Shared publicly  - 
The promises that candidate Obama made are very different than what President Obama has delivered 
kevin brown's profile photoGeorge Coelho's profile photoManaf Rojo's profile photoZachary Roovenback (Zach Attack)'s profile photo
I don't know an elected candidate who has kept more than 25% of their promises, you won't either because you have not place any plans to address unemployment other than corperate tax issues, which do not help the small businessperson. A $ 5,000.00 tax break to hire a $ 50K sallary employee is not addressing jobs, small businesses must spend $ 50K to get a $ 5K break
How about spend 50k to hire an employee and rescind your childish expectation that the government (the people's tax money) owe you a single solitary penny.
the guy known for being a flip flop is talking about broken promises... I guess we're screwed no matter which puppet ends up in office.
Oh wow, another video with 'facts' on how horrible Obama is. And Obama has plenty of videos with 'facts' on how horrible Romney is too. Love'em or hate'm I'd rather just keep Obama in office because at least we know how he works, then in four years we'll have a chance to really shake things up with two new candidates.
Obama is a celebrity President so no one really expects him to live up to his promises.
I'm pretty sure if the Republican-lead Congress hadn't blocked and filibustered nearly everything the White House brought to them, Obama's administration would have gotten a lot more done.

It's like tying someone down and then complaining that they haven't moved enough.
He had a democratic majority in both houses for two years. The only thing of note he accomplished was a healthcare plan that most Americans hate.
+Keith Heard For the first two years, the Dems had a filibuster proof majority in the Sen and a super majority in the House. Obama could have had whatever he wanted pass Congress without support from Republicans. He didn't submit any proposed legislation to solve the problems, that is the real issue.
He was pretty busy dealing with a major economic time bomb left during the Bush administration during those first two years.
+Mitt Romney This does beg the question because you've made some promises too that seem difficult to deliver on.

You've said you want to balance the budget while also cutting an array of taxes, building up the Navy and Air Force and adding 100,000 active-duty military personnel. You'd do this by cutting domestic spending and closing tax loopholes, but experts say YOUR numbers don't add up.

Christopher A. Preble, a vice president for the libertarian Cato Institute, says Romney's promise to push military spending to 4 percent of the national economy would require dramatic increases that would raise, not lower, the federal deficit.

Citing "the absurdity of Romney's plan," Preble wrote recently that the candidate "hasn't said what other spending he will cut, or what taxes he would increase."

"Until he does," Preble wrote, "it is logical to conclude that he plans to pile on more debt."

The WSJ said: "Hitting the numbers is going to be hard without making spending cuts that might be politically unpopular, especially with independents, people familiar with the process said. To cut $500 billion from projected spending in 2016 as promised, Mr. Romney might have to reduce all other federal spending by 25%, including programs such as Medicaid, which provides health care for the poor, and food stamps. That would likely represent the biggest reduction in government spending since the 1940s."

As far as closing tax loopholes, analysts for the Congressional Research Service drily concluded, “Given the barriers to eliminating or reducing most tax expenditures, it may prove difficult to gain more than $100 billion to $150 billion in additional tax revenues through base broadening.”

And if you were to make all of the changes that might be feasible, the CRS estimates, you could finance “about a one or two percentage point reduction for each (tax) bracket” through reducing or eliminating existing tax deductions.

You are proposing a 20% cut in taxes across the board.

Your numbers don't add up.
+Keith Heard working hard like giving money to his Wall Street and green energy cronies? Yeah, that really helped the economy.
Seems like Mitt Romney is more interested in saving money for the guys on Wall Street, he's fine with them paying a substantially lower tax rate than the middle class.
Jon P
Sorry +Keith Heard I live in realville. If Obama had gotten any more of his agenda rubber stamped like he had in his first two years, we would likely be stuck with another stimulus bill by this time. Your remember that stimulus bill right? $787,000,000,000.00 that gave us nothing but platitudes such as "it COULD have been worse if we had not passed it", by the people that support it. If you want to give your government blank checks to run yours and everyone else's life, I suggest you move to Europe. Here in America, we believe in accountability, or at least we did once upon a time. The cult of personality that is Obama unfortunately still has people(lemmings) willing to blindly follow their leader over the cliff.
+Jon P why aren't you holding the administration that got us into the hell hole accountable instead of blaming the people trying to fix it for not doing it fast enough?
Jon P
+Keith Heard Easy. That's because placing blame on prior administrations does nothing to solve the issues of what's going on in the world today. And taking your logic, would you like to hear +Mitt Romney do nothing but blame Obama for the economy he inherited should he win the White House? Or would you like to see him lead us out of it? I am not seeing any indication that Obama has either the intention or the know-how to get us out of our current economic crisis.
+Jon P not sure where "realville" is, but I can say with some certainty that it a fair distance right of reality.

Most independent analysts including the CBO, Moody's Mark Zandi (also McCain's economic advisor), and economists like Alan Blinder disagree with you.

Even using Douglas Holtz-Eakins economic model, the stimulus had the promised effect.

I'm afraid if anyone is acting like lemmings, it is those who reject science, academics, and subject matter experts when it calls their own point of view into question.
+Jon P does this chart showing great strides in American jobs indicate that he is leading us on the right path?

What about his intention to tax the billionaires in this country at the same rate as the middle-class in America? Romney has shown no interest in doing this, maybe because that's the group that dumps mostly unregulated money into his campaign funds through super PACs.
Jon P
+Keith Heard First of all, please don't be lead by the nose and try to realise that the tax rate you are referring to is the capital gains tax, not federal income tax. Their is a fundamental difference there. Not to mention that if the Buffet rule passes, it will in no way help us out of economic troubles. It is being pushed under the guise of "fairness". People that are so focused on tax rates, should take as second to look at the OTHER rate. The rate that shows the contribution of the top 1% to the government as opposed to nearly half the population that pays no taxes(other than sales tax and what not). Also worth pondering with your chart, it is ignoring the fact that those numbers do not reflect the amount of people that are no longer be counted in the work force. The people who no longer are even trying to find employment. Or the amount of jobs that Obama has added that are federal jobs.
+Jon P I have seen nothing to suggest that Mitt Romney has either the intention or the know-how to get us out of our current economic crisis either. The numbers in his budget don't add up.

