Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Thursday, October 27, 2016

Nov. 6 (Bloomberg View) — In recent months, I have argued that solid jobs reports wouldn’t help the Democrats in the 2014 elections. We have another excellent set of numbers today, showing that the unemployment rate fell to 5.8 percent in October, the lowest level in six years.

This report will matter … for 2016. Or, as Ryan Lizza tweeted this morning: “The jobs report that came out today is probably more important for 2016 than anything that happened on Tuesday.”

Well, not this particular jobs report in isolation. But cumulatively, the odds are increasing that voters are finally going to believe the economy is growing. The economic picture is hardly perfect, but it’s also not unusual for perceptions to lag any improvement. For example, 20 years ago, Republicans would tell you that the recession that began in 1990 had ended well before voters went to the polls in 1992 and kicked President George H.W. Bush out of office because of the economy’s performance.* But that electorate turned around and punished the Democrats in 1994 for that same long-ended recession. It took about three or four years for voters to acknowledge good times.

This time, it’s taken even longer for voters to decide the economy has turned around. The lag is consistent with a far deeper recession and halting recovery. But I suspect we’re very close to a change in perceptions, at least if solid numbers keep rolling out. For example, Gallup’s “economic confidence” index is very close to turning positive for the first time since the recession. Consumer confidence is up, too, and the number of Americans who think the economy is in a recession, while still high, is declining.

So in another year or so, we will get to the point when the economy is strengthening and voters start to believe it, which should help Democrats in 2016. That’s true whether or not President Barack Obama’s policies are responsible; it’s true even though a Republican Congress could claim credit. On this, the record is clear: A good economy helps the party that holds the White House.

The economy, however, isn’t the only thing that will affect the 2016 elections; foreign policy disasters would hurt Democrats, as might any other large-scale domestic policy failure. And Republicans should be in a decent position for the presidential race, given that three consecutive terms for any party are rare. So reading the early tea leaves, I’ll say that 2016 begins as a tossup. But the more positive economic news we get, the better the Democrats’ chances.

*Of course, the same Republicans who tell you that Bush had saved the economy also told Bush that he deserved his fate for accepting (supposedly) economy-destroying tax increases. I never understood how those two arguments fit together.

AFP Photo/Brendan Smialowski

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 The National Memo
  • mike

    Keep dreaming you on the left. The American people aren’t seeing it in their paychecks. No real change in participation rate, new jobs missed projections, most importantly is how much the numbers will be revised in the next few weeks. How many were part time jobs? Until we see 300-400k new jobs will Americans start to believe things ARE getting better. American people with half a brain know Obama has been a failure from leadership at home, abroad, and the left paid for it this past Tuesday. The uninformed, unenlightened, unintelligent and those not motivated to know the truth will continue to be hoodwinked by the left. There is no War on Women, or racism within the Republican party. Women won top spots with ease. Republican Black candidates won their races, and more will be elected. I see the NAACP REFUSED to mention their victories, how very sad.
    The left needs to get new talking points, the old ones are no longer working.

    • All so true, yet the lioberals will continue to lie and deceive the American people.

    • Lynda Groom

      You’ve asked a couple of good questions along with some distortions. Check with the Bureau of Labor Statistics for a better understanding of part-time vs full time.

      The nation is still trying to fully recover from the 2nd worst economic collapse in the nations history. The recession is responsible for the trend in part time, not policies of the administration as the numbers clearly show.

      The Bureau users 35 + hours as the starting point for full-time and under 35 hours as part time. That number can certainly be debated, but that is what is used as the benchmark and has been for a long time.

      In 1968 the number of part-time workers was 13.5% of the total. At the worst of the last recession it was 20.1% in mid 2010. In 2014 it has dropped to 18.7%. Following all recessions part-time work grows in percentage as business begins to recover. This is normal.

      In 2014 the 35 + hours per week of the work force is 81.3% of the total.

      Here is number that might help you understand the problem of compensation and inequality. Between 1978 and 2013 CEO compensation has grown 937%, while us working stiffs have only seen 10.2%. As you can see the trend did not start in January of 2009 when Obama took office.

