HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Factual talking points on...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Aug 14, 2012, 09:57 PM

Factual talking points on the economy (UPDATED)

Last edited Mon Aug 27, 2012, 05:34 PM - Edit history (33)

(I will continue updating this as people post information or I find more tidbits)

Bush started with a $128 billion SURPLUS & ended with a $1.4 trillion DEFICIT. Obama was handed that spending during the worst GLOBAL economic collapse in 100 years.

* $600 billion in deficit reduction since Bush's last budget.
* Lowest spending increases since Eisenhower.
* 30 months of private sector job growth, including small businesses.
* 35% of American companies are now hiring.
* Construction is on the rise.
* Record corporate profits & Wall Street values. They sit on $3.6 trillion in cash.
* More millionaires and billionaires every year.
* Lowest real tax rates on the rich since 1928.
* 21 new tax cuts for middle-class families.
* 18 new tax cuts for small businesses.
* First growth in manufacturing sectors in 30 years.
* Americans #1 in worker productivity.
* Household debt reduced by half-a-trillion.
* Gas prices peaked at $4.12 under Bush.

And:
* Obama has proposed $4 trillion in additional debt reduction, but the GOP have blocked him.
* Republicans partisanship in Congress is the primary reason for the downgrade of USA's credit rating.
* Romney has said military spending is off-limits for cutting ($1 trillion a year, including war debts)

But there's a 8% unemployment rate still, right? That's in large part due to the 700,000 government jobs that have been cut, including States cutting 230,000 teachers and 130,000 police/emergency responders.

* 7.5 million jobs were lost in 2008 and 2009. Expecting a quick recovery of equal magnitude is irrational.
* Historically, Democratic presidents have created jobs at a faster rate than Republicans (2m/y vs 1m/y).
* 2.8 million jobs have been added in the last 18 months.
* We're in a recovery, thanks to Obama.

We need more trickle down?

* CorpUSA and the 1% are sitting on $3.6 trillion cash.
* Wages & household income continues to drop in spite of record corporate profits


The overall argument we need to make: The GOP are peddling the wrong kind of (failed) capitalism. It's time to divest from Wall Street and the finance markets. It's time America return to Main Street and manufacturing. As long as we let the finance sector dominate our economy, it's just a matter of time before the society completely collapses.

TOTAL JOB GAIN/LOSS


PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYMENT SINCE 2008


BUSH DEFICIT VS OBAMA DEFICIT


SLOWEST SPENDING SINCE EISENHOWER




CORPORATE PROFITS


WAGES AS PERCENTAGE OF THE ECONOMY


POVERTY LEVELS






SOURCES:
http://www.businessinsider.com/politics-economics-facts-charts-2012-6?op=1
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-26/small-business-job-creation-is-stronger-than-we-think
http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thomas/2011/08/86-of-top-100-markets-add.html
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CP
http://teachingwithdata.blogspot.com/2012/06/over-third-of-american-companies-are.html
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/09/02/public-sector-losses-continue-to-drive-poor-jobs-numbers
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/14/news/economy/recovery_act_jobs/index.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2011-11-06/federal-borrowing-rises-sharply/51097800/1
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/jobs/posts/2012/08/03-jobs-greenstone-looney
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/02/06/ray-of-light-u-s-corporate-worker-productivity-continues-to-r/
http://tucsoncitizen.com/usa-today-news/2011/11/06/federal-borrowing-up-household-debt-shrinks/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html
http://www.peri.umass.edu/236/hash/b3c8228599526db24002f4a6d38369c1/publication/490/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/dec/14/executive-pay-increase-america-ceos
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/12/10/number-of-the-week-finances-share-of-economy-continues-to-grow/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/22/super-rich-offshore-havens_n_1692608.html
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/
http://www.governing.com/blogs/by-the-numbers/public-private-sector-cuts-during-recession-by-state.html
http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175361/
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/has-obama-made-the-job-situation-worse/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
http://defense.aol.com/2012/03/16/the-military-imbalance-how-the-u-s-outspends-the-world/
http://teachingwithdata.blogspot.com/2012/07/construction-spending-rises-slowly.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904265504576568543968213896.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/household-income-is-below-recession-levels-report-says/2012/08/23/aa497460-ec80-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_story.html

This information is being updated at: http://www.democraticunderground.com/125170175

