• 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!

Gallup: Unemployment Rate Jumps from 7.7% to 8.9% in 30 Days

I checked Gallup. Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment Looks to me like the unemployment rate has stayed the same or dipped slightly June 1 to July 1, then to August 1. It's gone up to 8.8% this August, which is alarming, but the month isn't quite over. It could recover a bit, or go up more. There are more layoffs in the news. Very distressing. Each layoff is a person whose life has been damaged.
 
Yes, yes, everything is the fault of the Democrats. Not like Republicans had anything to do with anything. :lamo

Your reasoning is similar to equating the actions of the ship captain who's leadership caused the vessel to ram the iceberg, and the steward who served him coffee at breakfast.
 
Yes, and so did short sales changes. If I recall right, July 2006 was when the rules changes.

My point is that the impact of the housing market was small compared to the problems caused by the short sale changes. It harmed the entire market.
My theory is that you are both somewhat right.
I think the deregulation of banks that allowed them to merge with Wall Street and start gambling with all of the money was a big player.
As well as stock market deregulation.
As well as the collapse of the housing market.
 
So being objective is forgiving liberals for burying us in debt.
No, being objective is understanding "liberals" didn't bury us in debt. Being objective is looking at the statistics and understanding you are completely wrong.

You conveniently left out repayments of 08 stimulus bail out money in 09/10.
Uhh, no I didn't. It's included in the outlays.
No, you can't unless that is all it is to you. A game.

Facts are facts. The semiconductor/communications revolution and Y2K scare drove the 90's. Not Clinton.
Yes, that was what I was getting at. You did read my ENTIRE post, right?

"It's probably a better idea to discuss the policies which have resulted in the various changes, rather than timing."

Oh? And exactly which bill(s) did that Democrat-led Congress pass that you contend caused the economy to collapse?
Don't bother, he's not interested in facts.
 
No, you can't unless that is all it is to you. A game.

Facts are facts. The semiconductor/communications revolution and Y2K scare drove the 90's. Not Clinton.

Of course, just like the PC boom of the 80's drove the economy, not Reagan.
 
It's also better than every single Republican president ever recorded for their first 54 months in office.

Apples to oranges. None of them started with unemployment as high as 8%.
 
Apples to oranges. None of them started with unemployment as high as 8%.
So? Reagan was close. Just 3/10ths of one percent lower than the 7.8% Obama started with.

Under Obama, the unemployment rate has dropped 0.4 points.

At this same point in Reagan's presidency, unemployment had dropped just 0.1 point.

And Reagan's a god to righties. :eek:
 
So? Reagan was close. Just 3/10ths of one percent lower than the 7.8% Obama started with.

Under Obama, the unemployment rate has dropped 0.4 points.

At this same point in Reagan's presidency, unemployment had dropped just 0.1 point.

And Reagan's a god to righties. :eek:

The difference is under Obama, the labor force participation rate has been completely flat, whereas under Reagan it started at 63.5% and went up to 64.4% in the same time frame. The differences is around 4.2 million jobs. Snooze you lose.
 
The difference is under Obama, the labor force participation rate has been completely flat, whereas under Reagan it started at 63.5% and went up to 64.4% in the same time frame. The differences is around 4.2 million jobs. Snooze you lose.
It would also be important to mention Baby Boomers were not retiring when Reagan was President. Perhaps one might be interested to know enrollment in college increased 11 percent from 1990-2000 and increased another 37 percent between 2000-2010.

I'm sure you recognize those facts, but I do think they need to be mentioned for those who may not be aware.


Source: Fast Facts
 
It would also be important to mention Baby Boomers were not retiring when Reagan was President. Perhaps one might be interested to know enrollment in college increased 11 percent from 1990-2000 and increased another 37 percent between 2000-2010.

I'm sure you recognize those facts, but I do think they need to be mentioned for those who may not be aware.


Source: Fast Facts

One would think the combination of those facts would have resulted in a dramatic decline in unemployment...
 
No, given your figures and the way you attempt to portray them, employers should be having problems finding workers and bidding wages higher...
I'm simply trying to portray them as the truth, that's all.

I respect your intelligence enough to assume you know as well as I do that looking at a very small piece of the puzzle does not give clarity to the entire picture. There are MANY elements which come together to affect the various issues being dealt with. For example, outsourcing of jobs and the re-education and training of the middle aged worker who has to find a way to fit in a computerized society. The rapid increase of college education against the rapid rise in the cost of education. Easy credit, housing and financial crash of '08, the country's change from a production to service based economy, etc. all play a part in the different numbers we casually throw out. Reform College casually threw out a fact to counter a fact casually thrown out by Sheik. I casually threw out my fact to provide an additional to piece to the puzzle.

