Jobless rate falls. And that's the bad news

[Neotrotsky]

I'm starting to see unicorns folks. Its a glorious day.

You sure that isn't Chris in a suit ?

 

[Troubadour]

A lower unemployment rate is certainly bad news for Republicans. Ever notice how every time America benefits, Republicans weep? Gee, maybe that means something - like these people are enemies of this country.

 

[Neotrotsky]

It would be if this wasn't the worst recovery since the Great Depression


Enemies? Oh no, that would be anyone who wants this failure to continue

Obama isn't working

 

[Troubadour]

It would be if this wasn't the worst recovery since the Great Depression

Your party has spent the last two years obstructing any attempt to create jobs, and it's still a better economy than the one you left us.

Enemies? Oh no, that would be anyone who wants this failure to continue

Yes, you. You want America to fail. Your party has explicitly said so. You pursue policies that are proven to fail, and obstruct policies that are proven to work.

Obama isn't working

He's working for America. He's just not working for your Party bosses and their financiers.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Papa Obama's lowest unemployment numbers still
come from the first day he took over from Bush

so yeah

Obama isn't working

 

[Conservative]

Your party has spent the last two years obstructing any attempt to create jobs, and it's still a better economy than the one you left us.

whale piss.

Reid is sitting on dozens of job related bills PASSED in the House, simply because they were GOP sponsored bills.

To say the economy is better now than before Obama took office is a partisan hack fallacy.

Go suck some more goats, troll-boy.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Well that is what the Left likes to say
to make themselves feel better

But Reagan inherited a bad equal in many ways to Papa Obama
and he did more, faster, better and spend less money than
Papa Obama

So

Obama isn't working

In spite of what leftists think (most of whom cannot seem to wrap their heads around the dynamic of higher revenues garnered at low rates of taxation from big economies as opposed to lower revenues garnered at high rates of taxation from small, sluggish economies), the Reagan Administration did not appreciatively increase government spending without resistance in any area except defense. Initially, the deficit increased. But once the economy took off, after only about two years or so, revenues came pouring in like mad. Near the end of Clinton's Administration—the Republican-controlled Congress having restrained the growth in spending and having prevented the former from significantly raising taxes—the higher annual revenues of nearly two-decades of strong economic growth began to retire the debt.

Keynesianism (Obama's nonsense) doesn't work; federal spending within the economy's means and low taxation does.

 

[Nova78]

 

[Too Tall]

WHAT????????


Reagan ran up the fucking deficit and in no way had an economy as bad as this

The Death of Keynesian Economics… Reagan’s 4th Year in Office: 7.2 GDP… Obama’s 4th Year in Office: 2.2 GDP

Yesterday we were slammed with further proof that Keynesian economics is a bust. The government reported that the first quarter GDP this year dropped to 2.2 percent.

The Obama-Pelosi regime bet the farm (and a trillion taxpayer dollars!) on a big government Keynesian stimulus package and it failed. Back in 1980 during a similar economic downturn President Ronald Reagan took the exact opposite approach as Barack Obama. Reagan cut taxes and regulations. When Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Act at his ranch in 1981, it was the largest tax cut in American history. And it was a massive success. Jobs were created. In 15 months in 1983-84 job growth was 4,655,000, while in the comparable 15 months in 2011-12 it was 2,475,000, just a little more than half as many. The average GDP during Ronald Reagan’s 4th year in office was a whopping 7.2%.

Read more: Reagan

 

[The Rabbi]

A lower unemployment rate is certainly bad news for Republicans. Ever notice how every time America benefits, Republicans weep? Gee, maybe that means something - like these people are enemies of this country.

Well, if you gloss over the fact that it is lower only because of people dropping out of the workforce then it makes sense.
Of course fewer people working is a boon for Democrats, who can then shower them with "benefits" and then claim Republicans are meanies for wanting to take them away.

 

[8537]

WHAT????????


Reagan ran up the fucking deficit and in no way had an economy as bad as this

The Death of Keynesian Economics… Reagan’s 4th Year in Office: 7.2 GDP… Obama’s 4th Year in Office: 2.2 GDP

Yesterday we were slammed with further proof that Keynesian economics is a bust. The government reported that the first quarter GDP this year dropped to 2.2 percent.

The Obama-Pelosi regime bet the farm (and a trillion taxpayer dollars!) on a big government Keynesian stimulus package and it failed. Back in 1980 during a similar economic downturn President Ronald Reagan took the exact opposite approach as Barack Obama. Reagan cut taxes and regulations. When Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Act at his ranch in 1981, it was the largest tax cut in American history. And it was a massive success. Jobs were created. In 15 months in 1983-84 job growth was 4,655,000, while in the comparable 15 months in 2011-12 it was 2,475,000, just a little more than half as many. The average GDP during Ronald Reagan’s 4th year in office was a whopping 7.2%.

Read more: Reagan

Huh? Which ones in the Obama administration are the Keynesians?

 

[Dick Tuck]

 

[LeftofLeft]

This is the worst recovery in modern history.

Women absorbed 92% of the Obama job losses and over half of young black men are unemployed.



Which begs the question for our resident Libtards:


How's that hopey changey thingy workin out for ya?

If a Republican was in office, they'd call this a war on women and minorities. Oh, wait, the left is still claiming that even though their policies are the ones hurting people. They don't get alarmed about people losing their jobs and not finding new ones for years. They'd rather focus on birth control, as if that is what improves peoples' lives.

The media will gush over this slight decrease. Of course, they were making it sound like anything around 8% unemployment is wonderful. At one point, they were saying 10% is the new normal, so anything around there is positive and they indicated we shouldn't expect more than that. I think they're just hoping that 12.5 million people will rush to big government for welfare and maybe that was the goal all along.

Obama and the Dems limit the number of loans banks can make to small businesses, so new job creation is being hampered. Why would they not want those millions of people to find work?

Now the Occupoopers are repeating a new message, which echoes some things Obama has said. There is an effort to bring down capitalism and the new talking point is that our country is too broken to fix, so we need to tear it down and start over. I am thinking Obama would like to shred the constitution and Bill of Rights and literally start over. He thinks the constitution is fundamentally flawed and that our forefathers got it wrong. His complaint, in a radio interview while he was an Illinois senator, is that the constitution does not give enough power to government.

Between his czars, executive orders, radical EPA chief and other appointees, he seems to be trying to alter the foundation of this country. Lenin even knew that government controlling health care was the cornerstone of socialism/marxism/communism. That was a major part of the plan, along with encouraging dependency on government, taking over private sector and controlling information.

Obama shows a disdain for the Supreme Court since he senses that they will not decide in his favor on Obamacare. In the matter of Obama vs We The People, he's worried that the Supremes will stick to the constitution and rule his unconstitutional heath care as unconstitutional.

He and the Dems are also poised to create new immigration laws because the court may decide in favor of states when it comes to border security and upholding laws. What will they change? No border security allowed and an unlimited number of people allowed to walk right in and head to the nearest welfare office?

Meanwhile, more and more citizens face unemployment with few, if any, prospects on the horizon. Is he hoping that these folks will throw in the towel and seek government assistance? If they get desperate enough, maybe they'll start supporting big government and living off the decreasing number of tax payers. Straight from the Cloward-Piven and Alinsky plans for dismantling capitalism and installing socialism in it's place.

Fewer jobs + more people giving up = lower unemployment rates that Dems will brag about. Nothing to celebrate here, folks, unless you dream of living on the liberal plantation.

Great post. What would happen if woman and blacks were fully employed? There would be fewer Obama voters. As for small business, no unions, no corporate cronyism......how could Obama possibly care about the success of Small Business??

 

[Neotrotsky]

too funny
Think Progress on the graph

 

[Dick Tuck]

too funny
Think Progress on the graph

Are the numbers wrong?

 

[Neotrotsky]

Selective and bias to make Papa Obama look good
Twist any fact enough, you can get to say anything you want

but you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear
You really need some better wacky leftwing websites



Here is one from the BLS
showing Papa Obama has a new 30-year low in the labour participation rate.

Here’s the chart from the BLS for the last 30 years:

 

[Dick Tuck]

Selective and bias to make Papa Obama look good
Twist any fact enough, you can get to say anything you want

but you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear
You really need some better wacky leftwing websites



Here is one from the BLS
showing Papa Obama has a new 30-year low in the labour participation rate.

Here’s the chart from the BLS for the last 30 years:

Surely you're not stupid enough not to understand that the work force is contracting, since the boomers are starting to retire. Account for that, and you might have a point. I'm not saying that we're out of the woods from the Bush recession, but we're certainly moving in the right direction.

The question remains. Are there more private sector jobs now, than the day that Obama took office? Your chart doesn't come close to answering that.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Well that is what left wing websites tell their readers to
comfort them

It is just due to retirement
It helps the left to sleep at night

Right now we have about 13 percent retired (65+)
The peak of the Baby boom was around 1958
They are not due to retire until 2023


The rest of us live in the reality

Obama isn't working

 

[Darkwind]

How well did your plans of austerity work in Europe people?

You have the gall to call others idiots?

There has been no austerity in Europe, nor in America.

Back to the topic at hand.....

I forget how much they estimate (and I'm not going to go look it up for someone who won't believe it anyway) have dropped off the statistics for the unemployed. It was something like 600,000 or more who are not even counted in the unemployment percentage that the left touts now, but totally ignored when Bush was up around 7%.

Today, the unemployment in this country (unemployed, not partially employed or under employed) is around 12%.

There is no recovery in this economy.

 

[Darkwind]

Selective and bias to make Papa Obama look good
Twist any fact enough, you can get to say anything you want

but you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear
You really need some better wacky leftwing websites



Here is one from the BLS
showing Papa Obama has a new 30-year low in the labour participation rate.

Here’s the chart from the BLS for the last 30 years:

Surely you're not stupid enough not to understand that the work force is contracting, since the boomers are starting to retire. Account for that, and you might have a point. I'm not saying that we're out of the woods from the Bush recession, but we're certainly moving in the right direction.

The question remains. Are there more private sector jobs now, than the day that Obama took office? Your chart doesn't come close to answering that.

Surely your not claiming that this alleged contracting is the sole source of the dropping off of participation in the work force? When you have as many kids entering as there are retiring, the real cause is people maxing out UE benefits and simply not getting counted in the UE percentage that is reported to the public.

The real UE number is around 11 to 12%