Unemployment: Obama vs REAGAN (OMG!!)

Lowaicue said:
How strange it is that the right wing of America believe Obama to be a magician.
Too stupid, I suppose, to understand that there is no such thing as magic.
Click to expand...

how strange that you ignore obama's promise and instead mock those who simply point out that he hasn't kept his promise

too stupid, i suppose, to understand that there is such thing as a promise
 
Lowaicue said:
How strange it is that the right wing of America believe Obama to be a magician.
Too stupid, I suppose, to understand that there is no such thing as magic.
Click to expand...
Yet that's how he sold the bail outs. Do you think that they helped, or hurt?
 
Lowaicue said:
How strange it is that the right wing of America believe Obama to be a magician.
Too stupid, I suppose, to understand that there is no such thing as magic.
Click to expand...

Maybe your question would be better phrased how stupid are some Americans who believed Obama when he said unemployment wouldn't go above 8% and his stimulus package would show immediate results as far as job creation?

Now I happen to believe 10 months is too soon to be passing true judgement on his policies but when you promise and don't deliever how do you expect folks to act?
 
ib1yysguy said:
lol

"The Obama economy." Saying that Obama owns the unemployment that started dropping off hugely under Bush (and is now slowing WAAAAY down) is a sure sign that you can stop listening to anything else that person says, ever.

If unemployment isn't back to Bush levels by the end of his 4 years, I'll be with you. But give me a fucking break.
Click to expand...

Slowing way down? LMAO....

It has barely slowed pace. It is still declining. Obama claiming to have created jobs is comical. You don't get to count the jobs created and not count the jobs lost. His saving/creating some public sector jobs doesn't change the fact that the overall jobs are still negative each month.

That said, this is not to say it is all Obama's fault, but at some point in time, you have to acknowledge that it IS his policies and positions that are responsible for the continued declines. You should acknowledge that he was not even close with his predictions. you should acknowledge that the stimulus package did not work to create jobs. At best it stemmed the tide a bit.

We still have an overly tight credit market, despite the Fed keeping rates at all time lows. We have looming problems within commercial real estate and individuals defaulting on credit card debt. With every uptick in unemployment, fewer people will be spending. Those without jobs will be scraping by on unemployment wages and those with jobs will save more in case they are next. The artificial boost the cash for clunkers gave to GDP was a short term stop gap aimed to once again provide a bailout for the auto companies. The real estate credit is doing the same.

You want to STIMULATE the economy in an effective manner? Then CREATE jobs. No more tax credits... those don't work. No more payoffs to the unions... those dont work either. No more funding wall Street only to watch them take the money while not addressing the problem.

Take the money and use it to create temporary jobs rebuilding the infrastructure of this nation. Use deficit spending THERE. Those are jobs that benefit not only the short run (it will help reduce the unemployment rate and also provide psychological boost to other workers/businesses), but also the long run (we have to rebuild it anyway, this escalates doing so and provides safer roads/bridges etc... not to mention it sparks all of the ancillary businesses such as steel, concrete, equipment etc...)
 
Superfreak said:
Slowing way down? LMAO....

It has barely slowed pace. It is still declining. Obama claiming to have created jobs is comical. You don't get to count the jobs created and not count the jobs lost. His saving/creating some public sector jobs doesn't change the fact that the overall jobs are still negative each month.

That said, this is not to say it is all Obama's fault, but at some point in time, you have to acknowledge that it IS his policies and positions that are responsible for the continued declines. You should acknowledge that he was not even close with his predictions. you should acknowledge that the stimulus package did not work to create jobs. At best it stemmed the tide a bit.

We still have an overly tight credit market, despite the Fed keeping rates at all time lows. We have looming problems within commercial real estate and individuals defaulting on credit card debt. With every uptick in unemployment, fewer people will be spending. Those without jobs will be scraping by on unemployment wages and those with jobs will save more in case they are next. The artificial boost the cash for clunkers gave to GDP was a short term stop gap aimed to once again provide a bailout for the auto companies. The real estate credit is doing the same.

You want to STIMULATE the economy in an effective manner? Then CREATE jobs. No more tax credits... those don't work. No more payoffs to the unions... those dont work either. No more funding wall Street only to watch them take the money while not addressing the problem.

Take the money and use it to create temporary jobs rebuilding the infrastructure of this nation. Use deficit spending THERE. Those are jobs that benefit not only the short run (it will help reduce the unemployment rate and also provide psychological boost to other workers/businesses), but also the long run (we have to rebuild it anyway, this escalates doing so and provides safer roads/bridges etc... not to mention it sparks all of the ancillary businesses such as steel, concrete, equipment etc...)
Click to expand...

Like this?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/education/chi-education-stimulus-04-nov04,0,4659134.story

TRIBUNE WATCHDOG

Illinois data on stimulus-related jobs saved, created don't add up

Districts say job numbers attributed to them inaccurate; totals ignore Chicago

By Bob Secter and Erika Slife

Tribune reporters

November 4, 2009


More than $4.7 million in federal stimulus aid so far has been funneled to schools in North Chicago, and state and federal officials say that money has saved the jobs of 473 teachers.

Problem is, the district employs only 290 teachers.

"That other number, I don't know where that came from," said Lauri Hakanen, superintendent of North Chicago Community Unit Schools District 187.

The Obama administration last week released the first round of data designed to underpin the worthiness of its economic stimulus plan, which so far has directed $1.25 billion to Illinois schools. That money has helped save or create 14,330 school jobs in the state, the administration claimed.

But those statistics, compiled initially by the Illinois State Board of Education, appear riddled with anomalies that raise questions about their validity, according to a Tribune analysis of district-by-district stimulus spending and other state data. Many local school officials were perplexed by the stimulus data attributed to their districts.

In the official report, Wilmette Public Schools District 39 was credited with 166 jobs saved by stimulus aid. Superintendent Raymond Lechner said the number should be zero.

At Dolton-Riverdale School District 148, stimulus funds were said to have saved the equivalent of 382 full-time teaching jobs -- 142 more than the district actually has.

A similar discrepancy was found in data for Kankakee School District 111, where the stimulus report logged the equivalent of 665 full-time jobs saved. "That's impossible," a top Kankakee school official said, adding that the entire payroll -- full and part time -- is 600 workers....
Click to expand...
 
Norman Paperman said:
I don't give a rip what the unemployment rate was under Reagan. I don't care what it was under Bush I, Clinton, or Bush II. None of them are President. None of them swore that the unemployment rate would stay below 8% if their stimulus package were passed. Obama did. This is on him. Welcome to the Obama economy.
Click to expand...

Please direct me to the source of your quote regarding the unemployment rate staying "below 8%".
 
cawacko said:
Maybe your question would be better phrased how stupid are some Americans who believed Obama when he said unemployment wouldn't go above 8% and his stimulus package would show immediate results as far as job creation?

Now I happen to believe 10 months is too soon to be passing true judgement on his policies but when you promise and don't deliever how do you expect folks to act?
Click to expand...

was it a promise? was it a prediction? was it HIS or his advisors who generated the info?
If it was a personal promise and the context is as seems to be believed here then his error was in the saying only.
If anyone thinks that Obama can solve a problem that he inherited, and that has affected the entire world to a greater or lesser degree, in ten months it is they that have the bumps that should be read.
 
Lowaicue said:
was it a promise? was it a prediction? was it HIS or his advisors who generated the info?
If it was a personal promise and the context is as seems to be believed here then his error was in the saying only.
If anyone thinks that Obama can solve a problem that he inherited, and that has affected the entire world to a greater or lesser degree, in ten months it is they that have the bumps that should be read.
Click to expand...

What do you consider it when a politician says this policy or these policies will have this or these results?

It is not about him not fixing the world's economy in 10 months. Obama said his policies were going to have specific results which have not happened thus he is getting called on it. I'm sorry if that offends you.
 
Yurt said:
good idea....i wonder which dem will take you up on this
Click to expand...

I volunteer.
Unemployment rose from just under 5% when bush took office and rose to over 8% when he left. Obama took over with the unemploment rate at just over 8%. Thus, unemployment rose appr. 60% under bush vs appr. 25% under Obama. In other words Obama has a long way to go before he can match the bush "achievement".
Any economist or statistician will tell you that the unemplloyment rate inherited by Obama was already in an historic uptrend on January 20, 2009, a fact denied only by uninformed dullards.
 
belme1201 said:
I volunteer.
Unemployment rose from just under 5% when bush took office and rose to over 8% when he left. Obama took over with the unemploment rate at just over 8%. Thus, unemployment rose appr. 60% under bush vs appr. 25% under Obama. In other words Obama has a long way to go before he can match the bush "achievement".
Any economist or statistician will tell you that the unemplloyment rate inherited by Obama was already in an historic uptrend on January 20, 2009, a fact denied only by uninformed dullards.
Click to expand...

Good for you! Now those links to Labor Dept or other qualified site?
 
cawacko said:
What do you consider it when a politician says this policy or these policies will have this or these results?

It is not about him not fixing the world's economy in 10 months. Obama said his policies were going to have specific results which have not happened thus he is getting called on it. I'm sorry if that offends you.
Click to expand...

It doesn't offend me in the slightest. I sit on the sidelines and watch the play. Like your strange brand of football/rugby/who-knows-what-ball there is a lot of talking, a lot of planning, a lot of blaming but not very much actual playing. Anyway, here I sit and like any spectator expressing my opinions to the wind.
The biggest part of this particular game (on this forum) happens off the field of play and in the partisanship of the dumb onlookers.
 
Annie said:
Good for you! Now those links to Labor Dept or other qualified site?
Click to expand...

Unemployment data from the US Bureau of labor statistics, years 1999-2009, (data.bls.gov).

Feb. 2001, 1st bush month.
4.2%
January 2009, final bush month.
7.6%
An increase of 80% under bush, another sign of the success of 'Supply Side' economics. My original estimate was too low.(Were the RW hypocrites even mentioning unemployment back in the good 'ol bush days?)


Feb, 2009 1st Obama month.
8.1%
October 2009, last date for statistic.
10.2%
An increase of 25% under Obama. Still a long way to go to catch up to bush.



I suggest you do go to BLS and while you're at it, check out the graph and the direction of the trend under bush coming into the Obama Presiidency. If you find genuine numbers to dispute mine, please feel free to do so.
 
belme1201 said:
Unemployment data from the US Bureau of labor statistics, years 1999-2009, (data.bls.gov).

Feb. 2001, 1st bush month.
4.2%
January 2009, final bush month.
7.6%
An increase of 80% under bush, another sign of the success of 'Supply Side' economics. My original estimate was too low.(Were the RW hypocrites even mentioning unemployment back in the good 'ol bush days?)


Feb, 2009 1st Obama month.
8.1%
October 2009, last date for statistic.
10.2%
An increase of 25% under Obama. Still a long way to go to catch up to bush.



I suggest you do go to BLS and while you're at it, check out the graph and the direction of the trend under bush coming into the Obama Presiidency. If you find genuine numbers to dispute mine, please feel free to do so.
Click to expand...
Can't say he's not trying to increase his percentages with proposed policies, though he's certainly winning on the numbers front. :rolleyes:
 
Buffalo Soldier said:
If obama fucked up/ lied that bad on the unemployment, why would anybody trust his healthcare estimate?
Click to expand...



That's a good question, but, if true, it isn't the first time a politician has missed estimates or goals. What policies to right the situation did Obama implement that differed from the emergency bail-out measures of bush/Paulson at the finale of their administration?
I would still like someone to show me how upset the RW was about unemployment and the downward economic trend established by the bush administration, or is it merely an Obama thing?
Until then, I can safely assume we are dealing with major hypocrisy by the naysayer, reactionary, Conservative GOP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top