Sorry Republicans

[hortysir]

Any administration that would brag about 8% unemployment with 99 weeks paid unemployment benefits must be desperate. When you think about the last administration consider that democrats held the majority in both houses of congress during Bush's last two years and Fannie Mae collapsed while Barney Frank was telling us it was doing fine.

Fannie Mae was doing fine..until it had to back the loans made by the Financial industry. By the way..they are still around..unlike Lehman Brothers.

Congress threatened the Finanacial institutions to make those bad loans or else.

Get your facts straight dumbass.

Nevermind the Lehman/Obama connections

 

[KevinWestern]

Ah, yes...the "bounce"! Funny thing, Kevin...progressives want to credit Obama policies for a reduction in unemployment since 2008, when anyone looking at recessions with an unbiased eye can see that economic downturns are inevitably followed by economic upturns. The point I was making is that our current economic growth is appallingly bad four years after the recession started...something that as some point has to be attributed to the poor economic policies of this President. A growth rate of under 3% with no end in sight is NOT something to look forward to.

I agree that the economy right now is still not healthy; but how much of that can be attributed to Obama's policies (or Bush's for that matter) specifically? Personally, I don't think there's anything any single person in office could have done - starting in 2008 - that would have significantly improved our situation today. If you wanted to prevent the recession, you'll have to look back to who was making the laws 20 years ago. Today, Washington is largely just "riding the wave".

Also, if you're saying that if you can't credit the President for the dropping unemployment rate (and I agree with you, I don't credit him), then you can't (on the flipside) discredit the President for the measly growth rate. Wouldn't doing so be considered a double standard?

.
.

 

[The T]

Fannie Mae was doing fine..until it had to back the loans made by the Financial industry. By the way..they are still around..unlike Lehman Brothers.

Congress threatened the Finanacial institutions to make those bad loans or else.

Get your facts straight dumbass.

Nevermind the Lehman/Obama connections

And ACORN

 

[Avatar4321]

No incumbent president dating to 1956 has lost when unemployment fell over the two years leading up to his re-election contest.

And none has won when the rate rose.

Unemployment was 9.8 percent in November 2010.

Last month, eight months before Election Day, the rate was 8.2 percent.

Swing-state unemployment down, Obama's chances up - York Dispatch

No incumbent President since 1952 has had 8.2% reported unemployment either.

So there is a first time for everything.

 

[sublime]

It's funny how after the crash of 1933 our economy responded with growth rates of over 10% for three years yet after the crash of 2008 our economy has suffered through growth rates of under 3% for three years...yet progressives point to that as "progress" and a reason to reelect a President who has no economic plan and hasn't for several years now.

Oldstyle, you do realize that the economic collapse that caused the great depression of the 1930’s was of a much larger scale than the one we experienced in 2008. For instance, the unemployment rate in 1933 was 25%! Compare that to the peak unemployment of the recent recession.

Obviously, the harder an economy falls, the more significant the numbers will be when it bounces back – hence the 10% in 1933 vs the 3% in 2008.

Just wanted to point out…

You realize the books have been thoroughly cooked on employment right?

Not only do the numbers not include people who have "left the workforce", they do not reflect the underemployed. One other group they do not include are high school and college graduates. 50% of people graduating from school do not have jobs, yet they are not counted in the numbers.

The employment numbers remain unchanged since Obama took office, yet unemployment is supposedly ~8%.. LOL yeah right, wanna buy some ocean front property in Arizona?

True unemployment is at least 15%, much likely more.

 

[The T]

It's funny how after the crash of 1933 our economy responded with growth rates of over 10% for three years yet after the crash of 2008 our economy has suffered through growth rates of under 3% for three years...yet progressives point to that as "progress" and a reason to reelect a President who has no economic plan and hasn't for several years now.

Oldstyle, you do realize that the economic collapse that caused the great depression of the 1930’s was of a much larger scale than the one we experienced in 2008. For instance, the unemployment rate in 1933 was 25%! Compare that to the peak unemployment of the recent recession.

Obviously, the harder an economy falls, the more significant the numbers will be when it bounces back – hence the 10% in 1933 vs the 3% in 2008.

Just wanted to point out…

You realize the books have been thoroughly cooked on employment right?

Not only do the numbers not include people who have "left the workforce", they do not reflect the underemployed. One other thing group they do not include are high school and college graduates. 50% of people graduating from school do not have jobs, yet they are not counted in the numbers.

The employment numbers remain unchanged since Obama took office, yet unemployment is supposedly ~8%.. LOL yeah right, wanna buy some ocean front property in Arizona?

True unemployment is at least 15%, much likely more.

Not do they include Jobs that no longer exist.

 

[Listening]

No incumbent president dating to 1956 has lost when unemployment fell over the two years leading up to his re-election contest.

And none has won when the rate rose.

Unemployment was 9.8 percent in November 2010.

Last month, eight months before Election Day, the rate was 8.2 percent.

Swing-state unemployment down, Obama's chances up - York Dispatch

Sorry Chris.

First time for everything.

Obama: the first black president.

Obama: the first one term black president.

 

[KevinWestern]

It's funny how after the crash of 1933 our economy responded with growth rates of over 10% for three years yet after the crash of 2008 our economy has suffered through growth rates of under 3% for three years...yet progressives point to that as "progress" and a reason to reelect a President who has no economic plan and hasn't for several years now.

Oldstyle, you do realize that the economic collapse that caused the great depression of the 1930’s was of a much larger scale than the one we experienced in 2008. For instance, the unemployment rate in 1933 was 25%! Compare that to the peak unemployment of the recent recession.

Obviously, the harder an economy falls, the more significant the numbers will be when it bounces back – hence the 10% in 1933 vs the 3% in 2008.

Just wanted to point out…

You realize the books have been thoroughly cooked on employment right?

Not only do the numbers not include people who have "left the workforce", they do not reflect the underemployed. One other group they do not include are high school and college graduates. 50% of people graduating from school do not have jobs, yet they are not counted in the numbers.

The employment numbers remain unchanged since Obama took office, yet unemployment is supposedly ~8%.. LOL yeah right, wanna buy some ocean front property in Arizona?

True unemployment is at least 15%, much likely more.

I'm sure they spin the statistics and manipulate the unemployment rate in every way imaginable to make themselves look better and others look worse. I'm sure the true unemployment rate is higher than what they say it is, too.

However, I think it’s a well-accepted fact that this economic downturn (2008- ) pales in comparison to the size and magnitude of the one in the 1930’s, regardless of how the data might be spun.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

No incumbent president dating to 1956 has lost when unemployment fell over the two years leading up to his re-election contest.

And none has won when the rate rose.

Unemployment was 9.8 percent in November 2010.

Last month, eight months before Election Day, the rate was 8.2 percent.

Swing-state unemployment down, Obama's chances up - York Dispatch

Sorry Chris.

First time for everything.

Obama: the first black president.

Obama: the first one term black president.

Oh no, I'm certain the 40,000,000+ unemployed Americans can't wait to vote "four more years".

 

[Oldstyle]

Ah, yes...the "bounce"! Funny thing, Kevin...progressives want to credit Obama policies for a reduction in unemployment since 2008, when anyone looking at recessions with an unbiased eye can see that economic downturns are inevitably followed by economic upturns. The point I was making is that our current economic growth is appallingly bad four years after the recession started...something that as some point has to be attributed to the poor economic policies of this President. A growth rate of under 3% with no end in sight is NOT something to look forward to.

I agree that the economy right now is still not healthy; but how much of that can be attributed to Obama's policies (or Bush's for that matter) specifically? Personally, I don't think there's anything any single person in office could have done - starting in 2008 - that would have significantly improved our situation today. If you wanted to prevent the recession, you'll have to look back to who was making the laws 20 years ago. Today, Washington is largely just "riding the wave".


Also, if you're saying that if you can't credit the President for the dropping unemployment rate (and I agree with you, I don't credit him), then you can't (on the flipside) discredit the President for the measly growth rate. Wouldn't doing so be considered a double standard?

.
.

With all due respect, Kevin...a LOT of the slowness in the recovery can be attributed to Obama's policies. Going after ObamaCare right out of the gate BEFORE concentrating on fixing unemployment and the economy was a huge error. Uncertainty about what the health care law's costs would be had the private sector holding off on hiring new people or expanding their businesses and that STILL hasn't changed to a large extent because now business owners don't know if what WAS passed is going to be found to be unconstitutional and if so how THAT will affect their costs. Uncertainty is a killer when you're trying to convince the private sector to invest capital.

