• 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. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll give President Obama credit for the unemployment numbers as soon as

A) People on the left give President Bush credit for keeping the U.S. safe from large scale terrorist attacks for the last 14 years.

B) People on the left give President Bush credit for the solid economic performance of the U.S. for the first six years of his administration.

1. Bush hasn't been President for 14 years.
2. The two issues are unrelated.
3. Bush pissed away a surplus budget with Cheney's use of voodoo economics.
4. You fail to mention the 4,500 dead American soldiers from a LIE and the tens of thousands more in our VA system unplanned for by Rumsfeld.

5. At least you admit the true nature of the GOP poster with false-equivalency .
 
1. Bush hasn't been President for 14 years.
2. The two issues are unrelated.
3. Bush pissed away a surplus budget with Cheney's use of voodoo economics.
4. You fail to mention the 4,500 dead American soldiers from a LIE and the tens of thousands more in our VA system unplanned for by Rumsfeld.

5. At least you admit the true nature of the GOP poster with false-equivalency .

1) What are you talking about? Bush was president less than 7 years ago.

2) The principle is the same.
3) The Clinton "surplus" was completely unsustainable and was based on impossible assumptions about the future.
4) the Bush Admin. lied about nothing. Virtually everyone in the western intelligence community thought Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons available.
5) Only to you.
 
So far all I'm seeing as far as to why Obama should get any credit is "he isn't a Republican".

Then you would prefer to be where we were six years ago.
When Republicans were blaming Obama for losing 2.2 million jobs his first three months--you know, as soon as he stepped in.
All the way to Obama's peak of 10.4%---but as for the last 60+ months, just deflection from our GOP friends unless Romney would have been POTUS .
 
Yup, pretty much. The job of the POTUS isn't to create private sector jobs. The POTUS can't create private sector jobs.

Yet you and other GOP posters keep asking for what you just said he can't do.
GOPs are certainly first in line to bash economic news with their TPs no matter what the news.

While GOP posters also continue to damn the POTUS on every other front, even when they agree with him, such as on TPP .
 
1) What are you talking about? Bush was president less than 7 years ago.

You were the one who gave Bush credit for no large-scale terrorist attacks in the last 14 years.
Overlap in administrations is fine when it suits posters .
 
Similar to the policies that got him a Nobel Peace Prize perhaps.......

Which was entirely Obama's fault.
As Obama should have turned it down and disrespected the entire World, as Bush/Cheney routinely did .
 
The same applies to you as well.

Who started the bartering for giving credit to Presidents, Dayton3?
At least you were honest enough to admit that's what GOP posters do, though I'm not sure you meant to.

Kind of like McConnell taking credit for the most jobs in a year, 2014, than in 15 years--with Americans knowing who'd be coming to power--the GOP.
Why would McConnell take credit for something you GOP posters continue to slam and damn ?
 
That depends on who you ask.

Government can create private jobs via stimulus programs. E.g. dedicate $10 billion to infrastructure jobs, then hire private firms to build roads.

It is the job of government to do this during a recession, since the failure to do so can deepen the recession. And of course, when we need the work to be done.

IKE created private sector jobs with his Interstate Highway System that continue to be enduring--but he was a GOP so he gets credit.

Yet we are now in danger of not getting another Infrastructure Bill since the GOP is in charge of the Senate and House.
That would be Obama's fault.
As would the ensuing jobs lost due to it .
 
A rarely used one it seems.

The current GOP with its AAN versus the Freedom Caucus split is lost without the master of false-equivalency, Eric Cantor .
 
Most of the stimulus dollars were gone before 2013.
Proof?
They aren't creating private sector jobs today and haven't created any measurable number of private sector jobs for a few years.
Proof?
That isn't contributing to the recent drop in unemployment numbers,
Once again, no proof from the one who demands proof from lefties.
and as Obama found so amusing,
which he didn't so you've moved on to the blatant lie level.
those shovel ready jobs weren't as shovel ready as he assumed.
Have you seen the pictures of GOP politicians digging in their shovels?
The projects that stimulus funded are mostly all over.
Again, no proof as our economy has moved on--try to catch up.
In 2010 I couldn't drive on a road here in NH without seeing a stimulus sign. Those jobs are long completed.
Repetitious and without proof--GOPs only care about NH every 4 years--how's that Christie doing defending a fellow cheater Brady?
Keep in mind too that not all of the $800+ billion didn't do to projects.
Especially those used by governors like Perry of Texas to balance his budget.
Tell me those dollars didn't create private sector jobs--and prove it .
 
