- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,863
- Reaction score
- 60,285
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Moderator's Warning: |
Guys, the topic is the debt deal. Let's actually talk about that here. |
Moderator's Warning: |
Guys, the topic is the debt deal. Let's actually talk about that here. |
Suggest you move to a more pro growth state that doesn't rely solely on govt. spending. Just like a liberal relying on state and local govt. spending. You do realize the taxpayers are tapped out.
No, that doesn't include discouraged workers or workers that are under employed
You can add these numbers for discouraged workers to the total
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
No one is disputing that Obama inherited a recession, what is your excuse for the decline in GDP growth every month since the first qtr of 2010 with the exception of the booming 1.3% GDP growth? You need to get over your Bush Derangement Syndrome, he isn't on the ballot and all we hear from "your" President are excuses
Sorry, but that negative 6.7 GDP contraction was on Bush's watch. As were the the preceding months of GDP contraction.
You might want to check the U.S. Constitution, I haven't seen anything there that say he's in charge of GDP growth. But, even if it were his job, look at the first quarter of 2009, although he was President then, you would have to blame Bush. That's if you were honest.:mrgreen:
Well, when evaluating how far Obama has come,don't you think it's relevant to look at where he started? I do.
Then, instead of just pointing at numbers and saying "SEE!", as is your wont, it might be helpful to analyze what's behind the numbers. Why has GDP growth slowed? Is it Obama's fault no matter the reason? I mean, if our economy is being affected by contagion from the European debt crisis, which it is, is that Obama's fault? Or if the economy was slowed by supply line interruption from the Japan Tsunami, which it was, is that Obama's fault, too? Of if the slowdown is in part a result of stimulus running out, and the republicans are adamant in their refusal to approve further stimulus, which they are, is that Obama's fault, too?
I guess I just don't think that Obama is as powerful as you make him out to be.
Until you provide an accurate u-6 figure, your argument is useless.
An interesting thing you do here...If I am right in reading this, the negative GDP you are looking at were in the first two quarters of '09, and by the final two quarters GDP was at 3.8% positive.
Now you look at when Obama took over and it is a direct slide downward. to today's 1.4% and you argue that Obama's GDP numbers are better than the last quarters of Bush?
I may be economically illiterate on a macro scale, and confess when the discussion gets to the point of discussing different minutia about the economic drivers, and stats, my eyes glaze over....But NOWHERE in my former education of math does 1.4% equal greater than 3.8%...
Anything stating such is spin pure and simple.
j-mac
His and Republicans policies which led to the financial meltdown. Democrats share some of the blame but not as much since they took over just 11 months before the Bush Great Recession began, there's not much they could have done had they even tried, which they didn't, to prevent the housing bubble.What specifically did Bush do to lose those jobs?
I was talking about the Bush Great Recession.As for the lost jobs, amazing how you ignore there was still a net job gain during the Bush years but that doesn't matter to an ideologue like you.
The U-6 number is 16.2% and with a labor force of 153 million that is over 24 million unemployed or under employed
As austerity rises, "Central Falls Becomes Second Muni Casualty of 2011" will be a same story, different name type of ordeal throughout the Obama presidency. Note that Obama and his policies have nothing to do with muni default.
How does this negate Shiek's comment?
His and Republicans policies which led to the financial meltdown. Democrats share some of the blame but not as much since they took over just 11 months before the Bush Great Recession began, there's not much they could have done had they even tried, which they didn't, to prevent the housing bubble.
I was talking about the Bush Great Recession.
8,000,000 jobs lost.
Hey, I know, let's use your math of calculating the underemployed for that period and see what numbers we get, shall we?...
Dec/2007: U6=8.8%; LF=153,936,000; Underemployed=13,546,368
Jun/2009: U6=16.5%; LF=154,754,000; Underemployed=25,534,410
Total underemployed during Bush's Great Recession: 11,988,042
Wait, let's do that for Bush's first 29 months in office, ok?
Jan/2001: U6=7.3%; LF=143,800,000; Underemployed=10,497,400
Jun/2003: U6=10.3%; LF=147,400,000; Underemployed=15,146,768
Total underemployed during Bush's first 29 months: 4,649,368
How about Bush's entire administration, ok?
Jan/2001: U6=7.3%; LF=143,800,000; Underemployed=10,497,400
Jan/2009: U6=14%; LF=154,185,000; Underemployed=21,585,900
Total underemployed during Bush's 8 years in office: 11,088,500
That is your opinion, don't vote for him in 2012. As for Obama declining GDP growth every qtr since 2010 which is after the recession ended and I see no economic plan to grow the private sector and grow the economy.
And as you have been told a plethora of times, this was when stimulus spending/(insert your unit of time) was at it's relative maximum. There is an amazing correlation between the derivative of stimulus spending and that of economic output between the dates in question.
Care to comment on this correlation?
What is the republican plan to grow the private sector and grow the economy?
You asked me to provide numbers for u-6, I just did
Which goes to show that Obama didn't generate any positive economic activity in the private sector and the only growth was from Govt. spending. I would have thought someone as intelligent as you would have figured that out
Under the context of your rebuttal to Sheik. Try again!
Cut corporate tax rates, provide healthcare waivers to all businesses for Obamacare, reduce inheritence taxes, and extend indefinitely the Bush tax cuts
The president does not generate economic activity from the private sector; this must be understood before you go any step further.
Why no comment on the stimulus correlation to growth?
Which will force the long term federal deficit to expand in an exponential fashion.
Why are you in favor of health care subsidization from the federal government (the increased costs you speak of)?
Cut corporate tax rates, provide healthcare waivers to all businesses for Obamacare, reduce inheritence taxes, and extend indefinitely the Bush tax cuts