Type to search

Gratitude? Fuggedaboutit

Economy Memo Pad Politics

Gratitude? Fuggedaboutit


WASHINGTON — As Ken Burns’ superb documentary on the Roosevelts reminded us, “Happy Days Are Here Again” is one of the most evocative anthems in the history of the Democratic Party. You have to ask: Why aren’t the Democrats, and the country, singing it loudly now?

A party controlling the White House could not ask for much more from economic numbers than the Democrats got in Friday’s jobs report, issued a month and a day before the midterm elections. Unemployment fell to 5.9 percent, the lowest it has been since July 2008. The nation added 248,000 jobs, more than the forecasters had projected. What’s not to like?

President Obama, for one, is clearly frustrated that having inherited an economy that was at death’s door, he is getting remarkably little credit for getting it back on its feet.

“As Americans, we can and should be proud of the progress that our country has made over these past six years,” Obama said in a speech at Northwestern University the day before the new figures were released. “Right now, there are more job openings than at any time since 2001. All told, the United States has put more people back to work than Europe, Japan, and every other advanced economy combined.”

And lest anyone miss the import of what he just said, the president added: “I want you to think about that.”

He would also like voters to think about that before they cast their ballots. And here is the conundrum of the 2014 campaign. In 2010, House Speaker John Boehner’s battle cry that helped Republicans win their landslide was, “Where are the jobs?” Obama and the Democrats are now in a position to reply: “Here are the jobs!”

But Boehner isn’t asking that question anymore.

Why doesn’t this good news matter more to the electorate? Obama and Democrats trying to survive this fall face two different problems in getting voters to sing a joyous song.

The first is that the very improvement in the economy means that it is a less central concern to voters than it was when Obama took office — or in 2010. The Gallup Poll’s numbers are striking: In February 2009, 86 percent of Americans listed an economic issue as their central concern; in October 2010, on the eve of the last midterms, 69 percent did. But in the most recent Gallup survey, the proportion listing an economic issue was down to 41 percent. Better times mean different worries.

Yet voters who are still concerned about the economy tend to be focused not on its successes but on what it is failing to do for them. The unemployment rate is way down, but it’s still not low enough to create rapid and widespread wage growth. Many of the forces that have been driving up inequality since the 1980s are still with us.

This tension is far more difficult for Democrats to deal with than it would be for Republicans, were they presiding over exactly the same recovery. Democrats, going back to those happy Roosevelt days, have made their living as the party that lifts up the many and not just the privileged few. Republicans have traditionally said that growth is everything and if the rich get richer, their success will eventually work its way down to everyone else.

Democrats can’t (and shouldn’t) echo conservative bromides. They are right to point to all that still needs to be done to end income stagnation in the middle class and among the poor. In his Northwestern speech, Obama advanced his proposals on education, job training, college loans, a minimum-wage increase, infrastructure investment, equal pay and work-family balance. All would help matters, if only they could get by Republicans in Congress.

But when progressives raise the problem of inequality, their conservative opponents turn around and blame that on Obama, too. The Wall Street Journal editorial page, which practically invented trickle-down economics, headlined an editorial on Friday, “The President of Inequality.” The paper’s sudden solicitude for the downtrodden was rather jarring. Imagine an editorial in the Vatican’s newspaper extolling the virtues of atheism.

There is still a month to go before Election Day, enough time to develop a sustained argument that highlights both how much better the economy is and how much we still have to do to spread prosperity more widely. It’s more challenging than bragging, but it has the virtue of making clear that if today’s obstruction had been the rule in 2009, we’d still be in the soup.

E.J. Dionne’s email address is ejdionne@washpost.com. Twitter: @EJDionne.

AFP Photo/Nicholas Kamm

Want more political news and analysis? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

E. J. Dionne

Besides contributing to The National Memo, E.J. Dionne, Jr. is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a syndicated columnist for the Washington Post, and a university professor in the Foundations of Democracy and Culture at Georgetown University.

His most recent book is Our Divided Political Heart: The Battle for the American Idea in an Age of Discontent (2013).

  • 1


  1. ericlipps October 6, 2014

    Democrats are, in a way, the victims of their own past successes. People can’t help wondering why a party which ended a Republican depression, won World War II and put a man on the moon can’t provide a job for everyone who wants one and squash our current enemies like insects.

    But they’re also the victims of a relentless GOP propaganda effort of which Josef Goebbels would be envious. The hate campaign that started with Richard Nixon and the “Southern strategy” has only escalated over the years, driven in part by embittered ex-Nixonites still nursing a grudge over Watergate and in part by neo-Confederates to whom the GOP has been apologizing on its knees for years for the party’s first president having dared say no to secession and slavery.

    The Republican Party today is dominated not by the business elite, as in the past, but by the freak-show right–but the business community is happy enough to fund the freaks’ venomous campaign as long as the wingers help them out by attacking such commie ideas as unions, environmental protection and safety regulation. And it’s working.

    1. Dominick Vila October 6, 2014

      Excellent post! I couldn’t agree with you more.

    2. David L. Allison October 6, 2014

      Good post. Democratic and Independent voters have to wake up and promote the success of the economy and social policies of the past six years.

  2. bobnstuff October 6, 2014

    I wish there was a way to make the truth as sexy as the lies the right wing news media tell. Bad news, real or false travels fast while good news goes nowhere. People think that the US has fallen to third world levels when we are still on top. They say we are weak militarily when we have a larger military then the next four nations combined. The dollar is still the standard for the world. Yes there are things that need fixed but those aren’t the problems the right are talking about. There are to many sheep in our country and the wolves are having their way with them.

    1. RobertCHastings October 6, 2014

      The next four nations militarily, behind the US, have total standing armies far surpassing our own. We know Russia has at least a million, while North Korea has in excess of two million. These two nations alone far surpass our standing army. The issue is the ability and preparedness of these opposing entities. Russia STILL controls hundreds of nuclear warheads, and N.Korea has proven their development, while Iran is in the process, and the former satellites of the Soviet Union still have hundreds laying around, unguarded and untended, waiting to be either stolen or, hopefully, deactivated by international agencies. Yes, our economy still accounts for a higher GDP than any other nation, but those close behind are gaining as we lose ground. While forty years ago our nation was THE manufacturing powerhouse of the world, we have deteriorated into a service industry powerhouse. Are we the leader we were in the early 1980s? NO!

      1. bobnstuff October 6, 2014

        Russia 766,000 North Korea 660,000. Are you afraid we are going to be invaded? Were we really the leaders in the early 80’s or did we just think we were? Our GDP per capita is not quite twice what it was in the 80’s Now I would like you to go into a store and see where things are made, Even Wal-Mart is 45% US made and most others are 50% food stores are much better, We are the second largest manufacturing nation in the world and only by a small amount, and we do it with 1/6 he workers and very little government help. Where we are loosing it is in education, transportation an the cost of health care. If we don’t start investing in these areas we will become a second class nation.

        1. David L. Allison October 6, 2014

          Thanks for the accurate information. We are not number one but we have the capacity to return to that status in a number of areas if we can overcome the gridlock generated by the oligarchs who control over 75% of the US economy.

  3. RobertCHastings October 6, 2014

    The issues that are facing our economy today are much the same that faced the economy in the 1980s, a paraphrase of what the writer has said. In the 1980s, REPUBLICANS (who would NOT be elected today) were in the White House and presiding over their own self-inflicted recessions. Their solution was to cut taxes for the wealthiest AND to raise other taxes (FICA, property, sales, etc.) on the middle class and reduce those services normally within the purview of the government. Privatization of our healthcare system was underway, and we have all seen the results of that failed policy. We were in the process of reducing barriers to trade, holding ourselves to much higher standards than we were holding our trading partners. These policies have proven to be disastrous for middle-class America, and yet they are the clarion call of the Republican Party. There are entirely too many issues Mr. Dionne fails to bring up to explain what is happening today.

  4. ESG October 6, 2014

    The problem with the democrats is they cannot stay on message. The republicans find a message and repeat it throughout the ranks and answer every question with the same talking points. They also have the money to hire the best in the business of politics and message message message. If the democrats would only work together and amplify a good news message over and over and over so the deaf and dumb could hear it then the picture would be much clearer for everyone. The trouble with intilectual people is that they are willing to listen and adapt to the changing winds of the country and losse their message. Stay on message is my recommendation.

    1. mah101 October 6, 2014

      Its more than that. Republicans don’t seem to care if their facts are objectively true as long as it “feels” right, and their base lives on fear which is so easily manipulated for GOP gain.

    2. 788eddie October 6, 2014

      “Cannot stay on message,” ESG?

      How about reading the posts above.

      I don’t see anyone who is having trouble “staying on message.”

  5. Eleanore Whitaker October 6, 2014

    The problem with Republicans is their Daddy’s boys attitudes. They live in Daddy’s day, not the present. It’s a sickening commentary that a documentary like “The Roosevelts” can show clearly how NOTHING has changed with Republican men since the days of Harding and TR.

    The reality is that it isn’t the Democrats who can’t stay on message. It’s the Republicans. What the Republicans of 2014 want are the very same things Republicans of 1900 wanted: All tax dollars earmarked for their crony capitalists they want to rise to the Neocon Robber Barons of 2014.

    Count on it. If this hugely intelligent president allowed the US to fall into the huge pit Bush and his thugs ignored for 8 solid years, the GOP Bulls would be the first to impeach him. Impeach this president…just don’t EVER hold the GOP bulls who caused the Great Recession accountable.

    This president from the minute the election was called in his favor in 2000, had been held to a double standard the GOP bulls wouldn’t dare hold one of their to…Damned if Obama does and Damned if he doesn’t.

    And what pray tell is the GOP modus operandi of that little strategy? Keep money in the hands of those who made their wealth off the backs of the middle and lower classes. All anyone needs for proof is to look at how much wealthier from 2000 to 2008, the top 1% became. That’s in black and white.

    And, a Great Recession is supposed to affect ALL Americans in the same way the Great Depression did. So..do tell..Does Blankfein know there’s a Great Recession or Benmosche? Or the Koch greed twins? or Adelson? You bet not. That’s because Bush and Cheney manipulated the economy for 8 years to dump hardship on the middle class so not a dime of that $33 trillion sitting in offshore tax free accounts would dwindle.

    Great Recession that only affects the middle and lower classes from a president of 8 years with a Harvard MBA…the gift the GOP bulls keep on giving.

    1. sigrid28 October 6, 2014

      You may not be able to hear us all, reading this comment thread and cheering you on, but we are out here, finding consolation in the way you keep your own perspective on our problems clear and focused. If only our Democratic media services would do the same.

      To blame Republicans for their shortcomings, we have to repeat their lies: “You said, (fill in the blank). That is not true!” Their base hears only the lies, so that the linguistic process involved in complaining actually reinforces their convictions rather than refuting them–a phenomenon we see all the time in these comment threads–depending on the reader. How to avoid this self-referential bubble to get the voter’s attention, that is the question.

      1. Eleanore Whitaker October 6, 2014

        Why thank you. You made a blah day bright as sunshine. If it seems as if I know the GOP, I guess I must have ingested something as a Republican of 33 years. I left the party in 2004 when I realized there was something far more treacherous about today’s GOP conservatives. My sense then was they would stop at nothing to win for a badly misguided back room agenda that demonizes anyone who dares to tell the truth, act like loyal, patriotic Americans and won’t pander to the most corrupt political party and their rich bois US history has ever encountered.

        There is one thing you can do. When I became a Democrat in 2005, I learned to stay in touch with the Dems in my state. But, you have to learn to turn the tables on the GOP dominators. You stay on topic using their strategies..keep repeating truth until they have no basis for their lies, distortions and corruption.

        Nabokov wrote in “Dr. Zhivago” words that ring so true at present, “There are two kinds of men and only two. And that young man is one kind. He is high-minded. He is pure. He’s the kind of man the world pretends to look up to, and in fact despises. He is the kind of man who breeds unhappiness, particularly in women.” President Obama, like President Carter is too high minded for the tastes of the men who feign adoration for high mindedness and in truth despise it.

        1. David L. Allison October 6, 2014

          Thanks for the clear and valuable comments. I made my conversion in about ’83 after having been an elected Republican office holder, campaigner and staff for more than 20 years. The party became one of exclusion, hate and greed to the point I could no longer find any Republican to support.

          1. Eleanore Whitaker October 6, 2014

            You were obviously far more politically savvy than I. It’s really sad what has happened to the GOP. It’s next to impossible to recall that it was once the party of Eisenhower and Stevenson, two of the finest Republicans and Americans.

            Unfortunately, the GOP today refuses to see themselves as so many Americans do and exactly as you describe in your post.

    2. WhutHeSaid October 6, 2014

      Hey, I actually agree with your post. But Obama is a ::shudder:: man. Does this mean that you are now tailoring your male-hating rants to those men who truly deserve it? Well bully for you.

    3. 788eddie October 6, 2014

      Eleanor Whitaker, you clearly come from a “feminist” influence (not meant in any way to be a negative comment), but I can’t help but find that I agree with you. Your writing is refreshing and solid.
      Thank you!

  6. Dominick Vila October 6, 2014

    The claims made by right wing posters in this forum leave little doubt about the mindset of those who are incapable to give credit or recognize the achievements of someone whose ideological leanings are different than theirs.
    Unambiguous achievements, such as our economic recovery, a stock market that reflects the strength of our economy, dramatic reductions in unemployment after the worst recession since the Great Depression, significant reductions in deficit spending, and the contributions of the ACA, are ignored by those who only see evil when the opposition is responsible for saving a sinking ship.
    Their attempts to minimize or distort the importance of the incredible progress achieved during the past 5.5 years, in spite of relentless obstructionism, highlight their desperation, and explain the rational for creating distractions to deflect attention from their own record and lack of vision.
    From suggestions that President Obama’s ability to reduce unemployment is bogus because, in his case, we should use a different method to determine unemployment than the one used for previous Presidents. The claim that the reason there are fewer Americans working than in years past is not caused by our fertility rate being 1.88 (negative population growth), an aging population, and affluence that allows people to retire early highlights, once again, the need to find anything to insinuate that the gains that are being made are not real.
    Even the record DOW and S&P highs are questioned by those who cannot accept reality, with outlandish claims such as a bullish stock market is not a reflection of economic recovery or the positive effects of President Obama’s policies.
    For them, the fact that the ACA eliminated the draconian pre-existing condition clause, the infamous caps that forced thousands of Americans to sell everything they had to stay alive, and that have allowed thousands of fellow Americans to have access to preventive medical care, sometimes for the first time in their lives, means absolutely nothing. For them, the brain child of the Heritage Foundation is evidence of socialism. A claim that ignores the fact that our medical professionals are private practice professionals, that our hospitals and labs are for profit institutions, and that the ACA uses for profit insurance companies to provide coverage.
    To accentuate their claim that President Obama is a foreigner who does not respect the United States they highlight a picture of him saluting Marines holding a coffee cup. These are the same guys who saw nothing wrong with W saluting Marines holding his dog! I confess that I like canines better than Starbucks, but the message is clear.

