Obama creating more jobs in just 2010 than Bush did in entire presidency!

[musclehead]

I gotta qoute Judge Judy 'don't pee on my leg and tell me its raining'  

millions on unemployment, millions more U6 under employed are going to disagree with those numbers.

my best bud out in Oregon has been unemployed for 2 years, locally 14% unemployed.

democrats are largely anti business, a president as radical as this one is UBER anti business.

don't worry though the jobs being created are in government/public sector.  the IRS in particular comes to mind.

No offense, but if I was unemployed for 2 years...I'd move. Last time I lost my job, I decided to be my own boss. I've thought about letting me go a few times, but I keep managing to just make the cut.
Kerry

personally I'dve moved too, have to go to a state that has lower taxes. those states were dang near rescession proof

[fstsix]

In a new column at National Journal it is noted that if the economy proceeds as it has over the past four months, the U.S. will gain more jobs in 2010 than it did in George W. Bush's entire presidency.   

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/05/obama-vs-bush-on-economic-growth/56778/

Ummm?.....Scanner you might want to try the National Inquirer for your News source, if you punch on your link it will show some kind of footnote of a opinion Magazine, but when you punch for the rest of his story MIA? Brownstein May 14 2010, Maybe every body can click on all the links and find the whole story?"click on"  (See Brownstein's Column) can't seem to find it?

[Bobbo]

So, to wrap this thread up for me, I originally posted a very simple bar chart showing that the rate of job loss nationally was reversing since Obama took office. Just plain fact.

And, as I expected, the usual suspects twisted themselves in to knots trying to ignore, distort, misrepresent, or lie about the facts.  Hell, you'd think they work for FOX.

They tried to continually insult me because I had the audacity to post a thread that didn't conform to their "views".  Guess what - reality doesn't fit in their framework.

So onto the next threads, where we get another crapload of wingnuttery from the 4 or 5 who pollute the board with bizzaro proclamations and zero content...carry on

I’m surprised you haven’t addressed the issue I brought up about that chart.

http://www.valkyrieforum.com/bbs/index.php/topic,18774.msg160044.html#msg160044

[Jeff K]

You want to jail illegals??????

Let's just use your taxes to do that ok?  You can house and feed them....

I said jail not prison, but you can keep twisting everything to fit your needs, we're all used to it.
Arrest them, jail them, deport them.
Or... we can just give them all a place to live, free education, food and health care, and YOUR tax dollars can pay for that!

[Scanner]

Sorry Jeff, but where do you see the word prison in my post?   Uh, lmao, talk abut twisting words around! 

[Chattanooga Mark]

Exactly how can a society, any society, spend its way to prosperity???

And seriously, I could care less if you're a Democrat or a Republican.  I could care less what ANY politician says, I ONLY watch what they do.

Mark

[Jeff K]

Sorry Jeff, but where do you see the word prison in my post?   Uh, lmao, talk abut twisting words around! 

There is something seriously wrong with you. You really should seek help. 

[98valk]

Is This Dad’s or Grandpa’s Recession?

The past is a great aide for any thinker, but it can also be a pitfall. Our thought process analyzes past experiences and compares them to the present. However, the past can also mislead us into thinking that the current situation is rosier than it really is. Could one have predicted a 15-year world recession on Black Tuesday 1929 with past experience as a guide? Probably not. Or what about the carnage of World War I at the onset? Highly unlikely. Relying only on past personal experiences would have been a mistake. 

Plenty of smart people fall into this trap. In the fall of 2008, I remember discussing the market crash with an economics professor. He believed the market would rebound quickly, and we’d be out of a recession in no time. This wasn’t a Keynesian professor but instead an Austrian free-market guy. I brought up the concerning indicators, the stimulus plans, and the bank bailouts. But it didn’t convince him. He pointed out that every recession had stimulus and regulations. We’ve come through all those other recessions easily – hence, this one should be nothing to worry about.

By now, it’s safe to say that the professor was wrong.

Of course, he isn’t the only one to make mistakes like that. People see a tough labor market and naturally assume that the current market is the same as previous difficult labor markets in their lifetimes. Unfortunately, the data shows that the youth labor market hasn’t been this bad since the Great Depression.

