Unemployment Falls

Frankly, I am surprised that you clowns would make even a tacit admission to the charge before you, but now you have.

The GOP candidates must feel the same bitterness, but they know they dare not breathe a word of their disappointment.

As for the war, President Obama opposed it before it even began as I did, but I did not have to contend with the enormous pressure from Washington to go along with the idiot Bush.

We had no business going into Iraq, but now President Obama has brought the troops home.

The war is over.

Unemployment is down.

The economic recovery is gaining traction.

If you clowns had any sense you would be celebrating instead of looking so downcast because your weak candidates are losing their attack positions.

Yeah...and the only thing more disgusting was the way the dems wanted us to lose a war so that they could defeat GWB.

Ya'll just loved to post the daily casualty reports. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

I see WE has been smoking something. Care to show us the cite (anything other than High Times). The CBO has said that they expect UE to rise before the end of the year to near 9%. Of course we still are waiting on that 8% that was promised by someone.

You say that the GOP wants UE to stay high, then why are there 30 bills sitting in the Senate waiting for a vote. 30 jobs bills that have already passed in Congress.
https://speaker.house.gov/Blog/Defau...?postid=274123 Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You can only hope

. . . Can you doubters see the beauty in this chart?

The chart speaks for itself. But what puzzles me so much is all these people who claim to love this country so and they sit there and hope and pray higher UE. If UE goes way down what argument do you try and make against the president then?

I recently heard a new argument coming against Pres Obama taking credit for the falling UE numbers. There are some saying that he has nothing to do with the fall or rise of these numbers its all a cycle.

My industry is going out of buisness in DROVES. It's Flooring. All my reps do is run around getting their samples and racks back from leases where the owner is locked out. There will be some BIG ones go down this year.

It's like that for alot of other type of buisness's. Lighting, Applianances,a/c, plumbing, hardware and on and on and on.

Restraunts are one of the hardest hit industries. Closing right and left. No one has money to go out to eat.

I have friends whose industry is not affected by this economy. For example a welding inspector. He thinks every thing is great. A friend that writes service for Mercedes Benz. Dude is making money hand over fist.

The owners of the retail buisness's mentioned earlier need optimism and consistency. Something they will not get from the current administration.

Remember the Regan amnesty for illegals from years ago.Those same guys today hire all of their illegal cousins,nephews, and friends. The check is made out in their name and they pay their workers in cash. Cutting out jobs and undermining these very industries.

We are fucked.

The numbers look good. Throw in the end of the Bush Tax credits, and we'll easily see a surplus in the next four years, provided Obama gets another four (which is extremely likely, considering how he's polling without even campaigning yet).

Man, COG, you just don't get it. Here is the actual data.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

There were more people working in Dec 2011 than Jan 2012 yet the unemployment rate went down. Why? Because the ministry of Propaganda er labor Department said so. The media and patriots like Fast Gun point to the "seasonally adjusted" rate and say that unemployment numbers got better in Jan 2012.

Sure, commie, terrorist jerks like you might point out that the ACTUAL unemployment rate went from 8.3 to 8.8% in January. What is a matter with you? Don't you love your country?

And you and your other Al Queda loving friends may point out that U.S. gasoline demand is down to levels not seen since 2001, and that means Americans are not driving to and from work, http://www.eia.gov/oog/info/twip/twip_gasoline.html

However, Fast Gunn would point out that gasoline demand is really down due to the success of alternative energy companies like Solyndra, and that more people are uh biking to work than ever. In part because they can't afford er choose not to buy cars.

And the economy is growing. Sure, we are having to go into more and more debt to get that growth, but it is worth it. What do you call a man who makes $10,000 more in income a year but goes $50,000 more into debt to achieve that income growth? Fast Gunn calls such a man a success, and if you really cared about your country, you would too.

Yeah, the chart speaks for itself. Private job creation went up when Obama agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts and the GOP took over the House. Even in the months before the election when the world knew the democrat control was doomed. So like 1994, GOP control reduced spending and increased the atmosphere of job growth.

By the way Fast Gun, Obama couldn't oppose any war before he took office. He was not in office when the vote occurred. Afghanistan was in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. Obama was elected to the Senate in 2006. Embarassing I know, but next time look this stuff up before you post.

FYI, Obama (or any president) has very little direct involvement with creating private sector jobs.

President Obama opposed the Iraq war from the minute that he had a voice in Washington and that was when he was a Senator from Illinois in Oct 2002.

In many ways, that gutsy move was even more courageous.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/extra...ama2002War.htm

Even as a young Senator, Mr. Obama had the balls and the wisdom to know what is right and that war was clearly wrong.

Secondly, the President in office has plenty to do with how the economy fares by the policies he implements and by those that he chooses not to.

When Hoover was in office, he fucked the economy up one side and down the other with his tight credit policies and made the Crash of 1929 become the Great Depression. He did the opposite of what was needed.

When President Obama took office he tackled the recession created by Bush and revived the banks, the auto makers and the economy in general. In direct contrast to Hoover, President Obama has done exactly what has been needed and the effect of those efforts are showing up in the economy.

. . . Just look at that chart that was bleeding red ink when the previous administration ran it into the ground and look how many people are getting back to work now!

A blind man can see the progress, but a GOP clown may not.

By the way Fast Gun, Obama couldn't oppose any war before he took office. He was not in office when the vote occurred. Afghanistan was in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. Obama was elected to the Senate in 2006. Embarassing I know, but next time look this stuff up before you post.

FYI, Obama (or any president) has very little direct involvement with creating private sector jobs. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Woody, I have just one thing to say to you! And that is, "Huh?"

I recently heard a new argument coming against Pres Obama taking credit for the falling UE numbers. There are some saying that he has nothing to do with the fall or rise of these numbers its all a cycle. Originally Posted by jhende3

That was me and it wasn't againsy Obama, it was just a fact. The business cycle is named for a reason, it is not called the President's business cycle , though they do get all the credit and blame. Problem is , those that blamed Obama for all the lost jobs , will not give him credit when it has swung the other way.

Okay, I concede one point. Obama was elected to the Senate in the 2004 election and took office in 2005. Which doesn't change my comment, Obama could not oppose (if he ever decided to vote on something) the war since he was not in the US Senate at the time.


Let me ask some of you guys a question and maybe I can get a reasonible answer; how do you think those jobs are counted? Do you know what happens to someone when their benefits run out?

Do you know what happens to someone when their benefits run out? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

What will happen to someone when their benefits run out? The same thing that would have happened "to someone" when their benefits ran out while the guy who started this mess (GW) was in office. The difference: you guys blamed Obama for every failure of the Bush Administration from the very moment the newly elected President took office. Need I remind you that the nation's failures in January 2009 included the economy and the two wars that we were involved in! As far as you guys were concerned, as of noon on January 20, 2009, the nation's failures were all Obama' fault, not GW's or the Republicans.

Due to the state of the post September 15, 2008 economy there was no way that Obama's first 24-36 months could have been successful from an economic perspective. Yet, you guys kept piling on, totally oblivious to the fact that Obama inherited the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression. As far as your guys were concerned, September 15, 2008 took place on Obama's watch, not GW's!

If we are indeed in an extended economic recovery (and I am not certain that we are), I suspect you guys will once again give Reagan credit for it. You did so when the Clinton recovery occurred. There is no reason to believe you guys will do any different if there is an extended Obama recovery! Y'all are funny as hell! If it is good, give credit to Reagan. If it is bad, blame the Democrats.

And any Democrat will do!

The OP is apparently trying to make the case that a single 250K NFP print somehow validates the effectiveness of Obama's economic policies. But it does nothing of the sort.

In an effort to inject a little reason into this thread (something that seems to be in short supply around here), I'll try to back up a little bit and suggest that you take a look at how the current "recovery" compares with others in the post-World War II period. The simple fact is that in terms of year-over-year GDP growth, job creation, new business formation, net business investment, or whatever other measure you may wish to apply, this is the lamest recovery in modern history. In fact, cyclical recoveries following recessions generally involve extremely vigorous bouncebacks and feature the uninterrupted net creation of several hundred thousand jobs every month for years on end. We saw that following the severe recession of the early 1980s, and again throughout most of the 1990s.

By contrast, look at the last year. We saw nice NFP prints during the February-April period last year, and then things fizzled out. Perhaps the good news will be a little more sustained this time, but I have my doubts. I'm afraid that years of very bad policy will make recovery difficult for a long period of time.

In my view, Obama's biggest problem is exactly the same as George W. Bush's: Too fucking much government spending!


In 2000, total spending at the federal level was about $1.8 trillion. By 2007, it had shot up to about $2.7 trillion, a 50% increase in nominal dollars. By 2008, it was almost $3 trillion. Most of the 2007-2008 increase involved forlorn efforts to avert economic decline. In fact, the Bush administration actually sent out millions of checks to low-income households in the Spring of 2008. (As is obvious, it didn't do much good for the economy, which is virtually always the case with government's attempts to "stimulate" the economy with gimmicky fiscal measures.)

But even those bloated levels of spending were not enough for Obama and Pelosi's congress. Now we're up to a federal spending run rate of about $3.6 trillion. And for what?

Obama offered a "budget" in early 2011 that was so unserious that it didn't even get any support from senate Democrats.

And at about the same time, he completely ignored the Simpson-Bowles commission, after having called for it the year before. That was fiscal irresponsibilty of the highest order.

Now we're at the point where we've piled hundreds of billions of dollars of ineffective, solidly entrenched, politically-motivated spending on top of an already bloated budget. What do you think is going to happen after we are finally forced to undertake serious fiscal consolidation, either by dramatically cutting spending or imposing a huge tax increase on the middle class?

Big increases in government spending, especially if it is politically impracticable to reverse them, retard prospects for economic growth. History is very clear on that.

Apparently some of you Obama Kool-Aid drinkers have forgotten that you don't have to go very far back to find an example of a Democratic Party president cooperating with congress to create an era of budgetary restraint and fiscal responsibility. Just look at the Clinton era of the late 1990s. Growth in government spending was restrained to the lowest year-over-year rate in modern history. In fact, as a percentage of GDP, spending fell by almost three percentage points. The dollar was also relatively strong and stable, which meant that prices for oil and most commodities were low. It isn't an accident that those elements coincided with a period of solid economic growth as well as sustained net job creation.

Yes, there was an internet/technology boom which obviously helped. But you must consider that economic policy was moving in the right direction during the late 1990s, whereas during the last few years the opposite has been the case.

Apparently some of you Obama Kool-Aid drinkers have forgotten that you don't have to go very far back to find an example of a Democratic Party president cooperating with congress to create an era of budgetary restraint and fiscal responsibility. Just look at the Clinton era of the late 1990s. Growth in government spending was restrained to the lowest year-over-year rate in modern history. In fact, as a percentage of GDP, spending fell by almost three percentage points. The dollar was also relatively strong and stable, which meant that prices for oil and most commodities were low. It isn't an accident that those elements coincided with a period of solid economic growth as well as sustained net job creation.

Yes, there was an internet/technology boom which obviously helped. But you must consider that economic policy was moving in the right direction during the late 1990s, whereas during the last few years the opposite has been the case. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

And you have forgotten that we had higher taxes and a smaller deficits because of it. There are many many factors but the GOP has not been a help with this squack for lower taxes at every turn.

I have discussed previously why this recovery will be different. We went to far in debt and the Feds are not letting the consumer off the hook by inflating their way out as Reagan did. The banks do not want to be paid back with those inflated dollars. They do not want for that to ever happen again.

I'm with you on Simpson Bowles. Whoever gets elected will head in that direction.