But let's face it, this thread isn't about doing a deep and careful study of the causes of our current economic situation. This thread is yet another in a long line of political discussions for one side to argue with the other side, because at the end of the day, we all enjoy arguing about politics.
 
I'm simply trying to portray them as the truth, that's all.

I respect your intelligence enough to assume you know as well as I do that looking at a very small piece of the puzzle does not give clarity to the entire picture. There are MANY elements which come together to affect the various issues being dealt with. For example, outsourcing of jobs and the re-education and training of the middle aged worker who has to find a way to fit in a computerized society. The rapid increase of college education against the rapid rise in the cost of education. Easy credit, housing and financial crash of '08, the country's change from a production to service based economy, etc. all play a part in the different numbers we casually throw out. Reform College casually threw out a fact to counter a fact casually thrown out by Sheik. I casually threw out my fact to provide an additional to piece to the puzzle.

But let's face it, this thread isn't about doing a deep and careful study of the causes of our current economic situation. This thread is yet another in a long line of political discussions for one side to argue with the other side, because at the end of the day, we all enjoy arguing about politics.

I'd much rather carry on conversations to advance ideas rather than defend an ideology and the results thereof...
 
Of course the governments figures are down. They have been playing games with the numbers since they started tracking them. Anyone that believes things are 'fine' is not living in reality.
 
Yes, and so did short sales changes. If I recall right, July 2006 was when the rules changes.

My point is that the impact of the housing market was small compared to the problems caused by the short sale changes. It harmed the entire market.

Also remember. Republcans held fast against no bailout, until the provision was placed into law that money returned from the bailot loans could not be respent, but to pay back down the debt.

Do you follow the finer nuances of such things, or read and go by sites like Common Dreams?

Good evening, Lord of Planar. :2wave:

I wasn't aware of any of these things! Financial things I leave to my CPA, since I don't have the knowledge. I don't know how you guys keep track of all this, but I for one appreciate it! That's another reason I like this site. I really do learn something new every day! :thumbs:
 
So? Reagan was close. Just 3/10ths of one percent lower than the 7.8% Obama started with.

Under Obama, the unemployment rate has dropped 0.4 points.

At this same point in Reagan's presidency, unemployment had dropped just 0.1 point.

And Reagan's a god to righties. :eek:
If that's what you want to use for a comparison.

Unemployment dropped from about 7.5% when Reagan took over, to about 5.1% when he left. Do you think it will be under jump to 6% when OBomba leaves office? I don't. Something that was already in place caused the unemployment rate to climb starting a few months after he took office to 10.8% in 1982. From this peak of 10.8%, down to under 5.1%... Think about the implications.
 
Of course, just like the PC boom of the 80's drove the economy, not Reagan.
I don't recall any paradigm shifts in the 80's for the semiconductor industry like there was in the 90's.

What were they?
 
It would also be important to mention Baby Boomers were not retiring when Reagan was President. Perhaps one might be interested to know enrollment in college increased 11 percent from 1990-2000 and increased another 37 percent between 2000-2010.

I'm sure you recognize those facts, but I do think they need to be mentioned for those who may not be aware.


Source: Fast Facts
What are the percentages when adjusted for population growth?

How much of that enrollment puts the tax payer on the hook today, vs back then?
 
One would think the combination of those facts would have resulted in a dramatic decline in unemployment...

No, all it does is cause more under employment. Sometimes more unemployment because employers don't like to hirer over qualified people.
 
The difference is under Obama, the labor force participation rate has been completely flat, whereas under Reagan it started at 63.5% and went up to 64.4% in the same time frame. The differences is around 4.2 million jobs. Snooze you lose.
The labor force participation rate began dropping around 2001. Between the Great Recession and baby boomers hitting retirement age, that drop began accelerating in 2008, before Obama even became president.

Still, the unemployment rate is 0.4 points lower for Obama, who inherited a massive recession along with a falling labor force participation rate; while unemployment dropped only 0.1 point during Reagan's first 54 months and he did not inherit a recession.
 
The labor force participation rate began dropping around 2001. Between the Great Recession and baby boomers hitting retirement age, that drop began accelerating in 2008, before Obama even became president.

Still, the unemployment rate is 0.4 points lower for Obama, who inherited a massive recession along with a falling labor force participation rate; while unemployment dropped only 0.1 point during Reagan's first 54 months and he did not inherit a recession.

Its easier to drop .4% more in unemployment, when unemployment is starting .4% higher....

Either way, it matters not. Under Reagan, 5 million jobs were created, whereas under Obama only 800,000 were created in the same time frame. Numbers do not lie.
 
Back
Top Bottom