large amount of money; given the benefits job growth has to our national security and general safety as a country.

ProPublica writes: “The CBO's latest report estimates that the stimulus raised the number of employed Americans by 1 million to 2.9 million over the last quarter. At its peak in the second quarter of 2010, it increased employment by 1.4 million to 3.3 million.”

Okay, so we do some quick numbers: every million jobs is $40 billion a year in income (and since almost all of American’s income is spent) contributes about the same amount in GDP (per year).

I just want to know the empirical basis for your ire. How would you have spent the $800+ billion (which is actually the real number according to ProPublica—so you can’t acuse them of having an Obama agenda). Tax cuts would have done little as most would have gone to rich people who has a diminishing marginal utility of wealth; and since savings rates spiked during the financial crisis it’d doubtful they would have done as much as direct spending by the gov’t, but I’m sure you know all of this…
+Liberty Meme — It’s difficult to draw inference from that chart due to the seasonal fluctuations around the New Year. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I can’t infer anything meaningful from that particular series. One thought is that it’s integrating a new set of census data… or people are going back to school more (which often happens in recessions; there’s historical data to back this up, but I don’t have this readily available…)
Its good breakfast news for USA and other economy.
Applaud the private sector for hiring new people! Nice!
he ever made a diagram on the rate of deaths by guns of America?
Blah, blah, blah... Gas higher, Unemployment Higher, Inflation Higher, Foreclosures higher... Feels like 1979 again Only this idiots protected by the race card. No one dare say anything bad about Lord Obama.
not anywhere near enough and not anywhere near enough crooks in business , wall street , banking are in jail...and they are still stealing ..and paying themselves way too much ....arrogant thieves because they know they are safe and part of the elite you and would vote for you if you were in Canada - QUIT JOINING THE WRONG SIDE ...EVEN IF TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM THEIR WRATH ! GOD HATES A COWARD !!
What a minute the chart did not include all the people who lost their jobs two years ago and fell off the unemployment, If these people are included in the stats the unemployment actually rose 1% from the day Obama took office. I am happy that jobs are being created, but lets not confuse the facts.
"Don't let me get in my zone...I'm definitely in my zone"
Problem is, this graph is a lie.
That's right, this is not based on the actual data from the BLS!
I have a chart I did in about 10 minutes...the data directly from the BLS website, with citations so you can check it for yourself.
I voted for you! America loves obama!!!!!!!!!!! you keep going Mr prez!
Seems legit to me! Good work Mr. President, enjoy your second term :D Just please don't let congress shut you down! Channel a bit of LBJ, a Democrat who knew how and when to apply pressure. Just remember as always, "Animosity originating from disreputable gentlemen shall continually persist"
What happened in 2010? Why it started to grow??
best person that came along for America,, he might have stood on a few toes but gets the job done as long as congress lets him
+Ryan Hayes Here's the summary for the last 10 years Dec to Jan: 2003 +0.1, 2004 +0.2, 2005 -0.1, 2006 no change, 2007 no change, 2008 +0.2, 2009 -0.1, 2010 +0.2, 2011 -0.1, 2012 -0.3

The raw number of Americans working has gone down. The labor force is smaller.
IF you Americans think your ECONOMY is stagnet look at the rest of the world , and dont blame Obama blame Europe .... Im Australian and he's the only best bet you have the rest will F you over
Why is it i feel only the racist minority in America does not like there PRESIDENT ,,,, give peace a chance
"1984 "- George Orwell. and the Ministry of Truth.? The fact is the global economy is in a mess because it is totally over regulated and consequently business is being strangled. Go through the rule books and discard all laws that are impinging on peronal freedom - Free business , Mr President, and you will see reall growth..
Whether you like our President or not, it has nothing to do with race.

End. Of. Story.
Thank you for the increase in the sugar ration.
Once again the democrats are in the process to turn a bad US economy back into the positive, only to have everything destroyed and the American middle and lower class robbed by the Republicans again after their next win.
Mr. Obama, when do you think USA's and world's economy will be adjusted by governments, not by Federal Rezerve?
This is a FACT: notwithstanding the employment gains in January, there are fewer Americans working today than there were when George W. Bush took office in January 2001, and more than one million fewer Americans are working than when Barack Obama was inaugurated in January 2009. I don't see much to brag about here - anemic private sector gains place unemployment ONLY .5% HIGHER than when you inherited "the mess" that George W. supposedly, single-handedly created. But you see its positively spun here and even more vomit inducing is how liberals eat it up as Obama commands. I must ask....if Obama had campaigned in 2008 on the promise that, if he were elected, a million more Americans would be unable to find work, would you have voted for him? Or does it even matter? As long as he raises taxes, increases regulations, cripples business growth, instigates class warfare and ignores the Constitution the libs seem happy with whatever. Go figure. Obama and too many of his advisers simply do not understand how wealth and jobs are created. They (and he for sure) have little or NO experience in the private sector, they do not understand economics, and they think that parasitism is a viable strategy and if we could just spread the wealth....voila!!! The worst part is seeing them spin a "brag" on this. Thinking Americans aren't buying this, Mr. President. 
geeeesh. throw some positive vibes into the world and make it a better place. negative comments about positive things should be taken off.
an eye-popping employment growth for 2012!
Keep in mind people: this graph shows change, not absolute number, of jobs. Taken in the appropriate context, this graph actually shows that since Obama took office, we have lost more jobs than we have gained. The last 23 months of growth have still not made up for the prior 13 months of shrinking (which were far more significant changes).

Also, it's interesting that the graph only shows the red bars corresponding to shrinking just before Obama took office. The months before that showed major job growth, but this chart simply leaves that information out.

As they say, there are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
yep, I'm a graphic designer too. Would have charged $12 for this.
+Lin Speir If you don't get your information from the internet, where exactly do you get your up to date information from? Let me guess, Feaux News.
It's so funny watching Republicans squirm and watching their head explode with this president. All they bbs left is jobs and it's rapidly going away. Four years ago they were the party of national defense and anti terrorism. And since this President has done more for this country in the last 3 years than they managed to do in 7... they look stupid. I just love how they have painted themselves into a corner of irrelevancy.
+Gary Bell wrote, "...this President has done more for this country in the last 3 years than they managed to do in 7..."
You're right Gary.
He has lost more jobs.
He has spent more money.
He has put more people on food stamps.
He has put more people on other types of welfare.

If that's the more you like, then this is your President, that's for sure.

Of course, you're an idiot if you think this fool has done anything for America. More like he's doing it to us.
are you realy barack obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hi i am tanya dhawan from india
Long live Iraq. Long Live Afganistan , Long Live Palestine .
Mr Obama hi, i am from sri Lanka, I hope develop IT education in my country is it good?
+Andrei Tchijov +Ryan Hayes Financial stability at the expense of the very basis of our economy (the value of the dollar). That does not, and never has, made sense. When a runner gets a broken leg, you don't give him painkillers and a splint and tell him to get back out there and run more. You have to let the actual problem heal, or you're going to make it worse in the long run.

Americans need to learn a hard lesson...stop spending more than we make. If you buy only what you can afford, you can afford to buy more. However, if the Government encourages our bad credit behavior by doing exactly what the general public does (spending more than they have), the cost to the next generation will be inflation, lowered purchasing power, and rampant debt.