Rather than reflecting on our personal experiences, let’s take a look at the data:

 <http://www.caseyresearch.com/kkcImages/1280175614-image1.gif>

As the chart shows, the 2010 20-24 age group has the highest unemployment rate at 15.8%. The rate would be even higher without the Census. Prior to major Census hiring, the April rate peaked at 17.2%. 

During the last 50 years, only 1975 at 13.6% and 1982 at 14.9% unemployment came close to this high level. These labor markets do seem comparable, but only without considering labor participation. Graduate school is a recession escape route for many young people. A student receives a useless undergraduate degree and then hopes to improve his lot by acquiring a useless masters or doctorate.

Though these students don’t appear in the unemployment statistics, they are captured within the labor participation rate:

 <http://www.caseyresearch.com/kkcImages/1280175614-image2.gif>

In the past decade, there is a very noticeable decline in the age 20-24 labor participation rates, with a cliff in recent years. (The early ‘70s had a lower participation rate too. But this is partially explained by other factors, such as lower female participation in the workforce.) The peak participation rates were in 1986 and 1987 at 78.9%.

These students are basically unemployed, and a chart including them would get us closer to the real unemployment rate. To do this, I added the unemployment rate and the difference between each year’s participation rate and the 1986-1987 peak rate:

 <http://www.caseyresearch.com/kkcImages/1280175614-image3.gif>

Now we can see a dramatic difference between today’s adjusted unemployment rate and the past 40 years. The current recession’s adjusted unemployment is a full five percentage points higher than the second highest peak in 1975. While many would like to compare this youth labor market to their personal experiences, today’s situation is significantly worse. This year’s college graduates will pray nightly that their labor market begins to resemble 1982 or 1975 by the graduation ceremony. 

Graduates in 1982 and 1975 received a taste of modern-day unemployment. But kids today face a youth labor market closer resembling Grandma and Grandpa’s depression experience than Mom and Dad’s downturns.   

There could be a ray of hope in all of this. After all, the Great Depression permanently changed the people who experienced it. My own grandparents still maintain thrifty habits such as saving every penny and growing their own vegetables. They really don’t need to do this anymore, but their psyche has been forever altered by hardship. Perhaps a few years of struggle could invoke a similar shift in the American youth away from the constant cycle of overspending.

So far, the future doesn’t look good. The younger generation fell head over heels for Obama in 2008. But how will they vote in 2012 after years of unemployment? If they once again choose him, even worse times are ahead. However, there is a real chance that this could be a turnaround generation. Right now, it’s hard to gauge the feeling of the whole age group – only a general anger seems to unify it. Anger at government, anger at capitalism, anger at anything. This angst properly directed could be a positive vehicle for change – though it may be a destructive force as well.

Some Afterthoughts…


Plenty of people have made negative comments about the upcoming generation – specifically that they’re spoiled rotten. Yes, this is true to an extent. They grew up in the 1990s and 2000s – essentially two booms without deep recessions. This could be a big explanation for the anger in the age group. They grew up in the American dream and were promised the world. Instead, they will be getting a standard of living much worse than their parents’. 

But the recent generation has a lot of redeeming factors too. Though they voted for Obama, few can be described as radical communists. At best, they’re on the moderate left. Beyond this, the generation has low levels of drug use and seems rather resistant to trends. In general, there are few weird fashions or hippie movements – in my opinion, both good signs.

Thanks for reading. Until next time…

Vedran Vuk

[Susan]

Bush may have started digging the 'hole' we're in right now but Obama has dug that hole to China!

[Walküre]

Bush may have started digging the 'hole' we're in right now but Obama has dug that hole to China!

The gospel according to Rush...and Beck...and Palin...and Fox....and Bachman...etc, etc....

Whatever...

R

[Jeff K]

Bush may have started digging the 'hole' we're in right now but Obama has dug that hole to China!

The gospel according to Rush...and Beck...and Palin...and Fox....and Bachman...etc, etc....

Whatever...

R

Believe me... your talking points issued to you by you liberal sources are just as predictable.
I never ever listen to Rush, have no interest in Palin, don't even know who Bachman is... I do read Fox news online, but I actually spend more time reading Huffington than Fox.
So, though you are being conditioned to believe that all conservatives fall into your stereotype... stop fooling yourself.
You just sound foolish.

[Walküre]

So, though you are being conditioned to believe that all conservatives fall into your stereotype... stop fooling yourself.
You just sound foolish.

