Payrolls in U.S. Rose 217,000 in May, Unemployment 6.3% (poll, ideology, politician)

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

Are you a partisan hack or simply have an inability to process factual data?

The REAL NUMBERS (rather than contrived "unemployment numbers") is that there are 92,000,000 unemployed citizens in the US. That is the lowest work force participation rate in 37 years. That is a FACT.

Liberals can spin whatever they want. However-

1. the highest number of unemployed citizens in 37 years
2. record numbers on foodstamps
3. record number of citizens living in poverty
4. lower incomes
5. lower personal wealth
6. record lows in home ownership
7. reduced manufacturing jobs
8. record debt
9. record deficits

--- tells the tale. The US is on its knees due to the ineptitude of an incompetent POTUS and blind adherence to the flawed principles of liberalism. It is quite possible that Obama (probably as he has wished) has effectively killed the United States, as it would take a dramatic reversal of policy and fortune to correct the disaster that is Obama.

I do like how you keep calling New born babies unemployed, and how food stamps numbers havent decreased in decades, nor number of people in poverty since the 1990's, And that manufacturing jobs actually increased, and the deficits have decreased and that the Record is actually the 2009 one(President Bush's), and that every debt is an increase because we havent decreased debt since the 1800's

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by CravingMountains

LFPR didn't just decline under Obama. It went into a free falling collapse. It only slightly fell during Bush's years.

If Obama didn't have boomers retiring and young people giving up on finding a job our unemployment rate would still be who knows how high.

Thank Clinton for NAFTA and the 2000 China trade act!

[RaymondChandlerLives]

Originally Posted by TrapperJohn

According to the NBER it began in December 2007 and ended Q1 2009. Obama has been President since January 2009.

The recession of 2001 lasted seven months and by your definition is the Clinton recession.

So after five full years of post-recession Obama leadership, is the country better off? In December 2007 the UE rate was 5%.

The U3 was 7.8% (and skyrocketing) when Bush left office in January 2009. Know how many jobs the economy shed that year? FIVE MILLION. By the time the bleeding finally stopped in February 2010 the Great Recession had extinguished 8.7 million jobs. All that disposable income, vanished. It took two years to lose 8.7 million jobs, and a little over four to get them all back. We're obviously better off now, and it's ridiculous to even ask the question. History will be very kind to Obama.

[Michigantown]

Originally Posted by momonkey

Thank Bush senior for NAFTA and the Clinton for the 2000 China trade act!

fixed

[CravingMountains]

Originally Posted by momonkey

Thank Clinton for NAFTA and the 2000 China trade act!

Bush is the one who allowed our economy to collapse.

[BigJon3475]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

This is a false equivalency as all recessions are not equal. This recession was worse than anyone in our history. So why wouldnt it be the worst/longest recovery ?

People seem to forget that the reason the recession never gets these distinctions is because it was made up of multiple recessions.

You're delusional. There were 12, yes 12, other recessions equal to or greater than the mild recession from Dec. 2007 to June 2009.

October 1873(III) - March 1879 (I) - 65 Months
August 1929(III) - March 1933 (I) - 43 Months
March 1882(I) - May 1885 (II) - 38 Months
April 1865(I) - December 1867 (I) - 32 Months
January 1910(I) - January 1912 (IV) - 24 Months
September 1902(IV) - August 1904 (III) - 23 Months
January 1913(I) - December 1914 (IV) - 23 Months
June 1857(II) - December 1858 (IV) - 18 Months
June 1869(II) - December 1870 (IV) - 18 Months
December 1895(IV) - June 1897 (II) - 18 Months
June 1899(III) - December 1900 (IV) - 18 Months
January 1920(I) - July 1921 (III) - 18 Months
December 2007 (IV) - June 2009 (II) - 18 Months

Just because you bought the B.S. hook, line and sinker that that was the worst recession in U.S. history doesn't make it so. Even if you add the 8 months recessions in 90 - 91 and March 2001 - November 2001 you still would only be only slight longer than half of the longest recorded U.S. recession. And that completely ignores the 120 month expansion, the longest in U.S. history in the early to late 1990's.

[CravingMountains]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

The problem with your argument is presided is not the same as where the blame should be placed. Every argument you have put forth as to him has been proven wrong. I even provided you with links to back up each of my argument (even though you have provided none for your own other than the one that contradicted you).