Just because we're moving right now is merely the result of about a trillion dollars got dumped on our economy, all at the expense of the future. All that really means is that GM can afford to make even MORE cars that they'll be unable to find a buyer for, leading to a bigger problem down the road. Ford had it right from about 10 years ago, meaning they didn't have to take bailouts, and are continuing to grow in popularity. According to Forbes, Ford has the best-selling car in 2011.

Final note: Financial stability is largely a result of public outlook. If people feel things are getting worse, they make them worse by changing how they spend. So, the word Recession being bandied about in the media since 2006 (see:, as well as many other sources) causes people to start panicking. And why? Companies didn't lose inventory. Banks didn't lose money. However, a perception that goods and the very American dollar was worth less began to grow, causing the very thing that everyone feared. Restore confidence in the system, and the system is nearly impregnable. Shake that confidence, and the system crashes like a house of cards.
If the chart says it is in the thousands and then on the side it says "k" wouldn't that mean the chart is talking about millions? 
this graph fails to mention that most of these jobs are going to illegal aliens or contracted to china and other countries, our unemployment is still the worst its been for a long time, the numbers dont show that though because they dropped off all the unemployed that have been on unemployment for so many years and the dont count the ones living in tents either.

so praise all you want but obama is still spending needlessly, not to mention attacking our bill of rights at every chance he gets.

this administration is tyrannical and I really hope for true change in2012.
I see the LIAR n Cheif is at it again.
That's a drop in the bucket compared to the millions that are unemployed!
+Lynda Clark Thats is how progess works, a little at a time. A little over a long time equals a lot. A bucket is just a lot of a little drops...
+Black Ice Do you even realize how foolish you sound? No, this job report does not include illegal jobs (like those you claim are going to illegal aliens) or jobs overseas.

I posted earlier the U6 numbers. That includes the under-employed and those that have stopped looking for work. It's gone down 1% in the last year. And, no, +Lynda Clark , that's not a drop in the bucket. Nor is the 276,000 government jobs that have been cut in the last 12 months (think how much better our economy would be if those people were still working).

Yes, there's still 15% of American unemployed or underemployed, there's still a lot to do, but it is getting better, despite the Republicans in Congress.
It's his fault he's half black and white though geez lol
So, ignoring the chart, think about what the economy was like in 2008. Restaurants were closing all over the place because no one was going out to eat. Construction was at a halt almost because there was so much uncertainty, and the stock market dropped daily. Today many restaurants are full again, construction is picking up again, particularly commercial buildings, and the stock markets are a little better though there is still quite a bit of fluctuation there. I can feel that the economy is improving and the increase in customers to the general contractor I work for have steadily risen.

Things aren't perfect, and they won't be for some time, but if you think adding a bunch of state and federally employed workers to the unemployment line, which would trim the budget, is the solution then take a look at Britain's economy after they imposed strict austerity
+Travis Cobb 4Q2008 GDP was NEGATIVE 9%. Job losses when Obama took over were 750,000 per month. Anyone who says Obama has made it worse is a liar. Austerity has never ended a recession. Ever. Anywhere.
Maybe the economy would be in better shape if the republicans would work more with the democrats. It makes me sick that these grown adults can't learn to get a long and just do what's right for all Americans. Not just their special interest groups.
+David Tyner If you think Ron Paul is going to be the next President, then I suggest you get over to Intrade and put your money where your mouth is. I've been taking Paulista money for a few weeks now, and your money is welcome in my pocket anytime!

You can buy shares of Ron Paul to be President for 13 cents a share right now!
+Scott Supak When I read +Travis Cobb 's post, I thought he was saying austerity isn't working in the UK, so let's not do it here. Which is what you're saying, right?
+Tim Johanneck Well, the GOP is afraid that if they work with the Kenyan Muslim Socialist Communist appeaser, then they'll get primaried by some crazy tea partier, so they're afraid. Whatever. Dems only need 25 seats to get the house back.
+Steve Anderson Yes. Austerity has never worked to end a recession. Ever. Anywhere. In fact, by taking people out of the work force, and money out of the system, it decreases demand, lowers sales, and causes more contraction.
+Brad Watts Stable during the Bush years? Yeah, stable and low. Bush said his tax cuts would create millions of jobs, and yet even the Wall Street Journal says that Bush had the worst job creation record of any modern president.

"President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.

"His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton‘s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office."
In fact, Obama's policies helped create more jobs in one year than Bush did in 8:

"Indeed, from February 2001, Bush’s first full month in office, through January 2009, his last, the economy added just 1 million jobs. By contrast, in 2010 alone, the economy added at least 1.1 million jobs."

But, then, you're a Republican, so you don't care about facts (I write as I look out my window in upstate NY in Feb to see NO SNOW on the ground)...
+David Hicks Care to back up your bull with some facts? Of course not. Cause you got nothin'.
+Kevin McClain Your ignorance is astounding. We have a recession because of the housing bubble. 8 trillion dollars in artificial wealth that could have been headed off by the Bush admin, but they were guarding hen houses with foxes, so they let the whole thing get out of control. The Bush SEC could have done all kinds of things to rein in the credit default swaps, and the ratings agencies calling crap AAA, but they didn't because all that artificial wealth was the only thing keeping their supply side crap from collapsing. And now that it has collapsed, and we've been dealing with the aftermath, people like you want to blame Obama for it. It's a sick joke and you should be ashamed of yourself for pushing such blatant falsehoods.

Most of the debt is because of Bush. In fact, the stimulus and other Obama spending is almost completely because we had to get out of the hole left in demand by Bush. Add the huge loss of revenues due to the Little Bush Depression, and the huge loss of demand because people can't tap their housing wealth anymore, and you get this Bushian disaster.

Anyone who knows anything about economics knows that the dollar is overvalued because rich people like their European vacations and imported cars, and Wal Mart likes importing cheap crap from China. If the dollar were to drop in value against the yuan (which China keeps high by buying dollar denominated assets, because of our trade deficit), then we would add millions of manufacturing jobs here.

Further, this idea that the government shouldn't spend more than it takes in is completely insane in the face of recession. Our safety net (that your boy Willard is so proud of) is full of automatic stabilizers like UI and food stamps, that go up because people need them in a recession. You, apparently, would be just fine with letting all those people become homeless, or worse.

And finally, I don't know what part of NEGATIVE INTEREST RATES you Austrians don't understand. Forget stimulus, Keynesianism, etc, and just look at the facts (I know, that's hard for you Republicans, but try to keep up here): We can currently borrow money at negative interest rates, meaning rich people will literally pay us to hold their money in a safe instrument. Construction workers are idle, and therefore can be hired for less than during boom times. Materials are cheap because of low demand. Construction equipment is idle, so it's cheap to use. And the American Society of Civil Engineers says we need to spend about $2 trillion on our crumbling infrastructure over the next 5 years.

So, why not borrow the money that is cheaper than taxing and spending later, employ out of work construction workers to use cheap materials and idle equipment to fix the damn infrastructure?

