• 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!

US unemployment lowest in 4 years

rabbitcaebannog;1062144305]Ah, I don't know...perhaps not give them everything they wanted.
Click to expand...

Where is the Olive Branch in those claims? Giving them everything they wanted? Do you understand that allowing people to keep more of what they earn gives a politician their worst nightmare, loss of power.

Government spending that you're addressing has nothing to do with the loss of government jobs. What you are addressing is spending which was in place by appropriations and policies when Obama took office including a huge bail out. Under Obama, we see a sharp downturn in government jobs. That is the point I'm trying to make. We need more jobs in a recession not less. Obama could have bailed out states and allowed them to keep essential jobs instead of focusing on bailing out private institutions.
Click to expand...

Really? How does a govt. employee get paid, state, local, and Federal? You seem to have a very short memory, the bailout was a loan most of which has been paid back. It had nothing to do with public sector jobs for the most part. I asked you is there a sharp downturn in FEDERAL JOBS for that is what Obama controls? What we need are private sector jobs that don't cause debt but rather govt. revenue not public sector jobs created by the govt. What happens when the funding for those govt. created jobs runs out?

Growing capital through financialization is a problem. This capital isn't being used to create jobs, through trade and commodity production in the economy, but rather a pattern of accumulation in which profit making occurs increasingly through financial channels. A particular group who is capitalizing on this economy is the rentier class which make their money off of passive income. We currently see massive amounts of payments to bondholders, laying off of public employees, exacerbating the cycle of unemployment and so people are buying less goods and services and don't pay much in taxes so less revenue comes in. Creditor friendly policies are harming our economy.
Click to expand...

Under this Administration there is no incentive for the private sector to create jobs. It isn't the private sectors role to create jobs but it does create meaningful jobs due to the nature of the private sector, something liberals seem to not understand.

We have massive payments due bond holders that were forfeited when Obama took over GM/Chrysler. Where was your outrage then?

I've not been brainwashed at all. I've looked at both sides of the argument and can clearly see the trend is toward privatizing services and the selling off of public assets. This in turn refines the ability to extract rents which keeps bondholders in complete power/control by making sure they will be paid in full be damn our public interest/goods and assets. And, to answer your final question, GDP is largely depended on consumer spending for goods and services.
Click to expand...

I have seen no evidence that you look at both sides of the issue and yes, the largest component of GDP is consumer spending meaning that when people have more spendable income that creates economic activity. Do you think tax cuts affect spendable income? Here is a perfect example of Obama's accomplishments

President Obama walks into a local bank in Chicago to cash a check. He is surrounded by Secret Service agents. As he approaches the cashier he says, "Good morning Ma'am, could you please cash this check for me?"

Cashier:
"It would be my pleasure sir. Could you please show me your ID?"

Obama:
"Truthfully, I did not bring my ID with me as I didn't think there was any need to. I am President Barack Obama, the President of the United States of AMERICA !!!!"

Cashier:
"Yes sir, I know who you are, but with all the regulations and monitoring of the banks because of 9/11, impostors, forgers, money laundering, and bad mortgage underwriting not to mention requirements of the Dodd/Frank legislation, etc., I must insist on seeing ID."

Obama:
“Just ask anyone here at the bank who I am and they will tell you. Everybody knows who I am."

Cashier:
"I am sorry Mr. President but these are the bank rules and I must follow them."

Obama:
"I am urging you, please, to cash this check. I need to buy a gift for Michelle for Valentine’s Day"

Cashier:
"Look Mr. President, here is an example of what we can do. One day, Tiger Woods came into one of our bank branches without ID. To prove he was Tiger Woods he pulled out his putter and made a beautiful shot across the bank into a coffee cup. With that shot we knew him to be Tiger Woods and cashed his check.”
“Another time, Andre Agassi came into the same place without ID. He pulled out his tennis racquet and made a fabulous shot where as the tennis ball landed in a coffee cup. With that shot we cashed his check.
So, Mr. President, what can you do to prove that it is you, and only you, as the President of the United States?"

