90 MILLION Americans have left the job market. Can we call Obama a failure NOW?

[mikey2573]

Posted: 4/6/13 at 8:57am

NPR:
"There are a couple of ways the unemployment rate can fall.
In the good-for-workers scenario, employers hire more of the unemployed and they sign up new entrants into the workforce like high school and college graduates. That means more people working overall and fewer looking for jobs and unable to find them. The result: a lower unemployment rate
Unfortunately, that's not what happened last month.
In March, 496,000 people took themselves out of the labor force altogether, meaning they stopped searching for work.
When unemployed people quit looking for jobs it can lower the jobless rate. But for all the wrong reasons. Hiring was weak in March. The 88,000 jobs employers added aren't even enough to keep up with population growth."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/04/05/176344820/the-jobs-report-puzzle

Washington TImes:
"There were plenty of depressing numbers from the labor market Friday. Most striking to us wasn't the unemployment rate of 7.6 percent— down a tick. It wasn't the 88,000 jobs created in March — too few to sustain a recovery. No, the number that held the gravest long-term implication was 496,000. That's how many fewer people held jobs or were actively seeking them, compared with February.
In March, that is, the steadily declining U.S. workforce dropped by another 496,000, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported. Nearly 90 million Americans ages 16 or older are not working, or looking for work. Adjusted for population growth, fewer Americans now work than at any time since 1979."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-workforce-0406-jm-20130406,0,4048126.story

"Employers added fewer jobs in March than in any month in almost a year, a dark cloud after several months of slowly improving conditions in labor markets.
Just 88,000 jobs were created last month, far below February's 268,000 gain. The unemployment rate, derived from a separate survey, dropped to a four-year low of 7.6%. But the decline was prompted by nearly a half-million workers leaving the job market, not job growth."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324600704578404271558802706.html

Anyone care to give Pres. Obama a grade for his economy? And back up their grade with evidence?
My grade for Obama: F

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 4/6/13 at 9:13am

Unless he's some kind of king or dictator who runs the country without absolutely no accountability to anyone, no, you cannot.

Sorry, but there's a couple of other players in this game: an obstructionist congress and a supreme court that thinks corporations are people with inherent rights. There is plenty of blame to mete out for this economic mess all around.

"But it's been four years!" you cry in desperation. Well, here's a little medieval passion play you can perform in your very own kitchen:

Open the cabinet and take out a piece of glassware. Hold it over a concrete floor and then let go. It will of course drop and shatter in a thousand pieces in a second or two, max.

That's the Bush years, including the actions of a congress that removed any and all restrictions on Wall Street and the banks.

Now: clean up the mess, drive to the store, buy a new glass to replace the broken one, wash it out, dry it, and put it in the cabinet. That's gonna take, what, an hour perhaps? Maybe two?

Metaphorically, that's what the current government has to do, and the job takes longer because (to extend the metaphor) you blew a tire and there's no spare, you cant find a parking space, and when you finally get in the store, there's no sales clerk.

I'm not a huge fan of your president, but I do think he's getting a raw deal from a bunch of people who, when you cut through it, dont like the fact that there's a black man in their pristine white house. All that nonsense about his (shudder!) birth certificate — or that he's a (shock!) Muslim — or that he was (omigod!) born in a country that didnt even exist the year he was born... plus a manipulative GOP that stands in the way of everything and then somehow makes Obama the bad guy here, like the BS over Gitmo (which, if you will remember, was not closed because the House refused to fund the transfer... only to turn around and decry Obama for not fulfilling that particular campaign promise).

He's in a serioiusly no win situation, but if you consider him a "failure", then maybe your country needs to take a really long look in the mirror.

Updated On: 4/6/13 at 09:13 AM

[Patronus]

Posted: 4/6/13 at 9:52am

Encore SeanMartin! Encore!

[siny]

Posted: 4/6/13 at 10:35am

The labor participation rate is so low because baby boomers are getting to the retirement age in such large numbers. 10,000 people are turning 65 years old every day.
It does not take a genius to see the connection.

[jasonf]

Posted: 4/6/13 at 12:47pm

First, bravo SeanMartin.

Second, I'm a teacher. The education profession has gone to hell in a handbasket over the past five years. In part I blame Obama for not taking a stronger stance on education, but far more than that I blame the Republican governor and his idiotic policies that rip away more and more money from schools.

Plain and simple, EVERY OTHER industry knows that throwing money at it improves it. Education is unlike any other industry (and I use that term VERY loosely), but the thought that giving more money to schools and teachers wouldn't help is as backwards as us giving our military more money than the next thirteen countries combined. It makes no sense, and yet we do it anyway because idiot Republicans think it's a good idea.

What does this have to do with anything? I've seen more teachers leave in the past five years than in my first six years in education by a long shot. What's more, the talk of teachers in my building is frightening - the amount of people who want to leave is astronomically high (meaning just about EVERYONE I talk to). People are leaving and will continue to leave - not because of Obama - but because of the ridiculous regulations and laws imposed on us first by Bush (NCLB) and now by the Republican heads of our state. If education is in the state its in now, I can only imagine what other industries must be going through due to the flat out thievery of the right wing who somehow keep getting elected.

What's more, no one - NO ONE - blames Obama for education going the way it is. We are all crystal clear on who's at fault. Doing something and then blaming someone else is something our students do. It doesn't work with them, it's not working with Obama.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 4/6/13 at 2:29pm

>> us giving our military more money than the next thirteen countries combined

Actually, it's 47. Combined.

... which is completely insane.

[jasonf]

Posted: 4/6/13 at 3:02pm

I haven't seen that statistic - I seem to remember it being around 13, but regardless, it's an insanely high number and completely unnecessary - and this from someone who's VERY grateful for having the protection of his country to rely on for safety.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/6/13 at 3:22pm

Join us again for another episode of "You Are Being Served!"

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 4/6/13 at 6:36pm

SeanMartin - I LOVE YOU.

[mikey2573]

Posted: 4/6/13 at 6:36pm

From your post, SeanMartin, it sounds like you reside in another country, so I am not sure how familiar you are with the government here in the USA.
You say Obama is dealing with "an obstructionist congress". Our Congress is made up of 2 houses; the House of Representatives and the Senate. For the first 2 years of Obama's first term both houses of Congress had a Democratic majority (the president's own party). So we had a Democratic majority in the House and the Senate and we had a Democrat in the White House. He basically got everything he wanted.
RESULT: Economic stagnation.
Currently we still have a Democratic majority in the Senate, with Obama (a Democrat) still in the White House and we have Republicans with a slight majority in the House (I believe it is something like 45 more Republicans). Many Presidents of our past have had to deal with Congresses that were FAR more oppositional. Ronald Reagan had a Republican controlled Senate and a Democratic controlled House for 6 years and then the Republicans lost the Senate for the last 2 years he was in office. But Reagan was still able to make deals, compromise, LEAD and GOVERN, something this President has been unable (or unwilling ) to do.
Your metaphor regarding the amount of time it takes to fix something is interesting but faulty. After all both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were able to turn a faultering economy around in less time than this President. Also, I would change your metaphor from "you blew a tire and you have no spare" to "you threw spikes under your wheels and tossed your spare over a cliff"; that is to say, this is OBAMA'S ECONOMY at this point. He has basically tried all his tricks to fix this economy and they've all made things worse. He OWNS this. The time for blaming past Presidents has passed.
Also, YOU are the one who brought in racism, birth certificates and the president's faith. I don't need to bring any of those issues into my criticisms of this president. I simply look at his record. Is what he is doing working? If yes, fine. If no, not fine. And what he is doing is CLEARLY not working.

[mikey2573]

Posted: 4/6/13 at 6:43pm

JasonF, the federal government has a CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY to fund the military. I can show you EXACTLY where that authority resides in the Constitution. The federal government has ZERO authority to legislate or requlate education. You will not find the words TEACH or EDUCATE anywhere in the enumerated powers. NCLB, signed into law by Pres. George W. Bush, is completely and utterly UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Republicans went ballistic over NCLB at the time it was being debated. It was primarily Ted Kennedy's bill, but Bush signed it into law and SHAME ON HIM for doing so.

[Yawper]

Posted: 4/6/13 at 6:46pm

I wouldn't say it's not working. Without his policies we might very well be experiencing deflation like Japan has been for a while.

The GOP is in a bind. They can't go after Obama too much because a lot of the jobs cut have been government jobs and they certainly can't give O credit for shrinking the government.

[BeadleDeedle]

Posted: 4/6/13 at 6:54pm

Yeah, take it easy Caps Lock.

Everyone knows that the federal government has to fund the military. Duh. The point being obviously discussed is the gross amount of over-funding taking place. And you never addressed Siny's point. Which is also obvious and true.

Why do you make these inane data comparisons to Bush and Reagan when you know that the world contexts are so different now?

[Kad]

Posted: 4/6/13 at 7:08pm

Public education was scarcely a thing when the Constitution was drafted. Jefferson desparately wanted to institute a form of it in Virginia. Naturally it was shot down because it was believed to be radical.

Things have ****ing changed since 1788 and you need to get used to it.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 4/6/13 at 7:45pm

I have dual citizenship, which makes it interesting when I show up at Customs with both a US and Canada passport. But to your post:

>> So we had a Democratic majority in the House and the Senate and we had a Democrat in the White House. He basically got everything he wanted.

No he didnt. You had a Democrat majority in the House, but you also had a country that was irrationally afraid of everything, and the GOP fed on that, resulting in blue dog democrats who were just as obstructionist as the Republicans. The ACA has over two hundred and fifty amendments — almost all designed to be "industry friendly", almost all put in there by Republicans who, after gutting the purpose of the law, walked away from it in lockstep just so they could disavow any of the consequences of their own actions. He wanted to close Gitmo. The GOP and the Blue Dogs refused to fund the transfer of the prisoners — even though four high-security prisons in the US, all desperate for jobs, offered to take them. And the reason for not funding it? Mindless, paranoid hysteria that it would bring more terrorists onto the US mainland...

Well, let's get real: the *real* reason was because once they were on US mainland soil and not some military camp, the "guests" would then have access to a lot more legal tools to move their case forward... like finding out why they were taken in in the first place, which even now, a lot of them dont even know. The US wont tell them what the charges are.

>> something this President has been unable (or unwilling ) to do.

"Unable" is the appropriate word here, because you cant compromise with a party that things "compromise" is "getting my way! Yippee!"... which is precisely what Boehner and his crew have been doing since 2010. Look at all this nonsense over taxes: you guys pay the lowest individual tax rate on the planet, a move Bush put in there just as he was starting up his "Oh, these'll only cost a couple of billion and we'll all be home by Christmas!" wars (and yes, Cheney said that). As you went deeper and deeper into debt from these things, nothing was done. Now, a decade later, add up all the ancillary and direct costs, and these little forays have cost the US close to six trillion dollars. And the GOP refuses a single tax increase to cover it. I dont know who they think is going to pay for it. Magic money fairies, I suppose. BUt once again, they create a situation and then shuffle the blame off onto the president, and you people believe them!

Is that supposed to make any kind of logical sense?

It was the GOP that de-regulated Wall Street and the banks, and what happened? All of a sudden, you see these strange "exotics" and jobs being outsourced in a way that was never legal before. So of course the domestic economy crashes and burns, while the corporations are posting record profits across the boards. And once again, somehow, magically, the GOP makes this Obama's fault.

And you folks simply go along with it.

I"m sorry, but wake the f up.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 4/6/13 at 11:09pm

I'm stepping into this troll's thread for one time and one time only, because I think mikey should best be ignored, but I wanted to laud Sean Martin's posts, especially this:

"Open the cabinet and take out a piece of glassware. Hold it over a concrete floor and then let go. It will of course drop and shatter in a thousand pieces in a second or two, max.

That's the Bush years, including the actions of a congress that removed any and all restrictions on Wall Street and the banks.

Now: clean up the mess, drive to the store, buy a new glass to replace the broken one, wash it out, dry it, and put it in the cabinet. That's gonna take, what, an hour perhaps? Maybe two?

Metaphorically, that's what the current government has to do, and the job takes longer because (to extend the metaphor) you blew a tire and there's no spare, you cant find a parking space, and when you finally get in the store, there's no sales clerk. "

So very apt - plus no matter how much you clean up, you're bound to find little shards of glass that need to be cleaned up for years to come.

Now let this thread drop off the page.

[mikey2573]

Posted: 4/7/13 at 2:05am

You say a lot of things in your posts, SeanMartin. Unfortunately for you, much of it is simply BS. Perhaps you should hire yourself a Factchecker??

"He basically got everything he wanted.

No he didnt."

Rachel Maddow agrees with me:
“By my estimation it is halftime, right, in the first term and with this vote tomorrow they will have gone 85% of the distance they said they wanted to go in the first term of the president.”

http://www.politicususa.com/maddow-obama-agenda.html

"resulting in blue dog democrats who were just as obstructionist as the Republicans"

If Obama can't even negotiate around his own party, then "inept" is too kind a word for him.

"you guys pay the lowest individual tax rate on the planet"

Not true.


39.6% is the highest individual federal tax rate in the US. In addition most states also have an individual tax which can be as high as 13%. The British Virgin Islands has a 0% individual tax rate. Zambia's highest individual rate is 30%. Syria's is 15%. Switzerland is 13.2%. The list of countries with lower tax rates than the US is quite numerous.

"Oh, these'll only cost a couple of billion and we'll all be home by Christmas!" wars (and yes, Cheney said that)."

Link???

"Now, a decade later, add up all the ancillary and direct costs, and these little forays have cost the US close to six trillion dollars."

(Reuters) - When President Barack Obama cited cost as a reason to bring troops home from Afghanistan, he referred to a $1 trillion price tag for America's wars.
Staggering as it is, that figure grossly underestimates the total cost of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to the U.S. Treasury and ignores more imposing costs yet to come, according to a study released on Wednesday.
The final bill will run at least $3.7 trillion and could reach as high as $4.4 trillion, according to the research project "Costs of War" by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies.

http://costofwar.com/

Even the highest costs for all three wars puts the tag at around $4 trillion. That is $2 trillion less than your price tag.

"I"m sorry, but wake the f up."

Sounds like someone is very angry.

You see I am a bit different than those who post on this site in that I don't believe everything I read, even that which is written by you, SeanMartin. I suggest for your own credibility's sake that from now on you post links to support the things you claim to be true, like I do. Especially since so much of this last post appears to be stuff you just made up.

[~tiny~]

Posted: 4/7/13 at 3:23am

[~tiny~]

Posted: 4/7/13 at 3:23am

[~tiny~]

Posted: 4/7/13 at 3:24am

[~tiny~]

Posted: 4/7/13 at 3:25am

[~tiny~]

Posted: 4/7/13 at 3:25am

[~tiny~]

Posted: 4/7/13 at 3:26am

[~tiny~]

Posted: 4/7/13 at 3:26am

[~tiny~]

Posted: 4/7/13 at 3:27am