If Economy's Improving, Why Is Dependency Growing?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2012 9:47 PM GMT
    Prediction: Radical Liberals and Democrats will blame the messenger - attack Heritage, attack Investors Business Daily, but they can't deny the numbers. The claim: employment numbers are improving. The truth: they are only marginally, but factoring in employment growth, the number of those employed has actually dropped because frustrated workers have left the workforce.

    The people most in danger are those who have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks - and this number continues to climb - the US faces a lost generation of workers.

    http://news.investors.com/article/601761/201202211802/government-dependency-is-growing.htm

    The government is at full throttle to present the economy as improving especially in light of the upcoming election. At the same time, there has been a stunning rise in dependency as most recently presented by the Heritage Foundation.

    Heritage defines dependency as significantly depending on the government for help in two of the following basic expense items: housing, food, shelter, income security or higher education.

    At the end of 2007, Heritage conservatively estimates there were 59.4 million Americans significantly dependent on the government.

    By the end of 2010, this number had risen to 67.3 million, an increase of nearly 8 million. It is likely that another two or three million were added in 2011, for a net increase of 10 million to 11 million over the past four years.

    It is not a coincidence that the number of people participating in the labor force has comparably declined over the same period.

    At the end of 2007, participation in the labor force was 66% of the available working age population, with a labor force of 146.2 million.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2012 10:01 PM GMT
    Jobless recovery.

    Weren't you in Canada when this happened in the early 90s?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2012 10:10 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidPrediction: Radical Liberals and Democrats will blame the messenger - attack Heritage, attack Investors Business Daily, but they can't deny the numbers. The claim: employment numbers are improving. The truth: they are only marginally, but factoring in employment growth, the number of those employed has actually dropped because frustrated workers have left the workforce.

    The people most in danger are those who have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks - and this number continues to climb - the US faces a lost generation of workers.

    http://news.investors.com/article/601761/201202211802/government-dependency-is-growing.htm

    The government is at full throttle to present the economy as improving especially in light of the upcoming election. At the same time, there has been a stunning rise in dependency as most recently presented by the Heritage Foundation.

    Heritage defines dependency as significantly depending on the government for help in two of the following basic expense items: housing, food, shelter, income security or higher education.

    At the end of 2007, Heritage conservatively estimates there were 59.4 million Americans significantly dependent on the government.

    By the end of 2010, this number had risen to 67.3 million, an increase of nearly 8 million. It is likely that another two or three million were added in 2011, for a net increase of 10 million to 11 million over the past four years.

    It is not a coincidence that the number of people participating in the labor force has comparably declined over the same period.

    At the end of 2007, participation in the labor force was 66% of the available working age population, with a labor force of 146.2 million.
    I will attack the 'messenger'.. Especially when the bias/(definition) is skewed(principled) for their purposes. That goes with any ideological/political organization regardless of political leanings.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2012 5:00 AM GMT
    meninlove said Jobless recovery.

    Weren't you in Canada when this happened in the early 90s?



    I think that'd be a legitimate counter argument if it weren't for a few things:

    1. The idea of a jobless recovery is largely a myth and can only be sustained in the very short term. In the 1990s, what was termed a jobless recovery actually did result in reduced unemployment as the Canadian economy changed significantly - ie it was primarily structural. I think we see that here too in the US but that it's far clearer that there are other issues at play (not the least of which that small businesses are actually saying quite vocally that one of the primary impediments to hiring is regulation and uncertainties with respect to the new healthcare reform act).

    2. The idea of a prolonged job recovery is a myth: http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/The-Jobless-Recovery-that-etfguide-3194806747.html - as is noted after you look at the underlying data - you can see that to call this a recovery is suspect with significant weakness that remains - yes there is a technical improvement in GDP but look at how anemic it is and relative to past recoveries has been the slowest since the depression.

    3. Finally, it might also be more forgiveable if it weren't for the trillions that have been spent in general increased spending / and stimulus. I believe you were in Canada when the Obama Administration promised that stimulus would result in less than 8% unemployment - in return for support for the hundreds of billions in stimulus.

    chart500.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2012 5:09 AM GMT
    Neither Heritage nor IBD are reliable sources. It's not about the "messenger", it's about the fact that you constantly cite sources that are known to be rabidly partisan to the point of dishonesty.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2012 5:23 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidNeither Heritage nor IBD are reliable sources. It's not about the "messenger", it's about the fact that you constantly cite sources that are known to be rabidly partisan to the point of dishonesty.


    Ah - figured - you have nothing particularly interesting or relevant to counter with. When in doubt, attack the source - even when they reference data back to the White House, CBO and other government statistics.