  7. FT66 October 6, 2014

    Dankbarkeit? nicht republicans. The republicans are so funny to watch. They never show any appreciation where is due to BUT always ready to jump onto blames. Can anyone imagine if the Job Report which came out could had showed 12% unemployment and jobs created was 50,000 only.They could be all over the places claiming this is unacceptable. Now the good news came out, every single republican run to the woods to hide and we don’t hear any word from them.

    1. pmbalele October 6, 2014

      You’re right President Obama deserves credit to recover the pride of this Country and people should feel it. It is the right-wing media that is feeding people with lies. For instant Bill O’rielly lied to his audience that the economy is falling. O’rielly, a big bald head fat bigot, does not want to even hear unemployment is down (6.1%) and that economic indicators are high. This is despite dumb TPs and Repubs in Congress tried to sabotage the economy. TPs and Repubs and their mouth piece FoxNews are an embarrassment to this country.

      1. mah101 October 6, 2014

        Unemployment = 5.9%

        1. pmbalele October 6, 2014

          Basically this country is now on full employment. Let TPs and Repubs crow under their desks and call their mothers for rescue. They have no WMD to attack President Obama.

          1. David L. Allison October 6, 2014

            You are right. (but I think it is crawl not crow). They do have weapons of mass distraction. Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Death Panels, IRS, Benghazi, Ebola, Benghazi.
            The republicans, especially the right wing radicals who are in control in the Congress, complained about unemployment till Obama’s policies took their talking points away. Now they just make $hit up to distract their easily distracted followers.

          2. pmbalele October 6, 2014

            Thanks. You made by day. You should have seen how Bill O’rielly faked tempter and sympathy about Benghazi. We know and are sorry people lost lives in Benghazi. But Obama was on top of
            that issue. Indeed he has captured the leader of Benghazi. I wonder why Trey Gowdy, a smart guy, would listen to bald headed fat Bill O, to accept assignment to investigate IRS and Benghazi. Bill is hurting internally the WH is occupied by racial minorities. He was raised and brain-washed to believe the WH was for White presidents only.

          3. Dominick Vila October 6, 2014

            The name of the man suspected to be behind the Benghazi terrorist attack is al-Libby. As you pointed out, he was arrested within months of the attack, and is rotting in prison.
            Compare that to what happened after 9/11, when OBL remained at large for years, living with his wives and children one block from Pakistani military and intelligence facilities, until President Obama ordered the raid that ended his life.
            Are Republicans impressed by President Obama’s decision to order risky raids and bringing justice to the victims of 9/11? Heck know, they love the guy who admitted, 6 years after 9/11, that capturing OBL was not a big deal!

          4. pmbalele October 6, 2014

            You should read what these TP morons are writing against me. President Obama has done and is still doing everything to ensure this country remains way above other nations. But we have TPs who and radical Repubs who have been brain-washed and told not to appreciate what Demos do. Did you listen
            to Bill O’rielly show today? He would not dare discuss the Nation’s economy. He think we don’t what his secret is- to hide the truth from gullible TPs and Repubs.

          5. Dominick Vila October 7, 2014

            At least Bill O’Reilly avoided denying the obvious. There are many who deny it or who are convinced we are a bunch of idiots who live in fantasy land, and that they are the only ones who understand the reality of our circumstances without ever sharing their facts with anyone.

          6. pmbalele October 7, 2014

            Thanks. I hope TPs and Repubs will read your posting before November 4 to make a reasoned decision. They should vote with Democrats.

    2. kenndeb October 6, 2014

      The unemployment rate IS over 12%. These wonderful reports are only to pump up the democrats just before an election because dems BELIEVE ANYTHING the regime says. Sheeple all. Really too bad you people can’t think for yourselves anymore.

      1. FT66 October 6, 2014

        There you come again Kenny, the expert in everything!!!! OK tell us what unemployment rate will be in 20 years to come?

        1. kenndeb October 6, 2014

          If the regime stays in power, most of all Americans will be out of work and on welfare. We already have a real unemployment rate that rivals the great depression, and Americans on welfare has reached record proportions. With a corrupt government, of course they are going to lie to help with the upcoming elections. Everything the Emperor does is to further his agenda, just like postponing his immigration reform until after the elections.


          1. David L. Allison October 6, 2014

            FT66 & Ken: Give ken the benefit of the doubt. His source is “Daily Caller”, noted for his manipulation of facts and data to trash Obama and Democratic voters. When manipulation is insufficient, those folks just make $hit up and dish it out to folks like Ken who believes they will get accurate information just because they are conservative voters.

            Ken: It is an administration or a party, not regime. We do not, in fact, have a true unemployment rate that rivals the great depression. See the note I repeated above about the different measures presented by the Department of Labor. The employment reports are prepared by professionals (bureaucrats, if you prefer) who have been there since the Bush administrations and even longer. They are not political.

            President Obama is President of the United States, not Emperor. Such an allegation is silly and juvenile and likely simply a repeat of silliness from Daily Caller or Fox news. Sometime when you have a few minutes free, look at some non-right wing information on employment and see if you still feel the same way as you are posting now.

          2. highpckts October 6, 2014

            You are whistling in the wind if you think Kenndeb will ever look up nonbiased facts.

          3. David L. Allison October 6, 2014

            I’m just trying a new approach: Repeat the truth as many times as possible and help to explain why I take different approaches than folks like kenndeb do.

          4. highpckts October 6, 2014

            Good luck!

          5. David L. Allison October 6, 2014

            Thnx, same 2 U

          6. FT66 October 6, 2014

            Don’t waste your precious time trying to educate Kenny. She will never understand you. For me, I have decided from today onwards, not to reply on any of her comments. It is not worth my time to be utilised on.

          7. highpckts October 6, 2014

            Excuse me but the House would not bring Immigration up for a vote before ANOTHER recess! Most Americans will be out of work? Geez where do you find these things out?? You are a harbinger of doom and gloom! I bet if this was a Republican President, the numbers would be marvelous!!

          8. plc97477 October 6, 2014

            Kenordeb might find the numbers to be marvelous but since repug policies are horrible for the economy I doubt anyone else would find them so.

          9. neeceoooo October 6, 2014

            No amount of trying to educate them to the policies that destroy the economy is getting through. Their narrow minds have a hard time adding that type of information into the small brains.

      2. David L. Allison October 6, 2014

        BS, Ken: The measures for employment and unemployment are exactly the same as they were when Bush took the economy into the tank. Unless you are addicted to error, you know that too and are just repeating talking points.

        The standard measurement is 5.9% and the 12% measure is also shown in the labor force report. Both are far lower than 2008.

        You have no data to back up your lies and BS. Say you hate Obama or say you hate never-ending wars, Democratic voters and candidates, the oligarchs and the MIC but stop making $hit up that flat out is not true..

        1. kenndeb October 6, 2014

          The rate does not include those that have stopped looking for work. Include those that are not receiving benefits but are not working and that rate is well above 12%.

          1. WhutHeSaid October 6, 2014

            The rate NEVER included those who stopped looking for work. If a person isn’t looking for work, then why should they be counted in unemployment figures? That’s why the Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn’t count them. People stop looking for work for many reasons — the job market is a miniscule part of that.

            So why should the calculation be any different for a black President, hmm? I know the reason why, but I want to hear you say it.

          2. David L. Allison October 6, 2014

            The standard measure for determining level of unemployment is the same as has been used in all administrations. it does not include, and has never included those who are considered “discouraged”.

            The inclusion of those who have stopped looking for work, now 12+% (discouraged workers) is also included in a _second_ reported measure in the same manner as has been presented in every prior administration.

            They are two different measures. You are being mislead and as a result are misleading in your posting.

      3. WhutHeSaid October 6, 2014

        The unemployment rate is 5.9%, you liar. This rate was calculated the same way that the unemployment rate has ALWAYS been calculated — for Republicans and Democrats alike. I assume you want to calculate it differently due to the fact that Obama is black, yes?

        1. kenndeb October 6, 2014

          Your mom let you out again. or did you escape?

          1. WhutHeSaid October 6, 2014

            Answer the question. You were caught in another lie, so explain yourself.

          2. highpckts October 6, 2014

            What, no answer??

          3. kenndeb October 6, 2014

            I don’t regard Whathesaid nor sleepvark as intelligent enough to answer .

          4. highpckts October 6, 2014

            Really? Well then I guess you are lucky that rest of us give you the benefit of the doubt!!

          5. WhutHeSaid October 6, 2014

            That’s because you dislike being made to look like the fool that you are in public. I don’t blame you.

      4. 788eddie October 6, 2014

        Where were you when this happened during the Bush administration?

        I don’t remember you expressing similar views when the economy was even worse.

      5. BillP October 7, 2014

        Geez ken can you get anything correct? The U6 rate is at 11.8% the lowest is has been since 9/2008 when under W the job market was losing 600K jobs or more. The U3 rate is at 5.9% the lowest since 7/2008. Every month when the jobs market report shows growth you claim it’s a made up number. I know in the right wing bubble world that you live in, nothing President Obama does is good or real. You are such a typical troll, an angry old man.

    3. neeceoooo October 6, 2014

      The sad part is, we don’t hear the democrats either, they should be shouting from the rooftops how things are so much better than they were 6 years ago.

      1. FT66 October 6, 2014

        Thats our people (the Dems), something good, something bad all means the same. I really get annoyed sometimes seeing one of ours don’t have a backbone. If I can bring you back to what happened in Mass. when Scott Brown won that seat of the lat Ed Kenned,.Oh! my god, I got very much depressed the way republicans were touting there win. Yes, they did it and deserved to be as happy as anything. BUT when it comes to a win of our side, our fellow Dems sleep like babies after taking a good bath.

        1. neeceoooo October 6, 2014

          I wish someone could tell my why that is. I wonder if it is all about the winning.

          1. FT66 October 6, 2014

            nee, these people whatever they do is all about, me, me, me, me,. It shocked me a lot when I heard Panetta attacking the President. It is all about selling his books infront of him (why didn’t he do it when he was in power?). With the other elected officials, it is all about them. They don’t bother what the President has achieved, what they care is them being re-elected again and eyeing the mood of where they are.

          2. neeceoooo October 6, 2014

            you are so right

  8. jakenhyde October 6, 2014

    It amazes me that the Bros. Koch aren’t content with the improving economy. When the economy improves, more folks are put to work. That means there’s more disposable income for people to spend on Koch Bros. products…..which are ubiquitous. Hence, they’re able to add to their multi-billion dollar bank accounts.
    Yet they spend billions to elect repressive politicians who want to put the economy back where it was when Obama took office. Boggles the mind!!!

    1. sigrid28 October 6, 2014

      Like Mitt Romney and the 1% of Americans like him, the Koch brothers think their wealth insulates them from any economic downturn. This failure of imagination could backfire in many obvious ways, particularly with respect to the impact of their fossil fuel agenda on the environment. Forest fires and tsunamis do not discriminate.

  9. James Bowen October 6, 2014

    It’s because the economy isn’t really good at all. These “upbeat” reports are not much more than window dressing. Long term unemployment now appears to a permanent fixture of the economy, and when the U6 unemployment rate is looked at (which is more accurate), the employment picture is not nearly as rosy as it is made out to be. And of the jobs that have been created since 2010, many of them are low-wage and part time jobs that do not pay as well and offer as many benefits as the ones that disappeared in 2008 and 2009.

    1. WhutHeSaid October 6, 2014

      Liar. If you look at the U6 numbers they are worse under Bush’s administration. Did you think you could pull the wool over our eyes?

      1. James Bowen October 6, 2014

        Oh yeah? Take a look at this: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/11/unemploymentunderemployment-1994-2012/

        As you can see, they were bad under Bush but the levels during his presidency don’t compare to 2009. The truth is that there is not a whole lot of difference between the economic policies of the Bush and Obama administrations.

        1. WhutHeSaid October 6, 2014

          Obama didn’t even take office until January 2009 — at which time the U-6 was around 15% and rapidly climbing. That’s much worse than right now.

          So now what do you have to say?

          1. James Bowen October 6, 2014

            Again, look at the graph. It topped out in October 2009 and while it has come down a little it has been high since then. Like I said, when it comes to economic policy, there really is not much difference between Bush and Obama.

          2. WhutHeSaid October 6, 2014

            Who cares when it topped out? It was already rising like a Saturn V rocket when Obama took office. What makes you think it was going to suddenly stop when Obama was sworn in? What matters is where it is now.

          3. James Bowen October 6, 2014

            And where it is now is nothing to write home about. It is considerably higher than it was ten years ago.

          4. WhutHeSaid October 6, 2014

            Sure, ten years ago after Bush inherited a surplus and economic boom from the last Democratic President. And where did HE leave things?

            Try looking at the numbers during most of the Reagan Presidency. They were even worse. What mattered was where he left the economy — not what he started with, although the horrible recession under Reagan was NOT inherited — it was all his, unlike Obama.

          5. James Bowen October 6, 2014

            I am not here to get into a debate about which President was worse. Here are the facts: the economy crashed in 2008-2009, and it was during that time that a new President took office. The economic policies of the former President and the new President were/are very similar, and those policies were part of the reason for the crash and since then have not restored the quantity or quality of jobs that existed before the crash. If people are wondering why the current administration does not get credit for a good economy, that is the answer. As far is the employment picture is concerned, the economy is not good, period.

            And pundits who have the nerve to ask such a question just show how out of touch they are from ordinary people while they write from their ivory tower.

          6. WhutHeSaid October 6, 2014

            Sorry — no cigar for you. The number of job openings has climbed to it’s highest since September 2007. Here’s an article for you: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-10/job-openings-in-u-s-rose-by-289-000-in-april-to-4-46-million.html

            The economy crashed in 2008, yes, and there is absolutely no way you can attribute that to a President (Obama) who wasn’t even in office yet. It was a BIG recession, and has been come to be known as the Great Recession. The economy has improved by leaps and bounds over where Bush left it, and for you to claim anything else would make you a liar. Are you a liar?

