Obama's Job Killing Policies Forcing the US into the Full Employment Zone.

[Nice Squirrel]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/06/february-jobs-report_n_6811564.html

More from the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. employers extended a healthy streak of hiring in February by adding 295,000 jobs, the 12th straight monthly gain above 200,000.

The Labor Department said Friday that the unemployment rate fell to 5.5 percent from 5.7 percent. But the decline in the rate occurred mainly because some people out of work stopped looking for jobs and were no longer counted as unemployed.

The strong job gains weren't enough to boost wages by much. The average hourly wage rose just 3 cents in February to $24.78 an hour.

Still, over the past 12 months, 3.3 million more Americans have gotten jobs. More jobs and lower gas prices have led many consumers to step up spending. That's boosting the economy, offsetting sluggish economies overseas and giving employers the confidence to hire

Obviously the obstructionist Republicans in Congress are working to correct this.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Some businesses have been trying to get more done with less for too long and are having to hire now. Of course, Management for corporations look like geniuses, having a skeleton crew doing the work that was available in '06, so higher profits... meaning genius management skills, not burned out skeleton crew.

 

[SimpleDon]

Preventing full employment pretty much tops the Republicans' agenda. With full employment comes higher wages. Higher wages means lower profits.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think it's nice that the effects of Bush's economic policies are finally kicking in and beginning to show positive results, despite the negative economic impact of Obama's economic policies slowing down the gains.

 

[dismal]

I think it's nice that the effects of Bush's economic policies are finally kicking in and beginning to show positive results, despite the negative economic impact of Obama's economic policies slowing down the gains.

It's also possible that much of the economic activity in the country has relatively little to do with who is currently the President.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I think it's nice that the effects of Bush's economic policies are finally kicking in and beginning to show positive results, despite the negative economic impact of Obama's economic policies slowing down the gains.

It's also possible that much of the economic activity in the country has relatively little to do with who is currently the President.

You mean the Republicans are wrong?

 

[Axulus]

Incomes are good enough to where, for the first time ever, people spend more money eating out than buying items at grocery stores:

It's a good sign for incomes but it also means more lower wage jobs (which is still better than no jobs).

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think it's nice that the effects of Bush's economic policies are finally kicking in and beginning to show positive results, despite the negative economic impact of Obama's economic policies slowing down the gains.

It's also possible that much of the economic activity in the country has relatively little to do with who is currently the President.

That's only true in two situations:

1) I like the President and the economy is doing badly
2) I don't like the President and the economy is doing well

Since I like this President and the economy is doing well, it's all because of Obama. It's only if it starts doing poorly again that it will be due to factors beyond his control.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's also possible that much of the economic activity in the country has relatively little to do with who is currently the President.

You mean the Republicans are wrong?

And this is where poor ole dismal is having trouble understanding the point of the OP. The Republicans have been railing about how the economy has been decimated by Obama. The evidence provided indicates the economy hasn't actually been decimated at all. dismal would like to make people become distracted over how much influence the government has with the recovery, but the point of the OP was to note that the economy isn't in tatters.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We are nowhere near full employment.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We are nowhere near full employment.

With all of the retiring population and lost jobs from those retirements, I don't know if we have a clue what full employment would look like.

 

[dismal]

You mean the Republicans are wrong?

And this is where poor ole dismal is having trouble understanding the point of the OP. The Republicans have been railing about how the economy has been decimated by Obama. The evidence provided indicates the economy hasn't actually been decimated at all. dismal would like to make people become distracted over how much influence the government has with the recovery, but the point of the OP was to note that the economy isn't in tatters.

So you're saying politicians aggrandize the role of politicians and partisans are partisan?

Shocking.

Fortunately only the other party is guilty of this, right?[/partisan]

 

[Axulus]

It's also possible that much of the economic activity in the country has relatively little to do with who is currently the President.

You mean the Republicans are wrong?

They were wrong about pretty much everything. Here is a series of 10 charts I compiled to counter all the doom and gloom about Obama "destroying the economy". However, I do agree with dismal to an extent - the president doesn't have as much effect on economic activity as politicians want to claim. All politicians who make such claims are wrong in that respect.