If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Investors Business Daily)   If Obama's economic recovery had merely been average, there'd be 6.5 million more people with jobs today   (news.investors.com) divider line 50
    More: Fail, President Obama, economic recovery, IBD, median household income  
•       •       •

1045 clicks; posted to Business » on 30 May 2012 at 9:07 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



50 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-05-30 08:24:33 AM
The recession we've had was much worse and had a confluence of factors that combined to exacerbate any recovery. It's trying to compare the recovery of the Great Depression using the average recovery of the cyclical depressions (i.e. the booms and busts) that came before The Great Depression at the pace of one every 10 years or so.
 
2012-05-30 08:30:13 AM
In fact, it's come in well below average on several key indicators compared with the previous 10 economic recoveries, dating back to 1949

I'm sure there's nothing at all arbitrary and capricious about IBD's selection of that particular date range.
 
2012-05-30 08:31:09 AM
How did the implosion rate in the scale of the last 50 years?

You know, the one that we inherited from the last Administration?

Anyone?

Anyone?
 
2012-05-30 08:34:32 AM
The rest of the world and it's economy. How does it work?

Guffaws at any suggestion that outside influences could or would ever affect our markets and economic recovery.
 
2012-05-30 08:36:46 AM
Well, I guess Romneybot has added the EconomicDerp.exe subroutine.
 
2012-05-30 08:45:01 AM

SilentStrider: Well, I guess Romneybot has added the EconomicDerp.exe subroutine.


Looks like today's talking point has gone out and FreeperMod is dutifully greenlighting it.
 
2012-05-30 08:50:09 AM

propasaurus: SilentStrider: Well, I guess Romneybot has added the EconomicDerp.exe subroutine.

Looks like today's talking point has gone out and FreeperMod is dutifully greenlighting it.


Amercia- Land of the freep, Home of the barve.
 
2012-05-30 08:54:46 AM
If the economic collapse had been merely average that number might mean something.
 
2012-05-30 08:54:49 AM
Anyone care to cite the stats on what the unemployment rate would be if not for all the gov jobs cut?? Republican austerity, killing Europe and slowing things here.
 
2012-05-30 09:40:19 AM
Comparing everything to the way everything SHOULD be is a great way to think everything sucks.
 
2012-05-30 09:42:46 AM
Ah, the it's Obama Recovery, not the Bush Great Depression pt II. Gotcha.
 
2012-05-30 09:44:16 AM

TwoHead: If the economic collapse had been merely average that number might mean something.


If the economic collapse had been merely average that number might mean something
If the economic collapse had been merely average that number might mean something
If the economic collapse had been merely average that number might mean something
If the economic collapse had been merely average that number might mean something
 
2012-05-30 09:47:28 AM
He needs a war to be able to turn it around like FDR?
 
2012-05-30 09:49:27 AM

CPT Ethanolic: Anyone care to cite the stats on what the unemployment rate would be if not for all the gov jobs cut?? Republican austerity, killing Europe and slowing things here.


There are 607,000 fewer public sector jobs since 1/20/2009. In the private sectors, the 35,000 jobs were added since 1/20/2009.
 
2012-05-30 09:54:11 AM
It's almost as if there were some political party cutting off recovery efforts at every turn. But we know that's impossible, so it's all Obama's fault.
 
2012-05-30 10:04:40 AM
Remember that this is the newspaper that said:

"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."

Somehow I think that some of their facts might be slightly suspect.
 
2012-05-30 10:05:29 AM
I have been told that under Obama, 3 million - and maybe as many as 4 million - people have become unemployed. The most sublime aspect of this, of course, is that these people will be unemployed for the remainder of their lives.
 
2012-05-30 10:07:02 AM

Pants full of macaroni!!: I have been told that under Obama, 3 million - and maybe as many as 4 million - people have become unemployed. The most sublime aspect of this, of course, is that these people will be unemployed for the remainder of their lives.


Hey, I get it!

www.emedstores.com
 
2012-05-30 10:29:55 AM
This is different because black.
 
2012-05-30 10:36:12 AM

kronicfeld: I'm sure there's nothing at all arbitrary and capricious about IBD's selection of that particular date range.


Considering 1949 was the first major recessionary contraction after WWII (not counting the demobilization of 1945), no, there wasn't really anything arbitrary or capricious about that date range since they were referring specifically to post-WWII recessions and recoveries.
 
2012-05-30 10:42:45 AM

minoridiot: He needs a war to be able to turn it around like FDR?


How would a war help that the New Deal wouldn't?
 
2012-05-30 10:46:21 AM
I wonder how many jobs there would be if the cons weren't fighting the recovery.
 
2012-05-30 10:46:47 AM
And if Reaganites didn't blow up the economy, we wouldn't need a recovery.
 