On the other hand, when you look at the numbers (rather than the emotion), the economy IS improving in spite of Republican opposition.

When you ask the experts, the reason why it is improving is because of the dramatic rebound of the domestic auto industry and the growth of exports. Obama can honestly take credit for both of those.

The most recent example of Republican opposition? The senate passed a bi-partisan $109B bill in March. The money comes from taxes and use fees already paid. The Department of Transportation estimates that for every $1 billion invested in transportation infrastructure, we create or sustain over 34,000 private sector jobs and produce $6.2 billion in economic activity. The jobs created are not just construction jobs, these private sector jobs are in industries like engineering, software design and manufacturing.

Do the math. That's 3.7M jobs over two years and an economic boost of $676B.

You tell me why the House hasn't passed this bill and why it is Obama's fault.
+Jeff Beamsley All your sources say is that to keep his promises, Romney will have to make cuts that are politically unpopular. Of course he will: all cuts are politically unpopular with some. And of course he will not be laying out the details until after the election, because no one gets elected by emphasizing the politically unpopular details of his positions before the election.

That doesn't mean he won't do it. Making politically unpopular cuts was one of the major things Romney did to fix the Massachusetts budget problems when he was governor.
+Jon P +Warren Dew I love how you completely ignore the fact that he was able to correct an incredibly sharp decline and turn it into an increase, just because the increase isn't big enough. Spin baby spin!
+Keith Heard Actually Obama managed to keep us on the downswing for much longer than was necessary. Remember when unemployment was going to top out below 8%? Obama forced that up beyond 10%. We still have fewer jobs than when Obama took office.
+Jon P As for capital gains vs federal income tax, that's exactly why most people in the highest echelon are paid in stock options and such instead of normal income, because of that tax rate.
If you're going to use data to demonstrate the effectiveness of a president look at the graphs that Google has created. Under every single president the labor force has grown substantially. Under President Obama it hasn't grown by nearly the % it has under ever other administration. This doesn't make sense. Our population isn't shrinking so our labor force shouldn't be either. So any of your graphs that show job increases aren't accurate because they don't count all of the people NOT entering the workforce because of lack of jobs. Unemployment only takes into account those who are receiving benefits and not those who can't find a job to get fired from to collect benefits. Job creation under Obama is still a net negative and anyone who tries to skew the numbers by using just the unemployment numbers is intentionally misleading you. Reality is that if you factored in the average growth in labor force seen over the last 60+ years our unemployment would be double digits. Just because a 24 year old out of college isn't working doesn't mean he's not part of the labor force. It just means he hasn't had a job to lose and thus collect benefits for let's be a little more accurate with our graphs and interpretations please.
Here's the graph I was referencing. You'll notice all of the options on the graph to the left. I suggest you use the information in those graphs to generate your "facts" and "analysis" it doesn't bode well for the current administration.
+Warren Dew Not sure what your point is with the graph. I think that we all agree that this is the worst recession in history. The graph certainly confirms that. The only financial collapse that was worse was the Great Depression. Somehow that's Obama's fault?

The recession was caused by the financial deregulation that allowed a financial bubble to form. That started in Clinton administration and accelerated under Bush. When the bubble popped, the recession started.

This recession officially started in
December, 2007 and ended in June, 2009.

Unemployement peaked at 10.5% in November of 2009. It is now 8.2%.

So what's your point? That Obama wasn't able to lead the country to a faster recovery from the worst recession in the country's history than past Presidents were able to recover more quickly from less severe recessions?

If that's all you've got, good luck with that.
+Ben Anderson again you're ignoring the massive fire that Obama had to put out at the beginning of his term because of the massive mistakes of the previous administration.

You can't burn down a house and then complain that all the time and money spent by someone else on putting the fire out and fixing the damage should have been spent on something else, that it doesn't look as nice as it used to, etc. We can't go back in time and make the fire never happen, but we can accept the fact that we need to change our expectations because the starting point is so different (and now there are a bunch of people refusing to let anyone in the house).
The Problem with America is that the masses tend to forget so soon the Past, Romney has had a poor record with his workers, with government taxes and now he is renown for Flip flopping, I can't believe people still want him in the Oval Office, Whats the guarantee that he wont flip on every single word he is saying right now?
Go by the records people
C Lind
When you have someone in the current office who's policies WILL destroy democracy and capitalism, you run to what ever will save us from total destruction! If socialism takes over we will effectively be living in 1930's Germany, Only this time the trains won't run on time, they won't run at all!
+Jeff Beamsley Normally a recession recovers as fast as it went down. Under Obama, employment is not recovering; it's staying down: Obama is preventing the recovery. And, of course, his policies extended the recession by months in the first place, increasing peak unemployment from 8% to 10%.
Jon P
Your right, Mr Romney is not my ideal candidate. That honor would go to the great Milton Friedman, with Ron Paul as Secretary of Treasury. That being said, there is no denying that Mr. Obama want's to model our country after the socialist model of taking from some to give to others. Anyone opposing those view points will have my vote.
+Keith Heard the only one ignoring the fire is Obama. He seems content to let the numbers ignore the 1.5 million new workers that aren't in the labor force because they've never had a job to collect benefits from. Every year 1.5 million college students graduate. Most of those students didn't have a job to collect unemployment from and so they are not considered part of the unemployment numbers thus driving down the unemployment rate...but I find it hard to believe that anyone would suggest they aren't part of the labor force.

The President seems to let us see the smoke but not the fire. If we could see the fire through the smoke we'd see that he has made less than no progress.

The stimulus worked in so much as it settled the markets but it did little to correct the employment situation in America and the proof is in the facts that I graciously linked for you in my previous post.
+Warren Dew normally a recession is caused by the upper class and the recovery comes from the middle class. Without the ability to strengthen the middle class thanks to blocks from the Republicans on his initiatives, and the upper class paying themselves on the backs of foreign labor, it's inevitable the recovery isn't going to happen as fast as during the heydays of American manufacturing.