Or is there something about paying more than you have to for something that you enjoy? Maybe you would prefer to borrow that cheap money and start another war based on lies? Cause, you know, Willard's foreign policy team is a who's who of Dick "deficits don't matter" Cheney's best friends.
+Brad Watts The inconvenient truth for you is that GW Bush was a disaster, and that this president was handed the worst economy since the great depression. Makes the internet bubble Clinton handed Bush look like child's play.

All those people dropping out of the job market is because of the hole left in demand by the worst president in modern history. And what really pisses Rethuglicans like you off is that Bush was a miserable failure, completely discredited your supply-side nonsense, and now that Obama is making it better, you got nothin.

But I'll tell you this much, you got balls coming on here and trying to blame this mess on Obama. Just like people like you had balls when you were saying that Iraq had WMD, and that torture was a good thing, and that cutting taxes on rich people would create millions of jobs, and that global warming wasn't happening, and that gay marriage would ruin your marriage, or that gays in the military would ruin the military, or any of the other crazy crap that people like you just keep spewing, no matter what the facts are.
+Raymond Adolph What's your question about currency? Right now, the dollar is over-valued, especially vs. the Chinese yuan, because the Chinese have to buy lots of dollar denominated assets, because of the trade deficit. The Chinese also want to keep the dollar high vs. the yuan, because it makes their products cheaper to import to the US. If we lowered the value of the dollar, we would make US made products cheaper over seas, and create millions of jobs in the US.
+Octavio Araujo Please go to Intrade and back up your BS with some cash. You can buy Ron Paul to win the Presidency for 13 cents a share now. I will gladly take your money, since arguing with your incoherent BS about Corzine would be a waste of time.
+Jack Huesman The reason we are in this situation, Jack, is George Walker Bush.

So many facts for such little minds:

And there are so many others.

The FACT is that Bush let a housing bubble get out of control. His administration was supposed to police Wall Street. Instead, he let them run out of control. He did nothing to police Credit Default Swaps, or ratings agencies sticking AAA on what was actually crap. He cut taxes on the rich by unprecedented levels, and told us that it would create millions of jobs. It didn't. And when the housing bubble burst, 8 trillion dollars in imaginary wealth evaporated, leaving a huge hole in demand and the budget (the drop in tax revenues due to the recession was astounding).

So, the increase in welfare and food stamps and other spending was made necc. by your hero, the Decider, who completely destroyed the US economy. Try to keep up, OK?
+Scott Supak Thank you for the standard liberal tripe reply. I'm sure you don't think the housing bubble or banks engaging in speculative investing had anything to do with the Community Reinvestment Act (enacted under Carter), or Bill Clinton's Treasury Department requiring any bank that did business with the federal government to meet the requirements of the CRA?

You write, "and told us that it would create millions of jobs. It didn't."
The fact is, when G.W. Bush took office in January of 2001, the Total Civilian Workforce was 137.778 million jobs; when he left office in January 2009, the number was 142.187 million jobs, or a net gain of 4.409 million jobs. (source: Series LNS12000000)
So..your claim that, "It didn't" is either a lie or evidence that you're unable to check the facts for yourself.

When your hero B.H. Obama took office, as already stated above, there were 142.187 million people working. According to the same data series, there are now 141.637 million jobs, or a net job loss of 0.55 million jobs. There are half a million fewer people working now than when Obama took office.

So, your lame attempt to shift the blame is completely refuted by facts...sourced facts. Now the only question is, do facts have any place in your life, or do you continue to spew your made-up garbage in an attempt to make your party and your party's leader look like less of a disaster?

Thank you, and have a nice day.
+Jack Huesman Your desire to blame Obama for the collapse of the housing bubble is hilarious. But not as hilarious as your ignorant defense of the "facts" on GW Bush. So, I will turn to a source you no-doubt trust implicitly, the Wall Street Journal:

"The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton‘s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office."

But, hey, let's use the number you found: 4.4 million jobs created in 8 years. That's 45,833 jobs a month, on average, for GW. Since we need about 100,000 jobs per month to keep up with population growth, that means that GW Bush actually created about half of the jobs needed just to keep up with population growth.

Now, when we look at jobs under Obama, you seem to want to count the NEGATIVE 750,000 jobs per month when he took over from Bush as somehow Obama's fault. And, you want to count the people who dropped out of the job market because of lack of demand in the economy as somehow Obama's fault. This is disingenuous BS of Bushian levels indeed. Right up there with WMD, and torture is a good thing.

Now, by your figures, there are a half a million more people out of work than when O took office. At current rates of increase (~250k per month, minus the 100k per month for population growth) that's a POSTIVE 150K per month growth rate that will employ those half a million in just under 4 months. Maybe less if the rate of increase continues.

As for the cause of the housing bubble, well they are many, and Clinton, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. all had their hands in the deregulation game. Conservatives rightly point out that Clinton could have headed off the internet bubble. And yet they completely ignore their own point when it comes to the housing bubble. GW Bush and his Wall Street cronies could have easily headed off the housing bubble. But the regulatory agencies under Bush (and not just financial regulators, either, see the BLM mess) were foxes guarding hen houses. They were looking the other way while all the crap was getting sold as AAA. They didn't care.

So, now that your lame attempt to blame Obama has been refuted by your own facts, I don't suppose you'd care to fess up to that, now would you?

No, I suppose next up on your conservative hits list will be to blame Fannie and Freddy. God, you guys are so predictable.

Oh, and good luck with Willard Romney as your nominee. I have never seen a worse candidate in my many years paying attention to this stuff.
+Scott Supak Oh Scott, you're such a hypocrite, but that's not surprising for a liberal.
You are so quick to point out the necessary 100k jobs/month required to keep up with population growth when you want to denigrate President Bush, but you completely forget about it when you talk about President Obama!
Okay, fine...there are 500k fewer real jobs now than when Obama took office, so if we then figure in the 36 months * 100k/month figure...Obama is down OVER 4 MILLION JOBS.

I bet you just hate it when your own "logic" comes back and bites you, don't you? lol

Thank you for at least admitting that GW Bush was not the only cause of the housing collapse, by the way. I will give you credit for that, because most liberals won't even admit to that obvious fact.
Could the Bush administration have done more? Probably, but do remember that it was Democrats in Congress like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd that were blocking Bush's and John McCain's attempts to overhaul the regulatory oversight of Freddie, Fannie, and Wall Street investment houses.
obviously we are going in the right direction !!
President Barack Obama if you want to win again,continue ending with the war and showing to american people and the world that you are a pacifist.Our world need of you but in a world without war.we need to give a chance to the peace again,but just now!!!!!!!Go President Barack,but now!!!!!!Is the time!Today!!!!
+Jack Huesman Ah, yes, there it is. The conservative blaming of Barney Frank and Frannie and Freddie. Perhaps you've heard of the SEC? Perhaps you're familiar with the conservative argument, which has some merit, that we have plenty of regulations, but bad regulators? That is precisely my argument here. I don't see nearly enough regulating going on from Obama (although conservative lie and say he's over-regulating). But there was NO effort by the Bushies to do anything about the crap that was spreading like a disease throughout the Financial System. NO EFFORT. If anything, Bush helped the damn thing along with his "ownership society" crap.

