HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Economy & Education » Economy (Group) » Economy facts with offici...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Sep 18, 2012, 02:24 AM

Economy facts with official sources, rev 7/5/14. Reference for discussions with persuadables

Last edited Sat Jul 5, 2014, 01:20 PM - Edit history (32)

All 9 pages (EF-0 through EF-8) were updated 7/4/14.

NEXT UPDATE OF *ALL* PAGES IS SATURDAY September 6. However, on Saturday August 2, I will do a short summary of the jobs report that comes out on August 1 -- that summary will be at the bottom of this posting (EF-0)



Almost all sections have where to find the official numbers, such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Treasury.gov, or widely trusted non-partisan sources.

{#} EF-1. Job Loss and Creation - Payroll Jobs. At the bottom all post-WWII presidents with completed terms are compared

{#} EF-2. Unemployment Rate, Labor Force Participation Rate, Unemployment Insurance Claims

{#} EF-3. Recessions and Expansions - Official (NBER.org). Also GDP (Gross Domestic Product)

{#} EF-4. U.S. Stock Market as measured by the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Industrial Avg

{#} EF-5. National Debt. Budget Deficits and Surpluses

{#} EF-6. U.S. Dollar Index (DXY). Oil Prices

{#} EF-7. In Progress (mostly Dem presidencies v. Repub presidencies. Also Inequality)

{#} EF-8. In Progress - Some canned excerpts to use in the message board wars

I use facts from these in mixed message boards and in comments on news articles such as at news.yahoo.com. Be aware that I have included a few statistics that are not so pleasant as far as Obama's record, ones that anyone debating with others should be aware of because occasionally you will see these points or they will come back at you with these statistics (forewarned is forearmed).

Here's another major major economy resource: CabCurious' "Factual talking points on the economy" - lots of very interesting graphs - take a "scroll" through them. http://www.democraticunderground.com/125170175


########################################################################

Beware the tricks of the economic pundits out there, such as right-wingers slamming any gains the economy is making under Obama (that said, I don't deny the economy is wobbling s-l-o-w-l-y forward -- thanks in large part to Republican obstructionism in Congress, and Republican policies in the many states they control). Such tricks of the polemicists include:

(1). Highlighting adverse short-term changes in some highly volatile component such as, for example, the monthly changes in the civilian labor force, age 16+, seasonally adjusted. Here for example are the monthly changes for 2012 in thousands: (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11000000?output_view=net_1mth ):

Jan Feb Mar. Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct. Nov Dec
401 498 -15 -246 381 188 -164 -301 349 489 -228 206 (thousands)


Needless to say, our good friends on the right highlight the drops in the months when it drops, and make no mention of the rises when it rises. This is also known as cherry-picking the bad statistic of the month.

(2). Cleverly mixing seasonally adjusted data with unadjusted data (without making that clear of course) Or using exclusively seasonally unadjusted data if that paints the picture they want to paint

(3). Cleverly mixing statistics from the household survey (CPS) and the establishment survey (CES) (without making that clear of course). The CPS survey of households ( http://www.bls.gov/cps/ ) produces the unemployment rate, the labor force participation rate, the number employed, and innumerable other statistics. The CES ( http://www.bls.gov/ces/ ), a completely separate survey of businesses, produces a number of statistics, most notably the headline payroll jobs numbers (widely regarded as a better indicator of job changes than the CPS's Employed number because of the larger sample size among other reasons). Because of statistical noise and volatility, these 2 surveys often come up with seemingly incompatible results. Needless to say, right-wing polemicists mix and match statistics from both surveys to produce nonsense.

(4).Cherry-picking the start and end points of some data series
This is a generalization of item (1.) except that instead of highlighting the latest month of an adverse statistic, they may pick another starting point that is an outlier. For example in October 2013, someone mentioned that the latest U-6 unemployment measure is no better than it was in March 2013, 7 months ealier. True, but March was at a noisy zag low; its clear to see from the graph that there is a downward trend, not a 7-month plateau. U-6: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709

Here are the 2013 values (the 2012 values are all above 14.4% BTW, it was 15.1% in January 2012)

Jan Feb. March Apr. May. June July Aug. Sept Oct.
14.4 14.3 13.8 13.9 13.8 14.2 13.9 13.6 13.6 13.7 (2013, U-6 in percent)
. . . . . . ^-the cherry-picked low starting point the RW'er chose


(The U-6 unemployment rate (sometimes dubbed the underemployment rate) is now (May 2014) 12.1% by the way, down 0.6% in the last 4 months and at its lowest level since October 2008. It is the broadest measure of unemployment that the BLS produces -- it includes part-time workers wanting full-time positions. It also counts as unemployed any jobless person who wants a job and has looked for work at any time in the past 12 months (whereas the headline U-3 unemployment rate counts those who have looked any time in just the last 4 weeks).

It's like global warming when the righties always pick 1998 -- an anomalously hot year because of a strong El Nino -- as their starting point to argue that there has been very little warming since.

That is why seeing the whole data series is so important, and not just accepting the time period and the statistic that a right-wing polemicist dishes out. However, finding the data series number is often quite a challenge, and something that in my experience involves a large bag of tricks. It is my intent to write more about how to find the data series you need. But for now, if there is one trick to mention, this one is the most helpful: http://data.bls.gov/pdq/querytool.jsp?survey=ln

----------------------------
As for postings by DU members, always check the source of the article they posted, for example one perhaps unintentionally posted a bunch of crap from a right-wing polemicist (Peter Morici) http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251259885#post3 (that's post #3 -- interestingly the poster was PPR'd about 4 months later). Note that sometimes the publication might be an OK mainstream source, but you should still check out the author.

END of "Beware the tricks" lecture
########################################################################


General notes from previous deleted job summaries - to be reorganized and refiled

I'm working on the wages things brought up in earlier DU posts -- for now, See: Real (i.e. inflation-adjusted) average weekly earnings, all employees (total private), 1982-1984 dollars, Seas Adj: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000012
And of production and non-supervisory workers: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000031

Note on statistical noise: As an example: payroll jobs increased by 113,000 in January 2014 in the establishment survey. But according to the household survey, employment that month increased by 638,000. Just goes to show how wild the statistical noise is, and not to get excited one way or another with any one month's particular numbers.

On statistical noise, I found this BLS technical note on sampling error -- http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.tn.htm . Based on what it says, there is a 90% probability that the payroll jobs increase in January was in the interval 113,000 +/- 90,000 jobs -- that is somewhere between 23,000 jobs and 203,000 jobs. And a 10% chance that it is outside this interval.

And in the Household Survey, there is a 90% chance that the monthly unemployment change is +/- 300,000 of the stated number, and that there is a 90% chance that the unemployment rate is about +/- 0.2% of the stated number.

The above only covers sampling error. There are also many other sources of error (search the above link for "non-sampling error")

The individual components that go into these numbers have an even larger sampling error. As explained above, right-wingers love to find the aberrant statistic or two of the month and make it out to be the story of the Obama administration, rather than one month's number in a very statistically volatile data series.

Recent topic updates

4/6/13: There has been a recent decline in the federal workforce. This has brought the total federal workforce to below where it was when Obama took office. So if some rightie is telling you that Obama has been expanding the federal workforce, point them to EF-1 below.

4/6/13: Note much new material has been added on the national debt, such as which percentage is foreign owned, the increase in the national debt / GDP ratio since 2000, the interest on the national debt, and the average maturity of the interest on the marketable portion of the national debt (only 4.5 years in Dec 2011). See EF-5 below.

8/3/13: Added section to EF-5: Deficit Projections - FY 2013 deficit projected to be less than half what Obama inherited

11/9/13: Notice extensive revisions to EF-5 National Debt, Budget Deficits and Surpluses. Besides the usual monthly updates, the Fiscal Year 2013 results are in (Fiscal Year 2013 ended September 30, 2013). Anyway, federal spending in FY 2013 was 64 B$ LESS (1.8% LESS) than in FY 2009 (the last Bush budgeted year). Federal spending as a percentage of GDP dropped substantially during those 4 years -- from 24.46% of GDP to 20.49% of GDP (calculations below). Something to keep in mind when some rightie rants and raves about the socialist Obama spending us into the poor house. Oh, and the FY 2013 deficit at 680 B$ is less than half the FY 2009 deficit of 1,413 B$.

1/11/14 - I've added some discussion of the impact of the boomer retirements on the Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) in EF-2. Yes, lately, older Americans have a higher LFPR than in the recent past (its been on a general rising trend since 1985), but still their LFPR is much lower than that of the age 16+ population overall. Since the elderly share of the 16+ population is rapidly rising, this exerts downward pressure on the overall 16+ population LFPR. The net effect is that the latter effect (the very-low-LFPR elderly as rising share of the 16+ population) overwhelms the effect of the rising elderly LFPR, with the net result that the overall LFPR goes down.



Recent job summaries


########################################################################

6/7/14 - Good (but not great) jobs report this month - 217,000 net new payroll jobs. The last 3 months have averaged 234,000 / month, an improvement from the 150,000 jobs/month average of the preceding 3 months (the latter is only a little above the 130,000/month that is required in order to "tread water" -- to keep both the unemployment rate and the labor force participation rate the same). Over the past 12 months, job growth has averaged 197,000 jobs/month.

We've also, at long last finally broken through another barrier in May -- we have recovered the payroll jobs lost during the recession. For the first time, there are more payroll jobs now than there were at the pre-recession peak in January 2008. http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001

Unfortunately the working age population has also grown substantially since then. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that 7 million more jobs are needed in order to cover the population growth during that time in order to return us to the peak pre-recession job conditions -- as I understand it, to the same unemployment rate and the labor force participation rate as back then, with adjustments made for retiring baby boomers (those who would have likely retired even with job market conditions as good as they were during the peak).

Realize though that the pre-recession peak was the result of a super-bubble created by reckless lending and people collectively using their home equity as an ATM machine to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars per year. So I'm not sure that's a good point to use as a basis of their "missing workers" calculation (see next paragraph).

For more on the Economic Policy Institute's figures and "missing workers" projections, see http://www.epi.org/publication/missing-workers/ and U.S. News & World Report's reporting of it -- http://news.yahoo.com/missing-workers-mean-no-time-celebrate-jobs-data-162600773.html

From the Bureau of Labor Statistic's household survey - http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm - The unemployment rate stayed unchanged at 6.3%. This was due to the increase in jobs being partly offset by reentrants to the labor force -- unemployed people who were not actively seeking work in April (thus not being counted as unemployed) but resumed their job search in May (thus being counted as unemployed). In this paragraph, "actively seeking work" means having looked for work sometime in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.