      There are a number of reason why the American worker is not receiving their fair share of the pie, but trying to point the finger at Obama, or the Democrats, is ignoring decades of the decline in worker compensation. It happenend under GOP presidents and their administrations as well.

      • mike

        Nice try!!! it is Obama’s fault and his policies. Employers stay under 30 hours(part time) to keep from having to cover employees as full time because of how Obamacare was written.
        Ergo, smaller paychecks and less disposable income..
        Try and understand.

        Back in June new jobs totaled 285K of those all but 13K were part time positions. That’s right only 13,000 full time jobs. I suspect you would find that trend in each of the following months comparing full to part time employment.

        Your attempt to refute just didn’t work. I noticed you ignored election results and simple facts that must happen to gets US going again.

        • Lynda Groom

          Mike you should really take the time to read the BLS News Release of November 7, 2014. Numbers can be hard, but facts do matter. I will highlight just a couple from the dozens of pages of that release for your perusal.

          From Table A
          Of the available civilian work force of 156,728,000, 147,283,000 are consider employed.

          The number of unemployed is about 8,995 million.

          From Table A-8 we get into the details of the numbers. Here are the P/T numbers for all industries.

          Part Time for economic reasons: 7,027 million
          P/T for slack work businss conditions: 4,214 million. Those who could only find part time work: 2,447 million. And those part time for non-economic reasons: 19,769 million.

          From Table A-9 we find the following info regarding part-time as a percentage of the total work force.

          Full time workers: 119,632 million and Part Time workers: 27,693 million.

          If you bother to go to the website you can discover all kinds of interesting information regarding the history of part time work, and its place in the recovery from economic recessions. Keep in mind we are still suffering the effects of the 2nd worse economic recession in the last 100 years. BTW, there is no way in hell anyone can blame that collapse on Obama or his so-called policies.

          BTW, I did not comment about the election results since I my remarks were confined to the subject at hand. ‘Jobs Report is Good News For 2016 Democrats.’ Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t, and only time will tell.

          • mike

            So glad you take the time to look up info, but they are meaningless numbers.
            The American people are suffering and have been suffering will after the recession ended.
            To say Obama and his policies have nothing to do with this stagnant growth is just wrong.
            The number of major new regulations on business and other aspects of our lives is a major cause of this poor economy. The regulatory uncertainty causes business to move cautiously in their decision making. Obamacare is a part of the problem and for you to ignore the the 30 hour mandate as not part of the lack full times jobs is ludicrous.



            What I find:

            wages are barely beating inflation.
            3.8 million non-retired have quit looking for work

            In “07” 2.8% percent of population were working part time and wanted full time, now 4.5% fall in this category.

            % of unemployed who have looked for a job in past 4 weeks but still jobless after 6 months or more stands at 31%. And will have a hard time finding work.

          • Lynda Groom

            You should read the news release from the BLS. Really you should, for it will provide you with the details the flesh out the details. If you believe the BLS numbers are meaningless I’m afraid that government, big business, economist and big banking don’t agree. BLS has been the go too place for such info since 1888. But I digress.

            Another place to start would be with the BLS release of Nov 2008. Note that Obama was not in office then.

            Table A-9 Nov 2008. duration time of unemployment:

            -5 weeks: 3,251 million
            5-14 weeks: 3,091 m
            15-26 weeks: 1,757 m
            27 + weeks: 2,206 m

            Table A: Nov 014 duration time of unemployment:
            -5 weeks: 2,473 milion
            5-14 weeks: 2,312 m
            15-26 weeks: 1,417 m
            27 + weeks: 2,916 m

            Notice that the trend did not start under Obama:

            From Table A-5: Nov 2008 Breakdown of P/T work

            For economic reasons: 7,321 million
            Slack business conditions: 5,426 m
            Only find P/T work: 1,572 m
            Non economic reasons: 18,880 m

            The Nov 2008 numbers are vitually the same as the report of Nov 2014. Certainly nothing to crow about, but show that it is false to imply that the problems are due to Obama policies or ObamaCare.

            As too ObamaCare employer mandate. Fact is the numbers are not there to support any conclusion on job creation, part-time or otherwise. Besides, the mandate is still over a year away, and may indeed never be applied. There is a level of agreement, bipartisan, that it may not be needed since the individual mandate is in effect.