2012-05-30 10:53:12 AM
Browsed the main Politics section for possible political bias:

Obama tells 2012 graduates: Your futures are great, unless you want jobs
Three of Mitt Romney's emerging strengths
GOP: 22 million Americans struggle to find work in this Obama economy
Obama: Michelle and I will join veterans marking Memorial Day

Hmm...3 are pretty right-leaning and one at least doesn't blast Obama.

Seems pretty fair and balanced.
 
2012-05-30 11:01:24 AM

dsmith42: Remember that this is the newspaper that said:

"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."

Somehow I think that some of their facts might be slightly suspect.


The facts are technically correct, however the previous posters are correct in that economic context counts. Obama inherited a shiat sandwich so looking at how slow this recovery is irrelevant without understanding the nature of the recession.
 
2012-05-30 11:08:33 AM
subby: Obama's economic recovery

Yes, the performance of the largest and most-complex economy in the history of the human species is 100% dependent on the actions of a single man. Because, after all, this is a totalitarian dictatorship.
 
2012-05-30 11:17:02 AM

Ricardo Klement: minoridiot: He needs a war to be able to turn it around like FDR?

How would a war help that the New Deal wouldn't?


It kills off some of the unemployable.
 
2012-05-30 11:19:03 AM

CPT Ethanolic: Anyone care to cite the stats on what the unemployment rate would be if not for all the gov jobs cut?? Republican austerity, killing Europe and slowing things here.


My Republican friends in Europe would like to have a word with you.
 
2012-05-30 11:21:53 AM

Dog Welder: Ricardo Klement: minoridiot: He needs a war to be able to turn it around like FDR?

How would a war help that the New Deal wouldn't?

It kills off some of the unemployable.


If they're unemployable, they're not much good as soldiers, either.
 
2012-05-30 11:24:36 AM

Dog Welder: Ricardo Klement: minoridiot: He needs a war to be able to turn it around like FDR?

How would a war help that the New Deal wouldn't?

It kills off some of the unemployable.


Not to mention blowing the hell out of the industrial base of our largest competitors for manufacturing jobs overseas. The big reason we did so well after WWII is that we were about the only industrialized country in the world that came out of the war with our factories unscathed and no major rebuilding of cities needed.
 
2012-05-30 11:47:38 AM

Hydra: kronicfeld: I'm sure there's nothing at all arbitrary and capricious about IBD's selection of that particular date range.

Considering 1949 was the first major recessionary contraction after WWII (not counting the demobilization of 1945), no, there wasn't really anything arbitrary or capricious about that date range since they were referring specifically to post-WWII recessions and recoveries.


considering the fact that the world hasn't seen an economic event like this since 1929, I think Kronic was pointing out that it'd be more relevant to compare this recovery to the 1930s. It's like comparing nuclear bombs to apples, instead of apples to apples.
 
2012-05-30 12:15:10 PM
B-B-B-B-But Bush!

B-B-B-B-But Reagan!
 
2012-05-30 12:19:31 PM

Ricardo Klement: Dog Welder: Ricardo Klement: minoridiot: He needs a war to be able to turn it around like FDR?

How would a war help that the New Deal wouldn't?

It kills off some of the unemployable.

If they're unemployable, they're not much good as soldiers, either.


The US entry into the war wasn't nearly as big as just the outbreak in Europe was. Bullets aren't recyclable. You have to keep replacing them. When we passed the Lend-Lease act, that was the major turn in our GDP. Employment and production didn't hit pre-1929 levels until we started arming the world.
 
2012-05-30 12:22:36 PM

Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: Hydra: kronicfeld: I'm sure there's nothing at all arbitrary and capricious about IBD's selection of that particular date range.

Considering 1949 was the first major recessionary contraction after WWII (not counting the demobilization of 1945), no, there wasn't really anything arbitrary or capricious about that date range since they were referring specifically to post-WWII recessions and recoveries.

considering the fact that the world hasn't seen an economic event like this since 1929, I think Kronic was pointing out that it'd be more relevant to compare this recovery to the 1930s. It's like comparing nuclear bombs to apples, instead of apples to apples.


There have been recessions like this in other countries: the financial recessions of Japan in the 80s or Sweden and Finland in the 90s were similar, as was the 30s depression here. The differences between these and the others cited in TFA are that they were financial in nature, and were much, much longer than normal boom-bust cycle recessions. The author of the article is either ignorant or malicious because this should be known by someone trying to compare recessions.
 
2012-05-30 12:25:09 PM

Ricardo Klement: Dog Welder: Ricardo Klement: minoridiot: He needs a war to be able to turn it around like FDR?

How would a war help that the New Deal wouldn't?

It kills off some of the unemployable.

If they're unemployable, they're not much good as soldiers, either.