Also from the household survey - the Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) remained unchanged in May at 62.8%, sitting at the same multi-decade low first reached in October 2013. It is down 0.6 percentage points from a year ago. The labor force increased by 192,000 people last month (that increased the LFPR by about 0.03%, but that's not enough to bump up April's 62.8% LFPR to 62.9%).

The number of employed people in the household survey (this is a different survey than the one that produces the much more reliable payroll jobs report discussed a few paragraphs above) grew by 145,000 in May, and by 548,000 over the past 3 months, and 1,895,000 over the past 12 months. (Note that in April, it fell by 73,000 -- just goes to show how volatile and statistically noisy this survey is, and not to make a big hoohah about any one month's number, as many reporters and pundits did).

########################################################################

7/3/14 - Great jobs report this month - 288,000 net new payroll jobs. And April and May were revised up by a combined 29,000. So we've got 327,000 more new jobs than in last month's report. In the last 4 months we've added more than a million jobs -- 1.019 million, an average of 255,000/month.

Some key numbers from the Household Survey (note the Household survey is different from the Establishment Survey that produces the payroll jobs of the previous paragraph). See Table A-1 for the main Household Survey numbers - http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

Over the last month:
+81,000 Labor Force (employed + jobless people who have looked for work sometime in the last 4 weeks)
+407,000 Employed
-325,000 Unemployed (jobless people who have looked for work sometime in the last 4 weeks)
-0.0% Labor Force Participation rate (still stuck at 62.8%, a multi-decade low first reached in October)
-0.2% Unemployment rate (from 6.3% to 6.1%). Is Unemployed (as defined above) / Labor Force

Over the last 3 months:
-533,000 Labor Force
+479,000 Employed
-1,012,000 Unemployed
-0.4% Labor Force Participation rate
-0.6% Unemployment rate

Over the last year:
-128,000 Labor Force
+2,146,000 Employed
-2,273,000 Unemployed
-0.7% Labor Force Participation rate
-1.4% Unemployment rate

In June, The U-6 "underemployment rate" fell to 12.1%, the lowest since Oct 2008. (In the U-6 statistic, they count as unemployed a jobless person who has looked for work sometime in the last 12 months. Unlike the headline unemployment rate U-3 statistic where they don't count any jobless people who haven't looked for work in more than 4 weeks)

Some other highlights:

# Number of Americans out of work for at least 27 weeks: 3.1 million, lowest since February 2009.

# The median duration of unemployment fell to 13.1 weeks from 14.6 weeks in May, the lowest in more than five years.

# The number of long-term unemployed has dropped by 1.2 million over the past year to just under 3.1 million. That is half what it was three years ago.

Aberrant statistic of the month - part time jobs

You may have read that most of the new jobs created in June were part time (see Table A-8, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm
). Or even that full-time jobs were lost, so that all of the job gains were from part-time jobs (see Table A-9, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm )

Note that most of the statistics from the Household Survey -- from which both the Table A-8 and Table A-9 numbers come from -- are highly volatile from month to month. This month it seems the righties are picking on the June part-time jobs monthly change over May as the statistic of the month that demonstates the hollowness of the "Obummer" economy.

I had some issues with a couple of such posts, see:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025189920#post34
and
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025189459#post48
for my dissection of both the Table A-8 part-time numbers and the Table A-9 part-time numbers.

As I said, there is a lot of volatility (mostly from statistical noise) in these numbers from month to month, and post48 above talks about that the most. This month to month variation dampens out over longer periods of time (one month it zigs, one month it zags, but over time, the zigs and zags average out and one gets a better picture of the real underlying trend).

Over a one year period (easily available from the Tables), it turns out that using the Table A-8 numbers, that new part-time jobs were 9.1% of the total new jobs. And using the Table A-9 numbers, new part-time jobs were 0.5% of total new jobs.

Here's another very similar kerfuffle I had about the part-time numbers about a year ago. Part time jobs supposedly increased more than total jobs, so full time jobs supposedly fell. They also mixed statistics from two separate surveys (the Household Survey and the Establishment Survey) which is always a big no-no. It also notes that over the past year (April 2013 vs. April 2012) (the post was written in May 2013) that part-time jobs increased only 60,000, while the total Employed increased 1,645,000 -- so again, over a year's time frame the percentage of new jobs created that was part-time was miniscule. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022801053#post78

# Part-time workers for Economic Reasons (Table A-8 numbers) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12032194

# Part-time workers for NonEconomic Reasons (Table A-8 numbers) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12005977

# Full-time workers (Table A-8 numbers -- No such in Table A-8, sorry. I don't know any full-time worker statistic that is compatible with the two Part-time statistics above. I'd guess that full-time workers = "Employed" minus the sum of the above two part-time worker categories. "Employed" is available in Table A and Table A-1, and here: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12000000 )

# Part-time workers (Table A-9 numbers) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12600000

# Full-time workers (Table A-9 numbers) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12500000

And no, the Part-time workers for Economic Reasons (A-8) PLUS Part-time workers for NonEconomic Reasons (A-8) does not equal Part-time workers in Table A-9. (The A-9 numbers each month are roughly about 1 million more than the sum of the corresponding two A-8 numbers). I frankly can't explain the differences.

Here's some more battles over the job numbers in the past couple of days -- destroying common myths that are out there:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025189459#post17 - Myth: They don't count the long-term unemployed in the unemployment rate - Not true: as long as a jobless person tells the Household Survey surveyor that (s)he wants a job and as long as (s)he has looked for work sometime in the last 4 weeks (in the case of U-3, the headline unemployment rate) or in the last 12 months (in the case of U-6, the sometimes dubbed "underemployment rate") than (s)he is counted as unemployed.

While I was at it, in the same post I destroyed another myth: People who run out of unemployment insurance benefits are not counted as unemployed in the unemployment rate statistics.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025189459#post29 - Myth: wages are about the same as 30 years ago, meanwhile the cost of living has gone way up. -- No, not according to the BLS statistics anyway. Average hourly earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees have gone up about 2.45-fold during those 30 years, a little bit more than inflation. It's ahead of inflation by about 7% over these long long 30 years (equivalent to a growth rate of inflation-adjusted earnings of just 0.23% / year ( 1.0023 ^ 30 = 1.07 where "^" is exponentiation)).

In fairness, realize that this statistic -- although EXcluding generally high-earning supervisory and management and business owners and self-employed -- and although it does INclude many millions of generally low-earning and modest-earning blue collar and pink collar workers -- it is not a statistic of just low- and moderate- wage workers. It also includes highly paid professionals -- doctors, lawyers, and engineers, for example -- whose salaries are converted to dollars per hour.

Understand that I'm not saying the economy is great. Its been a slow slow recovery from the pit of hell that Bush left us. (In all but the first year or two, the Republicans in Congress have obstructed everything Obama has tried to do to move the economy forward). It is still a weak economy, and the modest 6.1% unemployment rate doesn't adequately reflect the weakness of the labor market - an opinion I share with Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen.

It's just that I'm tired of seeing the same damn myths posted over and over again that people heard or read from some polemicists, and never attempt to check out.


I would just as eagerly destroy myths that the economy is really doing way better than some statistic indicates, but I've never seen that kind of myth. All the myths I know of are some variant of some XYZ statistic understates how bad the economy is.


########################################################################
FFI on the most recent jobs report, straight from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age (household survey) http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

The whole enchilada -- including all 16 "A" tables (the household survey) and all 9 "B" tables (the establishment survey) http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

29 replies, 5722 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 29 replies Author Time Post
Reply Economy facts with official sources, rev 7/5/14. Reference for discussions with persuadables (Original post)
progree Sep 2012 OP
progree Sep 2012 #1
progree Sep 2012 #2
progree Sep 2012 #3
progree Sep 2012 #4
progree Sep 2012 #5
progree Sep 2012 #6
progree Oct 2012 #20
progree Dec 2012 #23
NMDemDist2 Sep 2012 #7
progree Sep 2012 #8
NMDemDist2 Sep 2012 #9
Bill USA Sep 2012 #10
progree Sep 2012 #11
progree Oct 2012 #12
FogerRox Oct 2012 #13
progree Oct 2012 #15
FogerRox Oct 2012 #16
FogerRox Oct 2012 #17
FogerRox Oct 2012 #18
Hugin Oct 2012 #14
beac Oct 2012 #19
progree Nov 2012 #21
Dark n Stormy Knight Nov 2012 #22
progree Mar 2013 #24
progree Aug 2013 #25
Koios Aug 2013 #26
FogerRox Aug 2013 #27
progree May 5 #28
progree Saturday #29

Response to progree (Original post)

Tue Sep 18, 2012, 02:24 AM

1. EF-1. Job Loss and Creation - Payroll Jobs

Last edited Sat Jul 5, 2014, 01:27 PM - Edit history (24)

{#} Job Loss and Creation - Payroll Jobs At the bottom all post-WWII presidents with completed terms are compared

Factoids (official sources are at the bottom of the page):

# To Do: Make some tables to help make this mass of numbers more coherent.

# Note that an annual revision (upward) of payroll jobs, announced Feb 1, 2014 has been included in the official statistics and in the below. They make the Obama numbers job creation numbers look better than reported previously.

# Under Obama there have been 52 straight months of private sector job growth (since February 2010), totaling 9.7 million private sector jobs (thru June 2014 with May & June preliminary). Total job growth during this period is 9.1 million jobs ( 0.6 million government jobs were lost ).

# The economy Bush handed to Obama lost 4.2 million jobs during the last 10 months of the Bush administration. Furthermore, at the end of the Bush administration the rate of job losses was accelerating -- losing 2.26 million jobs just in his last 3 months -- an average of 753,000 lost jobs a month (the average of the last 3 months of the Bush presidency).

The official sources for all these statistics are at the bottom of the page

# If some rightie says that Bush inherited an economic train wreck from Clinton, you can point out that that the economy (real GDP) was still growing in the last quarter of the Clinton administration at a 2.4% annual rate (Q4 2000), as opposed to the last quarter of the Bush II administration -- it was contracting at an 8.9% annual rate (Q4 2008). Real GDP quarterly percentage change figures are at: http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls.

