• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

Trend lines? I thought you just cared about averages? :2rofll:

I care about whichever one is appropriate for the situation, not which one makes someone look good or bad............unlike you.
 
What exactly was the Democrat position on subprime mortgages? Keep digging and continue to divert from the Hope and Change President and his disastrous results.

I think their position was that they could not reach back in time and undo the subprime mortgages that were formed when Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress.
 
Last edited:
Not according to Republican Mike Oxley, who reached out to Barney Frank to help pass Freddie and Fannie reform in the House. According to Oxley, it was Bush who reached out to kill the reform measure in the Senate.

There are dozens of youtube videos of Frank claiming that they needed no additional regulation. Surely you have seen them.
 
Have no clue where you got that idea.

The idea that he was wrong and you didn't bother to check his facts? How about from the people that create the misery index:

Misery Index By Month
October posted a decline in misery index. Doh!

Don't take his "facts" for truth because they are wrong most of the time.
 
Ahhh, so you believe there are periods of great birth rates, where in 15 (it's actually 16) years they become part of the workforce. This is followed by periods of low birth rates resulting in few entering the job market 16 years later????

:roll:

You refuse to listen and understand. Population "growth" means jack**** since it does not ****ing distinguish age wise. So it is a hyperhole argument. How many are over 65? How many are under 15(16)? How many are stay at home moms? How many are births?
 
The idea that he was wrong and you didn't bother to check his facts? How about from the people that create the misery index:

Misery Index By Month
October posted a decline in misery index. Doh!

Don't take his "facts" for truth because they are wrong most of the time.

Ummm, I did look at the numbers and he was correct. Read your own graph.
 
I care about whichever one is appropriate for the situation, not which one makes someone look good or bad............unlike you.

You're killin' me! :2rofll:

So why don't we just tell the truth, eh? Reagan inherited a massive recession from Carter. Obama inherited a massive but very different sort of recession from Bush. The economy turned around under Reagan thanks in large part to the fiscal measures taken by Paul Volker. Reagan himself helped to repair the economy by instituting massive stimulus in the form of tax cuts, which unfortunately resulted in massive deficits. He did so with a Democratic Congress that was generally cooperative. Obama is in a much tougher situation insofar as he inherited much higher debt and already low taxes, and he has to deal with a Republican minority that opposes nearly everything he puts forward.
 
You refuse to listen and understand. Population "growth" means jack**** since it does not ****ing distinguish age wise. So it is a hyperhole argument. How many are over 65? How many are under 15(16)? How many are stay at home moms? How many are births?

You continue to swat at gnats without making a cognizant point.

Bottom line, the unemployment rate dropped because the number of people who gave up looking for work fell off the radar screen. Most of the "increase" in unemployment is likely seasonal employees that will go away in January.
 
I think they're position was that they could not reach back in time and undo the subprime mortgages that were formed when Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress.

Did Republicans control both Houses when the CRA was passed during the Carter years? You just cannot get over your Bush Derangement Syndrome that here we are 3 years into the Obama "Hope and Change" Administration and the results are a disaster. Is that why you don't want to address them and continue to want to look backwards?
 
You're killin' me! :2rofll:

So why don't we just tell the truth, eh? Reagan inherited a massive recession from Carter. Obama inherited a massive but very different sort of recession from Bush. The economy turned around under Reagan thanks in large part to the fiscal measures taken by Paul Volker. Reagan himself helped to repair the economy by instituting massive stimulus in the form of tax cuts, which unfortunately resulted in massive deficits. He did so with a Democratic Congress that was generally cooperative. Obama is in a much tougher situation insofar as he inherited much higher debt and already low taxes, and he has to deal with a Republican minority that opposes nearly everything he puts forward.

You're going to fall down after all that spinning. Slow down and take another sip of kool-aid.
 
Most liberals here blame Bush for the economic conditions Obama says he inherited. By the definition Congress is an equal branch of the govt. with the President therefore no legislation and not one dime can be created or spent without Congressional approval therefore nothing Bush did was without Congressional approval. Liberals today continue to blame Bush and ignore Congressional responsibility. they also had overwhelming control of Congress when Obama took office therefore three years later the results are definitely Obama's

I'm not most liberlas, whoever they are. I have clearly stated NO president controls the economy. And congress has lmited effect. That said, would you really argue that the causes for the economic problems happen only once Obama was elected? Seriously?
 
You guys really want to play the Misery Index game? Here is the same period of time into office.

Misery Index.jpg
 
Didn't dispute your numbers, just used the Start and End numbers instead of the Average as it's a much better representation given Obama has only been in office for 3 years and Reagan started with such a higher number

Well yeah, that's the point I was trying to get across. Using averages and ignoring the context generally produces results that are less than helpful, or honest. Obama critics consistently argue that we should JUST look at the raw numbers and ignore the context. If you do the same thing for Reagan, his numbers look far worse than Obama's.
 
Did Republicans control both Houses when the CRA was passed during the Carter years? You just cannot get over your Bush Derangement Syndrome that here we are 3 years into the Obama "Hope and Change" Administration and the results are a disaster. Is that why you don't want to address them and continue to want to look backwards?

how many times does someone have to tell you that CRA had absolutely NOTHING to do with the sub prime crisis? those regulations didn't force ANY institution to make bad loans. just quit already.
 
how many times does someone have to tell you that CRA had absolutely NOTHING to do with the sub prime crisis? those regulations didn't force ANY institution to make bad loans. just quit already.

Really? nothing at all to do with the Community Reinvestment Act? Do you know what the Community Reinvestment Act promoted? Better think about it.
 
Did Republicans control both Houses when the CRA was passed during the Carter years? You just cannot get over your Bush Derangement Syndrome that here we are 3 years into the Obama "Hope and Change" Administration and the results are a disaster. Is that why you don't want to address them and continue to want to look backwards?

Was there a housing crisis in the 30 years following the passage of CRA? No. Why not? Because CRA wasn't the problem.
 
Was there a housing crisis in the 30 years following the passage of CRA? No. Why not? Because CRA wasn't the problem.

That was before Frank, Waters, Meeks, etc. got into office and refused to let Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be reformed.
 
Apparently it made it lower.

That is exactly what it did, made the misery index artificially lower. Unemployment numbers were changed in 1994 when discouraged workers were dropped from the roles of the unemployed. That distorts the unemployment numbers and that is why today's rate is actually 9.36%
 
Reagan:

2/81 - 18.81
10/83 - 11.65


Obama
2/09 - 8.44
10/11 - 12.53


Doh !!

Oh my bad. I misread his post completely. I thought he said the MI had never declined during Obama's tenure. Doh!
 

Yes.. and that number can quickly fall with the increased baby boomer retirements. If baby boomer retirements increase to say 20k a month.. then your work force will shrink naturally and hence your failed unemployment numbers as well.. well depending on how many people re-enter the statistics of course.

I am not trying to defend Obama on unemployment numbers, far from it. I am just trying to point out the fact that the work force numbers are highly volitile due to many factors, including baby boomer retirements increasing and of course the "discouraged" workers part.
 
Back
Top Bottom