Now that I did not vote for Romney, I already wish that I did?

[dsgrue3]

bluesinG said:

dsgrue3 said:

Soundwave said:

The economy has been gaining jobs for the last 25 straight months.

The stock market has regained most of the levels it was at prior to the 2008 housing crash.

It's happening slowly, but the country is bouncing back economically and will continue to do so in the next 4 years. The critics of Obama know it, that's why they're so pissed off, because they know he's going to get credit for it.

You do not just snap your finger at the biggest recession and banking crisis of the modern age and just "fix" it in 2 years. Even my Romney's own plan he'd need until 2020 to get the economy back on track.

Jobs haven't been created at a great enough rate to even support the number of people entering the workforce. Estimaes are that 150k-200k jobs per month need be created to keep up. Very few months have even 150k jobs been created. This chart is very telling:

Stock market has little to do with the economy and even less to do with Obama. Is there a point here?

Bouncing back? Unemployment is higher than when Obama took office and with Obamacare  - greater taxes, workers reduced to part-time to avoid benefits, and mass layoffs. Not to mention the fiscal cliff.

You'd do well to research your points instead of blindly believing them, because they are completely unfounded and inaccurate.

Wow, what an absurd graph. Obama's bar is so small because the US was *losing* more than 500,000 jobs *per month* when he took office, and it took time to dig out of that hole--the hole that Bush dug. Since March 2010, the US has added an average of 141,000 jobs per month--which would rank sixth in that chart, ahead of every Rebuplican president except Reagan.

See for yourself:

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth

The chart is what it is, Bush's bar also includes the jobs hemorrhaging as do all the other's listed...not sure how that's "absurd". Opposed to facts?
I really do not want to go into the whole Bush thing. See factcheck.org on the matter of whom is reponsible for the economic downturn.

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
2002	-129	-146	-24	-84	-9	47	-100	-11	-55	121	8	-163
2003	95	-159	-213	-49	-9	0	25	-45	109	197	14	119
2004	162	44	337	249	310	81	46	122	161	348	63	134
2005	137	240	141	360	170	243	374	193	66	80	334	160
2006	283	316	283	181	14	76	209	183	157	-9	204	171
2007	236	93	190	72	139	75	-40	-18	73	79	112	89
2008	41	-84	-95	-208	-190	-198	-210	-274	-432	-489	-803	-661
2009	-818	-724	-799	-692	-361	-482	-339	-231	-199	-202	-42	-171
2010	-40	-35	189	239	516	-167	-58	-51	-27	220	121	120
2011	110	220	246	251	54	84	96	85	202	112	157	223
2012	275	259	143	68	87	45	181	192	148(P)	171(P)
P : preliminary

Using the chart from the source you provided (from March 2010 onward):

17 months where the job creation has failed to exceed 150,000 (minimum estimate to offset increased workers)

15 months where job creation has exceeded 150,000.

4,511,000 NET

(150,000 per month off new workers) * 32 months = 4,800,000

4,511,000 - 4,800,000 = -289,000 jobs

In order to break even and keep up with new workers, we would have required 289,000 more jobs (remember this is a minimum estimate).

Include the 11 million missing from the workforce and there is a stark contrast to the "things are looking up" mentality.