Imagine what would have happened if the car manufacturers, and in turn all of their suppliers, were allowed to fail!
+Keith Heard This recession was the result of a housing bubble from middle class people buying houses they couldn't afford; it didn't "come from the upper class", whatever that means. It was only after Republicans won control of the house and started blocking Obama's programs that unemployment started coming down, by the way - more evidence that it is Obama keeping unemployment high.
+Warren Dew it came from the people who own the banks, the upper class, setting lax internal rules and regulations on money they could/would loan out, mortgages and securities they would buy, etc, because the reality was they were poor investments yet that didn't fit their books so they were treated as secure.
+Warren Dew So as far as you're concerned it comes down to who do you trust and you trust Romney?

I'm really disappointed that this is all that you've got and this is how you are going to make your choice.

Romney's numbers don't add up because he isn't telling the truth.

Let's just use the example of closing tax loopholes. This by the way is the same fiction that Ryan is using to close the $400B shortfall his budget creates because of tax cuts.

Romney is not going to close the two biggest loopholes that benefit business (deductions for health and retirement benefits). He is not going to touch the mortgage deduction because it is the single most popular middle class deduction and benefits both the financial and construction industry. The majority of the rest of the top twenty also benefit business. Even if he did away with Earned Income and Child Credit he wouldn't be even close.

Wake up. He isn't going to be able to cut taxes AND reduce the deficit. The numbers just aren't there and you are willing to let him get away with it because you trust him. Good plan.
lets start a "draft Condoleezza Rice" movement for VP
+Keith Heard the lax internal rule from the banks came from the Community Reinvestment Act that was forced upon the banks by Democrats in the Carter administration and changed to be more lax under the Democratic Congress that forced Bush to sign the laws through political manipulation (you hate minorities if you don't sign this). The rich were not the sole contributors to this crisis. This was manufactured through bad loans encouraged by the Democrats under the guise of giving minorities a better chance at home ownership. Nice try.
+Jon P as someone who every day, on my commute in Detroit, sat through several radio commercials for banks that would all promise $500/month payments for a $300k home loan, I believe I know a little about what I'm talking about. Banks/mortgage loan offices were making ridiculous promises to a struggling middle class city, re-assuring them that everything would be fine as long as they signed on the dotted line, then selling those mortgages along as rock-solid investments.
+Warren Dew "Normally a recession recovers as fast as it went down." Geez you really have drunk the Kool-aide.

Now you are blaming Obama because this was not a "normal" recession? He's what the experts say.

“On the point of whether the aftermath of financial crises plays out differently than normal recoveries, the evidence isn’t mixed at all,” Reinhart, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, and Rogoff, a Harvard University professor, wrote. “As our studies and many others have confirmed — including the misconstrued recent Fed study — financial crises leave behind deep recessions of long duration and considerable volatility.”

In an April 2011 press conference, Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said he agreed with Reinhart and Rogoff’s finding “that as an historical matter that recoveries following financial crises tend to be relatively slow.”

The U.S. economy has only very slowly recovered from the recession of 2007 to 2009. U.S. history provides no support for an explanation based on the financial crisis itself, although data on financial crises in some other countries appear to do so. The recent slow recovery is most similar to the Great Depression. Low aggregate demand for reasons unrelated to the financial crisis may be an explanation for both episodes, but uncertainty and government policies are an alternative supported by recent research on the Great Depression.

This last one from Gerald P. Dwyer is the director of the Center for Financial Innovation and Stability at the Atlanta Fed and James R. Lothian is distinguished professor of finance at Fordham University and visiting professor.

What they reference in with regard to government policies and the Great Depression is the FDR austerity measures enacted in 1939.

Here's what experts say about that.

More recently, Cole and Ohanian (2004) and Kehoe and Prescott (2007) suggest government policies that reduce output and employment are more important in prolonging depressed economic conditions.

So if anyone is prolonging the current depressed economic conditions it is the Republicans who have blocked Obama's plans to stimulate output and increase employment.

The next time you post on this, please bring more than just your opinion.
+Jeff Beamsley For me it comes down to the fact that Obama is tanking the economy and keeping it down, and Romney didn't do that in Massachusetts. I was just explaining some points you missed along with that, on the off chance that you or others might read with an open mind.
+Warren Dew Please provide unbiased experts to support your claim that "Obama is tanking the economy".

In the spirit of an open mind, here's a quick summary of what I have posted.

1. The FACTS are that the economy is growing. So I'm curious how you define "tanking".
2. Obama did not cause this recession, he inherited it.
3. It is the worst recession in our history and experts say that we should NOT expect a quick recovery.
4. Experts also say that austerity efforts which increase unemployment and reduce demand will prolong the recovery. If you need any more evidence of that, look at what is happening in Britain.

So please tell me what the Republican (or Romney for that matter) plan is to do better and I promise to read it in the same spirit that you read this post.
+Warren Dew Jeff and I could similarly argue that you aren't being open-minded, simply using your own data and opinions as opposition to data and opinion supporting the other side.

Let's be honest, almost no one has an open mind about politics anymore. We all interpret the past a certain way, and predict the future a certain way. Things could always be better, and they could always be worse, and there's far more affecting that than simply a president's administration. I defended Bush to many people when he was in office, though I did not vote for him, and I have defended Obama. They both could have done better jobs, but it frustrates me to no end when people treat them as monsters or traitors to their country.

The demonization of the opposite party by both sides, the belief that one's own side/ideas are the way and the light if only they'd be given a fair shake, it's all a fantasy world that only exists in the snow globe of discussion.

Unfortunately I don't know that there is really another realistic solution. Each side wants the other to be open-minded, while simultaneously refusing to do the same. And I don't think it will ever really change.
+Ben Anderson True regarding the CRA, though I would just add that changes during the Clinton administration probably did the most damage. The Carter era CRA simply prevented housing discrimination; the Clinton era changes were the ones that really forced the banks to make bad loans because they led to court imposed quotas.
Lance G
With all of the QE1, QE2 and now QE3 along with the Stimulus1,2 and Omnibuses we should be at 5% unemployment right more than 6%. Obama can thank the terrible fiscal conditions in Europe for not making our economic numbers look worse. Then again...remember according to the administration we weren't supposed to be over 8% right now.

CBO, the Stimulus Bill Added 0.7% to GDP and 700,000 Jobs

EDITORIAL: Obama cooks the unemployment books
+Keith Heard To the contrary, I evaluate all data with an open mind and look for explanations. I just have a personal interest in the economy and have long ago evaluated the predigested data that the Obama hacks keep regurgitating. Show me something I haven't seen before and I'll adjust my views if needed to account for the new data.

Nor did I say anything about you not being open minded. As far as I can tell, you haven't been ignoring facts that are new to you. For all I know, you're absorbing the information about the CRA and understanding more of the complexities of the housing crisis. Incidentally, I would point out that the "owners" of banks are mostly people with ordinary retirement accounts, through mutual funds. Banks aren't mostly owned by "the rich" unless you think having a 401(k) makes you rich. Companies owned by "the rich" are mostly companies whose founders are still alive, like Microsoft or Berkshire Hathaway.

As for "monsters and traitors", those are your words, not mine. My assumption is that Obama means to do the right thing but is just in over his head, not that he's evil. Unfortunately, incompetence can be just as damaging as malice, and is just as much a reason to vote him out.
+Warren Dew I believe everyone thinks they evaluate things with an unbiased, open-mind. I believe that to be nearly impossible. Calling someone incompetent because they haven't affected a turnaround as drastic as you think is possible would be something I consider biased, but I am also biased.

Monsters and traitors are not my or your words, but they are both words I have seen and heard used to describe our last two presidents, and it saddens me. That is all I meant.
+Keith Heard See the middle paragraph I added to my last response while you were posting. You can be biased and still have an open mind, if you are willing to look at and evaluate new data.

If you don't like the use of terms like "monsters" and "traitors", may I suggest not being the first to bring them up in any given thread?
+Lance Griggs I'm supposed to be surprised that the GOP Net and the Washington Times are printing critical things about the Obama administration?

As far as your assessment of where the unemployment rate should be right now, can you please share your CV that supports your claim to make economic predictions. Otherwise, please post credible sources that support your position (sorry the Wash Times and GOP Net don't qualify). As far as the 8% remark, here's a link to the unbiased site, with details on why they rate that claim "mostly false". The Obama administration NEVER made that promise.

Besides, I think the more serious question is if unemployment does drop to 8% between now and November (which is certainly possible), does that mean you are going to change your vote?

If not, then what are you really saying anyway?
+Warren Dew I was using them as an example of the demonization evident in this and other discussions. We already had someone accuse Obama of trying to turn America into a completely socialist nation.
+Jeff Beamsley Politifact is far from an unbiased site. Even the leftist Washington Post has admitted that Obama implied that unemployment would peak at 8%, and that Romney's claim was mostly true.

+Keith Heard Saying someone is a socialist is not demonization; lots of people think socialism is good. Why not address the claim itself if you don't agree with it?
+Warren Dew because it's simply an opinion, a belief of a future that can never really exist but that someone else posits as their own personal boogeyman.
+Keith Heard So disagree with the opinion if you think it's just an opinion. No need to bring in words like "monsters" and "traitors".
+Warren Dew call it exaggerating for effect if you will, I think saying I've seen it before in similar discussions is not out of line.
+Keith Heard Well, if you're using those words to exaggerate for effect, you can hardly blame others for doing the same thing.
+Warren Dew my point was that you may see it that way, but I do not. I was giving examples of things I have heard said about acting presidents, about how little respect is given for the difficulty of the job because all attention is focused on realities that can never exist. How a president who supports some programs to help low-income families is then considered trying to turn us into a socialist nation, how the fact that this current recession is recovering differently than others in vastly different circumstances means that the current administration is an incompetent failure, etc. Bush was treated just as, if not more harshly, just by different people.

I just think people throw around harsh judgments to those on the other side, and this discussion is another example of it. I am not immune from it, it's trap we all fall in to, but I think the best way to avoid it is to point it out.
+Keith Heard Obama hasn't done much to help low income families; to the contrary, traditionally lower income segments of the economy have much higher unemployment under Obama. To the extent he's pushing socialism, it is through things like helping unions at the expense of lower paid nonunion labor, and greatly extending unemployment benefits which pay more to higher salaried workers.
+Lance Griggs

The thing with that chart is that we assumed Republicans would not filibuster everything. Politicians are elected to find compromise. If we just wanted stubborn fools, we wouldn't need elections we could just draw straws from the southern states.
Lance G
OMG +Richard Ramirez . Democrats controlled the senate with a supermajority and the house with huge numbers the first 2 years. Obama got everything he wanted in his 800,000,000,000 dollar stimulus. There was nothing Republicans could do. After the stimulus 1 and 2. And the Highway bill and the Omnibus bill 1 and 2, Obama then pivoted to passing Obamacare. Wasting an entire year campaigning for that. The Dems who controlled Washington just knew things were going to turn around. By the time Republicans took the House January 2011, Obama had everything he wanted. EDIT...EXCEPT HIS RECOVERY 
+Warren Dew The poor have gotten poorer because the jobs that they had before the recession hit, have not returned. That recession started during the Bush administration. Further the predatory lending practices you mentioned have disproportionately damaged the poor. And the trickle down job creation promised by the Bush tax cuts never materialized. As a result African American unemployment under Bush was also consistently 4% higher than the national average.

What Obama HAS done is pass healthcare reform which will address the #1 cause of poverty for the working poor, lack of medical insurance. Extensions of unemployment insurance certainly benefit those poor who qualify. While you may call it socialism, it is also the single most effective stimulus program we've had according the CBO.

Historically, unemployment benefits have been extended during every recession since 1950 including that famous socialist Ronald Reagan who extended unemployment benefits for three years.
+George Coelho I'm sure Romney is grateful for your support. Hopefully he'll continue to focus his attention on winning more pools and leave the serious business of politics to more thoughtful people.
Lance G
Obama's entire claim that the economy is reviving is based on phony numbers and rigged statistics. Nothing is more misleading than the recent administration claims that the economy added over 200,000 jobs during each of the past three months and that unemployment is stable at 8.3 percent.

