More Fox News Spin? Comparing unemployment numbers between Presidents.

[dontworrybehappy]

Not sure if you're aware of it, but we're knocking on July 2010. This is Obama's puppy now. I was in much better financial straights under Bush, and so were most of the people that I know. This blaming Bush is getting old. It's Obama now.

 

[Crosscheck]

Not sure if you're aware of it, but we're knocking on July 2010. This is Obama's puppy now. I was in much better financial straights under Bush, and so were most of the people that I know. This blaming Bush is getting old. It's Obama now.

Nobody is buying that crap.
Bush was such a disaster the Republican party didn't even have him at the last Republican Convention they were so embarassed of him..................

 

[obvious Child]

Nobody is buying that crap.
Bush was such a disaster the Republican party didn't even have him at the last Republican Convention they were so embarassed of him..................

I am. While Bush was a disaster, the problem we face is that this is a financial crisis. Some idiots who are clamoring for Obama's head don't seem to understand the difference between normal recessions and financial recessions. Ptif thinks that modern economies can function without financial and banking sectors. Really. Not kidding. What dontworrybehappy fails to realize is that there is no easy way out of a financial recession. Especially when the economy is built upon leverage. And much of this stems from Clinton's era where the GOP repealed the GSA. Time and time again, financial experts come back to that as the starting point. That said, this is Obama's mess to fix, and like previous presidents who dealt with financial crisises, he has relatively few tools that will work. What's worse now is that leverage is expoentially higher in usage then previously financial crisises. What we are seeing is a deleveraging of America (and the world) and it hurts like the uber-b*tch. dontworrybehappy was better under Bush because the full extent of the financial crisis had not hit. Obama is rather unfortunate in his timing more then anything else. That said, I do believe Uncle Ben really is the person we should be praising, as monetary policy really saved us from utter collapse.

 

[Conservative]

Yes, TX had a surplus until the recession and TX has a balanced budget requirement. Suggest you pay more attention to your own state and let TX take care of itself and it will.

Obama is no Reagan or no Bush and anyone who claims he is has zero credibility which defines you.

 

[obvious Child]

Yes, TX had a surplus until the recession and TX has a balanced budget requirement. Suggest you pay more attention to your own state and let TX take care of itself and it will.

Obama is no Reagan or no Bush and anyone who claims he is has zero credibility which defines you.

Look! Conservative once again cannot address my arguments. And you're changing your argument. You claimed that Texas had a surplus during the recession. Furthermore, fixing the gap for the upcoming biannual fiscal year does not disprove you have a current operating deficit for the current fiscal year. You do know the difference between future and current no?

And I never said Obama was Reagan or Bush. Merely that he is following many of the same policies. People who either cannot comprehened the English language or blantantly lie about what their opponent says have no credibility which defines you.

And yes, inflation does impact a recession. Contrary to your stated opinion.

 

[Conservative]

When exactly did the Democrats take control of Congress and show me that the Democrats that controlled the legislation voted on the Bush economic plan. Obama will be a one term President thus hardly one of our greatest. There is one President today happy that Obama is in the WH, Carter. Obama will replace Carter as our worst.

By the way the closest election in U.S. history did not give Bush a GOP Congress in 2001 so thanks for playing.

For someone who seems to care about the debt not a word out of you about Obama taking that debt from 10.6 trillion to 13 trillion. Apparently that is a different kind of debt and thus justified in your world.

 

[Conservative]

Again, why do you care about TX since obviously you don't know a thing about TX. The recession started in 2007 and TX had a surplus in 2007 but that doesn't suit your agenda. TX also has a part time legislature that implements a two year budget. It has a balanced budget requirement and will meet that requirement by the end of this fiscal year. Too bad other states waste more time complaining about TX instead of worrying about their own state.


By the way, fiscal year 2008-2009 were during the recession and TX had a surplus. That surplus was eaten up the latter half of fiscal year 2009

Exactly what economic policy did Obama pursue that was like Reagan's or Bush's? Both were pro free enterprise and capitalism and that isn't Obama.

 

[obvious Child]

Again, why do you care about TX since obviously you don't know a thing about TX.

Point once again, you are wrong and you can't admit it.

The recession started in 2007 and TX had a surplus in 2007 but that doesn't suit your agenda.

But no one was talking about 2007. We were talking about 2009. Way to lie your butt off again.

Exactly what economic policy did Obama pursue that was like Reagan's or Bush's? Both were pro free enterprise and capitalism and that isn't Obama.

Reread the thread. I already named at least half a dozen. Perhaps if you paid some attention for a change you'd actually address what people write?

 

[Conservative]

The recession began in 2007, the fiscal year of the state of TX ran from Sept. 2007-Aug. 2009. TX had a surplus during that period of time. You simply don't know what you are talking about which isn't new to most people who read your cr*p. As for what you posted you haven't a clue again. You buy what you are told. IF Obama had done what Reagan and Bush did we would be out of this recession now. You simply aren't as smart as you think you are. Nothing this empty suit has done has promoted the private sector and thus we are getting the exact results expected from the private sector. NO Libertarian supports what Obama is doing

 

[obvious Child]

The recession began in 2007, the fiscal year of the state of TX ran from Sept. 2007-Aug. 2009. TX had a surplus during that period of time. You simply don't know what you are talking about which isn't new to most people who read your cr*p. As for what you posted you haven't a clue again. You buy what you are told. IF Obama had done what Reagan and Bush did we would be out of this recession now. You simply aren't as smart as you think you are. Nothing this empty suit has done has promoted the private sector and thus we are getting the exact results expected from the private sector. NO Libertarian supports what Obama is doing

Do you ever stop lying? Why is that all of my links I posted about the deficit were about the 2009 fiscal year?

As for the cr@p, I'm not the one who argued inflation is irrelevant to the depth of a recession. You did. And I understand what linear regression is. Just because you want something to be true does not mean you ignore all other potentials.

So if Obama had spent large amounts of money on tax cuts as Bush and Reagan did, we'd be out?
So if Obama had given bonus depreciation like Bush, we'd be out?
So if Obama had spent large amounts of money like Reagan did, we'd be out?

oh wait. he did. I get it, you don't understand the difference between financial recessions and non-financial recessions. Tell me, did Bush or Reagan have a financial recession?

 

[Conservative]

Do you ever stop lying? Why is that all of my links I posted about the deficit were about the 2009 fiscal year?

You really aren't nearly as smart as you think you are, there was no fiscal year 2009 as the fiscal year of TX was 2008-2009, a two year budget. Get your so called facts straight.

As for the cr@p, I'm not the one who argued inflation is irrelevant to the depth of a recession. You did. And I understand what linear regression is. Just because you want something to be true does not mean you ignore all other potentials.

Where was that so called inflation for the past 8 years? How and who controls inflation? What were the interest rates the past 8 years. Let me let you in on a little secret, you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are.

So if Obama had spent large amounts of money on tax cuts as Bush and Reagan did, we'd be out?

Tax cuts do not cost money, they increase revenue to the federal treasury. You are hardly a libertarian. BEA.gov

 

[Conservative]

By the way, tell private business how good they have it under Obama. Seems they haven't gotten the message yet and 15 million unemployed Americans along with another million discouraged workers don't see the emphasis on the private sector. Maybe more part time census workers are the answer

For someone who seems to be worried about Reagan spending and Bush spending not a word about Obama spending. Says a lot about you. Reagan left the country a 2.6 trillion debt, Bush left it at 10.6 trillion, and Obama has added 2.4 trillion more in less than 2 years. Obama will double the debt thanks to his massive growth in the size of the govt. which for a libertarian is the kiss of death but that doesn't bother you. You are hardly a libertarian but instead a partisan liberal who cannot bring themself to admit it just like all others.

 

[winston53660]

By the way, tell private business how good they have it under Obama. .

It seems they are doing pretty good. After all News Corp (Fox) reported record profits.

 

[obvious Child]

You really aren't nearly as smart as you think you are, there was no fiscal year 2009 as the fiscal year of TX was 2008-2009, a two year budget. Get your so called facts straight.

Except that you ignore that states rebudget every year. And you still don't know what operating means do you?

Well, I'm smarter then you. That's for sure.

Where was that so called inflation for the past 8 years? How and who controls inflation? What were the interest rates the past 8 years. Let me let you in on a little secret, you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are.

And that's relevant how? You said that a recession with 1% inflation isn't as bad a recession with 10% inflation where unemployment was the same. Seriously, how the hell is what you said here relevant to that which is what you quoted?