I sound foolish? I SOUND FOOLISH???

Yeah, whatever....I hear it all the time - "I'm not them!!"...then they quote them verbatim. It really is kind of sad - it would add 32 million to the deficit to extend unemployment benefits, and the Republicans say we have to pre-pay it. However, extending the tax cuts to the top 3% "earners" (how can you call investments "earnings"???) will cost 800 million+. Which ISN'T funded, but we gotta do it...kind of like Bush's war - never went against the deficit, because it was "emergency" funded. It's all in the way you figure things.

I am curious, though...if you DON'T listen to Rush, watch Fox, etc,, how DO you get your news??

Going to be a fun ride...glad I've funded my family...

Pity the rest of you...

[Valkahuna]

So, though you are being conditioned to believe that all conservatives fall into your stereotype... stop fooling yourself.
You just sound foolish.

I sound foolish? I SOUND FOOLISH???

Yeah, whatever....I hear it all the time - "I'm not them!!"...then they quote them verbatim. It really is kind of sad - it would add 32 million to the deficit to extend unemployment benefits, and the Republicans say we have to pre-pay it. However, extending the tax cuts to the top 3% "earners" (how can you call investments "earnings"???) will cost 800 million+. Which ISN'T funded, but we gotta do it...kind of like Bush's war - never went against the deficit, because it was "emergency" funded. It's all in the way you figure things.

I am curious, though...if you DON'T listen to Rush, watch Fox, etc,, how DO you get your news??

Going to be a fun ride...glad I've funded my family...

Pity the rest of you...

I don't know you, and you are probably a decent guy. But do you realize how self servingly arrogant you come across? I for one don' t want or need your pity.   

[Walküre]

I don't know you, and you are probably a decent guy. But do you realize how self servingly arrogant you come across? I for one don' t want or need your pity.  

Self serving, and arrogant? I find it VERY difficult to accept, that chances are good that every senator, and probably a vast portion of the house, fall into the $250K a year category, and want to extend the Bush tax cuts. And, the republicans, as a whole, agree. That cost the US 3/4 of a trillion dollars a year, and will continue to cost that. And for what? Do you REALLY think that the wealthiest produce jobs? Or do they have their money making money in the stock exchange? Re-read my post on page 3 - it's an eye-opener. And, they keep their money in stocks, because currently dividends are at a 15% tax rate. The investor with 100 million investment, that makes 8 million, only pays 15% on it.  So why make jobs?


As for pity...I pity ALL of us. I truly believe that we will never again be the strong economy that we once enjoyed. We simply can't compete with the rest of the world, with their poverty levels. And instead of bringing the rest of the world, to OUR standards, we are sinking to theirs.

Sorry if you find me self serving, and arrogant.

I never intend to offend. Sorry if you find me offensive. It wasn't meant to offend. Perhaps better if I had said "Pity those that haven't"...,

[fstsix]

Self serving, and arrogant? I find it VERY difficult to accept, that chances are good that every senator, and probably a vast portion of the house, fall into the $250K a year category, and want to extend the Bush tax cuts. And, the republicans, as a whole, agree. That cost the US 3/4 of a trillion dollars a year, and will continue to cost that. And for what? Do you REALLY think that the wealthiest produce jobs?     "Oopps OUR Bad", We forgot? Mr President, has redefined that a Millionaire is someone that makes over 200.000 a year, now we simply forgot, maybe next year it will drop to a 100.000 a year and we will all be Millionaires AWESOME!  

[Walküre]

Mr President, has redefined that a Millionaire is someone that makes over 200.000 a year

And, where is it that he said that? Or just something you "heard" someplace? I looked really hard to find any quotes by him, that stated what you attribute to him. By 2007 standards, "the median household income was $50,223 in 2007—up slightly from the last year but still below the 1999 peak. So a household that earned $250,000 made five times the median. In fact, only 2.245 million U.S. households, the top 1.9 percent, had income greater than $250,000 in 2007. (About 20 percent of households make more than $100,000.) (Referenced here: http://www.slate.com/id/2198806.  To be "fair and balanced", here's another link: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_percentage_of_the_us_population_makes.html.

I wouldn't mind at all, making $250,000 a year, or even $200,000. At $250,000, that would put me in the top 2% of wage-earners. Pretty elite company, if you ask me.