I think the Republicans who control Congress are responsible for the unemployment rate drop.
McConnell feels the same way.
Saying the GOPs in the Senate are responsible for 2014 being the best year in job growth in the last 15 years--since the last DEM President.

Since people knew they were voting Mitch in--grandfathering his claim of responsibility.
Why would McConnell be so giddy about Obama's economy when you GOP posters are damning it so ?
 
only 192,000 more people were employed AND March was revised downwards to just 34,000!?!

Wrong. Employment went up by 223K in April. The number for March was indeed revised, but to 85K, not 34K.

The 192K figure is from the Household survey, which is used to measure unemployment; the Establishment survey, with its increase of 223K, measures employment.

Doesn't this dialogue strike you as familiar? A year ago, as I recall, you didn't know that there are two surveys. Then when you were provided with that information, you started selecting whichever numbers placed the labour market in the worst light. I'm not sure if yer still doing that, or if yer just confused.

Here's a response you offered to pingy back then:

The BLS is a joke. … They claim on one hand that 288,000 jobs were created...and then on the other that 73,000 jobs were lost.

Please keep your (supposed) ex-bureaucratic, trained minion opinions to yourself (as far as telling me is concerned)...I have no interest in them until you open your mind. You only pop your head up around here to spew forth your bureaucratic Mumbo jumbo to (I assume) pad your own ego. 'Oh look, a commoner who I can make look silly by showing them my vast knowledge of government trained-minion double-speak and technical blather...how fun.'

One thing is obvious: you continue to have a greatly exaggerated opinion of yer ability to interpret this data.
 
None of that explains why the unemployment rate is dropping today.

Can you please post a link that shows what policies Obama has implemented that have lowered the unemployment rate over the time of his Presidency?

By the way, you should read the first link a little more carefully. "Savings jobs" doesn't lower the unemployment rate. Savings jobs prevents the unemployment rate from increasing.

His proof is enduring.
Your obtuseness is also enduring.
There's nothing he can show you at this point you will accept.
See you on a similar type thread next month with the rest of you GOP economy deniers .
 
the 16-19 AND the 25-54 age ranges (the latter the backbone of the economy) both had less people employed in April.

Why not tell people how many … fewer … 25 to 54? (Because human beings are discrete units, you should use fewer, rather than less, to describe them.) Do you know how many fewer? Nineteen thousand, from 96,501,000 to 95,482,000 — a drop of less than two one-hundredths of one percent.

What has the trend for this group been over the past year? Not too bad:

employed_25_to_54_2014_2015.jpg

>>there were 252,000 less Americans employed full time in April.

Hey, ya got one right. But again, the trend over the past year or so is fairly acceptable:

emp_ft_2014_2015.jpg

>>since January, there are only 61,000 more Americans employed full time

True. But over the past two years, 4.8 million more Americans have become employed full-time. You may have noticed that there was a slowdown in the economy over the winter. And the dollar has been climbing, which hurts hiring in export-sensitive industries. And of course there is yer touching concern for those being laid off in the energy sector.

>>192,000 more who are part time.

Correct. And many of those 192K are happy to have a job. And some of them would like to work full-time. Did you bother to look into that?

The number employed PT for economic reasons, i.e., wanted to work FT but didn't get the hours, FELL by 230K.

>>since January, there are less people employed in the important 35-54 age group

I'm guessing this cohort follows the pattern found in the others discussed already — a slowdown in the past three months, and a generally acceptable trend over the past, say, five years.

>>(as usual since the 'recovery' began' - the over 55's get FAR AND AWAY most of the new employed).

Over the past five years, employment among those age fifty-five and older has grown from 27.8 million to 33.4 million, an increase of 5.6 million. During that same period, total employment has gone from 139.3 million to 148.5 million, an increase of 9.2 million. So 61% of the expansion has been in the 55+ group. Is that "FAR AND AWAY most"? I'd probably go with just "most."

