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.
Officially, the Great Recession ended in 2009. Obama has been quick to tout this fact in order to propogate and perpetuate his ongoing fiscal policies. Afterall, the President does need a tinge of good news to sell to voters considering he's wasted trillions of dollars and has zero tangible benefits to show the nation. Case in point: Unemployment is still above the much touted 8% level that he used to push the failed Stimulus.
So, now we have the President saying we're not fully out of the recession. Is the President conceding that his fiscal policies are a failure, or did he slip up?
Someone needs to remind him that the administration was jumping for joy that the recession ended June 2009 and the rebound and recovery along with all those "green shoots" were going to happen any day.
The unemployment argument based on percentages right now is a bogus argument.
When we are referring to 9% - 9% of what number? And is that number the same today as it was it 2009? Because 9% of 500,000 is different than 9% of 1 million in raw numbers. That's an exaggerated example, but in that case - two times the number of people would be unemployed even though the rate is till 9%.
Does anyone know the base number of jobs they are taking these percentages from before I go looking it up?
I looked it up and here are the numbers. The data is here at the BLS Info Archive
Jan. 2009
Civilian Labor Force - 153,716,000
Unemployed - 11,616,000 (7.6%)
Not in labor force - 81,023,000
Oct. 2011
Civilian Labor Force - 154,198,000
Unemployed - 13,897,000 (9.0%)
Not in labor force - 86,071,000
So not only are over 2 million people are unemployed, add in over 5 million more people than there were in Jan. 2009 that are not working who are not receiving unemployment for various reasons - most of them are probably teenagers.
By the way - in raw numbers, that is a 20% increase in the number of people registered as unemployed (whom I assume are collecting benefits).
Jan. 2001
Civilian Labor Force - 141,955,000
Unemployment - 5,956,000 (4.2%)
Not in labor force - 68,934,000
Jan. 2007 when Congress changed hands
Civilian Labor Force - 152,974,000
Unemployment - 7,017,000 (4.6%)
Not in labor force - 77,676,000
Jan. 2009
Civilian Labor Force - 153,716,000
Unemployed - 11,616,000 (7.6%)
Not in labor force - 81,023,000
Most of Bush's unemployment came in the last two years when Democrats took over Congress.
So in raw numbers, the amount of people collecting unemployment since Democrats had majority control of the government (2 out of 3 between House, Senate, & President) has almost doubled from 7 million people to almost 14 million people.
They should be. After all, they were supposed to create an economy with job growth, debt pay off and off to surplus. Yet, they were just the beginning of a mess that brings us to this day.
Do you ever post anything correct? The Bush tax cuts were to spur economic growth which allowed us to have unemployment levels below 5%, there was no promise to pay off the debt or surpluses, and they sure in hell didnt bring us to the mess we are in today. Why dont you stop babbling on with talking points and post a fact
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
I couldn't have expected a different result with lost eight years of job growth. But then, I am trying to engage with someone who prefers hopping around without any intention to look at causes... whiners do that.
You sure are whining a lot because again, Bush had unemployment levels 1/2 of what they currently are
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Is it wrong to ask for source that I can't recall hearing? So yeah, provide clues to the clueless, as demanded. Thank you.
Thats not what you did, so not only can you stop being wrong, but you can stop lying. You very clearly called something a lie, and then asked for the source later. If you dont know the truth about something, then maybe you shouldnt respond to the thread. Sure, you wont be posting very often, but maybe you can learn from reading it at least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
I'm defending logic. I'm defending need for perspective from relentless whiners.
This from the poster who's non stop babbling because Obama is a failure and people are attacking him for being one.
Ah yes. The good old "The World began in 2009" tactic.
What happened before 2009 has no bearing on the effects of the stimulus bill. You can keep making excuses for failure as well but the rest of us that knew it was doomed for failure know better.
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.
