Forbes Mag - Obama outperforms Reagan on jobs growth and investing

Are you fricking kidding me, Eurocat? The author equates unemployment rate with job growth. The unemployment rate is falling for Obama because of a declining labor participation rate. Don't believe me? Just look at GDP growth for Obama vs. Reagan.

Were those stats put together using the same methods and data? Haven't they stopped counting those that quit looking for work in today's numbers?

In other words, the Obama Administration cheats and the true unemployment numbers are double digit.

Socialists think Reagan was Mephistopheles. And Obama himself is jealous as hell of the esteem Reagan was and is held in by the people.

quote:

---

Americans disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy by a 2:1 margin.

---

But Americans are also the stupid people who voted for him. When are we supposed to think their opinion is important, again?

How in the frick is he able to equate unemployment with job creation. He even posted the real fricking numbers...then just makes that idiotic statement.


holy shite, the nation is run by idiots, reported on by idiots, then we have idiots who champion the stupid reporting of the moronic actions.

god help us.

The recession Reagan dealt with ended in November, 1982. The recession Obama dealt with ended in June, 2009. We are currently 62 months after the official end of the recession (meaning when GDP stopped contracting) and our unemployment rate is 6.1%. For Reagan, 62 months after the official end of that recession the unemployment rate was 5.7%. But Reagan beating him on that statistic doesn’t even tell the whole story.

“A measure of the active portion of an economy’s labor force. The participation rate refers to the number of people who are either employed or are actively looking for work. The number of people who are no longer actively searching for work would not be included in the participation rate. During an economic recession, many workers often get discouraged and stop looking for employment, as a result, the participation rate decreases.”

In June, 2009 our Labor Participation Rate was 65.7%, it is now 62.8% (that’s -2.9). In November, 1982 our Labor Participation Rate was 64.2%, 62 months later it was 65.8% (that’s +1.6). So think of the math, when there are more people participating in the labor force then you need more jobs for them. if the participation rate is going down then that HELPS your unemployment rate and if the participation rate is going up that HURTS your unemployment rate.

If the participation rate was the same as Reagans or had the same increase that Reagan had then we would have 9-10% unemployment rate right now.

Plus the Forbes article completely ignores GDP (the actual measuring of what the economy is doing) and incomes. I’ll have to check the numbers but the last time I did GDP grew more than twice as much under Reagan as it has under Obama. Under Reagan incomes went up, even with inflation and yes even for the bottom 20% of earners. Under Obama incomes for the middle class and the poor have gone down.

Head to head the results really aren’t even close, I find the article very, very dishonest. We have to look into the details because every article is written from somebody’s point of view. And some times that person doesn’t know much.

quote:

---

Must have missed it or something

---

just like America 'missed' O's recovery. went right over our heads it was so quick

LINK