http://nalert.blogspot.com/2010/07/scariest-job-chart-ever-gets-uglier.html You really have to try to keep the American economy down this long. Way to go, Barry. That hope and change is working great!
Do you know where on the graph you posted Obama became president? Essentially right on the inflection point i.e. where job losses per month started decreasing. Since he has been in office the losses have been decreasing and have recently stopped altogether. Here is a link to the graph of job losses to about two weeks after Obama became president. You can see that the job losses had been declining with a very steep slope for quite a while before he became president and showed no signs of slowing at that point. It was almost straight down. This recession was on a horrible path from the beginning. On your graph if you ignore the census gains/losses (which many conservatives said we should be doing when it boosted the job gains a few months ago) we are actually still on the same albeit slow recovery path based on private industry growth.
You're exactly right. The recession that started under President Bush was projected to be steep and short. As for job losses, you have to put on Obama from November on. Bush's policies didn't matter at that point. What President Obama did was keep us in the trough by being anti-business. His actions to mollify his union base has given zero confidence for private industry to invest or for banks to lend. The last time we tried to substitute private industry growth for growth in the public sector was in 1932. We're following the same trend line. As for job growth, if you call 14,000 private sector jobs in May and 83,000 private sector jobs in June "growth", then I don't know what to say. To keep pace with the growth of the labor pool, economists estimate you need to add a minimum of 100,000-150,000 jobs per month just to stay even. I get that you want to defend Obama and blame Bush, but the jobless numbers don't lie. We flushed almost a trillion dollars down the toilet on pet projects for people that supported the Democrats and Obama instead of projects that would have actually put people back to work. We and future generations are going to have to pay it back, and we got nothing from it. That was our one bullet. There's no more debt to be taken out. We can't use Keynesian policies anymore without risking massive inflation. Obamanomics has been a catastrophic failure.
I never said Bush caused the recession. I don't believe that at all. Nice straw man though! Who exactly predicted it would be short and steep? Are these the same people who failed to predict there would even be a recession? I actually remember a lot of fear of complete collapse and at least another depression. The people who did predict there would be a recession knew this one would be serious. Many thought it would be much worse than it actually has been. I'd actually like to see any kind of proof for any of your assertions. While I make observations based on the graphs, you make baseless claims that I'm sure make sense in the reality you have constructed for yourself. In the real world we require proof. By the way, I define growth as an increase in some quantity over time. Increasing by 1 is still an increase. Surely you think that increasing by 41,000 (not 14,000 as you posted) and now 83,000 is better than decreasing. Sure, it's not ideal but it's the best we've had for a very long time.
Mass suicides will lower unemployment, just not the way we might hope for. I am better off than I was 18 months ago too, just had to figure out a way to get out of the part of Vegas the illegals like the most. I can sleep at night again.
After 12 years of enormous Republican deficits, Clinton saved the country with miracle surpluses. It took him 4 years to right the ship, while under continuous attack from the Republican-owned mass media. Republicans counted on that repeating. So Little Bush ruined the country again with even bigger deficits. Now Republicans are waah-waahing that after 1 year, a Democratic president hasn't bailed Republicans out of history's judgement again. I don't think it can be done this time. Little Bush doubled the size of intelligence spending while starting 2 permanent wars. Clinton didn't have to deal with that sunk cost.
Where have you been?? I just knew you would come in with the "it's all Bush's fault" crap. And, oh yeah, Obama and the libs have done a perfect job.
I'm waiting for the "Days of Malaise" speech. It's basically the admission of the administration's incompetence.
Hmm, who had control of the Congress when the surpluses came under Clinton? And who had control of Congress when the deficit exploded under Bush?
Hmm, who has enough degrees in economics to know that that line of argument is complete nonsense? Yes, I think it's you. But if you don't agree, please explain in detail how the change of control of congress in 2006 caused the financial crisis of 2008. barfo
Whether Democrats obtain a majority in either the House or the Senate, conservatives will control everything. Whether the Northeast, Midwest, and West have a majority, the South will control everything. Whether the country is in the midst of a cultural revolution like the 70s, the CIA will come out in control as it did in the 80s. Like the conscious and subconscious levels of the mind, there is an overt government and a covert government.
Give the "libs blame Bush" thing a rest. The republicans blamed Clinton 7 years into Bush's presidency. And before you go on about how it's "the Daily show", watch the clip. Republicans (and conservatives), have been playing the blame the previous Democratic administration for YEARS, and then act surprised when someone tries to blame the previous Republican administration. They did the same thing, YOU did the same thing..quit acting like you did differently. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-29-2010/blame