Dr. John Hussman of the Hussman Fund says that the claims of job gains are based entirely on weighted figures. "Total non-farm employment in the U.S., before seasonal adjustments, fell by 2,689,000 jobs in January." Then the spin doctors at the Bureau of Labor Statistics went to work. Hussman explains: "because it's typical for the economy to lose a large number of jobs after the holidays, largely in retail trade, construction and manufacturing, the BLS estimated that the 'normal' seasonal decline in employment should have been 2,932,000 jobs in January. The difference between the two numbers ... was 243,000 jobs, which was reported as an increase in employment."

Hussman notes that this "adjustment" in 2011 and 2012 was far more extreme than in any previous year since the 1960s. Had the standard adjustment been used, instead of the souped-up figure BLS applied, the total number of new jobs created would be only about 60,000 for January.

And even that might be an overestimation.

Hussman points out that "moreover, we've had a remarkably mild winter in the U.S., particularly in January, and it's clear that this has favorably affected both construction and retail activity. Ironically, however, nothing in the seasonal adjustment actually adjusts for this purely seasonal effect."

The stable-unemployment-rate fantasy is also based on a steady decline in the number of people in the labor force, despite population increases. The current number of people in the labor force -- the denominator in determining the unemployment rate -- is the lowest since 1981. Economist Peter Morici writes that "if the adult participation rate [in the labor force] was the same today as when Obama became president, unemployment would be 11 percent."

Morici also notes that "adding adults ... who say they [would] re-enter the labor market if conditions improved and part-time workers who would prefer full-time positions, the unemployment rate becomes 15.2 percent. Factoring in college graduates in low skill positions, like counterwork at Starbucks ... unemployment is closer to 20 percent."

Such is the happy math upon which the administration bases its claims of economic recovery.
Lance G
+Jeff Beamsley you are wrong about the Bush tax cuts. And passing Obamacare has done nothing to help poor people.

Revenue was not the problem.
Here's an article from the NY times from 2005.

So it wasn't Bush's tax policy that was the problem. It was his spending policy. And Obama has made Bush look like a miser in comparison.
Republicans acknowledged they failed to live up to their values and spent too much. But the last Republican budget (Fiscal Year 2007) passed in 2006 had only a $161 billion deficit. (very managable). The very next Democrat budget for FY 2008 had a deficit of $459 billion – nearly three times larger than the one they’d demonized Republicans for. Then their FY-2009 budget dwarfed that deficit with a black hold of red ink deficit of $1.4 TRILLION. That was more money than any government in the history of the world had ever contemplated. But Democrats dwarfed that the very next year with a FY-2010 budget with a $1.6 trillion deficit. And as for FY-2011 and FY-2012 the Democrat Senate simply refused to perform its most basic duty of governance and didn’t even bother to pass a budget. Republicans are now forced to do the last disgraced Democrat-controlled Congress’ job for them – and Democrats are demonizing them for it.

For the record. Bush's avaerage unemployment rate was 5.6% over both his two terms. Obama would kill for that right now.
+Lance Griggs You get upset and accuse the BLS of cooking the number, but you just did the same thing in your use of an average rate of unemployment over Bush's 8 years in office. The unemployment rate when Bush left office in December 2008 was 7.2%. That was a 2.2% rise over the last 12 months. When Obama took office unemployment had been increasing at the rate of .4% a month for two months. It continued at that rate for three more months, recovered some in the summer, and eventually topped out 10.2 in October, 2009. It has been coming down slowly since.

I think everyone understands that the BLS number doesn't reflect the "real" number of unemployed people. It is simply a consistent measure. So if the real unemployment rate is 3% higher, then it was also 3% higher when Obama took office and the same rate of progress applies.

You also aren't a very careful reader. I said the Bush tax cuts didn't result in significant hiring or income gains by the poor evidenced by the fact that African American unemployment was 4% greater during the Bush years than the national average. That reversed gains that were made during the Clinton years. The NYT article only said that tax gains which resulted in an unanticipated drop in the deficit were the result of stock market gains, not gains in employment. The article also warned of a coming bubble and they were right.

You also clearly didn't read the Politifact link that I posted regarding the 8% number.

You posted a graph from a January 9, 2009 report by Christine Romer, then chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser. President Obama didn't officially take office until January 20th.

What you neglected to post were the following disclaimers that were also in that report.

"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error," the report states. "There is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity."

There's even a footnote that goes along with the chart you posted that states: "Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action."

Why didn't you post any of those things?

Finally Politifact adds, we have never found an instance of anyone in the administration making a public pledge to keep unemployment below 8 percent.

Instead what we have are conservatives "cooking the books" with regard to an imaginary pledge regarding the unemployment rate.

BTW as far as how healthcare reform helps poor people, here another link to Politifact.

Here's the relevant excerpt.

8. Medicaid, a joint federal-state program for the poor, will cover all of the poor, instead of just a few groups the way it currently does. Right now, to qualify for Medicaid, a person has to be poor and also disabled, elderly, pregnant or a child. Under the new plan, all poor adults would qualify.

+Dave Anderson The solution is simple: the government needs to get out of the way, and let the private sector pull itself out of the recession. And that's exactly what Romney proposes to do.
+Warren Dew So his proposal is that we do nothing? I know I am voting for then. Private companies have not proven they are capable of anything except maximizing profits. Greed should not be the sole means for economic recovery.
+Dave Anderson I agree. It is frustrating because there seem to be such deep divisions. Each side has their own version of the truth and are unwilling to admit that it has any flaws. +Warren Dew clearly has a simple answer for you. If you believe that the problems we face are this simple, then perhaps you have the answer that you are looking for.

I certainly encourage you do to your own homework and come to your own conclusions. Good places to start are the unbiased sites that try to sort out fact from fiction and hold both sides accountable. Those include and Newspapers like the Christian Science Monitor also have a reputation for telling all sides of the story.

Unfortunately I fear that the mudslinging will only get worse between now and November so you may have your hands full.

Hopefully you'll reconsider your plan not to vote.