Now, on your feeble attempts to throw my logic back in my face, YES! Obama had to deal with MASSIVE job losses when he took over, and you are calculating those job losses into Obama's numbers despite the fact that those were Bush's numbers. Since you're apparently uneducated in economic matters, employment is a LAGGING indicator. So, when Bush took office, some of his bad numbers were Clinton's fault, but after a while his numbers got a little better. Over the long haul, however, say Bush's last 7 years, we see truly awful numbers from W. Even the WSJ admitted it.

So, let's be fair and say Obama's numbers shouldn't include the awful numbers from the Little Bush Depression. Now, count up the jobs Obama has helped create since the Little Bush Depression officially ended, and we see much better numbers indeed.

Now a little more economics: recessions that follow financial crisis last longer and are worse than usual recessions. So, Obama got handed an even bigger shit sandwich than Bush did, and yet Obama has better numbers since the end of the Little Bush Depression than Bush did anywhere in his two terms.

Of course, the best bit from your pie hole is that GW Bush and John McCain were trying to do anything to "regulate" Wall Street. Both of those assholes were out there pushing the "ownership society" crap as best they could.

Let's see where this economy goes from here. I'm willing to bet that we're seeing the beginning of a real recovery that will get us back to trend before the election, wherein Obama will trounce Willard Romney and the people like you who cheered on the disastrous policies of the Bush Administration from Iraq to Wall Street.
+Scott Supak Scott, I like you, you make me laugh...a lot actually. I'm sorry you're uncomfortable with the fact that Chris Dodd killed John McCain's bill to fix the housing market before it crashed. I'm sorry your tiny worldview can't incorporate the fact that Barney Frank was protecting his boyfriend at Fannie Mae when he killed proposals in the House to fix the speculative trading in the housing market before the crash.

Now, I've clearly, as evidenced by your agitation and degrading language, upset you. I'm sorry for hurting your feelings with the truth, that was never my intention. I just wanted to try and teach you some facts. So I'll try to only teach you one thing per post as to take it easy on your brain and your emotions.

You said, in your last post, "Over the long haul, however, say Bush's last 7 years, we see truly awful numbers from W."
Please go look at "Total Civilian Employment" Series LNS12000000 at for the last seven years of G.W. Bush's presidency.
Jan 2002: 135.701 million jobs
Jan 2009: 142.187 million jobs
So, in your world, gaining over 6 million jobs is truly awful?
As I said, Scott, you do make me laugh.
And if you really want to press things and continue to try and blame Bush for stuff that carried over into Obama's term, I can play the same game and say that most of the job losses in Bush's last year came from people realizing that Obama was going to win the election. So if I stopped counting job losses for Bush at, let's say, September (just as you think the first few months after January 2009 shouldn't be counted as Obama job losses), then the number for GWB would be 145.059 million jobs, or nearly 10 million jobs gained.

So, you sure you want to play your silly little liberal games with me? I'll keep making you sad and upset if you do, because this is an argument you can't win with the truth, and I will expose all your lies...and eventually I'll quit caring if it hurts your feelings.

And I'll make you a deal. Even if your feelings are hurt because of the destruction of your false worldview...please refrain from calling past Presidents names. In exchange, I won't call the current one any of the names he actually deserves. What do you say?
+Jack Huesman So many errors, in such a small space. I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but sadly, it takes a lot more space to prove claims wrong then it does to make them.

1.CRA has nothing to do with the housing bubble.

"data provided by the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) reveal that loans covered by the CRA accounted for only a fraction of mortgage lending to lower-income borrowers and neighborhood"

The data clearly shows that the vast majority of subprime lending was conducted by lenders outside of CRA scrutiny, and therefore under no government ‘coercion’ to lend to lower income and/or higher risk borrowers.

There are many other studies showing the same thing. Let me know if you need more to be convinced.

I know blaming poor people, especially poor non-white people, for the economic crisis is a favorite hobby horse of the pseudo-conservative, but it's completely invalid.

2. Fannie and Freddie were not the cause of the housing crisis; really they were unwitting accomplices; private mortgage securitization was a primary cause of the mortgage crisis.

Fannie and Freddy did not force the rating agencies to mis-rate risk, did not force bankers to originate garbage in return for huge bonuses, did not force banks to spin tales of structuring the risk out of investments, did not force fund managers to buy toxic waste that they little understood, did not force regulators to dismiss concerns with blind faith in the marketplace and distribution of risk.

From a 2011 report analyzing the role Fannie and Freddie had, "actual high-risk activity by Fannie and Freddie was neither sufficient in volume nor did it come at the right time to persuasively argue that the two mortgage finance giants drove the surge in actual high-risk lending we saw in the 2000s. ... [Fannie and Freddie] did not buy enough of [high-risk mortgage-backed securities] to be blamed for the mortgage crisis."

See for more and links to the report.

3. You're blaming Democrats for blocking regulation? Really? What world do you live in? Rep. Frank actually was against the "ownership society" that President Bush was pushing for. He wanted to steer those who would struggle to buy a house to rent, but President Bush was against that.

"In 2005, Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, worked with committee chairman Rep. Michael Oxley (R-OH) on the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, which would have established the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to replace the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) as overseer of the activities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He, in the end, voted against the bill because (guess who, yup, Republicans) put an amendment on the bill that would have prevented non-profits from receiving funding under the bill.

In early 2007, as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank sponsored H.R. 1427, a bill to create the FHFA, granting that agency "general supervisory and regulatory authority over" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and directing it to reform the companies' business practices and regulate their exposure to credit and market risk. Among other things, Frank's legislation, titled the "Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007," directed the FHFA director to "ensure" that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "operate[] in a safe and sound manner, including maintenance of adequate capital and internal controls" and to establish standards for "management of credit and counterparty risk" and "management of market risk." The FHFA was eventually created after Congress incorporated provisions that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said were "similar" to those of H.R. 1427 into the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, which the president signed into law on July 30, 2008."

Read more

Of course, it was too late then. Delay was caused by ... yup, Republicans.

4. Job growth - let's not use back of the napkin math, lets use real numbers.

See and and
Average 2001 non-farm jobs - 131,826 (monthly not available)
January 2010 non-farm jobs- 133,563

Yup, 8 years and about 1.7 million job growth for Pres. Bush (the 2nd) (about 200k a year).

By March, though, the numbers were down to 132,041. Pres. Obama's policies were not having any impact yet. So, 8 years of Bush, no net jobs.

December 2011 non-farm jobs - 132,166

Yup. Less than 4 years of Pres. Obama and we have positive job growth.

There's still a long way to go to make up for the number of lost jobs due to the recession (we were at 137,996 in 2008, plus a lot of new workers need jobs), but the recent growth makes me very hopeful.

See and
I no that the united states has alot of unemployed people for the past years but still people need to find jobs to support themselves and if there familys to
+Jack Huesman You can't use the LNS12000000 the way you are because the numbers use different benchmarks. Mine are correct.
+Jack Huesman Screw your deal. John McCain's bill wouldn't have done shit to stop the shinnanigans on Wall Street, and you know it, but you have to hold onto that one tiny thread or your whole house of cards falls apart like Bush's Ownership Society. And Bush didn't need the McCain bill. There were plenty of existing regulations that could've been enforced (and still could be) that were not. That is entirely the fault of the executive branch under Gee Where's the WMD Bush.

