The Great Obama Depression Grows Worse

They count them the same as they did under Bush. Clueless talking points a rational argument do not make.

 

So, because some people break the law (according to you, since none of your examples really hold water), generally accepted statistics and maxims are useless.

Again... clueless talking points a rational argument does not make.

Maxim #2: Defending the losing argument of another a wise man does not make.

 

Because in the future they might win an argument. Given their track record in the present, can you blame them for looking forward with hope for change?

 

It will get worse I'm afraid, but Bush has nothing to do with it.

Obama is running the US economy into the ground. There will be no recovery
until this joker is no longer president.

Today news (Wednesday 6/1/2011) :

Reports Wednesday on manufacturing and company hiring were so weak that many economists immediately downgraded their forecasts for Friday's jobs report for May. Some analysts also slashed their estimates for growth in the April-June quarter.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Signs...tml?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

Obama is killing the US economy according to economic experts.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...ama-depression-grows-worse-8.html#post3971178

 

Speaking of great news...

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/time-celebrate-recovery-food-stamp-usage-hits-fresh-record

The temporary appearance of improvement from QE2 was like giving a cortisone shot to an injured athlete. We will need a bigger dose, enter QE3. Get ready for the Japan quake to be totally blamed for this downturn, and that being used as an argument for this only being temporary.

Things are looking worse than ever before. The middle class can't handle another banking crisis. The current QE strategy will not work much longer, so they need to try something else. You can't just goose up the markets by weakening the dollar, and then price fix commodities down with margin hike hit jobs forever. Previous strong quarterly earnings relied on cheap money, that same cheap money is causing input prices to shoot up, screwing over future earnings in the process.

 

Very true and it appears Obama is the Food Stamps president if we look at the stats.

 

Strange, I see the graph showing the line turning up sharply Before Obama took office.

But then again, you probably think Obama was responsible for 9/11 and a quagmire in Afghanistan too.



Employment is a lagging indicator in the economy. The economy shrinks and then unemployment hikes. The problem began with the recession, Lehman Brothers and AIG collapsing, GM going bankrupt, etc. And all of that happened prior to Obama taking office. To blame this great recession on him is ridiculous.

At most, you could argue that the recovery could be faster, but that is pretty weak if you actually consider this was the worst depression since the 1930's.

And if you look at the big picture, it sure seems like the turning point for food stamp usage was in 2000.... I wonder who got elected that Year? Now who is the food stamp president?

 

Here's fresh proof Obama policies are killing the economy, specifically housing.

Keep in mind May is usually a strong month for home sales and May 2010 was really bad also.


http://www.nwitimes.com/business/local/article_904f2aad-0e69-5269-96b7-b941abd85534.html

Nationally, existing single-family home sales were down 15.4 percent in May compared to the same month one year ago, according to the National Association of Realtors. The median existing single-family home price was $166,700, down 4.5 percent from May 2010.

Keep in mind you need a job before you can qualify for a home
and Obama is eliminating jobs in the US.

 

4.3 million more private sector jobs have been created since May 2010.

Let's hope Obama keeps going.

 

However much it has been, it's nowhere near enough.

 

It never will be for you all.

 

Why hasn't it recovered rapidly after 2 years of Democrat "economics"?

 

Why is it the media keeps trying to find fault with Republican
candidates when we have a president who is such a failure?

yahoo.com has become the latest GOP bashing online site.

Negative front page stories on Perry, Bachman on the same day
that Obama claims home sales won't rebound in at least a year.
No negative stories about Obama though.

Obama is full of crap because nobody else is claiming a rebound in housing so precisely.
Most experts aren't predicting any rebound.

Home prices and sales will be bad for as long as Obama is around
and jobs are disappearing.

 

When you make up facts, its easy to claim fail.

When Obama took office in the worst recessio nin 80 years economy was tanking at a -7% real rate, losing 700,000+ jobs a month, unemployment was skyrocketing, and the stock markets were crashing.

That was failure.

Now the economy has been growing steadily for a year and a half, the private sector has created jobs every month for more than a year and a half, stock markets are up about 75%, and the unemployment rate has fallen from above 10% to just above 9%, and 5 million private sector jobs have been added since Jan 2010.

Only a partisan invested in failure for political purposes could call that failure.

 

Never forget the B-A-N-K-E-R-S caused the problem, and are doing well out of it, and never forget that the right-wing-nutters worship the bankers. Join a militia and shoot a teabag!

 

Exactly right! They were democrat bankers, O-B-A-M-A bankers that gave bogus loans to minorities and others that never intended to pay them back.

Bush and the republicans wanted to halt and regulate the bogus loans but Barney Frank and his democrat friends stopped them. Even today the dems are still protecting and bailing out Fannie and Freddie. Housing recovers when the democrats are kicked out of office. This may never happen for all we know.

 

Funny - the USA was solvent under the Democrats, surely, and went broke under Bush?

 

What do you mean under Democrats? You mean like when the republicans controlled the congress and forced Clinton to sign the balanced budget? Or when the economy was booming under Bush and the republicans while getting more revenue and shrinking the debt spending till the democrats took over the house in 2006? What period of time are you talking about when the democrats where in control?

 

No - before the Republicans started robbinbg the mugs, as they still are.

 

You're condoning shooting TEA Party members?

 

What time are you talking about. Give an example please. "Robbing the mugs"?

 

What good is Obama really?

Under Bush we had 5% unemployment, higher stock and home prices and
people were apparently happier.

Today we have flash mobs in the inner cities partly because Obama has disappointed minorities and thinking people. There are no jobs and a disaster is unfolding.

Gold is skyrocketing, the US dollar is devaluing and nothing good is happening in the US.
Thanks Obama!

Kick the bumb Obama out!

 

Oh yes. Who can forget the good old days when a Republican was last in the WH.

January 2009

Job loss: Worst in 34 years
Employers slashed 598,000 more jobs in January [2009] as unemployment rate climbed to 7.6%.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Employers slashed another 598,000 jobs off of U.S. payrolls in January, taking the unemployment rate up to 7.6%, according to the latest government reading on the nation's battered labor market.

The latest job loss is the worst since December 1974, and brings job losses to 1.8 million in just the last three months, or half of the 3.6 million jobs that have been lost since the beginning of 2008.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/06/news/economy/jobs_january/index.htm

Market players were also disappointed by reports that U.S. home prices fell 8.7% year-over-year in November, U.S. housing starts fell 15.5% in December, and weekly initial jobless claims rose 62,000 to 589,000.
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jan2009/pi20090122_192905.htm

On Wednesday, the 30-stock Dow Jones industrial average finished with a loss of 248.42 points, or 2.94%, to 8,200.

http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jan2009/pi20090114_103250.htm

598,000 Jobs Shed In Brutal January
Unemployment Hits 7.6% as Downturn Picks Up Steam

The need for progress on those fronts seemed more important than ever yesterday, as the Labor Department announced that conditions worsened more than expected last month. The nation's employers shed 598,000 jobs, the most since 1974, driving the unemployment rate to 7.6 percent from 7.2 percent. If the jobless rate keeps rising at the pace it has for the past two months, it will hit double digits in summer and reach its highest rate since the Great Depression by the fall.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/06/AR2009020601156.html

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT: FOURTH QUARTER 2008 (PRELIMINARY)
Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- decreased at an annual rate of 6.2 [later revised to 7.0] percent in the fourth quarter of 2008, (that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter), according to preliminary estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2009/pdf/gdp408p.pdf[/QUOTE]

Continued Unemployment Claims at Record High
In the week ending Jan. 24, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 588,000, an increase of 3,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 585,000.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/01/continued-unemployment-claims-at-record.html

 

I think you are disregarding the revenue statistics. Revenue increased after 2006 under Bush once the Democrats took over the House. I beleive the Democrats were able to force Bush to make changes to his tax cuts that led to more revenue.



The Clinton tax rates did not lose effectiveness until 2002 when The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 took effect. This caused revenue to decrease to below 18% of the GDP. The Economic Growth and Tax Reconciliation Act of 2003 decreased revenue to just under 16% of the GDP. Revenue increased slightly to 17% of the GDP in 2005, but increased back to the 2002 tax revenue rate from 2006 to 2008. The average tax rate under Bush was 17.6% of the GDP, 1.4% lower than tax rates during the Clinton Era. Clinton was the first president within the past 30 years to have generated revenue that was more than 18% of the GDP. The ideal amount of revenue usually equates to 18% of the GDP (technically more than 18.2% of the GDP), something that Obama hasn't accomplished by continuing the Bush Tax Cuts.