Unemployment Down to 6.1%, 288,000 Jobs Added in June.. Republicans, It's Time to Minimize Good News For America

Robert J Sakimano wrote:GO!!

http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/03/investing/june-jobs-report/index.html

Hut1hut2 wrote:

The labor force participation rate is 62.8%, which is awful. Most the new jobs created are part time.

Again, this amateur mismanaged the economy. Romney, Hillary, Kerry, etc would have done much better.

That said, hope the gains continue for many months - too many good people not working.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:  

thanks for playing..   

Hut1hut2 wrote:

Facts hurt? The labor participation rate is a better number than the unemployment rate to gage health of the economy, but I am sure you already knew that.

Hut1hut2 wrote:

Facts hurt? The labor participation rate is a better number than the unemployment rate to gage health of the economy, but I am sure you already knew that.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
Bin Laden, dead.. mastermind of Benghazi attack - caught.. record high Dow.. unemployment at 6.1% and 200,000+ jobs have been added in each of the last 6 months..
Forgive me for stating a fact. Like only 45% of Americans are working full time as of June.
I'd say that the facts feel pretty good. Of course, I'm actually a fan of America succeeding and doing well.

Turtleneck wrote:

Hard to take anybody seriously that thinks a single individual is responsible for a good or bad market economy.

Hut1hut2 wrote:

Right. Economic policy plays no role in the health of an economy.  

Turtleneck wrote:

My bad. I forgot that the executive branch alone makes policy. I mean, it's right there in Article II of the Constitution. It's as plain as day. What was I thinking. The executive branch is the policy-making branch.

In all seriousness, the president contributes to a broader policy-making environment. First, we live in a global marketplace so global affairs are relevant to health of national economies. Second, Congress is relevant to any discussion of the economy, as is the politically insulated Federal Reserve. Furthermore, in a federal system, state and local policy also matter. Beyond that, in a market economy, firms make independent decisions (within policy frameworks established at various levels of government) that impact their fate. The president is not solely responsible for a good economy or a bad economy. There are a lot of other players involved. The problem is that any president is in a rush to take credit for a good economy, which means they have to take responsibility for a bad economy. You're not going to find one that will say "Well, that great economy is not really my doing."

Hut1hut2 wrote:
Agree. Only would add that the insane amount of executive decisions bypassing congress places more credit or blame at tObama.

Turtleneck wrote:

My bad. I forgot that the executive branch alone makes policy. I mean, it's right there in Article II of the Constitution. It's as plain as day. What was I thinking. The executive branch is the policy-making branch.

In all seriousness, the president contributes to a broader policy-making environment. First, we live in a global marketplace so global affairs are relevant to health of national economies. Second, Congress is relevant to any discussion of the economy, as is the politically insulated Federal Reserve. Furthermore, in a federal system, state and local policy also matter. Beyond that, in a market economy, firms make independent decisions (within policy frameworks established at various levels of government) that impact their fate. The president is not solely responsible for a good economy or a bad economy. There are a lot of other players involved. The problem is that any president is in a rush to take credit for a good economy, which means they have to take responsibility for a bad economy. You're not going to find one that will say "Well, that great economy is not really my doing."

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
you're not trying to have a rational conversation with a right wing nut, are you?

Turtleneck wrote:

Please note I began the post with the necessary amount of sarcasm needed to post here.

Turtleneck wrote:

Please note I began the post with the necessary amount of sarcasm needed to post here.