Can you read?
You must be joking. Can you imagine what our credit rating would be if that happened?
Can you imagine why? Probably the uncertainty created by Obama’s policies.
Yeah, Republicans are out to destroy the economy.:rolleyes: I’m not immature enough to accuse Obama of doing the same…he is merely clueless like most on the left.
I do not know where Fear obtained his information but it is a:
LIE,aspersion, backbiting, calumniation, calumny, deceit, deception, defamation, detraction, dishonesty, disinformation, distortion, evasion, fable, fabrication, falsehood, falseness, falsification, falsity, fib, fiction, forgery, fraudulence, guile, hyperbole, inaccuracy, invention, libel, mendacity, misrepresentation, misstatement, myth, obloquy, perjury, prevarication, revilement, reviling, slander, subterfuge, tale, tall story, vilification, white lie, whopper, falsehood, LIE, LIE, LIE, LIE
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt
In 2000 the employed labor force was 142,583,000
in 2007 the employed labor force was 153,124,000
net job creation under Bush 153,124,000-142,583,000=10,541,000
In 2008 the employed labor force was 154,287,000
in 2010 the employed labor force was 139,064,000
in aug 2011 the employed labor force was 139,267,000 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm
net job creation under Marxist Obama 154,287,000-139,267,000=**minus, negative,loss 15,020,000 jobs gone under Obama **
There are 15,020,000 out there, and you know who you are, that need to provide for your families, want the good things in life, seeing no opportunity, with dismal prospect and outlook of the future, seeking meaning and a sense of worth and value.
Well your life sucks under Obama. You do know that the 3 trillion dollars that obama spent on his wall street crooks, union henchmen, green wacko environmentalists would have done more good, if he had put $200,000 in each of your pockets.
Obama is a communist, Marxist, Socialist, liberal, Democrat
Obama is bad for jobs,
Obama is bad for America,
Obama is bad for you.
Pst: communist, Marxist, Socialist, liberal, Democrats are bad for you too!
Obama has proven he is the worst president in the History of American. And would be the absolute worst president in 2012.
Civilian labor force
Civilian Employed Unemployed Not in
Year noninsti- labor
tutional Percent force
population Total of Percent Nonagri- Percent
population Total of Agri- cultural Number of
population culture industries labor
2000 (1)...................... 212,577 142,583 67.1 136,891 64.4 2,464 134,427 5,692 4.0 69,994
2001.......................... 215,092 143,734 66.8 136,933 63.7 2,299 134,635 6,801 4.7 71,359
2002.......................... 217,570 144,863 66.6 136,485 62.7 2,311 134,174 8,378 5.8 72,707
2003 (1)...................... 221,168 146,510 66.2 137,736 62.3 2,275 135,461 8,774 6.0 74,658
2004 (1)...................... 223,357 147,401 66.0 139,252 62.3 2,232 137,020 8,149 5.5 75,956
2005 (1)...................... 226,082 149,320 66.0 141,730 62.7 2,197 139,532 7,591 5.1 76,762
2006 (1)...................... 228,815 151,428 66.2 144,427 63.1 2,206 142,221 7,001 4.6 77,387
2007 (1)...................... 231,867 153,124 66.0 146,047 63.0 2,095 143,952 7,078 4.6 78,743
2008 (1)...................... 233,788 154,287 66.0 145,362 62.2 2,168 143,194 8,924 5.8 79,501
2009 (1)...................... 235,801 154,142 65.4 139,877 59.3 2,103 137,775 14,265 9.3 81,659
2010 (1)...................... 237,830 153,889 64.7 139,064 58.5 2,206 136,858 14,825 9.6 83,941
What an effective debating technique. I’m convinced.
I guess this would be useful data if Bush had actually left office in 2007 instead of January 2009.
So, you’re advocating just handing out $200,000 to each unemployed person. Isn’t that…socialism?
The charts are crap!!!
Chart #1
here is the true comparison spending as % GDP
The chart clearly shows that government was well managed by GOP leadership in the 10 years prior to the Obamanation with 34% of GDP being spent by the government then jumped catastrophically to 42%, a whopping 23% increase by Broke Insane Obama-nation .