79 replies, 12492 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 79 replies Author Time Post
Reply Factual talking points on the economy (UPDATED) (Original post)
CabCurious Aug 2012 OP
drm604 Aug 2012 #1
NYC_SKP Aug 2012 #2
CabCurious Aug 2012 #5
progree Aug 2012 #34
CabCurious Aug 2012 #38
progree Sep 2012 #67
progree Aug 2012 #48
mikekohr Aug 2012 #3
lovemydog Aug 2012 #4
CabCurious Aug 2012 #6
CabCurious Aug 2012 #7
xtraxritical Aug 2012 #12
tk2kewl Aug 2012 #8
CabCurious Aug 2012 #9
tk2kewl Aug 2012 #10
CabCurious Aug 2012 #11
CabCurious Aug 2012 #13
Rhiannon12866 Aug 2012 #14
CabCurious Aug 2012 #15
outsideworld Aug 2012 #16
DLine Aug 2012 #17
CabCurious Aug 2012 #19
veganlush Aug 2012 #25
CabCurious Aug 2012 #45
davidpdx Aug 2012 #18
CabCurious Aug 2012 #20
CabCurious Aug 2012 #21
CabCurious Aug 2012 #22
CabCurious Aug 2012 #23
progree Oct 2012 #72
liberal N proud Aug 2012 #24
BlueStreak Aug 2012 #26
CabCurious Aug 2012 #27
CabCurious Aug 2012 #28
CabCurious Aug 2012 #29
CabCurious Aug 2012 #30
CabCurious Aug 2012 #31
CabCurious Aug 2012 #32
progree Aug 2012 #33
CabCurious Aug 2012 #37
progree Aug 2012 #53
CabCurious Aug 2012 #57
progree Aug 2012 #60
CabCurious Aug 2012 #58
elleng Aug 2012 #35
nenagh Aug 2012 #36
CabCurious Aug 2012 #39
CabCurious Aug 2012 #40
CabCurious Aug 2012 #41
CabCurious Aug 2012 #42
progree Aug 2012 #43
CabCurious Aug 2012 #44
progree Aug 2012 #47
CabCurious Aug 2012 #49
CabCurious Aug 2012 #50
progree Aug 2012 #51
CabCurious Aug 2012 #52
progree Aug 2012 #54
CabCurious Aug 2012 #56
CabCurious Aug 2012 #46
CabCurious Aug 2012 #55
steve2470 Aug 2012 #59
heaven05 Aug 2012 #61
great white snark Aug 2012 #62
apnu Sep 2012 #63
RedStateLiberal Sep 2012 #64
progree Sep 2012 #65
progree Oct 2012 #74
progree Mar 2013 #78
SpartanDem Sep 2012 #66
lovemydog Sep 2012 #68
progree Sep 2012 #69
theKed Sep 2012 #70
calimary Sep 2012 #71
progree Oct 2012 #73
progree Oct 2012 #75
progree Nov 2012 #76
progree Dec 2012 #77
progree Jun 7 #79

Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Tue Aug 14, 2012, 10:01 PM

1. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Tue Aug 14, 2012, 10:25 PM

2. Excellent post. People need a basic lesson on the unemployment rates, too, (U3 versus U6)

Freeper butt-scraper trolls like to trot out the "real unemployment rate" when talking about Obama.

Of course, under Bush they'd never have played such a trick.

Rates 101:

The official rate is the U3 unemployment rate. It's just over 8%.

The higher rate freepers cite is the U6 unemployment rate. It's hovering around 15%

The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons." Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the "marginally attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation is 16 years and over

Visit this site for more information:

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate.jsp




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #2)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 05:16 AM

5. Amen. Great addition.

Last edited Sat Aug 25, 2012, 08:21 PM - Edit history (2)

It's so bewildering seeing conservatives going on and on about this without understanding it in context.

TO DO LIST:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021197976

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021201604

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021198197

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #5)

Fri Aug 24, 2012, 11:25 PM

34. Red states take more tax dollars than blue states

Last edited Fri Sep 28, 2012, 01:46 AM - Edit history (1)

Excerpts from: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-08-18/politics/30039546_1_blue-states-federal-taxes-red-states

Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.

Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Here are the top twenty "welfare queen" states:

New Mexico: $2.03
Mississippi: $2.02
Alaska: $1.84
Louisiana: $1.78
West Virginia: $1.76
North Dakota: $1.68
Alabama: $1.66
South Dakota: $1.53
Kentucky: $1.51
Virginia: $1.51
Montana: $1.47
Hawaii: $1.44
Maine: $1.41
Arkansas: $1.41
Oklahoma: $1.36
South Carolina: $1.35
Missouri: $1.32
Maryland: $1.30
Tennessee: $1.27
Idaho: $1.21

...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #34)

Sat Aug 25, 2012, 07:22 AM

38. thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #5)

Fri Sep 21, 2012, 12:24 AM

67. 20 of the 22 states with the highest proportion of non-federal-income-tax-payers are Repub states

Last edited Fri Sep 28, 2012, 02:05 AM - Edit history (1)

Non-federal-income-tax-payers are also known as the "47 percenters", after Romney's infamous answer to wealthy donors about the 47% who paid no taxes (actually, Mitt, who paid no federal INCOME taxes -- they pay a whole bunch of other taxes).



#1 thru #10 - see red-colored states on map

In the below, "Repub" means Republican-voting in the 2004 presidential election (Bush v. Kerry), and "Dem" means Democratic-voting in that election. I wanted to use "red" and "blue" terminology, but that conflicts with the colors on the map.

#11 thru #15: Tennessee, N. Carolina, Utah, Arizona, Kentucky

All Repub states, generally speaking. Utah #13. Idaho #10, LOL - the only top-ten state in the geographic north -- I used to live there.

#16 - California (sigh, that's Dem.), #17-Oklahoma, #18-Montana, #19-Indiana #20-Michigan (Dem), #21-Missouri #22-W.Virginia #23-New York (Dem)

Anyway, of the top 22, only California (#16) and Michigan (#20) are Dem states based on the 2004 presidential election. (And likewise in the 2000 presidential election except that New Mexico (#4) was Dem in 2000 and Repub in 2004).

(In 2008, of the top 22, Florida, North Carolina, Indiana, New Mexico went "Dem", i.e. for Obama, while California and Michigan stayed Dem for a total of 6 Dem states by this definition)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #2)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 01:57 AM

48. Another lesson, about the myth that those who exhaust their unemployment insurance are not counted

as unemployed

# 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).

# 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 (U3, U4, U5, U6, etc.). 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 or Google: "Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Tue Aug 14, 2012, 10:42 PM

3. Great Post! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 05:02 AM

4. great post

k & r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 05:18 AM

6. And the "job creators" are already sitting on $3 trillion dollars in cash

I think that's a relevant point in relation to the "trickle down" arguments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 09:21 AM

7. Obama has signed 21 tax cuts for the middle class & proposed $4 trillion in debt reduction





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #7)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 02:12 PM

12. I've got a BA in Econ. and believe me the Republicans got nothing but their rabid base.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 09:51 AM

8. what are the units of the spending bar graph? percent of buget increase?



I love graphs and charts but they need labels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Reply #8)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 10:07 AM

9. I believe it's simple annual % increase

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #9)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 10:14 AM

10. thanks

nice post!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Reply #10)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 10:29 AM

11. In other words, there is still huge amounts of debt being added every year :(

But the truth is that Obama's four years add to about the same amount of spending as Bush's last four years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 07:22 PM

13. Apparently military spending may be $1.2 trillion

http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175361/

The official budgets include $700 BILLION, but that doesn't include interest payments on past wars or major spending in other branches for military assets (like nuclear weapons).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #13)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:59 AM

14. K&R! Important information that needs to be out there!

Thanks for posting and welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rhiannon12866 (Reply #14)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 01:57 PM

15. Thanks :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:45 PM

16. great Info

thanks alot for this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 01:12 AM

17. Great list

In regards to the credit rating downgrade. Teabaggers threatening to let the treasury default are THE reason it was downgraded. Standards and Poors pretty much said as much in their report.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DLine (Reply #17)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 08:02 PM

19. Yes, I need to track down the report and that quote

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #19)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 02:38 PM

25. yes, it would be great to add that quote

They called out repubs by name when downgrading. great, great post, bookmarking thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to veganlush (Reply #25)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 07:38 AM

45. here

http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563

* "the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics"

* "the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened"

* "we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. "

In other words, the GOP's brinksmanship regarding the debt ceiling and their refusal to allow the President to make good on our commitments is the cause for the first lowering of the US's credit rating in history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 02:35 AM

18. I saved the two charts on my computer and will post on Facebook

Still I think there are people out there that are too stupid to believe facts. I think I may know of few of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 05:03 AM

20. Bush deficit vs Obama deficit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 12:40 PM

21. "Has Obama made the job situation worse?" (NY Times piece)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #21)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 02:08 PM

22. 2.8 million jobs have been added in the last 18 months nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #21)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 02:09 PM

23. Democratic presidents have created jobs at a faster rate than Republicans (2m/y vs 1m/y).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #21)

Mon Oct 1, 2012, 08:59 PM

72. Bloomberg's points out Dems lead in job creation by wide margin over Repubs

Thanks Bill_USA for posting these links from Bloomberg over at http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439 --

here's an article from Bloomberg 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

The below, taken from http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439 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)

Job Creation of record of post-WWII Presidents With Completed Terms, 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)

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%



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 02:34 PM

24. Bookmarked

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 03:06 PM

26. Excellent work. We need to be prepared to address one thing

The "Budget Deficit" chart shows a radical spike up in the deficits starting in 2007. Republicans will argue this is the result of Democrats gaining control of the House, and it is the House that controls government spending.

We argue that the deficits are due to 2 unfunded wars, a big tax cut, and the prescription drug benefit, but those things all happened before 2007.

Is there a reasonable response to that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #26)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 03:54 PM

27. The Republicans would be lying about their own commitment to the stimulus and bailouts

Personally, just remind them that every democratic president has grown more jobs than republicans. And that Clinton is the one who created a budget surplus. And that Obama is the one currently reducing the deficit.

And just point out that Romney refuses to cut $1trillion in annual military spending.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 08:01 PM

28. corporate profits & wages

Last edited Wed Aug 22, 2012, 10:05 PM - Edit history (1)

CORPORATE PROFITS


PROFIT PER DOLLAR OF SALES


WAGES AS PERCENT OF THE ECONOMY


http://www.businessinsider.com/politics-economics-facts-charts-2012-6?op=1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #28)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 10:06 PM

29. These 3 charts truly show what's wrong in america

Corporate profits rising while wages decreasing.

It's that simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink




Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Fri Aug 24, 2012, 09:15 PM

32. Defense spending is apparently around 50% of our discretionary spending, 1/3 of total spending

Last edited Mon Aug 27, 2012, 05:22 PM - Edit history (1)

edit: the pie chart below appears to be some form of DISCRETIONARY spending, not total spending.

We apparently actually spend $1.2 TRILLION a year on defense, including war debts and nuclear weapons maintenance.

I'm not sure precisely how accurate these charts are, but the don't seem completely off the mark.





http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175361/
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
http://defense.aol.com/2012/03/16/the-military-imbalance-how-the-u-s-outspends-the-world/
http://www.usfederalbudget.us/spending_chart_2002_2017USb_13s1li111lcn_30t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #32)

Fri Aug 24, 2012, 11:08 PM

33. Outstanding work. But the defense spending is about half of fed. discretionary spending, not total

federal spending. Discretionary spending doesn't include the very large "mandatory" entitlement federal spending such as on Social Security and Medicare.

Total federal spending is about $3.6 trillion, according to a bar graph in your original post (and my dubious graph-reading abilities), while defense spending is $739 billion according to the above post (#32).

I'm delighted to find this thread, thank you for all your great work. I've been working on something similar, but its a teeny tiny subset of your work. I will change my signature line shortly to featuring this thread. Its great to find resources like this that put it all in one place, rather than having to Google for every piece of information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #33)

Sat Aug 25, 2012, 07:16 AM

37. You'll find defense spending figures of 700Bish, 900Bish, and $1.2Tish because

Different entities don't count the same things for defense spending. The lowest figure is the raw defense department budget, while the higher figures begin to include things like nuclear weapons (under energy department) and the extremely large amounts we spend on war debts and veterans (which may or may not seem fair, but it's still defense spending).

That largest figure gets up to $1.2 trillion which certainly isn't 50% of all total spending. That's more like 1/3.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #37)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 01:19 PM

53. Is it 2 Pinocchios or 3 to indicate defense spending is over half when at most its about 1/3?

Last edited Mon Aug 27, 2012, 01:52 PM - Edit history (1)

#32. Defense spending is apparently around 50% of our total federal spending

We apparently actually spend $1.2 TRILLION a year on defense, including war debts and nuclear weapons maintenance.

I'm not sure precisely how accurate these charts are, but the don't seem completely off the mark.


(and showing in #32 an unlabelled pie chart showing defense spending as being 54% of the total, without indicating that it is (probably) the discretionary spending part of the budget)

#37. That largest figure gets up to $1.2 trillion which certainly isn't 50% of all total spending. That's more like 1/3.

