Unemployment rate drops to 8.5%

after two years of a borrowed 850 billion dollar stimulus, nothing positive ocurred.

After less than a year of an extension of the Bush tax cuts, we see promising results.

That is fact.

The rest of what you say is nothing but political rhetoric and not at all about the topic at hand.

Alot "positive" occurred. From Rick Perry's use to plug up his state budget (just like Bobby Jindal) to the many construction projects we see going on in places like, well, NEW YORK.

the positive you referred to amounted to 1.8 million less jobs. I look at the entire picture.

The biggest loss occurred before the stimulus.
 
Wait a second...you're actually going to give President Obama CREDIT for the spending cuts that MAY...I repeat MAY go through because he abdicated responsibility of making the hard choices to his "Super Committee" rather than do HIS job? First of all those cuts haven't happened. Secondly if they DO happen it's not due in any way to Barack Obama who runs from having to do the hard work of making budget cuts like no politician I've ever seen.

He didn't "abdicate" shit. He tried to work with people that hated his guts. So they sent up something that he knew would go through.

They WILL got through by the way. And the Bush tax cuts WILL expire. And we WILL be on the road to deficit reduction. Like we were when Bush first entered office.

That's all he's DONE is abdicate! The guy hasn't given a real budget to Congress in years now because he doesn't want to take the political hit for the costs of his policies. Why does he need a "Super Committee" to come up with the cuts needed to pay for HIS programs? Oh, he'll say that they are "paid for" but that's a flat out lie. Nothing is paid for until cuts are made or revenues raised. Obama hasn't done either.

:lol: Then why the heck are conservatives complaining about the military budget? Oh yeah..it's been cut.
 
That is some good news

It looks like our republicans are going to have to start posting threads about how Obama had nothing to do with it

The progression is this:

1. The economy sucks, and it's ALL OBAMA'S FAULT.

2. The economy sucks, and if you say it's getting better, YOU'RE LYING.

3. The economy is getting better, but it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OBAMA.

We're halfway between #2 and #3 now.

Was there ever any doubt that the economy would get better? Economies recover from recessions. What's debatable is the speed of that recovery. My contention is that the policies that this Administration either passed or attempted to pass, slowed the rate of recovery rather than increased it. The American economy will continue to get stronger...no matter who is in the Oval Office. Having someone who isn't anti-business in there would definitely help the process along however. What I fear is a second Obama term in which he won't have to worry about getting re-elected. If anyone thinks he's going to rein in the zealots he's appointed in places like the EPA when he doesn't have to worry about losing votes...then I'll just say that I think you're rather naive. As the man says...you ain't seen nothing yet!
 
Nothing "funny" about it at all...it's an acronym...PIGS stands for Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain...countries with entitlement heavy societies that can't support themselves.
Liberals don't understand Markets or Economics and it's glaringly obvious every time they post. :D

Really now? Spain isn't in any real trouble. And if Ireland had stuck to their guns and not bailed out financials..they wouldn't be either.

But the "acronym" is pretty insulting. Unless you like being called a pig.

As for not "understanding" markets..just what do you think I did with the last 13 years of my life.

Oh yeah..I worked for the New York Stock Exchange. Heck..I rang the fucking bell. :lol:

I'm happy that they let the custodial staff have a little fun after hours, Sallow. If you really DID work on Wall Street, I wouldn't have to explain what PIGS meant.

Oh, and just for your edification? Spain's economy is teetering on another recession...their outlook is bleak at best.
 
Last edited:
Alot "positive" occurred. From Rick Perry's use to plug up his state budget (just like Bobby Jindal) to the many construction projects we see going on in places like, well, NEW YORK.

the positive you referred to amounted to 1.8 million less jobs. I look at the entire picture.

The biggest loss occurred before the stimulus.

Yes.....but the stimulus did not correct the losses.

Fortuinately, it appears the extension of the tax cuts is starting to.
 
Yes..they come after the US, China, Japan and India.

It's also funny you call NATO allies.."pigs".

Nothing "funny" about it at all...it's an acronym...PIGS stands for Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain...countries with entitlement heavy societies that can't support themselves.
Liberals don't understand Markets or Economics and it's glaringly obvious every time they post. :D

The other day day you wanted to make a bet over whether the economy would lose jobs. I'm still up for that. What about you?
 
Nothing "funny" about it at all...it's an acronym...PIGS stands for Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain...countries with entitlement heavy societies that can't support themselves.
Liberals don't understand Markets or Economics and it's glaringly obvious every time they post. :D

Really now? Spain isn't in any real trouble. And if Ireland had stuck to their guns and not bailed out financials..they wouldn't be either.

But the "acronym" is pretty insulting. Unless you like being called a pig.

As for not "understanding" markets..just what do you think I did with the last 13 years of my life.

Oh yeah..I worked for the New York Stock Exchange. Heck..I rang the fucking bell. :lol:
Did you really ring the bell?
How cool was that?
 
It is always good to see some progress!

Yes it its, however the rate remains above 8 percent -- the level that Obama's team once promised would represent the ceiling on unemployment with the passage of the 2009 stimulus package.

Most of those new jobs were in the service sector, for the holiday rush. We will know more about the actual numbers in February, when the January unemployment numbers come out. Businesses traditionally hire many more workers in holiday and summer seasons.
 
It is always good to see some progress!

Yes it its, however the rate remains above 8 percent -- the level that Obama's team once promised would represent the ceiling on unemployment with the passage of the 2009 stimulus package.

Most of those new jobs were in the service sector, for the holiday rush. We will know more about the actual numbers in February, when the January unemployment numbers come out. Businesses traditionally hire many more workers in holiday and summer seasons.

Obama never made that promise.

Unemployment was already over eight percent when the Stimulus passed, so there was no way it could "keep unemployment below 8%"
 
It is always good to see some progress!

Most of those new jobs were in the service sector, for the holiday rush. We will know more about the actual numbers in February, when the January unemployment numbers come out. Businesses traditionally hire many more workers in holiday and summer seasons.

It's seasonally adjusted.
 
It is always good to see some progress!

Yes it its, however the rate remains above 8 percent -- the level that Obama's team once promised would represent the ceiling on unemployment with the passage of the 2009 stimulus package.

Most of those new jobs were in the service sector, for the holiday rush. We will know more about the actual numbers in February, when the January unemployment numbers come out. Businesses traditionally hire many more workers in holiday and summer seasons.

Obama never made that promise.

Unemployment was already over eight percent when the Stimulus passed, so there was no way it could "keep unemployment below 8%"

Yeah, it was the head of his economic team, Christina Romer that made the promise...standing in front of the White House giving a press briefing. Funny how President Obama never contradicted her as he stumped back and forth across the country to get "his" stimulus passed.

The reason that it couldn't keep unemployment below 8% was that it was badly conceived and then carried out ineptly.
 
It is always good to see some progress!

Most of those new jobs were in the service sector, for the holiday rush. We will know more about the actual numbers in February, when the January unemployment numbers come out. Businesses traditionally hire many more workers in holiday and summer seasons.

It's seasonally adjusted.

Yea. And it's not the first time we had to remind them. Remember the Consumer Confidence surge in December?
 
Nothing "funny" about it at all...it's an acronym...PIGS stands for Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain...countries with entitlement heavy societies that can't support themselves.
Liberals don't understand Markets or Economics and it's glaringly obvious every time they post. :D

The other day day you wanted to make a bet over whether the economy would lose jobs. I'm still up for that. What about you?
Three month time frame Feb - Mar - Apr? You're on!

Winner chooses the other's avatar for one month.
 
Yes it its, however the rate remains above 8 percent -- the level that Obama's team once promised would represent the ceiling on unemployment with the passage of the 2009 stimulus package.

Most of those new jobs were in the service sector, for the holiday rush. We will know more about the actual numbers in February, when the January unemployment numbers come out. Businesses traditionally hire many more workers in holiday and summer seasons.

Obama never made that promise.

Unemployment was already over eight percent when the Stimulus passed, so there was no way it could "keep unemployment below 8%"

Yeah, it was the head of his economic team, Christina Romer that made the promise...standing in front of the White House giving a press briefing. Funny how President Obama never contradicted her as he stumped back and forth across the country to get "his" stimulus passed.

The reason that it couldn't keep unemployment below 8% was that it was badly conceived and then carried out ineptly.

Romer issued her report in November 2008 based on data that was available at that time. Between November 2008 and the time Stimulus passed in late February, we lost 2 million jobs and unemployment rose over two percent.