            As to flat wages, why are you still trying to make the argument that this is the faulth of Obama and his policies? The trend is decades old. I will again quote the figure I supplied to you earlier. Since 1978 – 2013 CEO compensation has risen 937%, while working Americans have seen only 10.2%. Where was the outrage during the terms of previous presidents? That trend has held true under both Democratic and Republican terms.

            In order to move this discussion into reality the problem has to be addressed without hyperebole and finger pointing. There is plenty of blame to go around , and it is found in policies that favor the top tier of society and the expense of the rest of us.

          • Dominick Vila

            Lynda, people like Mike and KennDeb are not interested in facts, statistics, or the evidence that should be obvious to everyone. Their job is to distort the record using facile claims that appeal to the uninformed. The first casualty of political campaigning – and the 2016 campaign is already underway – is the truth.

          • mike

            Nor are you interested in facts. I haven’t distorted one fact Not once have you had the balls to prove me wrong or even try to answer my questions. So save me your crap.
            My point with Lynda, is she can state all these historical numbers which does not bring solace to those Millions of Americans out of a job, underemployed, or quit looking for work.
            She stated that Obama and his policies are not responsible for the absolute dismal recovery. That is plain BS.

          • Dominick Vila

            Dismal recovery? Consider this:
            GDP growth = 3.8% avg
            Unemployment = 5.4% by the time he left office
            Inflation= 8.4%
            Relied on deficit spending and accumulation of debt.

            George H. W. Bush
            GDP growth = 2.8% avg
            Unemployment = 7.3% by the time he left office
            Inflation = 4.5%
            Relied on deficit spending and accumulation of debt.

            Bill Clinton
            GDP growth = 3.8% avg
            Unemployment = 4.2% by the time he left office
            Inflation = 2.5%
            His policies contributed to the first budget surplus in half a century.

            George W. Bush
            GDP = 1.6% avg
            Unemployment: 7.8% by the time he left office
            Inflation: 2.84%
            Relied on deficit spending and borrowing.

            Since President Obama has two more years to go, and it is impossible to predict what the economy ill be like by the time he leaves office, I can only provide the latest statistics (2nd QTR):
            GDP = 4.6%
            Unemployment = 5.8% Oct 14
            Inflation: 1.8%
            Reduced deficit by 2/3

            There have always been people left behind during economic recoveries. Obviously, efforts must be made to determine the root causes of that fact and corrective action must be taken, but denying the obvious is not a solution or a credible argument. We always had part time workers. Some prefer that type of employment because of personal priorities (caring for children, elderly parents, etc), others, such as those working in fast food or construction jobs, for example, have always worked part time. Citing this as evidence of a weak economy is an argument that is inconsistent with the reality of our circumstances.

          • mike

            Still living in the past I see. Still trying to find a way to spin the truth. Worst growth after a recession, maybe ever.
            Why was the left defeated soundly last Tuesday? Very simple. the economy stupid.
            It is a dismal recovery no matter how hard you try. CBO 2-4-14 said “the economy is in worse shape than forecaster thought, primarily because of expected slow growth.”

          • Dominick Vila

            A past you prefer to ignore because of what it represents to you and your fellow right wingers. Denying the obvious, and relying on predictions that may or may not prove to be accurate is a sign of desperation.
            Economic growth, at 4.6% is outstanding, and so if the job creation record achieved in recent years. Whether or not the growth rate remains as it is now, and deficits continue to be reduced is something that we will have to wait and see. What is undeniable is the record, which people like you, understandably, dismiss.

          • mike

            Really!!! Nice try!!! Don’t think so. In fact know so!!
            2014 might hit annual rate of 2.3 and a little above.

          • Dominick Vila

            Time will tell…

          • Lynda Groom

            It is always a good idea to look at our trading partners when trying to understand the ‘real’ picture of our GDP. We live in connected world and what happens beyond our borders does indeed have consequences to our economy. Annual GDP growth alone does not tell the story of how well, or not, the United States is handling economic issues. Asia is stalling and Europe is in a mess compared to the USA.

            But first, from the Wall Street Journal this last September. ‘If expansion greater than 3% materializes for the third quarter, that would be the strongest stretch of economic growth since 2004-2005, the height of the last decade’s expansion.’

            ‘Meanwhile, a soft global economy continues to weigh on the U.S. as sagging growth in Europe and Asia restrains American exports.’

            Yeah I know, that is somehow Obama fault.

            You are stating that our annual GDP growth may hit 2.3% for 2014. As Dominick said ‘time will tell.’ Indeed we will find out the last quarter figues before the month ends. What is important to see how we are doing compared with our partners abroad.

            Belgium: .2%
            Denmark: .4
            Finland: 1.4
            France: .2
            Germany: .4 (they are the power house of Europe)
            Greece: – 3.9
            Italy: – 1.9
            Neth: – .8
            Norway: .6
            Portugal: – 1.4
            Spain: – 1.2
            Swit: 1.9
            UK: 1.7

            As compared with the 36 so-called advanced nations we are cruising along. Also from the Wall Street Journal our growth has been at least 3.5% for 3 of the last 4 quarters.

            Here’s more from the International Monetary Fund report on Job growth:

            USA: 139.9 million jobs 2009: 145.9 million jobs in 2014: Growth 4.27%

            36 Advanced Nations: 326.5 million 2009: 332.8 million in 2014: Growth 1.92%

            G7 Nations: 196.1 million in 2009: 200.8 million in 2014: Growth 2.41%

          • mike

            I think you are off on your numbers for 2014. Ist quarter -2.1%, 2nd quarter 4.6%, 3rd. quarter 3.5% on 11-25 we will get last of two adustments. 4th quarter to be determined.
            Dom said annual growth rate was 4.6%.

          • Lynda Groom

            Indeed no man is an island and the same can be said for nations on this planet. What happens off our shores has a very direct effect upon on economy, its growth and contraction. Glad to see you realize that we are doing better that most of the world. We are making some small progress here.

            You say ‘this is the U.S. and we could be doing better.’ Nobody is saying that the economy could not be better. The big difference is that you blame Obama for everything without offering an alternative. The President can’t get Congress to pass legislation to put folks back to work. They had years to do somethng about a JOBS bill and have not done so. They had years to pass somethng on immigration and they’ve not done so.

            You ask about higher taxes, Dodd-Frank, ObamaCare, high energy costs, high-taxes and major regulations. That a lot to cover and not very productive as you’ve outlined the question.

            As too high-taxes, that is very broad subject. Are you talking about personal income taxes, corporate taxes or the percentage of taxes and GDP effects? As too personal income taxes, we all understand that almost half of American’s pay little or no tax to the Fed. The Stimulus Bill was about 30% tax breaks for small business. A large hunk of the Fortune 500 pay near zero. Example GE who pay nothing.

            What major regulations are you talking about? Be specific if you can. Most regulations in effect in this nation have been in effect for decades.

            Dodd-Frank has not been as effective as planned for a variety of reasons. Do you have a problem with trying to stop ‘Too Big to Fail?’ Do you have a problem with trying to protect ordinary citizens from be duped into taking risky products from lenders? There has been a crack down on billions in excessive overdraft fees. Is that a bad thing?

            Higher-energy costs. Again be specific. Energy prices are global and beyond the office of the President. Examples can be found everywhere on the net to prove the point. I will list just these few for you use. The source: IEA, EAI, OANDA.

            Electricity cost in 2011 by country in US cents p/kHr. India .8 Russia, 11, Brazil 17, UK .20, Australia .29, Germany .35, Canada .10, France .19, Japan .26, Spain .30, Denmark .41 and USA .12. In 2013; Spain .14, Germany 18.1, UK 13.61, Australia 13.38, France 9..95, Italy 20.56, and the USA 9.33. Notice the trend line???

            From the US Energy Information Admin: Nov 12, 2014. Here are prices for energy by year and product.

            Oil (barrel) 2012: 94.12, 2013: 97.91, 2014: 97.72( that is dropping)

            Gasoline: same years, $3.63, $3.51, $3.45 Diesel: same years $3.91, $3.52, $3.85
            Heating Oil: same years $3.79, $3.78, $3.79
            Natural Gas p/1000 cubic feet: same years
            $10.69, $10.31, $11.09
            Coal’ per million BTU’s: same years $2.38, $2.33, $2.36
            The above also from US Info Admin.

