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

Yes the 10% were are currently at if you add in the people who have given up looking and yes the climbing new unemployment claims, and GDP slowing to below expectations. So that is what you have been praying for?

Yeah keep trying to sugarcoat it, no one is buying it.

 

No, I mean the Bush Administration and Republican Congress that presided over the most devasting bubble since the Great Depression:

 

You mean the 4% unemployment he inherited that was almost double that when he left and skyrocketing upwards as 700,000+ people were losing their jobs each month?

I'd rather have the steady improvement we've seen since Jan 2010 under the Obama adminstration. Thanks.

 

Read the thread.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Feel free to prove it.

Good point. So don't cut taxes at all.

That is less then Lord Reagan averaged over the 8 years he was president. What's your point?

 

The point of the post that Iriemon quoted from was that the UK recovered from their Great Depression far faster then America did and yet Great Britain spend barely any money on recovery while America spent TONS.

And somehow he COMPLETELY ignores that and instead decides to focus - with rose-colored, tunnel-like vision, no doubt - on JUST the New Deal without even mentioning the UK AT ALL.



Can someone spell 'I-N D-E-N-I-A-L'?




Mod edit: Insult

 

Don't forget to mention to Keynesians that there are now 1.6 million less Americans employed then there were when Obama took over despite the fact that America's national debt has risen by about 50% under his economically-Moronicness; President Obama.

 

The bubble that didn't have to crash were it not for the Democrat policies and their refusal to deal with the problem.

 

Your comparison is a farce. The Great Depression had a far smaller effect on the UK than US:

UK:
GDP reduction:
-0.7% 1930
-5.1% 1931
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_Kingdom

US:
GDP decline (peak to trough)
−26.7%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States. GDP declined about 6% in the UK versus 27% in the US.

The Great Depression wrecked the US economy but was a relatively minor event for the UK.

Sure, I agree that an economy that only contracts 6% will recover in less time than one that recovers 27%. Obviously, because the 27% GDP decline is a far deeper hole to climb out of.

But to suggest that fact suppots some kind of argument that it proves proves less spending is better is just silly.

 

4.1% that had already began it's climb due to the recession he inherited but was kept to below 6.5% because of his policies which ushered in 52 months of full emploment.

As I said and you are desperate to ignore, you don't create a lot of jobs when everyone is working.

Nope, 7.5% thanks to the Democrats who took over Congress two years earlier and set us out on economic doom.

Yep that's what their failed budgetary and housing policies cost us, but that bottomed out as Obama took office and was rebounding before his stimulus took effect. His polices not only did not save anything they COST us dearly in delaying a true and strong recovery to take hold.

Yeah and if we can get another few million people to drop out of the workforce and go on the government dole we can have even more of your "improvement".

So how is new unemployment claims going back up for the last four weeks to a horrible 388,000 improvement? How is GDP not meeting expectations and falling to 2.2 an improvement?

 

In other gallup polling news.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

And even more funny, the "job creation index" still shows its WORSE than when the terrible Bush was in office.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/122840/Gallup-Daily-Economic-Indexes.aspx

 

LOL Sure. In conservative la la land, housing prices would have just kept going up. Obviously it was the Democrats that caused it to stop.

Except that the bubble peaked and prices started falling in 2006, well before Nancy or Harry banged a gavel in Congress.

 

So you're saying its unfair to blame Bush for the first year he took office.

But you constantly blame Obama for what happened in his first year in office.

No one has ever said you don't employ double standards.

 

You read the thread, the downward spiral ended as Obama came into office and long before his stimulus was passed.

Post your graph again showing the jobs loss, you prove my point every time you do.

You>>

Let's see you admit tax cuts provide stimulus. Then it is pointed out that the lower income earners don't pay taxes and you come up with this brilliant retort?

How do you make that leap in logic?

Then you must really love Bush.

 

Of course, the slowdown began BEFORE he took office. You are the one you dishonestly denies that.

As a full voting member of a Democrat controlled congress he sure shares in it unless you are asserting he was a do nothing Senator, but I have been quite clear in laying the blame on the Democrat leadership in the Congress.

No one has said I do, that is the man in the mirror to whom you are referring.

 

False.

What graph

I admitted no such thing. My posts are a matter of record.

Because if they don't pay taxes, obviously a tax cut isn't going to provide them more money to spend.

LOL, why?

 

False.

What graph

I admitted no such thing. My posts are a matter of record.

Because if they don't pay taxes, obviously a tax cut isn't going to provide them more money to spend.

LOL, why?

 

Those all vanished withing 2-3 months of him taking office.

What about the 4+ million new jobs created since Jan 2010?

 

If raising interest rates caused the recession, what was the preceding bubble caused by ?

 

what are these great jobs ?
can you address the significant increase in the involuntary part time workers ?

 

they are not inflation adjusted einstein.

 

http://www.bls.gov/schedule/archives/empsit_nr.htm#current

The explanation I've most frequently heard is that it reflects caution by businesses in hiring as they hire what are at first temporary or part time employees and later move them into permanent positions if appropriate.

 

Why would that be an issue, Galileo?

 

True and unrefuted.

The one showing the job losses you like to bandy about.

Yes that is your problem they are and can be thrown right back at you.

So you don't agree with the arguments you post?

Me>> how do you make that leap in logic

So all we have in this country now are low earners who do not pay taxes.....................I thing your convoluted arguments have confused yourself.

Because even if you start from is day one, including the recession he inherited up to the Democrat take over, it is lower than Obama's 359,000. Then of course the 52 months of full employment.

Obama has averaged 426,000 and his numbers are now tracking back up.

 

Why would that be an issue, Galileo?