This country needs informed and thoughtful voters like you to exercise your right to choose.
+Jeff Beamsley I agree 100%. Demonizing a person or a party makes it impossible to ever compromise or even work with that person or party. Before anything significant gets accomplished in this country, politicians will need to stop the name calling - most especially stop calling people unamerican, communist, fascist or whatever. If only for the simple reason the people who sling those terms have no idea what they mean, but most because once you put that label on someone, it makes it difficult to then work with them and still claim they are 'destroying America'. Those terms should stick with tv and radio personalities looking for simple-minded people to increase their ad revenue.
Without a doubt the main issue confronting us all is the budget deficit and the compounding debt. So far the Simpson Bowles plan seems to be the best path out of the morass of bad policies that got us here. How closely will Mitt follow the Simpson Bowles plan and how willing is he to agree to the compromises necessary to implement the plan??
+Mike Arringdale I would disagree that those are primary importance. What we need are good paying jobs and more assistance for the poor, not less. The more disposable income people have, the more jobs there are and the healthier the economy is...which means, surprise - bigger tax revenue.
If a family of four is bringing in 20,000 a year but expenses are 18,000 a year - they only have about $170 disposable income a month. Give them $200 a month in food stamps and their disposable income just doubled. This is incredibly free-market friendly since they are free to spend that additional income where they please. 'Trickle-up', if you will.
+Richard Ramirez The government is currently doing a lot to interfere with any recovery. For example, Obamacare puts an additional burden on the private sector, making economic recovery more difficult. Getting the government out of the way will involve reversing those problematic policies. That will take plenty of doing.
+Mike Arringdale Romney's policies include some major elements from the Simpson Bowles plan, in particular the reduction in tax rates and the broadening of the tax base.
+Warren Dew I don't think the impact to individuals will be very significant. One, it only affects you if you don't already have insurance. Second, if your employer does not provide insurance and you are anywhere near the poverty line, it is either fully paid or heavily subsidized. Third, there are tax breaks for small businesses that will provide it.Lastly, no jobs get cut with Obamacare - it can only create jobs. I think something not considered as well is that having nationwide access to preventative care will pay HUGE dividends in lowering lost time at work and costly emergency procedures.

Conversely, while we might disagree that healthcare should be driven by profits, I think we can both agree that the current system is not only exceptionally expensive per capita, but woefully inadequate in efficiency.
Rich coming from a guy who has 2 different positions in the same sentence. #RomneyLies
+Richard Ramirez While the Obamacare burden on the individual is a problem, the main job killer is the employer requirement. For a working class $30k/year job, the extra $5k per year for insurance may be too much and the job won't be created. That's why Obamacare contributes substantially to unemployment, especially for the working poor.

As for the current system, it is only expensive for the average American because the average American gets high end health insurance. If you look at "cheaper" systems like the UK, you'll find that they do things like deny treatment to smokers and the obese. To take a recent quote from a British newspaper:

"Smokers and obese people are already being denied operations such as IVF, breast reconstructions and a new hip or knee in some parts of England."

To the extent that Obamacare takes us down that path, that's yet another strike against Obamacare. It's not quite "death panels", but it's on the way there.

There are some inefficiencies in the current system that stem primarily from mixed incentives because the "paying customer" is the employer, rather than the patient. However, Obamacare only makes that worse by making the "paying customer" the government, who is even further removed from the individual patient.
Too bad the article says no such thing. The title says it all "Survey finds 54% of doctors think the NHS should have the right to withhold non-emergency treatment". Big difference between a survey and actual policy.

Also it is already happening in America and has been for years. I get migraines and my old insurance company would only allow me two Imitrix a month at nearly actual cost for me. They wouldn't pay for my BP pills, only a 30 year old substitute. Then there is the millions who have zero insurance.

That is what is known as cherry picking, when you only tell the side of the story that fits your agenda rather than the whole story. Obamacare is not socialized medicine, far from it. More like the rule that you have to have auto insurance to drive.
+Warren Dew This is a subset of the standard list of falsehoods about the Affordable Care Act.

Here's a link to a detailed rebuttal of each including Job killer, Death Panels, the IRS army, the government take over of healthcare (your reference in your last paragraph), Unions get a pass, Romney's claim in his budget that repealing the bill will save $95B/year, Obama's claim that preventive care will save money, and Rick Scott's claim that it isn't currently the law of the land.

+John Bill You might want to read past the title to the actual article. The article mentions that the UK's national health care system already denies nonemergency treatment to smokers and the obese in some regions, as my quote points out.

Obamacare is far more than just the individual mandate, by the way. For example, did you know that Obamacare makes it extremely difficult for physician owned hospitals to expand, thus favoring big corporate hospitals? Now you know.
There will be no mandate. owebowmacare will be another in a long list of failures. Worst president, ever. Go Mitt!
Guess you never read a history book, or newspaper, or anything for that matter. Oh that's right he is the first black president = worst.
+Warren Dew I would agree if what you stated was complete. However, the 'penalty' for employers only applies to companies with 50+ employees. Perhaps the legal definition of small business is the problem (only 50 in the EU, but 500 in the US) but my personal belief is that if you employ 50+ people, you should be providing adequate insurance as part of your compensation. Ultimately, the only companies hurt by this are companies that discriminate (in some fashion) who gets insurance. Some companies with 100 employees only grant insurance to executives or officers...nothing, or limited insurance is offered or provided for the blue-collar employees. Yes, these types of companies will need to make some choices and that is part of the intention here - companies who discriminate their insurance offerings are penalized.

I would agree that other countries with single payer style systems result in lower care if the numbers supported it, but they do not. In-fact, most European countries have lower mortality statistics for many surgical procedures and higher life expectancy as well as overall quality of health. (The US maternal mortality rate is a key indicator of a countries health care and the US is not 1st, 2nd or 5th - we are below most EU nations {}

I think the country's overall health is best served with access to yearly checkups with a doctor. If as a country, we want to maintain our profit-driven healthcare system, then Obamacare is the best solution for meeting that goal. Personally, I think that expanding medicare to everyone in the nation is our best course of action, but I can compromise.
+Richard Ramirez Small businesses go well beyond 50 employees, and working class jobs are also created by larger businesses, so Obamacare inhibits job creation in both cases.
Lance G
+Jeff Beamsley There was no cooking of the numbers. That was the actual avarage including those handful of months at the end. Which marked the result of the housing/financial crash and hence the beginning of the recession. Which makes the average of 5.6% all the more impressive. Btw Clinton's avg was 5.3% during the tech boom of the 90's.

"...eventually topped at 10.2 in October 2009. It has been coming down slowely ever since."

According to this official Obama chart, Private Sector Job Growth had already began to increase sharply after it's low in Dec 2008 before Obama took office.

The chart below is more detailed but it doesn't show the peak low of Dec 2008. You can clearly tell things began to turn around before any of Obama's policies had anything to do with it. Notice April and May of 2009. Obama signed the stimulus middle-late February. No way it impacted that big just 3-6 weeks later. This was one of the complaints with opponents and even with people who supported the stimulus..that it wasn't 'front loaded' enough.

After the fact, Obama even admitted that:

Truth is that if the federal government still calculated UE the way it always did before Jan of this year, we'd be sitting at 10.1% right now.

"In other words, in the universe Obama took over from George W. Bush, the unemployment rate would still be over 11%. Now, the last time I checked, the planet has not gotten smaller, nor has the population of the United States. (I am not sure about the sea levels.) To thinking people, there is no legitimate reason to shrink the potential labor pool. Of course, there is an illegitimate reason to do so: to protect the governing record of Barack Obama. Anyone who follows politics even casually knows that if the general public ever really figured out that the real unemployment rate is over 11% (article is from Dec 2011), Obama would have zero chance of re-election."

Read more:

Meanwhile the long-term unemployed is at an all time high:;_ylt=A2KLOzGcFZ9PuHUAPVjQtDMD

Furthermore the record deficit spending of Obama has done little to nothing to our GDP:;_ylt=A2KJ3CRvFp9PjykABlXQtDMD

AP Economics writer Paul Wiseman writes two years after the recession "ended", the recovery has been the weakest and most lopsided of any since the 1930's. Workers' wages and benefits historically have made up a stable 64% of the economy (through book and bust alike). Right now in the Obama economy they are at an all time low, 57.5%.
Unemployment has never been this high, 9.1%, this long after a recession. The last three recessions at this same point avgd just 6.8%.
The avg worker's hourly wages, after accounting for inflation, were 1.6% lower in May than a year earlier. Rising gasoline and food prices have devoured any pay raises for most Americans.

The jobs that are being created pay less than the ones that vanished in the recession. A record 45 million Americans are on food stamps.

Afa African American UE compared to Clinton years. Clinton enjoyed 8 years of prosperous peace time and no major global disruptions. But if you really want to go there Obama isn't exactly getting the job done with minorities either:

"The news was particularly bad for Blacks, Hispanics, children and women. The poverty rate for Hispanics climbed to 26.6 percent from 25.3 percent; and for Blacks, it increased to 27.4 percent from 25.8 percent. For Whites, the poverty rate in 2010 was 9.9 percent, a half-percentage-point increase from the previous year."

Read more:

Minority people are hurting Mr. President and this is what we get by your stimulus package and your quadrupeling the deficit:

Afa Christine Romer's chart. It doesn't matter if it was posted two weeks before Obama took office. That was the chart that was bantered around for weeks by she and others pimping the massive stimulus. That's what they were selling. Politifact can run cover for them all they want. It is what it is. That chart is what hurt the administration. I didn't include the "details" because neither did they when they were touting the massive stimulus plan. It wasn't until much later when it was discovered that the stimilus was a bust that they began walking it back with their fine print.

Afa healthcare reform, the Democrats' Medicare plan bankrupts 25% of all hospitals by 2030 Read more at the Washington Examiner:

One of the most important factors in projecting Medicare expenditures are the annual payment updates to Medicare providers. The estimates shown in the 2011 Trustees Report are complicated substantially by mandated reductions in these payment updates for most Medicare services. In particular, Medicare payment rates for physician services as determined by the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) system are scheduled to be reduced by roughly 30 percent in 2012. For most of the other categories of Medicare providers, the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), as amended, calls for a reduction in payment rate updates equal to the increase in economy-wide multifactor productivity.2 As described in more detail below, in our view the scheduled physician payment reduction is implausible and there is a strong likelihood that the productivity adjustments will not be sustainable in the long range. It is reasonable to expect that Congress would find it necessary to legislatively override or otherwise modify the reductions in the future to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries continue to have access to health care services.

Remember that when it passed, they were talking about $900 billion in new spending, but only raised taxes by ~$450 billion. The rest of the spending was supposedly “offset” by savings from eliminating Medicare Advantage. But Medicare is already broke, there’s no way to transfer ANYTHING out of Medicare to pay for ObamaCare because Medicare has no money itself.

It’s essentially the same as Obama saying he was going to use the “savings” from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to pay for a bunch of new spending. There’s no pot of money sitting there with WAR written on it, so how do we get money from “war savings” to pay for anything? It’s as nonsensical as using “Medicare advantage savings” for ObamaCare spending.

The Affordable Care Act is as affordable as the Affordable Housing Act which brought on our housing economic catastrophe. These Democrats are either stupid or deliberately trying to further destroy our capitalist economic system with their constant destructive policies and legislation. Their constant phony phrases , like the ” 99%” / “ transparency”/ “ pass the law so we can read the law” baloney must mean they think the American public is stupid. And their race and class baiting rhetoric is about as destructive as their economic policies .
+Warren Dew Since you continue to post an unsupported claim regarding job loss, I'll post specifically what the unbiased Politfact site said in reponse.

"Obama care … will kill jobs across America." The U.S. Chamber of Commerce made this claim in an ad attacking former Democratic Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, who is running for the U.S. Senate, for his support of the health care law. PolitiFact had heard that claim before from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, also of Virginia, and had rated it False. PolitiFact Virginia looked at the best projections available, based on how the law is actually written, and found that they do not suggest that the law will "kill" jobs. PolitiFact Virginia also looked at evidence provided by the Chamber to support its claim, including a brief from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that has been critical of the law. When the authors were asked whether their brief supported the claim, they responded that "our paper does not provide evidence that the (health care law) would cause job loss." So the Chamber got a False.
Jon P
+Dave Anderson +Jeff Beamsley Why do you think the private sector could not pull us out of this mess if given a chance, lower taxes, and less regulation. Remember the industrial revolution? Or the gold rush? Capitalism is the solution to bringing the best quality of living to the most people. That's a proven fact. This administration want to mock and vilify it. If the government would get out of the way and stop picking favorites, I don't see why the private sector couldn't get the economy going again. With the energy situation stifling the economy and the threat of new taxes and excessive regulation, it's no wonder why this economy is still in the dive. Oh and on a side note, let's not forget that he was the President in charge while we received our first Ever credit downgrade.
+Jon P -"Capitalism is the solution to bringing the best quality of living to the most people. That's a proven fact."

