• 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.
Visbek said:
lol.... Yes, keeping the economy from completely tanking a few years ago, and adding millions of jobs, has nothing to do with the subsequent and steady gains in jobs since then.



I already have. Please try to keep up.



lol

I'm sorry, but I'm not impressed by your extremely and unjustifiably narrow interpretation of economics.
Click to expand...

No, Visbek, nothing you've posted confirms that Barack Obama is responsible for the creation of private sector jobs.

And no, I don't have a narrow interpretation of economics. Saving jobs isn't creating private sector jobs. And the auto bailouts were Bush's idea anyway, so if any President deserves that credit (which they don't), that would be Bush, not Obama.

The reality is the economy was going to come back after 2008 for the reasons John McCain said - the fundamentals of this country's economy are strong. Through this country's history as long as we have been keeping records the unemployment rates have gone up and down. During the bulk of Bush 43's Presidency the unemployment rates were very good. That wasn't because of anything he did.
 
CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

How about the same ones that you guys kept claiming were going to wreck the economy?
 
tres borrachos said:
Why? Republicans are the party of the rich. The worse shape the economy is in, the worse their portfolios and 401K and home values are. So, in a nutshell, no.
Click to expand...

Not really. A pool of hungry workers willing to work for peanuts is exactly what the wealthy want.
 
Dayton3 said:
1) Perhaps. Though the auto industry is not that big of an employer overall. Ford would've survived no matter what.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but 4% of the economy is not something to take lightly.

Dayton3 said:
2) Explain
Click to expand...

Shouldn't have to explain. Growth in government expenditures funded by deficits increases GDP.

Dayton3 said:
3) Bush gets credit for this.
Click to expand...

If anything, Hank Paulson gets credit.

Dayton3 said:
4) Not his policies.
Click to expand...

He could have nominated a hawkish Fed president as was desired by Republicans.

Dayton3 said:
In U.S., Uninsured Rate Sinks to 13.4% in Second Quarter[/url]) Need actual evidence.
Click to expand...

Of course.

Dayton3 said:
In U.S., Uninsured Rate Sinks to 13.4% in Second Quarter[/url]) Need actual evidence.
Click to expand...

fredgraph.png
 
tres borrachos said:
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.
Click to expand...


You can start with the "job killing polices" republicans kept speaking of all these years.
 
Chomsky said:
Did you really want to go there?

RealClearPolitics - Congressional Job Approval

And as to what President Obama has done to improve the economy - he's held the Republicans at-bay, fighting them tooth & nail, using every tool at his disposal, even using executive action & pushing to the edges of constitutional limits.

In 2009 the American people & the world experienced first-hand the catastrophic results of Republican economic policy. This voter will do his best to see we are never subject to that nightmare again.

Why would anyone want to return to Republican economic reign?
Click to expand...

history revisionism won't help you. Obama has done nothing to help the economy and in fact most business say they are not expanding or hiring because of Obama and the policies of the left.

Umm no the banking crisis was due to the liberal mindset that banks should lend money to people that can't afford the loan. it was expanded under Clinton, and when bush attempted and republican in congress attempted to get Freddie and fannie under control chris dodd and barney frank both stopped them from doing it.

other liberals went on their typical rant of how republicans hate poor people nonsense. so chris dodd and barney frank are the largest two people responsible for the recession.

yes we would it beats the mediocrity and stagnation that we have lived with under Obama.
 
tres borrachos said:
the fundamentals of this country's economy are strong.
Click to expand...

Are you out of your mind?

Currently, 10% of all mortgages are for more than the underlying asset is worth (it was more than 1/3 when JM made the statement).

When John McCain made that comment, shadow banks were breaking the buck.

Narrow view doesn't begin to describe your take.
 
It amazes me that the same people have the same argument every month when the job report comes out lol
 
ludin said:
no you still don't get it.

in the U3 number if you are not looking for work or are a discouraged worker and haven't looked for work in 4 weeks you are not counted.
Click to expand...

They are counted....where'd you get the idea thery're not? They're not classified as Unemployed, though because Unemployed has always been defined as not working but looking for work (unless on temporary layoff waiting to go back to your old job). In 1967 the time limit of 4 weeks and requirement to actually be available to work.

even though he is unemployed the U3 number does not count him as unemployed.
Click to expand...
No, they're NOT unemployed because they're not trying to work. That's the definition of the term. You can't just change it willy-nilly.

DA60 is correct. if everyone stopped looking for work according to the U3 number unemployment would be 0% even though they are still unemployed.
Click to expand...
No, if everyone stopped looking for work there would be zero unemployed, because job search is part of the definition!

that is why the U3 number is a joke. the U5 and U6 numbers give a much better picture of the unemployment rate than the U3 does.
Click to expand...