And that in the last 3 months of the Clinton administration 329,000 jobs were created -- yes a slowdown, but not a meltdown. Contrast that to the meltdown in the last 3 months of the Bush administration when 2.3 million jobs were lost.

The numbers for the last 10 months of the Clinton administration: 1.1 million jobs were created. Contrast that to the last 10 months of the Bush administration when 4.3 million jobs were lost.

# 7.8 million payroll jobs have been created under Obama since June 2009 (that's when the recession ended according to the NBER (nber.org, the official arbiter of when the economic turning points occur) and only 5 months since Obama took office) (thru June 2014 with May & June preliminary). Bush only created 1.3 million payroll jobs in his entire 8 year presidency.

(See posting EF-3 below for more on this recession thing -- roughly speaking, economists define the end of the recession as when the economy hits bottom, and the faintest signs of economic growth begins -- not when people start singing Happy Days Are Here Again. In other words, the recession is over when we're at the very bottom of the pit and beginning to tentatively claw are way upward. While that's nothing to gurgle ecstatically about, that's still better than falling falling falling like we were under Bush).

# 8.5 million private sector jobs were created under Obama since June 2009 (thru June 2014 with May & June preliminary) (contrast that to Bush destroying 0.7 million private sector jobs during his presidency)

# Bush's entire 8 year record: created 1.3 million payroll jobs - by creating 1.8 million government jobs and destroying 0.5 million private sector jobs. ( the actual numbers are, in thousands: Total: 1,282, Govt: 1,744, PrivateSector: -462 ). Yes, it is ironic that a supposed "small government conservative" ended up creating government jobs and destroying private sector jobs.

If someone says it is cherry-picking to compare Obama's last 52 months to Bush's entire presidency, then here are 3 comparable comparisons:

(1.) Comparing the last 52 months of Bush and Obama (so far, thru June 2014): Bush gained 1.9 million jobs, while Obama gained 9.1 million jobs.

(2.) Comparing the comparable 52 months of Bush and Obama's terms (3/1/02 thru 7/1/06 for Bush, 3/1/10 thru 7/1/14 for Obama): Bush gained 5.6 million jobs, while Obama gained 9.1 million jobs.

(3.) Comparing the first 65 months of Bush and Obama (from the beginning of each's first term through June 2006 (for Bush) and through June 2014 (for Obama)): Bush gained 3.6 million jobs, while Obama gained 4.8 million jobs.

(#.) And then there is this - Romney justifying his poor job creation record at the 3 1/2 year point of his administration as Massachusetts Governor -- by blaming the economy he inherited from his predecessor for the fact that his (Romney's) job numbers kept falling during the first 11 months of his administration -- and touting the number of jobs created (50,000) after his job numbers finally stopped falling. Note this is ironic considering how Romney and the Republicans have spent this campaign blaming Obama for doing the same thing -- pointing to the lousy economy he inherited and pointing to job growth figures since the turn-around. http://www.democraticunderground.com/125198174

Back to Romney's Massachusetts record (see above link for details): that 50,000 post-turnaround job creation record was a poor showing on a per-capita basis compared to the national average at the same time period, or the Obama record during the similar post-turnaround job-recovering period of the Obama administration. And consider that during Romney's entire 4-year term as governor, Massachusetts was 47th in job creation (in percentage increase terms) -- yes, only 3 states had a worse job-creation record.

.-------------------------------------------.

# The Clinton economy created 22.9 million payroll jobs of which 21.0 million were in the private sector

# Federal workforce If some rightie claims that Obama increased the federal workforce (as if that was bad), well that is not true: Obama DEcreased the federal workforce by 73,000 employees which is a 2.6% DEcrease (over 5 years & 5 months). And note that Romney as governor increased the number of Massachusetts state employees by 5.5% (over 4 years). Also note that Bush II increased the federal workforce by 1.34% (over 8 years)

. . # Source of the Romney figure: "Government Job Loss: President Obama’s Catch 22", ABC News, 6/6/12 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/government-jobs-loss-president-obamas-catch-22/
. . # Source of the Obama and Bush II figures: BLS data series: Federal employees, seasonally adjusted: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES9091000001
. . . . It includes postal workers, and it excludes the military
. . . . Jan 2009: 2,786,000 , June 2014: 2,713,000 (preliminary) , DEcrease: 73,000 (this is a 2.6% DEcrease)

Job Creation of record of post-WWII Presidents With Completed Presidencies, Plus Kennedy, Average Annual % Increases :

(Sorted from best to worst by average annual percentage increase in jobs. Republicans in red, Democrats in blue. Notice that -- with the tiny exception (0.02% difference) of Nixon to Kennedy -- the worst Democrat has a better record than the best Republican). And actually, Kennedy did not have a chance to complete his term -- had he done so, and had he had the same job creation numbers in December 1963 through January 1965 as Johnson had (a 3.48%/year annualized rate of increase), he would have easily topped Nixon.

Average Average

number of Jobs at Annual

Jobs start of Percentage

Created Term Increase

President Per Month Millions In Jobs

========= ========= ======== =======

Johnson 196,500 57.3 4.12%

Carter 215,396 80.7 3.20%

Truman 93,570 41.4 2.71%

Clinton 236,875 109.7 2.59%

Nixon 137,030 69.4 2.37%

Kennedy 105,059 53.7 2.35%

Reagan 167,729 91.0 2.21%

Ford 71,483 78.6 1.09%

Eisenhower 36,854 50.1 0.88%

G.H. Bush 54,021 107.1 0.61%

G.W. Bush 11,406 132.5 0.10%


INCOMPLETE Presidency. Below is Obama thru June 2014:
Obama so far 73,908 134.0 0.66%


Remember, Obama inherited the deepest recession since World War II, which lost 4.2 million jobs in the last 10 months of his predecessor, and in the last 3 months of his predecessor was losing 753,000 jobs a month. With that momentum, job losses continued for the first 13 months of the Obama presidency -- through February 2010 -- totalling 1.3 million jobs lost during those 13 months.

In the above table, the average annual % increase in jobs is a much fairer way to compare presidents than just the raw job creation figures in thousands because the latter is unfair to the earlier presidents who were working with much smaller labor forces to begin with. For example the number of job holders at the beginning of Truman's administration was only 38% as many as at the beginning of Clinton's administration, and 31% as many as at the beginning of G.W. Bush's administration. So Truman's pathetic-looking 93,570 jobs/month creation record turns out to be even better than Clinton's 236,875 jobs/month record when adjusted for the size of the labor force.

In raw thousands of jobs created, both Reagan and Nixon beat Truman. But when adjusted for the size of the labor force -- again, by looking at average annual percentage increases in jobs -- Truman beats them both.

Official sources of information for the above:

# Payroll Jobs: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001
# Monthly change of above: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth
# . . Hint: to see both of the above two together on the same page, go to http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001 and click on the "More Formatting Options" link in the upper right and check the "Original Data Value" and the "1-Month Net Change" checkboxes and click the "Retrieve Data" button halfway down the page on the left
# Private Sector Payroll Employment: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001
# Monthly change of above: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001?output_view=net_1mth
# . . Hint: to see both of the above two together on the same page, go to http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001
and click on the "More Formatting Options" link in the upper right and check the "Original Data Value" and the "1-Month Net Change" checkboxes and click the "Retrieve Data" button halfway down the page on the left

This one USED TO compare all post-WWII presidents on a term by term basis, with and without an 8 month lag:

"The monthly statistics are quoted from January, as U.S. presidents take office at the end of that month, and from September (bold), as this is the last month of the federal fiscal year."

Unfortunately, they recently got rid of the 8-month lag figures. Also, the figures for Obama are way way out of date. Maybe somebody will fix it.

The loss of the 8 month lag especially hurts Obama (3.8 million jobs were lost during the first 8 months of the Obama administration, thanks to carry-over of the Bush housing bubble burst recession -- 3.8 million jobs (coincidentally) were lost during the last 8 months of the Bush administration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #1)

Tue Sep 18, 2012, 02:25 AM

2. EF-2. Unemployment Rate, Labor Force Participation Rate, Unemployment Insurance Claims

Last edited Sat Jul 5, 2014, 01:30 PM - Edit history (19)

{#} Job Loss and Creation - Unemployment Rate, Labor Force Participation Rate

# Unemployment Rate, from 1948 on: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
# Labor Force Participation Rate from 1948 on: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

(on both of the above, you can change the "From" and "To" dates to whatever you want at the top center pulldown boxes)

# Unemployment rate, seas adjusted

All values are the unemployment rates, specifically Jan 1989, Jan 1993, Jan 2001, Jan 2009), with the exception of the current unemployment rate under Obama, which is the end of last month.

(If you get into discussions about Obama's unemployment rate, it is worthwhile to point out that if one starts from June 2009, when the recession ended according to the NBER (the official arbiter of economic turning points, NBER.org), and just 5 months after Obama took office, then the unemployment rate has been cut by 3.2 percentage points. Obama cannot be blamed for the job losses in his first 5 months, given that the economy Bush handed him was losing 753,000 jobs per month in his last 3 months, and it takes many months to enact and implement new policies and for them to take effect.)

Unemployment rates:
Bush I: 5.4% to 7.3%, Change= + 1.9%

Clinton: 7.3% to 4.2%, Change= - 3.1%

Bush II: 4.2% to 7.8%, Change= + 3.6%


Obama's first 5 months: 7.8% to 9.5%, Change= + 1.7% (Jan '09 - May '09)

Obama thereafter: 9.5% to 6.1%, Change= - 3.4% (Jun '09 - Jun '14)

Obama entire term so far: 7.8% to 6.1%, Change= - 1.7% (Jan '09 - Jun '14)

(June 2009, just 5 months after Obama took office, is when the recession ended, per NBER.org)


# Under Bush II, the unemployment rate rose by 3.6 pp (percentage points) while the Civilian Labor Force Participation rate fell 1.5 pp: from 67.2% to 65.7% (had the participation rate stayed the same, the unemployment rate would have risen even further. Contrast Bush's record to Clinton's, where the unemployment rate dropped 3.1 pp while the Civilian Labor Force Participation rate rose by 1.0 pp. Secret information: Under Obama through June 2014 the unemployment rate decreased by only 1.7 percentage points, from 7.8% to 6.1, while the civilian labor force participation rate fell 2.9 percentage points, from 65.7% to 62.8%.

BLS.GOV: "The labor force is the number of people ages 16 or older who are either working or looking for work. It does not include active-duty military personnel or the institutionalized population, such as prison inmates".

One reason for the decline in the labor force participation rate during the last several years is the retirement of large numbers of baby boomers. Remember that the population being counted is everyone 16 and over -- no matter how old (again excepting active duty military and institutionalized populations). Between 2000 and 2010, the number of Americans aged 62 and over increased by 21% while the U.S. population as a whole increased by 9.7%, according to the Population Connection Reporter 12/2012

In the 2000 Census, the number of Americans aged 60 to 69 -- that is, those who had recently hit retirement age or would do so within a few years -- was about 20 million. But thanks to the Baby Boomers, the number surged in the 2010 Census to more than 29 million, almost a 50 percent increase --Poltifact 10/8/12 http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/08/american-future-fund/ad-says-workforce-smaller-under-barack-obama-any-t/

Already, 1 in 5 boomers have retired, according to AARP The Magazine, February 2014.

Some point out that the labor force participation rate (LFPR) of elderly Americans is higher than in recent years. People erroneously conclude from that factoid that baby boomer retirements can't be contributing to the overall labor force participation rate decline. How can baby boomer retirements cause the overall LFPR to decline when the retirement age population's LFPR is increasing?

Answer: because the retirement age population is increasing so rapidly that it is an ever larger share of the age 16+ population (see above). And although the retirement age population has a higher LFPR than before (its been on a general rising trend since 1985 - hey, thanks Reagan!), still, their LFPR is far less than that of the non-elderly population. For example, the LFPR (not seas adjusted) for age 65+ was 18.7% in December 2013, and indeed it is up considerably from the 14.1% rate in December 2003 ( LNU01300097 ). But that LFPR is still far far below the average for the entire 16+ population (seas adj): 62.8% in December 2013 ( LNS11300000 )

In short, the rapid proportional increase in the age 65+ population (a population with less than 1/3 the LFPR of the rest of the population) overwhelms the effect of the increasing of the 65+ population's LFPR.

The only quantitative estimate I've run across of the impact of baby boomer retirements is this from Marilyn Geewax from NPR National Public Radio, 1/21/14 ( http://www.mprnews.org/story/2014/01/21/business/whats-behind-the-falling-unemployment-rate ):

"Many economists say retirements are causing about half of the labor force shrinkage. Others say it's 60 percent, and yet others believe it's more like 40 percent."


In other words, 50% +/- 10%. Lets call it about half.

To be sure, the increasing of the retirement age population is not the only reason for the declining LFPR (its about half the reason according to the above paragraph). For example, the LFPR of the age 25-34 year old population (seas adj) declined from 82.5% in December 2003 (and 83.1% in December 2007) to 81.1% in June 2014 ( http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300089 ) .

(I deliberately selected a young population in the above paragraph because one hears a lot about the extra difficulty the young are having finding jobs. At the same time, I also chose a population that is for the most part well above college age because a population with a significant portion of high school and/or college age people would add to the complexity of the analysis and explanation when there exists a good productive choice other than work).

I'll have to do much more analysis before I can determine what part of the overall LFPR decline is due to the increasing proportion of elderly people. The best way to find data series (that I have found) is this tool: http://data.bls.gov/pdq/querytool.jsp?survey=ln


Unemployment rates, by ethnicity (white, Hispanic, black), age, and gender

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t03.htm

Unemployment rate: U1, U2, U3, U4, U5, U6 - Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutitlization
http://bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Definitions: http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm

. # U-3 Unemployment rate, seasonally adjusted (this is the headline unemployment rate number) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

. # U-6 Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers, seasonally adjusted. This is the BLS's broadest measure of unemployment. http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709


{#} Job Loss and Creation - Unemployment Insurance Claims

# Unemployment insurance initial claims: http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp

# It peaked at 667,000 initial claims 3/28/09 (2 months after Obama took office) and since then it has shown a steady improvement excepting relatively minor bumps until about December 2011. Since December 2011 it has been inching down very slowly, for example -- the average of the 4 weeks with ending dates in December 2011 was 377,000; while the last 4 weeks through week ending June 28, 2014 averaged 315,000).

# Myth: "those who have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits are not counted as unemployed. If they were counted, the official unemployment rate would be much higher" (you often hear this claim from the RepubliCONS when a Democratic president is in the White House, and vice versa when a RepubliCON is in the White House).

# Fact: the count of the unemployed and the unemployment rate is NOT a count of those receiving unemployment benefits, nor is unemployment benefit receiver status factored at all into any of the official unemployment rate statistics (U1, U2, U3, U4, U5, U6). Rather, the unemployment rate is based on a survey of 60,000 households chosen at random. See: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm (and search the page for the word "insurance") or Google the below line::
"How the Government Measures Unemployment" cps_htgm.htm
and search the page for the word "insurance"

---------------------------
However, over the longer term, undoubtedly a cut-off in benefits will affect the unemployment rate numbers, for example:

# People who lose benefits will be more likely to take any job out there, no matter how far below their education, training, and experience, thus lowering the unemployment rate (since they are no longer unemployed).

# Some people who were making some effort to look for work only in order to continue to receive unemployment benefits (looking for work is a requirement to receive benefits) will drop the charade of looking for work when their benefits are cut off. This will also lower the unemployment rate (people who have not looked for work in the last 4 weeks are not counted as unemployed (U-3) or the last 12 months (U-4 - U-6) ). It will also lower the labor force participation rate (officially the labor force is those employed or who have looked for work in the last 4 weeks).

(People in the above category are not necessarily "cheats" in my book -- for example people who may not really be looking right now because they are completing coursework in order to earn a certificate in order to improve their chances of getting a job that utilizes their education and experience is not Reagan's "welfare queen" IMHO)

"But the real unemployment rate is 15% (or whatever) and it keeps going up":

The broadest measure of unemployment rate that the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes is the U-6 -- Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers, seasonally adjusted http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709
( Definitions of alternative meausres of unemployment: http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm )

U-6 counts as unemployed all who have looked for a job sometime in the past year, and who are not employed and say they want a job now. (Whereas the headline official (U-3) unemployment rate counts only those who have looked for work in the past 4 weeks).

The U-6 unemployment rate was 15.4% in January 2009 when Bush left office. Recently it was 12.1% in April 2016. It has been on a fairly steady decline since about April 2010 when it peaked at 17.2%.

There are even broader measures of unemployment to be found on the Internet (where just about anything can be found and dressed up as reasonable) such as the Shadow Stock series unemployment rate. My understanding is that the BLS's U-6 includes people who have looked for a job sometime in the past 12 months ( http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm ). I don't see any particular reason to broaden the definition of unemployment rate to those, who although they say they want a job now, haven't bothered to do any job-hunting for over a year. How far should we extend it? To retired people or the house spouse in a one-high-income household, who, if an ideal dream job came up, would consider it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 18, 2012, 02:26 AM

3. EF-3. Recessions and Expansions - Official (NBER.org). Also GDP (Gross Domestic Product)

Last edited Sat Jul 5, 2014, 01:32 PM - Edit history (16)

{#} Recessions and Expansions - Official NBER.org

# URL: http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER.org), the official arbiter of recessions and expansions:

# Recent economic peaks occurred in March 2001 and December 2007
# Recent economic troughs occurred in November 2001 and June 2009
# The first G.W. Bush recession was March 2001 to November 2001
# The following G.W. Bush expansion was from November 2001 to December 2007
# The second G.W. Bush recession was December 2007 to June 2009, ending just 5 months after Obama took office.
# The Obama expansion began June 2009 (about 5 months after he took office) and continues to this day

Other resources:

# http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States
# You can interactively compare recessions and recoveries at http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/studies/recession_perspective/index.cfm

Per the NBER ( http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions_faq.html ), recessions (contractions) begin at the peak of the economy and end at the trough (bottom) of the economy. And expansions (recoveries) begin at the trough of the economy and end at the peak of the economy. The NBER does not try to determine when in a month the peak or trough occurs. So, for example, when one reads that the most recent trough of the economy was in June 2009, and consequently that the recession ended in June 2009, and the expansion began in June 2009, do not assume this turning point occurred at the beginning of the month or at the end of the month or mid-month, but merely that it occurred some undetermined time in June 2009.

Please note that the end of a recession is the point when the economy hits bottom, and the faintest signs of economic growth begins -- not when people start singing Happy Days Are Here Again. In other words, the recession is over when we're at the very bottom of the pit and beginning to tentatively claw are way upward. But that's better than falling falling falling like we were under Bush).


{#} GDP - Gross Domestic Product (the size of the economy)

# Current-dollar and "real" GDP, Excel .XLS http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls
# Percent change from preceding period, Excel .XLS http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls
# Don't like Excel? Below are some options.
# To see the latest GDP number (in billions of dollars), go to the latest news release at http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm
and search for the "Current-dollar GDP" (don't forget the hyphen).

One can find GDP data (both the billions of dollars level and the percent change numbers for the last several quarters (back about 2-3 years) by going to the above gdpnewsrelease.htm link, and then on the right hand side clicking on "Full Release and Tables (pdf)" or "Text Full Release and Tables (text)". The latest GDP level in billions of dollars is most conveniently found in the last column of Table 9.

But as far as I know, only the Excel tables and the Interactive tables go back beyond 3 years.

To get to the interactive tables: Go to the above gdpnewsrelease.htm link and on the right hand side click on "Interactive Tables" and then click on the big "Begin Using The Tables" button, then click on "Section 1 - Domestic Product and Income" and then click on "Table 1.1.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product" or "Table 1.1.5 Gross Domestic Product". In either case, to look back further than about 2-3 years, click on the "Options" button and select "First Year" and "Last Year".

By the way, the headline quarterly GDP changes, e.g. "the economy grew at a 1.9% rate (or pace) in the 1st quarter" are always the "real", i.e. inflation-adjusted growth rates on an annualized basis. Many news broadcasts and even newspaper reports leave off the "rate" (or "pace"), giving one the incorrect impression in the above example that the economy grew 1.9% in just one quarter (meaning that if all 4 quarters came out the same, then the growth for the year would be 4*1.9% = 7.6% (or more technically accurately (1.019^4 - 1)*100% = 7.8%). Nope, sorry, it means the economy grew at an annual rate of 1.9% in the first quarter, and if that growth rate continues throughout the year, the economy will have grown 1.9% for the entire year. (Sometimes, when a Republican president is in the White House, a RepubliCON will try to claim the higher figure).

