The biggest reason Obama could lose in 2012 is . . .

[Soul Crusher]

And?  By your measure things should be improving faster in places where everyone is on welfare and food stamps.  Not really working out that way in detroit, bronx, etc.

[Straw Man]

And?  By your measure things should be improving faster in places where everyone is on welfare and food stamps.  Not really working out that way in detroit, bronx, etc.

that's not the point at all

no one has suggested that we should all go on food stamps or some such thing

just that things like food stamps, unemployment benefits etc.. have a greater effect (and actually help people too) than giving rich people yet another tax cut

in an ideal world you would have as few people as possible on food stamps, unemployment benefits, etc... but no one is suggesting that they are a cure to our economic problems

I assume you know this and are just pretending to be ignorant to make some sort of ideological point

[Dos Equis]

9.1%

September jobs report: Hiring gains momentum
By Chris Isidore @CNNMoney October 7, 2011

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Hiring was stronger than expected in September, a rare piece of good news amid growing worries of a weakening U.S. economy.

Employers added 103,000 jobs in the month, the Labor Department reported Friday. And July and August were both revised higher, showing an additional gain of 99,000 jobs over the summer.

For the last several months, there have been widespread concerns about the economy falling back into recession. So Friday's report was welcome news. Economists surveyed by CNNMoney had predicted an overall gain of just 65,000 jobs in the month.

Still, September's report was considered relatively weak. So far, the economy has recovered only 2.1 million of the 8.6 million jobs lost since the recession began. And economists often say the economy needs to add at least 150,000 jobs a month just to keep pace with population growth.

"It's hard to get too excited even about the positive news," said Tig Gilliam, president of the North American unit of job placement firm Adecco. "In the long-term we're still treading water. No one is hiring unless they absolutely have to."

While Businesses added a respectable 137,000 jobs, that number was bolstered by 45,000 Verizon (VZ, Fortune 500) strikers who returned to work last month. And that hiring was slightly offset by a loss of 34,000 public jobs, mostly at the local government level.

Meanwhile, the unemployment rate remained unchanged at 9.1%, in line with economists' forecasts.

Economists expect relatively modest hiring and no change in unemployment for the rest of this year, according to a CNNMoney survey, and only a slight pickup next year, bringing unemployment down to 8.6% by the end of 2012.

"This is a positive report, but employers are definitely still cautious in general," said Scott Melland, CEO of Dice Holdings, a leading provider of specialized career web sites. "This is definitely not the recovery everyone hoped it would be."
0:00 / 3:47 The great government job purge

Hiring was uneven across different parts of the economy as just over half of the industries tracked by the Labor Department added jobs, while the rest trimmed payrolls. Construction, retailers and professional and business services added jobs, while employers in manufacturing, financial services and leisure and hospitality cut staff.

And there was more pain for those who are struggling to find work. The average time that the unemployed have been without work hit a record 40.5 weeks in September. Just under half of those jobless have been out of work for more than six months.

The number of workers who are stuck in part-time jobs but want full-time work rose to 9.3 million, up 444,000 from August and the biggest jump in two years.

Those workers, combined with discouraged job seekers who are no longer counted among the unemployed because they're not actively looking for work, make up the so-called underemployment rate, which rose to 16.5%, the highest rate so far this year.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/07/news/economy/jobs_report_unemployment/index.htm

[Soul Crusher]

Again - we went backwards again!

   

[240 is Back]

where are the 11, 12, 13% UE rates that getbiggers predicted?   is 9% essentially the ceiling?

no offense, but the 9% number won't be as impactful each month.  By next year, this american idol moron generation of swing voters will think it's always been 9%.

Sure, the old timers will remember a time when it was lower, but they're already voting GOP regardless

[Soul Crusher]

where are the 11, 12, 13% UE rates that getbiggers predicted?   is 9% essentially the ceiling?

no offense, but the 9% number won't be as impactful each month.  By next year, this american idol moron generation of swing voters will think it's always been 9%.

Sure, the old timers will remember a time when it was lower, but they're already voting GOP regardless

Using the birth death index- we still missed a step.  Things are getting worse, not better

[240 is Back]

Using the birth death index- we still missed a step.  Things are getting worse, not better

of course they are.   but that doesn't really matter, now does it?

the PERCEPTION is what matters.

I contend that over time, the impact of numbers like 9% is less and less.  People get used to being poor (i know damn well) and a lower standard of life has LESS of an impact.  You move to a smaller place, learn to steal comcast form your neighbor, and get used to eating McD.  You adapt/

Dropping to 9.1% in electoin year means obama loses.
But moving from 9% this year to 8.7% next year?  (or something similar)...

