Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The biggest increase in employment in three years makes it “pretty clear” the deepest U.S. recession since the 1930s has ended, said the head of the group charged with making the call.

Payrolls rose by 162,000 workers last month, the third gain in the past five months and the most since March 2007, figures from the Labor Department showed yesterday in Washington.

The economy probably grew by 2.8 percent in the first quarter of 2010, according to the median estimate of a Bloomberg News survey of economists last month, after a 5.6 percent pace of expansion in the fourth quarter of 2009.

The panel has lagged declarations of other economists partly because it depends on payrolls, among the last economic indicators to show growth. The National Association for Business Economics in October 2009 said the recession had ended, while Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said in September 2009 the contraction “very likely” had stopped.

“Speaking personally, it now seems very clear that the recession has ended,” said another panel member, Harvard University professor Jeffrey Frankel, in an interview yesterday. Frankel has said the most likely date for the recession’s end would be midyear of 2009.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... _Rrg&pos=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bad news for Conks.

Frankel has said the most likely date for the recession’s end would be midyear of 2009.

Wow, it took only a few weeks for the "stimulus" bill to work its magic. All hail Obama!

Skjellyfetti wrote:Bad news for Conks.

As they say, "it's the economy, stupid".

In fact, Obama has patterned himself after the words that James Carville hung inside Bill Clinton's campaign headquarters in Little Rock in 1992:

1. Change vs. more of the same
2. The economy, stupid
3. Don't forget health care.

If it is over that's good news for Americans. At some point we have to get past what's good for Democrats and Republicans and Blacks or Whites and rich or poor and get back to what's good for the country. The philosophical differences between the two parties are more apparent now than ever and the voting public will now have to decide which path the country should take.
The big problem for Obama and the Dems in congress is that even according to Timothy Geithner the unemployment rate isn't likely to get better any time soon. While gaining 162K jobs is always a good thing it shouldn't be tauted too much as nearly one third are temporary census jobs and there is also the fact that there was some bounce due to the snow storms in February. I doubt the job situation will turn much before November. That coupled with an unpopular healthcare bill will probably be a bad thing for Dems in the midterm elections and depending how long the unemployment rate remains high, possibly 2012. I consider myself a conservative independent who is not particularly a fan of the current POTUS but I still want the economy to improve regardless of who's in office. Personally I'd rather folks vote on philosophy rather than a knee jerk reaction to current political or economic climates but that's just a pipe dream.

I don't think the economy is ever going to recover as long as the oil companies are waiting in the wings to soak up America's expendable income that could boost other sectors of the economy. We are still in hard times and for every little blip of "good" economic news there is a corresponding increase in the price of oil. So if in a time of recovery we are already pushing $3.00 gallon gas then what is a gallon going to cost when we reach full recovery? $6.00??? more.............?? Things are going to remain sluggish until we fix our energy problems or do the unspeakable and slap price controls on big oil.

I'm not saying Obama magically turned the economy around on his own. I'm saying that the public will likely reward him for it in 2012... like they did with Reagan in 1984.

Skjellyfetti wrote:I'm not saying Obama magically turned the economy around on his own. I'm saying that the public will likely reward him for it in 2012... like they did with Reagan in 1984.

I getcha but Reagan also saw a steady decline in unemployment rates from its high of 10.8 in 1983 down to 7.2 by November 1984.
Not saying that can't happen for Obama but unless the recovery begins to translate into jobs it won't matter.

yosef1969 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:I'm not saying Obama magically turned the economy around on his own. I'm saying that the public will likely reward him for it in 2012... like they did with Reagan in 1984.

I getcha but Reagan also saw a steady decline in unemployment rates from its high of 10.8 in 1983 down to 7.2 by November 1984.
Not saying that can't happen for Obama but unless the recovery begins to translate into jobs it won't matter.

I think you and SK have raised good points. If the recession is over, Obama will get much of the credit, even if it just part of the economic cycle. But, yes, Obama needs that turn around to turn into actual jobs for it to do the dem's any good in November.

BlueHen86 wrote: Obama needs that turn around to turn into actual jobs for it to do the dem's any good in November.

Too late for that, imo. They're going to lose a good many seats. But they'll still control the Senate... the House is a bit of a toss up, but I think there's a good chance Democrats still control it. 2012 will be much more pivotal with the chance that both the House and the Senate could flip as well as the White House.

Savage Paw wrote:I don't think the economy is ever going to recover as long as the oil companies are waiting in the wings to soak up America's expendable income that could boost other sectors of the economy. We are still in hard times and for every little blip of "good" economic news there is a corresponding increase in the price of oil. So if in a time of recovery we are already pushing $3.00 gallon gas then what is a gallon going to cost when we reach full recovery? $6.00??? more.............?? Things are going to remain sluggish until we fix our energy problems or do the idiotic and slap price controls on big oil.

Fixed it for you. Price controls on oil? Tried that in the 70s. Didn't work then. All it gave us was rationing and long lines at the pump. Won't work now. No thanks.

The markets sure think it's over. My Apple and Ford stock have been doing very well!

Savage Paw wrote:Things are going to remain sluggish until we fix our energy problems or do the unspeakable and slap price controls on big oil.

Brilliant! Artificial price ceilings below supply/demand equilibrium are always a good idea. They never result in shortages and shortages of the commodity that our economy relies on the most are never recessionary.

BDKJMU and Citadel,
Are you two really so stupid as to think I was in support of price controls when I clearly said UNTHINKABLE?

This is shockingly grim news for the narrow minded Rush righties, and more marbles in the mouths of the teabaggers.

America and this administration simply MUST fail for the very sake of these fringe folks. Where will they go when they finally realize America does not need their shit anymore?

Adding jobs is always a good thing. However, it appears that about 1/4 of the created jobs are temporary Census jobs. Let's hope those people find jobs once the Census is complete. But, as I said, adding jobs is always a good thing.

I'm not sure that the phenomenon that helped Reagan will help Obama. A lot of the people who voted for him who are now disillusioned already think that the recovery is cyclical. A lot of the buyer's remorse over Obama comes from his backpedaling on numerous campaign 'promises'. The Obama Administration's continuation of numerous GWOT strategies is just one area where he has lost some credibility with his base.

Economic recovery will certainly help Obama, but the recovering economy coupled with a perception that the President has just bumbled along while things got better on their own has only served to re-enforce the idea that things other than government drive the economic health of the country (for good AND ill). He'll take credit, but it remains to be seen how much credit he will be given by the electorate.