What are you trying to measure? If you want to know about long term unemployment, the U1 is best.
For Involuntary Unemployment: the U2
If you want to measure how hard it is to get a job, the U3 does that best.
If you want to know about people who might be available if they think they have a chance alongside those actually trying, then the U4 is best.
U5 is how much potentially available labor is not being used.
And U6 is how much potentially availalble labor is not being used to its fullest.

The U3 is best at measuring actual current labor market conditions.
The U5 and U6 are better at measuring potential.

But out of curiousity....If someone looked for work in March/April and did not get a job by mid/April, that tells me it was difficult for him/her to get a job, and the more people that's true for, the worse the labor market is.

But if someone last looked for work last August, that tells me nothing at all about how hard it is to get a job in April.

So why do you think including people who had a zero percent chance of getting a job tells you more about how hard it is to get a job? Y

es, I know some of them did have a chance if an application they had put in months before was finally seen, but since that cannot be measured, we have to go with the snapshot of each month.
 
ludin said:
then you can't use it for political distortions.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and hence why it'll never be. What would the politicians do if they couldn't use this to turn the electorate against each other?
 
Chomsky said:
Perhaps.

But markets only work efficiently when well-regulated.

This isn't as easy as, "Free everything, and let what may, happen". (not saying you claimed this)

And the subject of regulation is where much of the debate lies.
Click to expand...

If by "well-regulated" you mean as little as possible, then I agree wholeheartedly. But what many people ignore is the source and main beneficiaries of much of the regulation forced on business, namely big business. Big business tells Congress or their state/local governments that regulation is important to protect the safety of customers and integrity of business. That's how we end up with medallions for taxi cabs costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, license requirements to teach someone how to braid hair or give a horse a massage, regulations forbidding having employees if you run a home business, or price-fixing schemes for limousine companies. These are just a few real-world examples off the top of my head that were passed in the name of protecting the customer, but in reality only protect the incumbent businesses. For every example I can think of, there are a thousand that I missed.
 
tres borrachos said:
No, Visbek, nothing you've posted confirms that Barack Obama is responsible for the creation of private sector jobs.
Click to expand...
Or, you're willfully ignoring the evidence.

The simplified version of the very complex facts is: If Bush 43, Paulson, Bernanke, Obama and others had done nothing, there is little doubt we'd be in far worse shape today. The economy as a whole and unemployment would've hit a deeper trough, and specifically the auto industry would be decimated. Lots of people from a variety of political persuasions get partial credit both for causing the crisis, and helping the recovery. That includes Obama, who in particular was instrumental in helping the auto industry.

You should also keep in mind that we are in a consumer economy. The more people unemployed, and for longer time, has longer-term effects. Companies pull back on manufacturing and inventories, because people are buying less; this in turn causes them to reduce staff. More staff reductions mean yet more reductions in manufacturing, inventory, and thus staff; it's a vicious cycle. A stimulus can help blunt the worst effects of a recession. This, in turn, helps explain some of what we see in employment figures.


And no, I don't have a narrow interpretation of economics. Saving jobs isn't creating private sector jobs. And the auto bailouts were Bush's idea anyway....
Click to expand...
lol... Yes, Bush 43 gave them a $13bn loan from TARP, he gets some credit. The total loan amount was around $80bn; the restructuring also obviously took place during, and was largely designed by, the Obama administration.

Saving auto industry jobs is definitely saving private sector jobs; getting people back to work faster helped the economy recover faster. Expand your horizons. ;)


The reality is the economy was going to come back after 2008 for the reasons John McCain said - the fundamentals of this country's economy are strong.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that's a bit absurd. An economy with strong fundamentals can still be crippled by a financial crisis; if the damage hadn't been stopped, at a minimum unemployment would be much worse.


During the bulk of Bush 43's Presidency the unemployment rates were very good. That wasn't because of anything he did.
Click to expand...
It was -- in part. His policies were one of many factors that allowed the bubble to get so big. Part and parcel of that is that the bubble drove down unemployment for a few years. It's not a good way to lower unemployment rates, and he definitely wasn't solely responsible, but yes his policies had an effect on employment rates.
 
Kushinator said:
Are you out of your mind?

Currently, 10% of all mortgages are for more than the underlying asset is worth (it was more than 1/3 when JM made the statement).

When John McCain made that comment, shadow banks were breaking the buck.

Narrow view doesn't begin to describe your take.
Click to expand...

So? What does that have to do with what I posted?
 
Visbek said:
Or, you're willfully ignoring the evidence.

The simplified version of the very complex facts is: If Bush 43, Paulson, Bernanke, Obama and others had done nothing, there is little doubt we'd be in far worse shape today. The economy as a whole and unemployment would've hit a deeper trough, and specifically the auto industry would be decimated. Lots of people from a variety of political persuasions get partial credit both for causing the crisis, and helping the recovery. That includes Obama, who in particular was instrumental in helping the auto industry.

You should also keep in mind that we are in a consumer economy. The more people unemployed, and for longer time, has longer-term effects. Companies pull back on manufacturing and inventories, because people are buying less; this in turn causes them to reduce staff. More staff reductions mean yet more reductions in manufacturing, inventory, and thus staff; it's a vicious cycle. A stimulus can help blunt the worst effects of a recession. This, in turn, helps explain some of what we see in employment figures.



lol... Yes, Bush 43 gave them a $13bn loan from TARP, he gets some credit. The total loan amount was around $80bn; the restructuring also obviously took place during, and was largely designed by, the Obama administration.

Saving auto industry jobs is definitely saving private sector jobs; getting people back to work faster helped the economy recover faster. Expand your horizons. ;)



Sorry, but that's a bit absurd. An economy with strong fundamentals can still be crippled by a financial crisis; if the damage hadn't been stopped, at a minimum unemployment would be much worse.



It was -- in part. His policies were one of many factors that allowed the bubble to get so big. Part and parcel of that is that the bubble drove down unemployment for a few years. It's not a good way to lower unemployment rates, and he definitely wasn't solely responsible, but yes his policies had an effect on employment rates.
Click to expand...

If they had all done nothing, the economy would be in worse shape. Great. I agree.

Now what does that have to do with specific policies that were implemented by Barack Obama that are responsible for creating private sector jobs and lowering the unemployment rate?
 
disneydude said:
Not really. A pool of hungry workers willing to work for peanuts is exactly what the wealthy want.
Click to expand...

Source, please? And when you say the wealthy, I assume you're including all of the wealthy Democrats, too...right?
 
rcart76 said:
You can start with the "job killing polices" republicans kept speaking of all these years.
Click to expand...

Obama isn't a Republican, last I checked. What do the Republicans have to do with my post?

Can you say which Obama policies are creating private sector jobs, and show links that validate the number of jobs his specific policies have created since 2009 that are reflected in the unemployment statistics?
 
pbrauer said:
Republicans when there is a Democrat in the White House.
Click to expand...

.........and Democrats don't do that when a Republican is in the white house ???? ( revving up the chain saw as I push him out on the limb)
 
How come nobody credited the labor force dropouts with the reduction in the unemployment rate yet? They deserve most of the credit, not our country's government or lawmakers.
 
rcart76 said:
How about the same ones that you guys kept claiming were going to wreck the economy?
Click to expand...

Other than the ACA, which keeps getting delayed for business and waived for others, what Obama legislative initiatives actually got adopted that "us guys" claimed would wreck the economy? I'm not aware of a single policy initiative related to the economy that Obama got adopted - can you name some? The author of the OP was left dumbfounded by the question so maybe you can help him out.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Other than the ACA, which keeps getting delayed for business and waived for others, what Obama legislative initiatives actually got adopted that "us guys" claimed would wreck the economy? I'm not aware of a single policy initiative related to the economy that Obama got adopted - can you name some? The author of the OP was left dumbfounded by the question so maybe you can help him out.
Click to expand...

So what job killing policies were you guys mouthing about then?
 
tres borrachos said:
Obama isn't a Republican, last I checked. What do the Republicans have to do with my post?

Can you say which Obama policies are creating private sector jobs, and show links that validate the number of jobs his specific policies have created since 2009 that are reflected in the unemployment statistics?
Click to expand...

I think we can say that Obama has given the private sector CONFIDENCE in our economy and optimism about continued growth. The very things that Republcans said were lacking when the employment growth was slow. Unless you think the Reps were lying when they said those things were what a President does to boost job growth.
 
rcart76 said:
So what job killing policies were you guys mouthing about then?
Click to expand...

You're the one who was mouthing off about job killing policies, presumably claiming that the policies were enacted, improved the economy, and "us guys" were wrong.

Get with the topic!! The OP claims conservatives should concede that Obama has been good for the economy and yet not a single Obamaphile, to date, including you, has been able to identify a single reason why he's been so good for the economy. Is it because he's breathing?
 
iguanaman said:
I think we can say that Obama has given the private sector CONFIDENCE in our economy and optimism about continued growth. The very things that Republcans said were lacking when the employment growth was slow. Unless you think the Reps were lying when they said those things were what a President does to boost job growth.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the optimism was generate by the voters themselves, in November 2014, finally drumming the Democrats out of leadership of both Houses of Congress and perhaps soon the White House.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom