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.
so, those jobs lost in the first year and a half of the Obama Administration, you arent going to attack Obama for them any more ?
the 8.7 million added since then, you will credit to the current President ?
im just wondering.....
Do the math, 8.7 million jobs over 65 months of the Obama president averages to a paltry 133,000 jobs created per month, that's not enough to grow the economy, much less recover the lost jobs, that is why our economy is in the tank.
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%.
Yup, the Obama supporters crowed about how his polices brought an end to the recession in June 2009. The last five years of miserable economic growth are all Obama's, even after adding $7 trillion to our debt.
Sad isn't it, we blew $7 trillion, and not a damn thing to show for it, except economic disparity, highlighted with a 50 year high in US poverty. Well, at least the rich Wall Street and K Street fat cats got richer. /golfclap
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 20 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,549 posts, read 16,535,254 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
Do the math, 8.7 million jobs over 65 months of the Obama president averages to a paltry 133,000 jobs created per month, that's not enough to grow the economy, much less recover the lost jobs, that is why our economy is in the tank.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 20 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,549 posts, read 16,535,254 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
Do the math, 8.7 million jobs over 65 months of the Obama president averages to a paltry 133,000 jobs created per month, that's not enough to grow the economy, much less recover the lost jobs, that is why our economy is in the tank.
Now to actually respond to your post.
1.Economic growth is measured by a number of factors, not just job growth, that is just how most people access their own person finances.
2. Whether or not jobs has been recovered has nothing to do with average numbers of jobs created a month. Im guessing you meant something else there or the words just came out not making sense.
The BLS says we lost 8.8 million jobs during the recession and its immediate aftermath. With todays jobs numbers 8.9 million total jobs have been created since 2010. the average of each month doesnt matter. Even if we didnt reach 8.8 million until 2999, it wouldnt change that we had reached it.
Do the math, 8.7 million jobs over 65 months of the Obama president averages to a paltry 133,000 jobs created per month, that's not enough to grow the economy, much less recover the lost jobs, that is why our economy is in the tank.
Nothing within economics requires a recovery of lost jobs. Anecdotally, when the recession hit my dad re-engineered his accounting and legal dept. He ended up cutting his support staff by 30% and production staff by 40%. 2009 (and each subsequent year) was his most profitable year, but he didn't need to hire anyone. The production employee jobs have recovered for the most part, but he still has far less people working despite getting more work done and a higher profit level.
Now as for job growth, 133K jobs is less than what most people would like, but still much better than under Bush and particularly good considering how many pubic sector jobs have been eliminated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
Yup, the Obama supporters crowed about how his polices brought an end to the recession in June 2009. The last five years of miserable economic growth are all Obama's, even after adding $7 trillion to our debt.
Sad isn't it, we blew $7 trillion, and not a damn thing to show for it, except economic disparity, highlighted with a 50 year high in US poverty. Well, at least the rich Wall Street and K Street fat cats got richer. /golfclap
Sigh, there hasn't been $7 trillion in new spending. The ACA, which only recently became effective, is only expected to cost 1.3 trillion over ten years.
never said anything about Bush did it, Bush wasnt even president in April of 2000, Clinton was.
As for the bold, LOL, You mean Bush had 8 whole years to fix the participation rate and he didnt ? For your own sake, dont even make an argument that back fires that hard.
You missed the point yet again and still deflect. As for you saying I didn't blame Bush, LOL where did I say Bush was successful? That's what you don't get. Except for the handpicked winners and losers they aren't much different.
For your own sake, dont even make a false statement that back fires that hard.
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.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 20 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,549 posts, read 16,535,254 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
You missed the point yet again and still deflect. As for you saying I didn't blame Bush, LOL where did I say Bush was successful? That's what you don't get. Except for the handpicked winners and losers they aren't much different.
For your own sake, dont even make a false statement that back fires that hard.
Again, how is it a deflection if we're talking about the same subject within the same context ? You claimed President Obama was the reason for LFP decline when in reality it started 9 years before he took office.
As for the bold. it doesnt even make sense.
You read my post and assumed I blamed Bush. His name nor his policies appeared in my post. I simply posted a date. You interpreted that date as me blaming Bush even though Bush didnt take office until a 9 months later. You made the assumption and it back fired. ANd now you are weirdly claiming that I accused you of blaming Bush.
Did you smoke something before you posted, or is this just your way of deflecting ?
Just take you "L" and walk away.
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.
