• 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 Falls to 7.8%; 114,000 Jobs Added

cpwill said:
Obama figured he had "checked the economy box" and could now move on to other things while it naturally righted itself. Forgetting, apparently, that taking mass amounts of resources and moving them from more productive allocations to less productive allocations reduces net productivity. woops.
Click to expand...

How are you defining productivity? It sounds as though you define it as any action the private sector partakes in, where as any action the government involves itself in is inefficiency. Personally, it sounds like a preconceived notion based entirely on ideology. I will be the first to admit that there are many actions the private sector is more efficient at. The first and most obvious is the ability to maximize profit. In a society such as our own, the entrepreneurial spirit is driven by a persons ability to capitalize on an idea that leads to a successful business plan. However, efficiency of industry is predicated upon competition.

Some aspects of life are incompatible with competition, such as national defense, emergency and police services, maintenance of strategic infrastructure, consumer protections, poverty reduction, etc....

Now there are means of improving efficiency throughout all aspects of both the public and private sector; but to believe that the only path is via profit seeking enterprise is to contradict reality.
 
cpwill said:
Given that growth is sputtering at barely above 1%, whereas the post-war average for growth in a recovery is about 5 hundred times that amount, yes, it does indeed speak for itself.




Obama has done a worse job than every other president in the post-war era:



2_1_2-cumulative-loss-OPT.jpg


and so on and so forth ad nauseum. :( there is good reason for why people still think we are in a recession.
Click to expand...
Interesting ... look at the years when each of those recessions began ... 1981, 1990, 2001, and 2007.

1981 - Reagan (R)
1990 - Bush (R)
2001 - Bush (R)
2007 - Bush (R)

You may complain that Obama isn't cleaning up Bush's mess fast enough but I think the bigger complaint is that Republicans keep ****ing up the economy.
 
Harshaw said:
Yes, they're economic idiots, and we see the result.

The only thing defenders can say is "he stopped the Second Great Depression!!!!!!!"

Well, you can't prove that, and THEIR OWN CHART says differently anyway. They charted unemployment to bottom out around 8.1% and right itself within a few years. So THEY didn't even think they were stopping Great Depression II.
Click to expand...

Okay, you seem rather cocky. Tell me, do you think the economy would have been better off with a steep decline in aggregate demand? Furthermore, Obama clearly underestimated the potential damage. What your error appears to be is that you are considering a financial recession coupled with severe individual and corporate deleveraging to be the same as a simple run of the mill recession and therefore recoveries should be identical despite the historical data showing that financial recessions tend with a few outliers to have long recoveries. And this one is particularly bad because there isn't anyone who can bailout the regions affected by increasing exports like how Europe and the US did for the Asian Tigers. We cannot simply just devalue our currency, and then pick up exports like the S. Koreans did. The rest of the world is still feeling the effects.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Interesting ... look at the years when each of those recessions began ... 1981, 1990, 2001, and 2007.

1981 - Reagan (R)
1990 - Bush (R)
2001 - Bush (R)
2007 - Bush (R)

You may complain that Obama isn't cleaning up Bush's mess fast enough but I think the bigger complaint is that Republicans keep ****ing up the economy.
Click to expand...

****ing up the economy? Recessions seem to work out pretty well for the job creators
 
obvious Child said:
Okay, you seem rather cocky. Tell me, do you think the economy would have been better off with a steep decline in aggregate demand? Furthermore, Obama clearly underestimated the potential damage. What your error appears to be is that you are considering a financial recession coupled with severe individual and corporate deleveraging to be the same as a simple run of the mill recession and therefore recoveries should be identical despite the historical data showing that financial recessions tend with a few outliers to have long recoveries. And this one is particularly bad because there isn't anyone who can bailout the regions affected by increasing exports like how Europe and the US did for the Asian Tigers. We cannot simply just devalue our currency, and then pick up exports like the S. Koreans did. The rest of the world is still feeling the effects.
Click to expand...