Look there are reasons why we have more people on long term unemployment right now than at any time since the Great Depression and part of that is because of the high level of distrust that exists between this Administration and the business community. Barack Obama has a bad habit of scapegoating various segments of that business community if he thinks it will resonate with the public. Good perhaps politically but not good economically. You can't demogogue the banks for making bad loans and then turn around and criticize them for being to cautious about loaning money. You can't tell wealthy investors that they don't pay enough taxes on the profits they make and then expect them to risk their capital in the face of your attacks on their profit margins. You can't tell prospective builders of factories that you intend to pass Cap & Trade legislation or new EPA regulations that will make their energy costs skyrocket when those same builders have the option of building ELSEWHERE.

I'm sorry but Barack Obama and...to a large extent...most of the people he has surrounded himself with are not business people and it shows in how they deal WITH the business community on a daily basis. It really does appear that they view "profit" as companies abusing the public in some way. They really don't seem to understand that making a profit is what drives our economy. Take away that profit motive and you end up with stagnation and 2 to 3% growth.

 

[JoeB131]

Thought for the Day


"Apparently, I'm supposed to be more angry about what Mitt Romney does with his money, than what Barack Obama does with mine."

Absolutely.

Romney uses his money to screw over working folks. If you want to find one thing that's caused all out misery, it's the shift of the wealth in this country from the people who do the work to the people who speculate which businesses will win.

And frankly, Romney had his hand out for the government money just like anyone.

 

[Liability]

Thought for the Day


"Apparently, I'm supposed to be more angry about what Mitt Romney does with his money, than what Barack Obama does with mine."

Absolutely.

Romney uses his money to screw over working folks. If you want to find one thing that's caused all out misery, it's the shift of the wealth in this country from the people who do the work to the people who speculate which businesses will win.

And frankly, Romney had his hand out for the government money just like anyone.

Such trivial bullshit.

JoeB, you little petty minded fraud.

With SPECIFICS, share with us your grand theory. HOW exactly does Mitt screw over working folks with his wealth?

If you limit your puerile little response to the fact that his company has shuttered a couple of companies along the way, then you are revealing yourself as a very ignorant mindless little propagandist for your dishonest left-wing ideology.

So, of course, you wouldn't dare be so trite. You MUST have a better argument to offer than that crap.

Go for it.

 

[JoeB131]

Thought for the Day


"Apparently, I'm supposed to be more angry about what Mitt Romney does with his money, than what Barack Obama does with mine."

Absolutely.

Romney uses his money to screw over working folks. If you want to find one thing that's caused all out misery, it's the shift of the wealth in this country from the people who do the work to the people who speculate which businesses will win.

And frankly, Romney had his hand out for the government money just like anyone.

Such trivial bullshit.

JoeB, you little petty minded fraud.

With SPECIFICS, share with us your grand theory. HOW exactly does Mitt screw over working folks with his wealth?

If you limit your puerile little response to the fact that his company has shuttered a couple of companies along the way, then you are revealing yourself as a very ignorant mindless little propagandist for your dishonest left-wing ideology.

So, of course, you wouldn't dare be so trite. You MUST have a better argument to offer than that crap.

Go for it.

Romney's damage to the working class has been well documented. AmPad, GS Steel, DDi instruments, Damon Medical. Companies where Bain went in, used leverage buyouts to make shitloads of money, and then left working folks without jobs or with severely reduced salaries and benefits.

Fact was, those companies were doing fine until Bain showed up in their lives, and some went on to prosper once they got Bain out of their lives.

 

[Liability]

Absolutely.

Romney uses his money to screw over working folks. If you want to find one thing that's caused all out misery, it's the shift of the wealth in this country from the people who do the work to the people who speculate which businesses will win.

And frankly, Romney had his hand out for the government money just like anyone.

Such trivial bullshit.

JoeB, you little petty minded fraud.

With SPECIFICS, share with us your grand theory. HOW exactly does Mitt screw over working folks with his wealth?

If you limit your puerile little response to the fact that his company has shuttered a couple of companies along the way, then you are revealing yourself as a very ignorant mindless little propagandist for your dishonest left-wing ideology.

So, of course, you wouldn't dare be so trite. You MUST have a better argument to offer than that crap.

Go for it.

Romney's damage to the working class has been well documented. AmPad, GS Steel, DDi instruments, Damon Medical. Companies where Bain went in, used leverage buyouts to make shitloads of money, and then left working folks without jobs or with severely reduced salaries and benefits.

Fact was, those companies were doing fine until Bain showed up in their lives, and some went on to prosper once they got Bain out of their lives.

No. It hasn't. Citing a few examples of companies that got shuttered is not even remotely akin to "documentation" of any alleged damage to the working class.

Companies which are going to go under anyway -- ones which can't be saved but a knight in shining armor -- are not "injured" by the entity that finally closes down their operations.

I KNEW you couldn't do it. You have your baseless generalizations and mindless lib talking points, but you have no real argument to offer. Your utterly empty contentions simply are not a valid substitute.

 

[Oldstyle]

JoeB's anti Morman bias has him foaming at the mouth.

 

[blastoff]

Shit............now even Zuckerman at USNews is saying this president is a disaster...................

Mort Zuckerman: President Obama's Economic Programs Have Failed - US News and World Report

Hey Chris you Bozo...........nobody reads THE YORK DISPATCH!!!

Old Mort's been critical of Barry for some time now. And you don't get much more flaming liberal than the Zuckerman. How many other Dims, liberals, independents, and even Republicans who crossed over and supported the empty suit in '08 have figured out Barry is in waaaaay over his head?

It's gonna be real interesting to be in here next November 7th and to tune in to listen to liberal asswipes on Morning Joe choking on their Starbucks.

 

[pinqy]

It's funny how after the crash of 1933 our economy responded with growth rates of over 10% for three years yet after the crash of 2008 our economy has suffered through growth rates of under 3% for three years...yet progressives point to that as "progress" and a reason to reelect a President who has no economic plan and hasn't for several years now.

Oldstyle, you do realize that the economic collapse that caused the great depression of the 1930’s was of a much larger scale than the one we experienced in 2008. For instance, the unemployment rate in 1933 was 25%! Compare that to the peak unemployment of the recent recession.

Obviously, the harder an economy falls, the more significant the numbers will be when it bounces back – hence the 10% in 1933 vs the 3% in 2008.

Just wanted to point out…

You realize the books have been thoroughly cooked on employment right?

I await your actual evidence.

Not only do the numbers not include people who have "left the workforce",

Well, of course they don't. Why would you count people not trying to work as unemployed? The more important point is that the basic definition of Unemployed has ALWAYS been "looking for work." Why on earth would you want to count retirees, people who quit to raise kids or go to school as unemployed? People leave the Labor Force for the following reasons: Death, emmigration, prison, institutionalized, the military (this group is also out of the population), and then retirement, school, illness, injury, pregnancy, family issues, transportation issues, wining the lottery, and discouragement. They're not counted as unemployed because they cannot be hired as they're not trying to work.

they do not reflect the underemployed.

ummm of course not. Why would you include people with jobs as UNemployed?

One other group they do not include are high school and college graduates. 50% of people graduating from school do not have jobs, yet they are not counted in the numbers.

That's just untrue. The survey includes everyone 16 and older not in prison or other institution or the military.

The employment numbers remain unchanged since Obama took office, yet unemployment is supposedly ~8%.. LOL yeah right, wanna buy some ocean front property in Arizona?

They haven't remained unchanged..they went up to 10% and then back down...bouncing around some.

True unemployment is at least 15%, much likely more.

I love how people who complain that the government is manipulating the numbers then go ahead and make up numbers out of their ass and claim that's more reliable. The irony.

 

[pinqy]

Oldstyle, you do realize that the economic collapse that caused the great depression of the 1930’s was of a much larger scale than the one we experienced in 2008. For instance, the unemployment rate in 1933 was 25%! Compare that to the peak unemployment of the recent recession.

Obviously, the harder an economy falls, the more significant the numbers will be when it bounces back – hence the 10% in 1933 vs the 3% in 2008.

Just wanted to point out…

You realize the books have been thoroughly cooked on employment right?

Not only do the numbers not include people who have "left the workforce", they do not reflect the underemployed. One other thing group they do not include are high school and college graduates. 50% of people graduating from school do not have jobs, yet they are not counted in the numbers.

The employment numbers remain unchanged since Obama took office, yet unemployment is supposedly ~8%.. LOL yeah right, wanna buy some ocean front property in Arizona?

True unemployment is at least 15%, much likely more.

Not do they include Jobs that no longer exist.

How could they? I'd love to see your math on that.

 

[pinqy]

Oh no, I'm certain the 40,000,000+ unemployed Americans can't wait to vote "four more years".

Please cite your source for 40 million unemployed.

 

[hjmick]

No incumbent president dating to 1956 has lost when unemployment fell over the two years leading up to his re-election contest.

And none has won when the rate rose.

Unemployment was 9.8 percent in November 2010.

Last month, eight months before Election Day, the rate was 8.2 percent.

Swing-state unemployment down, Obama's chances up - York Dispatch

There's a first time for everything...