            You’ve made yet another strange comment regarding banks not lending due to massive regulations. Really?

            Check the FDIC ‘Statistics at a Glance’ to find your info incorrect. Here are two important pieces from that report for June 30, 2014 vs 2nd Quarter 2013.

            Total loans $8,109 in billions, Domestic deposits: $10,058 in billions. vs $7,732 in billions and $9,396 in billions. One is bigger than the other and in the opposite direction than you’ve claimed.

            Here is more from the FDIC current survey (Oct 2014) you can read on line. The data is from domestic and agenices in foreign banks within USA.

            “Most respondents that reported having eased either standards or terms of C&I loans over the past three months cited more-agressive competition from other banks or nonbank lenders as an important reason for having done so. Smaller numbers of banks also attributed their easing to a more favorable or less uncertain economic outlook and increased tolerance for risk.’

            “On the demand side,a modest net fraction of banks reported having experienced stronger demand for C&I loans from large and middle-market firms. Banks reported that loan demand from small firms had remained about unchanged on net. To explain the reported increase in loan demand by larger firms, banks cited a wide range of customer’s financing needs, particulary those related to inventories, accounts receivable, investment in plant or equipment, and mergers and acquisitions. Foreign banks also report having seen stronger demand on net.”

            It should be clear the banks increasing loans due to increased demand is a sign that the economy, big and small business is growing.

            Back to the GDP numbers that I provided from WSJ. What can I say? From the Bureau of Economic Analysis October 30, 14 advanced estimates…3.5% growth rate for third quarter and a correction for the 2nd quarter of 4.6%. There does appear to be a good possibility that our 2014 total yearly rate will be higher than 2.3%. Look to our trading partners to see how well we are actually doing.

          • mike

            Surprise, Surprise, you absolutely refuse to admit the slow growth of this economy has even a smidgen to do with Obama’s policies. What a laugh.
            And yet, his policies caused the loss of the Senate, more House seats lost, etc.. If it wasn’t his policies then why the loses. He even said “my policies are on the ballot”.
            I even bet that our financial collapse in your eyes was started over seas and had nothing to do with US.
            Ask any business executive and he will tell you the lack of credit from parts of Dodd-Frank, regulations causing higher costs, etc.. make growth more difficult. Increased loans have been happening but nothing close to the level to bring us back quicker. All the unknown and uncertainty as what this govt. regulations demand only slows the possible growth accelerate.

            I love your figures but they still can’t change the fact that growth is still stagnant and as the CBO has said “Obama’s policies will slow economic growth over the next decade.” Feb. 2014
            You are the only one that can’t see the real facts. You and only You.

            As to GDP those are my numbers. I didn’t say it would be exactly 2.3% but could be better but not 4.6%. I wish it would be 4.6% and 300-400K in new hires per month but it isn’t and won’t be under this administration. The numbers you quoted are the same numbers I used but you left out the -2.1% 1st quarter.

            Enjoyed your approach to this discussion but see this is going nowhere. You can’t even admit,even a smidgen, that Obama’s policies are part of the stagnant growth of the US. Which is a sad!!


          • Lynda Groom

            Again what policies and what regulations are you talking about? You just keep repeating rhetoric without anything of substance to back up your beliefs. In the real world debate and analysis of issues requires input with facts and figures to back up ones point-of-view. Well I get it you don’t like Obama, but that is not a substantial argument. I’ve tried to provide concise information from ‘real’ sources that indicate most of your opinions to be off base. The information I’m using isn’t political. Facts do matter.

            As too my views of Obama, I’ve tried to keep to the facts and leave politics aside. Obama has not lived up to the expectations that so many had of him back in 2007/2008. I realized that he was facing gigantic forces of the status quo that would not bend to his vision of the future. I’m pragmatic and saw before most that his presidency would be difficult. Look what was happening when he took office. The second worse economic collapse in at least a century, two wars on our grandchildren’s nonexistent credit cards. Have things fully recovered from the Great Recession? Certainly not, but trying to blame Obama for a world wide event is hardly constructive. Indeed he shares a ‘smidgen’ of the blame for the less than stellar growth of the country. But again you have to look at the world picture and we are doing better than most. Where would we be if our do-nothing Congress had worked just a ‘smidgen’ with the administration, and actually tried to work for the good of the American people instead of pushing agenda driven drivel in place of action?

            Bye bye!

          • mike


            So the CBO is wrong that Obama’s policies will slow down growth for the next decade. All the numbers they run are wrong, Right?

            Never blamed Obama for the world events, just the lack of growth in US.

            If you don’t get the fact that through ACA and other regulatory policies, the Obama administration has imposed hurdles to business investment and formation, and new cost on hiring, you never will.
            Strong economic growth changes everything and you believe his policies aren’t holding it back, Baloney!!!. He continues to give little comfort to the American people by his poor leadership.

            This is not politics, this is the US as it is and it is losing ground everyday and the people have nothing to believe in.

            Stay in denial and continue to be intellectually dishonest.

          • Lynda Groom

            It’s painfully obvious that facts, figures and official reports are meaningless to those not wishing to be accept reality. Hyperbole is not a replacement for a statement of sources and facts. Newspaper articles are opinion, not hard facts like the extensive data contained with the BLS releases.

          • Dominick Vila

            Unfortunately, there are many among us more apt to react to hyperbole, distortions, perceptions that are often the result of their own decisions or shortcomings, and outright lies than do some research to base their opinions on facts rather than cheap rhetoric. To make matters worse, most people have a tendency to blame someone else for the consequences of their decisions than accept responsibility for what they decided or did.

          • mike

            Talk about distortions, watch this video of Gruber one of the architects of Obamacare. As with this administration all lies and distortions. 20:40 you will get your ears full of how corrupt this administration has around it and how little regard for the American people.


          • Dominick Vila

            I don’t have to watch a video by Gruber, or listen to FOX, or Rush. I make my opinions based on what I read and the evidence.
            The Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, is a long overdue program designed to help those who were never able to pay insurance premiums to get preventive medical care because they could not afford it, it helps people with pre-existing conditions, it helps students who are now able to stay in their parents’ policies until age 26, it helps those afflicted by serious – expensive – illnesses who no longer have to sell everything they have to get the medical care they need to stay alive. It helps contain out of control medical costs and, eventually, it may help our corporations and small businesses be more competitive. The cost of the benefit package, which is usually between 40% and 50% for most major corporations, is aggravated by the outrageous cost of medical insurance in the USA, and it is a factor in our inability to compete in the world stage against countries with socialized medical care.

          • mike

            Typical Dom and Obama, distortions, lies and and contempt for the American people is necessary to move the agenda.
            We now see the projected 13 million for 2015 Obamacare is now down to 9.1 million, and the 8 million who signed up for 2014 is just slightly over 7 million.
            Next spring the SCOTIS

          • mike

            Only you chicken-littles with utter devotion to Obama with blind politics would think that this stagnant recovery has anything to do with his policies. What Horse manure.
            Yes, jobs have returned to pre-recession levels but wages are 23% lower. Low wage, often part-time, jobs are replacing high-wage, full time jobs. BLS- 3.4 Million have lost full time jobs. That’s a fact.
            Part of this is Obamacare and the 30 hour week as full time. massive regulations that are costing businesses Billions in dollars which cost jobs and expansion.

            From the day Obama took office his focus has been on the economic policies to maintenance programs for the bottom 15 percent of income earners as the expense of the rest of the country. Typically, primary focus is put on recovery and growth. Under Obama it has been healthcare, unemployment benefits, raising minimum wage, increase welfare payments to those who do not contribute, massive food stamp, green house gas regs., has ignored Keystone XL, raised taxes on rich, and adding burdensome regulations.
            Add all the above and you have policies that make for a slower growth and fewer good paying jobs. If Obama really wants to see real growth he needs to remove the uncertainty and unknowns forcing the business community to hold off expansion.

            Obama has made many mistakes from Dodd-Frank, Basel lll, Obamacare, higher taxes, and ballooning debt, now projected to increase by over 7 Trillion by 2023.

            For you to say that Obama policies have had no effect on the dismal growth since the recession was over in 2009 is nothing but a boldface lie.

          • Lynda Groom

            Do you have any sources besides newspaper articles that counter the official numbers from the BLS? You need to back up your claims with facts and figures. Example you say that wages are 23% lower.

            Recent numbers have shown that the average compensation spread over industries for Americans is $24.53 per hour. In the report of November 2008 that number was $18.30 cents.

          • mike

            I will make it easy for you, Page 1, bottom of page.



            Any person like you who would totally ignore Obama’s effect on the recovery is either delusional or just not motivated to know the truth.

            This election was about the policies of Obama, remember when he said a couple of weeks ago that his policies were on the ballot(he wasn’t), and looked what happened-his party got their asses kicked.

          • Lynda Groom

            Too bad you did not research that report. The same cherry picking took place in the Reuter’s report of August 11, 2014. Both they and the mayor’s report neglected to report all of the info within the report they used.

            The 23% figure was NOT the average decline in all sectors of the employment picture. ‘In some sectors that experienced sever job losses DUE TO THE RECESSION, workers are earning 23% less today. Not as you stated ‘yes jobs have returned to pre-recessions levels but wages are 23% lower.’ That is in fact not true.

            As for part-time jobs vs full time the BLS and Federal Reserve reports indicate you are also fudging the facts with fantasy.

            According to BLS reports, roughly 10% more people are working part-time in Sept 2014 than before the recession. Note that is a increase of 10% of part-timers since before the recession. The reason is the depth of the recession and a slow return to what was normal employment. It has little if anything to do with ObamaCare.

            The report from the Urban Institute published in September 2014 concludes: ‘Based on our anaysis, we find no evidence that the ACA affected part-time employment in 2013 before the implementation of the major provisions. The increase in involuntary part-time work is most likely due to the severity of the Great Recession–Not the ACA.’

            Also from the Federal Reserve Economic Leter of 2013-2014 ‘recent movements and current levels of part-time work are largely within historical norms, despite increases for selected demographic groups, such as prime-age workers with a high-school degree or less. In that respect, the continued high incidence of part-time work likely reflects a slow labor market recovery and does not portend permanent chanes in the proportion of part-time jobs.’

            That report looked at recessions from 1976 until the last one and came too their conclusions based upon historical data sets. Quote: “However, the current level of part-time work is not high by historical standards based on comparison with the adjusted series for the pre-1994 period display in the figure. In particular, on a consistent basis, the part-time employment share peaked at 20.3% in 1983 (long before you heard of Obama), slightly above the recent peak of 19.7% in 2010.

            Also of interested in the Fed Reserve report you will find ‘the media stories have suggested that some employers are only hiring part-time workers to minimize the cost of expanded health coverage. In any event, both the impact of the law so far and the ultimate effect are likely to be small. Before the law was passed, most large employers already faced IRS rules that prevented them from denying avilable health benifits to full-time workers. These rules gave employers an incentive to create part-time jobs to avoid rising health benefits costs. Moreover, recent research suggests that the ultimate increase in the incident of part-time work when the ACA provisions are fully implemented is likely to be small, on the order of 1 to 2 percentage point increase or less (Graham-Squire and Jacobs 2014). This is consistent with the example of Hawaii, where part-time work increased only slightly in the the two decades following enforcement of the state’s employer health care mandate. (Buchmueller, DiNardo and Valletta 2011)

            If you want too you can look them up:

            ‘The Effect of an Employer Health Insurance Mandate on Heatlh Insurance Coverage and the Demand for Labor: Evidence from Hawaii.’

            ‘Which Workers Are Most at Risk of Reducded House under the Affordable Care ACT?’

          • mike

            Nice try again. Low paying jobs now replace once high paying jobs, can’t refute that. The 23% still exists. Plus the fact that the dismal recovery still has 3.4 million less full time jobs.
            Part time jobs are now the norm for new hires.

            What is Obama doing about it – or if what he is doing makes it worse.

            Obama and his policies are still an important reason for this very very slow recovery. Election confirmed that.
            You seem to want to ignore the fact that economy is based on low paying jobs, part-time jobs and fewer workers who earn less supporting federal and state governments that have larger debt than ever before and much bigger and costlier populations of dependents and retirees.
            Obama’s policies are in deed playing a part in this stagnant economy.