Let's consider why this has occurred. I admit it doesn't sound too good. I'm 58 and I'd like to retire before too long. (Sadly, I'll probably need to work for another fifteen years. :( ) There's a term ya hear thrown around a lot — the aging baby boomer population. Could it be that that group is one growing in numbers at a rate that would explain why so many of them are employed?

Over the past five years, the civilian labor force has grown from 154.6 million to 157.1 million, an increase of 2.5 million, or 1.6%. During that same period, the 55+ segment of that number has grown from 29.9 million to 34.8 million, an increase of 4.9 million, or 16.4 percent. In other words, the pool of potential workers aged 55 and older has grown TEN TIMES FASTER than the civilian labor force as a whole.

I'm gonna guess that the mistake you've made is in using the language we often use in these discussions — jobs created. It's better to just call it "employment." A whole lot of people have moved into the 55+ group over the past five years, and a lot of them were working five years ago and are still working now.

I would politely suggest that the way to avoid mistakes like this is to STAY AWAY from sites like ZeroHedge. All they do is lie, lie, lie, 24/7/365.

>>Always look past the headlines.

Always remember that US labor market data is highly complex. I've been studying it for forty years and getting paid to put together data on it for the BLS for the past ten. I'd say I know a little bit about it. I'm sure pinqy knows more. It pays to be humble — ya learn more that way.
 
Last edited:
You know,

I had to double check the record, but my memory was right - for the entire 8 years of the Bush presidency the GOP completely controlled both branches of government, including both the house & senate. There was majority control of both chambers for 6 out of 8 of those years, and a two year period where the house was in majority GOP control and the senate floor was evenly split - but the senate still stayed in GOP control due the the GOP VP tie-breaking vote.

Source: Composition of Congress, by Political Party, 1855–2017

To blame the Bush recession on a minority party seems ... a bit of ... a reach.

So now the GOP recession is due to (as you state) their having 'a liberal mindset'?

You gotta' be kidding!

yes the senate was split and chris dodd and barney frank sat on two important boards that prevented any kind of banking change from getting through committee.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...ngerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fiasco/

Dodd was in Charge of the Senate banking committee and Frank was in charge of the house finance committee neither one would allow any reform to Freddie or fannie through
their committee's.

Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - US News

when that minority party refuses to act and keep their head in the sand then yes they are to blame.
a large part do to the campaign contributions that democrats were getting from Freddie and fannie.

Chris dodd was the top donor from Freddie an fannie
barney frank was 16th.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.): “Through nearly a dozen hearings, where frankly we are trying to fix something that wasn’t broke, Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and in particular at Fannie Mae under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines.”

Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.): “The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios.”

Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.): “I, just briefly will say, Mr. Chairman, obviously, like most of us here, this is one of the great success stories of all time.”

Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): “And my worry is that we’re using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie’s mission.”

Franklin Raines, former head of Fannie Mae: “These assets are so riskless that their capital for holding them should be under 2%.
LOL yet they were leveraged 40:1.

the only one kidding here is you and your history revisionism which fails.
 
Which was entirely Obama's fault.
As Obama should have turned it down and disrespected the entire World, as Bush/Cheney routinely did .

yes he should have turned it down just as al gore should have turned it down. if you don't deserve a reward then the respectable thing to do is to turn it down.
I wouldn't accept a reward that I did nothing to accomplish.
 
yes the senate was split and chris dodd and barney frank sat on two important boards that prevented any kind of banking change from getting through committee.
Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco - The Boston Globe

Dodd was in Charge of the Senate banking committee and Frank was in charge of the house finance committee neither one would allow any reform to Freddie or fannie through
their committee's.

Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - US News

when that minority party refuses to act and keep their head in the sand then yes they are to blame.
a large part do to the campaign contributions that democrats were getting from Freddie and fannie.

Chris dodd was the top donor from Freddie an fannie
barney frank was 16th.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.): “Through nearly a dozen hearings, where frankly we are trying to fix something that wasn’t broke, Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and in particular at Fannie Mae under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines.”

Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.): “The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios.”

Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.): “I, just briefly will say, Mr. Chairman, obviously, like most of us here, this is one of the great success stories of all time.”

Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): “And my worry is that we’re using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie’s mission.”

Franklin Raines, former head of Fannie Mae: “These assets are so riskless that their capital for holding them should be under 2%.
LOL yet they were leveraged 40:1.

the only one kidding here is you and your history revisionism which fails.
Alright ludin, fair enough.

You've supplied supporting info & links to your argument, some of which I was not aware - thank you.

But I still don't see how this absolves the Bush Administration & the GOP controlled government of responsibility. They had complete control of the government for nearly 8 years leading-up to the '08 fiasco, during which they could pass (or veto) any legislation they so chose. They signed-off on this.

Perhaps a case could be made for Dem complicity (you've done a good job), but the guys in control were in-charge & this is the way they chose to run their government (whether through action, or inaction).

You're attempting to build a case where the boss abrogates responsibility for signing-off on an employee's bad idea.
 
Last edited:
You've supplied supporting info & links to your argument, some of which I was not aware - thank you.… Perhaps a case could be made for Dem complicity (you've done a good job)

Yer being too generous, imo. That "supporting evidence" is largely a series of quotes that have no context, collected from right-wing sites like this.

What are these "two important boards that prevented any kind of banking change from getting through committee"?

He says "when that minority party refuses to act and keep their head in the sand then yes they are to blame." As you've asked, what about the majority, ya know, the people who control what gets voted on? And who was in the White House while this crisis developed?

Here's a press release from a member of the Financial Services Committee (yes, their hero, the distinguished Rep from LA, Ms. Waters) in which Mr. Frank reviews the history surrounding this matter.
 
Alright ludin, fair enough.

You've supplied supporting info & links to your argument, some of which I was not aware - thank you.

But I still don't see how this absolves the Bush Administration & the GOP controlled government of responsibility. They had complete control of the government for nearly 8 years leading-up to the '08 fiasco, during which they could pass (or veto) any legislation they so chose. They signed-off on this.

Perhaps a case could be made for Dem complicity (you've done a good job), but the guys in control were in-charge & this is the way they chose to run their government (whether through action, or inaction).

You're attempting to build a case where the boss abrogates responsibility for signing-off on an employee's bad idea.

The 2005 Senate bill sb190 ( GSE Regularory reform ) was passed through the Senate Banking committee on a party vote. So all Democrats on the Committee voted against it and Chris Dodd threatened to Filibuster it if it ever got down to the Senate floor.

Back when th Dems were the minority party they used the Rulel 22 Fillibuster option repeatedly against the GOP.

Sb190 was pushed back through the Senate Banking committee in 2007 by the GOP as Sb1100 after they lost the Senate and the Democrats chaired the committee.

It never got out of committee.

A year later the GSEs were declared insolvent and the dems finally passed GSE regulation.

Too little too late.

17 times the Bush administration and the GOP called for GSE regulatory reform. In 2004 72 House Democrats signed a letter warning Bush not to chose the safety and soundness of the GSEs over their " affordable lending " iniatives.

I bet they wish they could scrub that letter from the record.

In 2002 Bush warned of the systemic economic consequences from unregulated GSEs. 6 years before the crash he called it perfectly.
 
I'd like to thank those the responded to me in the last several posts.

We can go around in circles over who's to blame for the '08 meltdown it seems, and there's apparently more than enough FUD & propaganda out there to bolster any argument one cares to make.

After touching on just a moment's research into Fenton's well written reply, I found rebuttals from Barney Frank & others stating the exact opposite as he wrote (not unexpectedly, and not denigratory to those who believe otherwise).

And I have no detailed personal knowledge of the intricate procedural details of that time.

But I will close by saying regardless of the procedures & politics, it's hard to let the majority & Presidential party off the hook - I feel it's the President and majority party's onus to get the job done - that's why they've been put in charge. And this goes for any President, Obama included. It's true the Republicans often stymied him, but ultimately it's his responsibility to get the job of running the country done - whether by compromise, political sway, or procedural force! I actually am happy he resorted to more use of EOs, (even though I disagree with one of them - immigration), and only as long as they remain lawful.

I voted for him (like my other Presidential votes) to lead and produce results, not complain.
 
Fenton's well written reply

Sadly, I again see this as misplaced praise. I went back and forth with Fenton MANY times on the causes of the housing bubble. I got to the point where I now have made the decision, a very regrettable one in my view, that I will no longer read his posts. It's pointless to do so. I figure this really weakens my ability to argue persuasively in these threads, given that others will read them. But I don't think I have a choice. If I tried to respond to that torrent of nonsense, I'd be unable to participate in these discussions.
 
yes he should have turned it down just as al gore should have turned it down. if you don't deserve a reward then the respectable thing to do is to turn it down.
I wouldn't accept a reward that I did nothing to accomplish.

