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.
"When the most recent jobs report came out a week ago, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) office circulated a striking chart showing the number of jobs the American economy lost each month since 2007. The months of George W. Bush's presidency are in red, and the months after Barack Obama assumed the presidency are in blue. What's striking about the chart is where it begins to turn around: the economy lost steadily fewer jobs each month after President Obama took office in January of 2009.
***
"Nevertheless, it is striking that the rate of job loss increased steadily throughout the last year of Bush's presidency, but slowed steadily once Obama became president. Even if Obama can't take complete credit for the turnaround, it does suggest that his stimulus package did in fact help save jobs. It's also worth noting where the chart begins and ends. The economy began shedding jobs before the collapse of Bear Stearns in March of 2008, which suggests that our economic problems under the Bush administration went beyond the financial crisis. At the other end of the chart—where we are today—the economy has practically stopped shedding jobs. If the trend continues, the real recovery may finally be about to begin."
Image of the chart: Flickr Photo Download: America Is On A Path To Economic Recovery (http://www.flickr.com/photos/speakerpelosi/4332827382/sizes/o/ - broken link)
"When the most recent jobs report came out a week ago, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) office circulated a striking chart showing the number of jobs the American economy lost each month since 2007. The months of George W. Bush's presidency are in red, and the months after Barack Obama assumed the presidency are in blue. What's striking about the chart is where it begins to turn around: the economy lost steadily fewer jobs each month after President Obama took office in January of 2009.
***
"Nevertheless, it is striking that the rate of job loss increased steadily throughout the last year of Bush's presidency, but slowed steadily once Obama became president. Even if Obama can't take complete credit for the turnaround, it does suggest that his stimulus package did in fact help save jobs. It's also worth noting where the chart begins and ends. The economy began shedding jobs before the collapse of Bear Stearns in March of 2008, which suggests that our economic problems under the Bush administration went beyond the financial crisis. At the other end of the chart—where we are today—the economy has practically stopped shedding jobs. If the trend continues, the real recovery may finally be about to begin."
Image of the chart: Flickr Photo Download: America Is On A Path To Economic Recovery (http://www.flickr.com/photos/speakerpelosi/4332827382/sizes/o/ - broken link)
Wow. The libs are really desperate. It is like townspeople in a drought impatiently looking to a cloudless sky for rain. I wonder if they just tilt the chart some, that may make them happier. Seed the clouds- get Bammer out of office.
One question that isn't answered from either side on the slowdown of layoffs is: have companies laid off the "easy" ones and if they continue how many more will lose their jobs?
I also haven't seen figures on excess capacity, I'm sure they're out there and I haven't bothered to look.
Anytime the news that layoffs weren't as bad as expected is treated as good news but the number of new UE claims still approaches a half million we're stiil in the soup no matter the happy talk.
You can only have so many "jobless" recoveries. How do the jobless buy stuff I wonder ?
Easy access to debt which is not so easy anymore since everyone, including the government, is maxed out.
"less bad" is good now ? Stop drinking the koolaid..bad is bad. And IMHO Congress is more responsible for the state we are in than the President since they legislate the rules.
And the Dems have been in charge of Congress since 2007 I believe.
Blaming one party or another won't change the present. We are where we are. Do the Dems think that if they can put 100% of the blame on Bush then everything will be fine ? At some point the Dems will have to deal with the reality of the present and ask their party what course is for our future ? Are they dwelling in the past because they cannot deal with the present ?
Wow. The libs are really desperate. It is like townspeople in a drought impatiently looking to a cloudless sky for rain. I wonder if they just tilt the chart some, that may make them happier. Seed the clouds- get Bammer out of office.
yeah, the chart is tilted because during a recession, individuals first file for unemployment, i.e. why Bush numbers are higher, and then a year + later, they no longer qualify for unemployment and simply stop looking for work.. Those not looking for work are not counted, hence why Obamas numbers are going down.
The only thing sillier than this chart, are those who believe it holds some relevance and the fact that Pelosi is patting herself on the back for a 10% unemployment number, while she was Speaker of the House DURING THE WHOLE RECESSION. If she wants to take credit for the recover, she indeed needs to hold blame for the fall.
One question that isn't answered from either side on the slowdown of layoffs is: have companies laid off the "easy" ones and if they continue how many more will lose their jobs?
I think there's slowdown because there's only so many that can be fired and still produce goods. Don't you notice less workers in the stores you frequent ? They can't lay off everyone..there has to be a skeleton crew at least.
People are working longer and taking on more work to make up for others who lost their jobs. I know my work practically doubled due to layoffs; I took on their work. From talking with neighbors it's happening to them as well; the ones that still have jobs are doing extra work due to less employees.
Happy Texan, that was kind of my point, layoffs are down to where businesses have to have at least a minimum staffing level.
As it is I live in an area that has been releatively unscathed, unemployment is at a bit above 5% here compared to the 9-10% national rate. About the only store I go to anymore is the grocery or the hardware, my Christmas shopping is done on-line as is the shopping for my hobbies.
Lol, you guys are REALLY defensive! Dont you like the chart?
Do you understand how mass layoffs work ?
There's lots of fluff that can be trimmed at the beginning but then it tails off until you have a bare minimum to keep production up.
If you want that chart to represent "Bush's fault" then be my guest.
I don't care who the President was at the time..that chart represents the economy, not the President.
You can only have so many "jobless" recoveries. How do the jobless buy stuff I wonder ?
Easy access to debt which is not so easy anymore since everyone, including the government, is maxed out.
"less bad" is good now ? Stop drinking the koolaid..bad is bad. And IMHO Congress is more responsible for the state we are in than the President since they legislate the rules.
And the Dems have been in charge of Congress since 2007 I believe.
Blaming one party or another won't change the present. We are where we are. Do the Dems think that if they can put 100% of the blame on Bush then everything will be fine ? At some point the Dems will have to deal with the reality of the present and ask their party what course is for our future ? Are they dwelling in the past because they cannot deal with the present ?
Bingo.
I'm glad to see that i'm not the only one questioning the logic behind lambasting George W. Bush while showering Barack Obama with praise. It just makes no sense at all. The President signs or doesn't sign whatever lands on his desk. There is no proof whatsoever that what George W. Bush signed or didn't sign landed us in the mess we are in. Where was Congress from 2006 to 2008? Did they not have the foresight to get into action? What did they give GWB to sign to forestall the recession? Conversely, there is no proof whatsoever that the stimulus is the proprietor of this recovery. Congress deserves the blame and/or the credit. The sitting President should be in the periphery of the conversation, not the epicenter.
That's why pieces like this are pure junk.
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.
