Attention ho wrote:Ah yes...what a difference two years can make

Our economy began to hemomorrhage jobs at the beginning of the third quarter of 2007, and has done so ever since. That is a statistic you can count on, and it occurred nearly "two years" before the current Administration took office.

However, you seem to believe that somehow, the current administration should somehow be held accountable for the continuing job losses that are almost exclusively attributable to the situation in place upon their arrival. Please, do share with us the "magic wand" that the new administration COULD have used to just erase that problem instantly. You obviously believe they could have just reversed this trend practically overnight...show us your immense knowledge on how this is to be accomplished, how they are to undo the damage wrought by many years of previous malfeasance. Don't quote statistics, just describe how it's done.

This should be good.

P.S.: Presuming your "statistics" on job growth are true, I have some very disconcerting math for you.

The US Population grew by 27 million from 2000 to 2010. Yet we gained only 10 million jobs. That's a net deficit of 17 million. Now, of course, not all the population growth immediately took jobs; but during this same time period, many citizens of that existing 2000 total became of job-holding age, so this becomes essentially moot.

Now, you better understand what unemployment statisitics really mean, and how 10 million "new" jobs do not account for 27 million new citizens. Math > you.

Mark Twain perhaps said it best: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and Statistics.

well i guess it makes some sence that when bush took office for his first term we were headed into a recessi before he was ever sworn in but people decided to blame that recession on bush even though he inherited it. so iguess it makes sence that obama should get the blame for the recession we were headed in when he took office lol


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

Rather a difference here...the current recession began in December of 2007, and continues to this day...a period now of over two years. Obama took office in January of 2009, over a year after the recession was in full swing.

Bush's reign of terror began in January of 2001, and the recession then began two months after he took office, to last a mere eight months. So if he did inherit a small recession, he then passed along the hugest one since the Great Depression to his successor.

I daresay that if you wish to paint Bush in a positive light, you'd run from this comparison rather than embrace it.

I wasnt trying to paint him in any light, just merely pointing out that bush got blamed for a recession he didnt start just as obama is.






for it to be called a recession you need two quarters so 6 months. if the recession started 2 months into his office that means 4 months of that recession started before he was sworn in.


my point wasnt made to say one caused it and one didn't or that either was right, just merely pointing out that people will blame the one in charge regardless of wether it was their fault or not.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

Once a recession is seen by two consecutive poor qurters, its officially noted start date goes back to when it began, so it indeed began AFTER he took office. But yes...no way could his policies have caused such a change so soon. It would take him another six years to really fcuk it up for Obama. Just one more reason why the Old Man and the MILF had no chance...theirs was the party of Fail.

i think allot of slack for obama is that i beleive allot of people out there thought that when they voted him in office he'd walk in snap his fingers and the world would be a better place.\



as for the recession i'd have to go back and do some reasearch but i remember allot of people talking about it before he was sworn into office so we had to be on the downwards slope before that time if it was allready on peoples minds.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

Regardless. You skewer the man on his own sword if you pursue this line of thinking. No matter how you slice it, if you wish to claim Bush inherited a recession (which he did), then he also created and passed along the biggest, most damaging one in 80 years (which he did).




Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:13 AM

So wasn't a brilliant idea that the people voted in a president that has no experience? I'm sure that's going to help us out of this downturn. It doesn't need to be his fault. But as the leader of the country it's his job to fix it and if we're not much better by this time next year he totally failed regardless of who started it. But i think things will get much better now that we're heading into a balanced government. Dem President/Republican house and senate. It's the only way to keep thing balanced. Clinton did well for 8 years as a Democratc President with a Republican majority on the other side. And Bush's stupidity was kept in check with a Democratic majority.

I think with Pelosi and Frank back on their leashes and put in check with a Republican majority the country will now stabilize. Everyone is worried about jobs and finances and these boobs are focusing on health care. Showing that these democrats are out of touch with what Americans really want. This was making everyone nervous, and the markets are crashing nobody is lending, or spending because we all feel uncertain about the future since this current administration seems to have no idea what they are doing. But with the health care bill pretty much shot now they can focus on what REALLY matters. The Socialist agendas can now be set aside and the President can now concentrate on doing what he promised the people, instead of fundamentally changing America into his tranquil idea of USSR part 2.

He's only got 3 years left to make himself not go down in history as the next Jimmy Carter, and not make fools of the Nobel prize panel. It would take a wing and a prayer for him to get a 2nd term, so he better get on the ball fast.



"Formerly known as Jammit - JBO member since 1998" JBOM | CSS.net

Moderato Electo Victorio! wrote:Regardless. You skewer the man on his own sword if you pursue this line of thinking. No matter how you slice it, if you wish to claim Bush inherited a recession (which he did), then he also created and passed along the biggest, most damaging one in 80 years (which he did).

i was just pointing out what some of the public was thinking at the time.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

Jookycola wrote:So wasn't a brilliant idea that the people voted in a president that has no experience? I'm sure that's going to help us out of this downturn. It doesn't need to be his fault. But as the leader of the country it's his job to fix it and if we're not much better by this time next year he totally failed regardless of who started it. But i think things will get much better now that we're heading into a balanced government. Dem President/Republican house and senate. It's the only way to keep thing balanced. Clinton did well for 8 years as a Democratc President with a Republican majority on the other side. And Bush's stupidity was kept in check with a Democratic majority.

I think with Pelosi and Frank back on their leashes and put in check with a Republican majority the country will now stabilize. Everyone is worried about jobs and finances and these boobs are focusing on health care. Showing that these democrats are out of touch with what Americans really want. This was making everyone nervous, and the markets are crashing nobody is lending, or spending because we all feel uncertain about the future since this current administration seems to have no idea what they are doing. But with the health care bill pretty much shot now they can focus on what REALLY matters. The Socialist agendas can now be set aside and the President can now concentrate on doing what he promised the people, instead of fundamentally changing America into his tranquil idea of USSR part 2.

He's only got 3 years left to make himself not go down in history as the next Jimmy Carter, and not make fools of the Nobel prize panel. It would take a wing and a prayer for him to get a 2nd term, so he better get on the ball fast.

I was really digging your post until the Socialist "term of endearment" (lol!) came up. Then you totally lost me with the USSR crap. Why does every conversation about this have to devolve into such useless namecalling?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Thursday, January 21, 2010 2:27 PM

In the interest of not making a page long post full of quotes, I'll try to keep this concise (admitedly not always an easy thing for me ):

Bill, you missed the point (wow, really? haha) on the two years thing: In those two years, Congress was under the control of the Democrats, and Bush was heavily going along with them as the GOP's line of thought for the last few years has been pretty much that they'd stop losing if they just play the me-too game, and act like "Democrat Light".

As for Bush being in power when the recession began, and not being able to blame Obama for where we are now? Yeah, that's a simple one: We're hemorhaging jobs as bad as ever, after passing a bill that was supposed to turn us around. One that was so important that Congress couldn't waste time reading it first, it had to be passed in the first two weeks of Obama's term. It damaged our economy further rather than turning us around. We've already had the discussions on how it should have been done, and you and I actually agree on some things there (at least you replied to a post of mine a few months back that gave that impression). I won't waste space in this thread rehashing it.

As for your point of population growth vs job growth, I don't have the historical stats handy, but I'll look into them, because I know that our population growth is faster now than before.

Notec take a look at the stats I posted carefully. The first box I posted showed job and workforce growth during Bush's presidency. That was in rebuttal to the claim that he cause more jobs to be lost overseas than anyone else. Do you follow the logic that if we were losing jobs overseas so badly that we would not have added millions of jobs here?

Also, I seemed to have forgot to mention this, but the numbers I posted were thousands. Those numbers were copied directly from the BLS website, and they list them in thousands for simplicity. So add three zeros to them for the real numbers.

Lastly, the recession at the beginning of Bush's presidency started before he was in office (look up any stat you want: GDP, stock market, employment--it started several months before), not after he took office. When he took office they passed the first stimulus plan, which was a tax credit (no change to the rates), and it didn't do squat. 8 months later, we got hit with the 9/11 attacks, which caused further damage to the economy. In 2003, actual tax rate cuts were put in place, and the next few years our economy grew steadily.

The current recession was not in full swing a year before Obama took office. You realize that the second highest number of employed persons in the US in the last decade was in April 08? We had a small dip in December that rebounded by March. Also the stock market was even peaking in May (again, rebounding from the dip). What we had was a perfect storm in the economy (which was NOT due to policies of the GOP, but I'm not opening that argument up again in this thread--we have plenty of others where this ongoing myth has been debunked), which came to a head at the end of the summer.

The current recession dates back to December 2007. The economy moved into negative job growth in mid-2007. Prove me wrong if you feel otherwise, but those are the accepted dates in general circulation at this time.

Unemployment figures and US census bureau population figures are what I used. I've rechecked my numbers, and they are still in line. Feel free to ask for references if you are dubious.

Forgive me for just cutting to the chase, but that's how I roll. You've been debunked...again.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:22 PM

I started to see the downward trend in 00.

In the welding\manufacturing field...

as for the "current recession" I feel that oil prices almost by itself is whats bring us all down.

take your yearly gas bill, now cut it in half, or over half.....ya that in and of itself makes me really want this "war" to be about oil.

hel!, if it was .28 cents per gal, how many people (avg Americans) would bitch?

anywho...

rant over.

Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry

Misinformation Peddler wrote:Notec take a look at the stats I posted carefully. The first box I posted showed job and workforce growth during Bush's presidency. That was in rebuttal to the claim that he cause more jobs to be lost overseas than anyone else. Do you follow the logic that if we were losing jobs overseas so badly that we would not have added millions of jobs here?

That just shows jobs were being created. It doesn't show jobs weren't being shipped out. I do think we probably shipped more jobs during Clinton though.




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster