- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 34,478
- Reaction score
- 17,282
- Location
- Southwestern U.S.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Never mind that congress has the constitutional power and duty to raise taxes and enact programs that stimulate employment and the economy.
And putting aside the fact that they've gone on record saying that they will sit on their hands until Obama is out of the WH.
And erase from our heads all the relevant facts about spending...
And yes, that simple-mided talking point about Obama's policies feels good to conservative ears and doesn't strain the logic part of the brain.
How do explain the 80s and 90s then where the federal economic policy was supply side? GDP doubled in the 80s, and again in the 90s. It even increased by 4 trillion in the 00s.
I posted this on another thread, but it applys here as well:
Do you realize that there are only 86,000 more people employed today then there was the day he took office, while at the same time there are nearly 9 million more people in the eligible workforce?
To put that into perspective, lets assume that every person who was employed when he took office, is still employed today. That means that of the 8,827,000 people that have been added to the eligible workforce due to population growth since January 2009, less than 1% of them (0.97%) are employed?
Is this what you call a recovery?
Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
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 | 141 | 96 |
And I will accept a significant gain over a modest one given the parameters of a reality without President Hope(less)But I will accept a modest gain over a significant loss given the parameters of reality.
And I will accept a significant gain over a modest one given the parameters of a reality without President Hope(less)
Do you realize that when President Obama took office we were in a deep recession which wasn't officially over until June? :roll:
Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)
1-Month Net Change
Series Id: CES0000000001
Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector: Total nonfarm
Industry: Total nonfarm
NAICS Code: -
Data Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
Years: 2009 to 2012
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 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 45 141 96
Do you realize that when President Obama took office we were in a deep recession which wasn't officially over until June? :roll:
Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)
1-Month Net Change
Series Id: CES0000000001
Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector: Total nonfarm
Industry: Total nonfarm
NAICS Code: -
Data Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
Years: 2009 to 2012
The point is simply that we were in a deep recession that began when Bush was president. You should also note that Obama didn't become president until January 20. Also there were 3.9 million people who lost jobs between January until the official end of the recession in June. And one of biggest problems during those times was that credit markets were frozen.Based on your data the President is still behind 1,079m jobs getting back to even...or was that your point?
Thank you for that...
Do you realize that when President Obama took office we were in a deep recession which wasn't officially over until June? :roll:
Austerity is never the way out of a recession. Spend money, but spend it on things that are an investment in your country. Giving huge tax breaks will never cure an economy. In fact, when the Great Depression hit the tax rate was at 24%When are you ever going to take responsibility, I mean it's been 4 yrs now. What, you can't see failure when it's right in front of your nose. The liberal way borrow and spend as much as is needed to get some results, be damned what it cost. But liberals think there is an endless supply of money, however what you want hidden and you never talk about is the debt. Yes the debt it cost to get a few jobs. And you want to borrow and spend trillions more so you can say "see we created a thousand jobs.
The point is simply that we were in a deep recession that began when Bush was president. You should also note that Obama didn't become president until January 20. Also there were 3.9 million people who lost jobs between January until the official end of the recession in June. And one of biggest problems during those times was that credit markets were frozen.
Was the recession Obama's fault?
Was the recession Obama's fault?
I saw what you did!
Now back to the point, the current administratin is 1,079m jobs behind...where are all these '4.5 million jobs created'? The numbers do not reflect them...
Austerity is never the way out of a recession. Spend money, but spend it on things that are an investment in your country. Giving huge tax breaks will never cure an economy. In fact, when the Great Depression hit the tax rate was at 24%
Was the recession Obama's fault?
That economic collapse was decades in the making.
Fantastic.
Now that we've got that out of you.
Do you really think it can be solved in just a couple of years?
This meltdown was much more severe than most people realize, the fact there's any jobs being created at all is nothing short of a miracle, maybe because of Obamas policies... maybe not.
But I can garauntee you, bigger tax cuts for the wealthy and de-regulation are not gonna help anything.
Obama said himself if he did not have it fixed in three yrs he would be a one term president, I believe him.
Moderator's Warning: |
Do you really think it can be solved in just a couple of years?
But I can garauntee you, bigger tax cuts for the wealthy and de-regulation are not gonna help anything.
Pete, you can dance and spin around the numbers all you like, but they're still crap. Using your timeline, back in July 2009 (the first month of the so called "recovery") the percent of the eligible workforce that was employed (the Employment-Population Ratio) was 59.3%, while today it is only 58.3%.
That means that over $800 billion spent on the Obama stimulus and more than 3 years later, there's 1% fewer of our eligible workforce employed today than back then. That 1% translates into 2,435,660 people Pete.
I'm sorry, but there's no way any rational person can call those results "successful"
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?