Thank you.

Do you have a source for the $1.2 trillion figure? I don't want to battle the righties or talk to persuadables with numbers that are way beyond what they and I read in the media (which is the $739 billion number) without knowing the source and having a look at it. I certainly agree that nuclear weapon stuff in the energy department budget, war debts (presumably interest on the part of the national debt caused by military spending), and most or all veteran expenditures should be counted. (The only reason I quibble on veteran expenditures is if some of the expenditures are for things that they would still be getting if they weren't veterans, I have no knowledge about that. Do elderly veterans health benefits displace some of what they would get under Medicare if they were non-veterans? )

On Edit: It is my understanding that the entire Energy Department budget is discretionary spending, so .... maybe the nuclear weapons portion is included in the $739 billion number?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #53)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 05:20 PM

57. Like I said, I agree it's about 1/3 of total spending. The chart showing more than 50% is...

...some form of discretionary spending. No need to start accusing people of lying, right?

I believe the $739b figure is the Defense Dept budget that's used at the typical figure.

The discretionary spending data seems very murky precisely because of the matter of veteran support for past wars. Can we even consider war debts as discretionary spending? Debt is debt.

I think it's probably much more useful to focus on the total defense spending figure of over a trillion. I'll definitely need to update the OP to focus on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #57)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 02:19 PM

60. T H A N K S

#57. Like I said, I agree it's about 1/3 of total spending. The chart showing more than 50% is ...some form of discretionary spending. No need to start accusing people of lying, right?

I was referring to your OP and post #32 as they were before the Aug 27 edits (the edits were done after my #53 was posted). I'm very happy and relieved to see the edit change in #32 and the OP, and I am feeling that you are dedicated to providing factual information as opposed to what I call "Dem Porn" which is when someone deliberately misleads or lies to make a stronger case (at the expense of credibility). I acknowledge that #37 also clarified the situation.

Can we even consider war debts as discretionary spending? Debt is debt.

I assume this is interest on some portion of the national debt due to military spending. I only quickly glanced at your
http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175361/ link in the OP and #58, and he's counting 39% of the debt as war debt. Seems a bit high, but if it was cranked down to say 33%, it wouldn't change the grand total that much so not a big deal. I haven't dug into why he uses 39% so he might have valid reasons. Whether to count it at all I think might be dubious, as it is kind of like we're counting spending that we don't pay for (by not collecting enough taxes) twice: we count the expenditure, and then we count the interest charges that result because we borrowed rather than paid for it.

The same argument could be made by a rightie for Head Start and the school lunch program and things like that which most of us cherish -- some portion of the national debt results from these expenditures, again because we choose not to tax ourselves enough to pay for all our expenditures. But most of us would cry foul if the righties claimed that Head Start or whatever cost what Head Start nominally cost plus some proportionate share of interest on the national debt. Just one way to look at it I guess.


v---v----

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #53)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 05:33 PM

58. For the talking points, I'm going with $1 trillion

http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175361/

That includes base defense budget plus various classified security budgets, plus foreign affairs security spending,

$1,219.2 billion
- $129.3 billion (for veterans costs even though this involves some costs from current deployment, too)
- $68.5 billion (for pensions)

= $1,021.4 billion

A terribly kind rounding makes that an even $1 trillion.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Fri Aug 24, 2012, 11:50 PM

35. BOOKMARKED for use at high school reunion next month.

THANKS!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Sat Aug 25, 2012, 12:35 AM

36. Thank you for all the info..

I've bookmarked it... for reference..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Sat Aug 25, 2012, 07:46 AM

39. Finance Sectors vs Manufacturing Sectors, Imports/Exports



http://www.nam.org/Statistics-And-Data/Facts-About-Manufacturing/Landing.aspx

* The United States is the world's largest manufacturing economy, producing 21 percent of global manufactured products. China is second at 15 percent and Japan is third at 12 percent.
* U.S. manufacturing produces $1.7 trillion of value each year, or 11.7 percent of U.S. GDP. For every $1.00 spent in manufacturing, another $1.35 is added to the economy.
* Manufacturing supports an estimated 17 million jobs in the U.S.—about one in six private sector jobs. Nearly 12 million Americans (or 9 percent of the workforce) are employed directly in manufacturing.
* In 2010, the average U.S. manufacturing worker earned $77,186 annually, including pay and benefits. The average worker in all industries earned $56,436 annually.
* U.S. manufacturers are the most productive workers in the world—far surpassing the worker productivity of any other major manufacturing economy, leading to higher wages and living standards.
* U.S. manufacturers perform two-thirds of all private sector R&D in the nation, driving more innovation than any other sector.
* Taken alone, U.S. Manufacturing would be the 9th largest economy in the world.











