In response to:

Obama’s Dismal Record on Jobs, Explained with Common Sense

Eleanor32 Wrote: Jan 17, 2013 12:35 PM
But look at who was in control of both the House and Senate when those drops began. Bush was at fault in that he rarely vetoed anything that came across his desk, so he was culpable in that sense. But the burden of our financial situation should rightly be placed on the back of Democrats and Mr. Obama
Kibitzer Wrote: Jan 17, 2013 2:02 PM
The 2009 appropriations bill(s) where not sent to George W. Bush, but rather were held up by the Democrat controlled Congress until after Obama was in office. Obama and the Democrats own the effects that resulted in 2009.
restoreliberty Wrote: Jan 17, 2013 8:44 PM
You are exactly correct. When the democrats did that to Reagan he slashed the appropriations, Obama on the other hand increased them and dumped a government to government bailout on us through the stimulus plan. The effect was to allow states to keep governing in unsustainable ways and drawing out the depression.
Stuart95 Wrote: Jan 17, 2013 12:41 PM
Suppose that's true. How do you package that information to sell to independents and Low-Information Voters?

Note: You have to convince the independents, but you only have to discourage the LIV's.

Economists may not agree on much, but we all agree that economic output is a function of capital and labor. Ask a Keynesian, a Marxist, an Austrian, a monetarist, or any economist, and they’ll all agree that living standards are determined by the quality and quantity of these two factors of production.

So it should be very worrisome that there has been a big drop in the share of the population that is employed. Here’s a chart produced from Bureau of Labor Statistics data, showing labor force participation during the 21st Century.