Is this actually, Good news for both the economy and Obama’s re-election hopes, or is it just lying with statistics?

18 posts / 0 new
Last post
Thom Hartmann A...
Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture

A USA Today survey of 50 economists brought with it higher estimates of economic growth.  According to the survey – the unemployment rate is expected to drop to 8% by the fourth quarter of the year – and the economy is expected to grow this year by 2.5%.  Those are higher estimates than were projected by the economists three months ago. 

On top of that – state unemployment rates are dropping at a faster rate than national rates – especially in 14 key swing states that will likely decide the election.  In places like Michigan, Ohio, Florida, and Nevada – the unemployment rate is dropping – and President Obama’s approval is ticking up.  With the economy off the table, Mitt Romney will likely have to play up wedge issues over the next few months. 

Expect a lot of chatter on the right about female contraceptive use.


olenzekm's picture
This is good news, both for

This is good news, both for Obama's reelection prospects and the country. 

The only way that it could turn out to be bad news is if it does not happen. Unmet high expectations are worse than exceeded low expectations. 

I am sure the Republicans will do everything in their power to see that the expectations are not met.

Choco's picture
I know why I wouldn't vote

I know why I wouldn't vote for a repuclican, I'm not sure why I would vote for Obama. Someone convince me he's a progressive.

planetxan's picture
The economists are never

The economists are never wrong!

Bush_Wacker's picture
Economists spend most of

Economists spend most of their time explaining why they were wrong. 

olenzekm's picture
I feel your pain, but you

I feel your pain, but you cannot replace something with nothing. As Thom has oft' said, third party bids are doomed to failure so don't bother looking there.

Another reason is for the Supreme Court. If Gov. Romney gets in, he will replace Justice Ginsberg with another Antonine Scolia. (Pardon the spellings.)

As long as people believe

As long as people believe voting for third parties is a failure, they will be. The alternative seems to be voting for the failures given us by the Dems and Repugnants...successful failures. LOL

If you don't like the current Supreme Court, increase its membership...and fill it with progressive judges. The number of judges on the Supreme Court are set by Congress, not by the Constitution.

Sometimes, I think we'd be better off with a full line-up of Republican governance. Collapse sooner rather than later might finally wake people up to turn this country around. My only problem with that is the possibility of a full blown facist state sooner with Republicans rather than later with the Dems..

People tend to look for a Fuhrer (leader) to get them out of horrific messes that both wings of the Corporate Party are leading us into.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"


olenzekm's picture
Third Party:I assume that you

Third Party:
I assume that you listen to Thom. He states, correctly I think, that since all that is required to get elected is a plurality, that third parties allow a minority of the electorate to get their candidate. I like third parties if they're on the right, but not on the left.

You are technically correct, but it fails in practice. FDR failed when he tried to do it and he had a much more pliant congress. Any Dem would be crucified if they tried it.

All Repubs:
I have often thought that too. Let's give them all of the rope they want so they get throughly hung. I guess that is a kind of anarchist view and I'm not quite ready to go there yet.
As Winston Churchill said: "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing, after exhausting all other possibilities." The Repubs seem to have some possibilities left, though they seem a lot like the old techniques recycled. 

Laborisgood's picture
Choco wrote: I know why I

Choco wrote:

I know why I wouldn't vote for a repuclican, I'm not sure why I would vote for Obama. Someone convince me he's a progressive.

The best thing Obama has going for him is that he is not a member of the Republican Party (in spite of all his actions that might say otherwise).

Choco's picture
I know what you guys are

I know what you guys are saying, but how come I get the feeling that if I vote based on fear (of republicans) that I'm being played like a fool? As Polycarp suggests, we're only delaying the inevitable collapse of an inherently flawed system. Why won't Bernie Sanders (independent) introduce a bill for instant runoff voting, or has he? How about a Bernie Sanders write in campaign? There's got to be a better solution than sticking to this insidious two party system and expecting change.


olenzekm's picture
They had an interesting piece

They had an interesting piece on the PBS News Hour tonight. It was about yesterday's French elections. In France they have a lot of parties running for presidet. This is how they voted:

28.63 percent  Socialist candidate Francois Hollande
27.18 percent  President Nicolas Sarkozy (Conservative)
17.90 percent  Marine Le Pen (extreme right)
11.11 percent  Left Front candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon
  9.13 percent  centrist Francois Bayrou
>3.00 percent  five remaining candidates 


France is smart. They have run off elections so Hollande and Sarkozy will face each other in a tet-a-tet.