My agitation has nothing to do with your fantasy world, it has to do with liars like you who cheered on the Chimp in Chief while he was lying about Iraq, ignoring what happened on Wall Street, gutting environmental law, and all the other fun stuff that he and Dick "deficits don't matter" Cheney managed to force through during the years of GOP control of congress.

But I now bow to the long list of refutation from +Steve Anderson (which is very well done), and wait to hear more of your Bush Cheering Bullshit on all of those salient points.

Oh, and apparently +Nathan Choplin thinks long comments are bad, especially when they expose the right wing lies that people like you, Jack, have to stick to because your rigid ideology demands it.

So, bring it on, to quote Dubya. Let's hear all your names for Obama. I can't wait to see that crap get picked apart like the rotting carcass it is.
+Nathan Choplin I'm sorry, it takes some time to prove these persistant pseudo-conservative claims wrong; there's just enough truth in them to make them seem true.

But, dude if it's too hard for you to concentrate long enough to get through it, don't read it.
+Steve Anderson So many facts for the GOP to contemplate, such little minds for them to do so with...

"Could it be that racist people are dumb? Here is another question to ponder; are conservatives less intelligent than liberals? Brock University, in Ontario, has released an interesting new study that suggests the answer to both of those questions could be a resounding yes."
+Matthew Johnson So? Our debt skyrocketed during WWII also, and future generations after that did just fine.

And, most of our current debt is from GW Bush, who turned a surplus into record debt by cutting taxes for the rich (which did not create the jobs he said it would), lying us into a trillion dollar war, and putting medicare part D on the credit card because Dick Cheney told him deficits don't matter.

Seriously. Go look at that graph. It's astounding that people like +Jack Huesman want to blame Obama for the actions of the worst President in modern history.

Our future debt is entirely from the high cost of medical care. If we paid anywhere close to what the rest of the world pays for health care, we'd have surpluses as far as the eye could see.

Republicans want to make up for the high cost of medical care by making seniors and poor people pay more for it. I think there's a better way.
+Scott Supak I don't think pseudo-conservatives are inherently racist or less intelligent, but I do believe they want the world to be a certain way, and it's not. That's not really less intelligent, but it does put one in a position that's similar to that of a person defending their religion - they start with "this is what I believe" then cherry pick data to match their beliefs.
What this also doesn't show is how it was Reaganomics that actual destroyed America. Now where were they to help cleanup the mess that decades of deregulation and Wealthy-entitlements created?
+DANIEL HOGUE Great point. It's 30 years of pseudo-conservative economic philosophy that has put us where we are now.
+DANIEL HOGUE Middle class income growth became decoupled from productivity growth in 1981, when Reagan became president. He promptly broke the back of unions, and it's been downhill ever since.
+Steve Anderson I don't think all of any group are any one way or another. But in general I think they tend to display problems with basic cognitive functions. For example, every bit of violence I've ever been the victim of is the result of a conservative freaking out because they couldn't argue with me. They answered by punching me in the head.

Further, I grew up in the south. And every time I heard a racist joke or slur, it was a conservative making it.

Lee Atwater developed the "southern strategy" for a reason. It works.
+Matthew Johnson Without question +Barack Obama added to the deficit during his presidency, primarily due to the 1st stimulus bill as well as the second (extending unemployment insurance and payroll tax cut for all of 2011). He also added to the deficit by signing The Affordable Care Act into law. Most reputable economists agree that the most effective way of ending a deep recession or a depression is by increasing government spending. You can continue to claim that the stimulus bill was a failure all you want, the fact is, without it this recession would have been much much worse. Instead of shedding three quarters of a million jobs a month, the increase in government spending has led to roughly 3 million jobs created. In addition, it prevented the loss of at least a few million more teachers, firefighters, and police officers who would have been victims of massive cuts at the state level. Add to that the bailout of the auto industry, and I'd say Obama made the right call by adding to the deficit.

With respect to health care, the CPO has consistently stated that the Affordable Care Act will reduce the deficit by around 143 billion over the next 10 years, though there will be large upfront costs that will add to the deficit in the short run. Again, I'd say Obama made the right call be adding to the deficit in the short run in order to ensure long term prosperity.

Once the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire, we'll also be closer to fixing our structural deficit.
+Matthew Johnson Well, except for the salary cut, Pres. Obama did what you asked (ask the American people to pay more taxes and accept less benefits).
+Matthew Johnson Neither Pres. Bush nor Pres. Obama are completely responsible for the deficits run while they are in office. They both inherited polices from previous administrations that have a big impact.

However, and this is a very important fact, the Bush tax cuts and the invasions are the largest pieces of our current deficit. Neither of those have gone away yet, and it's pretty hard to lay either of those costs at the feet of the Obama administration. Those tax cuts are a big part of why the deficit sky rocketed during the worst part of the recession (President Obama's first two years).