They are good for...

kiefersutherland.unblog.fr

FRONT LINE INFANTRY.
 
2012-05-30 12:33:11 PM
IBD: for when your investing information needs are fully covered by FARTBAMA BAD! LAFFER CURVE! TRICKLE DOWN!
 
2012-05-30 01:21:49 PM

Wendy's Chili: And if Reaganites didn't blow up the economy, we wouldn't need a recovery.


Reaganites? Really? Stupid leftist canards like this don't become any less of a lie if you keep repeating them.
 
2012-05-30 01:24:36 PM

hubiestubert: How did the implosion rate in the scale of the last 50 years?

You know, the one that we inherited from the last Administration?

Anyone?

Anyone?


The economic mess Reagan inherited from Carter was pretty nasty in its own right.
 
2012-05-30 01:49:52 PM

Wendy's Chili: And if Reaganites didn't blow up the economy, we wouldn't need a recovery.


I hate being a CFP. I have to explain to everyone why the economy sucks all the time, yet so few people grasp how it works. So when I hear someone compare the recovery now compared to the recovery under Reagan, I always have to point out the fact that Reagan didn't have to fix the problems caused by Reagan.
 
2012-05-30 02:42:33 PM

darcsun: Wendy's Chili: And if Reaganites didn't blow up the economy, we wouldn't need a recovery.

I hate being a CFP. I have to explain to everyone why the economy sucks all the time, yet so few people grasp how it works. So when I hear someone compare the recovery now compared to the recovery under Reagan, I always have to point out the fact that Reagan didn't have to fix the problems caused by Reagan.


Yeah, the 16 million jobs created on his watch was a HUGE problem. So was the taming of inflation..........rebuilding of a hollowed out military and on and on and on.
 
2012-05-30 06:02:02 PM
This mechanic sucks - he's too slow.
Let's give the keys back to the guys who wrecked the car to begin with!
That would be M-O-O-N, and that spells smart!
 
2012-05-30 06:41:19 PM

The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: on and on and on.


Keep slurping at that traitorous knob for all the good it will do. He's dead and freezing in the ninth circle where he belongs and even your faithful slobbering can't warm his damned soul.
 
2012-05-30 07:28:01 PM
Stop calling it Obama's recovery; it's our recovery. All of us, collectively.

E Pluribus Farking Unum, diptits.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-05-30 09:00:20 PM

The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: Wendy's Chili: And if Reaganites didn't blow up the economy, we wouldn't need a recovery.

Reaganites? Really? Stupid leftist canards like this don't become any less of a lie if you keep repeating them.


Except for the fact that they are 100% true? The whole cut taxes to grow the economy hay been proven false. It was bullshiat then and it is bullshiat now.
 
2012-05-30 09:39:49 PM
Well obvious solution here. Lets Filibuster every act designed to help it and stop the one or two things getting through. That way we can party like its 1929.
 
2012-05-30 11:03:28 PM

beta_plus: B-B-B-B-But Bush!

B-B-B-B-But Reagan!


You forgot a Bush.

/conservative butthurt, it never gets old...
 
2012-05-30 11:25:44 PM

Farkengruven: I wonder how many jobs there would be if the cons weren't fighting the recovery.


Or how many extra jobs there would be if USA Inc. hadn't outsourced so many of them to China and India.
 
2012-05-31 03:28:34 AM

RexTalionis: The recession we've had was much worse and had a confluence of factors that combined to exacerbate any recovery. It's trying to compare the recovery of the Great Depression using the average recovery of the cyclical depressions (i.e. the booms and busts) that came before The Great Depression at the pace of one every 10 years or so.


Sure! Use words. Nerd!
 
2012-05-31 04:27:20 AM
If companies weren't looking at losing 10K workers a week to retirement as baby boomers turn 65, this would be a much more "normal" recovery. Why would companies expand employment when they would just lose the labor in a year or two?

That is the real issue. It's been in the works for 30+ years, the recession just gave them an excuse to restructure to not need the Baby Boomers several years early. Until they drop out of the labor market in larger numbers we will have high unemployment.

And no it's not the Baby Boomer laborers who are the problem. It is the corporate mentality that puts next quarter returns before long term solvency.
 
2012-06-01 10:52:32 AM
Hmmm, there is one downturn that is missing, great something.

This recession is taking longer because so much crap started it and is continuing it. Banks failed and stopped lending. House prices dropped, personal equity was swept away, local and state government lost a good chunk of revenue. Many jobs have been outsourced and not able to come back, the available jobs pay much less. Local and state governments have cut so many jobs, that is the largest sector of jobs not to have regained their loses since 1/20/2009. And we are getting out of a costly war instead of getting into one.

All of these factors did not happen in one downturn before, also this is the worse one to hit in that time frame.
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report