    The facts are these:

    1. Those who rely on government entitlements is rising.
    2. The Obama Administration claims that the economy is improving.
    3. Stimulus failed to deliver. Worse, it substantially underdelivered what their baseline scenario was and worse still is that the real anti-stimulus in higher interest rates is yet to come.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2012 5:25 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidNeither Heritage nor IBD are reliable sources. It's not about the "messenger", it's about the fact that you constantly cite sources that are known to be rabidly partisan to the point of dishonesty.


    Ah - figured - you have nothing particularly interesting or relevant to counter with. When in doubt, attack the source - even when they reference data back to the White House, CBO and other government statistics.

    The facts are these:

    1. Those who rely on government entitlements is rising.
    2. The Obama Administration claims that the economy is improving.
    3. Stimulus failed to deliver. Worse, it substantially underdelivered what their baseline scenario was and worse still is that the real anti-stimulus in higher interest rates is yet to come.


    Sadly, for you, the American people aren't buying the Republican misinformation campaign that you're busy touting here. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2012 5:32 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidNeither Heritage nor IBD are reliable sources. It's not about the "messenger", it's about the fact that you constantly cite sources that are known to be rabidly partisan to the point of dishonesty.


    Ah - figured - you have nothing particularly interesting or relevant to counter with. When in doubt, attack the source - even when they reference data back to the White House, CBO and other government statistics.

    The facts are these:

    1. Those who rely on government entitlements is rising.
    2. The Obama Administration claims that the economy is improving.
    3. Stimulus failed to deliver. Worse, it substantially underdelivered what their baseline scenario was and worse still is that the real anti-stimulus in higher interest rates is yet to come.


    Sadly, for you, the American people aren't buying the Republican misinformation campaign that you're busy touting here. icon_lol.gif


    Lol - and that's why Obama barely leads Santorum. Sell your bullshit to people who actually believe it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2012 5:37 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidNeither Heritage nor IBD are reliable sources. It's not about the "messenger", it's about the fact that you constantly cite sources that are known to be rabidly partisan to the point of dishonesty.


    Ah - figured - you have nothing particularly interesting or relevant to counter with. When in doubt, attack the source - even when they reference data back to the White House, CBO and other government statistics.

    The facts are these:

    1. Those who rely on government entitlements is rising.
    2. The Obama Administration claims that the economy is improving.
    3. Stimulus failed to deliver. Worse, it substantially underdelivered what their baseline scenario was and worse still is that the real anti-stimulus in higher interest rates is yet to come.


    Sadly, for you, the American people aren't buying the Republican misinformation campaign that you're busy touting here. icon_lol.gif


    Lol - and that's why Obama barely leads Santorum. Sell your bullshit to people who actually believe it.


    Santorum is "surging" for lack of a better term but he's unelectable in a general and he's doing all he can to make that more than case. And Mittens, who was your savior, is imploding hilariously.

    If the Republicans were smart, they'd realize this is a done deal and save their billions for 2016.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2012 6:03 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidNeither Heritage nor IBD are reliable sources. It's not about the "messenger", it's about the fact that you constantly cite sources that are known to be rabidly partisan to the point of dishonesty.


    Ah - figured - you have nothing particularly interesting or relevant to counter with. When in doubt, attack the source - even when they reference data back to the White House, CBO and other government statistics.

    The facts are these:

    1. Those who rely on government entitlements is rising.
    2. The Obama Administration claims that the economy is improving.
    3. Stimulus failed to deliver. Worse, it substantially underdelivered what their baseline scenario was and worse still is that the real anti-stimulus in higher interest rates is yet to come.


    Sadly, for you, the American people aren't buying the Republican misinformation campaign that you're busy touting here. icon_lol.gif


    Lol - and that's why Obama barely leads Santorum. Sell your bullshit to people who actually believe it.


    Santorum is "surging" for lack of a better term but he's unelectable in a general and he's doing all he can to make that more than case. And Mittens, who was your savior, is imploding hilariously.

    If the Republicans were smart, they'd realize this is a done deal and save their billions for 2016.


    Lol - can your wishful thinking be any more palpable? No, I still have reservations about Romney but I expect he will ultimately win. I mean if you don't believe it - you should consider playing the betting markets - feel free to put your money where you mouth is icon_wink.gif
    http://www.intrade.com/v4/home/

    Incidentally if Santorum were actually so unelectable - you would see Obama winning in a landslide in polls - except that's simply not true as the recent Quinnipiac poll shows. Obama only edges out Santorum.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2012 12:59 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidNeither Heritage nor IBD are reliable sources. It's not about the "messenger", it's about the fact that you constantly cite sources that are known to be rabidly partisan to the point of dishonesty.


    Ah - figured - you have nothing particularly interesting or relevant to counter with. When in doubt, attack the source - even when they reference data back to the White House, CBO and other government statistics.

    The facts are these:

    1. Those who rely on government entitlements is rising.
    2. The Obama Administration claims that the economy is improving.
    3. Stimulus failed to deliver. Worse, it substantially underdelivered what their baseline scenario was and worse still is that the real anti-stimulus in higher interest rates is yet to come.


    Sadly, for you, the American people aren't buying the Republican misinformation campaign that you're busy touting here. icon_lol.gif


    Lol - and that's why Obama barely leads Santorum. Sell your bullshit to people who actually believe it.


    Santorum is "surging" for lack of a better term but he's unelectable in a general and he's doing all he can to make that more than case. And Mittens, who was your savior, is imploding hilariously.

    If the Republicans were smart, they'd realize this is a done deal and save their billions for 2016.


    Lol - can your wishful thinking be any more palpable? No, I still have reservations about Romney but I expect he will ultimately win. I mean if you don't believe it - you should consider playing the betting markets - feel free to put your money where you mouth is icon_wink.gif
    http://www.intrade.com/v4/home/

    Incidentally if Santorum were actually so unelectable - you would see Obama winning in a landslide in polls - except that's simply not true as the recent Quinnipiac poll shows. Obama only edges out Santorum.


    It's not wishful thinking. Romney can't get more than 1/3 of Republicans to vote for him and he's lost more states than he's won in the primary. This is despite his outspending Santorum and Gingrich by factors or 4 and 5 in those states. That's extremely underwhelming.

    And Santorum being close to Obama in one poll is meaningless.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2012 1:54 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidNeither Heritage nor IBD are reliable sources. It's not about the "messenger", it's about the fact that you constantly cite sources that are known to be rabidly partisan to the point of dishonesty.


    Ah - figured - you have nothing particularly interesting or relevant to counter with. When in doubt, attack the source - even when they reference data back to the White House, CBO and other government statistics.

    The facts are these:

    1. Those who rely on government entitlements is rising.
    2. The Obama Administration claims that the economy is improving.
    3. Stimulus failed to deliver. Worse, it substantially underdelivered what their baseline scenario was and worse still is that the real anti-stimulus in higher interest rates is yet to come.


    Sadly, for you, the American people aren't buying the Republican misinformation campaign that you're busy touting here. icon_lol.gif


    Lol - and that's why Obama barely leads Santorum. Sell your bullshit to people who actually believe it.

    Very few believe the bullshit. And watch the gas prices rising. Obama will own that baby. The higher they go, the lower his poll number will go. Just watch.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Feb 23, 2012 2:01 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidNeither Heritage nor IBD are reliable sources. It's not about the "messenger", it's about the fact that you constantly cite sources that are known to be rabidly partisan to the point of dishonesty.


    Ah - figured - you have nothing particularly interesting or relevant to counter with. When in doubt, attack the source - even when they reference data back to the White House, CBO and other government statistics.

    The facts are these:

    1. Those who rely on government entitlements is rising.
    2. The Obama Administration claims that the economy is improving.
    3. Stimulus failed to deliver. Worse, it substantially underdelivered what their baseline scenario was and worse still is that the real anti-stimulus in higher interest rates is yet to come.


    Sadly, for you, the American people aren't buying the Republican misinformation campaign that you're busy touting here. icon_lol.gif


    Lol - and that's why Obama barely leads Santorum. Sell your bullshit to people who actually believe it.

    Very few believe the bullshit. And watch the gas prices rising. Obama will own that baby. The higher they go, the lower his poll number will go. Just watch.



    I wondered when the right wingers would "grasp" the gas scene. If it were "drinkable", you'd get high on it....

    icon_mad.gif LOL
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Feb 23, 2012 2:03 PM GMT
    I remember back when Bush was president: Everyone was like - don't blame Bush, it's due to international issues with Iran, etc...

    Now that Obama is president: It's all Obama. It's nothing to do with anyone else - only him. Keystone. Keystone. Keystone.

    Same way that the debt is caused by whatever the democrats control:

    If we have a Republican pres and a democratic congress - you guys blame the congress for the debt

    If we have a republican congress and a democratic pres - you guys blame the president for the debt..