          • Lynda Groom

            There is clearly no need to continue this exchange. You are unable, or unwilling to accept factual information over politically driven drivel. The numbers do not support your claim. I’ve already pointed out that the argument you’re trying to make regarding the 23% is based upon a false pretense. The report does not even say what you claim.

            That number concerns primarily those in manufacturing and the construction industry. Both are highly effected by recession for the obvious reasons. Number one being DEMAND falls in recession for goods, sevices and construction. Indeed their yearly averages of $61,637 in 2008 dropped to $47,171 in 2014. But, and it is a big but, that does not equate to ALL job gains being at 23%. In fact the numbers show that to be a false conclusion.

            Where do you believe manufacturing and constuction jobs would be today if our worthless Congress had passed a real jobs bill designed to put those folks to work in repairing out failing and aging infrastructure? Would they be working and perhaps back at their previous levels of compensation? We will never know because of inaction by Congress. You ask ‘what is Obama doing about it,? as if the President can by himself put folks too work.

            I thank you for taking part in this discussion for it has been instructive in pointing out the problems involved in getting to the reality of one of the major issues facing the nation.

          • mike

            Probably right about continuing. You believe this recession is no different to past ones in growth. You believe this recession is like all others, but deeper. I disagree, it is much longer.
            What you will not admit is Obama’s part in these 5 years of stagnant growth. I disagree.
            You believe not even a scintilla/smidgen of poor growth because of Obama policies.
            Should I have qualified the manufacturing and construction loses at 23% lower, yes!!

            Where we would be if Obama had gotten his way, we would be deeper in debt and little to show for it.
            The magic of this country is the private sector and Obama’s anti business attitude is a major reason why our growth is so poor.
            As to what Obama could have done, he could have gotten his hands dirty and led.
            Again, the American people on Tuesday have said Obama fails at getting the economy back on its feet.
            They are hurting and suffering economically and that is the one fact you can not ignore.

          • mike

            Watch a disgusting video of one the major architects of Obamacare, calling Americans stupid and lying to American to get passed.


  • EaglesGlen

    70% to 80% of new jobs are part time, and Obama calls that a new job?
    Most of the new jobs go to aliens? What is the actual percent on that?
    Obama says 10 million new jobs since the economy tanked does not correlate with U.S. Fed information that since the year 2000 we American citizens are still at a minus total number of jobs, and all growth in jobs went to aliens. Where is reality in the news. Smoke and mirrors and big BS?

    • Lynda Groom

      You would be better served by doing a little research before making such ridiculous claims. Start with the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They’ve put out a new release in great detail that proves your notion totally false.

    • Independent1

      What’s the point of posting total absurdities and clearly seen outright lies???? Only a moronic 1/2 brain such as yourself would be fooled by your totally ridiculous blather!!!

  • Elliot J. Stamler

    The American people will notice when we have a Democratic leader who like Harry Truman gets out there and tells them in clear, bold, uncertain, triumphant words….and not a reserved, laid-back, professorial, no-drama man who only with the greatest of difficulty and personal angst can summon up his marvelous oratorical abilities and energy and FIGHT. If we had a Democratic president who did not have the psyche/personality of the incumbent we would have WON not lost this past week. And I personally greatly like the president and supported him but the truth is the truth.

    • Dominick Vila

      There is no question that President Obama’s focus on governance, and the way he has ignored politics since he was elected in January 2009, is a contributing factor to the losses we just had. The same goes for our campaign team, whose performance has been nothing short of disastrous. Last, but not least, let’s not forget the number of Democratic candidates that begged President Obama to stay away because of his, alleged, unpopularity.

      • mike

        Alleged, unpopularity!!!!!! Now you are delusional. More diarrhea of the brain from you, old Dom.
        At least the Senators running for reelection lived in the real world and knew he was poison.

      • Elliot J. Stamler

        Mr. Vila, over time I’ve read many of your comments and I find that I agree with you about 60% of the time. Of course I endorse your endorsement of what I wrote above but one can’t blame candidates for running away from the president in this past election because his unpopularity is real. If I who so strongly supported him have lost my faith and belief in him imagine what many other people less committed than you and I feel…and I am not referring to these Republicans whose outlook was of obstinate contempt of him from day one.