- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 28,185
- Reaction score
- 14,274
- Location
- Boca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I believe I have already answered your question. Government employment should not be expected to expand at the same rate, if at all, during any recovery period from a recession. Why would you think it should?
I don't know why you even bother to mention Clinton's name since you admit it was Bush's fault that not enough was done to prevent it.?
I never asked you if you think it should. I asked you a quantitative question regarding the data. Once you offer me the courtesy by answering the question that resulted in your follow up question (back peddling), i will answer anything you ask.
But your wrong, the public sector grew under President Bush. Decreasing income tax revenue resulting from the recession caused loss of public sector jobs. That's about 700K worth which is probably worth a decrease percentage point in the UE rate.
IRONY!I have never seen someone with such hatred for a former President and so much time spent demonizing someone.
It has everything to do with the economic results of Obama..."Bush took office with an economy going into recession"--Obama was handed an economy tumbling into depression! and then this.... "the country experienced 9/11" as if it was a natural disaster...it was on BUSH'S FRIGGING WATCHHe has absolutely nothing to do with the economic results of Obama's, nothing and you have a very selective memory of what happened during his term. Bush took office with an economy going into recession and a few months after taking office the country experienced 9/11 which had a devastating effect on employment and economic growth.
Ummm, if we added 700K in the public sector instead of losing 700K, the unemployment rate would be at around 6½%. The private sector is growing at a reasonably healthy pace. But not enough to effectively lower the unemployment rate. It's the public sector that hurting the UE.You just posted a lot of words but said nothing of value. Let's consider your first sentence. Your contention is that an 8:1 increase in private sector employment has not been able offset the decrease in the public sector, and this is why unemployment remains high? That's a contortion not many can make with any credibility.
Sure, I can agree with that.Next, let's assume all your reasons for the drop in the LPR are correct, with which I happen to agree, then we should be experiencing a labor shortage and a correspondingly low UE rate. Would you not agree?
IRONY!
It has everything to do with the economic results of Obama..."Bush took office with an economy going into recession"--Obama was handed an economy tumbling into depression! and then this.... "the country experienced 9/11" as if it was a natural disaster...it was on BUSH'S FRIGGING WATCH
Only a true ideologue could try and defend what Bush has done..
Ummm, if we added 700K in the public sector instead of losing 700K, the unemployment rate would be at around 6½%. The private sector is growing at a reasonably healthy pace. But not enough to effectively lower the unemployment rate. It's the public sector that hurting the UE.
Sure, I can agree with that.
You still don't understand.. He was simply saying that people retiring causes the LFPR to go up(DUH). Conservative has changed to using LFPR as a reliable metric to "combat" the fact that unemployment has been dropping...Hint--it's not a reliable metric for what you're trying to prove.
Well to Conservative's defense, it's one of the few remaining talking points he has left. I still recall when he switched his whine from: Obama hasn't created enough jobs to get back where he started ... to: Obama has created enough jobs to get back to where we were in 2007. And once that happens, he'll change his whine again.You still don't understand.. He was simply saying that people retiring causes the LFPR to go up(DUH). Conservative has changed to using LFPR as a reliable metric to "combat" the fact that unemployment has been dropping...Hint--it's not a reliable metric for what you're trying to prove.
IRONY!
It has everything to do with the economic results of Obama..."Bush took office with an economy going into recession"--Obama was handed an economy tumbling into depression! and then this.... "the country experienced 9/11" as if it was a natural disaster...it was on BUSH'S FRIGGING WATCH
Only a true ideologue could try and defend what Bush has done..
Ummm, if we added 700K in the public sector instead of losing 700K, the unemployment rate would be at around 6½%. The private sector is growing at a reasonably healthy pace. But not enough to effectively lower the unemployment rate. It's the public sector that hurting the UE.
Sure, I can agree with that.
Wait, you're serious ?
Next, since you mentioned 9/11, one of the corrupt appointees was a women by the name of Jamie Gorelick.
I would, if I were you, look into the infamous " Gorelick Wall" for a better understanding of the events that led up to 9/11.
Do you just make **** up off the top of your head? Why should public employment not grow during a period of recovery following a recession?I believe I have already answered your question. Government employment should not be expected to expand at the same rate, if at all, during any recovery period from a recession. Why would you think it should?
Yes, if the private sector had added another 700K to offset the decrease in the government sector, UE might be lower. Then again, it might be higher as well if people thought there were productive jobs available...
Oh, something to chew on...
I have no confirmed date but i was thinking, as workers become more efficient, and there's more mechanization would there be an expected rise in the natural unemployment level? By no means take this as excusing Obama's unemployment #s, i'm just wondering.
What's not to demonize? Few presidents have ****ed this nation as royally as he did. It's not just me who feels this way; at several points during his presidency, he achieved what no other president on record ever accomplished -- a record low JAR of 19%.I have never seen someone with such hatred for a former President and so much time spent demonizing someone. He must have done something terrible to you or your family so let us know what it is?
You can claim that all you want, it will never be true. That's why in polls taken, more people still blame Bush for the economy than Obama. That's why Obama was re-elected.He has absolutely nothing to do with the economic results of Obama's
This is the luddite fallacy. Do you really believe computers led to job losses in the 70's, 80's, and 90's?
What's not to demonize? Few presidents have ****ed this nation as royally as he did. It's not just me who feels this way; at several points during his presidency, he achieved what no other president on record ever accomplished -- a record low JAR of 19%.
You can claim that all you want, it will never be true. That's why in polls taken, more people still blame Bush for the economy than Obama. That's why Obama was re-elected.
It's beyond ludicrous to claim that Bush could totally wreck the economy as he did, and that he has no effect at all on the economy today. For example, the housing market still hasn't fully recovered. That was Bush's fault, not Obama's. The effects of that effect contruction. They effect manufacturing. They effect credit markets. The world didn't suddenly start on January 20th, 2009.
You can deny reality all you wish, but the result of that is more of a reflection on you than it is on Obama.
I'm really not that fond of Obama...just not a fond of incessant bs
Sounds like your being a Bush apologist? It happened under Bush; it had nothing to do with Clinton. Reminiscent of someone else's bogus argument, isnt it??
The idea was actually postulated and kind of a "ponder on" by our econ prof...
No i realize there will be new, growing markets, but there still is the conflict with productivity and outsourcing etc...
Now if you want to get into the details of each occurrence instead of taking the intellectual lazy road of "it happened on his watch therefore..." then I'm all ears....eyes.
Your opinion noted as you continue to buy what the media tells you. I am waiting for exactly what President Bush did to hurt you or your family? You seem to believe that Bush had all that power to get us into this mess but Obama doesn't have the power to get us out of that mess. Obama was in the Senate that helped create the mess. Obama said he had the solutions to the problems but like so many you ignore the Obama results and still blame them on Bush
You think Bush is destroying the consumer confidence today? you think Bush is destroying the incentive of small business today? You think Bush proposed penalizing wealth creation? You think the way to prosperity is to tax the producers in this country? It is obvious to me that you never managed anything in your life and have no concept of leadership. Your constant whining about Bush says a lot about you just like your ignoring the Obama results does the same thing.
Obama has absolutely no control over public sector jobs at the state level where most of those public sector jobs were lost. States took fiscal responsibility and without the ability to print money did what any private citizen would do when faced with debt, cut expenses. That is a concept that liberals don't understand. The labor force increased over 10 million people during the first 7 years of the Bush term and there was record tax revenue generated to the treasury all with those tax cuts. During the first 7 years of Bush the deficit was never over a trillion dollars and the states had more revenue thus they expanded their public sector employment.
You and Sheik have very selective memories as you try to defend the indefensible. It really is a shame that you have so much invested in demonizing Bush that you cannot see what Obama is doing to this country. Why won't you answer the question as to why? Is the Obama economic policy something you really support?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?