            Whine and quibble over the finer points of statistics if you wish, but remember that those very same statistics can always be compared with other administrations as well. None of it disproves the fact that President Obama presided over a recovery from the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression — whether you like it or not.

          7. James Bowen October 6, 2014

            You are missing the point. There might be more jobs openings now than there were a few years ago, and the jobless picture might be better now than it was five years ago, but the employment picture is still not anywhere near as good as it was before the crash. Compare the current U6 to what it was in 2007. It was considerably better then. Also keep in mind that many of the jobs that have been created since the crash are part time, lower wage jobs compared to the ones that disappeared in the crash. Bottom line: the economic policies of the last several years contributed to the crash (they were in place before and after the current President took office) and have failed to restore employment to what it was before the crash–not that is was all that great then either.

          8. WhutHeSaid October 6, 2014

            No, YOU are missing the point. It’s like a car owner complaining to a mechanic that his favorite sports car just doesn’t look quite as nice as it used to somehow — right after the mechanic repaired it from getting demolished by a freight train. Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth!

            U-6 numbers do not relate directly to the job market, and they have been lower than this before. It’s a demographic trend that has long been predicted to happen. There are many reasons for the U-6 numbers — the least of which is the job market.

          9. James Bowen October 6, 2014

            U6 numbers are a more accurate representation of the employment picture. They are a more direct measure of whether people are gainfully employed or not. The employment picture is better than it was in 2009 (which isn’t saying much), but it is nowhere near as good as it was in 2007. The fact is that a lower percentage of the population is gainfully employed than it was before the crash, and current economic policy has not restored that level of employment. People could care less what the statistics say. All they care about is whether there are jobs for them or not, and right now jobs are much harder to come by than they were in 2007. That is why the current administration does not get credit among many for improving the economy–they are not much better off now than they were in 2009.

          10. WhutHeSaid October 6, 2014

            Baloney. The U-6 number right now is about where it was in the mid-90s. Are you complaining about how horrible the mid-90s were? No, you aren’t — you are complaining about how horrible things are under Obama. Gee — I wonder why that might be?

            The U-6, and all other employment indicators, are headed in the right direction. Do you have a problem with this fact? Obama inherited a horrible economic mess. Bush did not. Get a clue.

          11. Independent1 October 7, 2014

            I hope you’re aware you’re wasting your time trying to convince a total idiot on something. James Bowen is an absolutely clueless fool – not only on the economy but immigration and other issues.

            Have you seen this article from Forbes? I posted him some excerpts from it which proves that Obama has surpassed anything Reagan ever accomplished.

            Here are some excerpts:

            So we compared his performance dealing with the oil-induced recession of the 1980s with that of President Obama and his performance during this ‘Great Recession.’

            “As this unemployment chart shows, President Obama’s job creation kept unemployment from peaking at as high a level as President Reagan, and promoted people into the workforce faster than President Reagan.

            “President Obama has achieved a 6.1% unemployment rate in his sixth year, fully one year faster than President Reagan did. At this point in his presidency, President Reagan was still struggling with 7.1% unemployment, and he did not reach into the mid-low 6% range for another full year. So, despite today’s number, the Obama administration has still done considerably better at job creating and reducing unemployment than did the Reagan administration.

            “We forecast unemployment will fall to around 5.4% by summer, 2015. A rate President Reagan was unable to achieve during his two terms.”

            And some on investing:

            “As this chart shows, over the first 67 months of their presidencies there is a clear “winner” from an investor’s viewpoint. A dollar invested when Reagan assumed the presidency would have yielded a staggering 190% return. Such returns were unheard of prior to his leadership.

            “However, it is undeniable that President Obama has surpassed the previous president. Investors have gained a remarkable 220% over the last 5.5 years! This level of investor growth is unprecedented by any administration, and has proven quite beneficial for everyone.

            The article:

            Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing


          12. WhutHeSaid October 7, 2014

            It’s not a waste of time for me. I don’t post for up-votes or the ‘warm fuzzies’ of critical acclaim. I post to vent my spleen on drooling bigots and other assorted assholes. It’s just a hobby of mine.

            James Bowen is a hardened bigot, but he tries to pose as a reasonable person, and for the most part he avoids using bigoted or racist language. But he’s a bigot all the same, and I enjoy catching him in the act of posting whoppers.

          13. Independent1 October 7, 2014

            I also question the validity of comparing today’s U6 report to the U6 of 20 plus years ago or even 10 years ago. I think the BLS continues to include millions of supposedly ‘working force people’ in the U6 who because of lifestyle changes, including the enactment of Obamacare, who should no longer be included in the U6. People who have chosen to drop out of the workforce, not because jobs are not available, but because they have chosen to retire earlier than people in the past, or realize they no longer need to keep working just so they can have healthcare coverage before they reach the age of Medicare. Millions of Americans who now realize that they are capable of bailing out of the workforce at much younger ages than the BLS is assuming for whom they are now including in the U6.

          14. WhutHeSaid October 7, 2014

            Yes, that’s why the U-6 isn’t the ‘official’ unemployment rate. I’ve gone round and round on this issue with a couple of other posters, and I know the numbers pretty well. One thing that the Obama-hating redneck bigots keep referring to is the ‘participation rate’, and they do it in the context of claiming that the participation rate proves that the ‘official’ unemployment rate under Obama is phoney. The problems with this are:

            1. the ‘official’ unemployment rate has always been calculated in the same way, and there’s a reason why it is the ‘official’ rate.
            2. Only a very tiny part of those who are not ‘participating’ in the job market actually want a job. Most are retirees, college students, disabled people, stay-at-home parents, independently wealthy, or some combination of these.
            3. The participation rate has been lower than today’s rate in the past, and it wasn’t due to a terrible job market. It only grew to the rate it because in the 1980s and beyond because of baby boomers and newly-liberated women entering the workforce. Baby boomers are now retirement age.
            4.The decline in the participation rate is a long-predicted demographic phenomenon.

            The BLS pays most attention to the ‘official’ unemployment rate. The other rates tend to be a bit more subjective. Nevertheless, all of the hateful redneck bigots’ claims can be shown to be bunk when you compare the numbers with Bush or even Reagan. Remember, they are trying to compare the U-6 with the ‘official’ unemployment rate. Why? Because they are bigots and Obama is black.

          15. James Bowen October 7, 2014

            The U6 is a more accurate measure of unemployment. It counts all who are not working, as opposed to those who are “actively searching for work”, whatever that means. Check the data–U6 is still considerably worse than it was in 2007. I am not passing judgement on the current President. What I am doing is answering Dionne’s question, and the answer is that for ordinary people the job situation is miserable.

          16. WhutHeSaid October 7, 2014

            What that means is that if you are not looking for work, then it doesn’t matter if there are 10 million job openings that fit you exactly. So there isn’t any reason to consider this an accurate measure of the job market — period.

            The job market is most certainly NOT “miserable”. In fact, the economy isn’t even the number one issue among the public any more because it has recovered. Keep in mind that’s normal people — not bigots who just hate Obama.

          17. James Bowen October 7, 2014

            The U6 includes all people who are out of work. That is a more accurate picture, period. There are not 10 million job openings available. If there were, wages and salaries would be rising. The most certainly are not. Most of the jobs that have been created since 2009 are low wage and part time jobs–hardly equal replacements for the jobs that disappeared. Even then, competition is still fierce in the job market. That is a miserable job market. Whatever the numbers say, as far as the average joe is concerned we are still in a recession.

          18. WhutHeSaid October 7, 2014

            If people aren’t looking for work, then they won’t find a job. It’s that simple. It wouldn’t matter if there were 10 job openings or 10 billion job openings. So such people are not indicative of the job market at all.

            It doesn’t matter how much you lie about it. Obama is black, the economy has recovered, the public no longer sees it as issue #1. That’s the reality. You can nitpick all you want, but the economy has recovered. Obama is not to blame for what types of jobs are available, the decline of the manufacturing sector, etc., etc. Go find another boogeyman.

          19. James Bowen October 7, 2014

            That is absurd. The economy still has not recovered from the 2001 recession, let alone the 2008 crash. If people are not employed, which is what the U6 measures, the job market is bad. If the job market was good, it is a safe bet that most of these people would seek those jobs. They don’t believe that there are any jobs for them, and they have their experience to back that belief up.

          20. WhutHeSaid October 7, 2014

            The U-6 is almost exactly where it was in 1994. No, we have NOT recovered to the point provided by the last Democratic President — a time when the economy was booming and the federal government had a surplus.

            The 2001 recession was a very mild one, caused primarily by the Y2K scare. It bears little resemblance to the near economic apocalypse that came later. But it is LEAPS and BOUNDS better than the Bush economic Armageddon, and it’s headed in the right direction That was my point.

            Some people believe that they have been abducted by aliens too, but that doesn’t prove that the job market is bad either. If you don’t look for a job you won’t find one.

            Finally, if you cannot appreciate how far we’ve come from the Bush economic free-fall then that’s on you. The rest of America no longer considers the economy the #1 priority, and that only happens when they realize that things are getting back to normal.

          21. James Bowen October 7, 2014

            But not where it was in 2007. It is quite a bit higher.

            The 2008 crash was a continuation of the 2001 recession. The administration in power at the time responded to it with reckless tax cuts and stimuli as well as permissive credit policies that in the short term masked the economic problems but in the long term made them much more severe, hence the 2008 crash.

            Most of those people who “aren’t looking for jobs” would take one if they believed it was available. You can’t just write off a large sector of the labor pool and say they don’t count. There are not jobs for them, plain and simple. The labor market has no where near recovered from the crash, and to ordinary people that is all that matters, not abstractions like GDP growth, “jobs created last month”, etc.

          22. WhutHeSaid October 7, 2014

            It’s a very simple concept: You can’t find what you aren’t looking for. So no matter what people ‘believe’, if they don’t actively look for a job they will remain unemployed — forever.

            As I said before, there are as many available jobs now as in (I believe) September of 2007. So I count that as ‘somewhere near’. Also, it’s not like the job market is remaining static — it’s improving by the day. You may not like it because the President is black, but if you can’t admit that it’s a VAST improvement then you are simply lying. That’s the long an short of it.

          23. James Bowen October 7, 2014

            It’s a very simple concept: there are way more workers than there are jobs. Whether people are “actively looking” for work (whatever that means) or not, many workers are going to find themselves standing when the music stops.

            The facts do not support your belief. Wages and salaries have not improved since 2007 (they’ve gotten worse in many quarters), and in a market economy that means that there are still more workers than there are jobs. Talking about “improvement” since 2009 is like saying our team is only getting beat by three touchdowns instead of six.

            And please, can’t you make an argument without playing the race card?

          24. WhutHeSaid October 7, 2014

            Any coach who isn’t a complete dolt would prefer to lose half of the games rather than all of them, or lose by 3 touchdowns rather than 6.

            All of the facts DO support my belief. My belief is that Obama inherited an economy headed for a Great Depression, and turned it around to an economy where the unemployment rate is 5.9% and falling. In 2009 the US economy was losing jobs at an epic pace. Now the economy is adding jobs, and has done so for quite some time. That it’s not as fast as you’d like or not always the jobs you’d like is irrelevant.

            I’m NOT going to stop mentioning Obama’s race. He’s black, and that’s a fact. It’s also a fact that when people whine, gripe, and complain about things that this President did (or didn’t do) that are exactly the same or better than other Presidents — it’s because he’s black. That’s also a simple concept, and the truth is that bigots never admit to being bigots — although for the life of me I don’t understand why. It’s not like anyone doesn’t already know. You may be a more polite bigot than most, but a bigot you are just the same.

          25. James Bowen October 7, 2014

            Here are the facts: wages are stagnant and many areas have declined since 2007, and there are far more workers than there are jobs, and the employment levels are not anywhere near what they were in 2007. The 5.9% rate is nonsense–the U6 rate, which is more realistic, is 11.8%. The job market is terrible today, not as terrible as it was in 2009, but still terrible nonetheless. The economy is not adding jobs as fast as the workforce is growing. By the way, the workforce is only growing because of immigration, be it legal, illegal, permanent, or temporary. In order to make a big dent in unemployment and make gains in wages, jobs have to increase considerably faster than the workforce. Creating jobs may be difficult, but halting the growth of the workforce, i.e. reducing immigration, should be a no-brainer.

            Pres. Obama has basically continued Bush’s economic policies (both listened to the same supply-side, neoclassical, and Keynesian schools of thought). Is that racist to say that he is similar to Bush?

          26. WhutHeSaid October 7, 2014

            The rate reported by The US Bureau of Labor Statistics is the *OFFICIAL* rate. It’s the rate that counts. They call it the official rate for a reason — because it’s the one that counts. Get it?

            All 8.7 million jobs lost during the Bush economic meltdown have been recovered — that’s a fact. The percentage of people who want full time jobs but are working part-time is also falling. ALL of the BLS unemployment rates are FALLING. What part of the word ‘improvement’ do you not understand?

            Oh yes — I knew it was only a matter of time until you started blaming immigration. None of this has anything to do with immigration. YOU are an immigrant. If immigration gives you such heartache, then feel free to self deport immediately so that you avoid being a hypocritical anchor baby.

          27. James Bowen October 7, 2014

            Those numbers are cooked. The real unemployment rate is the U6 rate. Perhaps technically the same number of jobs have been created since 2009 that were lost, but most of those jobs are part time and low wage. Those are facts. Like I said earlier, getting beaten by three touchdowns is not as bad as getting beaten by six touchdowns, but it’s still a blowout.

            If you don’t think immigration has anything to do with our unemployment/underemployment problems, you can’t do math and you don’t understand supply and demand. It is because of immigration that the workforce is increasing faster than the numbers of jobs are. It is not a a great leap to see what that does to wages and employment prospects.

          28. WhutHeSaid October 7, 2014

            Cooked? So I suppose the U-6 numbers are raw or lightly braised?

            You are a nut. You don’t need the U-6 numbers at all, because they show the SAME improvement that every other number shows. What you need is for the BLS to add a NEW number — perhaps the B-1 number for Bigot-1 (or Black-1, if you prefer). This number could be calculated in a way to favor the most negative calculations possible so as to give drooling bigots fodder for arguments against black Presidents.

            Like I said, if you are so upset about the rate of immigration then run — don’t walk — to the nearest leaky boat and self-deport your immigrant self already. Then the rate will decline by one, and both you and the rest of America can be happy.

            The economy has drastically improved, and the unemployment rate is back to normal levels — so sayeth the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. The BLS has always been the go-to source when people need somebody who sayeth such things. Get over it.