From 1935 until 1978, taxes on the "wealthy" were GREATLY higher. And that was the boom years for the US. After about 1978, the taxes plummeted, by comparison.



Yet look where we are - the average income, adjusted for the current year, is down. And the TOP wages, are up 400%. So, to me, instead of being defined as "a Millionaire is someone that makes over 200.000 a year", it seems to me, that the new millionaire, is someone that makes $400 million a year...

[Robert]

Bush unemployment rate in 8 years: 5%. Obama unemployment in 8 MONTHS: 10.2%

[Robert]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100022714/10-reasons-why-george-w-bush-was-a-smarter-world-leader-than-barack-obama/

[Walküre]

Just depends on WHO you listen to...Fox reporter, or US News...

http://politics.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/01/28/obama-better-than-either-george-w-bush-or-george-hw-bush.html

Or Politico:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39283.html

People will believe what they WANT to believe, right or wrong. And for every opinion, there's an opposing opinion.

Some of us believe that Bush damn near destroyed this country, and that the wave crashed, just as he was leaving office. There are those that say that the Democraticut Congress had a lot to do with it - actually, Bush enjoyed 6 years of Republican Congress, as well as did Clinton. Although Clinton didn't "enjoy" the Republican Congress. And currently, the Republicans, and some of the "blue dog" Dems, are based on saying NO to anything that the current administration attempts. I can't help but feel that it is their plan, to take back Congress, whatever it takes. Even if it brings down the average worker on the way. I'm not sure it's going to happen. I'm not sure it won't, either. But I think the Tea Party is self-imploding, as well as detracting from the Republican party. I think the TP is to the Republicans what Nader was to the Dems.

The following is an unedited quote from a few weeks back, but I couldn't link to it, so put it on my domain. But, it raises some very good points...

http://crbest.com/dash/am_bushed.html

[fstsix]

Throughout his presidential campaign, then-candidate Barack Obama promised  the American people: “If you’re a family that’s making $250,000 a year or less, you will see no increase in your taxes.” After he became President, Barack Obama reiterated that pledge, promising the American people in his September 9th health care press conference: “The middle-class will realize greater security, not higher taxes.” But Obamacare does contain tax hikes. Tons of them. From taxes on tanning beds to taxes on employment and investments, Obamacare is a certified job-killing machine.

None of these taxes touches the lives of every American as closely as the individual mandate to purchase health insurance. For the first time in American history, Obamacare forces all Americans to purchase a product or face sanction from the Internal Revenue Service. This is clearly a tax, as pointed out by ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos during a September 20th interview with the President himself. In an exchange that can only be described as “Clintonesque” Stephanopoulos pressed President Obama to admit his individual mandate was a tax. But President Obama refused to acknowledge reality and denied it. Stephanopoulos was forced to read the definition of “tax” straight from Merriam Webster’s Dictionary. But even then Obama refused to come clean: “George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. … Nobody considers that a tax increase.” Well nobody but President Barack Obama’s Justice Department.

The New York Times confirmed Friday that in preparation for defending constitutionality of the Obamacare individual mandate in court, an Obama Justice Department legal brief argues that the penalty used to enforce the mandate is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes. Mr. Obama’s own Justice Department further repudiates the President’s earlier statement by noting that the penalty is imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code, people must report it on their tax returns, and that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will cost Americans $4 billion a year. Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin told a meeting of progressive activists last month that President Obama “has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill. This bill is a tax.”

The fact that the Obama administration and their allies are now admitting the individual mandate is a tax betrays their very real fear that the Supreme Court could find Obamacare’s individual mandate unconstitutional. In the bill itself, Congress identified the Commerce Clause as the source of their authority to force all Americans to buy health insurance. But as our legal team has made eminently clear, the mandate does not purport to regulate or prohibit commerce of any kind. To the contrary, it purports to “regulate”—and penalize—inactivity. If the Supreme Court allows the Obamacare individual mandate to stand, then Congress could do anything it wanted. They could: require us to buy a new Chevy Impala each year to support the government-supported auto industry; require us to buy war bonds to pay for the Iraq and Afghan wars; or force us to eat our vegetables.

