129,000 jobs last month ( minimum needed is about 300,000), lowest labor participation rate ever, GDP for the first quarter just less than 1%, stagnant wages for the last 7 years, more people on government assistance than ever before; now that's a recovery! middle income wages lower than in 2009, 1% 'income' up from 2009.....

he Obama family is doing ok and so are his political enemies.

But the U.S. recovery... I have asked this before. They say there is no recovery. This is the now.
If you can't survive
or
if you have to live poor your entire life. That's the way it is. Like it is in the so called 3rd world and other places and situations.
I for one, don't care as there is cheap stuff around (food, girls,..), cheap store (99c only, )
They don't sell, they don't hire, they don't work, they don't buy. I've known how to survive so far so whatever with their "recovery"

END OF MESSAGE

can you provide different data than what I stated? didn't see anything in your response that indicated my info was incorrect?  
(btw,u are better off than in '09? if yes, will you admit to being part of the 1%?)

But actually, it will only last until our currency collapses due to skyrocketing debt (8 trillion in 6 years, frightening).

END OF MESSAGE

The unemployment rate is down but the more important metric is the labor participation rate which is at 62.7%, is a 10 year low which is NOT a good thing AND the trend line is going in the wrong direction.  The Labor Participation Rate is a  much better tool for understanding how bad unemployment really is because the unemployment rate does not include people who have become discouraged and are out of the job market.  The participation rate reflects that many more people are out of work than any time in the last 10 years. Also keep in mind that the job creation rate is very low and almost 60% of the jobs being created are part time, partly due to Obama Care concerns and costs.  

Add to this the fact that growth in the first quarter which unexpectedly has come in close to ZERO (ok, O.1%) (see link to the Atlanta Fed).  Bottom line, very poor economic news.  

 

 

 

http://www.frbatlanta.org/cqer/researchcq/gdpnow.cfm

END OF MESSAGE

Because someone told you?

Where the fuck are you getting these numbers?  

Not from reliable sources which is used by the market. You can and may discredit every number and believe in the numbers concocted by your BSC cohorts but the truth is, Wall Street, and  rest of the world goes by official data. In other words, you believe and argue like dumb ass with your numbers but no one except you and your BSC compatriots are using them.

Value of the dollar, Commodity prices, stock prices are all move based on the official data published by the US Government. En d of subject. Now, I am going to go talk to people with brains

Economy collapsed under his watch.

Economy recovered under Obama’s watch

Facts are facts and crazies are clueless.

END OF MESSAGE

Yes facts are facts, but there is not necessarily any linkage.  I'd say the Fed policies have had a bigger impact than Obama on the economy.

That is the case with every POTUS Democrat or Republican. Being that said, POTUS can really fuck it up by not regulating markets as Bush did which led to the economic collapse.

According to FactCheck there is plenty of blame to go around, including Bill Clinton.  But yes the Bush Administration was in place when things crashed.  Whether another administration would have prevented the crash we will never know, but there were very few voices speaking up against the housing market, none of whom obviously caught the ear of either Congress or the administration.  Remember what Barney Frank said about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac???

Another President with any sense of economics would not cut funding for SEC nor would they have given director level jobs to their cronies as Bush did.  

I am not saying, there is no cronyism. Atlas other Presidents appointed intelligent cronies.

The Community Reinvestment Act, sign into law by Bill Clinton and supported overwhelmingly by Democrats, required banks to give loans to people who had no chance of paying them back. These loans were then sold off. This continued for a decade until there were no more buyers. There was nothing Bush could have done about this other than use taxpayer money to buy the loans. You could call this the Bailout. The idea that deregulation is in any way responsible for the crash in 2008 is nonsense. And the idea that that crash has permanently broken the economy, hence companies hesitant to invest 7 years later, is ludicrous.

.and after 6+ years of having a King rule, here is where we are (facts not opinion)....

129,000 jobs last month ( minimum needed is about 300,000), lowest labor participation rate ever, GDP for the first quarter just less than 1%, stagnant wages for the last 7 years, more people on government assistance than ever before; now that's a recovery! middle income wages lower than in 2009, 1% 'income' up from 2009....

for mis managing the economy.

Don’t even go there.

Exactly where did I go wrong?

I know you won't have an answer. I just want anyone reading to see how empty accusations coming from the loons of the Left really are. -- Modified on 4/9/2015 9:30:24 PM

main reason being wing nuts think nations economy and personal finance are one and the same so they cannot comprehend economics, even at ECO 101 level.

 
 

...then maybe you should have joined the Occupy movement.

ou spoke sense to the senseless.
You were logical to the illogical.
You were intelligent to the intellectually deficient.  
You were reasonable to the unreasonable.  

I could keep going…

 
Thank yo

You just showed us all how well you comprehend economics.

another response with not an inkling of a factoid...so I ignore it