The economy has turned around; 162,000 new jobs last month, many in manufacturing

[cruztbone]

:biggrin1: for all you naysayers, i will say this: I TOLD YOU SO. it will be many months before we reach prosperous job growth levels, but the BUSH recession is finally ending.

Most of the jobs created were in the manufacturing sector. And yes, the census created decent jobs until the end of the year. (The constitution of the US requires us to do the census every ten years, uninformed right wing nutcakes.)

Obama haters, go ahead and attack. Facts are stubborn things, and you can no longer deny that the economy is turning upward, thanks largely to the OBAMA economic policies.

 

[D_Davy_Downspout]

:biggrin1: for all you naysayers, i will say this: I TOLD YOU SO. it will be many months before we reach prosperous job growth levels, but the BUSH recession is finally ending.

Most of the jobs created were in the manufacturing sector. And yes, the census created decent jobs until the end of the year. (The constitution of the US requires us to do the census every ten years, uninformed right wing nutcakes.)

Obama haters, go ahead and attack. Facts are stubborn things, and you can no longer deny that the economy is turning upward, thanks largely to the OBAMA economic policies.

It's one month. Don't go declaring victory on one month of data.

It's good news to be sure, but you would need over a year of months twice as good as this to get us back to regular unemployment of 5%.

 

[Trinity]

150,000 jobs have to be added just to keep pace with the growth of the labor force. 439,000 people lost their job last week and were added to the rolls.

But the report also contained sobering figures that showed that 48,000 of the jobs created were temporary positions with the U.S. Census Bureau and will be gone by the end of the summer. It said the number of people who have been unemployed for six months or longer grew to 44.1 percent of the 15 million people in the country who are jobless.
Over the next few months, "the month-to-month changes in employment will look crazy," said Heidi Shierholz, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, in part because the census is ramping up hiring to create about 635,000 jobs by the end of May. But those are not long-term jobs.
Taking the census out of the mix, 114,000 jobs were added to the economy, which Ms. Shierholz said is not nearly enough to lower the unemployment rate.
She also noted that outside of the federal hiring for the census, state and local governments shed a total of 9,000 jobs.​

There were other signs that the recovery is not in full swing.

Pittsburgh Post Gazette



​

 

[houtx48]

Don't tell Zippy W. he will want to send the jobs to China. This hole is going to take a while to dig out of.

 

[TopDudeFtl]

I'm self employed & this week I was lucky enough to have work five days in a row (locally). I can't recall the last time that has happened. Does that mean the economy has "turned around"; not likely, but I am hopeful. I think we need to wait to see what the next couple of months will do before we claim any progress.

 

[Industrialsize]

150,000 jobs have to be added just to keep pace with the growth of the labor force. 439,000 people lost their job last week and were added to the rolls.

Pittsburgh Post Gazette



​

I have no idea where you got the number 439,000 because it isn't in the article you posted a link to. Your article states"he number of people who have been unemployed for six months or longer grew by 400,000 to 6.5 million". And for the Record, when Obama took over from Bush, Job Loss was at over 700,000 a month. The Presidents Smart policies have stopped the bleeding.

​

 

[B_starinvestor]

LOL.

The economy has not turned in any way.

 

[B_nyvin]

You realize more jobs were LOST overall right????

 

[deleted15807]

The Economy Almost Always Does Better Under Democrats

If the extended Pinocchio nose and a similarly over-inflated phallus are the apt symbols of the Tea Party movement, the Tea Baggers are in for one final, rude awakening. For all of their histrionics about "socialism" and "communism", the historical record clearly shows the economy overall and the stock market in particular almost always do better under Democratic presidents.

Just days after the Washington Post documented that George W. Bush presided over the worst eight-year economic performance in the modern American presidency, the New York Times in January featured an analysis comparing presidential performance going back to Eisenhower. As the Times showed, George W. Bush, the first MBA president, was a historic failure when it came to expanding GDP, producing jobs and fueling stock market growth. And across almost every indicator (article here, charts here), Democrats outperformed their Republican counterparts.

The superior performance of Democratic presidents covers virtually the entire spectrum of economic indicators. As Elliott Parker of the University of Nevada, Reno detailed in a 2006 paper, since 1949 Democratic administrations have done better than Republican ones when it comes to unemployment (5.2% to 6.0%), job creation (-.0.4% decrease in unemployment, compared to 0.3% increase), GDP growth rate (4.2% to 2.9%), and even corporate profits as a share of GDP. And to be sure, he found the Dow benefits from Democrats in the White House.

There's no shortage of studies to show that stock market returns are higher under Democratic leadership. (As it turns out, Wall Street's performance is also better when Democrats control Congress.) In 2000, Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov of UCLA's Anderson School of Business concluded that "that the average excess return in the stock market is higher under Democratic than Republican presidents - a difference of 9 percent per year for the value-weighted portfolio and 16 percent for the equal-weighted portfolio." As the New York Times noted of UCLA study in 2003:

"It's not even close. The stock market does far better under Democrats...
​

The words of Harry Truman, the man Sarah Palin cited as her model, are as true today as when he uttered them generations ago:

"If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic."
​

 

[Trinity]

I have no idea where you got the number 439,000 because it isn't in the article you posted a link to. Your article states"he number of people who have been unemployed for six months or longer grew by 400,000 to 6.5 million". And for the Record, when Obama took over from Bush, Job Loss was at over 700,000 a month. The Presidents Smart policies have stopped the bleeding.

I know what the article states. The weekly job losses have been reported in the news and are available for you to look up online. I only referred to them because it is commonly known.

from the dept of labor.gov

As for Obama stopping the bleeding...flooding the system by printing up money while deficit spending and mismanaging recovery programs like TARP, the Mortgage Program and job creation program (Stimulus) may slow the bleeding but the patient is still in arrest - not recovery. Unfortunately, Obama's unpaid for entitlement programs that cost Trillions, additional jobs bills that add to the deficit, foreclosures and unintended economic effects of Obama's healthcare bill could keep us in recession.

LOL.

The economy has not turned in any way.

No, it hasn't.

 

[B_Nick4444]

The Economy Almost Always Does Better Under Democrats

If the extended Pinocchio nose and a similarly over-inflated phallus are the apt symbols of the Tea Party movement, the Tea Baggers are in for one final, rude awakening. For all of their histrionics about "socialism" and "communism", the historical record clearly shows the economy overall and the stock market in particular almost always do better under Democratic presidents.

Just days after the Washington Post documented that George W. Bush presided over the worst eight-year economic performance in the modern American presidency, the New York Times in January featured an analysis comparing presidential performance going back to Eisenhower. As the Times showed, George W. Bush, the first MBA president, was a historic failure when it came to expanding GDP, producing jobs and fueling stock market growth. And across almost every indicator (article here, charts here), Democrats outperformed their Republican counterparts.

The superior performance of Democratic presidents covers virtually the entire spectrum of economic indicators. As Elliott Parker of the University of Nevada, Reno detailed in a 2006 paper, since 1949 Democratic administrations have done better than Republican ones when it comes to unemployment (5.2% to 6.0%), job creation (-.0.4% decrease in unemployment, compared to 0.3% increase), GDP growth rate (4.2% to 2.9%), and even corporate profits as a share of GDP. And to be sure, he found the Dow benefits from Democrats in the White House.

There's no shortage of studies to show that stock market returns are higher under Democratic leadership. (As it turns out, Wall Street's performance is also better when Democrats control Congress.) In 2000, Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov of UCLA's Anderson School of Business concluded that "that the average excess return in the stock market is higher under Democratic than Republican presidents - a difference of 9 percent per year for the value-weighted portfolio and 16 percent for the equal-weighted portfolio." As the New York Times noted of UCLA study in 2003:

"It's not even close. The stock market does far better under Democrats...
​

The words of Harry Truman, the man Sarah Palin cited as her model, are as true today as when he uttered them generations ago:

"If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic."
​

not to be unkind, but to post something like this suggests you cannot make an argument on the basis of economics

 

[B_Nick4444]

because of the plummeting demand for US Treasury obligations (investors have become extremely concerned about the USA being able to live up to its obligations given Owe-bama's massive deficit spending even before his so-called health reform bill -- passage of the crap has only aggravated the problem) , interest rates must rise

coming at a time when we have such massive numbers of unemployed is cause for a great deal of concern

 

[B_talltpaguy]

^That's real cute, but it's also off topic.

150,000 jobs have to be added just to keep pace with the growth of the labor force.

Or in other words, Obama and the Dems are now doing something that Bush couldn't.

 

[B_Nick4444]

Obama haters, go ahead and attack. Facts are stubborn things, and you can no longer deny that the economy is turning upward, thanks largely to the OBAMA economic policies.

actually addresses this point

had not Obanomics been implemented, we might in fact have been seeing a genuine recovery at this point, and not as Martin Feldstein warned, a second dip, precisely attributable to the policies implemented by Owe-bama

 

[Trinity]

0Or in other words, Obama and the Dems are now doing something that Bush couldn't.

No. Obama and the Dems weren't able to create real fulltime jobs, but they did succeed in falling lower than low in their attempt to hide their failure while touting their spin garbage.

She also noted that outside of the federal hiring for the census, state and local governments shed a total of 9,000 jobs.
There were other signs that the recovery is not in full swing.

Pittsburgh Post Gazette

 

[conntom]

:biggrin1: for all you naysayers, i will say this: I TOLD YOU SO. it will be many months before we reach prosperous job growth levels, but the BUSH recession is finally ending.

Most of the jobs created were in the manufacturing sector. And yes, the census created decent jobs until the end of the year. (The constitution of the US requires us to do the census every ten years, uninformed right wing nutcakes.)

Obama haters, go ahead and attack. Facts are stubborn things, and you can no longer deny that the economy is turning upward, thanks largely to the OBAMA economic policies.

The current admin has a little problem with facts. Including the so called fact that his majesty's plan saved 1.5 million jobs. The CBO came out said that was fuzzy math and not true.

 

[lucky8]

Don't get too excited...interest rates are going up soon enough...

 

[deleted15807]

Don't get too excited...interest rates are going up soon enough...

There is absolutely no indication that is going to happen.

Ben Bernanke Says Low Interest Rates Will Remain

 

[chgorunner]

we should hold a census every year-

 

[deleted15807]

not to be unkind, but to post something like this suggests you cannot make an argument on the basis of economics

I know I know facts have a liberal bias. This from a person who starts a thread titled 'Third World Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama'. You really aren't concerned at all with facts and reason. To post something like this suggests you have a problem with making an argument on the basis of facts without resulting to fear, intolerance and oh so subtle race baiting.