          29. James Bowen October 7, 2014

            U6 are a more accurate representation, and those numbers are bad. Making unemployed people magically disappear is cooking the books. As I said, it’s not as bad as 2009, but it is still bad. There is nothing normal, at least compared to the postwar average, about the unemployment situation right now. And as long as we are adding workers faster than we are creating jobs (which is being done via immigration), we will never recover the 2007 levels of employment.

            Please look at the situation objectively, and not as a partisan.

          30. WhutHeSaid October 7, 2014

            Well I guess it’s you against the US Bureau of Labor Statistics and the rest of the civilized world. Whose numbers do you think I will accept?

            For the 37th time, whatever the U-6 shows it also shows that it was far worse during the Bush economic train wreck. This is a concept known as IMPROVEMENT. Have you ever heard of this?

            People who ‘disappear’ from the numbers because they are not looking for work have made themselves disappear — there’s nothing you, I, or the US Bureau of Labor Statistics can do about it.

            I AM looking at it objectively. Do I wish the numbers were better? Absolutely. Do I think they can get better? Of course. Do I think that we are in horrible shape today? Absolutely NOT, and it’s improving every day.

          31. James Bowen October 8, 2014

            These people have not disappeared, and many of them want to work. Their “not looking for work” is just a convenient excuse for those who have an interest in making the numbers look good. Yes, the numbers are not as bad as they were in 2009, but they are still bad. The quality of jobs (in terms of wages, etc.) that have been created since then are not as good either.

          32. WhutHeSaid October 8, 2014

            Yes, yes — it’s just a big conspiracy, right? So if you don’t trust the BLS, then why do you keep referencing the BLS numbers?

          33. James Bowen October 9, 2014

            What is going on is the more telling data they have is downplayed and the less descriptive indicators that look better are the ones that are played up.

          34. WhutHeSaid October 9, 2014

            Oh yes, the BLS has been downplaying data for Obama since 1884. VERY sneaky. Perhaps the Bureau of Labor Statistics is really just an arm of the Illuminati, you nut-bag.

          35. James Bowen October 10, 2014

            Come on, selectively picking the numbers is something that happens everywhere and every day, not just in the BLS.

          36. WhutHeSaid October 11, 2014

            Sure it does — that’s why you are picking whatever numbers you believe support your hate for Obama. So very similar to the way you make yourself a hypocrite on immigration (because you yourself are an immigrant) you are also a hypocrite on employment statistics.

            Obama fixed the economy that Bush drove over a cliff, and ALL of the numbers prove it — even the ones that you’ve cited here. The fact that Obama lowered the unemployment rate to normal levels won’t change due to the color if his skin and/or your nuttiness. Get a clue.

          37. James Bowen October 11, 2014

            No, using U3 instead of U6 is cherrypicking. U6 is a far more accurate and reliable way of measuring unemployment. Using U3 conveniently makes the tens of millions of jobless working age Americans disappear from the statistics. U6 is miserable right now. Maybe not as bad as 2010, but still miserable, so there is nothing normal about our employment levels (unless of course this is the new normal).

            The economy has not been fixed since the crash, and all of these jobless Americans is proof of that, as is the fact that so many of the jobs created since the crash are low wage and part time jobs.

            I am neither an immigrant or a hypocrite on immigration. I am a natural born citizen, as are my parents and their parents were too. Our infrastructure and our resource base can only provide for so many people. We already have too many people, and immigration is the reason why. Therefore immigration must be reduced and become very strict. If you disagree, are you prepared to let 20 people live with you and give your job to someone else?

          38. WhutHeSaid October 11, 2014

            The only reason that you like the U-6 numbers is because you hate Obama, and you think that the U-6 makes him look bad. But it doesn’t, rather, it shows marked improvement since Bush walked away from his economic pile-up.

            The highest U-6 rate in the last 10 years was January of 2010 (18.0) when the rate reached it’s highest point from the Bush economic debacle. From that point it fell at a steady pace to the 11.3 rate in September 2014. That’s not much higher than January 2004, when it was 10.9. Bush’s economic firestorm sent the rate rocketing into double digits after a low of 7.6 in September-October 2006. It was already 16.0 and rising rapidly by the time Obama took the oath of the Presidency.

            If you can’t tell that 11.3 is FAR lower than 18.0 or 16.0, then it’s just because you don’t want to and Obama is black. And what do you have to say about January 2004 when it was 10.9 — a mere 0.4 points difference from now? Trying to claim that Obama has made this rate go horribly high is just plain bullshit. Obama has dramatically reversed Bush’s God-awful mess, and it’s headed downward.

            Finally, the U-6 indicator includes people who have not looked for work in up to a full year. Anyone who hasn’t even tried to find work in a full year shouldn’t be counted as unemployed since they willingly took themselves out of the workforce. That’s exactly why the U-6 isn’t the official unemployment rate, and DOESN’T accurately reflect the job market. The only argument you can logically make is that Obama is black, and therefore that proves that things are horrible. That’s your ONLY argument, because the statistics don’t support your claims.

          39. James Bowen October 11, 2014

            These people did NOT willingly take themselves out of the workforce. There are no jobs for them, period. This is the true unemployment picture, the U3 is cooking the books at its finest. Taken themselves out of the labor force–how convenient for people who have vested interest in making the numbers look good. And when did I claim that Pres. Obama made this rate high? Remember, the economy and the employment rate was never that great during Bush’s presidency to begin with, and it is now miserable. Also remember that many of the jobs created during the “recovery” and low wage and part time jobs.

            Show me some evidence that Pres. Obama’s policies have reversed the economic downturn, as opposed to the downturn just running its course. President Obama’s economic policies have been virtually identical to Bush’s. So which is it, are these policies ruinous or are they saving the economy. You can’t have it both ways.

            I must say that the tone in your post suggests contempt for American workers who have fallen on hard times. Do you think that a worker and a citizen simply is nothing to be concerned about if they “drop out of the work force”? That is just a convenient excuse to prop up the numbers, nothing more.

            By the way, the U6 for September was 11.8%.

          40. WhutHeSaid October 11, 2014

            Enough with the ridiculous bullshit — my ‘tone’ doesn’t have contempt for ANY workers. I’m just laying down the facts.

            The BLS U-6 rate for September 2014 is 11.3. The seasonally adjusted rate is 11.8. But it doesn’t make any difference: If you use the seasonally adjusted number then you need to compare it with seasonally adjusted numbers from other years under other Presidents. I suspect that what you want to use it for is a blackness adjusted number, where you pick the most unfavorable numbers for black Presidents and the most favorable ones for white Presidents to give a picture that is as skewed as possible against Obama.

            People who haven’t even tried to look for a job in up to a year may not have become unemployed on purpose, but if they haven’t looked for a job in several months to a year then they are intentionally keeping themselves unemployed. One cannot find a job if one doesn’t actually seek it. Whatever their reason(s), if they don’t look for a job then they shouldn’t be counted in the official unemployment rate, and, in fact, they aren’t. The BLS understands this concept even if you don’t. It’s not a ‘convenient prop’ — it’s just a simple fact.

            You keep saying over and over that “the economy under Bush wasn’t great” but that now it’s “miserable”. How does a rate that is much better become ‘miserable’ and one that is much worse get counted as merely ‘not great’? I suspect that this is your blackness-adjusted estimation again, yes?

            You want me to show you ‘evidence’ that Obama’s policies have reversed the economic downturn? The evidence is that the unemployment rate is now 5.9% and the US economy picked up around a quarter-million jobs last month. Under Bush the economy was losing more than that. During Bush’s last month in office, the US economy lost about 600,000 jobs. See the big difference here? You may now apply your ‘blackness factor’ to see if you can make Obama’s vastly superior numbers somehow look worse than they really are.

            I get it: You hate Obama (because he’s black) and you are trying mightily to make significant improvement look bad. Naturally, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is engaged in a diabolical conspiracy if they don’t apply your ‘blackness-adjustments’. You are a bigoted nut — that’s all — and you’ve lost this argument. The US economy is better off by leaps and bounds under Obama’s Presidency than it was under Bush’s. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t change the facts.

          41. James Bowen October 12, 2014

            They are workers, they are unemployed, and there are no jobs for them to seek. They should therefore be counted. That is nothing but a convenient excuse for bureaucrats who have an interest in or under pressure to window dress.

            As for your “evidence”, the numbers now are worse than they were for the majority of Bush’s presidency, and those numbers were never very good. And again, U3 is not the true unemployment rate, the U6 is; and those numbers are bad.

            By the way, you never did answer my question. Is it bigoted to say that Pres. Obama’s policies are very similar to Bush’s?

          42. WhutHeSaid October 12, 2014

            Nobody should EVER be counted if they are not looking for a job. If we did this, even deceased or comatose people would be considered ‘unemployed’. You can’t find a job if you don’t look for one.

            I see the little game you are trying to play here: “the numbers now are worse than they were for the majority of Bush’s presidency” means that you are cherry-picking the best numbers from the Bush Presidency rather there were he left them. Likewise, you cherry-pick the very worst numbers from the Obama Presidency rather than where they are now.

            The big difference here is that Bush inherited GREAT numbers from Clinton, but Obama inherited HORRIBLE numbers from Bush. Obama has vastly outperformed Bush on the economy, and that’s a fact. You really cannot dispute this, but since you appear determined to do just that we need to question your bigoted motives.

          43. James Bowen October 12, 2014

            That is absolutely preposterous. The U6 counts all people capable of work. That does not include comatose people, and don’t be a jackass by saying that it would include dead people. These are unemployed workers, and there are no jobs for them. Also, what does that mean that they are no longer looking for a job? It sounds to me like a convenient excuse to prop the numbers up.

            The numbers were never great for Bush, and the current numbers are worse. Obama’s economic policies are very similar to Bush’s. So which is it, are they disastrous or are they saving the economy? You can’t have it both ways.

          44. WhutHeSaid October 13, 2014

            No, the U-6 does NOT count all people ‘capable of work’. There are many people who are capable of work and yet do not choose to work. Stay-at-home parents, students, etc. The U-6 only includes those people who SAY they WANT work — not those who COULD work. And people who say they want work yet don’t LOOK for work shouldn’t be counted. You can’t FIND work if you don’t LOOK for work. Is this too simple for you?

            That’s why the U-6 is not the official unemployment rate, and that’s exactly as it should be. You only like the number because Obama is black and you mistakenly believe that this number proves something bad about him. But it doesn’t — the U-6 numbers under Bush were worse.

            Current numbers are NOT worse. You pick any of the BLS numbers you want from today (September 2014 is close enough) and show me the same number from Bush’s last month in office that is better. If you can’t do this, then you need to shut up and quit lying about this.

          45. James Bowen October 13, 2014

            Well then, the U6 isn’t even an accurate picture. What does “look” for work mean? There are no jobs for these people, so that is nothing more than a convenient way to cook the books. The U3 is nonsense, period. The U6 really tells what the unemployment rate is. Current numbers are worse than they were for at least 6 out of Bush’s 8 years, and those numbers weren’t great either.

          46. WhutHeSaid October 13, 2014

            Stop lying. ALL BLS numbers are better now that where Bush left them in January 2009. It doesn’t matter what numbers he inherited from Clinton, rather, it matters where HE left them in January 2009. And they were ALL worse. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

            Now just stop your despicable lying. The BLS — and the rest of the world — relies on the OFFICIAL unemployment number for a reason. Nobody cares that you don’t like it because the current President is black.

          47. James Bowen October 14, 2014

            Someone who is able to work, wants to work, and is not working is unemployed, period. That makes the U6 the true unemployment rate, and the U3 nothing more than window dressing. What does “not looking for work” mean anyway? Does it mean that they are no longer on unemployment and on welfare instead? If that is the case, that certainly does not illustrate a healthy employment picture.

            Sure the numbers are better than they were in January 2009, but they are not as good as they were in 2007 (and those numbers weren’t very good).

          48. WhutHeSaid October 14, 2014

            Anybody who doesn’t have a job is technically unemployed, and that includes the comatose, the deceased, prison inmates, infant children, and anyone who is hospitalized for an extended period of time — but that doesn’t mean that their lack of jobs has anything to do with the economy or the job market, and that’s why such people aren’t counted in the official unemployment rate.

            Not looking for work means not looking for work — playing stupid now? It doesn’t matter whether you SAY you want a job — if you don’t get off your ass and actively look for one then it could be the best job market in history and you still won’t have a job. No ‘Job Fairy’ is going to flit up to your Lay-Z-Boy and drop a job in your lap. The U-6 numbers include such people, and that’s why it’s not the official unemployment rate.

            ALL of the Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers are better now than where Bush left them. That means that Obama has made an improvement. You do understand the meaning of the word ‘improvement’, don’t you? And since the numbers are MUCH better than where Bush left them, why that means that Obama made a BIG improvement. Is this simple enough for you to understand?

            I have a suggestion for you: Close your eyes. Imagine for a moment that Obama is white. Now open your eyes and compare today’s BLS numbers with January 2009. They look MUCH better now, yes?

          49. James Bowen October 15, 2014

            Quit being a jackass. Comatose people are incapable of work, and dead people are not included for obvious reasons.

            As for the U6, it includes all workers, and all workers should be counted regardless of whether or not they are “looking for a job.” That is nothing but bureaucratic doubletalk that conveniently props up the numbers and cooks the books. Your attitude is very condescending towards workers who have fallen on hard times. I do not believe that prisoners are counted in U6, but they should be.

            Like I said earlier, compared to January 2009, we are being beaten by three touchdowns instead of six. Not as much of a blowout, but still a blowout. You also haven’t answered by question about how it can be that economic policies that caused the crash are now improving things.

          50. WhutHeSaid October 15, 2014

            Quit being an obtuse, lying asshole. The U-6 rate includes people who SAY they want a job but haven’t actually tried to get one in up to a year. The U-6 does NOT include ‘all workers’ — whatever the hell that means. I suppose you are claiming that every living human is a ‘worker’, yes? Well, some people never work, and some people decide to drop out of the work force for whatever reason. If you haven’t looked for a job in 10 months then you belong to that latter group and are not a part of those who are unemployed through no fault of their own. In this case you are simply sitting on your ass and not looking for work. It has nothing to do with the job market OR the economy. The U-6 stops including your lazy-ass ‘workers’ after they failed to look for a job in a year, so you are wrong on every single count.

            The ENTIRE WORLD — except for you, of course — understands the **official** unemployment rate calculated by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Nobody argued this number until a black President came along, and now all of a sudden it’s a ‘conspiracy’ or ‘bureaucratic doubletalk’. The rest of us understand that your argument is ‘KKK-talk’ or ‘Bigot-speak’. You aren’t fooling anyone.