That was true when we had a 90% tax rate on the highest tax brackets throughout the 50s, 60s and 70s. There was no incentive to paying an executive 400x the average salary because 90% went to the government. Instead, companies provided better compensation to the average worker, offered retirement plans, insurance, more into R&D, etc. Now, however, with no high tax brackets, companies are not discouraged from paying obscene salaries to executives. It's too much to ask a company to pay their 500 Joe Employee's an extra $2000 a year, but adding on an extra million for the CEO doesn't even earn a extra eye blink.

Interesting you bring up the California gold rush - California was under military rule when it started and the abject lawlessness meant that it wasn't the enterprising entrepreneur or risk-taker that made all the money but the one with the most guns and least scruples.

I am very much against a government that depends solely on the greed of it's population to ensure that happiness is obtainable by all.
Lance G
Because +Jon P Dems have a different world view that govt is central to society. This is fundamental European progressive thought, and they look at society in classes of wages, and their goal is to equalize society by growing the middle class and shrinking the rich, a tax cut to the middle class does not add to deficit however a tax cut to the rich always does.
+John Splater Out of coal and oil? Pretty bold claim. How, exactly, will we run out of these resources? Do you think we should not pursue other fuel sources or that we are not encouraging the use of coal and oil enough? Maybe you feel we need to dig more or relax regulations on oil and coal? I would disagree with all those statements..not the least of which is that oil and coal companies have shown that without government regulations, they will pollute where they please and make every effort to absolve themselves of environmental damage they cause.
+Jon P, please provide data to support your claim about capitalism. Libertarian-style logic is not proof.

As +Richard Ramirez pointed out, the period that most would regard as the golden age for the middle class was during a time of high marginal tax rates, legalized segregation, union growth, and tight regulation of business practices.

We have tried your experiment of lower taxes and self-regulating markets twice since WWII. Reagan produce the S&L crisis which cost taxpayers $87B. Because he grew defense spending faster than he grew revenues, he tripled the deficit to $152B. He also had the Iran Contra scandal thrown in. Bush produced the Great Recession which cost the taxpayers roughly $3T and cost citizens $16T in lost wealth, he started two wars which in the end will cost the taxpayer a total of $1.3T, and he added $5T to the debt. He also brought us the Katrina debacle and the Valerie Plame coverup among others.

Ronald Reagan was quoted as saying his biggest regret was the huge deficit he created.

Allan Greenspan also admitted that he made a mistake by assuming that markets could regulate themselves.

Sorry but I'd rather not repeat what we've had with Reagan and Bush.
+Lance Griggs The non-political site, rates the claim of socialism as "pants on fire" (the worst kind of false).

Here's their summary:

There are plenty of ways to have a meaningful, substantive conversation about the differences of the Republicans and Democrats in tax policy, economics and the role of government. But it's simply preposterous for Perry -- and Gingrich -- to refer to Obama's policies as socialism or to say he is a socialist. Obama's policies may have expanded government, but they don't justify this ridiculous hyperbole. We're reaching for the matches -- Pants on Fire!

The Democrats have a collectivist vision, talk about the pain that others feel, and our responsibility to build a society that is inclusive and leaves no one behind. That’s why Democrats see government as a necessary agent to mitigate the myriad of individual risks that cannot be reasonably controlled or predicted.

The Republicans only want to talk about success. Winners should not be encumbered by concern about others. They should be able reap the full reward for their success without any obligation or responsibility for the repercussions of their success. Losers, on the other hand, have only themselves (and presumably their dependence on others) to blame. That's why they want less government and less regulation.

There are strengths and weaknesses to both visions. Ultimately, if our democracy were working properly, we would be able to take the best ideas from both ends of the spectrum and apply them as might be appropriate for the circumstances we find ourselves in.

Unfortunately, due mainly to the current extreme shift to the right that has occurred in the Republican party (data available if requested), there is no longer anyone to compromise with. Republicans have left the bargaining table. They are only willing to accept deals that don't compromise their ideology.

That is the current problem that is paralyzing the country.

The government is now largely unresponsive to the interests and agendas of either party. Unfortunately that state is one that ultimately serves the interests of conservative Republicans, so they have no incentive (unless saddled with huge loses this November) to change.
+Jeff Beamsley "Politifact" is basically a left wing mouthpiece. Why not try finding actual facts instead of politicized spin to support your opinions?

By the way, the1920s and 1980s were far better for the middle class than the 1950s and 1960s.
Lance G
Sir Politifact is hardly the shining example of unbias and objective "fact checking". Bill Adair is a hack lefty earther journalist from the Times. While not totally bias 100% of the time, they have shown their true colors on more than a few occasions.

Productivity is not owned by Government. Productivity is not distributed by Government. We are borrowing 50,000 dollars per second. This insanity has to stop now.
Liberals push the notion that workers keeping more of what they earn is a government expense!

1. Profit is the creation of wealth.

2. Only the private sector creates wealth.

3. Government does not create wealth, it consumes it through taxation (if government created wealth it wouldn't need to tax the public).

Conclusion: If you want healthy funding for the government then you need to have a healthy private sector. Higher taxes and socialist mandates only temporarily benefit the parasite at the expense of the host.

Looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree.
We know that but based on the circumstances and what we have all been through, we think he has done better than anyone would. ven you.
"How about spend 50k to hire an employee and rescind your childish expectation that the government (the people's tax money) owe you a single solitary penny."

Our roads, school systems, quite a few hospitals, bridges, train tracks, colleges and legal system are childish expectations?

Go live on your own on an island, then.
Add a comment...