HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » progree » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Minnesota
Member since: Sat Jan 1, 2005, 03:45 AM
Number of posts: 3,881

Journal Archives

Economic Statistics with links to official sources, data rev 12/2/16, notes added 10/28/17

{#} 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 88%. You might see claims that he that he has 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. [BELOW I HAVE AT normal.xls Sheet 2]

[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] National Debt in Billions of Dollars

[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] Public IntraGov Total
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"]1/20/2009 6,307 4,320 10,627 Obama inaugurated
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"]1/20/2017 14,404 5,544 19,947 Trump inaugurated
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"]% Increase 128% 28% 88%

[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"]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: 14,192 B$. The latest GDP number (2016 Q2 Final) as of 10/7/16 is 18,450 B$ ( http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm , and search the page for "Current-dollar GDP" and include the hyphen). Thus the debt to GDP ratio on this basis is: 14,192 / 18,450 = 77%. (Using the total national debt, the debt to GDP ratio is 19,689 / 18,450 = 107%).

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$, an increase of 4,899 B$ (86%). The debt during the Obama administration has increased from 10,627 B$ to 19,947 B$, an increase of 9,320 B$ -- a larger dollar increase ($4.4 trillion more) in Obama's 8 years 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.

National Debt as Percent of GDP
January 1, 2001: 56.8 % (19 days before Clinton left office and Bush took office)
January 7, 2016: 105.2 % (19,170 / 18,221)

In 15 years the debt AS A PERCENT OF GDP has almost doubled (1.85 X)
Italy with a debt to GDP ratio of 120% (Feb. 26, 2013) is one of the five "PIIGS" countries of the European debt crisis. Thanks to the unpaid-for tax cuts and 2 wars on the national credit card, the Medicare Part D give-away to the pharmaceutical companies and the Great Recession, G.W. Bush!


National Debt as Percent of GDP
62.7% 1993 Q1 - When Bush I left office and Clinton took office
54.9% 2001 Q1 - When Clinton left office and Bush II took office
77.4% 2009 Q1 - When Bush II left office and Obama took office
105.0% 2016 Q2 - latest on this graph

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

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

Unfortunately, it only goes through 2010 so I'll update:
[font color = red]Rep House[/font], [font color = blue]Dem Senate, Dem President[/font] <- 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
[font color = red]Rep House, Rep Senate[/font], [font color = blue]Dem President[/font] <- 2015, 2016
[font color = red]Rep House, Rep Senate[/font], [font color = red]Rep President[/font] <- 2017, 2018

And at the end of 2015, the debt to GDP ratio was 104%

Another going back to 1790 and projected to 2038:


The "debt doesn't matter" folks will point to the World War II peak and say -- see, we managed much more debt (relative to GDP) than today, no big deal. What they leave out is that after World War II, the U.S. had no serious competition in manufacturing -- former competitors Europe and Japan were devastated, and the Soviet Union was uncompetitive in world markets. Contrast that to today where most of the rest of the world are serious competitors.

Wikipedia on History of the U.S. Public Debt (more graphs and tables)


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 - 2015, in $Billions

Fiscal year 2015 ended September 30, 2015. Similarly for all the other fiscal years.

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

[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] v-last Bush budget was FY 2009 (all figures are actuals, not budgeted)
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Fiscal Year
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] 2,983 3,518 3,457 3,603 3,537 3,454 Total Outlays, $Billions
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] (450) (1,413) (1,294) (1,300) (1,087) (680) Surplus (deficit), $Billions
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] (3.1) (9.8) (8.7) (8.5) (6.8) (4.1) Surplus (deficit), % of GDP

[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] 2014 2015 Fiscal Year
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] 3,504 3,688 Total Outlays, $Billions
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] (483) (439) Surplus (deficit), $Billions
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] (2.8) (2.5) Surplus (deficit), % of GDP

Update: the FY 2016 deficit was $585 Billion, and the FY 2017 deficit was $666 Billion

And yes, the above numbers include payroll tax receipts (including Social Security) and Social Security benefits expenditures, since the above are unified budget numbers.

. . . https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50974 which links to the complete document at
. . . https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/50974-MBR1.pdf
. . . See also https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017/assets/hist01z1.xls
(Table 1.1) for receipts, outlays, and surplus (Historic tables are listed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals ).

Source for the 2008 numbers (and 2009 thru 2012 except a couple of the later years were revised by the document above):
. . . http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43698 which links to the complete document at
. . . https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/112th-congress-2011-2012/reports/43698-Nov-MBR.pdf

So FY 2015 federal spending is 170 B$ (4.8%) more than FY 2009 (the last Bush budgeted year).

Since the nominal (current dollar) GDP increased by 25.56% between FY 2009 (a recession low point) and FY 2015 (see next paragraph), while federal spending increased 4.8%, that means federal spending as a percentage of GDP dropped substantially during those 6 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) = $14,384.1 billion . GDP FY 2015 (2015 Q3) = $18,060.2 billion -- an increase of 25.56% 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 2015 = Q4 2014 through Q3 2015.

FY 2009: Spending / GDP = 3518/14384 = 24.46% . FY 2015: Spending / GDP = 3688/18060 = 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 2015 deficit (439 B$) is less than 1/3 of what Obama inherited (1413 B$)

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

{#} The FY 2015 deficit (439 B$) - Treasury Department, 10/15/15

AFP story: http://news.yahoo.com/us-budget-deficit-falls-8-low-2015-194021330.html
AP story: http://news.yahoo.com/us-budget-gap-2015-439-billion-lowest-8-193452668--finance.html

The deficit is at 2.5% of GDP, the lowest level since 2007, and below the average of the past 40 years.

The figure for 2015, the fiscal year which ended September 30, was down $44 billion from 2014.

Revenue rose 8 percent in 2015 to $3.25 trillion and spending 5 percent to $3.69 trillion.

That was helped by an 11.0 percent rise in individual income-tax receipts, and a 7.2 percent rise in corporate tax revenues.

The 2015 deficit could prove to be the smallest for some time. The projected deficit for the fiscal year 2016 just begun is projected to rise to $455 billion, and to continue to rise for several years at least as both the economy and budget grow.

The Congressional Budget Office expects the deficit's downward trend to continue for a couple of more years but says long-term trends, driven by the continuing retirement of the baby Boom generation and its effect on benefit programs like Medicare and Social Security, will likely cause an eventual fiscal crisis.

{#} Fiscal year 2016 deficit: $587 billion, a $148 billion increase over FY 2015's 439 B$ deficit (a 34% increase), 10/14/16


So it looks like the era of rising deficits has begun (as the CBO has been warning for years), after 6 straight years of falling deficits.

The ratio of debt to gross economic product -- which measures the weight of debt on the economy -- jumped from 2.5% in fiscal 2015 to 3.2% in fiscal 2016.

{#} Fiscal year 2017 deficit: $666 billion, a $79 billion increase over FY 2016's 585 B$ deficit (a 13.5% increase), 10/20/17

DU posting: https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141894319

AP story: https://apnews.com/cdad0f0a5cba432587bd08c6b8617c19/Budget-deficit-hits-$666B,-an-$80B-spike-for-the-year

{#} Some interesting national debt graphs / tables [THIS NEEDS UPDATING!!!]

As of end of 2015 Q4 (i.e. 12/31/15):

* Foreigners owned 32.6% of the total national (federal govt) debt

* in 5 years (2015 Q4 / 2010 Q4) the increase in the foreign-owned part of the national debt was 1729.8/4897.0 = 35.3% of the increase in the total national debt. Or to put it another way, more than 1/3 of the recent increases in the national debt is being financed by foreigners: foreign investors, institutions, and governments

Foreign ownership of U.S. national debt: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FDHBFIN?cid=5
National debt, $millions: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GFDEBTN

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

(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)


Foreign ownership in March 2015 is $6.18 Trillion, per AP, 5/16/15
# China: $1.26 Trillion, Japan: $1.23 Trillion
# Foreign governments, primarily through their central banks, account for two-thirds of the foreign holdings.
# A group of oil exporting nations, which includes Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Algeria, Venezuela and Nigeria: $297.3 billion, the third largest holding, after China and Japan.
# Caribbean banking centers, a group that includes the Bahamas and the Cayman Islands: $293 billion, the fourth largest holding.

