Fungus Gnat
Well-Known Member
you can't all be this delusional...
Do you believe it. Drop in Unemployment.???
- Thread starter Ringsixty
- Start date
TheMan13
Well-Known Member
Clinton repealed the part of sarbanes oxley that kept banks from being allowed to game markets like the mortgages. Frank & Dodd then lowered standards for mortgage applicants in a social justice ploy. The banks then gamed this market given this glaring ignorance of the Democrats in power; collapsing our banks, home values and economy.
What again is the argument for "it's all Bush's fault", because I've never heard one and cannot count the number of times I've heard it claimed.
What again is the argument for "it's all Bush's fault", because I've never heard one and cannot count the number of times I've heard it claimed.
Ringsixty
Well-Known Member
Really?...Wow, I didn't know that..go figure.
What about Inflation is that up too?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
oh but they are
FreedomWorks
Well-Known Member
There are two ways to calculate unemployment numbers. When its a democrat president we go by the U4 number becasue its easier for the media to make Obama look good. When its a republican president, the media reports the U6 number because its easier to make Republicans look bad. Compare the labor force participation rate from when Reagan was president and now. People are dropping out of the labor force because they have simply given up looking for work.
TheMan13
Well-Known Member
This actually could be true as the value of the dollar has been debased by four years of quantitative easing (ie money printing). Although it has no bearing on the facts of the matter here. Watch this hand ...
Fungus Gnat
Well-Known Member
They both go by the U4. You're also comparing a financial collapse and the loss of 5million+ jobs to a standard recession we had under Reagan. Obama's first term oversaw 5 million jobs created in the private sector which unfortunately were offset by government employment cuts. There is still a deficit of nearly 5 million jobs to makeup for population growth. No one disputes that.There are two ways to calculate unemployment numbers. When its a democrat president we go by the U4 number becasue its easier for the media to make Obama look good. When its a republican president, the media reports the U6 number because its easier to make Republicans look bad. Compare the labor force participation rate from when Reagan was president and now. People are dropping out of the labor force because they have simply given up looking for work.
Also Reagan's was done with massive government deficit spending and a higher tax rate on the top earners.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Fungus Gnat
Well-Known Member
We could have hoped it to be a trillion or more but it was 787billion and if you watch the tread lines it did stop further decline.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
seriously, stop picking on bush! he was awesome and powerful and famous and peopke like him, damn it!View attachment 2363151
... did I hear something?
I do believe these #'s are in O's left hand, but the truth (GDP #'s) are in his right ...
Without a rise in GDP you can have no true job growth. Is this not a fact of reality.
Don't look to the stock market either, because those numbers do not account for O & Bernaky's money printing over the past four years. Anyone care to float that equation so that I can do the math here
FreedomWorks
Well-Known Member
I counted numerous mis truths in that satement. Obama did not create 5 million new jobs. Thats meaningless out of context. While Obama and his propagandists claim 27 consecutive months of job growth, employment growth is the norm and not the exception for the American economy. In the 62 years from the end of World War II in 1945 until 2008, jobs grew in 86% of the months, or 640 out of 744. But Obama and his propagandists think you are too stupid to know the country you live in. They know at least their MSNBC base will believe them.
Reagan’s recovery produced job growth in 81 out of its first 82 months, with 20 million new jobs created in those first 7 years alone, increasing the civilian work force at the time by 20%. That grew into 50 million new jobs over the entire Reagan 25-year boom from 1982 to 2007. Compare that to the disgrace of Obamanomics. While Obama liked to claim 4.3 million new jobs created(now 5.2), total jobs by May, 2012 were still over half a million less than in January, 2009 when he entered office. Even George Bush oversaw 52 consecutive months of job growth, including 8 million new jobs created after his 2003 capital gains and dividends tax rate cuts became effective (which Obama is dedicated to reversing).
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
sure they can.
obama derangement syndrome.
i predicted this months ago. i'm just glad willard did OK in the first debate, otherwise we'd have had to tolerate a month worth of crybabies screaming like howler monkeys.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
FreedomWorks
Well-Known Member
We have half a million less jobs now than when Obama took office.
Fungus Gnat
Well-Known Member
You mean being handed a economy in free fall it's his fault? Every jobs bill post 2010 being blocked is his fault? I notice you ignored how Reagan actually accomplished that and it wasn't by cutting taxes.
Fungus Gnat
Well-Known Member
Actually now it's at parity unless you're counting the fall of 2008 as you conservatives love to do.
TheMan13
Well-Known Member
What would it be if our children hadn't purchased ONE TRILLION dollars worth on their credit. What is the plan to pay them back again?