Navy Pride
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 39,883
- Reaction score
- 3,070
- Location
- Pacific NW
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Be honest, NP: When you read that, you smiled, didn't you?
The inverse will also be true. Some will read this and try to figure out how to polish this turd then blame it on Bush.
You are right and yes I did smile big time...............
Perfect example of why I hate politics, it makes people see bad news as good news because it damages a political opponent, the suffering of those affect be damned.
If you're referring to the collapse of the housing market, that was hardly a planned occurrence, nor was it soley republican policies that led to the crash itself. If you're referring to the pre-2007-8 economic climate, taking your claims of "rapid job losses" seriously would be a task that requires quite a bit of mental gymnastics.Well, I'd still certainly take slow, steady, job growth over the rapid job loss we saw last time we tried out the Republican plan for the economy.
If you're referring to the collapse of the housing market, that was hardly a planned occurrence, nor was it soley republican policies that led to the crash itself. If you're referring to the pre-2007-8 economic climate, taking your claims of "rapid job losses" seriously would be a task that requires quite a bit of mental gymnastics.
More bad news for Hussein Obama.
Well, this is a bad employment report — across the board. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
Perfect example of why I hate politics, it makes people see bad news as good news because it damages a political opponent, the suffering of those affect be damned.Navy Pride said:You are right and yes I did smile big time.
In response to Wiseone, AMEN. Navy Pride, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for smiling at that news. I don't care if job creation takes place under a Republican or a Democrat, or who it elects or doesn't elect. Although I acknowledge that some unemployment is necessary in a capitalist system, when you have 12.5 million people who can't find work, that's a tragedy, and you should not smile at May's news just because it hurts Obama.
What did the American people expect when they voted for a guy with no experience whatsoever? This was a horribly naive decision they made and now they are paying for it. That's just what happens when people make bad decisions, so there's little use in complaining about it.
The idea is to learn from our mistakes and not repeat them.
The economy would probably be in similar shape if McCain were elected. If a stimulus bill had not been passed or was smaller than the one passed by Obama, the Fed would have been more activist than it already has been. Anyways, my point is that I dislike it when people discuss the jobs report's impact on the election.
What did the American people expect when they voted for a guy with no experience whatsoever? This was a horribly naive decision thy made and now they are paying for it. That's just what happens when people make bad decisions, so there's little use in complaining about it.
The idea is to learn from our mistakes and not repeat them.
So let me see if I get this straight, jobs were created and unemployment went down, even if it wasn't the best it still was job creation and this is seen as bad news?
Here is something else interesting--
Canada's unemployment rate is 7.3%.
The UK's is 8.2%.
Germany's is 5.6%
These are all unusually high for all these countries. Is this Obama's fault? The Federal Reserve has even predicted that unemployment won't drop to under 5% for US until sometime after 2017. What exactly could McCain have done that would have been different?
The inverse will also be true. Some will read this and try to figure out how to polish this turd then blame it on Bush.
Unemployment went up dude, not down. Yes jobs were created but the net change was down, not up. But yes like I said, this is a global thing out of the control of a single man.
Lets not blow this out of proportion, its the jobs report from a single month. And lets not overstate the role of the President in the economy, the current unemployment rate is a result of the recession that started in 2008 which is obviously not the fault of Obama. And its not the fault of Bush either if you think I was about to go that route, it was set off by an over-reliance on credit(both by banks, individuals and states) based on far overoptimistic visions of the future.
Just like a person who lands a good job may think "Now I can borrow more money to live better now, based on money i'll have in the future" so did governments think "Our economies are growing well, now we can burrow money to spend more today based on where we predict our economy will be in the future" or a bank may say "People and government are spending a lot more, therefore we loan money to companies seeking to start up or expand because we know from individual/gov't consumption and where we predict it will be in the future, that the investment will pay off."
Unfortunately everyone was wrong, the economy was built on credit based on the "faith" that the economy will reach a certain rise by the time those loans come due. Thats what happened to Greece for example, they took loans assuming their economy would be a certain size, and therefore they would be bringing in X amount of revenue, by the time the loans were due unfortunately their economy didn't grow as expected and they've defaulted if it weren't for the bailouts. They may still default.
This recession is a global phenomenon, and has its roots in many more things than US Presidential policy, and its still being experienced the global economy is still correcting itself for the mistakes that millions of people made that contributed to the problem. Sure some contributed more than others, that company that defaults on its multi-million dollar loan to the bank affects the banks health more than an individual defaulting on a 1000 dollar loan, but all contribute. No single person caused this and no single person is going to solve it.
Also don't forget the massive boom in commodity prices in the late 2000s, when crude oil is 30 bucks a barrel in 2005 and you have a 5 year construction plan you may leave yourself some wiggle room in your project in case gas gets more expensive. May if it goes to 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 bucks? Surely preparing for 100 is excessive especially when everyone is building(this is pre-subprime crisis) and we can't hedge our bets so much we gotta use every dime to build more, risk be damned. How about if crude oil shoots to almost 150 bucks in 2008, just three years later. How many companies and projects were crunched by that massive unexpected cost of business increase?
You are right and yes I did smile big time...............
Lets not blow this out of proportion, its the jobs report from a single month. And lets not overstate the role of the President in the economy, the current unemployment rate is a result of the recession that started in 2008 which is obviously not the fault of Obama. And its not the fault of Bush either if you think I was about to go that route, it was set off by an over-reliance on credit(both by banks, individuals and states) based on far overoptimistic visions of the future. Just like a person who lands a good job may think "Now I can borrow more money to live better now, based on money i'll have in the future" so did governments think "Our economies are growing well, now we can burrow money to spend more today based on where we predict our economy will be in the future" or a bank may say "People and government are spending a lot more, therefore we loan money to companies seeking to start up or expand because we know from individual/gov't consumption and where we predict it will be in the future, that the investment will pay off."
Unfortunately everyone was wrong, the economy was built on credit based on the "faith" that the economy will reach a certain rise by the time those loans come due. Thats what happened to Greece for example, they took loans assuming their economy would be a certain size, and therefore they would be bringing in X amount of revenue, by the time the loans were due unfortunately their economy didn't grow as expected and they've defaulted if it weren't for the bailouts. They may still default.
This recession is a global phenomenon, and has its roots in many more things than US Presidential policy, and its still being experienced the global economy is still correcting itself for the mistakes that millions of people made that contributed to the problem. Sure some contributed more than others, that company that defaults on its multi-million dollar loan to the bank affects the banks health more than an individual defaulting on a 1000 dollar loan, but all contribute. No single person caused this and no single person is going to solve it.
Also don't forget the massive boom in commodity prices in the late 2000s, when crude oil is 30 bucks a barrel in 2005 and you have a 5 year construction plan you may leave yourself some wiggle room in your project in case gas gets more expensive. May if it goes to 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 bucks? Surely preparing for 100 is excessive especially when everyone is building(this is pre-subprime crisis) and we can't hedge our bets so much we gotta use every dime to build more, risk be damned. How about if crude oil shoots to almost 150 bucks in 2008, just three years later. How many companies and projects were crunched by that massive unexpected cost of business increase?
It's also an attempt to educate the public to vote for someone of character and experience rather than fashion or ideology
And it's too bad that the Republican Party has nobody who fits that description.