But even if the Obama administration is now admitting the individual mandate is a tax, that still does not make the law constitutional. Rather than operating as a tax on income, the mandate is a tax on the person and is, therefore, a capitation tax. Therefore the 16th Amendment’s grant of power to Congress to assess an income tax does not apply. The Constitution does allow Congress to assess a capitation tax, but that requires the tax be assessed evenly based op population. That is not how the Obamacare mandate works. It exempts and carves out far too many exceptions to past muster as a capitation tax. The Obamacare mandate is still unprecedented and unconstitutional.

But perhaps more importantly, what does the episode say about the integrity of the White House? The President went on national television and insisted in unequivocal terms that his individual mandate was not a tax. Now his administration is saying the exact opposite. At what point do the American people lose all faith in this President’s word?

[Robert]

Walküre/scanner still Bushes unemployment rate 5%   Much much better than Obamas
Bush cut taxes Obama raises taxes

[Scanner]

Geez Robert, it's no wonder you think like you do when you are so monumentally misinformed.  I know, I know,  facts don't matter at all to you, but here goes....

When Bush left office Obama inherited 8.1% unemployment rate from him, and amid the Bush recession and Bushes two left-over wars, the unemployment rate is now 9.5%.

Bush inherited a 4% unemployment rate and more than DOUBLED it when he left office to 8.1%. The average over his 8 year admin was 5.2.   

Maybe you should just cut and paste every post like others here.  But if you do, please be a little more selective of your sources

[musclehead]

I don't know you, and you are probably a decent guy. But do you realize how self servingly arrogant you come across? I for one don' t want or need your pity.  

Self serving, and arrogant? I find it VERY difficult to accept, that chances are good that every senator, and probably a vast portion of the house, fall into the $250K a year category, and want to extend the Bush tax cuts. And, the republicans, as a whole, agree. That cost the US 3/4 of a trillion dollars a year, and will continue to cost that. And for what? Do you REALLY think that the wealthiest produce jobs? Or do they have their money making money in the stock exchange? Re-read my post on page 3 - it's an eye-opener. And, they keep their money in stocks, because currently dividends are at a 15% tax rate. The investor with 100 million investment, that makes 8 million, only pays 15% on it.  So why make jobs?


As for pity...I pity ALL of us. I truly believe that we will never again be the strong economy that we once enjoyed. We simply can't compete with the rest of the world, with their poverty levels. And instead of bringing the rest of the world, to OUR standards, we are sinking to theirs.

Sorry if you find me self serving, and arrogant.

I never intend to offend. Sorry if you find me offensive. It wasn't meant to offend. Perhaps better if I had said "Pity those that haven't"...,

the wealthiest may not 'produce' jobs but they invest in stock exchange, that money goes to companies that produce jobs.

we can run that circle around for a while, but investing creates jobs YOU BETCHA  

but not in the climate of uncertainty that hangs over us now, half the economists say we're fine go invest the other half say stick your money under the matress

[fstsix]

In a new column at National Journal it is noted that if the economy proceeds as it has over the past four months, the U.S. will gain more jobs in 2010 than it did in George W. Bush's entire presidency.   

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/05/obama-vs-bush-on-economic-growth/56778/

Ummm?.....Scanner you might want to try the National Inquirer for your News source, if you punch on your link it will show some kind of footnote of a opinion Magazine, but when you punch for the rest of his story MIA? Brownstein May 14 2010, Maybe every body can click on all the links and find the whole story?"click on"  (See Brownstein's Column) can't seem to find it?

    Credible News LOL!! maybe you should cut and paste, that Trap door is pretty Funny LOL!

[Scanner]

uh...people invest to make money, not jobs.  If a company uses that money to automate jobs previously done by people, or open a new facility in a foreign country, or give themselves multi-million dollar bonuses, how many jobs does that create?  Not many YOU BETCHA!  

And yeah, see there fstix, you can post without cut and paste...kinda. On second thought, you should stick to cut and paste, it's the only things you post that aren't gibberish

[fstsix]

uh...people invest to make money, not jobs.  If a company uses that money to automate jobs previously done by people, or open a new facility in a foreign country, or give themselves multi-million dollar bonuses, how many jobs does that create?  No many YOU BETCHA!  

