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.
Yes it is, because it is not using percentage or a rate, but emphasizes on losses and recovery (getting to the same level where it started), and the duration it took for the recovery.
If you still can't digest it, could you, at the very minimum, not compare 2001 recession to 2007+ recession?
Yes, you could compare 2001 to 2007 recession for some interesting observation. I only mention that its flawed because the purpose of it is to show how bad the recession is by claiming numbers are what counts when indeed comparing the 2007 recession to one from 1948 is ridiculous simply due to population count.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
For example?
Thats my point. Democrats like to claim Bush abused the veto power and had he not veto'd bills, the economy wouldnt have been as bad as it is, but when asked for examples of bills veto'd which would have had a positive effect upon the economy they cant name any..
Yes, you could compare 2001 to 2007 recession for some interesting observation. I only mention that its flawed because the purpose of it is to show how bad the recession is by claiming numbers are what counts when indeed comparing the 2007 recession to one from 1948 is ridiculous simply due to population count.
The problem is that you focused on something trivial. I didn't even look for numbers, but the rate at which job losses occurred, and the time it took to recover.
Even if you were to consider the population, what difference would it make in the time taken for job recovery?
Quote:
Thats my point. Democrats like to claim Bush abused the veto power and had he not veto'd bills, the economy wouldnt have been as bad as it is, but when asked for examples of bills veto'd which would have had a positive effect upon the economy they cant name any..
Economy never recovered under Bush. Sure, stock market did, and "unemployment rate" (a horrible measure, as I've always claimed) looked acceptable, but did it speak for the real economic mess?
It took the GOP 8 years to wreck it and it will take that long to fix.
gosh, before I even knew that this thread had been created, a bunch of you have jumped in to state the obvious. . . . .I feel so useless here sometimes. . . .
The problem is that you focused on something trivial.
Its not at all trivial to point out the flaws in the chart..
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
I didn't even look for numbers, but the rate at which job losses occurred, and the time it took to recover.
But the whole chart is based upon numbers (in thousands)
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Even if you were to consider the population, what difference would it make in the time taken for job recovery?
There is a huge difference. For example, in 1948, america had a population of 146M, so if you were to adjust the population to 2007 numbers of 302M, the number of losses would more than double whats being shown.. (i.e. double the population would = double the losses of jobs), doubling these numbers would put the -2300 to around -4600, which would indeed be far worse than the 2007 chart..
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Economy never recovered under Bush. Sure, stock market did, and "unemployment rate" (a horrible measure, as I've always claimed) looked acceptable, but did it speak for the real economic mess?
Then what economic indicators didnt improve, and if unemployment is a horrible measure, why are you posting charts to them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Which vetoes are you specifically talking about?
I'm not speaking of any, I'm disputing liberals arguments that Bush helped cause the economic mess due to abuse of the veto..
Right, corporations are to blame for the recession now.. As if corporations all got together and had a meeting and decided to lay off a large percentage of their employees to embarass the Democrats..
CitiGroup, Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, GM, AIG, BP, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo and on and on and on. THESE robber barons and their free-market, laissez-faire political lackeys are the reason for this mess.
CitiGroup, Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, GM, AIG, BP, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo and on and on and on. THESE robber barons and their free-market, laissez-faire political lackeys are the reason for this mess.
So your solution is that we should just ban all of these companies out of existance and unemployment would drop and the economy would recover? Give it a break..
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.