PROFITS



http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/trade-china-has-cost-us-27-million-jobs

2.7m JOBS DISPLACED TO CHINA (very related)



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Sat Aug 25, 2012, 07:53 AM

40. GOP partisanship was effective cause of the S&P AAA Credit Rating reduction

http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563

* "the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics"

* "the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened"

* "we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. "

In other words, the GOP's brinksmanship regarding the debt ceiling and their refusal to allow the President to make good on our commitments is the cause for the first lowering of the US's credit rating in history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Sat Aug 25, 2012, 09:17 AM

41. CBO: Ending High-Income Tax Cuts Would Save Almost $1 Trillio

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Sat Aug 25, 2012, 09:39 AM

42. SUBPOST ABOUT ROMNEY (to be updated)


"Mitt Romney Reaped Huge Tax Benefits Based On 'Active' Role At Bain Capital"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/26/romney-bain-taxes_n_1828816.html

"nearly three-dozen various Goldman funds together valued at between $17.7 million to $50.5 million"
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/01/mitt-romney-goldman-sachs-investments

Yes, Romney also invested in Fannie/Freddie.
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-27/politics/politics_truth-squad-investments_1_fannie-mae-mutual-funds-investments?_s=PMOLITICS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #42)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 12:40 AM

43. And so? I have investments in probably every sizable U.S. company with marketable shares through

mutual funds and index funds, such as Vanguard Extended Market Index Fund, just to name one example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #43)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 07:35 AM

44. Fair points, but not what the interest in his investments is about

Keep in mind, that Romney denied some of his investments back in January when toe-to-toe with Gingrich (who had similar investments).

You know the issue isn't THAT he's invested or merely wealthy. It's how and why he's invested in various things, combined with questions about his taxes and how he made this money.

When other Republicans went after him so hard on the Fannie/Freddie point, I felt that was just pandering, yes.

Nonetheless, I will continue to collect these materials and links.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #44)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 11:40 AM

47. Is it a crime against humanity to have shares in Fannie and Freddie?

Excerpt from the http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-27/politics/politics_truth-squad-investments_1_fannie-mae-mutual-funds-investments?_s=PMOLITICS link: "Romney's blind trust holds Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-backed housing lenders, according to his public financial disclosure report filed last August with the Federal Election Commission. The financial holdings that are held in a blind trust are overseen by a trustee and are not known to Romney. The same report cites holdings that are not in his blind trust -- including a mutual fund that contains Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The report does not say how much money he has in them. It says only that the mutual fund holding represented between $250,001 and $500,000, which makes up a small portion of Romney's holdings."

Ouch, I guess. I'm having trouble turning that into something I can use for something.

"Keep in mind, that Romney denied some of his investments back in January when toe-to-toe with Gingrich (who had similar investments). ... When other Republicans went after him so hard on the Fannie/Freddie point, I felt that was just pandering, yes. "

Frankly, though I'm a news junkie, I missed all that. Oh, I vaguely remember the Gingrich - Romney exchange at a debate, but remember wondering so what? I'm in invested in funds by a number of mutual fund companies and brokerages. Maybe some of your other readers missed it too, or its significance. Or the significance of any of this.

Now when it comes to unknown amounts in Swiss banks and the Cayman Islands, that I get, and use in my message board wars... along with being a pioneer in outsourcing.

Nonetheless, I will continue to collect these materials and links.

Fantastic!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #47)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 11:18 AM

49. It's a matter of hypocrisy, that's all

I'm not a journalist with who thinks in terms of "your readers" or whatever. I'm just collecting information and think it's time to start gathering accurate information about Romney's finances and his positions on economic matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #47)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 11:19 AM

50. And for the record, I consider the entire dialogue about fannie/freddie...

to be a red herring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #50)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 12:49 PM

51. "And for the record, I consider the entire dialogue about fannie/freddie... to be a red herring."

Me too. I'm still wondering why its bad to have a little Fannie or Freddie stock in a multi-gazillion dollar blind trust much made up of mutual funds each containing dozens of stocks. Maybe some of your other readers are wondering too.

It's a matter of hypocrisy, that's all

Hypocrisy? How so? I'm just not following at all. Maybe some of your other readers are wondering too.

I'm not a journalist with who thinks in terms of "your readers" or whatever. I'm just collecting information and think it's time to start gathering accurate information about Romney's finances and his positions on economic matters.

Just asking a question for my own understanding. Maybe your other readers are wondering too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #51)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 01:12 PM

52. "I'm still wondering why its bad"

And I keep wondering why you keep asking since I don't remember saying it was? And I keep wondering why you keep talking about "your readers" as if this isn't a discussion forum. I think OUR fellow posters understand what I'm saying.

But yea, it's hypocrisy for Romney to go after Gingrich on that and to stand with a party that's tried very hard to say the entire economic collapse is because of fannie/freddy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #52)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 01:38 PM

54. I was just wondering the significance of the fannie/freddie mention in #42. Thank you.

#42. Yes, Romney also invested in Fannie/Freddie.
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-27/politics/politics_truth-squad-investments_1_fannie-mae-mutual-funds-investments?_s=PMOLITICS

#52. But yea, it's hypocrisy for Romney to go after Gingrich on that and to stand with a party that's tried very hard to say the entire economic collapse is because of fannie/freddy.


OK, now I get it. Thank you. (Though anyone who invests in mutual funds or ETFs knows that there are always some stocks in companies in them that are not 100% politically correct. I'm sure I own some tobacco companies as a result of having some Vanguard S&P 500 Index Fund for example).

And I keep wondering why you keep talking about "your readers" as if this isn't a discussion forum. I think OUR fellow posters understand what I'm saying.

OK. Like I said, though I'm a news junkie, I missed/forgot the Fannie/Freddie thing in the debates. I'm glad that I have my fellow DUers as a resource to explain things to those of us who are slower, more forgetful (that happens as we age), and or busy working and raising families to follow every primary debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #54)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 04:54 PM

56. I was just cutting stuff from old fact check pages lol

And Newt/Romney spat over this seemed to have been extremely localized and only came up in 1, maybe 2, debates.

I think the issue died down precisely because all it did was serve to highlight the GOP's hypocrisy on this red herring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 07:41 AM

46. Pew Article On The Worst Decade In Modern History

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 01:45 PM

55. Good discussion and graphs on household incomes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 05:39 PM

59. k&r nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 07:46 PM

61. great

info-talking points

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 07:53 PM

62. Great work CabCurious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 06:05 PM

63. Kicking, because this thread is awesome and should be bookmarked by everybody. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 01:18 PM

64. Kickety Kick!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Tue Sep 18, 2012, 05:16 PM

65. Graph of rising productivity and stagnant wages and household incomes. Plus growing inequality stats


URL for above (replace the {dot} with . ): http://anticap.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/fig2_prodhhincome{dot}jpg

See also #28 above in the present 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 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 following is a pithy summary of much of the above for the message board wars:

In inflation-adjusted dollars -- 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 has gone to the top 1%. Their share of the nation's income has increased from about 9% to 24%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #65)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 12:48 AM

74. Inequality - a collection of graphics - Money Masters, Created by: ForensicAccounting.net

A collection of graphics on inequality - Money Masters, Created by: ForensicAccounting.net


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #74)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 12:37 AM

78. Inequality - Viral Video Shows the Extent of U.S. Wealth Inequality

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Tue Sep 18, 2012, 09:21 PM

66. bookmarking

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Fri Sep 21, 2012, 10:00 AM

68. Excellent information

Thank you CabCurious!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 09:10 PM

69. Some more graphics. The food price inflation one is interesting (ouch). Glad I gave up food



URL of above: http://supermarketnews.com/site-files/supermarketnews.com/files/uploads/2012/09/supermarketnewscom_09.17.12
.jpg

See comments at:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021382244

More on the food inflation --
(1.022)*(1.038)*(1.019)*(1.017)*(1.042)*(1.064)*(1.005)*(1.003)*(1.048)=1.2876

The average annual increase is only about 2.848%. But over 9 years, it reaches ouch territory. 1.02848^9 = 1.2875 close enough to 1.2876.

A $500/month food budget for a family over the course of the last 9 years, grew to 1.2876*500=$644

In the graphic, although it doesn't say so, all those median household income figures are inflation-adjusted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 11:31 PM

70. Fantastic compilation

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 07:19 PM

71. DAYUM! I don't know how I missed this one! FABULOUS!!!

Great thanks to DUer Tennessee Gal for citing some of these VERY useful details!

This is solid gold! Platinum. Gold-pressed latinum, even!

THANK YOU for compiling this maybe-the-best-and-most-practically-useful-thread-EVER!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Mon Oct 1, 2012, 10:15 PM

73. EF 0. Economy facts - tons of numbers to refer to in message board wars. With official sources

The complete set of topics below is at http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439

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

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 (forewarned is forearmed).

I am including EF 1. below as a sample. But please realize that the other sections -- EF 2 through EF 6 are at http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439

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

Factoids (official source follows):

# Under Obama there have been 30 straight months of private sector job growth (since February 2010), totaling 4.6 million jobs (thru August 2012 with July & August preliminary). Total job growth during this period is 4.1 million jobs ( 0.5 million government jobs were lost ).

# The economy Bush handed to Obama lost 4.3 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 2.28 million jobs just in his last 3 months -- an average of 760,000 lost jobs a month (the average of the last 3 months of the Bush presidency).

# 2.8 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 August 2012 with July & August preliminary) . Bush only created 1.1 million payroll jobs in his entire 8 year presidency

# 3.5 million private sector jobs were created under Obama since June 2009 (thru August 2012 with July & August preliminary) (contrast that to Bush destroying 0.7 million private sector jobs during his presidency)

# Bush's record: created 1.1 million payroll jobs - by creating 1.8 million government jobs and destroying 0.7 million private sector jobs. ( the actual numbers are, in thousands: 1,080, 1,753, 673 ). 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 30 months to Bush's entire presidency, then here are 3 comparable comparisons:

(1.) Comparing the last 30 months of Bush and Obama (so far, thru August 2012): Bush lost 2.6 million jobs, while Obama gained 4.1 million jobs.

(2.) Comparing the comparable 30 months of Bush and Obama's first term (3/1/02 thru 8/31/04 for Bush, 3/1/10 thru 8/31/12 for Obama): Bush gained 1.2 million jobs, while Obama gained 4.1 million jobs.

(3.) Comparing the first 43 months of Bush and Obama (from the beginning of each's first term through August 2004 (for Bush) and through August 2012 (for Obama)): Bush lost 856,000 jobs, while Obama lost 261,000 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 -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/125198174

However, 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 22.7 million payroll jobs of which 20.8 million were in the private sector

# If some rightie claims that Obama increased the federal workforce (as if that was bad), well that is true: Obama increased the federal workforce by 143,000, or 5.1%. But note that Romney as governor increased the number of Massachusetts state employees by 5.5%. Source: "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/

Job Creation of record of post-WWII Presidents With Completed Terms, 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)

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%



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 compares all post-WWII presidents on a term by term basis, with and without a 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."

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

===============================================================================
For topics EF 2 through EF 6 please see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 03:25 PM

75. Dem presidents beat Repub ones: Disposable income, GDP, profits, stock market, national debt,...

(Below was lifted from ProfessionalLeftist's posting at http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021593080 )

• Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents

• Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents

• Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)

• Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)

• Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents

• The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations

======================================================
More at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 12:04 AM

76. Wealth of members of Congress

Discussion: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021886725

Graphics from above thread:





Proportional Income Comparisons - circle areas proportional to incomes (or is it circle diameters supposed to be proportional to incomes?) :

(to me, it sure doesn't look proportional by area, that is, for example, the upper middle class circle should be 154131/42327 = 3.6 X the area of the middle class circle, but it looks like at least 10 middle class circles would fit in the upper middle class circle -- well, (after blowing it way way up) the upper middle class circle has a diameter of 34 mm, and the middle class circle has a diameter of 7 mm on my display (a ratio of 34/7 = 4.86), meaning the area of the latter is, using Area = Pi * radius^2: (Pi*17^2) / (Pi*3.5^2) = 23.6 X the area of the former. Similarly comparing other circles to each other -- areas are definitely far far away from being proportional to income. But anyway the numbers are interesting. )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:43 PM

77. Job Creation - Another graph, through October 2012

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Original post)

Sat Jun 7, 2014, 09:50 PM

79. More on Inequality

All below earlier posted by TBF ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024723619#post11 )

Guess whose getting the tax breaks:



Guess who has 2/3 of the wealth in this country (actually nearly 3/4):



The top 1% are sitting pretty:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread