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

[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?

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

Yeah...it meanst that businesses know that they are in deep doo doo under Obama's reign of economic tyranny.

 

[Article 15]

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?

Yeah...it meanst that businesses know that they are in deep doo doo under Obama's reign of economic tyranny.

Incorrect. I wont bother to ask you to try again.

 

[CMike]

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

Yeah...it meanst that businesses know that they are in deep doo doo under Obama's reign of economic tyranny.

Incorrect. I wont bother to ask you to try again.

Wow you consider yourself a source

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.

 

[txlonghorn]

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?)

I think they are just standing firm that no matter how bad congress was for America in 2007 and beyond...everything...and I do mean EVERYTHING bad that happened must be solely blamed on Bush 43. They are incapable of accepting any responsibility for anything negative. They only want the glory if and when things EVER turn around solidly.

This little bump in employment won't last. It will soon get even worse with the dark and looming shadow of healthcare reform on the horizon. It's going to be terrible. And we'll have Obama and congress to blame...cuz Bush didn't have a DAMN thing to do with that.

Personally, I hope we don't get to say "I told you so." But I'm not counting on that. And when it does happen, I will be very loud and very pointed in my opinions.

Enjoy this little wave of positive...the rest of this term is going to SUCK

 

[WillowTree]

I believe CD is correct.. Small business employers are cooling their jets, why hire new employees you will be mandated to provide expensive health care to?high carbon taxes, balh blah blah.. the political winds blow disfavorably nowadays towards business.. what incentives do small business' have to hire additional employees?

 

[Article 15]

Yeah...it meanst that businesses know that they are in deep doo doo under Obama's reign of economic tyranny.

Incorrect. I wont bother to ask you to try again.

Wow you consider yourself a source

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.

Thanks for proving my point. Anybody who as been following the unemployment numbers knows that they got considerably worse AFTER the crash (the whole lagging thingy that you didn't understand) and have been improving over the last couple of months with the whole recovery thingy (what you are rooting against) going on.

 

[txlonghorn]

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?

LOL...you mean kinda like Libtards constantly blaming Bush for things that a democratically controlled congress approved??? LOL...I love it when someone is dumb enough to ask something so stupid that it screams for attention.

Pelosi and Reid were convinced that they were going to rule the world in 07 when the balance of power shifted to the dems in congress...but all they did was fail over and over and over.

try again

 

[txlonghorn]

I believe CD is correct.. Small business employers are cooling their jets, why hire new employees you will be mandated to provide expensive health care to?high carbon taxes, balh blah blah.. the political winds blow disfavorably nowadays towards business.. what incentives do small business' have to hire additional employees?

Nothing other than a meager tax break...which may or may not happen. It will cost companies 5 times more to hire new employees just to get a little $3,000 bump per hire

 

[CMike]

Incorrect. I wont bother to ask you to try again.

Wow you consider yourself a source

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.

Thanks for proving my point. Anybody who as been following the unemployment numbers knows that they got considerably worse AFTER the crash (the whole lagging thingy that you didn't understand) and have been improving over the last couple of months with the whole recovery thingy (what you are rooting against) going on.

Gotten better? You jest.

Unemployment rates have been increasing. It went from 10.2% to 10.%. Big deal.

Things are going to get much much worse under Obama

1) The health care plan. Brand new taxes on businesses. Businesses are already struggelling. Guess what's going to happen? People are going to be laid off or switched to part time. Businesses will go belly up.

2) Cap and trade. New taxes and all energy, natural gas, oil, gasoline. Everything will be more expensive. Businesses because of this brand new costs will have to? Guess what? Lay off people. Businesses close.

3) The global warming treaties whatever they will be. Hey Obama got the nobel peace prize. He can't say no. Brand new taxes on businesses and regulations. Bye bye jobs.

What will Obama will do businesses? In simpler terms what will Obama do to help create jobs?? ZERO, ZIPPO, NADA.

Obama will be even more of a disaster as more of his crap passes.

Yanno...maybe it's good for the american people to see what happens when liberals are in charge.

 

[Article 15]

It sure has gotten better. Job loss numbers rose and rose each month for a while. Then for a period we lost fewer and fewer jobs each month. Now the unemployment numbers are slowly falling. That's why it's a lagging indicator ... because it FOLLOWS the economy.

I couldn't care less about what you have to say about heath care, cap and trade, etc.

 

[asaratis]

Fucking Bush..

Just shows the impact of the worst recession in 70 years that the REPUBLICANS gave us,

Thankfully, we elected a president who took decisive steps and reveresed a potentially crippling economic collapse

Oh yes... all the signs are moving in the right direction...

3 years of Democratic control of Congress...??????

Bringing up facts just confuse rightwinger

If you believe you have presented facts, you're even dumber than I think you are.

If I ever see evidence of your recognizing facts and dealing with them logically, I will be dumbfounded.

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.

Both sides post here. What's wrong with chatting with the enemy?

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?

I read that in the Washington Post. If you're gonna quote somebody, give them credit for arranging the words for you....dipshit!

 

[edthecynic]

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.

But it doesn't show all recessions, now does it!!!

For example, the Reagan recession gave us 10 consecutive months of double digit UE.

 

[CMike]

It sure has gotten better. Job loss numbers rose and rose each month for a while. Then for a period we lost fewer and fewer jobs each month. Now the unemployment numbers are slowly falling. That's why it's a lagging indicator ... because it FOLLOWS the economy.

I couldn't care less about what you have to say about heath care, cap and trade, etc.

How exactly have unemployment rates been falling?

Unemployment rateType of data: Percent or rateAge: 16 years and over 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
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
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
2009 7.6 8.1 8.5 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.2 10.0

 

[Article 15]

It sure has gotten better. Job loss numbers rose and rose each month for a while. Then for a period we lost fewer and fewer jobs each month. Now the unemployment numbers are slowly falling. That's why it's a lagging indicator ... because it FOLLOWS the economy.

I couldn't care less about what you have to say about heath care, cap and trade, etc.

How exactly have unemployment rates been falling?

Unemployment rateType of data: Percent or rateAge: 16 years and over 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
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
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
2009 7.6 8.1 8.5 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.2 10.0

Your numbers prove what I've been telling you this whole time ....

That there was a dramatic rise in unemployment because of the economic collapse, followed by a period in which the job losses slowed, and yes, we have infact just seen a small improvement in unemployment numbers.

Thanks again!

 

[CMike]

It sure has gotten better. Job loss numbers rose and rose each month for a while. Then for a period we lost fewer and fewer jobs each month. Now the unemployment numbers are slowly falling. That's why it's a lagging indicator ... because it FOLLOWS the economy.

I couldn't care less about what you have to say about heath care, cap and trade, etc.

How exactly have unemployment rates been falling?

Unemployment rateType of data: Percent or rateAge: 16 years and over 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
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
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
2009 7.6 8.1 8.5 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.2 10.0

Your numbers prove what I've been telling you this whole time ....

That there was a dramatic rise in unemployment because of the economic collapse, followed by a period in which the job losses slowed, and yes, we have infact just seen a small improvement in unemployment numbers.

Thanks again!

Unemployment has been going up. The last month it went down %0.2, while still in double digits. That is not a trend of unemployment rates falling.

We are NOW in an economic collapse.

And it's going to get worse when Obama's schemes of looting businesses are implemented.

 

[Article 15]

How exactly have unemployment rates been falling?

Unemployment rateType of data: Percent or rateAge: 16 years and over 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
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
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
2009 7.6 8.1 8.5 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.2 10.0

Your numbers prove what I've been telling you this whole time ....

That there was a dramatic rise in unemployment because of the economic collapse, followed by a period in which the job losses slowed, and yes, we have infact just seen a small improvement in unemployment numbers.

Thanks again!

Unemployment has been going up. The last month it went down %0.2, while still in double digits. That is not a trend of unemployment rates falling.

We are NOW in an economic collapse.

And it's going to get worse when Obama's schemes of looting businesses are implemented.

Do yourself a favor and graph out all those numbers starting in September 2008 and look at the slope of the line ...

 

[txlonghorn]

It sure has gotten better. Job loss numbers rose and rose each month for a while. Then for a period we lost fewer and fewer jobs each month. Now the unemployment numbers are slowly falling. That's why it's a lagging indicator ... because it FOLLOWS the economy.

I couldn't care less about what you have to say about heath care, cap and trade, etc.

that last sentence says it all.......you couldn't care less, period. The mantra of the leftwing loons.

 

[Article 15]

It sure has gotten better. Job loss numbers rose and rose each month for a while. Then for a period we lost fewer and fewer jobs each month. Now the unemployment numbers are slowly falling. That's why it's a lagging indicator ... because it FOLLOWS the economy.

I couldn't care less about what you have to say about heath care, cap and trade, etc.

that last sentence says it all.......you couldn't care less, period. The mantra of the leftwing loons.

 

[Sinatra]

It is irrefutable fact that the Democrats have controlled the purse strings for three years.

The economy is stumbling back to some degree of normalcy in spite of Obama and the Democrats, not because of them.

The recovery is already looking to be much more shallow and unstable than previous corrections, and the dangers of a double dip recession remain.

2010 will be the stoppage of this madness, where Obama can then peacefully carry on for another term and the whole drunken affair quickly forgotten.

America has been without a strong leader for decades. If this is not remedied, the damage done will be too great to ever repair.

A growing number already think that to be so...

 

[mascale]

Commencing the end of the first week in January, when job creation is likely again to show up in the data, and then moving into the more robust economy of Spring and Summer: Then GOP will have no one to blame except the Democrats(?)!

Anyone recalls that the GOP is the party that responded to 9/11: By refusing the offer of the Taliban capture of Osama bin laden for Moslem trial. Instead the Bush-Cheney GOP went full-throttle into Afghanistan, chased the Taliban and put them into Pakistan: Where now they are within reach of control of nuclear weapons. They can even claim credit for killing off CIA, with the help of CIA turncoats: All Because of GOP, Bush and Cheney, and the rest of the Party of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln is famous in history, in fact, for killing off the 700,000 plus white people. The basis idea was to denigrate black people for another 150 years.

So Americans participant in Afghanistan were mainly there to kill off Americans. The government they alleged to be supporting is even more corrupt than Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Afghanis themselves won't confirm a new Cabinet, in Kabul: Clearly all intended by the Party of Lincoln, which is so clearly good at this sort of thing.

GOP will probably claim that a deity is on their side!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Which still goes to the matter that Miss Pussy should have had the starring role on Sesame Street: Instead of the piglet.)