Oh, stop it. You know how many Nobel Peace Prize winners have declined the award? One. Ever. Le Duc Tho, in 1973, because he couldn't in good conscience share the award with Henry freakin' Kissinger (talk about your undeserving winners!).

If Obama had declined it, you guys would have ranted about how disrespectful he was being.
 
I'd love to. Perhaps you could list some of the economy boosting legislative and/or regulatory initiatives President Obama has pushed for and championed that show how good he's been for the economy so I could concede your point. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.

I can think of a few that some might argue hurt the economy in the short term, but I think many would agree helped create a foundation that helps workers and people out in the long run namely certain tax hikes, financial reform, and Obamacare.

One thing in particular helped me and several Americans out and that was the auto industry bailout. The place I work can't keep up with orders. It makes transmission and coil springs along with stabilizer bars. This place does not shut down at all anymore. It just goes 24/7 365 holidays or not and went from 3000 employees before the recession to 5000 employees (Just in the Florence, KY area) all of which make a significant amount more than they did before the recession.

Also, Obama kept austerity from happening and proved a good case for it by pointing to the bad stuff that was happening because of it in a lot of European countries. He also has done a lot to get new energy and technology spending. Beyond that, he screwed up a little with certain things I think like the housing market is still iffy, I know people buying houses but I wouldn't buy one honestly. I think the rising economies in areas that took advantage of the recessions namely China and India giving them a middle class and demand for American products or at least American components also gave companies more incentive to just make products in USA. A lot of our electronics for example the innards and glass on tablets and phones are made right here in America, and created tens of thousands of jobs in states such as Kentucky, New York, Texas, and California. Still a lot of work to do, but things look a hell of a lot better than they did 8 years ago.
 
Sadly, I again see this as misplaced praise. I went back and forth with Fenton MANY times on the causes of the housing bubble. I got to the point where I now have made the decision, a very regrettable one in my view, that I will no longer read his posts. It's pointless to do so. I figure this really weakens my ability to argue persuasively in these threads, given that others will read them. But I don't think I have a choice. If I tried to respond to that torrent of nonsense, I'd be unable to participate in these discussions.
I'm not saying I agree with either Fenten or ludin, but I am saying I'm going past my boundaries of detailed legislative procedural knowledge of the fiasco, except to say the GOP were at the helm & that pretty much seals the deal of their being culpable in my mind - there's nothing much more of substance I can add.

But I will add that while they were op-ed pages, 'ludin' cited The Boston Globe', which is an excellent source IMO, and also 'U.S. News & World Reports', which is another mainstream source (as far as I'm aware).

(BTW, I too have a Beagle!)
 
I can think of a few that some might argue hurt the economy in the short term, but I think many would agree helped create a foundation that helps workers and people out in the long run namely certain tax hikes, financial reform, and Obamacare.

One thing in particular helped me and several Americans out and that was the auto industry bailout. The place I work can't keep up with orders. It makes transmission and coil springs along with stabilizer bars. This place does not shut down at all anymore. It just goes 24/7 365 holidays or not and went from 3000 employees before the recession to 5000 employees (Just in the Florence, KY area) all of which make a significant amount more than they did before the recession.

Also, Obama kept austerity from happening and proved a good case for it by pointing to the bad stuff that was happening because of it in a lot of European countries. He also has done a lot to get new energy and technology spending. Beyond that, he screwed up a little with certain things I think like the housing market is still iffy, I know people buying houses but I wouldn't buy one honestly. I think the rising economies in areas that took advantage of the recessions namely China and India giving them a middle class and demand for American products or at least American components also gave companies more incentive to just make products in USA. A lot of our electronics for example the innards and glass on tablets and phones are made right here in America, and created tens of thousands of jobs in states such as Kentucky, New York, Texas, and California. Still a lot of work to do, but things look a hell of a lot better than they did 8 years ago.

Thanks for your response. I may not agree with all or most of your views on this, but I do respect that at least you have an educated view and rationale for your support for President Obama and not just some offhanded "Obama is great" nonsense. I'm glad to hear about people prospering in today's economy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom