Of course. This is just another manifestitation of the great massive left wing conspiracy that secretely controls the universe. Fortunately you have Rush and Glenn to tell you the truth, right? LOL
That is not Gallup, that is BLS, and that is the business survey, not the household survey which showed 873,000 more employmed. Part of the great left wing conspiracy. It must be because Rush told you so, right? What does Rush say about the conspiracy and the BLS business survey showing only 114,000 jobs? Wouldn't it have been better for Obama to have fixed that number up to 300,000 or so?
To the contrary. Had there been a stalemate in 2000, I don't think it is too far off to speculate we would have not lost trillions due to the Bush tax cuts, military buildup, and "mistaken" war in Iraq.
Well see there's your problem. Spending and deficit spending went up dramatically during Bush, just like it would with any other progressive. You could argue that a stalemate would have been good, however, we don't know that. We do know there wasn't one, and DC created a mess. Compromise doesn't work.
Or indeed anything at all that can be reflected positively onto Obama's administration. Why are people so rabidly for or against Obama that they won't let facts speak for themselves? I'm not sure that Obama and his crew should be thanked for this apparent recovery anyway. I still feel they have done a lot more to hamper growth than encourage it over these 4 years. That health care reform could not have come at a less opportune time, for instance.
I'd agree if Obama had actually done anything in two years to get the unemployment rate down. An empty chair did just as much.
Their results differ by half a percent, so who is more accurate BLS or Gallop? Why do you dig this hole for yourself?
Then 9/11 happened. But, President Bush enacted two tax cuts. Which caused the unemployment to drop back to 4.6%. Then the democrats passed three minimum wage hikes. Which caused the unemployment to skyrocket.
First lets clarify what a part time job actually is. Do you have that information? Is mowing a neighbors lawn for $10, considered part time?
And if Clinton didn't get the ball rolling on the housing market collapse by lowering borrowing standards across the board and threatening banks to lend to "underrepresented borrowers", which put millions more buyers into the housing market, driving up prices, topped off with signing Glass Stegall into law, we could have avoided the whole thing altogether.
See opening post. There is no hole. Gallup is not seasonally adjusted. The both however corroborate each other on the recent drop in the unemployment rate. That is why Gallup must be in on the massive left wing conspiracy, right?
Clinton wasn't president during the housing bubble, and his standards didn't cause the subprime and shoddy lending spree.
The bubble started when clinton modified the CRA to force banks to provide sub-prime loans to people that couldn't afford them. History isn't your strong suit, is it?
So with Clinton's higher taxes the rate was 4.2%, but we needed the Bush tax cuts to get the rate down to 4.6%. Got it. Awaiting for the proof of your assertion.
Like liberals did repeatedly whenever economic news was good under Bush? People claiming the numbers are cooked isn't new nor is it a right or left phenomena. People just develop blinders based on who they vote for.
No they don't. Gallop has a +/- of 1% it could 6.3% or 8.3% according to them. Why would you one day laud BSL as accurate then on another day accept 'trending' as acceptable? It makes no sense really...