You never ever show spending in absolute dollars. I don’t care if it is in a family budget or business budget or a government budget, you never do it if you expect to draw any meaningful conclusions or make comparisons. You always show it in relation to income. In the case of the government income is Gross domestic Product.
Chart #2
here is the true comparison deficite as % GDP
Under the GOP leadership the debt increased only 1% to 3% per year and then skyrocketed to 11% under Broke Insane Obama-nation it is no wonder that Broke Insane Obama-nations credit rating was reduced. This debt and the more to come under Broke Insane Obama-nation are like the toxic mortgages that got the US in this economic nightmare in the first place.
Again, You never ever show debt in absolute dollars but always as percentage of income. You go to a bank to qualify for a loan and what is the first thing the banker does? He looks at your income and calculates a % of income that is available after other living expenses are paid. If it does not meet the loan guidelines then no deal. Bank are rated/regulated based on % basis as well.
Chart #3
Statistics only satisfy the Folks who make them. The Chart is skewed to show one year under the Republican Administration–Democratic controlled House, Split Senate, and OVER two years of the Democratic Administration–Democratic Controlled House and Senate, with exception to the Republican Controlled House starting in Jan. 2011.
So, it’s manipulated from the start. However to get a better perspective on how our economy actually works, there should be a chart of DECADES of DATA concerning job growth so we could see what worked in the past to help, and whether this is cyclical in nature or not.
In 2000 the employed labor force was 142,583,000
in 2008 the employed labor force was 154,287,000
net job creation under Bush 154,287,000-142,583,000=11,704,000
In 2008 the employed labor force was 154,287,000
in 2010 the employed labor force was 139,064,000
in aug 2011 the employed labor force was 139,267,000 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm
net job creation under Marxist Obama 154,287,000-139,267,000=**minus, negative,loss 15,020,000 jobs gone under Obama **
There are 15,020,000 out there, and you know who you are, that need to provide for your families, want the good things in life, seeing no opportunity, with dismal prospect and outlook of the future, seeking meaning and a sense of worth and value.
Well your life sucks under Obama. You do know that the 3 trillion dollars that obama spent on his wall street crooks, union henchmen, green wacko environmentalists would have done more good, if he had put $200,000 in each of your pockets.
Figures never lie only liers figure.
The lefties, communists, Marxists, socialists, liberals, democrats are hell bent on wrecking havoc and outright destroying the American family wealth and their children’s future.
Obama is a communist, Marxist, Socialist, liberal, Democrat
Obama is bad for jobs,
Obama is bad for America,
Obama is bad for you.
Pst: communist, Marxist, Socialist, liberal, Democrats are bad for you too!
Obama has proven he is the worst president in the History of American. And would be the absolute worst president in 2012.
Civilian labor force
Civilian Employed Unemployed Not in
Year noninsti- labor
tutional Percent force
population Total of Percent Nonagri- Percent
population Total of Agri- cultural Number of
population culture industries labor
2000 (1)...................... 212,577 142,583 67.1 136,891 64.4 2,464 134,427 5,692 4.0 69,994
2001.......................... 215,092 143,734 66.8 136,933 63.7 2,299 134,635 6,801 4.7 71,359
2002.......................... 217,570 144,863 66.6 136,485 62.7 2,311 134,174 8,378 5.8 72,707
2003 (1)...................... 221,168 146,510 66.2 137,736 62.3 2,275 135,461 8,774 6.0 74,658
2004 (1)...................... 223,357 147,401 66.0 139,252 62.3 2,232 137,020 8,149 5.5 75,956
2005 (1)...................... 226,082 149,320 66.0 141,730 62.7 2,197 139,532 7,591 5.1 76,762
2006 (1)...................... 228,815 151,428 66.2 144,427 63.1 2,206 142,221 7,001 4.6 77,387
2007 (1)...................... 231,867 153,124 66.0 146,047 63.0 2,095 143,952 7,078 4.6 78,743
2008 (1)...................... 233,788 154,287 66.0 145,362 62.2 2,168 143,194 8,924 5.8 79,501
2009 (1)...................... 235,801 154,142 65.4 139,877 59.3 2,103 137,775 14,265 9.3 81,659
2010 (1)...................... 237,830 153,889 64.7 139,064 58.5 2,206 136,858 14,825 9.6 83,941
Broke Insane Obama-nation gave it to wall street crooks, union henchmen, green wacko environmentalists which is no less than a failed communist attempt to control the means of production.
