What Message Do You Want To Hear At The Democratic National Convention?

[swake]

No, my minor in college was in Economics. The right today drives me nuts from a economic perspective because they usually don't do anything based on economic theory in claiming to act on what is good or bad for the economy. The only time they ever want to talk about economic theory they bring up the Austrian School, which isn't really an economic theory at all, It's really more philosophy than economics.

The driving economic theory of the right is cut taxes and give the military all the money they want and more, period. That's not a real plan, it's certainly not conservative. I have long thought myself socially liberal and economically conservative, I am certainly a capitalist and pro business.

[Red Arrow]

No, my minor in college was in Economics.

That explains a lot.   

[Red Arrow]

President	Took office	Jobs at start	Jobs at end	Change	Pct. change
Truman	4/12/1945	41,443,000	50,145,000	8,702,000	21%
Eisenhower	1/20/1953	50,145,000	53,683,000	3,538,000	7%
Kennedy	1/20/1961	53,683,000	57,255,000	3,572,000	7%
Johnson	11/22/1963	57,255,000	69,438,000	12,183,000	21%
Nixon	1/20/1969	69,438,000	78,619,000	9,181,000	13%
Ford	8/9/1974	78,619,000	80,692,000	2,073,000	3%
Carter	1/20/1977	80,692,000	91,031,000	10,339,000	13%
Reagan	1/20/1981	91,031,000	107,133,000	16,102,000	18%
Bush	1/20/1989	107,133,000	109,725,000	2,592,000	2%
Clinton	1/20/1993	109,725,000	132,469,000	22,744,000	21%
Bush	1/20/2001	132,469,000	133,549,000	1,080,000	1%
Obama	1/20/2009	133,549,000	130,462,000	-3,087,000	-2%

I'd rather use the figures from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics.   

It would be interesting to see the unemployment figures for the same periods.

[nathanm]

FRED has the data back to 1948. You can draw your own conclusions:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=UNRATE

[GG]

[Red Arrow]

FRED has the data back to 1948. You can draw your own conclusions:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=UNRATE

It would appear that the Civilian Unemployment Rate alone is insufficient to draw valid conclusions.  The number of civilians working has more than tripled since 1945 which makes the same number of change of job numbers a lesser percentage now than then.  Timing of recessions will appear to help some Presidents more than others when the number of jobs is only considered at the beginning and end of their time in office. 

[erfalf]

The comparisons/charts got me thinking. So I did some digging and put some stuff together to show a little more effectively what is happening. Let me disclaim this by saying you can draw your own conclusions. I mostly was interested because I always see these charts that compare Democrat & Republican Presidents. I wanted to see them by congressional power.

So I went to the Department of Labor statistics website and took Total Workforce Numbers and Total Employment at the end of each year since 1948 (the furthest back it would go). Here is what I came up with.

This first one is the average increase in unemployment per year.



The next one is the average change in the percentage of total employment to total workforce per year.

[nathanm]

That's interesting. Definitely food for thought.

[Red Arrow]

That's interesting. Definitely food for thought.

Really?  I would have expected you to call outright BS.  You must be getting soft in your old age.   

[nathanm]

Really?  I would have expected you to call outright BS.  You must be getting soft in your old age.   

I've said before that, in general, I think it's best if Congress and the Presidency are divided most of the time. I happen to think that the present is an exceptional case where the Republicans have been moving so far to the right and become so obstinate that it's not good right this second, but the party hasn't been permeated by loons forever.

The only real quibbles I have off the top of my head are that a) I don't think the downward slide that was already in progress when Obama took office should be counted against him and b) In the past, Republicans didn't reflexively dismiss some branches of economics, even during the Reagan years all the way through to the Tea Party. As I've noted previously, I think that Keynesians, Monetarists, and others all have ideas that work in various economic/regulatory/tax climates. Friedmanite hatred for taxes was almost certainly appropriate when the top income tax rate was north of 50%. Keynesian economics has been well proven to work in a deflationary and stagnant economy. Monetarism ended stagflation.

The current crop of Republicans refuses to acknowledge that the rest of the universe of thought has anything to offer, hence my incredibly strong opposition to them. I would love it if the Republican Party would move back to where it was in the 70s and 80s, but that would be pretty hard given that the Clintonite third way Democrats have pretty much moved the party into that space.

[erfalf]

Just to be clear, I didn't mean for this to be misleading. It is what it is. Statistics. I didn't have the desire to go through and make a determination who deserved what. I used dates as the cutoff only. I also understand that throwing Obama in there is what it is. It's a short time span, and that leads to inconclusive results in statistics.

I really didn't know what the results were going to be before I started. I was fairly surprised.

[Red Arrow]

I've said before that, in general, I think it's best if Congress and the Presidency are divided most of the time. I happen to think that the present is an exceptional case where the Republicans have been moving so far to the right and become so obstinate that it's not good right this second, but the party hasn't been permeated by loons forever.

Nor do I believe that the Democratic Party is permeated by the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Boxster, and a few other loons whose names I don't remember at the moment. Unfortunately, they are in the spotlight the same as some of the loons on the right.

[Red Arrow]

II don't think the downward slide that was already in progress when Obama took office should be counted against him

Actually, I don't.  What I hold against him is the inability to fix the situation in a more timely manner than he has.  I attribute it to his philosophy of robbing the rich to pay the poor.  That doesn't mean I don't believe in safety nets.

In the past, Republicans didn't reflexively dismiss some branches of economics,

You will have to allow for some honest differences of opinion whether you agree or not.

The current crop of Republicans refuses to acknowledge that the rest of the universe of thought has anything to offer, hence my incredibly strong opposition to them.

I hate to spin this back on you but I will.  The deadlock in Congress is not entirely one sided.

[nathanm]

Unfortunately, they are in the spotlight the same as some of the loons on the right.

The difference is that the Tea Party faction has successfully primaried a large number of moderate Republican incumbents. There's been a small bit of that (2 or 3) on the Democrats' side, but the folks from Daily Kos have not had the widespread success the Tea Party has. There's little love lost between the "progressive" wing of the party and the leadership. There was some of the same in the Republican Party at the beginning of the Tea Party movement, but that didn't last very long. We have had Tea Party icons as VP choices on the Republican ticket two cycles in a row now.

It seems like pretty much the same thing as when the religious right took over the party in the late 70s/early 80s, just with a new group even farther to the right. I don't have any personal memories of that time, though, so feel free to correct me.

What I hold against him is the inability to fix the situation in a more timely manner than he has.

The American Jobs Act will have been pending before Congress an entire year tomorrow. Unfortunately, the Republicans filibustered it and the attempts to pass pieces of it as separate legislation.

[Red Arrow]

It seems like pretty much the same thing as when the religious right took over the party in the late 70s/early 80s, just with a new group even farther to the right. I don't have any personal memories of that time, though, so feel free to correct me.

I have never cared (positively) for the religious right as compared to the rest of the right.  I just don't see the candidates offered by the Democratic party to date as an acceptable alternative for the most part.  Herion and I have been through this several times so there is no sense in trying to bring up details.  Like a lot of voters (in my opinion) I frequently vote for the lesser of two or more evils rather than someone I can really support.  No details on request.  As Hoss says, I am not obligated to answer anything.