The other thing that sometimes happens is a rightie will pooh pooh a 1.9% annualized growth rate, saying that that's not even keeping up with inflation. Well, again, these percentage growth numbers that you read or hear in news reports are already inflation adjusted. You can just direct the rightie to, for example, the gdpnewsrelease.htm link above which will patiently explain it to him or her.

And now some GDP factoids relevant to the message board wars (or just general information):

# The GDP in Bush's last full quarter (Q4 2008) fell at a 8.9% annual rate

# At least Obama stabilized the economy, even grew it some, so that it is now considerably higher than it was at the peak in 2007 before the crash. (AGAIN, that's inflation adjusted).

# The latest GDP number (2014 Q1 release 3, final) as of 7/4/14 is 17,016.0 B$ (there are normally 3 releases)

# To do: explain the 3 releases: about when do they come out. Is release 3 final, or is there also an annual revision? The release dates are at the bottom of http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

{#} St. Louis Fed's Finacial Stress Index

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/STLFSI

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #3)

Tue Sep 18, 2012, 02:27 AM

4. EF-4. U.S. Stock Market as measured by the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Indus Avg

Last edited Sat Jul 5, 2014, 01:33 PM - Edit history (18)

{#} U.S. Stock Market as measured by the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average

Tired of hearing the righties insist that companies are "too uncertain" to make investments? Well, the investor and business community sure seem to like Obama, considering the stock market. Since Obama took office, the S&P 500 index is up 133% (somewhat more than a doubling). (It declined 37% during G.W. Bush's 8 years of supposed business friendly and resolute firmness and certainty).

# Current value / last close of Dow Jones Industrial Average, S&P 500, Nasdaq, Oil, Gold, 10-year treasury bond, the Euro : the top of the page at http://finance.yahoo.com

# Historic daily closing values of the Dow and S&P 500 from many many decades ago to the present:
. . # S&P 500: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EGSPC+Historical+Prices
. . # Dow Jones Industrial Average: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EDJI+Historical+Prices

# Using the last closing before inauguration (G.W. Bush inaugurated noon Jan 20, 2001, Obama at noon, Jan 20, 2009)
. . # When Clinton left office and G.W. Bush took office, the S&P 500 index was at 1343.
. . # When G.W. Bush left office and Obama took office, the S&P 500 index was at 850.
. . # Thus under G.W. Bush, the S&P 500 index dropped 37%, from 1343 to 850. While under Obama, it rose from 850 to 1985 as of Friday 7/3/14 close, up 133% (a doubling plus an additional 33%). (Total returns - which includes dividends - are higher than the index gains by about 2% / year).

(I use the S&P 500 index rather than the Dow Jones Industrial Average index (DJIA) because it is a much broader index of U.S. stocks, containing about 75% of the total U.S. stock market by capitalization. I would rather use the Dow Jones U.S. Total Stock Market Index (^DWC) but its history extends only back to 2004). Other U.S. total market indexes also extend back only a few years.

If you want to use the Dow Jones Industrials Average index (a silly legacy price-weighted average of 30 stocks), ticker ^DJI , it is:
Dow Jones Industrial Average: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EDJI+Historical+Prices
Jan 19, 2001 10,587 Last Dow close under Clinton
Jan 16, 2009 8,281 Last Dow close under Bush (a 22% decline under Bush)
July 3, 2014 17,068 Latest Dow close as of this posting (a 106% increase under Obama -- a bit more than a doubling) (Total returns - which includes dividends - are higher than the index gains by about 2 to 3 percent per year)

{#} Stock market gains 1929-2011: much higher under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents

Democrats: +460%, Republicans: +110% (in nominal dollar terms)
Democrats: +300%, Republicans: 0% (in inflation-adjusted terms)
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/10/live-chart?fsrc=scn/tw/te/dc/gopsmacked

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #4)

Tue Sep 18, 2012, 02:28 AM

5. EF-5. National Debt. Budget Deficits and Surpluses (including all of Fiscal Year 2013)

Last edited Sat Jul 5, 2014, 01:35 PM - Edit history (20)

{#} National Debt

# URL: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

# Under Reagan the debt nearly tripled (2.87 X)

# Under Bush I the debt increased by 56% (1.56 X)

# Under Bush II the debt nearly doubled (1.86 X)

# The debt under the two Bushes together nearly tripled -- it increased 1.56 * 1.86 = 2.89 X

# The last 3 Republican presidents (Reagan and the two Bushes) increased the national debt by 2.87 * 1.56 * 1.86 = 8.3 times, yes they more than octupled the national debt in their combined 20 years of office.

# Under Clinton the debt only increased 37% (1.37 X)

# Secret information: Under Obama the national debt increased 66% in his 5.2 years of office. You might see claims that he increased the national debt by 95% or that he nearly doubled it -- if so, they are talking about the "debt held by the public" which is one of two components of the national debt. The other component is the Intragovernmental Debt: what one part of the federal government owes to another part of the government -- mostly the Social Security and the Medicare trust funds.

National Debt in Billions of Dollars


Public IntraGov Total

1/20/2009 6,307 4,320 10,627 Obama inaugurated

5/1/2014 12,568 5,041 17,610 Present


% Increase 99% 17% 66%


Public: debt held by the public. Intragov: Intragovernmental debt

# URL: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

# Factoid number two is when comparing the debt to GDP version of different countries to each other, economists don't usually include intragovernmental debt {citation needed}. So when some rightie says that we are almost at a 100% debt to GDP ratio -- approaching that of some of the in-trouble European countries, point out that the equivalent debt for comparison is the Publicly held debt: 12,568 B$. The latest GDP number (2014 Q1 release 3 - final) as of 7/4/14 is 17,016 B$ (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm). Thus the debt to GDP ratio on this basis is: 12,568 / 17,016 = 74%. (Using the total national debt, the debt to GDP ratio is 17,610 / 17,016 = 103%).

See the back of The Economist magazine where they compare Debt / GDP ratio of several countries (and many other statistics). I can't find those numbers at the Economist site online (I didn't look real hard) but I found a graph at http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/01/daily-chart-8 (click on the GOVERNMENT tab)
as I read the graph for the U.S. it is 80%, so I'll have some figuring out to do (why is it not closer to the 73% I calculated by the above methodology at the time -- the economist link above is dated Sept 2012).

# Uncomfortable Factoid To be Aware Of - The national debt during the Bush II administration increased from 5,728 B$ to 10,627 B$, an increase of 4,899 B$. The debt during the Obama administration has increased from 10,627 B$ to 17,610 B$, an increase of 6,983 B$ -- a larger dollar increase ($2.1 trillion more) in 5 years 5 months than in G.W. Bush's 8 years.

However, under G.W. Bush, the accumulation of debt was totally unnecessary and pointless -- the last 4 years under his predecessor (Clinton) were all years of budgetary surplus. Bush quickly returned us to budget deficits and debt accumulation via massive tax cuts, 2 wars (one based on lies about weapons of mass destruction), and the Medicare Part D drug benefit (which was written by and for the insurance and drug companies and forbid Medicare from negotiating prices with the drug companies!!) -- all of which were totally unpaid for (unlike Obamacare which the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office -- the official arbiter of the fiscal cost of legislation -- scores as creating a slight 10-year surplus through cuts elsewhere and to a wide assortment of fees and taxes). Whereas the debt increase under Obama was to stop the plunging economy he inherited (4.3 million jobs lost in the last 10 months of the Bush admimistration) and to get the economy pointed in the right direction.

The Debt Held By The Public (as a % of GDP) superimposed on a chart of which party held the presidency, the House, and the Senate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Debt_1901-2010.png

The Last 3 Republican Presidents Have Accounted For $9.2 Trillion Of The Increase In The National Debt
Source of this section: http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/national-debt.html

Every President, from Truman to Carter, steadily paid down the staggering debt that was run up in our fight against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. That pattern came to a screeching halt with Reagan/Bush and Bush II. Clinton’s fiscal policy was a brief respite during this orgy of deficit spending.

Clinton's economic policies balanced 5 budgets, which is 5 more balanced budgets than the last 5 Republican presidents combined. {see next section - I count 4 balanced (actually surplus) budgets -Progree}

{#} Budget Deficits and Surpluses

# The U.S. Federal Deficit By Year - There were surpluses in the last 4 Clinton years: FY 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 (well, the last 8 months of FY 2001 fell into the G.W. Bush administration). Anyway G.W. Bush inherited a string of surpluses and managed to turn that around into 8 straight years of deficits and to nearly double the national debt.
# URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
. . # Table 1.1 - http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z1.xls

Note: although there were 4 straight years of surpluses during the last 4 Clinton years, the national debt went up every year, thanks to (I think) trust funds accounting, -- FFI: http://www.democraticunderground.com/111621802#post12

Some righties telling you that Obama doubled the last Bush deficit, from less than 500 B$ to more than a trillion dollars?

They are trying to make you think that the last Bush year was Fiscal Year 2008. Actually, the last Bush budget (FY 2009) contained a projected deficit of $1.2 Trillion. Fiscal Year 2009 covers 10/1/08 - 9/30/09 -- the last 3 2/3 months of the Bush Administration plus the first 8 1/3 months of the Obama administration. The budget for FY 2009 was signed into law by Bush. It contained a projected $1.2 trillion deficit according to FactCheck.org:

Shortly before Obama assumed office, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office {on January 7, 2009} projected that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 would be $1.2 trillion ( http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/MainText.3.1.shtml ). {Bush left office and Obama assumed office on January 20, 2009 at noon}

The fiscal year ended on Sept. 30, 2009, with the deficit at $1.4 trillion. But only some of that was Obama’s doing. We conducted an exhaustive study of the spending bills Obama signed for that year, and concluded that Obama can be fairly assigned responsibility for a maximum of $203 billion in additional spending for fiscal 2009. Others put the amount lower: Economist Daniel J. Mitchell of the libertarian CATO Institute — who once served on the Republican staff of the Senate Finance Committee — has put the figure at $140 billion.

More: http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romney-obama-court-moms-distort-facts/


{#} ACTUAL Federal Spending and Deficits - Fiscal Years 2008 - 2013, in $Billions

Note: all figures in this section are actual, not budgeted. I only point out that Bush signed the FY 2009 budget.

v-last Bush budget was FY 2009 (all figures are actuals, not budgeted)

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Fiscal Year

2,983 3,518 3,457 3,603 3,538 3,454 Total Outlays, $Billions

(450) (1,413) (1,294) (1,300) (1,089) (680) Surplus (deficit), $Billions

(3.1) (9.8) (8.8) (8.4) (6.8) (4.1) Surplus (deficit), % of GDP


Source:
. . . http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43698 which links to the complete document at
. . . http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44716-%20MBR_FY2013_0.pdf

So FY 2013 federal spending is 64 B$ (1.8%) LESS THAN FY 2009 (the last Bush budgeted year).

Since the nominal (current dollar) GDP increased by 17.58% between FY 2009 (a recession low point) and FY 2013 (see next paragraph), while federal spending dropped 1.8%, that means federal spending as a percentage of GDP dropped substantially during those 4 years -- from 24.46% of GDP to 20.42% of GDP (calculations below). Something to keep in mind when some rightie rants and raves about the socialist Obama spending us into the poor house.

In Current Dollars: GDP FY 2009 (2009 Q3) = $14,384.4 billion . GDP FY 2013 (2013 Q3) = $16,912.9 billion -- an increase of 17.58% over FY 2009.
Source of GDP figures: http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls
where FY 2009 = Q4 2008 through Q3 2009. And FY 2013 = Q4 2012 through Q3 2013.

FY 2009: Spending / GDP = 3518/14384 = 24.46% . FY 2013: Spending / GDP = 3454/16913 = 20.42%

See the previous section that explains that the Fiscal Year 2009 budget (Oct. 1, 2008 - Sept 30, 2009) was signed into law by G.W. Bush, and how the CBO on January 7, 2009 (13 days before Bush left office) projected a $1.2 trillion deficit for FY 2009. So all but about $200 billion of FY 2009 spending and deficits was "baked in" before Bush left office.

{#} The FY 2013 deficit (680 B$) is less than half what Obama inherited (1413 B$)

Reasons for deficit reduction (July 7, 2013): https://www.fidelity.com/viewpoints/market-and-economic-insights/us-federal-deficit-shrinking?ccsource=email_weekly

{#} Some interesting national debt graphs / tables

As of end of 2012 Q4 (i.e. 12/31/12):

* Foreigners owned 33.8% of the total national (federal govt) debt

* in one year (2012 Q4 / 2011 Q4) the increase in the foreign-owned part of the national debt was 559.4/1209.8 = 46.2% of the increase in the total national debt. Or to put it another way, almost half the recent increases in the national debt is being financed by foreigners: foreign investors, institutions, and governments

Foreign Debt from Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED), Series FDHBFIN, Federal Debt Held by Foreign & International Investors (Calendar Years)

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FDHBFIN?cid=5
(To see data: click "Last 5 Observations") just above the graph. Or click "View Data" from the top left-side menu)

Who owns the national debt (latest is FY 2012)

http://www.issuewonk.com/reading.asp?ID=358&type=2&keyword=

Federal Debt: Total Public Debt (GFDEBTN) (Calendar Years)

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GFDEBTN?cid=5
(To see data: click "Last 5 Observations") just above the graph. Or click "View Data" from the top left-side menu)

/===========================================
National Debt as Percent of GDP

January 1, 2001: 56.8 %
July 1, 2014: 103.5 % (17,610 / 17,016)

In 13.5 years the debt as a percent of GDP has almost doubled (1.82 X)
Italy with a debt to GDP ratio of 120% is one of the five "PIIGS" countries of the European debt crisis (well, add Cyprus now)

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GFDEGDQ188S?cid=5
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/GFDEGDQ188S.txt
\==============================================

{#} Interest on the national debt

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

Interest on the national debt to rise from 1.0% of GDP to 3.0% by 2023 (in just 9 years!), per CBO, says CEPR.net, 3/6/13

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/has-npr-joined-peter-petersons-crusade-against-social-security-and-medicare? - one thing that caught my eye is that net interest is slated to rise from 0.5% or 1.0% of GDP to 2.8% or 3.0% of GDP, according to the CBO (the upper figure in each case is the nominal amount, the lower figure deducts the amount of interest paid to its own accounts, so its the amount of interest actually paid externally.)

As debt maturities loom, U.S. needs to extend (the average maturity of federal government debt is only 5.2 years) - Reuters, 9/1/11

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/01/us-bonds-debt-extension-idUSTRE7803QD20110901
The average maturity of marketable U.S. debt ($9 Trillion) is only 5.2 years. 70% of bonds mature in less than 5 years. We're financing long-term liabilities with short-term debt. With such short average maturity, a substantial rise in overall market interest rates will be followed relatively quickly by a substantial rise in interest on the national debt.

Apparently investors are worried about going out 30 years, at least more so than a few years ago -- the yield gap between 10 year and 30 year bonds is 1.37 percentage points, up from 0.20 percentage points in mid 2007.

{{I think the maturity information comes from the below link}}

Federal Debt (Word document) - http://www.fms.treas.gov/bulletin/b2013_1fd.doc
Obtained from the "Federal Debt" link at http://www.fms.treas.gov/bulletin/index.html

{{ per this link, In December 2012, over 91.5% of the $9.374 Trillion in privately held debt has a maturity of less than 10 years. The average maturity was 54 months (4.5 years). }}

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #5)

Tue Sep 18, 2012, 02:29 AM

6. EF-6. U.S. Dollar Index (DXY). Also, Oil Prices

Last edited Sat Jul 5, 2014, 01:37 PM - Edit history (17)

{#} U.S. Dollar Index (DXY)

This is the value of a dollar compared to a trade-weighted basket of foreign currencies
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/index/DXY/historical
# Problem: on 9/8/12, I found the above link only goes back to about 2007.
# Using the last closing before inauguration (G.W. Bush inaugurated noon Jan 20, 2001, Obama at noon, Jan 20, 2009)
. . # When Clinton left office and G.W. Bush took office, the U.S. Dollar Index was at 110.66.
. . # When G.W. Bush left office and Obama took office, the U.S. Dollar Index was at 85.38.
. . # Thus under G.W. Bush, the dollar index dropped 22.8%, from 110.66 to 85.38.
. . # Under Obama, it has fallen 6.0% from 85.38 to 80.27 as of 7/3/14 close. Anyway, a much smaller rate of decline than under G.W. Bush, FWIW.

{#} Oil Prices

Does anybody know how to find historic oil prices, the one whose current level is in the headlines? The one that peaked at something like $140-something in July 2008 (under Bush, the Texas oil man) before the economy crashed?

I believe it is "CL Light Sweet Crude Oil (WTI)" that is traded on the NYMEX (New York Mercantile Exchange).

At www.CMEgroup.com on the top gray menubar click on Energy and under "Crude Oil (NYMEX)" choose the top one: "CL Light Sweet Crude Oil (WTI) and on the table that appears, the future contract on the top row (August 2012).

It seems to match the "Oil" quote at the top of the http://finance.yahoo.com page (if you click on that it tells you it is "Crude Oil Aug 12 (CLQ12.NYM) -NY Mercantile " where Aug 12 means for August 2012 delivery (this note was written in late June 2012).

And at Reuters it is apparently "US@CL.1 Exchange: USYF" (I Googled "USYF" to find what that was, without success)

Anyway, it would be nice to find a history of oil prices going decades back.

I did find this:

Crude Oil Prices - weekly week-ending close value - from 12/30/05 to 5/2/14 (visited 5/4/14)
http://www.nyse.tv/crude-oil-price-history.htm <- rats, bad link found 1/11/14
This might work: http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/crude-oil/all/
Will look some more. The above shows a peak of $116 in late August 2013 (its probably the Brent oil price)
Below are some key values I chose. Remember that the data here is weekly closings, so actual peaks and valleys based on daily closes -- let alone interday values -- likely are higher and lower respectively than shown.

7/4/08 $145.08 -- highest weekly closing value (also the Bush era high)
1/16/09 $ 36.51 -- lowest weekly closing value
4/29/11 $113.93 -- highest weekly closing value under Obama as of 7/4/14
2/24/12 $109.77 -- highest weekly closing value in 2012
9/06/13 $110.53 -- highest weekly closing value in 2013
7/04/14 $104.06 -- Down 28% from the pre-crash Bush era high (see top of http://finance.yahoo.com )
Also this: Barchart.com - has commodity graphs for several commodities, including oil, out to 25 years. On the left side links, about 10 lines down from the top, just below the "Enter ticker symbol" box, see the "Select a commodity" box.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #6)

Mon Oct 29, 2012, 12:33 AM

20. EF-7. In Progress (mostly Dem presidencies v. Repub presidencies. Also inequality)

Last edited Sat Jul 5, 2014, 01:38 PM - Edit history (17)

Some of the content below may be placed on the earlier pages -- EF-1 through EF-6. These are sections I'm working on ... I was wishfully hoping that some may have found this useful before the election so I "rushed it to print".

{#} Presidencies and House and Senate (when Republicans and Democrats held the presidency and had control of the House and Senate) from 1901-2010 (Chart). Bonus: the federal debt held by the public as a percentage of GDP is superimposed on it

(One complaint is that the federal debt held by the public is only one component of the federal debt. The other component of the federal debt aka the national debt is the trust fund debt -- what the federal government owes to the Social Security and Medicare and other trust funds. Please see EF-5. above for that breakdown).

From Wikimedia Commons (the link followed by the displayed graphic):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Debt_1901-2010.png



Here's a more detailed view of who controlled Congress from 1798 - 2015:
"Party divisions of United States Congresses" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses
"United States Presidents and control of Congress" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidents_and_control_of_congress

As for Obama: NOMINALLY, 1st 2 years: both houses Democrat. 2nd 2 years: Senate = Democrat and House = Republican. 3rd 2 years: same as 2nd 2 years (Democratic Senate and Republican House)

Actually, in Obama's first term, with Republicans filibustering everything they could, Democrats had control of Congress for about 2 months (when Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate): http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1643195
So if any rightie tells you Obama had 2 years of Democratic control of Congress to fix the economy, you can point them to the above link.


{#}Democratic Presidencies better than Republican Presidencies

# Obama's Accomplishments -- A compilation LIST of links regarding President Obama, http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022255

# Job Creation of record of post-WWII Presidents With Completed Terms, Plus Kennedy, Average Annual % Increases. -- Sorted from best to worst by average annual percentage increase in jobs. Republicans in red, Democrats in blue. Notice that -- with the tiny exception (0.02% difference) of Nixon to Kennedy -- the worst Democrat has a better record than the best Republican) And actually, Kennedy did not have a chance to complete his term -- had he done so, and had he had the same job creation numbers in December 1963 through January 1965 as Johnson had (a 3.48%/year annualized rate of increase), he would have easily topped Nixon.

Average Average

number of Jobs at Annual

Jobs start of Percentage

Created Term Increase

President Per Month Millions In Jobs

========= ========= ======== =======

Johnson 196,500 57.3 4.12%

Carter 215,396 80.7 3.20%

Truman 93,570 41.4 2.71%

Clinton 236,875 109.7 2.59%

Nixon 137,030 69.4 2.37%

Kennedy 105,059 53.7 2.35%

Reagan 167,729 91.0 2.21%

Ford 71,483 78.6 1.09%

Eisenhower 36,854 50.1 0.88%

G.H. Bush 54,021 107.1 0.61%

G.W. Bush 11,406 132.5 0.10%


(See EF-1 for the same table with not yet finished presidencies, namely Obama's, included)

# Real annual corporate profit growth 3X higher under Obama than under Reagan, even when measured from the 2008 peak. (both Bushs oversaw profit declines in case you were wondering).
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/26/1097301/anti-business-obama-is-is-best-president-for-corporate-profits-since-1900/

Corporate profits: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/10/24/the-best-presidents-for-the-economy.aspx

Also at the above fool.com link - Stock market performance, Average annual real GDP growth per capita, Inflation (average annual change in the Consumer Price Index), Change in unemployment rate during their presidencies,

Forbes Magazine: Democratic presidents beat Republican ones: Disposable income, GDP, profits, stock market, national debt,...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021593080

Stock market up 133% under Obama -- 133% above where it was at the last close before inaugural day (speaking of the S&P 500, as of Thursday 7/3/14 close). (GW Bush's 8-year record: Minus 37% -- yes, It declined 37% from the beginning of the GW Bush presidency to the end of the Bush presidency.). Details: EF-4. at http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439

Corporate profits? Stock market? How is that relevant to regular Americans?

Well, the main reason to include these aspects is if some rightie calls Obama a socialist and/or says that businesses and investors lack confidence in him, you can point out his record on the stock market and corporate profits. The other reason, is that given that many tens of millions of Americans have a substantial part of their nest eggs in stocks -- through direct ownership or via pension funds -- do you really wish for the opposite - a severe decline in stock prices? And if there isn't much trickle-down of corporate profits, at least there is potential there (via higher taxes on top earners and closing corporate tax loopholes).


{#}Inequality

Here is a graph of growing productivity and stagnant wages and household incomes (indicating that virtually none of the productivity gains are going to average Americans):


URL for above (replace the beginning Gttp with http): Gttp://anticap.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/fig2_prodhhincome.jpg
To do list - see if I can shrink this monster.

See also post # 28 in the following thread for Corporate profits and wages as percent of economy http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=75268

Virtually all of the productivity gains since 1979 have flowed to the top 1% of income earners. - David Frum, Newsweek 7/2/12

The Top 1% and percent and their share of the nation's income: 1928: 23.9%, Late 1970's: 8 to 9%, 2007: 23.5% (includes capital gains) - The Nation 7/19/10

The Newsweek 1/13/12 article by Niall Ferguson has very similar, is probably the source of the above: "According to Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez, the share or total income going to the top 1% of families has more than doubled since 1979, from below 10% to a peak of nearly 24% in 2007 (it has since fallen, but not by much). The share going to the super-rich -- the top 0.01% -- has risen by a factor of 7."

(David Frum is the former Bush adviser or somesuch that has turned lefty in the last year or two or so. Its odd that Niall Ferguson would write about growing inequality {he wrote the Newsweek cover story hit piece on Obama 3 or so weeks ago}

Average HOUSEHOLD Income (2007 $) -- post-transfer and post-tax incomes.
Year 1979 2007 %increase

Top 1% (P1) 350,000 1,300,000 271.4%

Mid 60% (Q2+Q3+Q4) 44,000 57,000 29.5%

Bottom 20% (Q5) 15,500 17,500 12.9%

Lane Kenworthy, using data from the Congressional Budget Office
http://lanekenworthy.net/2010/07/20/the-best-inequality-graph-updated/
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/collections.cfm?collect=13


The top 0.1 percent of households account for about half of all capital gains - Robert Lenzner, Forbes, Nov 20, 2011 http://news.yahoo.com/top-0-1-nation-earn-half-capital-gains-172647859.html

The following is a pithy summary of much of the above for the message board wars:

In inflation-adjusted dollars, after taxes and after transfers -- From 1979 to 2007 the top 1% increased their income by 271% while the middle 60% increased by only 30%. Virtually all the productivity gains since 1979 have gone to the top 1%. Their share of the nation's income has increased from about 9% to 24%.


Inequality - See Also

A Giant Statistical Round-Up of the Income Inequality Crisis in 16 Charts
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/a-giant-statistical-round-up-of-the-income-inequality-crisis-in-16-charts/266074/

According to the beginning of the article, "it is an annotated slide show, culled from the amazing 2012 edition of the State of Working America ( http://stateofworkingamerica.org/ ) from EPI ( http://www.epi.org/ )."
By the way, it isn't a slide show in the sense that you have to click one chart at a time. No, it's all on one page, one after the other with a little bit of annotation before each chart on what it means. Good I say.

Just as a sample, and for a little color and imagery, here is one of the 16 charts,


74. Inequality - a collection of graphics - Money Masters, Created by: ForensicAccounting.net at http://www.democraticunderground.com/125170175#post74

Income Inequality May Take Toll on Growth, excerpted from the New York Times. (Of the first 8 replies in the thread, #1 is the only one that has more information on inequality -- a set of graphs at inequality.org)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/111624262


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:09 PM

23. EF-8. In Progress - Some canned excerpts to use in the message board wars

Last edited Sat Jul 5, 2014, 01:42 PM - Edit history (13)

Please don't reply directly to this EF-8 posting- that way any new pages that I add (EF-9 etc.) will be in a chain of pages at the top. You can reply to any of the other pages without disturbing the chain of EF postings at the top, and you are most welcome to.

On Facebook or comments on news articles at news.yahoo.com, one constantly faces a barrage of negative comments about the handling of the economy by "Oblamer" or "Obuhmuh" or "Obummer". (And on DU too, though without the name calling and direct blaming, but still with a lot of hand-wringing and laminations about the current economy)

Here are some canned responses to CONNEDservatives which I draw from and have used on such websites --

It took 8 years for Bush to ruin the growing economy that Clinton handed him (and turn a budget surplus into a near doubling of the national debt (1.86-fold increase, thanks Bush), and you conservatives are complaining that Obama hasn't completely reversed 8 years of Republican economic ruination in 4 years?

Do we really want to hand the keys back to the people who drove the economy off the cliff? When Bush left office, he handed Obama an economy that had already shed 4.3 million jobs in Bush's last 10 months, and the GDP was contracting at a 8.9% annual rate (Q4 2008). At the end of the Bush presidency, the unemployment rate was 3.5 percentage points higher than when he began his presidency.

9.1 million payroll jobs have been created in the last 52 months. Bush only created 1.1 million payroll jobs in his entire 8 year presidency - ironically by creating 1.8 million government jobs and destroying 0.7 million private sector jobs

Ruinous Republican policies also drove the U.S. stock market (S&P 500) down 37% during those 8 Bush years -- from 1343 to 850. As an investor, I'd rather go with Obama -- its up to 1985 as of Thursday 7/3/14 close, up 133% since he took office (that's somewhat more than a doubling). (Google: Historical Prices - Yahoo Finance S&P 500 ). Clearly the business and investor community has a lot more confidence in Obama than it did in Bush.

Now it may seem like Romney, the Great Successful Businessman, would do so much better if he had been given the chance. But you had no idea what Governor Etch-A-Sketch would do, as he radically shifts his positions all the time. For all we know, he would have jammed RomneyCare down your throat. What you do know is that as governor of Massachusetts, the state was 47th out of 50th in job creation (it ranked much better than that under his predecessor). And he moved the state from #2 in per-capita debt to #1. Oops, wrong direction. Oops, not a #1 ranking one wants to have.

He was talented at creating jobs in China. Not so well in Massachusetts. Great at outsourcing jobs. Never insourced any.

Romney's plan for $5 trillion in tax cuts via marginal rate reductions, and a $2 trillion increase in core defense spending, all paid for somehow by reducing some unspecified deductions and a huge helping of magic supply side fairy dust didn't sound like a plan for the economy but rather a plan for winning over the gullible in the 2012 election. I forget, how did that election thing work out? Kind of a 1-day story and then it was Petraeus and Benghazi and fiscal cliff this and fiscal cliff that and fiscal cliff some more day in and day out.

(When you are tired of arguing with statistics and facts, you can just post this):

Hey, TEA PARTY fanatics, google "Koch Brothers" if ya wanna see who's really behind your so-called "grass roots" movement.....it's really an "astro turf" job.....do you REALLY think rich corporations and rich people in general actually care about you, do you think they want to hang out with you? You guys are being used, but you're too dopey to even realize it.....the rich are laughing at you; while you champion their lower taxes/no taxes, they're laughing all the way to the bank....When was the last time YOU were able to have a good laugh????

To Do

Write rebuttals to:

# The economy was just fine until the Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007.
# The CRA and Clinton / Democratic policies caused the housing bubble

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #2)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 01:12 PM

7. thanks so much for this. don't know why I didn't snap to the baby boomer

retirements.

I had felt bad about the 'percentage of workforce' numbers until you gave me the salient point about retirements

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NMDemDist2 (Reply #7)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 03:10 PM

8. Thanks for the thanks and slogging through it all. I just improved EF.2.'s readability a bit (same

content).

NM District 2 -- I read that is pretty much the entire southern half of New Mexico, containing the great cities of Roswell and Las Cruces. I lived in Roswell for 3 years -- New Mexico Military Institute. Decades ago.

I see its been a "red" district as far as congressional representation since 1980, with the exception of 1/2009 - 1/2011. Also "red" in presidential elections, though only by a point in 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico's_2nd_congressional_district

I'm "MNDemDist5" - Keith Ellison's district of Minneapolis and its first ring suburbs. First Muslim in Congress. Democrat. And he's (hoarse whisper, tiny font) black

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #8)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 03:25 PM

9. yeah, and the 2009 oilhole Teague rode in on Obama's coattails

i've got major heartburn still over that ass and the way the party handled the primaries here

i think we might go blue this year in the presidential, but no way the house is going back. Steve Pearce is a bumbling idiot (and i mean stupid as a box of hammers here) but he's hooked into all the oil guys so he's got a fat campaign war chest and lots of name recognition.

I don't have enough time (or bandwidth) to tell you all the ways Teague was a nightmare, he was better than Pearce by about a nano

but it did help the house leadership to change, so i held my nose and gave him a vote

not a lot of incentive here to go blue, our unemployment is at about 3.5% and if you can pass a drug test you've got a job around here.

I work with a bunch of tree-huggers, but hubby is chipping away at Romney in his job and has had a couple successes

we'll see......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 05:11 PM

10. A lot of meaningful data and links to data. great post. A lot of work went into this! recommended,..

recommended, bookmarked.

here's an article from Bloomgerg that points out Dems lead in job creation by wide margin over Repubs

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-08/private-jobs-increase-more-with-democrats-in-white-house.html

Democrats hold the edge though they occupied the Oval Office for 23 years since Kennedy’s inauguration, compared with 28 for the Republicans. Through April, Democratic presidents accounted for an average of 150,000 additional private-sector paychecks per month over that period, more than double the 71,000 average for Republicans.




http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/data?pid=avimage&iid=isqi31tjaZFo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Reply #10)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 06:59 PM

11. Thanks for the link, I haven't seen it before, I added to CabCurious's 125170175

Last edited Mon Oct 1, 2012, 10:01 PM - Edit history (1)

The "red blue" table in EF.1. near the bottom is another confirming view showing that -- with the tiny exception (0.02% difference) of Nixon to Kennedy -- the worst Democrat has a better record than the best Republican (all the way back to Truman). It is ranked on a percentage job increase basis to get rid of the issue that the economies and labor forces of the earlier presidents were much smaller than that of the later presidents. So for example, Truman's wimpy looking 93,570 / month average job creation is actually the 3rd best of all post-FDRoosevelt presidents on a percentage increase basis. (The labor force at the beginning of the Truman admin was only 31% the size of GW Bush's, so 93,570 jobs/month went a long way back then)

Thanks also much for the recommendation and kind words. This EF.0 - EF.6 agglomeration, which I laughingly call my "magnus opus", embarrasingly sat with a goose egg in the "Rec" column for 5 days until yesterday. And yes, it was a heck of a lot (many dozens of hours) of work over several months -- I kept building up the info as a result of the message board wars in, mostly the news.yahoo.com article comments sections. The monthly updates (after the job numbers come out the first Friday of the month) take at least 2 hours.

I'll be working on the formatting to make it easier to read. Plus will include rebuttals to rightie talking points like how great the Bush economy was until the Dems took over Congress in January 2007. Or that the 2007-2009 financial collapse was because of over-regulation -- nasty big mean government forced the banks to lend to poor people (those irresponsible 47%-ers).

CabCurious's Facts about the economy -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/125170175

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:59 PM

12. All numbers updated 10/7/12. Of particular interest is EF 1 and EF 2 - jobs -- updated for the

September jobs reports (payroll jobs and unemployment rate) that came out 10/5/12. Yes the one with the 7.8% unemployment rate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Original post)

Fri Oct 12, 2012, 11:38 PM

13. Great stuff

I have a bit of a wish list that might be a bit arcane:

US Crude oil prices, is that EF 6?

Infrastructure dollars spent per annum since 1933. Nominal & adjusted.

I have one for ya, number of income tax brackets

http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2011-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FogerRox (Reply #13)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 04:28 PM

15. Thanks. Some answers...

US Crude oil prices, is that EF 6?

Yes, I'm 95% sure. The oil price we hear and read all the time from the media is really a futures price, it seems, for example back in late June, it was the price for August delivery. Anyway, for the media-quoted oil price I look at the "Oil" at the top of the http://finance.yahoo.com page. And as EF 6 says about historic oil prices, I haven't found anything better than the weekly closing prices.

But to reduce the confusion, in EF 6. I replaced the topic line from "Oil Futures" to "Oil Prices". Thanks for the question.

Infrastructure dollars spent per annum since 1933. Nominal & adjusted.

I have no idea where I would start to look for that.

I have one for ya, number of income tax brackets
http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2011-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets


That's really something! Very interesting. I'm glad we don't have as many tax brackets as we used to have. Whew!

I have to give a note of caution though about the Tax Foundation - they are a RW greed-banger organization. Though that wouldn't (or shouldn't) be a problem for that table, I cringe at some of their policy recommendations and "studies" like that 60% of the cost of Romney's tax plan will be paid for by the greater economic growth it will create (higher economic growth generates higher tax revenues). The old magic supply side fairy dust that worked so well under Bush. As for it working under Reagan -- a. they usually leave out that payroll taxes were massively increased and b. the national debt nearly tripled - so the economic growth under Reagan was more the result of classical Keynesian deficit-spending pump priming than it was the result of an overall modest federal tax cut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #15)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 08:45 PM

16. Brackets, we used to have 67. Now we have 6. Not good at

describing a geometric curve necessary to make a progressive tax that allows the working classes to keep what they earn , I want at least 12-15. Adding 6 more for the top .33%.

!930's we spent - depending who you listen to, between 5% and 7% of GDP on the New Deal. 5% of GDP was SOP for year, I believe that declined starting in the 80's.

The reason its important to me is that I have a thesis, policies that created jobs in the US were removed, starting mainly in the 1980's. Infrastructure spending and tax policies giving deductions for domestic investment.

Might have been a total of 6%-7% of GDP, spent on jobs, since the late 80's 3 recessions each have more breadth and depth, each with the so called jobless recovery.

In a 15 trillion dollar economy, spending 7% is 1 trillion. This would create between 20 and 25 million jobs. Gee whiz, U6 is just about 22 million...........

Last year we spent about 1.3% of GDP on infrastructure. About 195 billion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FogerRox (Reply #16)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 08:51 PM

17. Funny about oil prices, I disticntly remember $44 a barrel in the beginning of Reagans first term.

ANd oil rising from $11 to $17 1989-90, leading to the 90 recession. I thought Bush would not get re elected with oil dampening economic growth.

But much info places oil in '81-'82 much higher 50-55, buts its expressed in lets says 2009 dollars.

Definitely a need for nominal and adjusted, they srve different purposes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #15)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 11:03 PM

18. I've found some partial info, nothing comprehensive

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 09:30 AM

14. Great resource!

Thanks for putting it together!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Original post)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 03:58 PM

19. Kicking this for more eyes!

Great resource.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Original post)


Response to progree (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:29 AM

22. Kicking, Reccing, and Bookmarking. Will spend some more time checking out the specifics, but

A+ for effort, so far!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Original post)

Mon Mar 11, 2013, 04:58 AM

24. Updated monthly: The EF-0 thru EF-8 pages are updated every month a day or two after the payroll job

Last edited Sat May 4, 2013, 11:21 AM - Edit history (1)

numbers and unemployment statistics are released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (bls.gov). That is usually the first Friday of the month, so my updates are generally done the following Saturday or Sunday. Just so that people don't see the old September 2012 dates on most of these posts and think they are several months old.

All 9 pages have been updated for the 5/3/13 job numbers and other data also updated as of 5/3/13.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Original post)

Sun Aug 4, 2013, 01:32 AM

25. A kick after 6 months of spending 3-4 hours per month quietly updating the numbers

Also note that the S&P 500 has finally more than doubled under Obama (see EF-4), while the projected 2013 deficit will be less than half of what was inherited from Bush (see EF-5).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Original post)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 11:08 AM

26. Funny thing about "facts" ...

 

... they're meaningless, except in an academic sense.

Example: sky is blue; fact. Good info, but it's more meaningful to understand why the sky appears blue.

Ditto on employment; GDP; equality; you name it.

So if we're treading water on job creation, which we are. If 61% of new jobs being created are low-paying, which they are. How do we remedy it. Is Obama doing the sorts of things needed to remedy it? And as Democrats (the base Obama serves, directly) are we demanding change, or merely looking for stats that allow us to feel good about how he's preforming?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Original post)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 03:47 PM

27. Should this be pinned? I think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Original post)

Mon May 5, 2014, 02:13 AM

28. A kick after 9 months of spending 3-4 hours per month quietly updating the numbers

And writing some new sections -- see "Recent Topic Updates" in EF-0.

And writing a monthly summary of the most recent jobs report (see EF-0).

As the crucial mid-term elections approaches, I hope some people can draw on the information here to correct the misimpression that Obama is a disaster for the economy. No, it's not a robust economic recovery, but vastly much better than what we had under G.W. Bush. By most measures, in the right direction (albeit slowly), instead of the wrong direction, for one thing.

And this despite a united Republican campaign of obstruction in the House, which they've held since January 2011 (hint hint: midterm elections are important).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Original post)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 01:56 PM

29. Kick for an update that took 1 1/2 days - hope you'll look at EF-0, the OP post

EF-0 (the OP) contains a summary of the latest 2 jobs reports.

I'm "late" in doing this update because I got embroiled in some myth destroying -- "most (even all) the new jobs are part-time" seems to be the meme of the month. Please read EF-0 for some perspective on that.

Three other myths destroyed -- all in the bottom half of EF-0

"They don't count the long-term unemployed in the unemployment rate"

"People who run out of unemployment insurance benefits are not counted as unemployed in the unemployment rate statistics."

"Wages are about the same as 30 years ago, meanwhile the cost of living has gone way up"

All the other 8 pages -- EF-1 to EF-8 -- have been updated as well. There's no new material in any of these pages, just updated numbers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread