Please evaluate this claim about the unemployment rate

“Our unemployment [during Obama’s term] went down only AFTER the house became R and there was a stalemate in the govt, providing some measure of security that no further regulations would be passed.”

I have to go, but I’m interested to see what merits people think there is to this argument, if any.

You can easily check the timing yourself, but there is no way to prove that any such “statement” from any politicians is the cause of an unemployment rate drop.

It seems to be the major knock on the government’s interaction with business is that “uncertainty” is holding back job creation. Looking through Google, it seems that the talk in the media about uncertainty was present before, but accelerated in 2011, especially leading up to the debt limit showdown.

Pundits simply can’t argue that divided government brings stability and job growth when people are panicking about the fiscal cliff (which was created after the 2010 elections) and possible defaults by the Federal government, not to mention past and future concerns about government shutdowns due to budget disputes. It simply makes no sense at all.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Looking here I see the U3 peaking in late 2009, down modestly in late 2010 and then a more significant decline from early 2011 until now.

The timeline works ok, the rest is a matter of faith. If someone calls the debt ceiling crisis “security” then there’s really no point in discussing economics with them.

The idea that government regulations have a negative affect on employment has not been established (my employer has added several high-paying jobs to comply with new foreclosure regulations, for example). Simply put: employers don’t hire because Republicans get elected. They hire because they have more work than their existing employees can keep up with.