Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Perhaps a better indicator would be to look at the welfare rolls to see if they're growing at a linear rate with the so-called reduction in un-employment.
My understanding is; once they (gov't) fudged the unemployment figure by considering only those collecting "unemployment" benefits they closed the door on actual number of un-employed who were no longer elegible for benefits, soooo, would it not seem reasonable to "assume" once your unemployment benefits run out you would then apply for welfare? If so, wouldn't those stats rise?
The welfare rolls might be a better indicator of the jobs situation than that flawed unemplyment benefits tally.
Gotta say; I've noticed a whole lot more people standing on street corners with their little signs begging for alms.
There were two recessions while Bush 43 was President: The 2000-2001 recession, which was terminated by suspending the massive 1993 Clinton tax increase and giving every taxpayer a $300 rebate in May 2001; and the 2008-Present recession which began when the Democrat-caused housing bubble burst, and the trillion dollar deficits by a Democrat controlled Congress.
I have yet to read a better example of revisionist history.
First, that $300 rebate was signed into law in June 2001 and the checks didn't get to taxpayers until the fall. By that time, the recession was over.
Second, if you are trying to argue that Bush presided over a robust economy, since he 'suspend[ed] the massive 1993 Clinton tax increase' don't fool yourself. Clinton's economy, with higher taxes, far out-performed Bush's low tax eonomy.
In eight years, Bush's job gains were 5 million, or an average of 52,000 per month. Clinton, who raised taxes, in 8-years added 22 million jobs. Apart from a stellar performance, Bush's job performance was dismal. Thus, the theory, such as it is, that lower taxes spur economic activity sure isn't confirmed from your example.
After those Bush tax-cuts, unemployment continued to rise until 2004.
You also laughably blame the Democrats, who just took control of the House and Senate in January 2007, for the recession that started at the end of 2007, while neglecting to point to a single action the Democrats took to cause that recession. In other words, there is no truth to your statement.
To think that 14 years of Republican control of House, which resulted in massive deregulation of banking and finance, had no effect on the crisis, one has to be wearing blinders.
I have yet to read a better example of revisionist history.
First, that $300 rebate was signed into law in June 2001 and the checks didn't get to taxpayers until the fall. By that time, the recession was over.
Second, if you are trying to argue that Bush presided over a robust economy, since he 'suspend[ed] the massive 1993 Clinton tax increase' don't fool yourself. Clinton's economy, with higher taxes, far out-performed Bush's low tax eonomy.
In eight years, Bush's job gains were 5 million, or an average of 52,000 per month. Clinton, who raised taxes, in 8-years added 22 million jobs. Apart from a stellar performance, Bush's job performance was dismal. Thus, the theory, such as it is, that lower taxes spur economic activity sure isn't confirmed from your example.
After those Bush tax-cuts, unemployment continued to rise until 2004.
You also laughably blame the Democrats, who just took control of the House and Senate in January 2007, for the recession that started at the end of 2007, while neglecting to point to a single action the Democrats took to cause that recession. In other words, there is no truth to your statement.
To think that 14 years of Republican control of House, which resulted in massive deregulation of banking and finance, had no effect on the crisis, one has to be wearing blinders.
Lets see, which party was it that passed the Dodds-Frank act? Did that one have anything to do with what happened in housing? Just wondering.
Lets see, which party was it that passed the Dodds-Frank act? Did that one have anything to do with what happened in housing? Just wondering.
Your point escapes me. The Dodd-Frank Act was passed in 2010 as a response to the financial crisis which was largely caused by deregulating the industry.
Your point escapes me. The Dodd-Frank Act was passed in 2010 as a response to the financial crisis which was largely caused by deregulating the industry.
Congress never takes the law of unintended consequences into account when they meddle in the economy. They attempt to fix one thing (which the probably broke in the first place, and end up breaking 5 other things and never fix the first thing they started out to fix.
Congress never takes the law of unintended consequences into account when they meddle in the economy. They attempt to fix one thing (which the probably broke in the first place, and end up breaking 5 other things and never fix the first thing they started out to fix.
The evidence is in plethoric abundance. Only the willfully ignorant don't see it.
I.E., you can't provide any examples of this phenomenon, and more importantly, how often congress fails to solve a problem it sets out to fix while further breaking the system in which the problem resides, and whether these phenomena happen more frequently than congress properly solving current issues.
I mean, why bother actually supporting your claim when it's easier to spout rhetoric and hope no one questions it, right?
I.E., you can't provide any examples of this phenomenon, and more importantly, how often congress fails to solve a problem it sets out to fix while further breaking the system in which the problem resides, and whether these phenomena happen more frequently than congress properly solving current issues.
I mean, why bother actually supporting your claim when it's easier to spout rhetoric and hope no one questions it, right?
It isn't in question, except in your mind. It is the history of government meddling. Like the war on poverty has done nothing but create and sustain poverty. Nothing would convince you anyway, your agenda has looked your mind closed.
I have a socialist automobile when I put it in Forward Gear??
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