And yeah, see there fstix, you can post without cut and paste...kinda

Just trying to be nice.....that link aint so kind to.....well i wont cut and paste the rest of the story....ya might want to check them dang things thoroughly.....you don't slip up much......hate when that happens 

[RoadKill]

When unemployment goes up with a Republican in the drivers seat it is "Bush's fault"...when it goes up with a retard at the wheel it is ALSO "Bush's fault". If it goes up tomorrow Obama did it! I'll bet Monica Lewenski's dirty dress was Bush Sr's fault and the USS Cole,1st and 2nd WTC attacks, Al Gore's global warming,Oprah's latest 50lbs and that Waldo dude getting lost so bad that liberals every where are still searching for him (Where's Waldo) was all Ronald Reagan's fault !  Why can't you conservatives see that?  ???

[Scanner]

Tilt eh?

[RoadKill]

Tilt eh?

Yep! I'm with you now ! I think France should have a vote in who we have for Pres. in 2012 ! The whole damn world can vote if they contribute a few bucks to the campaign ! Like Rodney said..."Can't we all just get along ? " ! ! !  Bring on the voters! 

[Robert]

Scanner by your admission 5.2 percent average still better than Obamas 10.to 12 in reality so I'm happy with that. So Bush is still better than Obama. just as much as your original post that Obama created more jobs, just as misleading. Oh by the way how did Obama create all these jobs or was this just a natural happening since so many people were scrambling to find work? Or maybe they just fell off unemployment or just stopped looking because there aren't any jobs. Its easy to claim job creation when you lost double the number of workers that you gained. Its just like you and this administration to take credit for some thing that you had no hand in whats so ever.  Ive seen Obama do alot of other things but I haven't seen one program that was funded by Obama that created any jobs. Oh and if you say stimulus forget it unless you talk about bank jobs and can you say bonus that the administration let go through.  I dont see you post any numbers or figures for this where are they? I have seen him take credit for things that he had nothing to do with and tax people like the Obama administration is admitting that health care through the IRS is a tax now. If you want I can get quite a few more things that Bush did better than Obama but this should do for now. I think my next post will be a new post scanner admits Bush unemployment was 5.2 and Obamas is 10. Obama before he took office had no experience running any company or running anything other than in senate. His supporters like Obama are running away. The numbers represent a slide from the previous poll, which reported that 43 percent of people approved of Obama’s job regarding the economy, while 57 disapproved. The number of people – 37 percent – that agreed that the economic conditions in the nation are “very poor” remained the same.

[Scanner]

I really don't know what your education level is Robert, but you might look up the word "average".  For Bush, an 8 year where the rate doubled.

If you're in a bar, and Bill Gates walks in, the average net worth of people in that bar is probably about 3 billion dollars.  

 

[Robert]

In being a little more selective I went by your numbers or you said the highest was 8.1 still better than Obama at you say 9.5 I say more like 10.5 and higher for California and some other states that may be as high as 14%. Oh but I thought of you as a really educated person how is it that you cant see 5.2 and 8.1 as better numbers for unemployment than 9.5,even at Bushes worst? As for other numbers and any other numbers that you wish to post that would be a positive for Obama would be greatly appreciated. Including how taxes went down instead of up, how the national debt went down instead of up, how his approval rating oh sorry we already know about that well consumer confidence oh sorry we already know that went down. So lets hear it oh wise guru of the numbers how has Obama in numbers improved the US. OH and I must mention without the bias in your first post about job creation unless you can give numbers on what programs he started and how it turned out positive. If you do a search of the postive things that the Obama administration has done in the year they have been in office the list is really sad. So Ill be waiting for those positive numbers from a learned and educated person such as yourself to be able to make me happy about what has taken place. Let me mention one more thing as a side note sort of, a left wing religion such as atheism really may not allow you to see the truth. But try to concentrate on the numbers they may be able to help you out here.

[Charlie]

In being a little more selective I went by your numbers or you said the highest was 8.1 still better than Obama at you say 9.5 I say more like 10.5 and higher for California and some other states that may be as high as 14%. Oh but I thought of you as a really educated person how is it that you cant see 5.2 and 8.1 as better numbers for unemployment than 9.5,even at Bushes worst? As for other numbers and any other numbers that you wish to post that would be a positive for Obama would be greatly appreciated. Including how taxes went down instead of up, how the national debt went down instead of up, how his approval rating oh sorry we already know about that well consumer confidence oh sorry we already know that went down. So lets hear it oh wise guru of the numbers how has Obama in numbers improved the US. OH and I must mention without the bias in your first post about job creation unless you can give numbers on what programs he started and how it turned out positive. If you do a search of the postive things that the Obama administration has done in the year they have been in office the list is really sad. So Ill be waiting for those positive numbers from a learned and educated person such as yourself to be able to make me happy about what has taken place. Let me mention one more thing as a side note sort of, a left wing religion such as atheism really may not allow you to see the truth. But try to concentrate on the numbers they may be able to help you out here.