Corrected above
Still not good enough, hoss. Unless you were expecting Obama to wave a wand on inauguration day and make everything better. A President’s policies are going to take some time to take effect. Much of the drop in employment in the first few month’s of Obama’s presidency can be laid to the economic tsunami that started back in 2008.
Surely, gonzo, you understand the inherent problem with this whole “It would have been worse if not for Obama” logic. Any President could use it. Hell, Bush could say that the world economy went into the toilet through no fault of his own and if not for his astute leadership, unemployment would have been 87% with the 13% of people employed giving $15 blowjobs in rest area bathrooms.
There is simply no way to get a time machine and see what would have happened. The only measure that you can use is the results that happened. Obama’s job is to get this economy moving. I don’t consider 9% unemployment and the continuing malaise getting that done.
I understand the rationale here, but this is an approach to presidential politics that always irks me.
If we acknowledge that there are causes and effects we simply can’t account for, is the best approach really just to look at results correlated to the sitting president?
Doesn’t that prior acknowledgment undermine “results-focused” evaluation as a whole and suggest that it’s much better to analyze a president in terms of the actions they take rather than the state of the economy during their tenure?
Nobody cares what our credit rating is:
Maybe Jesus will come again and lower it for her. Republican economic promises depend on Divine intervention for their achievement.
I think Hillary would do a better job. She packs more IQ power, and her chief adviser is a Rhodes Scholar. Unfortunately, if anyone runs against Obama in the primary, that opposition will almost certainly fail, and doom Obama’s chances in the general election. This is what happened when Eugene McCarthy ran against Lyndon Johnson in 1968, and when Ronald Reagan ran against Gerald Ford in 1976.
The best scenario would be for Obama to pull out of the race, like Harry Truman did in 1952, and invite Hillary to run, like Truman invited Adlai Stevenson to run. Unfortunately, the historical precedent is against that too.
Jimmy Carter was less successful than Ronald Reagan, but he was a better president. There was more job creation per year when he was president than when Ronald Reagan was president.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/
Unemployment never got as high under Carter as it did under Reagan.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html
Carter paid down the national debt. Reagan nearly doubled it.
Can you document that? I want to agree with you, but an assertion like that needs to be substantiated with a credible source.
When Barack Obama was inaugurated in January 2009 the unemployment rate was 7.8 percent. It grew to 10.1 percent in October 2009. Now it is 9.1 percent.
I do not know how you can claim net job creation from those statistics.
Unfortunately, one of those nut cases could be elected president. When the voters get scared they can do dangerous things. The Great Depression gave us Franklin Roosevelt. It gave Germany Adolf Hitler.
I’ve mentioned this in another thread, but Truman declined to run again for the simple reason that he’d served (most of) two terms. He was just following the tradition of (almost) every president before him. Obama’s situation is not comparable; if he declined to run again, it’d be seen as a concession.
I think the short answer is that it depends upon how much the labor force grew as well. I recall hearing, I think on Marketplace, that the labor force grew as a whole because more grads enter the market, and fewer people are choosing to retire, they are holding onto the jobs they’ve got. therefore the labor force can grow, jobs can be added, but the percentages could still match your quote above as a percentage of the total.
I think the big reason Truman didn’t run again wasn’t the two term thing, so much as that his popularity had tanked and that he lost the New Hampshire primary to Kefauver.
Wrong. There were lots of jobs saved particularly in police, firemen and government jobs. This is not speculation but the facts.
What do you think Obama should have done to decrease unemployment, nothing?
Plenty of departments can point to not losing their budgets making it so people did not have to get laid off.
If you compare all the Republican candidates to the man who is currently in the office as president, none, in my opinion could do a worse job. Obama thought the presidency would give him free reign to fly and talk without reprecussions. He was/is wrong.