Obama should dissolve congress and then he'll be able to get some work done without it being stopped by reps on everything.

IE Obama votes to save peoples lives caught in a freak vaccum by providing them air.  Republican congress: tables the idea for four years until it can be studied by a republican president.←this is basically what's being done.

To be honest I am a pretty true skeptic. As much as i like to use acts and data in discussions, I acknowledge for all I know the info is wrong. I have little trust for anyting I can't confirm with my own senses, so no offence taken.

I am not trying to say things are bleaker now, I am saying we have made no improvement. unemployemnt has gone down(but we aren't employing more people, but underemployment is high.

I dont know anyone in real life who feels the economy is doing great or even good.

I think things would have been better with a quick fall to the bottom, and than a natural recovery. What we have now is still in a stage of supported recovery from the government. As the support drops our recovery will drop again.

At least now of days people will eventually get correctly inform, but that seems to take a minimum of 3 years, like the Wall Street movement which should have been that big 3 years earlier then 2011.

At least I hope the majority of our fellow Americans will be accurately inform in the next 3 years or something.

Well at least Democrats try to get stuff done for the people and sometimes do, like under Bill Clinton & Barack Obama. But we really need to vote in a lot of new people into Congress & Sensate, but especially Congress.

I hope this November 2014 that people will clean up the government by using our power to vote.

Well, here's hoping LOL.

LOL, but the sad thing is that probably would happen, at least during Obama's first term I could actually see Republicans doing that LOL.

But, but Obama published this awesome video:

If already posted you need to watch it again, and again, and again.

Nah, I don't like him that much as President, he seems a cool dude though. I actually wanted to see Romney winning. But I will give Obama a chance. My opinion on him will be mainly focused in how he handles the referendum for Puerto Rico for which he plans to assign 1.5 mil in budget. And when I am talking about handling, I am talking about having no colonial options in it. Either Statehood, Associated Republic or Independence. No commonwealth as it stands now. He relegated the definitions of the formulas to the US Department of Defense, though. We will see.

Particpation rate is generally what you are looking for.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

In general... What you aren't accounting for is new workers, along with people who have given up looking for work.

The US population is still growing... therefore even with increasing jobs and numbers.  In reality we are falling behind.

The only problem with your graph, is that it does not prove what thranx is saying.

http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav.pl?s=wpd&c=dsp&k=labor+force+participation+rate

"When economists are concerned with full employment of the economy's resources they generally focus on the natural unemployment rate and the civilian labor force. However, the labor force participation rate is also important to the notion of production capabilities. While about 30 percent of the total noninstitutionalized civilian population (in the range of 60 million people) is either unwilling or unable to engage in productive activities, this group has the potential to enter the labor force."

In general, the labor force participation rate shows trends in society, not really a good measure of the actual labor force. For instance, it shows social changes, one could be more minorities entering higher education "

"The number of minority students grew 56 percent to 5.8 million"
http://diversity.ucsc.edu/resources/images/ace_report.pdf

and the exclusion of military jobs,

which has climbed since 2001. The labor force participation rate does not include military jobs.

But yes, I am accounting for new population. The problem is, if 250k jobs are required every month, and the 3 months before last were 160k, and the recent 3 were 220k, then 250k is right around the corner.

EDIT: Furthermore, how could economists all take the recent labor report as good and send stocks up over 1% total in all sectors, if the news was actually bad. I've looked at every chart on the BLS website, and you only choose to look at that one single chart. Well, you can feel free to address the topics I brought up individually if you'd like.

a) economists don't rely on the chart you use
b) That chart is, by expert opinion, used to identify trends in society (rather than use as a laborforce statistic)
c) Doesn't include growth in military personnel
d) Doesn't factor in higher minority enrollment in higher education

Stock markets don't Judge "Good or Bad".   They judge "Expected vs unexpected."

Stocks went up over 1% because experts were expecting between 100,000-150,000 Jobs this month.  With the majority leaning towards the low end.

The high end was hit.

It's the same reason Sony's stocks can shoot up when they suffer a loss.  The loss was less big then was expected, and expectations had depressed in the stock for a worse performance.

The economy did slightly less awful then expected.

Though honestly the stock market is quasi fucked up now as it is.  Sometimes they've been afraid of good news because they think it means Bernake will turn off the spickett of free money. 

The stock market has kind of been somewhat removed from the practical market due to the Federal Reserve's policys... creating more or less an economy where those who investments do awesome... and those without investments are still pretty fucked.

Not something i'd blame Obama for even if he is supportive of Fed Policy, since the Fed is independent until it's time to pick a new head.  Blame him when he replaces Bernake with Geinther and the same thing happens.

Outside which....

A) Yes they do.... plenty of economists do.    Example.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/06/business/economy/us-adds-only-88000-jobs-jobless-rate-falls-to-7-6.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Heck, Shapiro is a "chief" economist no less.

B) By a single experts opinion... for plenty of others... it's very important.  Again, like the above Mr. Shapiro.

C)   Military jobs aren't counted... and neither are people in the military.  So it seems like a mostly meaningless point. 

Or to put it another way, if everyone but one person were enlisted in the army, and that guy ran a hot dog stand.  The Labor Participation rate would be 100%.  

D) College enrollment is up... but not by a huge number on the whole.  The issue is more... people just trying to avoid graduating.

Most of the points in the OP just sound like baseless opinions ripped from angry, conservative talk show hosts. It also shows an inept understanding of federal power. Obama legalized marijuana and criminalized large sodas? You might want to do a fact check there buddy.

Well atleast he give us great cartoons: