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.
And losing over 6 million private sector jobs as well as 57,000 factories. Great job. The job reports are going negative Bob, not positive so how is that a gain?
After it was all said and done with the 2007-2009 recession, the private sector payroll shrunk by 8.8 million, nearly 8% loss compared to where it stood in 2001. Consequently, forget about adding ONE more job to the economy in 8 years since Jan 2001, we stood with a massive loss while the population (hence the labor force) grew by about 10%. Since you've clearly forgotten, that is where the economy stood. When was the last time the economy was in such dire situation, especially with regards to job losses?
Lying is about being irrational. Now, if you argued that private sector payroll has grown by only 2.1 million since and there should be more, over the last 17 months, you would at least have some logical argument.
Reverse? Hmmm, what was the unemployment rate when he took office, and what is it now? Obviously the unemployed have grown since he took office, and we are stuck in an 0bamavile quagmire.
Unemployment rate was bad and getting worse BEFORE Obama took office. The situation was similar, but not as bad, when Reagan took office in 1981. In the third year under Reagan, unemployment rate stood at 9.6% for goodness sake.
Remember, more private sector jobs were lost in a single year (2008), 4.6 million, than were gained in seven years since Jan 2001. Was that good? Were things rosy until the day Obama took office?
If unemployment rate were a key indicator on job growth in the private sector, perhaps 2001-2004 (when nearly a million jobs were lost) was a better time for job growth than 1981-1984 (when over five million jobs were added)? If you think so, I couldn’t disagree more. If you think those four years in 1980s were better, than that would debunk your belief in relying on unemployment rate.
Quote:
The biggest gains in employment came when they reduced the number of people in the total US work force, to calculate their employment figures. Every month the take more people off the active seeking employment roles.
Prove that the standards were altered, compared to the past, to make things look better.
And that started with Obama taking the office? Wages in 2000 were higher than the wages anytime in the last 10 years. How is that not a sign of stagnation in wages? Food hasn't gotten cheaper, fuel costs have constantly risen (and NO President can control the prices, or else Bush should have done something about the prices in 2008?). Jobs started being shipped in 2001. If companies weren't sitting on cash and were hiring, why would there be a negative job growth over eight years BEFORE Obama took office?
Private Sector Payroll, Jan 2001: 111.634 Million
Private Sector Payroll, Jan 2008: 115.610 Million (41K jobs added per month, only 3.976 Million jobs added during the period of very low "unemployment rate")
Private Sector Payroll, Jan 2010: 110.981 Million (4.6 Million jobs LOST in just the first year of the recession)
Private Sector Payroll, Jan 2010: 106.793 Million (8.8 Million jobs LOST during recession)
If, as you say, jobs should grow at 200K/month, 19.2 million jobs should have been added by Jan 2008. Did that happen?
The typical liberal response.............."but, but,........what about Bush?!"
Bush was a liberal. Few conservatives approved of him, yet the choice of Kerry and Gore were HORRIBLE.
You admit, then, that Obama has been an economic failure? I admit that of Bush, yet he had an unemployment rate of under 4%, a debt when he left office at $8.6 trillion, and a much stronger currency. Bush was bad, but he was an economic genius compared to Obama.
On the balance, even a fool would admit, despite producing an enemic economic history, that Obama is far worse. Yet most liberals have not quite worked themselves up to fool status to realize this. The learning curve can be tough.
Obama has CLEARLY demonstrated the gross failures of Keynesian economic policies (keep in mind that Stiglitz, only few years ago, was championing the economies of Greece, Italy, and Spain as examples of the successes of Keynesian economic principles). The Keynesians promote federal spending as "stimulus" to the point to which "debt becomes unsustainable". What do they suggest happens at that point? NOTHING! Why? Because they know the whole house of cards falls into economic chaos at that point. An economic theory that has at its end point economic ruin for a nation is nothing short of insanity. Any fool can see the failures of these principles through Obama, Greece, Italy, and Spain. Perhaps Obama's ineptitude will prove instructive for the nation in the future (if we can survive his damage) and show the lunacy of such economic principles. In that regard, his incomptetence may have been worth while in preventing future citizens from making the same foolish mistakes.
The typical liberal response.............."but, but,........what about Bush?!"
Bush was a liberal. Few conservatives approved of him, yet the choice of Kerry and Gore were HORRIBLE.
You admit, then, that Obama has been an economic failure? I admit that of Bush, yet he had an unemployment rate of under 4%, a debt when he left office at $8.6 trillion, and a much stronger currency.
On the balance, even a fool would admit, despite producing an enemic economic history, that Obama is far worse. Yet most liberals have not quite worked themselves up to fool status to realize this. The learning curve can be tough.
Obama has CLEARLY demonstrated the gross failures of Keynesian economic policies (keep in mind that Stiglitz, only few years ago, was championing the economies of Greece, Italy, and Spain as examples of the successes of Keynesian economic principles). The Keynesians promote federal spending as "stimulus" to the point to which "debt becomes unsustainable". What do they suggest happens at that point? NOTHING! Why? Because they know the whole house of cards falls into economic chaos at that point. An economic theory that has at its end point economic ruin for a nation is nothing short of insanity.
What I believe people here fail to fathom is that its possible to admit that the economy has gotten worse since Obama's election without it being "Obama's fault".....
Obama has tried some things and some have actually worked and some have not.... There is a Republican implication that somehow, had they won office in '08, that the economy would be SO much better now...
I ain't buyin' it... I believe this economy needs/needed 5-10 years to bounce back from this garbage. If anything? I believe Obama may have lengthened that time period in a desperate attempt to keep the reckoning from occurring. If he failed? THAT is where he failed.
But the economy was going to suck no matter who the heck we put in office IMO. Anyone believing otherwise is severely delusional.
Oh, and the reason your point on Keynesian Economics is an epic fail is because you forgot the flip side of that coin. Namely that you pay back debt during good economic times. Instead? Bush ran up massive debt despite a booming economy... THAT is why BUSH is far worse.
[quote=Rhett_Butler;19592412]What I believe people here fail to fathom is that its possible to admit that the economy has gotten worse since Obama's election without it being "Obama's fault".....
quote]
Or perhaps Obama's belief that you can castigate, threaten and harass employers while at the same time professing to love employment is part of the mechanism.
He evidently does not understand the connection between employers and employment. The EPA's assault on our nation's electricity generation, and concerted action to shut down the growth of our domestic energy industry, are pretty good examples. Even better is the NLRB war against Boeing--this administration hates employers.
Maybe we ought to try some pro-growth, pro-employment policies for a change. The anti-growth, anti-employment stuff really has not worked out.
How is that going to help? How much did GE pay in corporate taxes last year, since the rates are highest in the world, it must have paid a lot, right? BTW, even President Obama agrees that corporate tax rates must be reformed. Perhaps congress should take it up?
Then why hasn't he?? He's been in Office 2 1/2 years and until the Election in Nov. had control of everything, plus the Dems had control for the last 2 years of the Bush Term. They did just what they wanted to do. This is now Obama's mess and he's been in full campaign mode since day one, he won't do anything to upset his money backers.
Reverse? Hmmm, what was the unemployment rate when he took office, and what is it now? Obviously the unemployed have grown since he took office, and we are stuck in an 0bamavile quagmire.
The biggest gains in employment came when they reduced the number of people in the total US work force, to calculate their employment figures. Every month the take more people off the active seeking employment roles.
When Obama took office the economy was losing 700,000 jobs a month. That was reduced month after month and then gains were made.
You are also confusing two measures, the unemployment rate and the number employed. You can look up yourself what the differences are.
In any case, the following is the civilian labor force according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics for 2011:
What I believe people here fail to fathom is that its possible to admit that the economy has gotten worse since Obama's election without it being "Obama's fault".....
Obama has tried some things and some have actually worked and some have not.... There is a Republican implication that somehow, had they won office in '08, that the economy would be SO much better now...
I ain't buyin' it... I believe this economy needs/needed 5-10 years to bounce back from this garbage. If anything? I believe Obama may have lengthened that time period in a desperate attempt to keep the reckoning from occurring. If he failed? THAT is where he failed.
But the economy was going to suck no matter who the heck we put in office IMO. Anyone believing otherwise is severely delusional.
Oh, and the reason your point on Keynesian Economics is an epic fail is because you forgot the flip side of that coin. Namely that you pay back debt during good economic times. Instead? Bush ran up massive debt despite a booming economy... THAT is why BUSH is far worse.
Right................... "you pay back the debt during good economic times"........... just like Greece!
Tell me- when, in the history of the US since 1960, has the US EVER PAID DOWN THE DEBT DURING "GOOD ECONOMIC TIMES?!". Answer- Never. Further, even your friends the Keynesians, have NO SOLUTION to the problem when the debt, which they advocate accumulating, becomes "unsustainable".
I think you need to read more Keynesian economic books. I do. It is more akin to comedy than reality that someone would actually believe the stuff. Keep in mind that the Keynesians point to the shining examples of Greece, Italy, and Spain as "success" for their model!
The lament of the Obamabots is that "things would have been the same anyway under different leadership." This clearly shows that even the Obamabots now understand that Obama is a complete economic failure and are simply seeking to rationalize his failures. Guess what? "Stimulus" has never worked EVER. Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush used tax cuts to turn around the economy. That, and a fundamental change in US tax and regulatory policy is needed. We need a reversal of liberal policy for the last fifty years, as it has been an abject failure. Only a fool would continue to implement policy over and over again after failure.
You admit, then, that Obama has been an economic failure? I admit that of Bush, yet he had an unemployment rate of under 4%, a debt when he left office at $8.6 trillion, and a much stronger currency. Bush was bad, but he was an economic genius compared to Obama.
It takes quite a lot of effort and time to destroy an economy. Bush walked into a pretty good situation during his first term. It was a slow choking death over those 8 years but he had a nice cushion to burn before it really got critical. Obama walked into a cesspool that was already on an out-of-control spiral. Very hard to recover from that. Obama/McCain, whoever, it would have been any candidate's coffin.
Unfortunately, there was a lot of delusion on some people's parts that one administration could "fix" the mess of 2008 and I'm sure those people are disappointed. I always thought "I wouldn't want to be the winner of the 2008 election..no way, no how" because it would look like a failure for anyone.
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.
!
