Obama outperforms Reagan on job growth and investing

[Berkut]

Meh, the entire argument is just politics.

The numbers that go into unemployment are complex and varied enough that you can probably get them to say what you want by simply picking which index or whatever you like to focus on - hell, even choosing unemployment as your measure instead of something else is largely a political choice anyway.

But more to the point - the idea that if we are recovering it is because of Obama (or not) is ridiculous anyway.President's don't have nearly that kind of control over the economy, for better or for worse.

[Eddie Teach]

and how the situation is different now compared to Reagan's time. 

Unemployment going down, participation going up = jobs being created faster than population growth
Unemployment going down, participation going down = ?


Don't get me wrong, I don't believe it's Reagan's or Obama's policies responsible for this difference. But there's been an awful lot of data as well as anecdotes posted on this board showing the job market has been getting tougher and paying less proportionally to the people on the bottom.

[CountDeMoney]

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe it's Reagan's or Obama's policies responsible for this difference. But there's been an awful lot of data as well as anecdotes posted on this board showing the job market has been getting tougher and paying less proportionally to the people on the bottom.

Nonsense.  Everything's coming up Goldman Sachs.

[The Minsky Moment]

.President's don't have nearly that kind of control over the economy, for better or for worse.

They do make Fed nominations.  And Obama has done a pretty crappy job at that.
Again, however, that is not the argument of the vast majority of the anti-Obama mob.  Especially since a significant proportion of them are batshit crazy goldbugs or neo-Austrians.

[Jacob]

Meh, the entire argument is just politics.

The numbers that go into unemployment are complex and varied enough that you can probably get them to say what you want by simply picking which index or whatever you like to focus on - hell, even choosing unemployment as your measure instead of something else is largely a political choice anyway.

But more to the point - the idea that if we are recovering it is because of Obama (or not) is ridiculous anyway.President's don't have nearly that kind of control over the economy, for better or for worse.

I agree, but it's reasonable to bring it out when you're facing down a whole bunch of Siegy-like BS about Obama destroying the economy.

For better or worse, those indicators seem a significant part of the political game surrounding the economy.