Guess who missed the entire point of my post (which was the culmination of several)? You.
 
Harshaw said:
Guess who missed the entire point of my post (which was the culmination of several)? You.
Click to expand...

Guess who missed the entire past 5 years of economic history (not to mention the last 50) and wants to pretend that his version of what happened is reality? You.

I get that your ilk really don't want to actually apply actual economic history and knowledge to the circumstances. You want to bash Obama. And you want to ignore everything that gets in your way. Including the fact that The GOP openly admitted they were going to block everything. I know that if a Republican was in office now and the Democrats did just what the GOP did, you'd be calling them traitors.

And I get you don't have the maturity or the education to actually understand the topic.
 
cpwill said:
Given that growth is sputtering at barely above 1%, whereas the post-war average for growth in a recovery is about 5 hundred times that amount, yes, it does indeed speak for itself
Click to expand...

C'mon dude. I know you know it's dishonest to compare a period of relative stability to a period of near epic financial collapse coupled with years of deleveraging.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Interesting ... look at the years when each of those recessions began ... 1981, 1990, 2001, and 2007.

1981 - Reagan (R)
1990 - Bush (R)
2001 - Bush (R)
2007 - Bush (R)

You may complain that Obama isn't cleaning up Bush's mess fast enough but I think the bigger complaint is that Republicans keep ****ing up the economy.
Click to expand...
Sheik, 2 of the 4 years you cited are years when Republicans just took over for a Dem. Those years being 1981 and 2001. Both parties screw up the economy. It's not ALL any President's fault when the economy is bad. It's Congress as well as a lot of other people.
 
obvious Child said:
Guess who missed the entire past 5 years of economic history (not to mention the last 50) and wants to pretend that his version of what happened is reality? You.

I get that your ilk really don't want to actually apply actual economic history and knowledge to the circumstances. You want to bash Obama. And you want to ignore everything that gets in your way. Including the fact that The GOP openly admitted they were going to block everything. I know that if a Republican was in office now and the Democrats did just what the GOP did, you'd be calling them traitors.

And I get you don't have the maturity or the education to actually understand the topic.
Click to expand...

:roll:

I know you feel better and all superior and everything for having typed this word salad, but it doesn't change that you missed my point entirely. This is not my problem. Nor is anything further you'd like to type until you actually grasp what I said. But I suspect the sublime arrogance with which you typically approach these things will prevent you from going back and figuring it out.

Either way, I'm of no mood to deal with your usual spittle-flecked diatribes. Dixi.
 
Harshaw said:
:roll:

I know you feel better and all superior and everything for having typed this word salad, but it doesn't change that you missed my point entirely. This is not my problem. Nor is anything further you'd like to type until you actually grasp what I said. But I suspect the sublime arrogance with which you typically approach these things will prevent you from going back and figuring it out.

Either way, I'm of no mood to deal with your usual spittle-flecked diatribes. Dixi.
Click to expand...

On the off chance this is the first time you've ever showed any critical thinking capabilities, I'm going to once again say you're wrong. Not once here have you ever displayed the capacity to analyze and critically think about economic conditions. I apologize if this is the first time you have done so in 7 years. It's find the sound bite, attack the Democrat.

And you know full well that I'm right. If the Democrats did what the GOP did to a Republican President, you'd call them traitors.

But I can't hold that too much against you. Very few people here are actually capable of doing economic critical analysis.
 
obvious Child said:
On the off chance this is the first time you've ever showed any critical thinking capabilities, I'm going to once again say you're wrong. Not once here have you ever displayed the capacity to analyze and critically think about economic conditions. I apologize if this is the first time you have done so in 7 years. It's find the sound bite, attack the Democrat.

And you know full well that I'm right. If the Democrats did what the GOP did to a Republican President, you'd call them traitors.

But I can't hold that too much against you. Very few people here are actually capable of doing economic critical analysis.
Click to expand...