If we had these results in the US, Hollande would now be president because he got the plurality. (Or it would have gone to the House of Representatives, which could be even worse.)

The News Hour interviewed a Frenchman about how the people view elections in France. He says in the first round you vote for the one that you want. In the runoff you vote against the one that you don’t want.

In the US, since we don’t have runoff elections, we have to go right to voting for the one that we don’t want. That’s just the way it is. If you want to change it you must change the Constitution.  

Choco wrote: I know why I

Choco wrote:

I know why I wouldn't vote for a repuclican, I'm not sure why I would vote for Obama. Someone convince me he's a progressive.

Well, even Obama doesn't claim to be a progressive. I suppose first you'd have to convince Obama to become one. LOL

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"


Scappoose's picture
The drop in the unemployment

The drop in the unemployment rate has much more to do with the decrease in the Labor Participation Rate than with any new jobs being created.

And those new jobs are by and large paying Much less than the jobs they are replacing.

We're witnessing the hollowing out of America and a financial coup in real time right before our eyes.

If People read Howard Zinn's A Peoples History of the USA they'd see that the rise of 3rd parties are what beings about change within the 2 leading parties -

So someone who is informed helping a 3rd party is the way to actually change the democratic party - unless they are helplessly captured by the corporations - in which case WHY vote for exactly what you don't want?

Makes no sense to me.

And don't trot out the Nader caused Gore to lose BS - Gore coildn't even win his home state - and you don't win the presidency if you can't win your home state.

Don't blame Nader for the absolute disaster that was the Gore Campaign. Heck Gore could have simply called Nader and offered him the OSHA position to back him.

But Gore being Gore proved to be a loser and a bad campaigner.

Here's the page where you can

Here's the page where you can see FICA taxes collected by Social Security:

2011: 543 billion

2008: 544 billion

Of course the 2011 number includes the 2% cut, so to compare it should be 647 billion.



antikakistocrat's picture
Unemployment is at 45%.   FED

Unemployment is at 45%.


FED PAYING Banks To Withhold Loans From Citizens  The FED paying banks not to use their excess capitol to make loans. ... Banks excess reserves at the Fed rose to a record $877.1 Billion daily average ... from 2 Billion a year earlier. ... The FED is paying banks higher int rates to keep their funds parked at the FED instead of loaning the money to the American people.;State-Of-The-Union;topicseen

antikakistocrat's picture
U.S. Real Unemployment

U.S. Real Unemployment 42%!!! 
Guest Post: Illusion Of Recovery - Feelings Versus Facts
6 February 2012
, by Tyler Durden (Zero Hedge)

There are 242 million working age Americans. Only 142 million Americans are working.

That means 100 million working age Americans (41.5%) are not working.;topicseen

antikakistocrat's picture
 Abbott and Costello: 

 Abbott and Costello:  Unemployment Explained

   COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America .
ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It's 9%.
COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.
COSTELLO: You just said 9%.
ABBOTT: 9% Unemployed.
COSTELLO: Right 9% out of work.
ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.
COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 16% unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, that's 9%...
COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 9% or 16%?
ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.
COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.
COSTELLO: What point?
ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work, can't be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn't be fair.
ABBOTT: The unemployed.
COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.
ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work... Those who are out of work stopped looking. They gave up. And, if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.
COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles, that would count as less unemployment?
ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!
COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work?
ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how you get to 9%. Otherwise, it would be 16%. You don't want to read about 16% unemployment do ya?
COSTELLO: That would be frightening.
ABBOTT: Absolutely.
COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to bring down the unemployment number?
ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.
COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
ABBOTT: Correct.
COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?
ABBOTT: Bingo.
COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to just stop looking for work.
ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an economist.
COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said!
And now you know why Obama's unemployment figures are improving

Phaedrus76's picture
So, are you going to argue

So, are you going to argue then that these people who give up (which means they're now living with Mom, or with their kids) ought to be counted and continue to recieve unemployment benefits, or do you want to count them and not support them?