24 straight months of growth in the private sector!

[Jaskalas]

Some people will never acknowledge any positive economic data, and will always try to spin it negative. Those people will continue to say we're in bad shape long after a full recovery is achieved, I suspect.

Especially when the 'full recovery' is bought and paid for by the US debt.

Our debt trajectory has to be changed or the consequences will be more dire than any contraction. The struggle we now face, is dislodging federal deficit spending from the health of the US economy. We also face folks who'll refuse to acknowledge the need for it.

I'll have you look at this another way. Playing around with our currency to stimulate the economy is inflating the price of oil. The more we pay for oil / gas, the worse our economy becomes. We are playing with fire and are about to get burned.

 

[Blackjack200]

I'll have you look at this another way. Playing around with our currency to stimulate the economy is inflating the price of oil. The more we pay for oil / gas, the worse our economy becomes. We are playing with fire and are about to get burned.

lol. No it's not. The dollar is quite strong actually.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Some people will never acknowledge any positive economic data, and will always try to spin it negative. Those people will continue to say we're in bad shape long after a full recovery is achieved, I suspect.

Anyway, yes, the job growth numbers this month were quite good. January is even better now that it got upwardly revised to 284,000.

Quite good is a bit generous. They were better than expectations and above the number we need to keep up with population growth. However, as I've posted a dozen times before we need to start hitting 400k every month to make meaningful progress in getting people back to work.

 

[werepossum]

Quite good is a bit generous. They were better than expectations and above the number we need to keep up with population growth. However, as I've posted a dozen times before we need to start hitting 400k every month to make meaningful progress in getting people back to work.

This is true; the quality of good news has been severely degraded, and as good news goes it's pretty sucky. But at least we're moving in the right direction. Plus, I think the progress will feed on itself. Every additional person employed is that much less government overhead AND that much new demand - real demand, not fake government demand borrowed from the ChiComs.

So while it might not be good news by past examples, in comparison to recent years it's pretty darned good news. It essentially means we're REALLY in recovery rather than merely using funny math.

 

[woodie1]

Between December 2007, when the recession officially started, and February 2010, when the Labor Department’s reports show employment hit bottom, the economy lost more than eight million jobs. Between then and now, we’ve added back more than two million jobs.

The US is still down more that 6 million jobs. If we add 250,000/month it looks like another 24 months to get back to where we were. Except, many of the jobs are not paying the good wages of December 2007.

 

[sportage]

Well look at it this way... You can either have more US debt from helping the economy get back on track, or the republican solution of more war(s), never ending war(s), once in no way out republican war(s), with no gain. At least with people working and paying taxes, those taxes can go towards the US debt. Not so with massive republican fueled war(s).
Me? I'd rather support the US worker rather than more war(s).
And if any of these republicans running were to get in, we'd be right back to not only failed Bush era economic policies, but more war(s). War(s)… again... unfunded.

 

[Matt1970]

Well look at it this way... You can either have more US debt from helping the economy get back on track, or the republican solution of more war(s), never ending war(s), once in no way out republican war(s), with no gain. At least with people working and paying taxes, those taxes can go towards the US debt. Not so with massive republican fueled war(s).
Me? I'd rather support the US worker rather than more war(s).
And if any of these republicans running were to get in, we'd be right back to not only failed Bush era economic policies, but more war(s). War(s)… again... unfunded.

Total spent on Iraq and Afganistan as of March 18, 2011 was $1.283 trillion.

 

[tweaker2]

Makes me scrunch my face up and get comically quizzical to have the Repubs in this thread at first accuse Obama of wrecking the economy even further then their own Repub leaders did, then of not improving the economy fast enough once the economy started turning around, and all this while simultaneously cheering their Repub legislators on about what a great job they're doing obstructing and filibustering any and all attempts by the Dems at making the economy improve at an ever faster rate which, by now, is something quite obvious that the Repubs don't want to happen in the first place.

So what is it that you Repubs really want when it seems you're implying that you all want the economy to improve faster via criticizing Obama's/Dems economic performance index, yet you don't want the economy to improve because your need to get rid of Obama is even more important than improving the lives of the middle class and the poor? (Yes, we all know the rich are doing just fine.)

So tragically funny.

 

[Matt1970]

Makes me scrunch my face up and get comically quizzical to have the Repubs in this thread at first accuse Obama of wrecking the economy even further then their own Repub leaders did, then of not improving the economy fast enough once the economy started turning around, and all this while simultaneously cheering their Repub legislators on about what a great job they're doing obstructing and filibustering any and all attempts by the Dems at making the economy improve at an ever faster rate which, by now, is something quite obvious that the Repubs don't want to happen in the first place.

So what is it that you Repubs really want when it seems you're implying that you all want the economy to improve faster via criticizing Obama's/Dems economic performance index, yet you don't want the economy to improve because your need to get rid of Obama is even more important than improving the lives of the middle class and the poor? (Yes, we all know the rich are doing just fine.)

So tragically funny.

I see your MSNBC talking points and raise you: Democrats just want to spend spend spend. If it works, it all gets credited to Obama and if not it all gets blamed on Bush and Republicans in Congress.

 

[Carmen813]

This has everything to do with what government does. Government (in the form of Congress) sets legal goals for "low income" & "disadvantaged" borrowers, starting under Carter and increasing under both parties, for the GSEs. Government (in the form of HUD) mandates these levels. Government (in the form of Congress) then has hearings to grill the GSEs' management as to why they haven't met those goals. The GSEs then start discarding "outdated metrics" like income verification and credit scores in an attempt to meet these standards. Good old human greed kicks in to make big money on over-priced houses, loans, and mortgage derivatives. Government (in the form of Congress) removes Glass-Steagall, allowing investment banks to get in on the big money.

Besides ignoring its regulatory function as you point out, government (including both parties) also had an active role in every step of this process.

Damn the government for forcing those poor bankers to join the $56 trillion derivative market against their will! They put up such a strong protest!

...

Recessions of this magnitude don't happen because of any one action or inaction, but rather actions of all involved.

 

[nonlnear]

Damn the government for forcing those poor bankers to join the $56 trillion derivative market against their will! They put up such a strong protest!

You seem to be committing the error of presuming that it is close to common for anyone in government or business to act ethically. Government created the structural incentives and the GSEs followed them to their inevitable conclusion. Does the fact that a competent government could have seen the end of the road years in advance make the GSEs less culpable for their actions? Of course not. Does the fact that the GSEs assumed risks that one could argue they "should" have stopped out of some sense of decency, which is apparently naive to presume in any executive, somehow diminish the government's fault for paving the road, putting up guard rails, and turbocharging the car? No.

Recessions of this magnitude don't happen because of any one action or inaction, but rather actions of all involved.

You say that like it's worthy of being a concluding sentence but I'm not sure what the point of this sentence is...

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Between December 2007, when the recession officially started, and February 2010, when the Labor Department’s reports show employment hit bottom, the economy lost more than eight million jobs. Between then and now, we’ve added back more than two million jobs.

The US is still down more that 6 million jobs. If we add 250,000/month it looks like another 24 months to get back to where we were. Except, many of the jobs are not paying the good wages of December 2007.

It's much worse than that. Since the 3/2008 population growth has resulting in an additional 4.5 million people who should be in the labor force. We need jobs for them too. When you predict how long it will take for unemployment to go down you have to net off the 125k people who should be entering the labor force each month. That's why I say we need 400k+ every month.

 

[tweaker2]

I see your MSNBC talking points and raise you: Democrats just want to spend spend spend. If it works, it all gets credited to Obama and if not it all gets blamed on Bush and Republicans in Congress.

Talking points?

Please link me to these MSNBC talking points you're referring to as I'd like to use it as evidence to sue them for plagiarising my personal observations irt this thread. I guess I got'ta hire me a media agent to help me copyright everything I post in this forum so as to protect my humungous financial potential for making factual observations of the written word.

Wow, thanks for letting me know MSNBC is using my intellectual property for their gain.

In addressing your other comment, well, all I can say is that the Repubs and their rich benefactors started two wars for profit, emptied out the treasury and stuffed their pockets with it all, maxed out the national credit cards to buy corporate jets and solid gold toilets and took off for the hills to stash their loot until the next opportunity arose to do it all over again, of which YOUR (Our) President Obama is in the process of (ironically) providing in the form of the present economic recovery he is overseeing.

Obama has had to INVEST more of the nation's treasure into our economy to correct the huge financial collpase that the greatest heist of the century caused of which YOUR President Bush and YOUR Vice President Cheney oversaw and helped create.

Our president has targeted this INVESTMENT at those that suffered the most, being the middle class and the poor, and away from those who caused this calamity and got richer beyond their wildest dreams as a direct result of it.

 

[woodie1]

Originally Posted by woodie1

Between December 2007, when the recession officially started, and February 2010, when the Labor Department’s reports show employment hit bottom, the economy lost more than eight million jobs. Between then and now, we’ve added back more than two million jobs.

The US is still down more that 6 million jobs. If we add 250,000/month it looks like another 24 months to get back to where we were. Except, many of the jobs are not paying the good wages of December 2007.

It's much worse than that. Since the 3/2008 population growth has resulting in an additional 4.5 million people who should be in the labor force. We need jobs for them too. When you predict how long it will take for unemployment to go down you have to net off the 125k people who should be entering the labor force each month. That's why I say we need 400k+ every month.

You are correct but I didn't want to make things out to be as bad as they really are. There is also the fact that a great many "working" people are underemployed. More bad news that I didn't want to bring up.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

That sounds like when Congress pushed through the Repeal of GLass-Steigall that brought this mess on us.

Umm...this is part in parcel an occurrence of the mini-stimulus pushed through by Obama several months ago which has created this bubble of growth of which will eventually pop. Glass-Stegall has very little to do with this situation.

 

[a777pilot]

What's not to love about this??? I am sure the Rabid Rightists in here will explain and I am looking forward to it.

http://www.barackobama.com/jobsrecord/

http://economywatch.msnbc.msn.com/_...oyment-grows-solidly-for-third-straight-month

http://www.rttnews.com/1838033/u-s-...pe=fts&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=sitemap

Unless the average employment growth is 200,000 per month or greater then the economy continues to go backward.

For a full and complete recovery this nation needs to produce an average of 500,000 or more jobs created per month for a minimum of three yeras. Htat will start with the removal of this Fool, Bobo, the Post Turtle.

 

[werepossum]

Damn the government for forcing those poor bankers to join the $56 trillion derivative market against their will! They put up such a strong protest!

...

Recessions of this magnitude don't happen because of any one action or inaction, but rather actions of all involved.

I'm not saying that government forced anyone to participate, merely that government facilitated it. HUD set mandatory goals that the GSEs literally could not reach, but the GSEs were not forced to give up all rational criteria; they could have made an honest try and accepted their lumps for failing. No bankers were forced into making fraudulent loans; they did them for profit because they knew that the GSEs would now buy them. No bankers were forced to make mortgage derivatives; they could have taken their losses, written them off against earnings, and changed their practices back to a sustainable model. No investors were forced to buy mortgage-based derivatives; they did so because such derivatives were very profitable in the short run. My point wasn't that government is solely responsible, merely that government shares responsibility. And I completely agree that the recession is not due to any one thing; it has many fathers, many steps along the way. Breaking the chain at any point could have made this a very mild recession or even merely a blip in continued growth.

You seem to be committing the error of presuming that it is close to common for anyone in government or business to act ethically. Government created the structural incentives and the GSEs followed them to their inevitable conclusion. Does the fact that a competent government could have seen the end of the road years in advance make the GSEs less culpable for their actions? Of course not. Does the fact that the GSEs assumed risks that one could argue they "should" have stopped out of some sense of decency, which is apparently naive to presume in any executive, somehow diminish the government's fault for paving the road, putting up guard rails, and turbocharging the car? No.

You say that like it's worthy of being a concluding sentence but I'm not sure what the point of this sentence is...

I think these rules were implemented for ethical reasons - increasing the ability of low income earners to own homes. Unfortunately they were implemented and increasingly strengthened without adequate (if any) care or thought for the easily foreseeable results.

Back on topic, we were out shopping today (Lowes, Walmart, PetSmart) and ate lunch at a barbecue place. I know there are still a lot of people hurting - using the old method of calculating unemployment (before Obama nationalized that too) we're at something like 10.8% - but honestly it's hard to see a recession when you're in the stores. Every place we went was booming. There are some real bargains too; I'm trying to figure out how to convince my wife I need a 150 gallon aquarium 'cause PetSmart's got a hellacious deal on them. First I have to figure out where we'd put it . . .

If high gas prices don't choke it off, I think we'll see some real reductions in unemployment within the next few months. If not for high gas prices and so much of our manufacturing being outsourced, I think we'd be out of the recession already.

 

[werepossum]

Talking points?

Please link me to these MSNBC talking points you're referring to as I'd like to use it as evidence to sue them for plagiarising my personal observations irt this thread. I guess I got'ta hire me a media agent to help me copyright everything I post in this forum so as to protect my humungous financial potential for making factual observations of the written word.

Wow, thanks for letting me know MSNBC is using my intellectual property for their gain.

In addressing your other comment, well, all I can say is that the Repubs and their rich benefactors started two wars for profit, emptied out the treasury and stuffed their pockets with it all, maxed out the national credit cards to buy corporate jets and solid gold toilets and took off for the hills to stash their loot until the next opportunity arose to do it all over again, of which YOUR (Our) President Obama is in the process of (ironically) providing in the form of the present economic recovery he is overseeing.

Obama has had to INVEST more of the nation's treasure into our economy to correct the huge financial collpase that the greatest heist of the century caused of which YOUR President Bush and YOUR Vice President Cheney oversaw and helped create.

Our president has targeted this INVESTMENT at those that suffered the most, being the middle class and the poor, and away from those who caused this calamity and got richer beyond their wildest dreams as a direct result of it.

Just out of curiosity, what do you do for a living?

'Cause I'm thinking anyone that one-dimensional has to be employed as a period.