Yeah, oC. You don't even know what I said, and you admit it here, but you still say it's wrong. You're not even bothering to figure it out, either, which says that the bluster is more important to you than any kind of intellectual integrity.

This is why one needn't bother with you. Keep buzzing, gadfly. I have no use for you.
 
The rate of unemployment when Obama took office was 7.8% and now it is claimed to have dropped to 7.8%, right where he started.

This is probably not the Hope those who voted for him had and there doesn't seem to be any Change, apart from the added trillions of dollars in debt.
 
Grant said:
The rate of unemployment when Obama took office was 7.8% and now it is claimed to have dropped to 7.8%, right where he started.

This is probably not the Hope those who voted for him had and there doesn't seem to be any Change, apart from the added trillions of dollars in debt.
Click to expand...

He/the policies that he implemented, did save us from the economic collapses that we were were on the verge of at that time.:2wave:
 
treedancer said:
He/the policies that he implemented, did save us from the economic collapses that we were were on the verge of at that time.:2wave:
Click to expand...

Prove that if he had not done what he did, we would have collapsed. With empirical data.
 
Arbo said:
Prove that if he had not done what he did, we would have collapsed. With empirical data.
Click to expand...

I think AIG was the only company throughout all that which would have possibly destabilized our entire economy if it had failed due to so many different insurances in the US flowing back through them, but that was done under Bush. The rest of them could have collapsed and been broken apart in bankruptcy without much effect beyond on their stockholders/employees.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Sheik, 2 of the 4 years you cited are years when Republicans just took over for a Dem. Those years being 1981 and 2001. Both parties screw up the economy. It's not ALL any President's fault when the economy is bad. It's Congress as well as a lot of other people.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why people credit or blame the President at all when it comes to the economy.

There is very little they can do either way and I think that has been shown pretty clearly.
 
Donahue said:
I don't understand why people credit or blame the President at all when it comes to the economy.

There is very little they can do either way and I think that has been shown pretty clearly.
Click to expand...

Personally, I believe it's the President's themselves. They make promises that there is no way they can keep just to get elected. The sad part is, we demand those promises to vote for them. It's kind of the chicken and the egg dilemma.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Personally, I believe it's the President's themselves. They make promises that there is no way they can keep just to get elected. The sad part is, we demand those promises to vote for them. It's kind of the chicken and the egg dilemma.
Click to expand...

Sure but can't reasonably intelligent adults take a look at those promises and decide what is actually possible?
 
Donahue said:
Sure but can't reasonably intelligent adults take a look at those promises and decide what is actually possible?
Click to expand...

If reasonably intelligent adults are the only people you can get to vote for you, then you lose the election.
 
Donahue said:
Sure but can't reasonably intelligent adults take a look at those promises and decide what is actually possible?
Click to expand...

Dittohead not! said:
If reasonably intelligent adults are the only people you can get to vote for you, then you lose the election.
Click to expand...

Concur. Well said. As we like to say in the Marine Corps by putting a spin on the famous Admiral Chester Nimitz quote: Common Sense is not a Common Virtue.
 
Does this account for all the people who have dropped off the roles altogether because they have run out of their unemployment benefits or the people who have resorted to taking work below their skill and pay levels or only part-time work? Hmmm. I wonder what THAT number must look like.
 
ChrisL said:
Does this account for all the people who have dropped off the roles altogether because they have run out of their unemployment benefits or the people who have resorted to taking work below their skill and pay levels or only part-time work? Hmmm. I wonder what THAT number must look like.
Click to expand...

That would be referred to as U-6.
 
Kushinator said:
That would be referred to as U-6.
Click to expand...

Seasonally adjusted to be 14.7%? That's quite high. All we can hope is that it is going to make slow but steady improvement. I'm very thankful that I still have my job.
 
Dittohead not! said:
So, that one is still too high, but has dropped a percentage point from June '11 to June '12. That's marginally good news, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Or, 1.7% from September '11 to September '12.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom