Gallup: Unemployment drops down to 8.1%, lowest level yet.

I don't think people really care about whatever figures the government toss out. What their family is employed and how much a trip to the grocery store sets them back. They compare that to 3 - 4 years back and see if they are better off now than they were when Obama took office.

 

and the percentage of employed citizens continues to drop.
Interesting how unemployment improves.

 

What's right with saving jobs?

Are business owners joining crowds and getting lost in a mob mentality? I think it's a really an incredible stretch to apply crowd psychology to people who are in dispersed locations, doing different things and getting their information from a variety of sources.

I don't think that he was referring to a simple crash, but the results, over time, of people rationally choosing to curtail higher risk investments. Panics don't last that long.

I didn't realize that the term now applies solely to supply-side economics (or, more specifically, tax cuts in response to data derived from the Laffer curve.) I think it's very apt when applied to dark and mysterious forces like "fear", and "panic", and "animal spirits."

 

Here is what I know....
Been Unemployed for 62 weeks.
Unemployment ended after 55 weeks.
So, as far as Obama cares, his stats show I got a job 7 weeks ago.

Job search data:
- Had 236 interviews
- Been on 17 Final/Hire Interviews
- Primary reason for not hired as given by company - person with better "fit"
- Real reasons for not hired includes: Age (56), White, Overqualified, not Spanish speaking, "Don't need the job as much", all experience in one field(pharma).

Even Walmart stopped the one job I am starting to think I could get as "Greeter"... ugh.

So, as in all politics are local.... All job statistics are local too!

 

This thread title is a failure. Lowest yet? 8.1% is anything but the lowest yet.

 

If you like hypocrisy then eat this up:

By the last 3 months of Bush's term there was at least 700billion to 1 trillion dollars in bad securities in the financial markets. In the last 3 months of Bush's term the unemployment rate jumped from 4.5% to 7%. During Bush's last 3 months in office, we had a housing collapse, a stock market crash and financial crises. In 2009 the unemployment rate jumped to 10% which was the fallout from Bush's last term in office. No one in his right mind believes that Obama created a stock market crash, a housing collapse and a financial market collapse all at the same time. Bush was ground zero for one of the worst economic implosions in the nation’s history. And Romney will never become president. The fact that were at 8.1% unemployment after the Bush economic holocaust is a miracle in itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AZjk-9DGm0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8&feature=related

“First of all government sponsored corporations that help create our mortgage system, I introduced two of the Leaders here today, they call these people Fannie May and Freddie Mac as well as the Federal home loan banks will increase their commitment to minority markets by more than 440 billion dollars. I want to thank Leland and Franklin (the leaders of Fannie and Freddie) for that commitment.” It’s a commitment that conforms to their charters as well and also conforms to their hearts. This means they will purchase more loans made by banks after American Hispanics and other minorities which will encourage home ownership. Freddie “

 

I agree that GWB was a horrible POTUS (just as Obama is, in my opinion, but in slightly different ways) - but the unemployment rate during the last 3 months of his Presidency went from 6.1% to 6.8% - not 4.5 to 7.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

 

don't think we agree. Bush was easily one of the worst presidents in history. We had a financial collapse, a housing collapse and a stock market crash under his watch. The fact that Obama has gotten us to 8.1 % unemployment is a good sign. But the last thing we want to do is put in a two faced chump like Romany. His record on jobs was miserable and he has totally reversed himself on every issue he has ever spoken about. With Romney we would go back to Bush like policies but then again he is such a total azzhole, indecisive, cowardly, and a complete liar on everything that no one knows what crap hole he would lead us down..

2008 unemplyment rate:


2008 Jan: 5.0 Feb4.9 Mar 5.1 apr 5.0 may 5.4 june 5.6 july 5.8 aug 6.1sept 6.1Oct 6.5 nov6.8 Dec: 7.3

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

 

Fair enough, 6.1-6.8%.

The point is I have NO IDEA where you got 4.5% to 7.0% in the last three months.

Btw - you do realize that despite having 3 1/4 years to spend like MAD - the unemployment rate is still higher now then when GWB left?

The average American has about $5 trillion more debt since Obama took over and unemployment is worse, the work force has shrunk, average housing prices are lower, FAR more people are starving (I.e. on food stamps) then ever before and Gitmo is still open (Obama promised it would be closed).

On those points alone Obama's Presidency is a colossal failure (just as GWB's was).

Anyone that says otherwise is clearly biased beyond reason.

 

If the size of the U.S. labor force as a share of the total population was the same as it was when Barack Obama took office—65.7% then vs. 63.9% today—the U-3 unemployment rate would be 10.8%.

So, actually a lot worse than when he took office. He's a total fail!!!

 

An excellent point!

How exactly did you come up with that figure...I want to be able to use it in the future.

 

Please explain how Bush was at fault for the glaring fraud practiced at Fannie/Freedie, to pad their exec bonuses, which was the basis of the entire real estate/mortgage/ economelt...?

 

Um sorry Eisenhower balanced your budget for you. A truly admirable president as it goes.

As for Clinton, he didnt kill anyone in Rwanda, and he actively saved hundreds of thousands in the Balkans.

he also made hard effort at middle east peace, so your complaint about Rwanda is just churlish.

But yes lets move on..

 

Does that mean you dont think more would have helped? Or that the stimulus kept Americans from a depression?

Yes you keep repeating these facts as if somehow they have value only in of themselves without any connection to either what went on before or the wider global economy.

Moreover youve repeated these numerous times without any explanation as to why these facts are important given that the world economy faced a dramatic finiancial calamity. Perhaps your trouble is you think things should be better seeing as they didnt get much worse.

So lets get to it, do you think if Americans had been told that they faced a depression but if they agreed to spend trillions on a stimulus they would have double their recent unemployment rate and much higher debts for some time but their economy would avoid collapse and mass unemployment and basic services would continue with everyone going along much as before ( as you yourself do now)......would they agree to that?

Im guessing most would say 'yes'.

 

Why should I. Your whole statement is based on right wing misconception. The lenders gave out home loans to people with poor credit. The lenders never cared about the credit rating of the borrowers. The reason for this is because the lenders pooled the subprime loans and converted them into junk securities that were sold to the financial markets. This is probably too complex for you. Most conservatives love to blame the entire housing crash on Freddie and Fannie because its so much easier than trying to understand the dymamics of the lending/financial market at the time.

But if you must hang the entire housing collapse on Freddie and Fannie since it's easier for you to understand then you should understand tthat President Bush encouraged Fannie and Freddie to participate in his great Home Owner Society program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8&feature=related

Bush home ownership talk on Youtube regarding Freddie and Fannie help to increase home ownership:

 

It saves incomes that are thus directly spent back into the economy.

I think not, its been seen in every crash since the industrial revolution. Businesses base their decisions on their greed and fear of the prospects of markets involving consumers that across the entire United States and the world.

In a climate of irrational fear, they often forego investment opportunities for cheap deals and hoard their cash, waiting for 'someone' else to re start the next boom. Mostly, especially in the last 3 decades that is a combination of governments and consumers both being willing to take on more debt to pay for their products.

OK fair enough.

Well its not now, its always. Its GHWB's term of abuse for supply side un proven nonsense.

But ok as 'voodoo death spiral' rhetoric its sounds really good, whatever.

 

That's because you wish to pretend that Obama didn't inherit an economic holocaust from Bush Jr.,who was one of the worst presidents in history. As I've said the fact the we are at 8.1 percent unemployment is in itself a miracle given what Obama inherited: a stock market collapse, a housing collapse, and a financial crises where Bush had to beg congress for 700billion dollars worth of bailout funds.. The other point is we cannot afford another Bush like presidency iin the form of Mitt Romney. With Romney we would go back to Bush like policies but then again he is such a total butthole, indecisive, a failed job creater in his own state when Governor, cowardly, and a complete liar on everything that no one knows what crap hole he would lead us down.

 

and sequesters capital, preventing it from being used efficient ways, ultimately harming the economy.

Childlike simplistic ideas are why we don't let children vote.

 

So, you consider it a 'miracle' that - despite Obama increasing the national debt by about 50% (at the end of this FY) - the unemployment rate is higher now then when Obama took over?

Okaaaaaay.

And as Rapunzel pointed out above - it could be 10.8% if SO many people had not given up looking for work.

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...n-8-1-lowest-level-yet-29.html#post1061142669


So, let's summarize; Obama has been in power for 3 1/4 years.

In that time;

- the unemployment rate is worse
- the total work force has shrunk
- the average home is worth less
- more Americans are starving then ever (on their own)
- and America's debt will have gone up by about 50% (when this FY is over).


Anyone that calls this a successful Presidency clearly has lost political reason, imo.

 

So a UN representative says:

'At a news conference launching the 318-page report, former Canadian ambassador and panel member Stephen Lewis said the United States knew exactly what was going on - but blocked the Security Council from deploying an effective U.N. force because it had lost 18 U.S. soldiers in Somalia five months earlier and didn't want to become embroiled in Africa again.

"It's simply beyond belief that because of Somalia hundreds of thousands of Rwandans needlessly lost their lives," he said. "I don't know how Madeleine Albright lives with it." At the time, the U.S. secretary of state was America's ambassador to the United Nations.'

And you dismiss that?

I think I know all I need to know about you and morals.


Have a nice day.

 

It saves incomes that are thus directly spent back into the economy.

I think not, its been seen in every crash since the industrial revolution. Businesses base their decisions on their greed and fear of the prospects of markets involving consumers that across the entire United States and the world.

In a climate of irrational fear, they often forego investment opportunities for cheap deals and hoard their cash, waiting for 'someone' else to re start the next boom. Mostly, especially in the last 3 decades that is a combination of governments and consumers both being willing to take on more debt to pay for their products.

OK fair enough.

Well its not now, its always. Its GHWB's term of abuse for supply side un proven nonsense.

But ok as 'voodoo death spiral' rhetoric its sounds really good, whatever.

 

I welcome any good news for our country. Then again, I'm more about country, than party.

 

Saving jobs is the efficient way you mention, but id be happy to hear of others.

Saving jobs is a child like idea? Are you actually making that comment towards me?

 

Can you - using ONLY links to unbiased data - prove that without all the trillions of debt spent that:

a) America would have gone into a depression.
and b) the unemployment rate would have doubled.

Yes or no?

 

Prove it.

Prove to us right now that spending government debt to save jobs is more efficient then letting the economy dictate which jobs should be saved and which ones should die?


Here is a hint...you can't.

So your point is TOTALLY baseless.


Have a nice day.