            ALL of the numbers are better than GW Bush left them. ALL OF THEM. That’s called improvement, so get it through your fat, bigoted head. I challenged you to cite a single BLS number that shows that Obama HAS NOT improved the economy over where Bush left it. You can’t — you lost this debate.

          51. James Bowen October 16, 2014

            How do you know these people are lazy? How do you know they haven’t been looking for a job? And whether they are lazy or not, they are still part of the workforce and still unemployed. If there are no jobs for them there are no jobs for them, and that is the case right now. You demonstrate extreme contempt for these workers. Do you think they should just be written off for good, that they don’t count? How convenient for people who have a personal interest in making the numbers look good. The U3, at the end of the day, is a meaningless statistic. The U6 is a far more accurate representation. And I along with others thought this long before Obama became President.

            We are worse off than we were during most of Bush’s Presidency, and those years were not good years in and of themselves. I noticed you still haven’t answered my question: how is it that polices that ruined the economy by 2009 are now driving a “recovery”?

          52. WhutHeSaid October 16, 2014

            I don’t demonstrate contempt for anyone but you, because you are a liar. People who do not look for work within a reasonable amount of time are NOT part of the workforce. If you don’t look for a job you will NEVER find one. The BLS gives them one year, I wouldn’t give them more than a couple of months. Longer than that and they are WILLFULLY unemployed, and not making themselves available for work. Therefore, they are no longer workers.

            For the 47th time, because you are an incorrigible liar ALL BLS NUMBERS ARE BETTER TODAY THAN WHERE BUSH LEFT THEM.So the U-6 supports MY argument — not yours. You have been defeated in this debate — have the good sense to accept the obvious.

          53. James Bowen October 17, 2014

            Again, what does look for work mean? How do you or anyone else know they haven’t looked for work? They ARE workers, and that are NOT willingly unemployed. There are no jobs for them, period. We have more workers than we have jobs. That means that when the music stops there will be workers left standing. Not counting them is nothing less than writing them off for the sake of window dressing.

            I never said that the numbers aren’t better than they were in 2009. What I am saying is they are still bad.

          54. WhutHeSaid October 17, 2014

            Because they SAID they haven’t looked for work. The same way they SAID that they want a job even if they aren’t looking or one. That’s how the BLS compiles it’s numbers — via surveys.

            I dare you to try to claim that there are no9 available jobs anywhere in this country — there are. People have to compete for jobs sometimes, and it’s always been that way. But if you don’t look for a job then you wont get one. Everyone with an IQ above single digits knows this, so not looking is CHOOSING to be unemployed.

            And I never said the numbers were spectacular. What I did say is they are MUCH better than what Obama inherited and headed in the right direction. The economy and jobs are no longer the American public’s number one concern, which shows that America agrees.

          55. James Bowen October 17, 2014

            But they did say they wanted to work. Therefore, they count. While they might say they have not looked for work, it is all but certain that they are paying attention to any word or indication of work opportunities. They are not choosing to be unemployed. There are a lot more unemployed workers than there are jobs, so when the arithmetic is done, overall there are not enough jobs available.

            Do you think an economy where the jobs that are being created and wages are stagnant or declining is heading in the right direction? I don’t, neither do most other Americans (who by the way don’t believe this nonsense about being out of the recession).

          56. WhutHeSaid October 18, 2014

            And they also said they aren’t looking, so they will NEVER find a job. Therefore, they are no longer workers. Paying attention is not the same thing as looking. You have to actively LOOK for work to find it, and if they aren’t doing so then they will never get a job. When they once again CHOOSE to actively seek a job then they can be counted as unemployed against their will.

            Yes, I think an economy where wages are stagnant and jobs that are being created are not record-breaking-salary positions IS much better than losing 600,000 jobs per month like in January 2009. Everyone else in the world except you and Obama-hating bigots believes this too.

            Also, all the world agrees the US is no longer in a recession. The reason that you don’t believe it is easily guessed.

          57. James Bowen October 18, 2014

            Most Americans don’t agree with you that we are no longer in a recession, and stagnant wages are not indicative of a nation on the right track unless you want us to be turned into a third world cesspool.

            These are workers, and they are unemployed. They might say they are not looking for work because they believe there are no jobs to look for (but they are undoubtedly paying attention to what might be available). In a way they are correct as there are more workers than there are jobs. That means that many workers will be unemployed regardless of whether they look or not–basic arithmetic.

          58. WhutHeSaid October 18, 2014

            Oh, so you claim to know why they reported a given answer to a survey question? Do you personally travel to every survey participant’s home and have a followup discussion, or are you talking out of your ass?

            It’s more basic than arithmetic: You cannot find what you aren’t looking for. It’s all your excuse in an attempt to belittle a black President’s achievements — nothing more.

            The BLS disagrees with you, as does the entire civilized world. You are the debate equivalent of one hand clapping.

          59. James Bowen October 19, 2014

            Do you? The important thing here is that these are workers who want to work and there are not enough jobs to go around. In the real world, as opposed to a bureaucrat’s cubicle, that makes them unemployed.

            As you can see here, the entire world does not disagree with me. It looks like most Americans agree with me: http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/Survey-Americans-Financial-Shape-Recession/2014/09/24/id/596710/.

          60. WhutHeSaid October 19, 2014

            Really? An article in Newsmax written by a right-wing hack citing a poll by the Public Religion Research Institute? You are really reaching now, eh?

            Even if there were 20 billion jobs and only one worker who wasn’t looking for a job, I guess you would claim that this lazy-ass was unemployed due to a poor economy.

            You are a nut. Workers ALWAYS have to compete for jobs, and if they don’t even look their chances of landing a job are zero. So it doesn’t even matter what the economy looks like — No look for job, no find job. Using this as some type of reverse proof that the economy is horrible is moronic.

            It’s obvious that America recognizes the economy is back to normal since it is no longer the top issue on their minds. The Bureau of Labor Statistics agrees as do all credible economists (those who don’t have white robes and hoods hanging in their closet). That’s all you need to know, and anything else is just disgruntled bigots reaching for excuses to deny a black President credit where credit is due.

          61. James Bowen October 19, 2014

            Not according to that survey they don’t. Here is another one that records related anxieties: http://online.wsj.com/articles/wsj-nbc-poll-finds-widespread-economic-anxiety-1407277801. And how about this piece: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/fl-aocol-oped1017-20141017-column.html. It’s obvious that Americans don’t think we are out of the recession, and it’s obvious that Americans wonder if this currently poor economy is the new normal.

            If there are more workers than there are jobs, and right now there are far more workers than jobs, there will be people who have no job no matter how hard they look–basic arithmetic.

          62. WhutHeSaid October 19, 2014

            I’m not going to log into pay-per-read accounts to see articles written by right-wing hacks. If you have something you want to share then post it here.

            Vague anxieties do not prove that the US economy has not improved under Obama. It has, and you’ve offered no evidence to the contrary. Quite a few surveys showed that there were anxieties about Y2K Armageddon too, but that doesn’t mean there was any basis in fact. Any survey will turn up a percentage of people who fear being abducted by aliens too — are you going to blame unemployment on that as well?

            Your argument is defeated. The US economy is better that where GW Bush left it by far. Just give up the ghost already.

          63. James Bowen October 20, 2014

            I just posted two of them. There is no question that the economy is better than it was in 2009, but that does not mean it is good. It most certainly is not.

          64. WhutHeSaid October 21, 2014

            What you posted were links to pay-per-read sites. If you believe that they have something informative to say then cut & paste what you believe is informative. None of it can help your argument, because it is clear that the economy is better now than where Bush left it by every measure, as you finally admitted.

          65. James Bowen October 21, 2014

            I apologize for that. They were accessible when I looked at them, and I prefer not to clutter comment boards with a whole article’s worth of material.

            Nonetheless, there is plenty of other material out there on this. Here is one: http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/nation/article/Economic-palls-hangs-over-country-in-new-American-5775760.php.

            I never disagreed that the economy is better now than it was in 2009. What was I was saying, and am still, is that that is not saying much.

          66. WhutHeSaid October 12, 2014

            You are a European immigrant anchor baby — and an intolerable hypocrite to boot. If you dislike immigration so much then you should self-deport immediately. Everyone wins in that case, and there are plenty of honest, hard-working immigrants who are NOT hypocrites or bigots, and they deserve to be here more than you do. We should give one of them your spot and send you packing.

          67. James Bowen October 12, 2014

            There are plenty of honest, hard working legal immigrants who followed all the rules and do deserve to stay. That being said, the population growth caused by immigration is unsustainable, and therefore needs to stop. As for illegal aliens, they are by definition dishonest and do not deserve, nor have any right, to stay.

            By that definition, if I am an immigrant, than so is every other human being in the Western Hemisphere.

          68. WhutHeSaid October 12, 2014

            I agree that there are many immigrants who deserve to stay. The rest is nonsense. You are an immigrant, but that is not necessarily true for every other human being in the Western Hemisphere. That’s just a favorite excuse of bigoted immigrants who get called out for complaining about OTHER immigrants.

          69. James Bowen October 12, 2014

            Illegal aliens are invaders and identity thieves and should be dealt with accordingly. Legal immigration needs to be reduced. Immigration is the cause of U.S. population growth which is unsustainable.

            So you are telling me that there were homo sapiens who evolved independently in the Americas? I don’t think so. By your definition, everyone in the Western Hemisphere is an immigrant.

          70. WhutHeSaid October 13, 2014

            Your family was chock-full of illegal aliens, so why are you still here? You are an anchor baby.

            Immigration has longed fueled this country’s economy. This country has been an immigrant country for centuries now, and all of the immigrants (like you) who have become drooling, anti-immigrant bigots need to either shut your yap or get out.

            People who never immigrated here are not immigrants. That should be simple enough for you to understand. And there ARE people here whose families included no immigrants — ever. You have been caught lying about this before, and you only use that argument because you realize that you are a hypocrite. It’s the European immigrants’ favorite excuse nowadays — but it’s utter bullshit. You need to just stop lying.

          71. James Bowen October 14, 2014

            By your definition I am not an immigrant then.

            Mass immigration is destroying our economy, not fueling it. The only people who mass immigration benefits, other than the immigrants themselves, are the rich 1%’ers who profit from cheap labor and more consumers to buy things. The rest of us are stuck with the bill in the form of higher commodity prices, natural resource depletion, urban sprawl, infrastructure and public service overuse, wage depression, increased competition for jobs, etc. Bottom line, even though the aggregate GDP increases, the per-capita GDP, which is the only thing of consequence to most people, decreases.

          72. WhutHeSaid October 14, 2014

            You are an immigrant, and I’m using YOUR definition of immigrant. Your family came here illegally, and that makes you a European anchor baby. You don’t believe in the 14th amendment birthright clause. You want such people to leave, don’t you? Me too — bye!

          73. James Bowen October 15, 2014

            Except my parents are citizens, as were their parents. Therefore I am not an immigrant. If you claim that everyone who is descended from an immigrant is him/herself an immigrant, that makes all human beings in the Western Hemisphere immigrants.

          74. WhutHeSaid October 15, 2014

            No, you are just wrong. There are many people in this country whose ancestors never immigrated here. You and your ancestors do not fall into this group.

            So you need to make up your mind: Either you accept the 14th Amendment birthright clause or you and all of your family are illegal aliens. How do you choose?

          75. James Bowen October 15, 2014

            So what you are telling me is that homo sapiens independently evolved in the Western Hemisphere. I don’t think so. Everyone in this country is descended from people who migrated at one time or another.

          76. WhutHeSaid October 15, 2014

            Immigration to a country is not the same as migration to an unpopulated expanse of land. I know that this is the current favorite of illegal European immigrants once they gave up on trying to claim for many years that they didn’t do what they did, in fact, do. The whole world knows better.

            Also, there can be no ILLEGAL immigration to a place where there are no laws. That was not the case for your family.

            Now you really must make a choice: Do you accept and agree with the birthright clause of the 14th Amendment, or do you reject it. It’s the only thing standing between you and deportation, so choose wisely.

          77. James Bowen October 16, 2014

            Either way, it is migration, so therefore by your definition no one is truly native to America.

            My ancestors immigrated legally, by the way.

            I favor birthright citizenship for the offspring of citizens and legal permanent residents only. The law needs to change to make that the case, and if the courts rule against it using the 14th Amendment, the 14th Amendment needs to be modified.

          78. WhutHeSaid October 16, 2014

            Negative. Your ancestors were illegal immigrants. But they went MUCH further than a simple civil violation of undocumented entry. Their immigration involved major crimes. Since they are illegal immigrants, you are as well unless you seek the benefit of the 14th Amendment citizen birthright clause.

            Therefore, since you are too bigoted to believe in the 14th Amendment, you may leave. Now.


          79. James Bowen October 16, 2014

            My ancestors obeyed all the existing laws when they came here. They were not illegal immigrants. European colonists did invade, conquer, and commit many atrocities in the Americas, yes, but that was not the only instance in history where this happened. That has happened so many times throughout human history, and that is how several super states were established. Germans invaded Britain in the First Millenium AD following the Roman collapse, drove the Celtic peoples to the margins of Britain, and the nation of England was ultimately the result. Other examples include the building of the Roman Empire and Russia. Such things happened in the pre-Columbian Americas too. The Aztecs built their empire through force and conquest.

            I am not justifying any of this. I am just saying that that’s the way it happened and it is done. All we can do now is learn from the past.

          80. WhutHeSaid October 16, 2014

            You are lying. You have absolutely no idea what laws they broke and what laws they obeyed. They were not invited here by the REAL Americans — I can tell you that much. They were and are illegal immigrants, and much more sordid and sinister versions than poor Latin children who are simply trying to escape violence and poverty.

            So when does the fact that others have committed crimes excuse crimes? How many murder defendants go into court with a defense that goes “Well, other people have committed murder, so therefore my act of murder must be excused.”? None — EVER. Why? Because it’s an asinine defense, that’s why.

            No, learning from the past is NOT all we can do: We can deport you illegal aliens. And I must say if ever people deserved to be kicked out of this country it is bigoted, selfish, lying, excuse-making hypocrites like you. Also, why do you advocate throwing out undocumented immigrants who have been here 10, 20, 30 or more years — or even all their life? After all, all we can do is learn from the past, right? Bullshit. You are an asshole. YOU should leave — most of all because you are too much of a bigoted asshole to understand that you are EXACTLY what you whine constantly about: An immigrant, an anchor baby, an undesirable.

            There are plenty of European immigrants in this country who appreciate the rights that they were given by the 14th Amendment, and who do not go around spewing bigoted bile against OTHER immigrants. They are the kind of people who have helped make this country what it is today. But this doesn’t include you, so go find yourself a leaky boat and shove off, you bigot.

          81. James Bowen October 17, 2014

            The murderers you speak of are all dead. European-descended Americans living today did not commit those crimes. What’s done is done.

            As for the illegals who are here today, something can be done about them. They are invaders who are a threat to this nation’s well-being and should be expelled. Even if they are just trying to escape violence and poverty, the fact is we cannot take in all the world’s unfortunate people. We don’t have the resources. And the ones who have been here for 10+ years are the more aggregious offenders and should be the first to go. They have been able to stay here that long by stealing jobs and in many cases identities from Americans.

          82. WhutHeSaid October 17, 2014

            No, in fact, they aren’t. What’s done is ALWAYS done — that’s not saying anything. But crimes and victims of crimes can still be addressed — and should be — starting with all of the stolen goods that you received so far during your lifetime. How much time has to pass before a thief or his accomplices become ‘rightful owners’? The answer is that no amount of time ever changes a crime to a legal act, and no amount of time turns a thief into a rightful owner of that which he gained via crime.

            You and your family are the worst examples of truly illegal immigration, and you have gotten away with it for longer than poor Latin kids escaping abuse and brutality. YOUR despicable affront to America needs to be addressed first. So run — don’t walk — to the coastline nearest to your ill-gotten possessions and leap into the ‘big pond’. I don’t care where you go as long as you just go.


          83. James Bowen October 17, 2014

            They are invaders. They do not respect our laws and our nation, otherwise they would not have come here illegally. They should be expelled. Given how many of them there are, we have every legal right to use the army to do it (though I don’t think that is necessary or even the best way to do it).

            There are no victims left. They are all dead, as are the perpetrators of those crimes. Do you really think letting invading aliens overrun the country is going to undo the wrongs that were done centuries ago? Do you really think they are going to give a rat’s ass about the cultures that were here before European contact? No, letting them overrun the place is going to accomplish nothing but the ecological, economic, and social ruin of this country.

          84. WhutHeSaid October 18, 2014

            Hey — that sounds just like your European invader family!

            Like I said, there ARE both perpetrators and victims left. Criminals will conjure up any lie to attempt to escape justice, won’t they?

            What I don’t give a rat’s ass about is bigots and hypocrites. I want them deported — now. I want good people as my neighbors in this country, and I’m perfectly willing to share my good fortune with other good people. But vile and despicable bigots, racists, and haters don’t deserve to live in the US. So when a vile, sordid, despicable immigrant bigot starts pointing the finger at other immigrants, it’s time to raise the bullshit flag.

          85. James Bowen October 18, 2014

            No, there are not. They are all dead. They would have to be about 140 years. As far as we know no human being has ever lived that long.

          86. WhutHeSaid October 18, 2014

            Bullshit. Did you think that crimes against Native Americans ended in 1874? If so you know nothing about the subject at all.

          87. James Bowen October 19, 2014

            The people who were affected by the broken treaties, land seizures, deportation to reservations, etc. are all dead. The people who committed these crimes are all dead. The are no victims left to reward, and no perpetrators left to punish.

            There have been crimes committed against American Indians since then, and those responsible should be punished. But those are a small number of individuals, not an entire nation.

          88. WhutHeSaid October 19, 2014

            Bullshit — what an asshole you are. Those American concentration camps known as ‘reservations’ still exist.

            Your second claim is also utter bullshit, proving that you know nothing about this subject. The crimes against Native Nations continue to this very day.

          89. James Bowen October 19, 2014

            Indians are welcome to leave the reservations. There is no one forcing them to stay there, and no one alive today put them there.

            What mass crimes have been committed against American Indians since 1930?

          90. WhutHeSaid October 19, 2014

            Bullshit. You know nothing about this topic at all. Let me use your own argument against you: American bigots like you are free to be billionaires. Nobody made them jobless or poor, therefore, there is no such thing as a worker who is unemployed or poor against his/her will.

            So now it’s 1930, is it? That’s not 140 years — that’s more like 84 years. And who said anything about ‘mass crimes’? Isn’t it interesting how you keep trying to add on caveats when your arguments are defeated?

          91. James Bowen October 20, 2014

            So, you are telling me that Indians are not free to leave the reservations. You know very well that is false. I picked 1930 because most Americans alive today were born after 1930.

          92. WhutHeSaid October 20, 2014

            Yes, and using the same reasoning Americans are free to get a job. There – you see how easy that was? Everyone’s problem is solved.

          93. James Bowen October 21, 2014

            One can’t get a job that doesn’t exist. However, Indians are free to move somewhere else.

          94. WhutHeSaid October 21, 2014

            Are you trying to claim that zero jobs exist? That would be yet another lie, now wouldn’t it?

            Using the exact same logic you use, Americans are free to get a job. If they prefer, they are free to create a job at whatever salary they wish – nobody is stopping them. They are free to become billionaires or live for free. See how ridiculous your line of reasoning is?

          95. James Bowen October 21, 2014

            They are free to create their own jobs in theory, but not their own income. Therefore, in reality, the number of jobs are finite. I never said zero jobs exist. I said that there are a far greater number of workers than there are jobs.

            As far as leaving the reservation, what is stopping them?

          96. WhutHeSaid October 21, 2014

            So what’s stopping them from creating their own job with the income they desire? What’s stopping them from becoming a billionaire where they don’t need a job? What’s stopping them from living for free?

            If you haven’t figured out yet that your reasoning is idiotic, then there isn’t much hope for you.

          97. James Bowen October 21, 2014

            Economics is what’s stopping them, not to mention physics. That’s what’s stopping them.

            None of this is stopping Indians from leaving reservations though.

          98. WhutHeSaid October 21, 2014

            Is that so? Just explain how ‘economics’ is stopping everybody from getting a job. Next explain how ‘physics’ is stopping everyone from getting a job. Now explain why there are people getting jobs if both ‘economics’ and ‘physics’ are stopping them.

            Finally, explain how every one of your lying arguments that you post in response to the above do not apply to Native Americans (people from India weren’t forced onto reservations, BTW) moving off reservations.

            You are totally and completely debunked. You have no valid arguments at all. You sir, are a charlatan. You just keep repeating lies over and over despite being dis-proven at every turn. Why? Because you are a bigot, and you hate the black President.

            You really need to find a new hobby — you suck at debating.

          99. James Bowen October 22, 2014

            Supply and demand, land, labor, and capital, etc. Right now, there are just not enough jobs for the number of workers we have. Those workers are of course free to make work for themselves, but that does not mean there will be income that comes with it. If there is no demand for their work, there will be no income. As for physics, I was merely saying that we can’t create things out of thin air. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

            These arguments do apply to Indians (I don’t like the term Native American because all Americans who are not foreign-born are Native Americans). I can appreciate confusing the term Indian with Asian Indians, so the term American Indian is a better one to use. Nonetheless, that does not constrain them to a reservation. They are free to live and seek jobs elsewhere–not that they’ll have any better luck than anyone else in this country though (with the exception of immigrants to whom all the net job gains since 2000 have gone).

          100. WhutHeSaid October 22, 2014

            As expected, you neither answered my questions nor told the truth about Native Americans. In reality, YOU are the one who should have a hyphenated moniker, for example: German-American or Irish-American. Since Natives are the original Americans then they are really just ‘Americans’. Anything else is just bigoted hypocrisy.

            All of your excuses for people finding jobs, becoming billionaires, or living for free are just what I expected: False assertions designed specifically to support a fatally-flawed bigot-argument. Despite your claims that demand. land, labor and capital prevent people from doing these things. you missed the 3 most important parts of the question:

            1. HOW do your claims prevent people from doing these things? Explanations are needed for your arguments to have any substance.
            2. HOW do people get jobs, become billionaires, and live for free when you claim that these things are impossible? People do all of these things every day.
            3. WHY do your factors not also affect Native Americans moving off reservations? Do land, demand, supply, capital (not to mention bigotry — your favorite) also factor into this scenario? How about jobs? That point alone uses your own argument to nullify your bigoted argument about real ‘Americans’.

            You have been defeated in this debate. Your every post just exposes more flawed arguments that make you look sillier and less credible. Have the good sense to cut your losses.

          101. James Bowen October 23, 2014

            People who were born here AND whose families have been here for multiple generations are just as native to America as the American Indians.

            Here are the answers to your questions.

            1) People are at liberty to create work for themselves, but the work they create may already be in oversupply or there may be no demand for such work. Also, they might want to do work but lack the resources or capital to do it or sustain it.

            2) I never said it is impossible to get a job or become a billionaire. However, it is impossible to live for free. If someone is “living for free”, it’s costing someone else.

            3) These factors do affect American Indians on reservations. You implied that reservations were prisons and that they are forcibly confined there. That may have been true in 1890, but it is not true today. If I recall correctly, that ended in 1934.

          102. WhutHeSaid October 23, 2014

            You are most definitely NOT American. You are a bigoted, European illegal alien anchor baby who doesn’t believe in the 14th Amendment birthright clause — the only thing that would make you American. Stop pretending to be something you aren’t.

            1) If people create work for themselves where there is already an oversupply, then that is their choice. They should create work for themselves that is in high demand and pays the salary that they want. After all — nobody is stopping them.

            2) It is NOT impossible to live for free. People lived for free for thousands of years before money was invented, and some still do.

            3) I neither implied nor claimed that reservations were ‘prisons’. Reservations are the remnants of American concentration camps designed to force crime onto those whose possessions the criminals wished to steal. The property of these victims, by and large, was taken via crime by Illegal European immigrants (like you) who still possess the stolen goods. You are just lying.

            You, and people like you, will NEVER be as ‘American’ as the original Americans. Not even 10 million years from now. The original Americans will always have a superior claim to the title ‘American’. You are merely a ‘European-American’ at best.

            You have been defeated. None of your arguments have any validity — just the wishful thinking of a bigoted, selfish European criminal. You should gaze in the mirror at the bigoted person you see, slap your own face for being a complete hypocrite, and then run to the ‘big pond’, jump in, and thereby atone for your family’s criminal enterprise by leaving and never coming back.

          103. James Bowen October 24, 2014

            1) That’s easier said than done. In tough economic times such as these, there is not much outside of basics goods and services that are in demand.

            2) Money is simply a medium of exchange. It is what money can buy that is important and what people need to live on, and none of what money can buy is free.

            3) Reservations are not concentration camps anymore. They days you speak of are over, and all of the perpetrators and almost all of the victims are dead.

            I am an native American. I was born here to parents whose parents were born here. I am not pretending to be anything other than that. My problem with immigration is not the principal but with the excessiveness of it. We can’t sustain an ever growing population.

            I suspect it is you who is pretending to be something you are not. You are apparently claiming to be an American Indian, but I doubt you are. You talk like a self-loathing white man.

          104. WhutHeSaid October 26, 2014

            First, it’s obvious that you are incensed at the fact that there are people who have a superior claim to the title ‘American’. That will never change — YOU will always be a hyphenated American in comparison.

            Second, I don’t care what you believe. The beliefs of a bigot are of little concern to me. I know what I am, and what you think is irrelevant.

            Third, you are NOT an American of any kind. Your family consists entirely of illegal European immigrant criminals, and because you do not believe in the 14th Amendment birthright clause you are merely an illegal European immigrant criminal anchor baby. That was your choice: You are such a vile bigot that you bigoted yourself right out of any claim to the title ‘American’.

            Your arguments have all been debunked. Reservations were and are concentration camps. Would you say that Auschwitz is no longer a death camp because people are no longer gassed there? They are what they are — forever.

            Finally, I don’t loathe myself or most other people. It’s vile and despicable bigots like you that I loathe, so it’s perfectly understandable that you would get that vibe. You bring it on yourself, so enjoy.

          105. Independent1 October 7, 2014

            All the people out of work including millions upon millions who wouldn’t take a job if you gave it to them.
            YOU ARE AN ABSOLUTE NUT CASE!!!!!!!!

          106. James Bowen October 8, 2014

            Many, many of these people would take a job if they were available. That is just a convenient excuse for those who have an interest in making the numbers look pretty.

          107. Independent1 October 7, 2014

            As usual, you know absolutely nothing about what you’re posting!! When are going to get educated before you come on the NM and make an idiot of yourself????????

            From an article in Forbes:

            Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing

            Some excerpts:

            So we compared his performance dealing with the oil-induced recession of the 1980s with that of President Obama and his performance during this ‘Great Recession.’

            “As this unemployment chart shows, President Obama’s job creation kept unemployment from peaking at as high a level as President Reagan, and promoted people into the workforce faster than President Reagan.

            “President Obama has achieved a 6.1% unemployment rate in his sixth year, fully one year faster than President Reagan did. At this point in his presidency, President Reagan was still struggling with 7.1% unemployment, and he did not reach into the mid-low 6% range for another full year. So, despite today’s number, the Obama administration has still done considerably better at job creating and reducing unemployment than did the Reagan administration.

            “We forecast unemployment will fall to around 5.4% by summer, 2015. A rate President Reagan was unable to achieve during his two terms.”

            And some on investing:

            “As this chart shows, over the first 67 months of their presidencies there is a clear “winner” from an investor’s viewpoint. A dollar invested when Reagan assumed the presidency would have yielded a staggering 190% return. Such returns were unheard of prior to his leadership.

            “However, it is undeniable that President Obama has surpassed the previous president. Investors have gained a remarkable 220% over the last 5.5 years! This level of investor growth is unprecedented by any administration, and has proven quite beneficial for everyone.

            The entire article – better read it CLUELESS!!!


          108. James Bowen October 7, 2014

            Again, look at the U6 unemployment rate. The employment picture, even if it better than 2009, is still considerably worse than 2007. Bottom line: this “recovery” has not restored pre-crash employment levels, therefore the recovery is at least incomplete, if not a myth altogether.

          109. Independent1 October 7, 2014

            And when you’re talking about the U6 report, YOU CANNOT compare the U6 of today to the U6 of years gone by because the BLS includes in its potential workforce, pleople who today are of the ‘supposed working age’, who are today SMART ENOUGH to have pulled themselves out of the labor market far earlier in their lives than was the case in years gone by.

            Millions of Americans who the BLS would continue to include in the U6, have determined on their own because of their own life’s desires, TO NO LONGER LOOK FOR WORK. That decision has nothing to do with the fact that jobs are not available – as was most often the case in YEARS GONE BY.

            Even Obamacare has freed up millions of Americans to no longer have a need to stay in the labor force, just to get health insurance. Obamacare has allowed millions TO MAKE A CHOICE TO LEAVE THE LABOR FORCE FOR PURELY PERSONAL DESIRES, not because there are not jobs available.

            WAKE UP!!!!!

          110. James Bowen October 7, 2014

            Come on. The true unemployment rate is how much of the potential workforce is not working, and the idea that jobs are widely available is laughable. If that is the case, why aren’t wages and salaries rising? The truth is that the jobs that have been created since 2010 are mostly low wage or part time jobs, and even then overall employment has still not recovered to 2007 levels.

          111. WhutHeSaid October 7, 2014

            So what you are really saying is that you are asking the bigot equivalent of “Are we there yet?, Are we there yet?, Are we there yet?”. Stop bellyaching about positive progress and just admit that Obama corrected the Bush debacle. That in and of itself is no small feat.

          112. James Bowen October 7, 2014

            But the truth is the current administration has not corrected it. The job market has not recovered to its 2007 position. And the jobs that have been created are mostly low wage and part time jobs–hardly makes up for what was lost in 2008-2009. To ordinary people, the job market is rotten. That is all that matters to them. Numbers that purportedly show a recovery doesn’t mean squat to workers who are either unemployed long-term or re-employed but in low wage or part time jobs that barely make ends meet if at all.

            And who ever said anything about bigots? E. J. Dionne asked a question, and I answered it.

          113. Independent1 October 7, 2014

            This is my last response to a totally clueless idiot.
            Given that job creation during GWBs 8 years in office were BY FAR the most lackluster since the Great Depression, it shouldn’t take someone with 1/2 a brain to figure out why our economy is struggling to really get reved up again:

            The Great Recession, which was an ever bigger economic calamity than the financial disaster back in the 1930s that created the Big Depression, caused so many companies to go belly up, that it’s taking time to recreated hundreds and thousands of companies which would provide better jobs.

            That together with a low capital gains rate (which the GOP will not change), which allows companies and entrepreneurs to make more money sitting on their investments than risking putting money into expanding businesses and creating new ones, is exascerbating the problem.

            But any way you look at it, given that it took the U.S.close to 13 years to recover from a lesser economic disaster than the Great Recession back in the 1930s, America is doing ASTOUNDINGLY WELL being that we are now only a little more than 6years plus in our country’s recovery from the Great Recession.

          114. James Bowen October 7, 2014

            Wages and salaries are stagnant and have decline in many sectors since 2007. There are more workers than there are jobs. Ordinary people are not doing well, statistics aside.

          115. Independent1 October 7, 2014

            Guess whose fault that is!!! The GOP for allowing the Great Recession to happen and then doing everything they could over the past 5 plus years to not allow Obama to get legislation passed that would have us much further along in the recovery.

            It’ s telling when 14 Republicans get together on the night Obama was inaugurated to discuss how they COULD SABOTAGE THE ECONOMY, so as to make Obama a one-term president.

          116. James Bowen October 7, 2014

            If you are looking for a defense of the GOP from me, you are not going to get one. The truth is the two major political parties aren’t that much different when it comes to policy. The are both under the control of big business/international capital. Their animosity towards each other has no real substance other than the fact that they are the competition.

            Bush and Pres. Obama do not differ much on economic policies.

          117. Independent1 October 7, 2014

            Given that the GOP has put up total opposition to everything the Dems have wanted to do, including using the fake filibuster more than 425 times, for you to say Obama has continued with Bush’s policies, is a total absurdity. It’s the GOP that has forced many of Bush’s old policies to continue – not because Obama wanted any of that to happen. When are you going to get your head out of the sand?????

            If the GOP had even gone along with just one of his jobs bills, or allowed the Dems to increase the Capital Gains rate and done something about our absurd tax code – our economy would be light years better than it is even today!!!!!

            And you have to make some of these comparisons looking at the rest of the world. America is really the only industrialized free-world country on the planet that has a growing economy.

          118. James Bowen October 7, 2014

            Pres. Obama pursued a stimulus bill which was a repeat of Bush policies and got it passed. He actively sought, and succeeded, in making most of the Bush tax cuts permanent. He supported and continued the bailouts that Bush began. He pushed three free trade deals through Congress in the Fall of 2011 that the Bush Administration had begun the push for. None of this was being forced–he actively pursued these policies. Both Bush and Pres. Obama listen(ed) to the same supply-side, neoclassical, and Keynesian schools of thought.

          119. Independent1 October 7, 2014

            Sure, he pursued some Bush policies that made sense but has wanted to change others that haven’t and the GOP wouldn’t let him. They didn’t want him to go forward with the Stimulus and the auto bailout which have been what kept America out of a full fledged Depression.

            I’m just going to leave you with this chart – it’s clear that you’re just as dumbheaded about the economy as you are about immigration and aren’t worth all this effort in discussion>

            AVERAGE NET JOBS
            CREATED PER YEAR.


            Note that of the last 12 presidents – the top 3 job creators are Democrats and the 4 worst are Republicans with George W. Bush having an absolutely abysmal record.

            The only reason the unemployment rate plummeted to the low in 2007 is because of the crooks in the financial sector that spurred the economy via illegal financial transactions that ended up tanking and almost destroying our country.

          120. James Bowen October 7, 2014

            Those Bush policies were what got us into this mess in the first place. And the irony is that the employment picture was not all that great in 2007, at least compared to ten years before that. That just shows how bad it is right now.

            Pres. Obama got the stimulus bill passed. Stimuli were also a Bush policy.

            As far as immigration is concerned, it is because of immigration that workers are being added to the economy faster than jobs are. As long as that is going on, unless job creating significantly increases, that means we will never recover the 2007 levels of employment. Reducing immigration to correct that should be a no-brainer.

            By the way, I don’t think the measures taken by the government did much to avert the crash. The crash happened regardless of their actions. I recall Warren Buffett saying in March of 2009 or thereabouts that what had happened to the U.S. economy was the worst case scenario when the financial crisis occurred the previous September.

          121. Independent1 October 7, 2014

            That’s where it shows you have your head in the sand. The economy was losing 900,000 jobs/mo for the first 4 months of 2009 and then job losses started plummeting within 2 months of getting the Stimulus passed. If the stimulus didn’t help, explain how 900,000 job loses/month turned around into postive jobs numbers within 10 months. You keep proving just how clueless you are with every one of your posts!!!!!!!!

          122. WhutHeSaid October 7, 2014

            See Jimmy? It’s even in pretty colors for you. Even a drooling bigot can understand IMPROVEMENT when somebody includes pictures!

            Now STIMULATE yourself to run down to the dock and jump into that leaky boat, you bigoted anchor baby.

          123. James Bowen October 8, 2014

            The stimulus had minimal effect. It was basically another bailout. More than likely what happened is that the meltdown ran its course, and we are still trying to pick up the pieces.

          124. Independent1 October 7, 2014

            From WhutHeSaid:

            See Jimmy? It’s even in pretty colors for you. Even a drooling bigot can understand IMPROVEMENT when somebody includes pictures!

            Now STIMULATE yourself to run down to the dock and jump into that leaky boat, you bigoted anchor baby.

          125. James Bowen October 8, 2014

            As I told him, being beaten by three touchdowns is not as bad as six, but it is still a bad beating. That is the situation the American workforce is facing at present.

          126. Independent1 October 7, 2014

            And irrespective of the jobs numbers, lets see you find me a president or group of presidents whose accomplishments can compare to even the following – and there are more than 20 accomplishments not even noted here:

            Here’s just a partial list of Obama’s accomplishments:

            – Obama’s policies have resulted in the highest level of consumer confidence in the past 7 years

            – Obama’s policies have resulted in a stock
            Market that’s at the highest levels in history restoring retirement accounts for millions of American seniors that were trashed under the Bush administration

            -Obama has been the smallest spending president since Eisenhower.

            -Obama has reduced deficit spending faster than any president since Truman.

            -There have been more than 54 straight months
            of job growth with more jobs created in the last 5 years than Bush created in 8 years (Bush left office with more than 400,000 less people working in America than when he took office)

            -Obama ended the war in Iraq – as he promised.

            –The 9/11 perpetrator, bin Laden, was eliminated and al Qaeda severely weakened.

            -The war in Afghanistan is almost wound down –
            as he promised.

            – Obama’s diplomatic efforts have gotten Iran
            to rework all their uranium into non-weapons grade form such that Iran is no longer a nuclear threat to the world.

            -Millions more students are receiving college
            loans cheaper than ever before because Obama cut the banks out of the loan process despite total inaction by the GOP members of congress.

            – Obama saved the American auto Industry from
            bankruptcy and it’s flourishing again despite GOP opposition; making profits not seen since Clinton was in office.

            -More than 150 billion in taxes have been collected from auto industry related companies and workers over the past 5 years that would have been lost if the industry went bankrupt.

            -More than 1.5 million American jobs were saved through the auto bailout helping keep America out of the GOP’s second created world-wide depression.

            -Obama started a war on fraud in the defense
            and healthcare sectors with more fraudulently charged monies recovered (billions) and crooks brought to justice than had been recovered by the 3 prev. pres. combined

            -More PROBLEM illegal aliens have been rounded
            up and deported over the past 5 years than by any other president (more than 1.5 million).

            -Obama’s stimulus program energized America
            green energy initiatives such that alternative energies (solar, wind, hydro and plasma) may well make fossil fuels obsolete within the next 10 plus years.

            -More gas and oil have been pumped out of the
            ground the past 3 years than at any other time in US in history; America is now the largest energy producer on the planet surplanting Russia and Saudi Arabia for that title.

            -America’s relationships have been restored
            with virtually all it’s international partners after Bush had virtually the whole world hating America (and that included the British people).

            Obama has accomplished more in last 6 years than any president since FDR

          127. James Bowen October 8, 2014

            I am not here to get into a debate about Pres. Obama and his accomplishments. I am simply stating that the jobs picture is miserable for ordinary people, and that is the answer to Dionne’s question. I have also stated that Pres. Obama’s economic policies are basically the same as Bush’s.

          128. Sand_Cat October 7, 2014

            Have to admit, seems like all too much of what you say is true.

          129. James Bowen October 8, 2014

            Thanks Sand_Cat.

          130. Independent1 October 8, 2014

            “The true unemployment rate is how much of the potential workforce is not working”


            The BLS is including millions of people in the ‘potential work force’ THAT SHOULD NO LONGER BE THERE!!!!!!!!!.

            Even many financial analysts are realizing that encouraging people to work beyond 62 IS A DUMB IDEA!! The extra income people are going to earn by working to 65-70 IS NOT WORTH WHAT THEY’RE LOSING!! The freedom to travel, to not be in a rate race to get to work everyday, to not
            CONSTANTLY face idiotic decisions at work EVERY day for years; and retiring early gives them potentionaly longer life spans because of years of reduced STRESS!!


            So wake up!!!!! The BLS continues to include millions upon millions of Americans in its ‘potential work force’ THAT SHOULD NO LONGER BE INCLUDED!!! The U6 number today is GROSSLY OVERSTATED!!!!!!!!

          131. James Bowen October 8, 2014

            The people who are capable of work is the workforce, so yes, the U6 is the more accurate representation. The retirement age needs to be raised to 75 because we cannot afford to have so much of the population living on publicly-subsidized retirement.

    2. 788eddie October 6, 2014

      I agree, James. The economy could be a whole lot better. I wish congress would get it’s act together and pass some legislation like an infrastructure bill (which we sorely need), which could provide needed jobs, as well as addressing a critical issue.

    3. Independent1 October 8, 2014

      Just one more comment clueless!! You realize of course that the U6 number includes every American in our population over the age of 16. YOU DON’T SEE A PROBLEM WITH THAT????

      You aren’t smart enough to realize that over the past several decades that more and more Americans are falling into the FULLY RETIRED portion of our population??? People who shouldn’t be in the ‘potential work force’ BECAUSE THEY WOULDN’T TAKE A JOB IF YOU OFFERED IT TOO THEM.

      And apparently you’re not smart enough to realize that over the past several decades, including the past 7 years since you’re supposedly sacred 2007, that not only have millions of Americans gotten enough older that they would not consider working EVEN IF THEY COULD, but also that the Great Recession forced millions more of them into retirement AND FOREVER UNEMPLOYMENT????

      The BLS’ U6 number isn’t worth the trouble they go to to compute it. IT’S A TOTALLY WORTHLESS REFERENCE!! When are you going to be SMART ENOUGH to realize that?????????

      1. James Bowen October 8, 2014

        Yes, I do realize all of that, and I don’t see a problem with that. That is the potential workforce, and how many of them are not working is a far more accurate representation. By the way, I also support raising the age of retirement (i.e. Social Security and Medicare eligibility) to 75 in order to cut spending.

        1. Independent1 October 8, 2014

          Goodbye!! I refuse to continue conversing with a TOTAL IDIOT!!!!

  10. ExRadioGuy15 October 6, 2014

    Wow, James Bowen….cranking up the Fascist GOP propaganda just in time for the elections, eh?!? Pathetic….
    Here’s the bottom line if the Fascist, insurrectionist and seditious GOP hadn’t obstructed the Obama administration from the beginning, things would be MUCH BETTER….
    Only the fear, ignorance and cognitive dissonance of Republicans like that shown by James disallows the truth to be acknowledged.

    1. joe schmo October 7, 2014

      Good God! The proof is in the pudding. Our country is just so successful. The pillar of the world.

      Truth? What truth…..yours? You wouldn’t know the truth if it hit you in the face.

      1. Independent1 October 7, 2014

        Wow!! And the kettle is trying to call the pot black!! You’re pathological lying proves clearly you KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT GOD!!!!!!

      2. Sand_Cat October 7, 2014

        Well, it would be much better than it is without your “help.”

  11. Whatmeworry October 6, 2014

    Only someone who does

    1. Whatmeworry is Dan M Ketter October 6, 2014

      And Dannnnnyboy Ketter is an expert at ekonomiks.

    2. Independent1 October 7, 2014

      Just one more of your blatant lies. What you just posted is absolutely NOT TRUE!! Worker participation today has changed very little from what it was during Reagan’s two terms in office. STOP LYING!!!!!!!!!

      1. Teddy October 7, 2014

        Ask your repub house to spend money on infrastructure and jobs would be there. They waste money on investigations and shut downs and you like that. Hating Obama is hurting America.

        1. Whatmeworry October 7, 2014

          HUH??? Reid has bottled 48 jobs bills that the House has sent. There is plenty of $$$ for roads and highways. Unfortunately Libs have passed laws that only 60 Cents of every $$$ collect in gas taxes actually go for infrastructure

          1. Independent1 October 7, 2014

            If there’s jobs bills in there, Reid hasn’t brought them to a vote because just like with everything else the GOP has done over the past 5 plus years – they’re intentionally packed with poison pills like huge subsidy giveaways to Big Oil or Big AgriBusiness or Big Pharma, OR, paying for the jobs bills is done by huge cuts to social programs. When those 14 Republicans met on Obama’s inauguration night to plan how they could sabotage our economy in trying to make Obama a one-term president – the GOP idiots had it all figured out how t hey could handcuff even the Senate: send over legislation with poison pills or have McConnell use the fake filibuster more than 425 times.

            Just when are you going to get a brain anyway??????

          2. Whatmeworry October 8, 2014

            Sorry the Republican bills don’t require tax payer $$$ to add jobs. That’s something that Dem’s and Barak can stand. It would end their requirement for the federal govt to pay for everything.
            Cuts to social programs??? Seriously we just got done going into record debt $8T paying for NEW Social programs that did squat

          3. Teddy December 25, 2014

            The debt is down to $5 trillion. Something we have not had since the 90,s.

          4. Whatmeworry December 25, 2014

            You can’t be that dumb…

          5. Whatmeworry December 25, 2014

            I can’t be that dumb…

          6. Whatmeworry is Dan M Ketter October 8, 2014

            I could debate you on this, but you won’t reply back??

          7. Teddy December 25, 2014

            They were junk.

          8. Whatmeworry December 25, 2014

            Your right they would have only have added 2 million jobs

        2. Whatmeworry December 25, 2014

          Your wrong they would have only have added 2 million jobs

      2. Whatmeworry October 7, 2014

        Once again you don’t read much I see

        1. Whatmeworry is Dan M Ketter October 8, 2014

          Just the Virginia Gazett story of a mentally challenged patient who escaped from a Williamsburg institution. It’s medication time dannno

    3. Independent1 October 7, 2014

      As this chart shows, the difference between reported unemployment and all unemployment – including those on the fringe of the workforce – has remained pretty constant since 1994.

      Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics – Databases, Tables and Calculators by Subject

      “Labor participation is affected much less by short-term job creation, and much more by long-term demographic trends. As this chart from the BLS shows, as the Baby Boomers entered the workforce and societal acceptance of women working changed, labor participation grew.

      You’ve got to go to this article to see the chart which SHOWS YOU ARE LYING!!!!!!!!

      Obama outperforms Reagan in any way you want to measure it:


      1. joe schmo October 7, 2014

        Lying? Who’s lying….certainly we are not allowed to waiver from your ideology. Does that mean you are always right? No one is that perfect…. Only God.

        1. Independent1 October 7, 2014

          Oh come on!! Whatmeworry is clearly trying to imply that because a Democrat, and especially Obama happens to be president now, that 5.9% isn’t really the unemployment rate now, WHEN IT CLEARLY IS!!

          The 5.9% unemployment rate and the “all employment rate” OF TODAY, is absolutely NO DIFFERENT than was the 7.1% unemployment rate under Reagan, at an equivalent point in his presidency, with the all unemployment rate at that time – WHICH IS WHAT Whatmeworry is trying to imply. Which is total nonsense and A CLEAR LIE!!!

          You prove yourself even idiotic and clueless every time you try to pretend that we NON-RWNJ idiots can’t see the the underlying lies in you RWNJ idiots posts!!!!

          1. Whatmeworry October 7, 2014

            No that’s incorrect when you cook the books any result is possible. You refuse to read anything other than Barak’s press release. Why shows how intellectual lazy you are

          2. WhutHeSaid October 7, 2014

            Did you learn this at your desk clerk job or did you see it on TV in your sister’s trailer?

          3. Whatmeworry is Dan M Ketter October 8, 2014

            Desk clerk?? Wasn’t that danno’s job for 20-years at Ford Motors while the union guys made the real bucks?? Not including 2.1 years of desk clerk duties on weekend in the air national guard as well.

          4. Whatmeworry October 8, 2014

            my sisters trailer has more amenities and sq footage than that 300sq ft apartment that you live in

          5. WhutHeSaid October 8, 2014

            I’m not the least bit surprised that you are prouder than a peacock of you sister’s, um — “amenities”. You redneck goobers can swim all you want in the shallow end of the gene pool, but what you do with those poor farm animals is just unforgivable.

          6. Whatmeworry October 9, 2014

            The fact that those trailers are 4 to 5 times larger than your rental apt says a lot about your lack of self esteem.
            AS for gene pool I never met anyone in NY or MA that ever retired there they all head south

          7. WhutHeSaid October 9, 2014

            Your sister is 4 to 5 times bigger than the average rental apartment too, but that doesn’t stop you from humping her every chance you get. You inbred mutants are a sorry sight to behold, and it’s little wonder that you often resort to humping sheep and chickens — who else would tolerate it?

          8. Whatmeworry October 10, 2014

            You only need to look at Quomo and de blasio to see inbreeding. Heck diblasio kids are mutts

          9. Whatmeworry is Dan M Ketter October 8, 2014

            which sister?? the fat one or ugly one?? Either way, I’m sure they resemble dannnno

          10. Independent1 October 7, 2014

            Actually what has happened is it’s your brain that has been cooked which is causing your total dementia.

          11. Whatmeworry is Dan M Ketter October 8, 2014

            no, dannno was born a simpleton

          12. Whatmeworry is Dan M Ketter October 8, 2014

            dannnnooo verifies his sources through internet search engines and newspapers, and sometimes press releases.

          13. joe schmo October 8, 2014

            Different times and the dollar, innovation and business were in full swing. Unlike now……

          14. Independent1 October 9, 2014

            And guess whose fault that mostly is!! Conservatives working to dumbdown the nation and prevent the economy from going anywhere!! Evidenced by 14 total assholes meeting on the night Obama was inaugurated to PLOT HOW THEY COULD SABOTAGE THE ECONOMY TO MAKE OBAMA A ONE-TERM PRESIDENT!!

            But despite that, and your total asinine stupidity, more has been accomplished over the past 4-5 years with respect to making fossil fuels obsolete than was ever accomplished before. Big Oil better be finding something else to generate profits because oil as a major energy producer are numbered – and that includes with respect to transportation.

            Technology in batteries and the means of generating and storing energy have advanced so far it’s within the realm of possibility that within 10 years gasoline propelled cars will be obsolete just like fossil fuel generation of electricity. And people like you are to stupid to realize the great advancements that have been made despite the GOP’s efforts to DUMBDOWN EVEYTHING!

            I really feel sorry for people like you who don’t realize HOW SICK YOU ARE!!!!!

        2. Sand_Cat October 7, 2014

          Well, you could have fooled most of us. You’re a perfect…. well, best left unsaid.

          1. joe schmo October 8, 2014

            Never ever said I was…..

      2. Whatmeworry October 7, 2014

        Forbes didn’t use the BLS database but an investment house. the article also fails to address the $11T in debt

        1. Independent1 October 7, 2014

          You mean that 10T that GWB is responsible for. Being the smallest spending president since Eisenhower, and reducing deficit spending faster than any president since Truman, Obama is only responsible for about 1T in our accumulated debt – the Stimulus that he signed into law. Other than that, he has signed no legislation which contributed to our debt.

          Unlike Bush and the totally irresponsible Congresses during Georgie’s disastrous 8 years in office which rubberstamped 2 UNPAID FOR tax cuts, and 2 UNPAID FOR wars, and 1 UNPAID FOR giveaway to Big Pharma called Medicare Part D, a number of UNPAID FOR mandates to the states like the disastrous ‘No Child Left Behind Law” which not only added to our debt but also almost drove 1/2 the states into bankruptcy – many of these nefarious pieces of legislation continuing to add to our debts LONG AFTER Georgie Boy left office.

          Of our 17T in debt, 1T was there when Reagan took office, 1T was added during Clinton’s 8 years mostly for interest on the debt and 1T can be chargeable to Obama – the other at least 14T belong to Reagan and the 2 Bushes!!!!!!

          1. Whatmeworry October 8, 2014

            WHATTTTTTT. Just look at Treasury web site its obvious who generated the $11T it was allllll Obama.
            But I’m sure in Bizzaro World the facts are toppsy turvey

          2. Whatmeworry is Dan M Ketter October 8, 2014

            Dannnnny’s viagra hasn’t worked for a 3rd straight night.

          3. Independent1 October 8, 2014

            Absolutely TOTAL HOGWASH!!!!!!!!!

            You have horse manure coming out of your mouth right and left!!!

          4. Whatmeworry is Dan M Ketter October 8, 2014

            but danno the village idiot does check his facts with GOP press releases and wikipedia, and sometimes even google.

          5. Whatmeworry October 9, 2014

            Just what I figured can’t read can you

          6. Independent1 October 8, 2014

            And tracking Presidential debt increases is actually one case where you’re correct about the government’s numbers being bogus. The treasury wants to assign monies to a president from the time they’re inaugurated until the time the next president is inaugurated. This is totally asinine given that each new president has to live with the previous president’s budget for the 1st nine months of their 1st term.

            So at a minimum, a President’s impact on our country’s spending should be tracked by Budget, not by when they walk out the door of the White House when they’ve created a budget that still controls our country’s spending for 9 more months. So using presidential budgets, Bush inherited a debt of 5.6 trillion based on Clinton’s last budget and that debt was 11.9 trillion thru Bush’s last budget (10/1/08-9/30/09).

            HOWEVER, besides a 1.4 trillion deficit budget that Bush passed to Obama, he passed along a country in the worst financial tragedy in its history; a far bigger financial disaster than what the country faced during the Great Depression back in the 20s/30s.

            Not only did he pass along 900,000 jobs being lost/month which ended up being almost 14 million jobs lost; he also passed along legislation that he and the irresponsible GOP congresses had passed which were continuing to run up deficts.


          7. Whatmeworry October 9, 2014

            What Senator VOTED for the red ink in FY2009???

          8. Whatmeworry is Dan M Ketter October 8, 2014

            dannnno’s false teeth must have fallen out when he struck the T key?

        2. Whatmeworry is Dan M Ketter October 8, 2014

          danielle verifies all his sources on Forbes and TMZ, and crosschecks using google and press releases for additional accuracy.

    4. joe schmo October 7, 2014

      …..and I might add, the world is reaping from the benefits…LOL

      ‘Weak and uneven’: IMF cuts global growth forecast


    5. Whatmeworry is Dan M Ketter October 8, 2014

      but nonunion desk clerks at Ford Motors do?

  12. charles king October 6, 2014

    I think the People are glad that they re-elected President Obama to the second term that has shown good results for our Nation. The country and its People would be in better shape now, if Congress had done their job and helped the President Obama to re-fraborcated our country like we did for Europe after the second (WW11) or put the People back to work by fixing our roads and bridges. When the People of any country are working, all kinds of ideals are presented and 9 X’s out of 10, they work and the country moves ahead, so when you go to vote in Nov., You know Who? the anti-government losers are, so VOTE their sorry-A**** OUT, OUT, OUT put America into gear and move forward for All of its People not Just some. Re-claim your Democracy and your country and send the GPO on their merry way to “NOTHING LAND”. Thank You are the magic words in my book. I Love Ya All. Mr. C. E. KING

  13. 1standlastword October 6, 2014

    Fuggetaboutit…I would say don’t even think about it!!!!

    Any positive outcomes under Obama’ administration to the SHAMBOLIC situation Obama inherited just doesn’t fit the GOP T/P narrative of “he’s illegitimate…and our first job is to make this (his first term) his last term.

    For an entire period of 6 years the conservative party of the country has been trying to sack the POTUS. To them politics is like a sports event where there must be by design a winner and a loser.

    If we ever have another Republican POTUS and the Democrats adopt the same crappy sack the POTUS stratagems the GOP adopted during Obama we the people will have to STROM THE GATES to take OUR country back!!!!

  14. howa4x October 6, 2014

    the issue now can focus on more on inequality on what it is doing to retard full recovery. With too much wealth concentrated at the top there is less in the middle where most of the jobs are created. Cities have taken on the issue directly by raising the minimum wage, but that is not enough to help struggling families in the burbs and rural areas. Democrats have take the issue straight on and stop dancing around it. It has to a recovery for everyone to work. The 1% got upwards of 65% of all the recovery money and as they grab more the rest of us get less.

    1. Allan Richardson October 8, 2014

      Consider the circulation of money as compared to that of water. In Galilee, there is a beautiful, vibrant, fertile lake known as Lake Gennesaret or the Sea of Galilee. Water flows in from various streams, and flows out into the Jordan River. Further downstream there is another lake, which receives water from the Jordan, but has no outlet. The water evaporates and leaves the salts behind which makes the lake unable to support any life except a few extremophile bacteria. The lack of CIRCULATION stops life from thriving.

      In the same way, money does not trickle down, it bubbles up from the poor and middle income to the very wealthy. If an economy makes provisions to “pump” enough of it back down so it can circulate again, the entire economy prospers, which is what America was doing until the late 1970s. Without these provisions in the tax code, money STAGNATES at the top, and eventually the businesses owned by the very wealthy cannot sell enough to make more money, because their CUSTOMERS have been rendered too poor to buy. This is the root cause of the Great Hoover Depression, and also of the Great Bush Recession. The bursting of speculative bubbles is the symptom, not the cause; the need to speculate, and the need to borrow to do so, result from fear of poverty, and the desperation caused by that fear.

      Ironically, under government policies which force circulation back to the poor and middle class (minimum wage, healthy unions, unemployment insurance, Social Security, and progressive tax rates without too many loopholes), the RICH GET RICHER and so does EVERYONE ELSE. If the aim of the rich is to be able to ENJOY a more prosperous life for themselves, they should support these programs. Unfortunately, the aim of too many of the very rich is not to make themselves ACTUALLY better off, but to make themselves better off than OTHERS, and they do this not only by setting up the system to make more money for themselves, but by setting it up to make LESS money for others, so they can feel COMPARATIVELY richer.

      1. howa4x October 8, 2014

        Great analogy

  15. bhaggen October 7, 2014

    Fuggedaboutit? More like “I got cho economic recovry right hea!”

    1. Sand_Cat October 7, 2014


      1. bhaggen October 8, 2014


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.