You blame President Obama for participation rate, but it has been falling since April 2000.
You attack him for U6, even thought it has been dropping since 2010. Dropped 5 full percentage points in that time infarct. The gap between U6 and U3 has even dropped. it was at 7, now it is down to 5.9.

You even blamed him for the effects of the recession, a recession that started a year before he took office.

You look at it your way and I'll look at it my way. You are wanting to look at the meager improvements in our economy as a positive to Obama's presidency. I look at the meager improvements in our economy with shame, as this is the most anemic economic recovery our nation has ever endured. And I blame Obama's far reaching government and Tea Party obstructionism for it.

I'm also very disapproving of how much the government is intervening in the affairs that should be left up to private markets to decide. Bailing out banks, our motor companies, injecting trillions of dollars into our economy to keep it merely on life support. The government is the sole thing holding our economy up right now. If not for bailouts, and QE, and continued spending, the broken parts of our economy could have corrected themselves. Many sectors that should have died still live and it will continue to drag our recovery down.

[CravingMountains]

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

You're delusional. There were 12, yes 12, other recessions equal to or greater than the mild recession from Dec. 2007 to June 2009.

October 1873(III) - March 1879 (I) - 65 Months
August 1929(III) - March 1933 (I) - 43 Months
March 1882(I) - May 1885 (II) - 38 Months
April 1865(I) - December 1867 (I) - 32 Months
January 1910(I) - January 1912 (IV) - 24 Months
September 1902(IV) - August 1904 (III) - 23 Months
January 1913(I) - December 1914 (IV) - 23 Months
June 1857(II) - December 1858 (IV) - 18 Months
June 1869(II) - December 1870 (IV) - 18 Months
December 1895(IV) - June 1897 (II) - 18 Months
June 1899(III) - December 1900 (IV) - 18 Months
January 1920(I) - July 1921 (III) - 18 Months
December 2007 (IV) - June 2009 (II) - 18 Months

Just because you bought the B.S. hook, line and sinker that that was the worst recession in U.S. history doesn't make it so.

Every economic indicator before WWII is a bunch of hogwash. Not a lick of unemployment data was even kept in this country prior to 1947. How can you compare some nonsense that occurred in an agrarian 19th century society to what occurred in the late 2000s? Most of those numbers people put out today for recessions in the deep past was calculated just recently, as if people alive today know what life was like back then.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

You're delusional. There were 12, yes 12, other recessions equal to or greater than the mild recession from Dec. 2007 to June 2009.

October 1873(III) - March 1879 (I) - 65 Months
August 1929(III) - March 1933 (I) - 43 Months
March 1882(I) - May 1885 (II) - 38 Months
April 1865(I) - December 1867 (I) - 32 Months
January 1910(I) - January 1912 (IV) - 24 Months
September 1902(IV) - August 1904 (III) - 23 Months
January 1913(I) - December 1914 (IV) - 23 Months
June 1857(II) - December 1858 (IV) - 18 Months
June 1869(II) - December 1870 (IV) - 18 Months
December 1895(IV) - June 1897 (II) - 18 Months
June 1899(III) - December 1900 (IV) - 18 Months
January 1920(I) - July 1921 (III) - 18 Months
December 2007 (IV) - June 2009 (II) - 18 Months

Just because you bought the B.S. hook, line and sinker that that was the worst recession in U.S. history doesn't make it so. Even if you add the 8 months recessions in 90 - 91 and March 2001 - November 2001 you still would only be only slight longer than half of the longest recorded U.S. recession. And that completely ignores the 120 month expansion, the longest in U.S. history in the early to late 1990's.

LMFAO ROTF, you are counting recessions by how long they lasted rather than how deep they were ?

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by CravingMountains

Every economic indicator before WWII is a bunch of hogwash. Not a lick of unemployment data was even kept in this country prior to 1947. How can you compare some nonsense that occurred in an agrarian 19th century society to what occurred in the late 2000s? Most of those numbers people put out today for recessions in the deep past was calculated just recently, as if people alive today know what life was like back then.

He didnt go by economic indicators, he went by months. he is saying the length of a recession dictates how bad it is.