It won't be as impactful.  And I don't want some bitch ass "repub" telling me that people will be just as mad next year at numbers.  Poverty fatigue is real.  I grew up in projects then trailer.  Suck one if you want to lecture on being poor.

I hope cain destorys obama in 47 states.  But on this factor - the UE number... I think people will be used to it, incredibly.

[blacken700]

i say it's because of 333386 60,000 post about obama on getbig 

[Soul Crusher]

i say it's because of 333386 60,000 post about obama on getbig 

You can attribute it to the man in the moon - your messiah is going to be sent packing for kenya and hopefully he takes you communist marxists with him. 

[Dos Equis]

Bump.

[Dos Equis]

Still way above 7.2.  Was 8.2 in May.  http://www.bls.gov/cps/

[andreisdaman]

You can attribute it to the man in the moon - your messiah is going to be sent packing for kenya and hopefully he takes you communist marxists with him. 

when are you going to get a job?

[Dos Equis]

8.3

Jobless rate rises to 8.3 percent, hiring picks up but still falling short
Published August 03, 2012
FoxNews.com

The unemployment rate ticked up to 8.3 percent in July, reflecting a stagnant economic picture as hiring improved but not by enough to make a dent in the sea of unemployed Americans.

The Labor Department report, in a glimmer of positive news after three straight months of dismal jobs numbers, showed that hiring reached its best level since February, with 163,000 jobs added.

But the number brings the economy back to treading-water status. The economy added an average of 151,000 jobs a month this year, roughly the same as last year's pace. That's not enough to satisfy the 12.8 million Americans who are unemployed. It would take 250,000 new jobs a month to rapidly bring the unemployment rate down.

With the rate rising from 8.2 percent to 8.3 percent, Republicans amped up their criticism of President Obama's stewardship Friday.

"Today's increase in the unemployment rate is a hammer blow to struggling middle-class families," Mitt Romney said in a statement.

Speaking later in North Las Vegas, he called the sustained high unemployment an "extraordinary record of failure."

"That's the longest period of time, 42 months ... we've had unemployment above 8 percent in American history," Romney said.

Both sides are to using the report to double down on their respective tax plans. House Speaker John Boehner said "any new job creation is welcome news," but that unemployment above 8 percent makes it "insane to raise taxes on small businesses."

Republicans want to extend the Bush-era tax rates for all Americans; Obama and congressional Democrats largely want to extend them for those making less than $250,000, letting rates rise for top earners.

Obama, speaking just minutes after Romney, said Friday that raising taxes on the middle class is "the last thing that we should be doing."

He noted that the jobs report means the economy has created 4.5 million new jobs in the last 29 months, and 1.1 million this year.

"But let's acknowledge we've still got too many folks out there who are looking for work," Obama said.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi touted the fact that July marked the 29th straight month of private sector job growth.

"Last month, 163,000 jobs were created despite Republicans' refusal to work with President Obama and Democrats to create jobs, grow our economy, and ensure the economic security of our middle class," she said. "With too many Americans still out of work, the message remains clear: we must do more."

The government uses two surveys to measure employment. A survey of businesses showed job gains. The unemployment rate comes from a survey of households, which showed fewer people had jobs. Economists say the business survey is more reliable.

Investors appeared pleased with the report. Futures tracking the Standard & Poor's 500 index and the Dow Jones industrial average gained about 1 percent. The stock market is coming off four days of losses. Yields on government bonds also rose after the report came out as investors moved money out of low-risk assets.

A better outlook on hiring could prompt the Federal Reserve to hold off taking more action to spur growth. The U.S. central bank, which ended a two-day policy meeting Wednesday, signaled in a statement a growing inclination to take further steps if hiring doesn't pick up.

The job gains were broad-based. Manufacturing added 25,000 jobs, the most since March. Restaurants and bars added 29,000. Retailers hired 7,000 more workers. Education and health services gained 38,000. Governments cut 9,000 positions.

Average hourly wages also increased by 2 cents. Over the past year, wages have increased 1.7 percent -- matching the rate of inflation.
Despite July's job gains, the economy remains weak more than three years after economists declared the recession had ended in June 2009. Growth slowed to an annual rate of 1.5 percent in the April-June quarter, down from 2 percent in the first quarter and 4.1 percent in the final three months of 2011.

Manufacturing activity shrank for the second straight month in July, a private survey said Wednesday. Consumer confidence improved slightly last month but remains weak.

Rising pessimism about the future is taking a toll on businesses and consumers, many economists say. Europe's financial crisis has weakened that region's economy, hurting U.S. exports. Worries have also intensified that the U.S. economy will fall off a "fiscal cliff" at the end of the year. That's when tax increases and deep spending cuts will take effect unless Congress reaches a budget deal. A recession could follow, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has warned.

