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.
you guys have to factor in population-growth system effects if you want to talk numbers. and Obama doesn't tee up too well ...no drive at all...she's in the woods
I don't care where the jobs are, private sector vs. public sector. Doesn't affect the unemployment rate, and the unemployment rate is higher now than it was when Obama took office.
At Salon blog they don't see things the way we do.
Paul Ryan appeared to be very fond of the Bush economic choices, as he voted for every spending bill put up during the Bush administration.
Are you saying Paul Ryan isn't a fiscal conservative? Or maybe he suddenly became fiscally conservative on Jan 20, 2009.
Another thread is going about Obama's failure to create jobs. I thought that was bs., but in searching for an answer, I found something worthy of its own discussion.
What is interesting is the change in public and private sector jobs under Bush and Obama during their first term. Despite all the big government claims, Bush appeared to be way ahead on both public sector expansion, AND private sector job loss.
Why do I think being completely and utterly wrong will not change my conservative colleagues ideas a bit? No matter, hopefull some independents will give this a read and come to their own conclusions.
Yes, Bush's job creation stratergy revolved around expanding the government with borrowed money, and by fueling the housing boom by removing lending regulations. When he left the office the nation was losing 800 000 jobs per month and GDP was negative 6% and all sectors of the economy in a death spiral. It doesn't get any worse than that.
Funny, no one has responded to the biggest issue. Private sector jobs cratered under Bush (almost a million lost), and public sector jobs exploded (almost a million added), given the huge tax cuts, that had to go on the credit card. Yet people here seem to act like any job is as good as another. So long as unemployment was low, it does not matter that it was largely on borrowed public funds and on a phony asset bubble. Deficits and public jobs all good.
Now, Obama take office as the economy is going over the cliff, and he has brought private jobs to positive terrain, but public sector jobs are down over a half million. Yet, according to the GOP he is a tax and spend, government bloating commie, who has terrified the private sector so that they won't hire. Now, if he tries to support public spending, a public sector job is not a real job. Deficits and public jobs all bad, yet he is still a failure for high unemployment.
What gives? The double standard and hypocrisy is shocking.
How many of those public sector jobs are federal in nature? Why do so many like you want to consider local hires the same as federal hires? I guess that is to stick up for the Stimulus thinking of Obama and his crew. Right?
The federal government has cut some federal jobs but most of the government jobs have been lost on the local and state level and yet, some really consider government to be government and it just isn't so.
In 2001 we had 4.3% unemployment. In 2007 there was 4.4%. Those were the two lowest years.
2003=6.3%
2008=7.3%
From December 2007 to December 2008 there was job losses of over 3,600,000 people.
Don't think that was a near full employment economy.
You throw out those numbers of unemployment and don't include the mathematically arrived at 8.3% of today? You also, failed to mention that the housing boom ended when the Dems took over the House in 2007 and not one word about what caused that bust, either.
They want to skip the facts and go with what is told to them. Republicans don't have a problem when a republican is spending.
I keep hearing that the dems were the ones that caused the housing crisis but weren't they in control for 6 of Bush's eight years. Did every thing really go to hell in the last two years. I don't think so.
Bush was trying to tell the Congress in 2005 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had to be restrained but I didn't see a lot of Dems siding with him. Who was in control of both houses of Congress when those two agencies were strengthened by the Dodd - Frank law? I don't think that either of those men was a Republican.
You throw out those numbers of unemployment and don't include the mathematically arrived at 8.3% of today? You also, failed to mention that the housing boom ended when the Dems took over the House in 2007 and not one word about what caused that bust, either.
Come on Roy,
Are you trying to imply that when the Dems took over, housing crashed over the whole English-speaking world? And nothing was out of wack before that?
This is another GOP post the conveys either shocking ignorance or complete intellectual dishonesty.
At Salon blog they don't see things the way we do.
Sure, but can you refute the numbers? They are pretty damning for Bush, and if true, show tremendous hypocrisy from the GOP base.
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.