2015 Q4 (i.e. 12/31/2015):
. . Foreign ownership of U.S. national debt: $6,165.8 Billion, per {1} below
. . National debt: $18,922.2 Billion, per {2} below
. . Percent of national debt foreign owned: 6,165.8/18,922.2 = 32.6%

{1} https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FDHBFIN?cid=5
{2} http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/search?startMonth=12&startDay=31&startYear=2015&endMonth=&endDay=&endYear=

Table OFS-2 at Treasury.gov shows foreign ownership of the federal debt (33.6% of 18,151)
Click on Current Issue
Click on Ownership of Federal Securities ==>
` ` ` https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/treasBulletin/b2016_1ofs.doc [ I have this saved]
` ` ` 9/30/2015: Total public debt: 18,151 , Foreign and International: 6,103 ( =33.6% of 18,151 )

Foreign holders of U.S. Treasury Securities, by month over past year, in order from largest holder to smallest holder

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

(To see data: click "Last 5 Observations" just above the graph. Or click "View Data" from the top left-side menu)

Why the National Debt Matters

The interest that the government pays on the debt -- which mostly goes to foreigners and the top 1% in the U.S. -- sucks up a lot of tax revenue, leaving less for spending on programs that help the rest of us.

See below on the interest on the national debt.

Beyond a certain point, of course, like with the PIIGS nations and Puerto Rico, investors will demand higher returns, which could lead to a death spiral if the growth of debt relative to the size of the economy continues.

{#} Interest on the national debt

In fiscal year 2014 it was $430.8 billion (apparently including interest to government trust funds like Social Security) per

This one -- counting only the debt held by the public (i.e. excluding government trust funds), said the interest on that part of the federal debt in 2014 was $229 billion, or 7% of the federal budget.

CBO: Interest on federal debt will triple over coming decade (Washington Post Wonk Blog 1/26/15)


Interest payments are also poised to rise, both because of an expected rise in interest rates from the recent historic lows and because of a rising government debt, which the CBO said would hit 100 percent of GDP in 25 years ((talking about just the publicly held portion of the debt -Progree)). The interest payments ((on the publicly held debt)) alone are expected to hit $227 billion this year, more than double to $480 billion by 2019 and more than triple to $722 billion by 2024.

It said that federal spending would rise from 20.3 percent of GDP in 2015 to 22.3 percent in 2025 largely because of the aging population and increases in Social Security and Medicare programs.

But it said that there would be “a significant projected decline in discretionary spending relative to the size of the economy.” Unless Congress chooses to alter spending caps in current budget law, that would result in a squeeze on a variety of programs including defense, education, homeland security and a host of other areas. ((So the CBO is apparently assuming in its projections that the sequester budget caps will remain in effect))

Interest on the national debt to rise from 1.0% of GDP to 3.0% by 2023 (in just 7 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.)

National Debt On Track To Hit 141% Of GDP As Outlook Worsens -- CBO ((actually the debt held by the public to hit 141% of GDP by 2046, up sharply from last year's forecast of 111%. Its currently at 75.4% per the article)).

## Annual deficits to increase from 2.9% of GDP this year to 8.0% of GDP in 2046.
## Interest payments to shoot up from 1.4% of GDP now to 5.8% of GDP in 2046.
## Social Security Trust Fund exhaustion date: 2030 per CBO, just 14 years from now (2034 per SS Trustees) ),
Source: Investors Business Daily, 7/12/16 http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/the-nations-debt-crisis-just-got-a-whole-lot-worse/

U.S. debt held by public to reach 150 percent of GDP in 30 years: CBO, Reuters, 3/30/17

## Expects the interest cost on the national debt to be 1.4% of GDP in 2017 and 6.2% in 2047 (30 years from now)

National debt burden could increase by almost $10 trillion in the coming decade - CBO 3/24/2016.

After a $96 billion increase in the deficit this fiscal year, the U.S. will go deeper and deeper into the red to pay for Social Security and Medicare, projections from the Congressional Budget Office show. The public debt burden could swell by almost $10 trillion in the coming decade as a result ( https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51384 ).

White House projects a fiscal year 2016 deficit of $600 billion, a $161 Billion increase over FY 2015's 439 B$ deficit, AP, 7/15/16
So it looks like the era of rising deficits has begun, after 6 straight years of falling deficits. As the CBO has been warning for a number of years.

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 (followed by a December 2015 update where the situation is virtually unchanged)

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 -- as of 5/2/16 the yield gap between 10 year and 30 year bonds is 0.83 percentage points, up from 0.20 percentage points in mid 2007.

Treasury Yields: 5/2/16: 10 Year: 1.88%, 30 Year: 2.71%, difference: 0.83%
. . https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yield

I think the maturity information in the Reuters article above comes from the below link, which I updated to December 2015}}

Federal Debt (Word document) - Obtained from:
. . https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/treasBulletin/treasBulletin_home.htm
. . Click on Current Issue
. . Click on Federal Debt ==> https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/treasBulletin/b2016_1fd.doc

Per this link, from Table FD-5, In December 2015, 70.3% of the $10.730 Trillion in privately held debt has a maturity of less that 5 years, and 90.1% has a maturity of less than 10 years. The average maturity was 61 months (5.1 years).

Romney justifies virtually no job growth at his 3 1/2 year point in Mass.

Probably your crazy uncle is telling you that he's tired of hearing "Oblamer" blame Bush for the poor state of the economy and essentially zero job growth since he took office (since January 31, 2009 thru August 31, 2012, under Obama 261,000 jobs have been lost, although he is in positive territory in private sector jobs).

Your crazy uncle also pooh poohs you when you tell him that in the last 30 months, under Obama 4.6 million private sector jobs and 4.1 million total jobs (actually civilian non-farm payroll jobs), have been created, telling you that you are cherry-picking Obama's best months blah dee blah.

# Payroll Jobs: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001
# Private Sector Payroll Employment: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001

Well, Romney in his June 24, 2006 press conference (nearly 3 1/2 years into his governorship of Massachusetts), blamed the economy he inherited for his woeful job record over his entire term, and touted the 50,000 jobs created since the turnaround. Exactly the sort of argument that the righties are criticizing us for making regarding Obama.

Transcript and press-conference video (1:50): http://www.youtube{DOT}com/watch?v=ArRj-dQXX3Y
(replace the {DOT} with . in the above URL. I don't know why it is fighting with me)

TRANSCRIPT:[font color = blue]"You guys are bright enough to look at the numbers. I came in and the jobs had been just falling right off a cliff, I came in and they kept falling for 11 months. And then we turned around and we're coming back and that's progress. And if you are going to suggest to me that somehow the day I got elected, somehow jobs should have immediately turned around, well that would be silly. It takes awhile to get things turned around. We were in a recession, we were losing jobs every month. We've turned around and since the turnaround we've added 50,000 jobs. That's progress. And there will be some people who try and say, 'well Governor, net-net, you've only added a few thousand jobs since you've been in.' Yeah but I helped stop, I didn't do it alone, the economy is a big part of that, the private sector's what drives that -- up and down -- But we were in free fall for three years. And the last year that I happened to be here, and then we turned it around, as a state, private sector, government sector, turned it around. And now we're adding jobs. We wanna keep that going, to the extent we can. We're the, you know, we're one part of that equation, but not the whole equation. A lot of it is outside of our control, it's federal, it's international, it's private sector. But I'm very pleased that over the last a 2, 2 and a half, years we've seen pretty consistent job growth. 50,000 new jobs created, some great companies, we just had, last week, Samsonite announced their headquarters moving here. Companies outside Massachusetts moving in to Massachusetts. That kind of commitment, that kind of decision, says something about what they feel about the future of our state."[/font]

Well, then I wondered, is 50,000 jobs so great for a state the size of Massachusetts? Using July 2011 data, Massachusett's share of the USA population is 6.587 Million / 311.6 Million = 2.1139%. (It would have been better to dig up population numbers more around the 2003-2006 time frame but I doubt that the percentage would be more than slightly different). So on a per-capita basis, 50,000 jobs in Massachusetts is equivalent to 50,000 / 2.1139% = 2.366 Million nationwide jobs.

I'm assuming since the press conference was held in June 24, 2006, that the 50,000 jobs is through the end of May 2006 since they wouldn't have end-of-June numbers in yet.

Well, Obama in a similar point of his presidency -- the end of May 2012, had presided over the creation of 3.744 Million jobs.

So on a per-capita basis since their respective job turnaround points, Obama's job creation record is 3.744 / 2.366 = 1.58 X better (58% better) than Romney's.

And since Romney is "very pleased" with his job creation record in Massachusetts since the turnaround, he should be 1.58 times "very pleased" with Obama's record.

(Note that since Obama took office January 20 (2009) and Romney took office January 2 (2003), I could have moved Obama forward by a month to the end of June. If so, Obama's job creation record through the end of June 2012 is 3.819 Million jobs, and his per-capita record is 3.819 / 2.366 = 1.61 X better (61% better). But I'll settle for the end of May figures. )
Go to Page: 1