Here's a great article on these items and their impact -
+Lin Speir are you on crack been on Mars or do you honestly believe President Obama is the one who tanked our economy started a war on the basis of lies and then lied when they got caught lying smdh!!! #justsayno
+Josh Brock as a African American I'm use to people like you minimizing any accomplishment made by one of us its as old as this nation smdh Republican party will exile you clowns like the Democrats its all just a big circle llf I bet you one of them guys getting that GOP teabagging
+Dave Offerman African American people vote dem as a block because we've been sold out by the GOP on top of that the Dixiecrats we're expelled from the Democratic party after LBJ won so they could win the GOP excepted with open arms not knowing the was going to loose the core of their base so since then they have been atempting to do what they always have reverse the post civil. War era. Laws and they almost succeeded
Obama can even better.
At least i hope so.
The beauty of all this discussion is the hypocrisy. The Republicans have had the majority of what they are asking to keep for decades. Taking that into account, why haven't the Republicans fixed the economy? They are fighting to keep the wealthy-entitlements they have had for 3 decades. During that 3 decades please show me the graph or chart that shows the true benefits the Country has received while the "Job Creators" have had what they wanted? They should have fixed the Country on pure principal. Stop the political rhetoric and prove themselves. Show us what you will do when we need it not when you hold the Country hostage. If the Republicans would help the country without mandating that they have to be entitled more than they already are, I will listen.
This is good stuff and not for the faint of heart republican lol. Keep it coming. 
BTW, as to the fact that Obama added to the deficit. You are 100% correct. But I have never heard of any leader , business person or mogul being able to run a multi-billion dollar organization with no money. It is funny that Republicans talk up how much Obama has added to the deficit. The truth is Obama trying to make things more transparent is the only reason why Republicans have the arguement to present. The prior administration just lied and covered it all up. They hid behind congressional mandates and lies. They waged / started two wars and never considered being able to pay for either war ( necessary or not ). They then created a stimulus package and hung it around the neck of the incoming administration. Do not forget that the previous democratic administration left GWB with the largest surplus in US history. Then they handed off the, at the time, largest deficit in US history (just8 years later). So go ahead and act like that isn't the root of all these issues. That is why Americans are now so critical of the Republican party. The lies have caught up to you and rhetoric doesn't work anymore.
Why people keep talking down of obama, he's doing everything he said he was going to do, dam republicans mess up everything!
Mr. President!
Given all the problems the world and the US is facing, why on earth are BILLIONS of $$ spent on hot fusion projects, which have NEVER produced any excess energy... and while nothing is spent on LENR (which is deliberately sabotaged by the hot fusion community because that is how they finance their lives), LENR, which even NASA and your countries most notable government and military laboratories have all accepted and/or proven to be factual.
YOU could be the president, which changes the world of energy production, produce millions of jobs in the US and the world, save our planet from pollution through the use of carbon based fuels, and solve the problem of nuclear waste by transmutation, all of which is possible with LENR.
I watched you on your first Google+ hangout and want to believe that you are the president for the 99% and the 1%, not the other way around.
+Matthew Johnson Without the bail-outs and stimulus, you'd be looking at a depression, not a recession, and we'd be "toughing it out" for at least a decade, probably more. As for balancing the budget, that can't be done without deep cuts in domestic and defense spending. Deep cuts in domestic spending would lead to more unemployment, and further contraction of the economy. Deep cuts in defense spending would not have allowed us to draw down the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in a safe and responsible manner. It sounds so logical to say all we need to do is balance the budget....until you consider the implications. Yeah, balancing the budget at the height of the recession would have been a big mistake. 
Cooking the books, Barry? Come onnnnn, man. No one believes your make-believe numbers. We might be thoroughly propagandized by your media, but we're not stupid. Unemployment is really about 11% if you include those who have simply given up looking for work. Stop lying, Barry. It's ugly.
oh my....if it tht real one,i would say CONGRATULATION 4U.S. citizen.if not,Barack will b 1term President..
Thanks Mr. President to you.
That's Mr. President to you.
+Matthew Johnson The deficit is about $1T this year. Using your number, $226B is due to loss of revenue from the Bush tax cuts. Direct costs for Iraq and Afghanistan was $159B in 2011. That's nearly 40% of the deficit this year.
I want to speak to the people of Yemen
muath alasadi
Yeah but what has Obama done for me lately?
+Matthew Johnson Our debt to GDP ratio is too high, without question. My argument is that trying to balance the budget in 2009, rather than stimulate the economy and save our financial and auto industries, would have been devastating and irresponsible. However, steps have been attempted since then to draw down our debt and reduce the deficit since 2010. Obama was unable to get anything substantive done because the GOP refused to consider any revenue increases. As you have rightly pointed out, tackling this mess is going to take some sacrifices on many fronts. The Bush tax cuts have to go, Defense spending must be cut, Medicare and Social Security need some tweaking, and a lot of tax loopholes need to be closed. All of these things have been pushed forby the president already. It remains to be seen whether the GOP will be willing to make those same sacrifices. 
I wish I met him once in a lifetime
+Matthew Johnson And who would that forceful president be? None of the GOP candidates are calling for any increases in revenue. You say Obama hasn't gone far enough, but his opponents won't even go that far. Is there some mystery candidate I don't know about? 
+Matthew Johnson What part of negative interest rates don't you understand?

And why are Republicans only interested in debt and deficits when a Democrat is in the White House?

Our long-term debt is completely the function of the fact that we pay more than twice as much per person for health care than the rest of the world. If we paid even close to what the rest of the world does for health care, we'd have surpluses as far as the eye could see.

Now, one party has taken a very middle of the road approach to reining in health care costs, and the other has decided that it's just fine to have millions of people going to the ER instead of being covered. Now why would Republicans prefer having people in the ER instead of coverage, when the ER is the most expensive way to deliver health care to people?

Or maybe you're one of the GOPers who cheered when it was suggested that we just let people die?
What a bunch of negitivity !!!!! give the president a break !!! remember he's not the one who put us here, he's the ONE who is getting us out of the horrible mess. Let's face it. KEEP UP THE GREAT JOB Mr. PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, not all Americans are negitive. GOD BLESS YOU & good luck with the Congress, that's who Americans should be blaming not you
+Matthew Johnson For sure? Aren't you assuming that Ron Paul's coattails would sweep in a bunch of Republican Senators and Congressmen who would break from the Republican tradition of running up huge deficits?

But hey, while you're dreaming of President Paul and the neo-confederate revival of Jim Crow and Forced Births, why don't you go over to Intrade and bet on Paul to win the nomination and the Presidency. I'd like to take your money.
I was unaware of that info..Actually i heard that there was pin fall in stock-market .
+Matthew Johnson I stand by my statement as correct.

Those two items, inherited from the Bush administration, amount for a large chunk of the deficit. That should be acknowledged in ever discussion about the deficit, and they should be the first items to be worked on when looking to decrease the deficit.

Talking about what Pres. Obama supports, or what he would do if given carte blanche by Congress leads us down a rat hole ("If Congress has passed a bill on X that the president wants, the deficit would be Y").

Besides, repealing a tax cut is a different policy problem then cutting taxes. Everyone wants a tax cut, even if they, in their own heart, know it's going to cause problems in the long run for the country. It's good politics to cut taxes, it helps you get re-elected. Very few people are actually willing to stand up and say, "Yeah, I should be paying higher taxes".

Is raising taxes good politics? No, but some politicians can overcome it. Compare what happened to Pres. Reagan (his 1982 tax increase [during a recession] was, and may still be, the largest tax increase ever) and Pres. Bush (the 1st). Reagan got re-elected, and some people think it's sacrilege to say he raised taxes, while Pres. Bush (the 1st) got tossed out, partly because he raised taxes.

I hope that when Pres. Obama gets re-elected, he'll be able to take some tough stands on revenue increases. I think he's already got a good start on that with the cost cutting (standing up to Republican threats not to follow through on the debt agreement).

Lastly, you are right, the cost for the invasions will probably be smaller this year, but we don't have any idea how much smaller, so last year's number is the best information we have.
+Matthew Johnson I find it interesting that you've chosen to ignore my points. So, let's talk about the part of the deficit Obama is responsible for. That would be the stimulus, which wouldn't have been necessary if it weren't for the Little Bush Depression, Afghanistan, and the extension of the Bush Tax cuts. Well, it seems you've completely, and conveniently for your argument, left out the huge drop in revenues that are a direct result of the Little Bush Depression.

For those of us who care about facts, here's a chart that shows that spending increased under O, but basically followed trend and is actually leveling out, while revenues dropped precipitously and have stayed low because of the Little Bush Depression.

But then, some of us don't care about facts.

I'm more curious about how +Matthew Johnson thinks Willard Rawmoney will ever balance the budget when his tax plan cuts taxes for the rich, raises them a little on the poor (oh, yeah, big pool of money there) and the puts his foreign policy team of Dick "deficits don't matter" Cheney's best friends to work on an invasion of Iran that Willard will have to put on the credit card, since he'll be dropping revenues even more.

It's all a part of the "starve the beast" plan, or "drown it in the bathtub" plan, wherein people like +Matthew Johnson cheer for the presidential candidate who prefers to let old people and children go without health care and die.
Matthew Johnson - You are really short sighted at times. You have access to real information, so use it. The real problem is the whole team against team mentality. Republicans vs Democrats vs Independents. Whenever games are played remember there has to be a winner and loser. Why are we all not trying to be Americans. Why is it you only fight against entitlements you perceive for poor and lower class. Why are you not up in arms for all the entitlements the wealthy have had and continue to have? Fact is how can anyone honestly sit here and think you can deal with a out of control deficit without collecting taxes from those that have 80 - 90 percent of all the wealth in America? Math is simple. Propaganda and rhetoric are complicated and divisive. Rich people are always shouting that poor people need jobs to pay there fair share. Lets focus on the term fair. If you already have climbed the ladder of success to live the American Dream (now it is the American Nightmare ), why should the Rich get tax breaks and entitlements? If poor people are working the system, the Rich are manipulating and abusing the system! Poor people out number the Rich in numbers. So why is it they do not get what they want ? Democracy is majority rules. So what now Republicans? The top one percent control the money which controls the lobbyists which influence Congress and policies. That is not Democracy that is Socialism. Look up the definition don't go by the rhetoric you are told. Funny the hypocrisy of the Republicans (socialist) agenda that they the few naturally know whats best for the masses. The whole capitalism thing is why the economy crashed. In simple terms it is called greed.
+Matthew Johnson Here's some more fun facts for GOPers:

Cost of Afghanistan war: $498 billion.

Cost of War in Iraq: $800 billiion.

Of course, the long term cost of just the war in Iraq will run much larger than that, once health care for the injured vets is included.

As for Afghanistan, well, GW Bush was handed a memo on Aug. 6, 2001, that warned him about an attack, and he said "OK, you've covered your ass." John Ashcroft told agents of the FBI and justice department to never come to him with terrorism crap again. Hell, read Richard Clark's book. People were running around with their hair on fire trying to war Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft that something big was going to happen, and they did NOTHING!

Both of those wars could have been avoided if the assholes in the WH had done their damn job and protected us. But that's just another inconvenient truth that Rethuglicans like Matt want us to forget.
BTW, I am a patriot and love America. But we all have to take a step back and realize that 911 was the act that pulled the curtain back on all the financial lies. Since then numerous global ponzi schemes have been outed. They were well hidden but when the system got shaken up and had to be reset, Fake money and fake equity could not be reset. Transparency is scary but a useful tool. Obama has used it well. But make no mistake he is no savior he is just one man trying to do the best for America. He is trying against all odds to run the presidency how it should be run. That is why he didn't strong arm Congress or try to run rough shot over them. Working together is Americas key to success and rising back to our stature of Leadership in the World. I still have not heard anyone explain why the Rich should get to keep their Wealthy entitlements over those in the Country which do not have access and influence. Pay to play. Why should you get a discount for having everything? Why does a millionaire or billionaire need a break for anything? The lie about job creation is just that, a lie. Look at Wallstreet, Mitt Romney, and Gingrich. What jobs do they create? What do they export? Nothing it is all a shell game. They are making money off moving money and investing it in different places. Wallstreet itself makes its biggest gains off the markets remaining volatile (positively or negatively). These are systematic problems which cut taxes does not fix. Please real responses not rhetoric. I listen to all and verify.
+Matthew Johnson The budget is complicated. I believe it's much better to focus on what policies contribute to the deficit and work on improving those, then in assigning blame. But if you want to assign blame, then you have to look at the policies in place when a President took office. So, when someone says (paraphrasing other's comments), "Don't re-elect Obama, he's responsible for the huge deficits we are running" a reasonable person has to say, "Wait a minute, he's not the only responsible person here".

It is undeniable that those two items (tax cuts and invasions) amount for a huge chunk of our deficit, and they were put into place in the previous administration. Pres. Obama has had to try to deal with a huge revenue decrease, due to the Bush tax cuts, and a big defense budget spend, due to the invasions. Pretending that the deficit is solely his fault is clearly incorrect.

Does the current administration share some of the blame? Of course, after all, they are in control now, and have been for 3 years. However, when you look at actual policy choices, usually, they have been fairly sound fiscally, balancing resolving our current economic crisis and the future (stimulus and health reform, as two notable examples) with budgetary restraint (like trying to roll back the Bush tax cuts, forcing Congress to stay to the agreement on the budget cuts).

So, rather than talking about the deficit, talk about specific policies. That's where change can happen. For example, I believe the entire "temporary" Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire. However, it might make sense to do it in stages, based on the economy. Letting them expire on high earners will have little impact on the economy, so start with that. Then, when things are going better, let them expire for the rest of us. If President Obama doesn't take on that fight, then I think his policy choice is a poor one, but I still won't blame the deficit on him.
+Matthew Johnson Ron Paul? You've mentioned in a few posts that Obama only wants the tax cuts on the to 2% to expire, and that won't solve the debt problem we are faced with. You've also mentioned it's going to take a president with a spine to tell the American people they need to "pay more taxes and accept less benefits". I haven't heard Ron Paul mention paying more taxes....Have I missed something? He'll balance the budget by dramatically reducing our military's role on the world stage (something the establishment GOP will never allow), eliminating several executive departments, gutting social programs for the economically disadvantaged, and eliminating any federal role in health care. He also feels a large part of the problem is that our currency has been devalued since the 70s, and eliminating the Fed and returning to the gold standard will provide more strength and stability to the once mighty dollar. This will be bad for two reasons. First, a stronger dollar makes American goods more expensive in other countries, which will exacerbate our trade imbalance. Second, the reason why we left the gold standard in the first place is because being on the gold standard during the Great Depression made it more difficult to respond to the banking crisis. The gold standard was a major contributing factor in the collapse of the banks in 1932. For all these reasons, I cannot support Ron Paul. His stance on civil liberties sounds great, but he had too many dangerous policy stances.
I have been watching this graphs since it looked like a bikini. It just keeps getting better!
Mer Le président Barak Obama
Je Suis elmoustakib Elarbi Réside à tunisie j'espère Biên Que Vous m'aidez AVEC UNE Somme d'argent Dans mon Compte Qui est Banque Payoneer sous N: 5308 1700 0284 2010 seulemen versez vivre merci beaucoup president
Dañs L'attente D'Une Réponse Que j'espère favorable, veuillez agréer monsieur le président, l'expression de mes salutations de Sincères
Wonderful news! You said it wouldn't happen over night, but your efforts are coming to frution!
Your ignorance is showing if you call Ron Paul a "loony old guy." He's the best chance this country has to getting back on its feet. All those other douchebags haven't got a clue.
+Matthew Johnson One thing that's important to note about this, is that the Obama administration made economic recovery a higher priority then deficit reduction. I'm glad they did. It's working. Once we get over the hump, then it's time to talk deficit. That's exactly what they are doing.

Health care is one of the key places, and the reform pushed through by the administration will lead to long term improvements (more so if more of the President's plan had been put into place). The future is bright, now, since the pieces are in place to go for real health care reform.

Another is that the administration is holding Congress to its pledge they made - if the Super Congress failed, $1.2T in automatic cuts would go into effect. The Republicans in Congress are trying to back-pedal ( and he's not going to let them.

And then, of course, there's the deficit reduction plan he unveiled which "uses entitlement cuts, tax increases and war savings to reduce the federal deficit by more than $3 trillion over the next 10 year" (

The last one is important for you to read, as it is a policy statement for cutting spending, too, something you said he hasn't planned doing.

Your claim that Ron Paul, or any individual, can balance the budget in two years is ludicrous. Making those kinds of changes so quickly would lead to financial chaos, not to mention very, very poor government. It took a long time to get where we are, and it will take a long time to fix it.
+Matthew Johnson Sorry, you're going to have to show an actual relationship between issues related to debt and the size of debt to GDP ratio before I'll take such a random stat as important. Your links shows it's comparatively low for Spain, yet there is a lot of concern that Spain will default. On the other side, France is over 100% and isn't in any serious danger. It seems to me this GDP to debt ratio is a fairly recent scare tactic, rather than a rational economic indicator.

The best way to increase revenues is by improving the economy. That will have a huge short term and long term impact on the deficit. Focusing on deficit reduction and not economic growth would have increased the deficit, in the long term, much more.
These figures will certainly the republican camp and Mr.Mitt Romney right off! My god,do you think he would come to these shores and teach us how to create jobs? Labour couldn't do it and now the Tories are struggling too.
+Matthew Johnson You are affirming what I said.

Spain is having problems not because the ratio between debt and GDP, but because of other issues. Belgium is not having problems, even though the ratio is high.

So, the ratio is just a scary number, with no real impact. It's the underlying issues that determine whether there is an issue or not.

I'm sorry that you don't see that economic health is the most important part of the deficit equation. It's really quite obvious, and absolutely the opposite of voodoo (supply side) economics. In a bad economy, government revenues decrease. In a good economy, they increase. No change to government policies, just a change in the economy. If that's not plain to you, I'm not really sure where to go with this discussion.
+Matthew Johnson I thought you were saying it was the deficit to GDP ratio that was the problem. But wait, it's not, at least not for Spain or Belgium, it's these other things (recent changes to deficit spending). At least that's how I'm reading your last comment. So which is it? Change in the deficit or deficit as a percentage of GDP? Or some other magic number, made up to reinforce your belief?

From my vantage point, you haven't shown any correlation between high deficit and economic issues. You apparently hold that to be a self-evident truth, but I'm not buying it.
+Matthew Johnson Right, debt and deficit are different. Which do you care about? You started with deficit, now you are talking about debt.
+Matthew Johnson Oh, and, regardless of which you care about, or even if you care about both, you still haven't shown any cause/effect relationship between debt/deficit and economic issues.
+Matthew Johnson Let's go back to what you wrote, "Last month, our debt surpassed our GDP, so we are allready in a very economically precarious situation, " - is that actually indicative of a precarious situation or not? Seems to me that it's not, but I'm still open minded, and waiting to be convinced.
Funny how you never hear OWS mention how greedy Obama's buddy Mark Zuckerberg many jobs could be created with the BILLIONS he and the other richest 1%er's from Google and Microsoft have been ripping the taxpayers off with.

About the Greenlining Institute

"The Greenlining Institute is a national policy, research, organizing, and leadership institute working for racial and economic justice. We ensure that grassroots leaders are participating in major policy debates by building diverse coalitions that work together to advance solutions to our nation’s most pressing problems. Greenlining builds public awareness of issues facing communities of color, increases civic participation, and advocates for public and private policies that create opportunities for people and families to make the American Dream a reality."

Profit Shifting 101:
How to Make Profits Invisible to the IRS

"Using techniques to move profits to tax haven countries, U.S. companies amassed at least $1 trillion in foreign profits that are not taxed in the U.S. and will cost the U.S. government $199 billion in revenue from 2011 through 2015. This section illustrates how multinationals amass large profits that go untaxed in the United States, using Google Inc.’s “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich” structure as an example of an easily-replicable structure similar to what many U.S. multinationals are using, including Pfizer and Facebook."
This is great news and hard to refute, great job Mr president sir. I have an idea on jobs and wanted to get thoughts? Currently made in USA goods, are taxed 20% for import fees into china. Good made in China are taxed .06% percent by the US government. Why have we not tried to raise the USA import fees to even 2%. This would encourage several things: 1) more federal tax revenue to cover the budget 2) the return of manufacturing jobs

We keep hedging our bets with consumers buying made in USA products.This only works for products China can not produce or can not produce at a cheaper cost. Namely natural gas, oil and crops are things we have leverage on. Weshould have the upper hand, since china can only product goods that are not commodities.
Mr. President, I would like you to come job shadow me for awhile.

SGT William Lytle
US Army Infantry
The country sure deserves some good news. Roll on recovery!
Want to create more jobs? Create demand. How to create demand? Make problems more often and things brake more often. Is this sustainable? No.
Good job Mr. President. Keep moving forward. Believe.
your doing a good job prez YES WE CAN
+Matthew Johnson That's a very simplistic rule. Often, deficit spending is important, such as the stimulus spending to get us out of a recession.

Can you prove your rule?
+Matthew Johnson Sorry, it's not that simple.

Blaming the entire economic crisis in Europe on debt is simply wrong. See for a great discussion on the topic.

In Spain and Ireland, the debt came about due to underlying issues in the private sector. Debt is the secondary issue, not the primary.

A lot of the problems are also due to trade imbalances in the Eurozone. Again, those trade imbalances are more primary than the debt.

Perhaps the real is actually monetary policy, not debt, since a shared monetary policy makes it difficult for countries like Spain or Greece to devalue their currency, thus making it easier to gain more funding.

Clearly debt isn't the problem, it's the side-effect of the real problems - a bad economy and a strict monetary policy. Solving those three issues would ease the debt crisis if not make it fade away completely.
Yay! Finally a picture those Repubs with the intelligence of a twelve-year-old can understand! Up means good, and down means bad.
government does not create jobs in the private sector
You should keep this chart behind you at all public speeches, my friend. :)
+Gharrett Kohl Your position is both simplistic and wrong. Demand creates jobs. When the government spends money on things, like infrastructure, that's a demand that creates jobs.
You have no idea how many people are writing in Ron Paul do you? The day Obama talks about auditing the Fed completely, I will think about it. And this is a very deceptive picture. Government can not create jobs. Sorry.
Don't be a Ron Paul robot, think things through. Of course the Government can create jobs. It makes a position, throws it in the classifieds and someone applies, BOOM. Job created. Governement can also create jobs indirectly, through policies that encourage local job growth.
中国共产党万岁! 中华人民共和国万岁..
LS没有封顶啊?我是来添砖加瓦的 顺便鄙视下北邮傻逼校长叫什么来的那个叫兽小星?
Yu Dong
OBA~美分党还缺人吗? 想报名一个~~~自费五毛快来报名ㄚ~~

五毛党在共匪倒台之后 会不会被当汉奸处理?? 男被剥皮 女被轮奸 像利比亚哪几个卫队一样惨ㄚ?
楼上@Yan Peng ,我是波士顿的,你就请我吧,不要肥牛啊

哇,这里还能写字~ha,there is still some place to write words~
zj qiu
we want democracy!
zj qiu
only you can help us!
jin ye
jin ye
jin ye
jin ye
jin ye
jin ye
jin ye
jin ye
jin ye
jin ye
jin ye
jin ye
jin ye
jin ye
jin ye
jin ye
good job obama
Some people will believe anything!  What ever happened to:  "Don't believe anything you hear, 1/2 of what you read and 1/3 of what you see."  I think that's how the quote went.  
Add a comment...