    I'm just saying that there needs to be consistency in the blame. lol
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2012 2:04 PM GMT
    HndsmKansan said
    socalfitness saidVery few believe the bullshit. And watch the gas prices rising. Obama will own that baby. The higher they go, the lower his poll number will go. Just watch.

    I wondered when the right wingers would "grasp" the gas scene. If it were "drinkable", you'd get high on it....
    icon_mad.gif LOL

    I have grasped that plus other key issues for a long time. Just don't typically comment on them here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2012 2:12 PM GMT
    nanidesukedo said...I'm just saying that there needs to be consistency in the blame. lol

    It's politics as usual. In 2008 when the economic meltdown occurred, it was on the Republican's watch and they took the hit. That the Democrats with Freddie and Fannie played a role, and McCain warned about that a couple of years before, did not matter.

    With the gas situation now, while Obama is not in complete control of the situation, it's on his watch. His actions or inactions will be seen as responsible. 1) Iran situation, 2) Blocking drilling in the gulf leading to rigs moved to Brazil, 3) Loan to Brazil to further their industry, 4) Keystone. Pelosi is already blaming Wall Street and Republicans for the gas prices. Bottom line, Obama will take the hit. It's on his watch, and people want performance and results, not excuses. This will stick and he won't be able to slime his way out of it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2012 2:14 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    nanidesukedo said...I'm just saying that there needs to be consistency in the blame. lol

    It's politics as usual. In 2008 when the economic meltdown occurred, it was on the Republican's watch and they took the hit. That the Democrats with Freddie and Fannie played a role, and McCain warned about that a couple of years before, did not matter.

    With the gas situation now, while Obama is not in complete control of the situation, it's on his watch. His actions or inactions will be seen as responsible. 1) Iran situation, 2) Blocking drilling in the gulf leading to rigs moved to Brazil, 3) Loan to Brazil to further their industry, 4) Keystone. Pelosi is already blaming Wall Street and Republicans for the gas prices. Bottom line, Obama will take the hit. It's on his watch, and people want performance and results, not excuses.


    Gas prices are set by the international market. No matter how much the US drills, the price will not change since we do not have enough reserves to impact the market in a meaningful way.

    The grasping at straws by the right is really pathetic.
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Feb 23, 2012 2:16 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    nanidesukedo said...I'm just saying that there needs to be consistency in the blame. lol

    It's politics as usual. In 2008 when the economic meltdown occurred, it was on the Republican's watch and they took the hit. That the Democrats with Freddie and Fannie played a role, and McCain warned about that a couple of years before, did not matter.

    With the gas situation now, while Obama is not in complete control of the situation, it's on his watch. His actions or inactions will be seen as responsible. 1) Iran situation, 2) Blocking drilling in the gulf leading to rigs moved to Brazil, 3) Loan to Brazil to further their industry, 4) Keystone. Pelosi is already blaming Wall Street and Republicans for the gas prices. Bottom line, Obama will take the hit. It's on his watch, and people want performance and results, not excuses. This will stick and he won't be able to slime his way out of it.


    As long as people recognize that there are many issues outside of his control that are to blame (such as our dependence on foreign oil and the whole Iran situation), I'm ok with accepting that he's gonna take a little bit of a hit from it. Though, frankly...at this point, Americans are used to high gas prices - this is an increase from where it was recently, but nowhere near the huge spike that it was and it's not really above "unseen" levels...I think it's not going to be such a huge detriment as people are kinda becoming conditioned to just "deal" with gas prices, unfortunately.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2012 2:17 PM GMT
    nanidesukedo said
    socalfitness said
    nanidesukedo said...I'm just saying that there needs to be consistency in the blame. lol

    It's politics as usual. In 2008 when the economic meltdown occurred, it was on the Republican's watch and they took the hit. That the Democrats with Freddie and Fannie played a role, and McCain warned about that a couple of years before, did not matter.

    With the gas situation now, while Obama is not in complete control of the situation, it's on his watch. His actions or inactions will be seen as responsible. 1) Iran situation, 2) Blocking drilling in the gulf leading to rigs moved to Brazil, 3) Loan to Brazil to further their industry, 4) Keystone. Pelosi is already blaming Wall Street and Republicans for the gas prices. Bottom line, Obama will take the hit. It's on his watch, and people want performance and results, not excuses. This will stick and he won't be able to slime his way out of it.


    As long as people recognize that there are many issues outside of his control that are to blame (such as our dependence on foreign oil and the whole Iran situation), I'm ok with accepting that he's gonna take a little bit of a hit from it. Though, frankly...at this point, Americans are used to high gas prices - this is an increase from where it was recently, but nowhere near the huge spike that it was and it's not really above "unseen" levels...I think it's not going to be such a huge detriment as people are kinda becoming conditioned to just "deal" with gas prices, unfortunately.


    The idea that American pay "high" gas prices is hilarious. Gas is MUCH cheaper here than it is in Europe and other parts of the industrialized world. Though we do maintain that price through wars, so to my mind we're paying an awful price.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2012 2:18 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    nanidesukedo said...I'm just saying that there needs to be consistency in the blame. lol

    It's politics as usual. In 2008 when the economic meltdown occurred, it was on the Republican's watch and they took the hit. That the Democrats with Freddie and Fannie played a role, and McCain warned about that a couple of years before, did not matter.

    With the gas situation now, while Obama is not in complete control of the situation, it's on his watch. His actions or inactions will be seen as responsible. 1) Iran situation, 2) Blocking drilling in the gulf leading to rigs moved to Brazil, 3) Loan to Brazil to further their industry, 4) Keystone. Pelosi is already blaming Wall Street and Republicans for the gas prices. Bottom line, Obama will take the hit. It's on his watch, and people want performance and results, not excuses.


    Gas prices are set by the international market. No matter how much the US drills, the price will not change since we do not have enough reserves to impact the market in a meaningful way.

    The grasping at straws by the right is really pathetic.

    HA HA HA Reports are the Obama campaign is concerned about it. Enough to make your same points, but it is nothing but a feeble attempt to ward of the damage that will result. He will take the hit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2012 2:21 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    nanidesukedo said...I'm just saying that there needs to be consistency in the blame. lol

    It's politics as usual. In 2008 when the economic meltdown occurred, it was on the Republican's watch and they took the hit. That the Democrats with Freddie and Fannie played a role, and McCain warned about that a couple of years before, did not matter.

    With the gas situation now, while Obama is not in complete control of the situation, it's on his watch. His actions or inactions will be seen as responsible. 1) Iran situation, 2) Blocking drilling in the gulf leading to rigs moved to Brazil, 3) Loan to Brazil to further their industry, 4) Keystone. Pelosi is already blaming Wall Street and Republicans for the gas prices. Bottom line, Obama will take the hit. It's on his watch, and people want performance and results, not excuses.


    Gas prices are set by the international market. No matter how much the US drills, the price will not change since we do not have enough reserves to impact the market in a meaningful way.

    The grasping at straws by the right is really pathetic.

    HA HA HA Reports are the Obama campaign is concerned about it. Enough to make your same points, but it is nothing but a feeble attempt to ward of the damage that will result. He will take the hit.


    It's so pathetic that you wallow in the ignorance of Americans about the international markets because you think it will help elect someone from the worst field of Republican candidates since Goldwater.

    Regardless, the RNC hasn't put forward an electable candidate yet, so I'm not worried.
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Feb 23, 2012 2:21 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    nanidesukedo said
    socalfitness said
    nanidesukedo said...I'm just saying that there needs to be consistency in the blame. lol

    It's politics as usual. In 2008 when the economic meltdown occurred, it was on the Republican's watch and they took the hit. That the Democrats with Freddie and Fannie played a role, and McCain warned about that a couple of years before, did not matter.

    With the gas situation now, while Obama is not in complete control of the situation, it's on his watch. His actions or inactions will be seen as responsible. 1) Iran situation, 2) Blocking drilling in the gulf leading to rigs moved to Brazil, 3) Loan to Brazil to further their industry, 4) Keystone. Pelosi is already blaming Wall Street and Republicans for the gas prices. Bottom line, Obama will take the hit. It's on his watch, and people want performance and results, not excuses. This will stick and he won't be able to slime his way out of it.


    As long as people recognize that there are many issues outside of his control that are to blame (such as our dependence on foreign oil and the whole Iran situation), I'm ok with accepting that he's gonna take a little bit of a hit from it. Though, frankly...at this point, Americans are used to high gas prices - this is an increase from where it was recently, but nowhere near the huge spike that it was and it's not really above "unseen" levels...I think it's not going to be such a huge detriment as people are kinda becoming conditioned to just "deal" with gas prices, unfortunately.


    The idea that American pay "high" gas prices is hilarious. Gas is MUCH cheaper here than it is in Europe and other parts of the industrialized world. Though we do maintain that price through wars, so to my mind we're paying an awful price.


    High is a relative term....While low compared to the rest of the world, people still remember back when it was $1.50 or $2 a gallon...so, it's a relativity issue...But, with gas prices being around this area in the past and hovering around the $3+ mark, the relativity and "hit" of it all is diminishing some.