If Stimulus had passed when Romer made that prediction in Nov 08 there is a good chance unemployment could have been kept under eight percent. Given that Republicans chose to dick around for almost four months, we never had a chance
 
I love watching the right try to spin this.

Obama is the Democrats Reagan.
 
Obama never made that promise.

Unemployment was already over eight percent when the Stimulus passed, so there was no way it could "keep unemployment below 8%"

Yeah, it was the head of his economic team, Christina Romer that made the promise...standing in front of the White House giving a press briefing. Funny how President Obama never contradicted her as he stumped back and forth across the country to get "his" stimulus passed.

The reason that it couldn't keep unemployment below 8% was that it was badly conceived and then carried out ineptly.

Romer issued her report in November 2008 based on data that was available at that time. Between November 2008 and the time Stimulus passed in late February, we lost 2 million jobs and unemployment rose over two percent.

If Stimulus had passed when Romer made that prediction in Nov 08 there is a good chance unemployment could have been kept under eight percent. Given that Republicans chose to dick around for almost four months, we never had a chance

So let me see if I've got this straight...Romer completely misjudges the situation...the Keynesian progressive pork fest of a stimulus we ended up with doesn't do diddly...but if it had been passed QUICKER then everything would have worked out great? Well, all righty then!!!

And by the way...Romer made that prediction in early January of 2009...not November of 2008. Whoops... Spin? Moi?
 
Last edited:
It is always good to see some progress!

Yes it its, however the rate remains above 8 percent -- the level that Obama's team once promised would represent the ceiling on unemployment with the passage of the 2009 stimulus package.

Most of those new jobs were in the service sector, for the holiday rush. We will know more about the actual numbers in February, when the January unemployment numbers come out. Businesses traditionally hire many more workers in holiday and summer seasons.

"Promise"? Really? When did he make this promise? Where was he? What words did he use?
 
Yeah, it was the head of his economic team, Christina Romer that made the promise...standing in front of the White House giving a press briefing. Funny how President Obama never contradicted her as he stumped back and forth across the country to get "his" stimulus passed.

The reason that it couldn't keep unemployment below 8% was that it was badly conceived and then carried out ineptly.

Romer issued her report in November 2008 based on data that was available at that time. Between November 2008 and the time Stimulus passed in late February, we lost 2 million jobs and unemployment rose over two percent.

If Stimulus had passed when Romer made that prediction in Nov 08 there is a good chance unemployment could have been kept under eight percent. Given that Republicans chose to dick around for almost four months, we never had a chance

So let me see if I've got this straight...Romer completely misjudges the situation...the Keynesian progressive pork fest of a stimulus we ended up with doesn't do diddly...but if it had been passed QUICKER then everything would have worked out great? Well, all righty then!!!

And by the way...Romer made that prediction in early January of 2009...not November of 2008. Whoops... Spin? Moi?

My mistake...it was January

In Jan 2009 unemployment was at 7.5%. By late February, when Stimulus passed, more than 1.2 million jobs had been lost since the report was issued and unemployment had already risen above the magic 8% figure

Within weeks of the passing of stimulus, the rate of job loss reversed but we still peaked at 10.2%. If stimulus was larger and had been enacted sooner we could have kept unemployment much lower

us_job_losses_per_month.png
 
Last edited:
I love watching the right try to spin this.

Obama is the Democrats Reagan.

Now "that" is some funny stuff.

At this point in his first term, Ronald Reagan had already bit the bullet and fixed the Stagflation that Jimmy Carter had bequeathed him. Ronnie took the political "hit" that tightening up the money supply produced...higher unemployment...because he understood the economy couldn't grow if inflation was at those levels. The voters put him back in office in a landslide because it was obvious even at that point that Reagan's economic "plan" was working...something that was shown to be true by the explosion of ecomomic growth in his second term.

Now let's contrast that to President "Kick the Can"...shall we? Obama has used massive deficit spending to try and stimulate the economy all the while keeping the money supply as loose as possible. So now we're broke and inflation is starting to be a real problem. Even worse he hasn't made ANY of the tough cuts that have to be made and will undoubtably slow down economic growth while at the same time burdening us with the looming costs of ObamaCare...yet another jobs killer.

Obama is the Democrat's Reagan? More like the Democrat's Yin to the Republican's Yang.
 

Forum List

Back
Top