Tax cuts do not cost money, they increase revenue to the federal treasury. You are hardly a libertarian. BEA.gov

Linear regression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And raw data does not prove that your factor is correct. The more you ignore linear regression, the more you show you don't care about facts.

Find me anyone who thinks that tax cuts are revenue neutral. Try. If tax cuts did not cost money, they would pay for themselves. Good luck finding any economist who believes that.

 

[Conservative]

You are indeed a legend in your own mind. TX operates on a two year budget with a part time legislature that meets every two years thus they cannot rebudget unless called into special session. Stick to what you actually know and not what you think you know.

TX seems to be a big deal to you but all it does is divert from the reality of what a disaster this Administration is. Actual facts don't matter to you, U.S. Treasury data shows tax revenue going up AFTER the tax cuts of Reagan and Bush. That is because tax cuts stimulate the economy and create demand for goods and services thus creating a demand for new taxpayers, jobs, jobs, jobs. Some people simply are too stupid for words.

Tell you what, OC, take your tax cut and send it back, that is if you work for a living or am I paying for your unemployment?

 

[Ockham]

Nobody is buying that crap.
Bush was such a disaster the Republican party didn't even have him at the last Republican Convention they were so embarassed of him..................

At some point Obama owns this government, it's problems and the solutions. That point was a after 1 year. You can make any claim you want, but the majority of American, IMO, now look to Obama as accountable and responsible. He's been handed all the tools to correct whatever he deems is necessary for this country. He will have had 2 years to make a difference. He will be judged on his ability and agenda.

 

[Conservative]

Isn't it interesting that Obama supporters have the patience they lacked with Bush. Immediately they expected results and even when they got them they ignored them. Bush inherited a recession and the cries from liberals was "where are the jobs" yet now with 15 million unemployed not a word other than to blame Bush over 1 1/2 years later. As stated he has control of the executive and legislative branches of the govt. so can do whatever he wants and these are the results he is generating. Obama supporters ignore the results. How about it, Obama supporters, name for me the year of the trillion dollar deficit for either Reagan or Bush?

 

[Conservative]

Tell us all, where are the jobs? Also tell us what year Reagan or Bush had trillion dollar deficits?

 

[obvious Child]

You are indeed a legend in your own mind. TX operates on a two year budget with a part time legislature that meets every two years thus they cannot rebudget unless called into special session. Stick to what you actually know and not what you think you know.

Incorrect. Every year the state redoes the budget. It's a reason why biannual budgeting a waste of time.

TX seems to be a big deal to you

Incorrect again. I just use it point out you have no credibility whatsoever. When you started insulting everyone who pointed out that $10 billion operating deficit was not a surplus, you have a character problem.

Actual facts don't matter to you, U.S. Treasury data shows tax revenue going up AFTER the tax cuts of Reagan and Bush. That is because tax cuts stimulate the economy and create demand for goods and services thus creating a demand for new taxpayers, jobs, jobs, jobs. Some people simply are too stupid for words.

So where is your economist who says that tax cuts pay for themselves?

Still don't know what linear regression is do you?

A, B, C, D, E and F happened. Which was the primary cause? How do you determine? You run regression on them. However, YOU seem to think that you can simply pick one, do no statistics, and assume it was the real cause.

You WANT tax cuts to be the cause so you believe it but do absolutely nothing to show that it was in fact that, rather then something else. Hence it's kind of a waste of time to talk to you.

Tell you what, OC, take your tax cut and send it back, that is if you work for a living or am I paying for your unemployment?

I'm probably not getting a refund this year. Or just a little one. I pay too much as it is.

 

[Conservative]

Your fixation with TX is absolutely amazing, sounds a lot like jealousy to me and I don't blame you. I moved to TX in 1992, the best move of my life. Stop trying to share your misery equally with everyone else. You just cannot get it through your head that a state with no state income taxes had a budget surplus, has a part time legislature, a two year budget, a balanced budget requirement, and a conservative Governor and two GOP Senators. I don't blame you for being jealous for your state could learn a lot from TX.

As for tax cuts paying for themselves, I don't have to ask an economist, all I have to do is look at the U.S. Treasury Dept. numbers. Suggest you try getting facts for a change. You are afraid of the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the U.S. Treasury. Don't blame you as all make you look foolish and like a spoiled kid who has to have their way.

You claimed you voted Libertarian so tell me what it is about Obama that Libertarians support? Also tell me the last trillion dollar deficit that Bush or Reagan had? Libertarians are for smaller govt, not what Obama is doing so as usual you prove yourself to be a fraud.

As for a refund, as I expected you love giving the govt. an interest free loan. That doesn't make you look very smart as again you let the govt. use your money and they do such a good job of doing that.

 

[obvious Child]

Huh. You know, keep arguing with yourself. You clearly aren't responding to what I wrote.

 

[Conservative]

You are not setting the rules, you raised the issue of TX to divert from your own failures and showing your own jealousy. The facts are there for all to see, bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury site which is the checkbook of the United States. You prefer intellectuals to actual facts. That says a lot about you.

You claimed you voted Libertarian but all I see is support for Obama who no Libertarian could support. This isn't about Reagan or Bush, this is about Obama and the disaster he is. If you want to talk about Reagan or Bush then do so with actual data from the sources I gave you which are non partisan. I am waiting for you to give me any trillion dollar deficits Reagan or Bush had since apparently you are concerned about their debt but NOT Obama's. Both Reagan and Bush cut tax RATES and those rates grew govt. revenue because they increased jobs. Obama tax cuts were targeted and consisted of rebates, not rate cuts. In fact rates are going up next year.

So keep diverting and ignoring actual facts because that is all you can do.

 

[Conservative]

What you wrote is irrelevant to the discussion and the thread topic. The economy of TX is much better than most of the other states in the nation. Instead of being happy for us you are jealous of us.

As for a budget, do you know what a budget is? It is a blueprint and whether or not it is adjusted yearly doesn't have any affect on the revenue being generated. Revenue is being generated in TX due to continued employment and an unemployment rate 2+% lower than the national average and 4+% lower than California. Employed people buy goods and services thus help in creating jobs. Seems like a very simple concept to understand but one you want to ignore. The revenue generated determines the budget surplus or shortfall and since TX operates on a two year budget plus a balanced budget requirement we won't know until next year what the true numbers are. Doesn't stop you from projecting though showing everyone you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are.

Now you can point to your economists rantings and I can counter with comments from other economists that disagree with you. Neither serve any purpose other than to divert from the real issue and that is the disaster that Obama really is. This community organizer has no clue on how to lead but he does know how to campaign. We need a leader right now, not an administration filled with elitists that never held a private sector job

 

[dontworrybehappy]

I think it's a fair chart. I think it gets even more fair as time goes by and Obama has been in office longer. I find it funny that someone says, "Even though Fox stated it was for the entire presidency, it's still not fair" or something close to that. OK, so FNC presents a chart, explains that its an average over an entire presidency, and that's still not fair? WTF do you want? Anybody with half a brain cell can figure out that Obama hasn't been in office 4 years so this chart only has 18 or so months to work with. Is this really that shocking?

Why would you cry out that this chart isn't fair when it's being explained what the chart is so its as fair as time will allow? An average over an entire presidency is about the only FAIR way to figure the unemployment figure under a president, don't you think? I totally disagree that only the highest unemployment figure should be shown, that's nuts. Bush was handed the worst terrorist attack in US history, **** happens and to me the AVERAGE is what should matter. Obama was handed a ****ty economy and so I wouldn't judge him on the worst numbers only, but an average. How did he FIX what was wrong? If he didn't and the rate remained high, THEN he could be judged on it. Same with any president.

 

[CompSciGuy]

How else would you create the table?

I for one wouldn't have made the table in the first place, as it serves absolutely no purpose other than as political propaganda. It's completely uninformative. 1st, You can't accurately compare 4-8 year averages to a 1.5 year presidency. 2nd, much of this unemployment is due to inherited problems from Bush, who merely continued a pattern of deregulation stretching back long before he became president. A better story focal point would be "the unemployment rate is still this high, what's our president and congress doing about it?" The comparison is completely unnecessary, useless, and is simply a distraction.

It's just typical "lets get people angry at government with a pretty chart of oversimplified numbers" story. It's easy, and gets people angry at our big bad politicians. Networks are always doing garbage like this (Fox News just tends to have more garbage stories than most).