Americans are responding by spending less and saving more. A big reason growth slowed in the second quarter was that consumer spending, which accounts for roughly 70 percent of economic activity, slowed to an annual growth rate of 1.5 percent. That was down from 2.4 percent in the first quarter.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/03/economy-adds-163000-jobs-in-july-unemployment-rate-rises-to-83-percent/

[240 is Back]

getbiggers predicted we would be in 11 to 12% UE by now.  what happened?

[Soul Crusher]

getbiggers predicted we would be in 11 to 12% UE by now.  what happened?

U6 is 15 percent mr. MBA but does not know squat about economics.

[Dos Equis]

Still a net loss in terms of creation for Obama.

Obama closer to breaking even on jobs
By Charles Riley @CNNMoney August 3, 2012:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Is President Obama a job creator? Not yet. But he might be by Election Day.

The American economy only has to add another 316,000 jobs to get back to where it was in January 2009, when the president was sworn in.

When the president entered office on Jan. 20, 2009, the economy was issue No. 1. It still is today. Here's a look at where the economy stood then and what's changed since.
View photosHere's the math: 4.316 million jobs were lost in the first 13 months of Obama's presidency. Since he took office, 4 million net jobs have been added back.

Right now, that goal is still within reach, even in spite of still-tepid hiring in July. U.S. employers added 163,000 jobs in the month.

Three jobs reports remain before Election Day. To break even, Obama will need to add just more than 105,300 jobs per month.

That's doable, but by no means a sure thing. So far this year, job growth north of 105,300 was reported in only four out of seven months.

(Related: Romney promises 12 million jobs in four years)

Meanwhile, the unemployment rate rose to 8.3% in July -- down from its peak of 10% in October 2009, but still up from the 7.8% it was at when Obama was inaugurated.

Alan Krueger, chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, sought to downplay the jump in the unemployment rate, pointing out in a blog post that -- sans rounding -- the rate only rose from 8.217% in June to 8.254% in July.

But Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney characterized the report as a "hammer blow to struggling middle-class families" and said Americans deserve an unemployment rate below 8%.

That's a talking point that should last through Election Day. At this point, getting below 8% by November 6 is rather unlikely.

Most presidents finish their terms with job gains. By the end of Ronald Reagan's first term, the economy had created an additional 5.3 million jobs. In Bill Clinton's first four years, 11.5 million jobs had been added.

George W. Bush is the only recent president to win re-election with job losses under his watch. The economy shed 13,000 jobs in his first four years, but just like in Obama's presidency, most of those job losses came in his first year in office.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/03/news/economy/obama-jobs/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1

[blacken700]

Mitt Romney would cut millionaires’ taxes, Barack Obama says
 
Share this story:
 This Obama campaign ad aired in August 2012.
You comparison shop for cans of tuna. Mitt Romney rides on Donald Trump’s jet.

A new Obama campaign ad shows those scenes to hammer at the lifestyle differences between struggling middle-class Americans and the Republican presidential candidate. Then it takes aim at Romney’s economic proposals.

"Now he has a plan," the ad says, "that would give millionaires another tax break and raises taxes on middle-class families by up to $2,000 a year."

We know from our previous reporting on Romney’s tax plan that it offers across-the-board cuts, including for the very wealthy. But a new independent study offers broader perspective on how taxpayers at all income levels would be affected by Romney’s plan.

So we decided to take a look.

Romney’s tax "plan"

We need to be clear from the start that the problem independent analysts, journalists and fact-checkers have with digging into Romney's tax plan is that much of the "plan" isn't yet known.

Romney has suggested general parameters:

• The rate cuts would be paid for without adding to the deficit.
• People at the high end "will still pay the same share of the tax burden they’re paying now."
• Everyone would see tax rate reductions.

He has outlined specific tax cuts on his campaign website. They include: cutting marginal rates by 20 percent on a permanent, across-the-board basis; eliminating interest, dividend and capital gains taxes for taxpayers earning less than $200,000; eliminating the estate tax; and repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax.
   
Romney would also cut the corporate rate to 25 percent.

To offset those cuts, Romney has hinted that he would eliminate some common tax write-offs and deductions for people with high incomes.

The effect of Romney's plan

Knowing all that, the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution that evaluates tax proposals submitted by presidential candidates, examined the effect of Romney’s tax rate cuts combined with the elimination of several common tax deductions. Those include the mortgage interest deduction, charitable giving deduction and the exclusion for health insurance. The center published its findings on Aug. 1, 2012.

To try and keep with Romney's guiding principles, the authors eliminated deductions and write-offs -- starting with the deductions for top earners first -- until they came up with enough revenue to offset the $360 billion in tax cuts that are part of Romney's plan.

They determined that people who earn $1 million or more in taxable income would see an average net tax decrease of $87,117. They’d save $175,961 from Romney's tax cut, but lose $88,444 in deductions.

"They would still get a tax cut," said Adam Looney, one of the authors. "The dollar value of the tax cuts is just way bigger than the mortgage interest and other deductions. There’s no way to implement this plan in a way that doesn’t result in a pretty big tax cut for that group (those making more than $1 million)."

People who earn between $500,000 and $1 million would see a cut of about $17,000, and taxes for people with incomes between $200,000 and $500,000 would decrease by about $1,800, the study found.

But to make Romney's plan revenue neutral, deductions would also have to be removed for people with incomes below $200,000, and the effects of that would be significant, the study found. In fact, the elimination of the deductions would mean outright tax increases for everyone with incomes below $200,000. People with taxable income between $50,000 and $75,000, for example, would see an average net tax increase of $641. They’d save $984 from Romney's rate cut, but lose $2,672 in write-offs.

The authors specifically noted that taxpayers with children whose income is below $200,000 would see their taxes go up by an average of $2,041 -- the figure highlighted in Obama’s ad.

The reason for the increase is that the most popular tax breaks heavily benefit middle- and lower-income families, the 95 percent of the population earning less than $200,000 who carry mortgage debt and use employer-provided health insurance.

And though Romney has suggested he would focus on taking the deductions away from the wealthy, the study concluded that alone would not make up the difference of the revenue sacrificed when rates are slashed.

"Somebody has to foot the bill for those tax cuts," Looney said. "You have to tap into middle- and lower-income households."

Bottom line: the study found that Romney couldn't keep all his goals based on what we know about his plan.

Romney campaign’s response

When the study appeared online, the Romney campaign posted a response on its website that did not specifically address the discrepancy.

"President Obama continues to tout liberal studies calling for more tax hikes and more government spending. We've been down that road before – and it's led us to 41 straight months of unemployment above 8 percent," said Romney spokesman Ryan Williams.

Looney is a senior fellow in economic studies at Brookings who has a Ph.D. from Harvard University. He served on Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers in 2009 and 2010. William Gale, another of the authors, is vice president of Brookings and director of its economic studies program. He served on President George H.W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Lanhee Chen, the Romney campaign’s policy director, later added in a press release that the study ignored the corporate tax rate cut Romney proposes and his deficit reduction plan.

"These glaring gaps invalidate the report’s conclusions," Chen said.

The Romney campaign said that the study ignored the assertion that lower tax rates will grow the economy -- which they say will translate into more tax revenues. That will help make the plan revenue neutral even with lower overall tax rates.

Spending cuts, likewise, could help balance the tax cuts without having to raise taxes on people making less than $200,000. The study, for the record, did consider that possibility but concluded it was impossible to evaluate the effect of spending cuts without knowing what would be cut.  They also noted that "government spending tends to benefit low- and middle-income households."

We find nothing in the study that distorts Romney’s proposals. It makes assumptions favorable to Romney, namely that his plan would lead to greater economic growth and raise revenues. The Tax Policy Center, whose director is another former adviser to Bush, is well-respected for its unbiased work, and even the Romney campaign praised it in November 2011 for offering "objective, third-party analysis."

Our ruling

Obama said Romney is proposing a tax plan "that would give millionaires another tax break and raises taxes on middle class families by up to $2,000 a year."

The claims are based on a study by the Tax Policy Center, which used what Romney has said about his tax plan and attempted to calculate outcomes for different groups of taxpayers.

The study prioritizes the idea that the plan would be revenue neutral. In that scenario, millionaires lose deductions, but the lower rates would still decrease their tax bill by an average of $87,000.

Middle-class taxpayers would see lower tax rates, too, but the loss of exemptions and deductions would hit them harder. People making $200,000 or less a year would see their taxes rise by an average of about $2,000.

The study is making the point that Romney’s plan is untenable: to cut rates that much without adding to the deficit, something has to give. It necessarily makes some assumptions, and therefore these conclusions are not definite as long as the details of the plan remain unknown. For that reason, people should be cautious in calling this Romney's plan.

We rate the claim Mostly True.

[240 is Back]

U6 is 15 percent mr. MBA but does not know squat about economics.

i'll call the BLS and let them know they're all wrong.  thank goodness getbig is here to set the international record straight.

[Kazan]

i'll call the BLS and let them know they're all wrong.  thank goodness getbig is here to set the international record straight.

I would hope you would know by now, whoever is in office, changes the criteria for the way unemployment is counted to make themselves look good. Obama is no different, 8.3 is a fucking joke and you know it.

[Dos Equis]

Will not be below 7.2.  Will be interesting to see if this holds true.