Can you provide evidence that Obama's policies are the direct reason for the...

[Wry Catcher]

We don't have to provide evidence of jack shit. all we need to no is that unemployment is 8.6%

Gas is up

food is up

energy is up

Solyndra

Fast and Furious

He'll say NO to the piple line.. unemployment will stay way the hell up

After Christmas it's go back up up up

He stays on vacation or the golf course

Eric Holder

OWS

Napalitano

And a 15 Trillion dollar debt..


Oh and he.s cost people their jobs in coal and oil.. and many many many small business have gone out of business..


All of this is BAD BAD BAD

All we need to "no?"



You're not helping.

No?

I know, you apparently still don't. No?

 

[code1211]

Unemployment is a classic lagging economic indicator. We were bleeding jobs when Obama came into office as a result of the Bush economic meltdown of late 2008.

That there's the biggie. When President Obama took office, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. We are now gaining jobs. How do you spin that as bad?

That was a blip. Right now we are about 5 million jobs shy of where we were when the Big 0 took office. How many jobs were being lost per month after 9/11?

Don't bother to try to remember. In quarter 2, 2001, the national unemployment rate was 4.5 %.

Following 9/11, in quarter 4 of 2001, the unemployment rate was 5.6%.

In quarter 2 of 2006, back down to 4.7%.

However, as we all know, the Unemployment rate is subject to the tampering and amending of the formulas used to create it. Let's just look at the number of Americans employed and use some lynch pin moments in recent history:

Number of Americans Employed/Month/year

135,379,000/July 2001..........................Right before 9/11
134,055,000/December/2001................Right after 9/11
145,926,000/December/2006................Democrats take control of Congress
145,596,000/July/2008..........................Right before the Financial Melt Down
143,338,000/December/2008.................Right After the Financial Melt Down
139,206,000/December/2010.................Republicans take majority in the House
140,580,000/November/2011.................Today

It should be pretty obvious that the number of jobs was increasing until Harry met Nancy and that a stake was pounded through the heart of the economy as soon as the Big 0 got his boot on our throat.

After Republicans took the House, the jobs started coming back.

Interesting how the numbers reflect the history, no?

Employment Situation Archived News Releases

 

[The Rabbi]

Obama has created 2.5 million jobs...

Government cannot create jobs, it can only take them. Any money used by government to hire someone must first be taken OUT of the economy, typically from the most productive and likely-to-hire-others citizens. Then that money gets run through corrupt and inefficient bureaucracies before a dime can be spent on any "stimulus" hiring.

Saying Obama created jobs is like you walking into a grocery store, taking money from the register, then handing it to a homeless guy (less your expenses and whatever fell through that hole in your pocket of course), then calling it stimulus when that homeless guy walks into the grocery store to buy beer. You took the money from the job creator and gave it to the guy least likely to hire anyone. That's job creation for imbeciles.

Government can create jobs. Governments always have and always will; stupid partisan hacks will continue to state otherwise because they are too lazy to critically think through the issue.

The National Highway Act of 1956 is a perfect counterpoint to the oft used and never proved postulate "Government cannot create jobs". Drive along any interstate and count the businesses on frontage roads - food, gas, lodging by the hundreds of thousands.

Your example shows only that gov't created the conditions for jobs, not the jobs themselves.
And you have to go back over 50 years for an example.
That's a downright fail right there.

 

[eflatminor]

Obama has created 2.5 million jobs...

Government cannot create jobs, it can only take them. Any money used by government to hire someone must first be taken OUT of the economy, typically from the most productive and likely-to-hire-others citizens. Then that money gets run through corrupt and inefficient bureaucracies before a dime can be spent on any "stimulus" hiring.

Saying Obama created jobs is like you walking into a grocery store, taking money from the register, then handing it to a homeless guy (less your expenses and whatever fell through that hole in your pocket of course), then calling it stimulus when that homeless guy walks into the grocery store to buy beer. You took the money from the job creator and gave it to the guy least likely to hire anyone. That's job creation for imbeciles.

Government can create jobs. Governments always have and always will; stupid partisan hacks will continue to state otherwise because they are too lazy to critically think through the issue.

The National Highway Act of 1956 is a perfect counterpoint to the oft used and never proved postulate "Government cannot create jobs". Drive along any interstate and count the businesses on frontage roads - food, gas, lodging by the hundreds of thousands.

Ad hominem attacks from a lefty...shocking.

First, those businesses were created by entrepreneurs, not government. Of course, public roads are a legitimate government expenditure (at the state level anyway). Nobody is saying government should never spend taxpayer money. That does not change the fact that when government tries to stimulate job creation, they can only do so by first taking that money out of the economy. Bailing out auto manufacturers, banks and insurance companies or giving money to solar panel companies does not create jobs. It takes money from job creators.

 

[Oldstyle]

The fear was great when Obama took office, he did the proper thing by not fanning the flames of fear and had the fear mongers on the right cooperated we might very well be further on the road to recovery. Because the right is bereft of ideas, fear is their greatest tool so any course of action was met with a cacophony of "Socialism", "Marxism" and concerns about the President's birth certificate or religion. The same right which supported tax cuts and two wars off budget now worry about spending. Hypocrisy thy name is Republican.

Only an idiot would have suggested to the American public, "hey folks, it's only just begun. Protect your money, only buy essentials and get all you can out of your bank before it disappears".

Let's be clear, the Great Recession occured on the watch of George W. Bush. The near economic collapse occured in October 2008 before President Obama has been elected and while George W. Bush was still POTUS. The Great Recession has many fathers, but the immutable fact remains - no matter how often the right lies and blames others - on the watch of George W. Bush.

I guess you can make the point that the Great Recession did start during W's "watch", Catcher but to blame HIM when the Democrats controlled the House and repeatedly ignored Bush's calls to fix the problems in the housing market especially with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is kind of amusing. How much less severe would this crisis have been if Barney Frank and Chris Dodd hadn't pooh poohed W's concerns as baseless and actually done something about them?

You, "guess" I can make the point that the Great Recession started in on Bush's watch? Off course it did, and Bush as well as many many others knew the housing situtation was not sustainable. To suggest two Democrats has so much power that the POTUS and his economic advisers couldn't do anything is not only disengenuous but borders on mendacity.

Bush wanted war and got it. He sent his entire team out on the Sunday Morning news shows to beat the drums of war - Rice, Rumfeld, Powell, Cheney - all warned of the danger Saddam presented to our nation. Knowing the economy was to be challenged by the housing situation we heard nothing from Bush on the issue.

btw, the Republicans controlled the House from January 1993 until January 2007 and again from January 2011 until today ( the 104th Congress to the 109th Congress, and now the 112th Congress which may go down as the most inept, ineffective and ideological in our nation's history).

"Mendacity"? Gee, Catcher are you one of those people that think throwing in a big word is going to hide the fact that you haven't argued your point? I'm not just "suggesting" that the Democrats had so much power that the POTUS and his economic advisers couldn't do anything about it...I'M STATING IT AS FACT. The FACT is that George W. Bush repeatedly asked that something be done about what he saw as huge potential problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and repeatedly he was rebuffed by Democrats...specifically Barney Frank who was telling everyone right up to the collapse that there was nothing to worry about.

So I ask again...how much better off would we be right now if the Democrats hadn't ignored a growing problem that W. RIGHTLY pointed out?

 

[WillowTree]

All we need to "no?"



You're not helping.

No?

I know, you apparently still don't. No?

No?

 

[EriktheRed]

...increase in unemployment rate during his presidency?

Keep in my mind that Obama said in mid 2009 that he expected the unemployment rate would likely rise to 10% in the next couple of years.

Obama Sees 10% Unemployment Rate, Chides Wall Street Critics - Bloomberg

I don't think it's fair to put all of the blame on Obama simply because he is president.
Obama has created 2.5 million jobs and saved even more. I do agree he could have done more (how much?), but I have yet to be convinced that Obama is the reason why the unemployment rate is as high as it is.

I really am open to answers on this. I want answers that illlustrate how his policies have been detrimental on a national level.

He's a Marxist, Kenyan, anti-semitic America-hater. That's the only reason they need to blame him.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Unemployment is a classic lagging economic indicator. We were bleeding jobs when Obama came into office as a result of the Bush economic meltdown of late 2008.

That there's the biggie. When President Obama took office, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. We are now gaining jobs. How do you spin that as bad?

There are fewer people working today than when Obama took office. How do you spin that as good?

Actually, no, that's not true. More people are working today than when Obama took office.

If you had bothered to look this up before posting, you would know that.

Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

 

[hortysir]

...increase in unemployment rate during his presidency?

Keep in my mind that Obama said in mid 2009 that he expected the unemployment rate would likely rise to 10% in the next couple of years.

Obama Sees 10% Unemployment Rate, Chides Wall Street Critics - Bloomberg

I don't think it's fair to put all of the blame on Obama simply because he is president.
Obama has created 2.5 million jobs and saved even more. I do agree he could have done more (how much?), but I have yet to be convinced that Obama is the reason why the unemployment rate is as high as it is.

I really am open to answers on this. I want answers that illlustrate how his policies have been detrimental on a national level.

Define "saved jobs".
Where is the data on these?

 

[Samson]

...increase in unemployment rate during his presidency?

Keep in my mind that Obama said in mid 2009 that he expected the unemployment rate would likely rise to 10% in the next couple of years.

Obama Sees 10% Unemployment Rate, Chides Wall Street Critics - Bloomberg

I don't think it's fair to put all of the blame on Obama simply because he is president.
Obama has created 2.5 million jobs and saved even more. I do agree he could have done more (how much?), but I have yet to be convinced that Obama is the reason why the unemployment rate is as high as it is.

I really am open to answers on this. I want answers that illlustrate how his policies have been detrimental on a national level.

Define "saved jobs".
Where is the data on these?

The fact is, Obama saved the ENTIRE PLANET, and that EVERYONE with a job today should be very grateful!!!

 

[WillowTree]

...increase in unemployment rate during his presidency?

Keep in my mind that Obama said in mid 2009 that he expected the unemployment rate would likely rise to 10% in the next couple of years.

Obama Sees 10% Unemployment Rate, Chides Wall Street Critics - Bloomberg

I don't think it's fair to put all of the blame on Obama simply because he is president.
Obama has created 2.5 million jobs and saved even more. I do agree he could have done more (how much?), but I have yet to be convinced that Obama is the reason why the unemployment rate is as high as it is.

I really am open to answers on this. I want answers that illlustrate how his policies have been detrimental on a national level.

Define "saved jobs".
Where is the data on these?

The fact is, Obama saved the ENTIRE PLANET, and that EVERYONE with a job today should be very grateful!!!

He kept the damn oceans from rising! You NO what I mean?

 

[Stephanie]

Define "saved jobs".
Where is the data on these?

The fact is, Obama saved the ENTIRE PLANET, and that EVERYONE with a job today should be very grateful!!!

He kept the damn oceans from rising! You NO what I mean?

 

[francoHFW]

Thanks Pubs for the Great Deregulation/Cronyism Depression, and now the Great Do Nothing, Crisis Mongering Obstruction. Time has run out on you a-holes. Wake up, dupes! tyvm Jobs jobs jobs my butt...

 

[The Rabbi]

That there's the biggie. When President Obama took office, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. We are now gaining jobs. How do you spin that as bad?

There are fewer people working today than when Obama took office. How do you spin that as good?

Actually, no, that's not true. More people are working today than when Obama took office.

If you had bothered to look this up before posting, you would know that.

Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Blows that one.
ETA, this is workforce participation. Note the steady downward line.

 

[Oddball]

BOIKING SAVES!!

 

[Stephanie]

BOIKING SAVES!!

 

[DontBeStupid]

There are fewer people working today than when Obama took office. How do you spin that as good?

Actually, no, that's not true. More people are working today than when Obama took office.

If you had bothered to look this up before posting, you would know that.

Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Blows that one.
ETA, this is workforce participation. Note the steady downward line.

How does a chart with no labels and no source disprove the BLS?

 

[Jackson]

No president has been re-elected with an Unemployment figure over 7.2%. His is way over that when you consider all of those who quit looking. NEXT....

 

[bripat9643]

As a financial advisor, I'm neck-deep in this stuff every day.

Obama did not just enter office "in a recession". He inherited a truly historic, one-of-a-kind financial disaster that is still playing out globally. Trying to paint this as just another run of the mill recession is an exercise in abject denial or utter ignorance. It took decades of irresponsible spending (both by the government and by consumers) and irresponsible governance (both both ridiculous, dishonest, paid-off, "major" parties) to get us here, and it may damn well take a decade or two to get out of it.

When I hear the Hannitys and Limbaughs of the world (and, by extension, their sheep) pretend that this is just another recession, I know they're not being honest. I don't think most of them understand how close we came to a complete collapse of our ENTIRE financial system, and how deep the roots of this mess remain. But they don't want to understand - they just want to attack "the other guys".

The two silly ends of the spectrum are too busy with their little slap fight to see what's going on.

.[/QUOTE]

Oh puhleeez. I've lived through several "truly historic, one of a kind" financial disasters. During the Bush administration, there was a savings and loan debacle. The government spent $500 billion cleaning that one up. That would be over $1 trillion in current dollars. In 1987, there was the DJIA crash which in percentage terms was larger than the crash of 1929. The difference between those events and the current disaster is that Bush and Reagan didn't engage in wholesale re-engineering of the economy to "fix" things. Everything Obama has done has made this recession worse. It's only "historic" because Obama has made it historic with his bumbling.

 

[DontBeStupid]

No president has been re-elected with an Unemployment figure over 7.2%. His is way over that when you consider all of those who quit looking. NEXT....

Those who "quit looking" are not included in the number you are referring to. They haven't been included for past presidents either. So why are you starting now?