Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-03-2011, 09:48 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,700,706 times
Reputation: 12341

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MotleyCrew View Post
Why don't you pose that question to Obam as he seems to be creating nothing but unemployed. His stimulous has resulted in too much money being thrown on short term road work and nothing of substance. Show me the jobs in mass he has created with this nonsense. CZARS don't count.
The republican idea of stimulus and job growth has been tax cut, with major cuts implemented TWICE during and after the 2001 recession. Did it work better than Obama's stimulus which included cave-in to GOP demand for tax cuts (and 65% of the stimulus was tax cuts)?

To see that, considering that job growth is a trailing indicator, let us start six months after the end of recession and count the number of jobs added over 17 months (since we're at that point since 2007-09 recession):

Private Sector Jobs, Jun 2002: 108.824 million
Private Sector Jobs, Nov 2003: 108.611 million
Jobs Lost: -213K

Private Sector Jobs, Jan 2010: 106.793 million
Private Sector Jobs, May 2011: 108.916 million
Jobs Added: 2.123 million

With that perspective, I would say that Obama's stimulus has worked better. No?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-03-2011, 09:50 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,700,706 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secchamps98 View Post
Yes,

2000 4.0
2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0
2004 5.5
2005 5.1
2006 4.6
2007 4.6
2008 5.8
2009 9.3
2010 9.6

US Unemployment rates...
Where can I find the unemployment rate for previous years?
Seems to me that polices in place from 2000-2008 helped keep ore people working......don't seem to be going in right direction now...
Unemployment rate is a GREAT way to figure out the real job growth, ain't it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2011, 09:50 AM
 
Location: Portland, OR
8,802 posts, read 8,858,962 times
Reputation: 4512
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
The republican idea of stimulus and job growth has been tax cut, with major cuts implemented TWICE during and after the 2001 recession. Did it work better than Obama's stimulus which included cave-in to GOP demand for tax cuts (and 65% of the stimulus was tax cuts)?

To see that, considering that job growth is a trailing indicator, let us start six months after the end of recession and count the number of jobs added over 17 months (since we're at that point since 2007-09 recession):

Private Sector Jobs, Jun 2002: 108.824 million
Private Sector Jobs, Nov 2003: 108.611 million
Jobs Lost: -213K

Private Sector Jobs, Jan 2010: 106.793 million
Private Sector Jobs, May 2011: 108.916 million
Jobs Added: 2.123 million

With that perspective, I would say that Obama's stimulus has worked better. No?
How do you know that correlation=causation?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2011, 09:54 AM
 
Location: Norman, OK
3,478 posts, read 7,224,090 times
Reputation: 1200
^The poster simply does wants to look at net numbers or "same-time" numbers (which mean nothing as circumstances are different, even as the poster admits). I asked something very clear and no answer was provided.

It's truly remarkable how completely blinded some people are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2011, 10:00 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,700,706 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan View Post
I think I've calculated the geometric average real GDP growth during Bush's presidency, including the financial crisis, to be about 1.8% per year or so.

I am not sure I see the point you're trying to argue
It certainly wasn’t what you responded with, but in line with the earlier post of yours. You appear to be in the camp that didn’t see an economic debacle coming, and thinks things were rosy with a republican President and republican congress in charge. Just as those unemployment rates at the time would attest to, and the GDP growth you allude to. Right? BTW, did you use current or constant dollars to calculate GDP. Not that those numbers matter to me, considering all the evidence out there of a poorly performing economy since 2001.

When do you think the signs of a poor economy, of a major credit bubble, showed up?

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan View Post
How do you know that correlation=causation?
Well, why don't you go ahead and deliver the facts, and talk about the premise of the discussion?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2011, 10:00 AM
 
6,565 posts, read 14,247,424 times
Reputation: 3229
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
I asked what policies were put into effect, you responded by telling me Bush made a speech.. Lets try this again..

Lets try this again with you as well..

What POLICY CHANGES were made?
Alright dip*****...

Lets start with increasing FHA Loan limits....

But if you want to play this game, tell us "What Obama Policy" is causing unemployment rates to remain high?

Can't do it? Buh, buh, buh.... It's OBAMA'S FAULT!!! You parrott that as FACT over and over again!!! So what POLICY of Obama's is causing that? (LOL!!! I'll have fun watching you scramble to change the rules of the game again here.... )
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2011, 10:04 AM
 
1,432 posts, read 1,086,529 times
Reputation: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Unemployment rate is a GREAT way to figure out the real job growth, ain't it?
Unemployment rate gives un an indication from yr to yr who is working..a 10 yr horizon is an easy way to skip over what happens in between. With a 4-5% unemployment rate there is not going to be a big growth in jobs (less skilled workers available, etc.), but with 9-10% probably alot of highly skilled workers to add back to the workforce.

Its the details in between that people like to gloss over.....Details, detaisl, details....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2011, 10:04 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,700,706 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by wxjay View Post
^The poster simply does wants to look at net numbers or "same-time" numbers (which mean nothing as circumstances are different, even as the poster admits). I asked something very clear and no answer was provided.

It's truly remarkable how completely blinded some people are.
If you think you're not one of those completely blinded, you should be able to read and comprehend the posts. But then, in your defense, you may be reading, just not be able to comprehend or stick with the argument because it demonstrates the cuteness of the blinders getting in your way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Secchamps98 View Post
Unemployment rate gives un an indication from yr to yr who is working..a 10 yr horizon is an easy way to skip over what happens in between. With a 4-5% unemployment rate there is not going to be a big growth in jobs (less skilled workers available, etc.), but with 9-10% probably alot of highly skilled workers to add back to the workforce.

Its the details in between that people like to gloss over.....Details, detaisl, details....
Then you must believe that unemployment rate provides greater detail than number of jobs added/lost. Is that right? Let us play then... here are Unemployment Rates since 1980, grouped every four years:
1981 7.6
1982 9.7
1983 9.6
1984 7.5

1985 7.2
1986 7.0
1987 6.2
1988 5.5

1989 5.3
1990 5.6
1991 6.8
1992 7.5

1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4

1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4.0

2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0
2004 5.5

2005 5.1
2006 4.6
2007 4.6
2008 5.8

Would you mind ranking these group of periods based on the state of economy using those unemployment rate? For example, would you say, the economy was doing better in 2001-2004 compared to 1985-88?

Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 06-03-2011 at 10:13 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2011, 10:06 AM
 
1,432 posts, read 1,086,529 times
Reputation: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan View Post
How do you know that correlation=causation?
Can we see the source of 2 million permament jobs...is this private or govt sector? Again, correlation is not causaztion.....most people on this board and in the Govt like to think that though....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2011, 10:07 AM
 
Location: Portland, OR
8,802 posts, read 8,858,962 times
Reputation: 4512
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
It certainly wasn’t what you responded with, but in line with the earlier post of yours. You appear to be in the camp that didn’t see an economic debacle coming, and thinks things were rosy with a republican President and republican congress in charge. Just as those unemployment rates at the time would attest to, and the GDP growth you allude to. Right? BTW, did you use current or constant dollars to calculate GDP. Not that those numbers matter to me, considering all the evidence out there of a poorly performing economy since 2001.

When do you think the signs of a poor economy, of a major credit bubble, showed up?


Well, why don't you go ahead and deliver the facts, and talk about the premise of the discussion?
I was 12-20 years old when Bush was president, so no I didn't see anything coming nor did I care at that time. I am still not sure we're on the same wave length because I have no idea what you're talking about.

I think what's happening here is that you place a high level of causation between job growth and which president is in office. This substantiates your claims when things are going well, but when bad news comes out, 54,000 new P/S jobs, then you try to reach for something and selectively utilize statistics to demonstrate how Obama is AT LEAST better than Bush.

I am no supporter of Bush, that much is true. Bush's solution was a chain of asset bubbles, Obama's solution is government spending. Neither is going to work, neither generates wealth, and neither creates jobs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top