It’s Official Obama Loses More Jobs In One Year Than Any President In Modern History

[Dr.House]

So tell me what law did the Dems pass in Jan 2007 that the GOP didn't filibuster that caused the increase in UE?????
If there was no law passed over the GOP's record number of filibusters, and there wasn't, then the Bush economy crashed from its own inertia.

Are you saying the democratics didn't control the pursestrings from Jan 2006 to present?

Are you saying no gubmint money was spent during that time?

Or are you just saying that the democratics were just flaccid and ineffectual against a decidedly MINORITY, out of power bunch of wet noodle republicans? (oh, and evil Boooooosh must be blamed for all job losses since the democratics took over?)

Were the Bush tax cuts in effect?
Were we supporting two wars?

You you're saying the democratics spent us into a poor jobs situation and were flaccid and ineffectual against the minority republicans?

 

[Titanic Sailor]

Yes, and in fact both of those items are still being maintained, or exceeded today.

Your point?

 

[edthecynic]

Sliced another way (why not, you're doing it) when Booooooosh took over in Jan 2001 it was 4.2 and was 4.6 in Jan 2007 when the democrat controlled congress took over the purse strings... A rise of 0.4...

Since Jan 2007 it went from 4.6 to 10.0... A rise of 5.4...

Good job with jobs, democratics....

So tell me what law did the Dems pass in Jan 2007 that the GOP didn't filibuster that caused the increase in UE?????
If there was no law passed over the GOP's record number of filibusters, and there wasn't, then the Bush economy crashed from its own inertia.

Are you saying the democratics didn't control the pursestrings from Jan 2006 to present?

Are you saying no gubmint money was spent during that time?

Or are you just saying that the democratics were just flaccid and ineffectual against a decidedly MINORITY, out of power bunch of wet noodle republicans? (oh, and evil Boooooosh must be blamed for all job losses since the democratics took over?)

First of all, the fiscal year ends Sept 30 so therefore Jan 2006 was still the GOP budget!!!!

And again, what did the GOP allow to get past their record number of filibusters that changed things from the GOP controlled legislation? Did they repeal the Bush tax cuts? What law did they pass that caused an economic change????

 

[Dr.House]

So tell me what law did the Dems pass in Jan 2007 that the GOP didn't filibuster that caused the increase in UE?????
If there was no law passed over the GOP's record number of filibusters, and there wasn't, then the Bush economy crashed from its own inertia.

Are you saying the democratics didn't control the pursestrings from Jan 2006 to present?

Are you saying no gubmint money was spent during that time?

Or are you just saying that the democratics were just flaccid and ineffectual against a decidedly MINORITY, out of power bunch of wet noodle republicans? (oh, and evil Boooooosh must be blamed for all job losses since the democratics took over?)

First of all, the fiscal year ends Sept 30 so therefore Jan 2006 was still the GOP budget!!!!

The number is still greater than the one under a GOP congress...

At what point do you credit the spending by the democratic party controlled congress for the spending that caused the jobs situation? Unless you're trying to tell us there was no spending by gubmint after the democratics took over...

 

[rayboyusmc]

So let me get the right wing logic straight.

You break the best runnng backs legs while you are the coach. When a new coach gets the team, it's his fault that he can't get the running back right back up to speed and you aren't winning as many games.

It is much easier and takes less time to break things than to fix them. Bush and Dickless were really good at breaking things, and now little Golem Boy has to blame Obama to cover his own evil screwups.

You own the curren shit we are in until Obama has had a least four years trying to fix the crap pot you left. If, however, the brain dead folks you elected continue to block every program and nomination, you continue to own it.

Let's put a hold on the nomination for the TSA because he favors unions. Nope, no politics being played by the right there.

What really pisses me off is that these assholes in charge on the right don't give a shit about the country, as long as they can get back control.

 

[rightwinger]

Are you saying the democratics didn't control the pursestrings from Jan 2006 to present?

Are you saying no gubmint money was spent during that time?

Or are you just saying that the democratics were just flaccid and ineffectual against a decidedly MINORITY, out of power bunch of wet noodle republicans? (oh, and evil Boooooosh must be blamed for all job losses since the democratics took over?)

Were the Bush tax cuts in effect?
Were we supporting two wars?

You you're saying the democratics spent us into a poor jobs situation and were flaccid and ineffectual against the minority republicans?

Yes they were flacid and ineffectual with Cheney as the tiebreaking vote and Bush with a veto

 

[Dr.House]

Were the Bush tax cuts in effect?
Were we supporting two wars?

You you're saying the democratics spent us into a poor jobs situation and were flaccid and ineffectual against the minority republicans?

Yes they were flacid and ineffectual with Cheney as the tiebreaking vote and Bush with a veto

So why did those flaccid and ineffectual democratics spend us into this poor jobs situation?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bottom line - a year into his reign and unemployment is now double digits

Very Reaganesque.

 

[CMike]

This was the problem...


NBC, msnbc.com and news services

Democrats win control of Senate - Politics- msnbc.com
updated 3:12 a.m. ET, Thurs., Nov . 9, 2006
WASHINGTON - Democrats wrested control of the Senate from Republicans Wednesday with an upset victory in Virginia, giving the party complete domination of Capitol Hill for the first time since 1994, as NBC News reported that Democrat Jim Webb was the apparent winner.

Pres. Bush no longer had control after Congress took over in the beginning of 2007,

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Pres. Bush without Democrat control of Congress (things are good)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1999 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.0
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.2 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.8
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4

Democrats now control congress

2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.9

Democrats now had time to screw things up

2008 4.9 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.5 5.6 5.8 6.2 6.2 6.6 6.8 7.2

The Obama takes over
2009 7.6 8.1 8.5 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.2 10.0

 

[NYcarbineer]

If he wasn't up to it he shuddn'ta took the job, I bet most voters are tired of the "I inherited" whining.

Since he's turned the job loss trend around, I'd say he was up to it.

This chart damns Obama.

It shows how other recessions turned by now but obamas recession has gotten much worse.

Get out the reading glasses next time. That chart is dated February 2009. I suspected someone would go there when I posted it. Nasty trap, sorry.

 

[Stephanie]

The guy who runs that website is just a hack. If you believe anything you read there, you're courting ridicule and irrelevancy.

Like most of the websites referred by one of our resident wingnuts.

The guy who runs the website regularly calls into the local hate-radio station's morning show. Listening to the host and he spew their distortions and misrepresentations is infuriating. Having someone actually cite them is more than I can bear.

Is that why you post there regularly.

 

[CMike]

Since he's turned the job loss trend around, I'd say he was up to it.

This chart damns Obama.

It shows how other recessions turned by now but obamas recession has gotten much worse.

Get out the reading glasses next time. That chart is dated February 2009. I suspected someone would go there when I posted it. Nasty trap, sorry.

Previous post explains it.

 

[Article 15]

This has to have been mentioned by now but I'm pretty sure that I learned in college that unemployment is a lagging indicator of the economy.

 

[mudwhistle]

Let's see, Clinton passed a steady 3.9% UE rate to Bush and Bush passed a steadily RISING 7.2% rate to Obama.

Sliced another way (why not, you're doing it) when Booooooosh took over in Jan 2001 it was 4.2 and was 4.6 in Jan 2007 when the democrat controlled congress took over the purse strings... A rise of 0.4...

Since Jan 2007 it went from 4.6 to 10.0... A rise of 5.4...

Good job with jobs, democratics....

So tell me what law did the Dems pass in Jan 2007 that the GOP didn't filibuster that caused the increase in UE?????
If there was no law passed over the GOP's record number of filibusters, and there wasn't, then the Bush economy crashed from its own inertia.

It's not a law...it's the threat of higher taxes.

Jesus.....

 

[keysersosa]

The lost decade for the economy
The U.S. economy has expanded at a healthy clip for most of the last 70 years, but by a wide range of measures, it stagnated in the first decade of the new millennium. Job growth was essentially zero, as modest job creation from 2003 to 2007 wasn't enough to make up for two recessions in the decade. Rises in the nation's economic output, as measured by gross domestic product, was weak. And household net worth, when adjusted for inflation, fell as stock prices stagnated, home prices declined in the second half of the decade and consumer debt skyrocketed.

why is it repignicans are always trying to blame someone else for their failiures?

 

[CMike]

This has to have been mentioned by now but I'm pretty sure that I learned in college that unemployment is a lagging indicator of the economy.

Yeah...that the Obama line.

Unemployment IS the most important indicator.

What is more important than people out of work and who can't find work?

 

[rightwinger]

This chart damns Obama.

It shows how other recessions turned by now but obamas recession has gotten much worse.

Get out the reading glasses next time. That chart is dated February 2009. I suspected someone would go there when I posted it. Nasty trap, sorry.

Previous post explains it.

Damn...he just kicked your ass!

 

[Article 15]

This has to have been mentioned by now but I'm pretty sure that I learned in college that unemployment is a lagging indicator of the economy.

Yeah...that the Obama line.

Unemployment IS the most important indicator.

What is more important than people out of work and who can't find work?

Of course it's an important indicator. You do realize that it's a lagging indicator, right? And know what lagging indicator means, right?

 

[CMike]

Lagging Indicators

Definition: A lagging indicator is a measure that only changes after the economy has changed. It is of little use in looking ahead. However, they are helpful in confirming a trend. Unemployment is the most popular lagging indicator, because it shows whether companies anticipate things getting better or worse. If companies believe things are bad and getting worse, unemployment will rise. If they are more optimistic, then unemployment will fall.


Companies believe things are going to worse under Obama, because Obama has promised them great new tax hikes and mountains of new regulations.

 

[rightwinger]

This has to have been mentioned by now but I'm pretty sure that I learned in college that unemployment is a lagging indicator of the economy.

Yeah...that the Obama line.

Unemployment IS the most important indicator.

What is more important than people out of work and who can't find work?

LOL

And when employment rebounds, the deficit will become the most important indicator