I did everything I could but kick the dog, to stay out of this, but your point here is ludicrous.  I am not pointing fingers at either president when I make this statement, because I do not believe either president has a whole lot to do with the unemployment rates in our country.  Now my point.....

Scanner was pointing out the direction unemployment was heading through Bush's term, i.e. started at 4.1 and ended at 8.1.  Averages do not mean a hill of beans here, just trends.  If you look, under Obama, the trend has not changed.  There are signs that it is starting to, here in Michigan, which, at the beginning of Obama's term, was the worst in the nation.  It is now second highest in the country.  If you look at the statistics, it would stand to reason that the rest of the country, who had lower unemployment at the start of his term, will likely peak, either during or after his term.  Personally, I think investor confidence will determine when it happens, not political positions. 

If you want to see your government change, and taxes reduce, you need to address the administrators (management teams) of our government offices.  They spend the money, set their fluffy budgets, add unnecessary employees, etc.  Unfortunately, they are not elected, so how you go about this, I am not sure.  Probably, the best way, would be if you could get whistle blowers to sing.  That is not likely to happen.

[Robert]

No Scanner was saying Obama is the second coming and what he has done to improve the economy and how bad Bush was with figures that like you said mean nothing. All really mean nothing but our friend scanner seems to have a vested interest in this whole thing maybe even campaigned for Obama so lets get the numbers straight and argue on the numbers like others in this post have been saying. Ill want to see what scanner has to say since like the numbers he presented which if taken a few months before would have been terrible. I dont like the double standard if you argue on the numbers then to numbers we go. Plus as you stated they really dont mean much especially after one year and no legislation on Obamas part to improve the situation. The article he quoted was the Atlantic which is biased based on a commentary and hes offered nothing solid another pointless voice stirring the pot. Sorry Charlie.

[Walküre]

Walküre/scanner still Bushes unemployment rate 5%   Much much better than Obamas
Bush cut taxes Obama raises taxes

Man, you all NEVER get it! Daddy "Read my Lips" Bush raised taxes...but HE wasn't ridiculed, called a liar, and slandered at every opportunity...

Repealing is NOT "raising taxes". It is merely taking back the "gifts" Dubya gave everyone, while driving up the deficit. Very slight of hand - "hey, don't watch my LEFT hand, that's going into your pocket for a senseless war, just watch my RIGHT hand, that's giving you a handout...".

Many are afraid to place the blames - all of them - where they rightly belong. We were hemorrhaging jobs during the Bush years - here's a quote, and source from Nov 21, 2008:

With no end in sight to economic bad news, President George W. Bush on Friday ensured that millions of laid-off workers will keep getting their unemployment checks as the year-end holidays approach.

Source: http://cbs5.com/national/jobless.benefits.extension.2.870113.html

Another quote from same article:

Earlier in the year, Bush expressed doubts about further benefit extensions, but he came to support the legislation as new figures showed new claims for jobless aid had reached a 16-year high.

So, Bush punched a big old hole in the swimming pool, then handed it over to Obama. Even with both hands over the hole, it was too big stop immediately stop. It has since slowed, and is slowly attempting recovery. It took 8 years for Bush to (in some of our opinions) totally destroy this country's economic foundation. He was handed a surplus, and ended with huge deficits. Granted, I'm not happy with how the deficit is increasing still, but I believe a lot of the spending has been successful in keeping this country above water. The country was bound for a crash - it was evident before the October crash, as shown below, in September:

The talk of the financial town right now is how the market has entered into a recovery period. Gives you a nice, toasty feeling, doesn't it?

Well, not so fast. October is a historically temperamental time on Wall Street and, while some people believe the market is going to keep climbing higher, others are terrified it will sink like a stone.

Source: 

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/09/19/10-signs-an-october-market-crash-is-coming/

Now, imagine if "I believe that the economy is basically sound" McCain had made it into office...MORE tax cuts?? More money to the very wealthy??

It's funny that EVERY SINGLE THING Bush faced, was blamed on Clinton. Now, everything BUSH did, is blamed on Obama...the market crash, and resulting unemployment, happened on Bush's watch. And 6 of the 8 years, was with a Republican congress.

The one thing about "what if"s, is that we'll NEVER know what WOULD have happened, if the other road had been taken...

[Robert]

Yup Im the Daddy so understand this if you take money out of my pocket and label it help for the poor new taxes paint for the White house its still money out of my pocket. I dont give a flip if you use it to pick your nose its still money out of my pocket and still money Obama is sending his cronies to talk to congress to allow to fade away. Let me explain it this way your Valk isn't yours it was just to use for awhile well times up and I want my Valk. Let me ask you another question all those that think Obama is there daddy and waiting for the money to appear maybe they should not get that and all they have been given should be taken away too since its only gifts.  Like Welfare, food stamps, child care, unemployment, medical care, all are gifts, to use your rational. The money for these programs is mine and alot of other US citizens not the people who received it. I dont think you would agree to this so why would you agree to taking away tax cuts from a government that spends like a drunken sailor and seems next to impossible to rein in? I have no faith in congress or the president to be able to spend my money wisely. Like I have said before Bush had his problems too but didnt give my money away.
http://www.youtube.com/user/glozell1#p/u/495/TswMeHnh2cA

[Walküre]

Like I have said before Bush had his problems too but didnt give my money away.

What?? What do you call Iraq?? he pissed money away, like NO one's business! And how much of THAT money do you think went to HIS cronies??? Do the words "haliburton" and "blackwater" ring a bell? How about $100 cases of water? And the $8.7 billion that is unaccounted for, of the IRAQI's money?? Here's the quote, and source:

The Los Angeles Times reports that the Defense Department cannot account for nearly all of Iraq’s oil revenue from 2004 to 2007—$8.7 billion out of $9.1 billion.

Source:  http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/item/87-billion-missing-in-iraq/lost/

It's real cute to play youtube clips, for every pro-Dem or pro-Rep, or pro-god, or pro-atheist, or pro-anything, you can find one to counter it. I strive to show sources for every fact and quote I display.

It's funny, that it seems to me, when most people have the basics, then they figure other's don't deserve them, if they don't have them. Yet, those that have become desperately unemployed, suddenly realize what those basics are. Many in this country, right now, are on the verge of losing everything they have. One new job, for every 6 people looking (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/business/economy/27jobs.html), it can't stay like this for very long.

So, is the attitude, "I've got mine, so screw you!!", or is it "We're all in this together!". Just depends on your outlook, I guess. I wonder how many in the "fishes and loaves" story, saw it as a hand-out?

[fstsix]

It's real cute to play youtube clips, for every pro-Dem or pro-Rep, or pro-god, or pro-atheist, or pro-anything, you can find one to counter it. I strive to show sources for every fact and quote I display.Perfect! now that we got to the, I have a fact and quote I can display?  Why did the Democrats STOP Ron Paul from a Audit of the federal Reserve, This would show the Taxpayers US you and me the real Truth?? ALL the Republicans Said YES!! WHATS UP!!

[big turkey]

Fred Flintstone said Yabba Dabba Doo.

Big Al

[Walküre]

ALL the Republicans Said YES!! WHATS UP!!

All? Well, not really....Judd Gregg...remember him? The former Governor of New Hampshire and current United States Senator serving as ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee. He is a member of the Republican Party and was a businessman and attorney in Nashua before entering politics. He currently serves as the Chair of the Public Advisory Board at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College. Gregg was nominated for Secretary of Commerce in the Cabinet by President Barack Obama.

THAT Judd Gregg...well, HE said:

Senator Judd Gregg called the Paul-Grayson amendment "pandering [to] populism", saying the audit requirements would be detrimental to monetary policy. Gregg added that "It's great PR; you go home and beat up the Fed."

Source:  http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/68841-gregg-fed-audit-amendment-panders-to-populist-fervor%3Fpage%3D1

So much for ALL, I would say...

I'm for the audit, based on what I have seen. However, knowing that some VERY intelligent, and savvy people are against it, I am keeping an open mind, before I form a solid opinion. I just don't know enough about it.

Fred Flintstone said Yabba Dabba Doo

And Sinatra said Scooby Dooby Doo...