Obama:
Obama stands there thinking, and thinking, and finally says, "Honestly, my mind is a total blank...there is nothing that comes to my mind. I can't think of a single thing. I have absolutely no idea what to do and I don’t have a clue.”

Cashier:
"Will that be large or small bills, Mr. President?
Click to expand...
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
You're the one with all the talking points.
Click to expand...

You are right, I get my talking points from verifiable non partisan data at BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury. I also have 35 years of actual business experience in the private sector and actually employed thousands of employees. What is your experience level?
 
Conservative said:
You are right, I get my talking points from verifiable non partisan data at BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury. I also have 35 years of actual business experience in the private sector and actually employed thousands of employees. What is your experience level?
Click to expand...

That is where you distort your talking points from. Remember the cumulative discouraged worker fiasco? The comparing 2012 dollars to 1980 dollars? The comparing inflation adjusted dollars to raw dollars that we all laughed at for weeks? The refusal to understand rations?
 
washunut said:
The reality is that Obama comprised but with Senate Democrats from high cost areas like NY and California not with Republicans. Nice try, but a little honesty on this site would not hurt.
Click to expand...

The idea of compromise to a liberal is picking winners and losers along with redistributing wealth. This Administration doesn't compromise for to compromise would be to actually sit down with the Opposition until something positive is accomplished. Obama sets the tone and that tone has been negative from day one, Stimulus passes with very little GOP Support due to the focus of that stimulus, Obamacare passes with no GOP input or support. Yes, that bodes well for bipartisanship.

Obama should tell Harry Reid to get those bills out of his desk and let the Senate debate them. Obama should call the Congress into session and sit down with the leaders in a locked room and come up with a solution to stimulate and grow the private sector economy that Obama is overseeing.
 
Redress said:
LoLz. Yeah, that is just silly. Making **** up does not impress me.
Click to expand...

It seems honest debate does not impress you. Do you think that the NY Senators would be able to sell to their constituents that making $250K per year makes you a billionaire. Try buying a condo in NYC and get back to us.

The reality is that there was no need to compromise with republicans as the tax cuts were due to expire did not go there because of pushback from his party.

political debate does not have to mean dishonest or ignoring facts. We complain about Washington, but this site shows that there can be no real discussions because people just need to make stuff up fighting for "their side".
 
washunut said:
It seems honest debate does not impress you. Do you think that the NY Senators would be able to sell to their constituents that making $250K per year makes you a billionaire. Try buying a condo in NYC and get back to us.

The reality is that there was no need to compromise with republicans as the tax cuts were due to expire did not go there because of pushback from his party.

political debate does not have to mean dishonest or ignoring facts. We complain about Washington, but this site shows that there can be no real discussions because people just need to make stuff up fighting for "their side".
Click to expand...

Actually there was just such a need because Obama needed republican votes. You can make up claims all you want, but it won't change reality.
 
Conservative said:
The idea of compromise to a liberal is picking winners and losers along with redistributing wealth. This Administration doesn't compromise for to compromise would be to actually sit down with the Opposition until something positive is accomplished. Obama sets the tone and that tone has been negative from day one, Stimulus passes with very little GOP Support due to the focus of that stimulus, Obamacare passes with no GOP input or support. Yes, that bodes well for bipartisanship.

Obama should tell Harry Reid to get those bills out of his desk and let the Senate debate them. Obama should call the Congress into session and sit down with the leaders in a locked room and come up with a solution to stimulate and grow the private sector economy that Obama is overseeing.
Click to expand...

No, the idea of compromise is giving something to get something. Your idea of compromise is getting what you want and to hell with any one else.
 
j-mac said:
You avoided the question....Why are they unavailable?
Click to expand...

can you hire someone who has not applied for a job and is unknown to you that s/he wants or needs a job? No, you can't. Therefore they are not available.

Fred has not looked for a job, including asking family and friends if they knew of anything, since last October. In July, big surprise, he is not hired. There are 2 million people like Fred, none of them get hired. Is this a surprise? Does this tell us anything about getting a job? No.

George was laid off last July, but has steadily looked for a job. In July he is not not hired. Does this tell us about how hard it is to find work? Yes.
 
pinqy said:
can you hire someone who has not applied for a job and is unknown to you that s/he wants or needs a job? No, you can't. Therefore they are not available.

Fred has not looked for a job, including asking family and friends if they knew of anything, since last October. In July, big surprise, he is not hired. There are 2 million people like Fred, none of them get hired. Is this a surprise? Does this tell us anything about getting a job? No.

George was laid off last July, but has steadily looked for a job. In July he is not not hired. Does this tell us about how hard it is to find work? Yes.
Click to expand...

So why is Fred not looking?
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Ah, I don't know...perhaps not give them everything they wanted.

Government spending that you're addressing has nothing to do with the loss of government jobs. What you are addressing is spending which was in place by appropriations and policies when Obama took office including a huge bail out. Under Obama, we see a sharp downturn in government jobs. That is the point I'm trying to make. We need more jobs in a recession not less. Obama could have bailed out states and allowed them to keep essential jobs instead of focusing on bailing out private institutions.

Growing capital through financialization is a problem. This capital isn't being used to create jobs, through trade and commodity production in the economy, but rather a pattern of accumulation in which profit making occurs increasingly through financial channels. A particular group who is capitalizing on this economy is the rentier class which make their money off of passive income. We currently see massive amounts of payments to bondholders, laying off of public employees, exacerbating the cycle of unemployment and so people are buying less goods and services and don't pay much in taxes so less revenue comes in. Creditor friendly policies are harming our economy.

I've not been brainwashed at all. I've looked at both sides of the argument and can clearly see the trend is toward privatizing services and the selling off of public assets. This in turn refines the ability to extract rents which keeps bondholders in complete power/control by making sure they will be paid in full be damn our public interest/goods and assets. And, to answer your final question, GDP is largely depended on consumer spending for goods and services.
Click to expand...

NEITHER, Public or private needed to be bailed out, with maybe the exception of TARP, but not a perpetual influx of cheap and easy money via the Feds printing. It hasn't helped anyone, let alone the investors.

So much has been overlooked, and the fact that Obama and even millions of voters thought that a massive stimulus was the answer just shows how far away we are from a reasonable response to the effects of the Democrat Mandated Sub-Prime Collapse.

A response that would have worked.
 
j-mac said:
So why is Fred not looking?
Click to expand...

Does that make any difference to his chance of getting hired last month? It's zero regardless of his reason.

Now....if we want to look at his likelihood of looking again and/or whether it was personal or his perception of the labor market, that's a different matter, and c a n certainly be done in addition.
 
pinqy said:
Does that make any difference to his chance of getting hired last month? It's zero regardless of his reason.

Now....if we want to look at his likelihood of looking again and/or whether it was personal or his perception of the labor market, that's a different matter, and c a n certainly be done in addition.
Click to expand...

It makes all the difference in the world because it affects the unemployment rate. Discouraged workers aren't counted as unemployed so simply having someone described as not looking for work affects the number of people reported as unemployed and when you have the numbers we have the last two months that is significant. Keep discouraging people to stop looking for work and the unemployment rate will be back to GW Bush average numbers. Bush never had this number of discouraged workers especially four years after the end of the recession he inherited
 
pinqy said:
Does that make any difference to his chance of getting hired last month? It's zero regardless of his reason.

Now....if we want to look at his likelihood of looking again and/or whether it was personal or his perception of the labor market, that's a different matter, and c a n certainly be done in addition.
Click to expand...

Do these numbers bother you or anyone else at all? Please notice the numbers during the Bush term and the numbers for 2009 compared to today. Maybe this will turn on the lightbulb as to what is happening under this President but probably not to the ideologues who support him.


Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNU05026645
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Job desires/not in labor force: Want a job now
Reasons not in labor force: Discouragement over job prospects (Persons who believe no job is available.)
Years: 2002 to 2012

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2002 328 375 330 320 414 342 405 378 392 359 385 403
2003 449 450 474 437 482 478 470 503 388 462 457 433
2004 432 484 514 492 476 478 504 534 412 429 392 442
2005 515 485 480 393 392 476 499 384 362 392 404 451
2006 396 386 451 381 323 481 428 448 325 331 349 274
2007 442 375 381 399 368 401 367 392 276 320 349 363
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318
2011 993 1020 921 989 822 982 1119 977 1037 967 1096 945
2012 1059 1006 865 968 830 821 852 844 802 813 979 1068
2013 804 885 803 835 780 1027 988
Click to expand...
 
Earlier I wrote, "Can you show us with actual numbers?

When did the massive job loss occur. Wasn't it the month the Marxist was elected? Can we say yes it was?"

phattonez said:
If you're blaming only Obamacare you're being foolish. Of course it has contributed, but so has the other garbage regulation that's been put into effect. So has the massively destabilizing force of the Fed's monetary policy. You can't build capital with easy money.
Click to expand...

Interestingly I did not mention the monstrosity known as ObamaCare. Despite my difficulty in understanding your point I suspect we agree. We are over regulated and over taxed.
 
Last edited:
Misterveritis said:
Earlier I wrote, "Can you show us with actual numbers?

When did the massive job loss occur. Wasn't it the month the Marxist was elected? Can we say yes it was?"



Interestingly I did not mention the monstrosity known as ObamaCare. Despite my difficulty in understanding you point I suspect we agree. We are over regulated and over taxed.
Click to expand...

More numbers to support your position, numbers that the liberals don't want to review. You see, they want badly to believe there were hundreds of thousands of job losses during the entirety of the Bush Administration and ignore the affect of Obamanomics on our economy and job creation. Very interesting information from BLS showing unemployed and discouraged workers.

Wasn't that Stimulus program that passed and was signed in February 2009 a huge success? Is it any wonder actual data confuses liberals because it conflicts with their feelings.

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 2000 to 2010
Unemployed
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7059 7185 7075 7122 6977 6998 7154 7097 6853 6728 6883 6784
2007 7085 6898 6725 6845 6765 6966 7113 7096 7200 7273 7284 7696
2008 7678 7491 7816 7631 8395 8578 8950 9450 9501 10083 10544 11299
2009 12049 12860 13389 13796 14505 14727 14646 14861 15012 15421 15227 15124
2010 14953 15039 15128 15221 14876 14517 14609 14735 14574 14636 15104 14393
2011 13919 13751 13628 13792 13892 14024 13908 13920 13897 13759 13323 13097
2012 12748 12806 12686 12518 12695 12701 12745 12483 12082 12248 12042 12206
2013 12332 12032 11742 11659 11760 11777 11514

Discouraged workers
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318
2011 993 1020 921 989 822 982 1119 977 1037 967 1096 945
2012 1059 1006 865 968 830 821 852 844 802 813 979 1068
2013 804 885 803 835 780 1027 988

Unemployed + Discouraged
2008 8145 7887 8217 8043 8795 8998 9411 9831 9968 10567 11152 11941
2009 12783 13591 14074 14536 15297 15520 15442 15619 15718 16229 16088 16053
2010 16018 16243 16122 16418 15959 15724 15794 15845 15783 15855 16386 15711
2011 14912 14771 14549 14781 14714 15006 15027 14897 14934 14726 14419 14042
2012 13807 13812 13551 13486 13525 13522 13597 13327 12884 13061 13021 13274
2013 13136 12917 12545 12577 12540 12804 12502 0 0 0 0 0
Click to expand...
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
And, what agenda is that exactly? Those numbers aren't looking so good so er, uh, hat someone who doesn't like Obama? I already mentioned most of the job recovery was in low wage jobs so I've no idea what your point is for correcting me.
Click to expand...
Forget the agenda. Focus on your simple mistake.

How many jobs would have to be lost out of the total of 155 million jobs for your number to be correct? 40 million?

How many were actually lost?
 
Last edited:
Talking point #1- “Do you understand that allowing people to keep more of what they earn gives a politician their worst nightmare, loss of power.” Yawn

To answer you second question, state and local government get paid by residents of state or local community. During the recession, many people in many states were largely effected by the economic downturn and therefore, and many states and/or localities lost revenue. Obama did step up to the plate and lend some federal funds to ailing states and municipalities, however, strings were attached. For instance, I could debate that his educational mandates have helped to hurt many school systems and now he has pulled away funds from schools that are now left with pricey mandates and many a community is still trying to recover from the recession. Hence, many school systems are hurting. But, school systems are not the only municipal service that is suffering in many cities and towns across the US. And, to your point, the bailout didn’t have much to do with recovering those jobs which is a travesty in itself. Too address your other point, any job (public or private) allows revenue per taxes.
You stated, “It isn’t the private sector’s role to create jobs.” Then are you saying it is the government’s job? Really?
Also, it doesn’t look like you understood my point about bondholders looking at your off topic talking point. Come back when you want to discuss my point.
Tax cuts can accomplish consumer spending activity. What exactly was an example of Obama’s accomplishment? That he did provide them? I agree he did.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Here are charts comparing Reagan, Bush H.W, Clinton, Bush W, and Obama for both private jobs and government jobs.

Calculated Risk: Public and Private Sector Payroll Jobs: Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama

Calculated Risk: Public and Private Sector Payroll Jobs: Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama
Click to expand...
Do you have difficulty answering the questions?

You said, "Private industry jobs started dying off before Obama took office so you can't blame it entirely on Obamacare."

I asked for you to show the numbers. I did not ask for a google search. On the other hand I did give you some numbers and you called them garbage.
 
Fenton said:
NEITHER, Public or private needed to be bailed out, with maybe the exception of TARP, but not a perpetual influx of cheap and easy money via the Feds printing. It hasn't helped anyone, let alone the investors.

So much has been overlooked, and the fact that Obama and even millions of voters thought that a massive stimulus was the answer just shows how far away we are from a reasonable response to the effects of the Democrat Mandated Sub-Prime Collapse.

A response that would have worked.
Click to expand...

Really no bail out was needed? Then what would you have suggested? I'm curious.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Talking point #1- “Do you understand that allowing people to keep more of what they earn gives a politician their worst nightmare, loss of power.” Yawn

To answer you second question, state and local government get paid by residents of state or local community. During the recession, many people in many states were largely effected by the economic downturn and therefore, and many states and/or localities lost revenue. Obama did step up to the plate and lend some federal funds to ailing states and municipalities, however, strings were attached. For instance, I could debate that his educational mandates have helped to hurt many school systems and now he has pulled away funds from schools that are now left with pricey mandates and many a community is still trying to recover from the recession. Hence, many school systems are hurting. But, school systems are not the only municipal service that is suffering in many cities and towns across the US. And, to your point, the bailout didn’t have much to do with recovering those jobs which is a travesty in itself. Too address your other point, any job (public or private) allows revenue per taxes.
You stated, “It isn’t the private sector’s role to create jobs.” Then are you saying it is the government’s job? Really?
Also, it doesn’t look like you understood my point about bondholders looking at your off topic talking point. Come back when you want to discuss my point.
Tax cuts can accomplish consumer spending activity. What exactly was an example of Obama’s accomplishment? That he did provide them? I agree he did.
Click to expand...

Lent money? do you understand the term? He lent nothing he bailed out union contracts with stimulus dollars that were designed to create shovel ready jobs. Then of course he admitted there was no such thing as shovel ready jobs so the entire stimulus was a scam and did nothing but solidify his base.

Obama: "No Such Thing as Shovel-Ready Projects" - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

You are the one having problems understanding, it isn't the role of the private sector to create jobs but it is something that economic activity forces them to do. It is the government's job to create policies that don't get in the way and all Obama policies have gotten in the way. Why would any business person invest their own money today to create jobs under this Administration?

Your point about bondholders ignores what happened to GM/Chrysler bondholders when GM/Chrysler were taken over by Obama. Today the American taxpayer is on the hook for billions due to that takeover and yet no outrage.

Tell me what you do with more spendable income and the effects that has on the economy? As for jobs public or private sector, yes, both provide revenue but one is offset by the debt service because the govt. doesn't have the money. Which one, private or public?

I asked you specifically what Obama did to promote the private sector and you offered nothing. He has accomplished nothing in that area and that is where the jobs are going to be created. Higher taxes, Obamacare, other regulations don't promote private sector growth or spending.
 
Misterveritis said:
Do you have difficulty answering the questions?

You said, "Private industry jobs started dying off before Obama took office so you can't blame it entirely on Obamacare."

I asked for you to show the numbers. I did not ask for a google search. On the other hand I did give you some numbers and you called them garbage.
Click to expand...

I looked back to see if I missed a post, and no I didn't. The only numbers you gave me: "The highest unemployment rate during President Bush’s entire eight years in office was his last month at 7.8%, compared to President Obama’s low of 7.6%. Of course it really helps to have the state-run media on your side." which doesn't address private sector jobs (which was the topic). I gave you charts that showed public sector jobs vs. public. If you don't like my charts, perhaps, you don't like the facts.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Talking point #1- “Do you understand that allowing people to keep more of what they earn gives a politician their worst nightmare, loss of power.” Yawn
Click to expand...
You should have just said you did not understand.

To answer you second question, state and local government get paid by residents of state or local community. During the recession, many people in many states were largely effected by the economic downturn and therefore, and many states and/or localities lost revenue. Obama did step up to the plate and lend some federal funds to ailing states and municipalities, however, strings were attached.
Click to expand...
He bailed out public sector unions long enough to get reelected. This was not a loan. It was the theft of property from those who created it to give to those who consumed it. And it did exactly what the Marxist wanted. It provided him support from "Paul" at the expense of "Peter" who has the good sense not to vote for a Marxist in the first place. It also dried up capital. Radical Karl wanted only the state to have the capital. Radical Barrack saw to it.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
I looked back to see if I missed a post, and no I didn't. The only numbers you gave me: "The highest unemployment rate during President Bush’s entire eight years in office was his last month at 7.8%, compared to President Obama’s low of 7.6%. Of course it really helps to have the state-run media on your side." which doesn't address private sector jobs (which was the topic). I gave you charts that showed public sector jobs vs. public. If you don't like my charts, perhaps, you don't like the facts.
Click to expand...
I summarized for your benefit. You gave me a data dump. Maybe you just don't know how to play well with others. You made the claim that jobs were dying long before Obama. I showed you that Bush had one month with a high unemployment rate. And Obama's entire regime has been nothing but high unemployment.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Really no bail out was needed? Then what would you have suggested? I'm curious.
Click to expand...

No, no bailout was needed and I faulted Bush for this. In a private sector economy businesses fail and other businesses buy them out and succeed. Not all banks wanted TARP. I was against the bailout then and am against it anytime now. The problem with liberalism is that there are no consequences for poor choices and failure as bailouts reward bad behavior. Nothing has changed after the bailout. Many banks didn't even want the bailout but were forced to take it under govt. threats. Bush was wrong as was Paulson.
 
Misterveritis said:
Forget the agenda. Focus on your simple mistake.

How many jobs would have to be lost out of the total of 155 million jobs for your number to be correct? 40 million?

How many were actually lost?
Click to expand...

This has absolutely nothing at all to do with the chart I showed you. Are you having a private debate with yourself or do you have me mixed up with someone else?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom