Debt under Obama: money well spent (mostly)

[Billy000]

I love unemployment numbers as a point of discussion. Nobody is on the same page.

What I do know is that most people seemed to think the economy was doing pretty well when Bush was in office.

Five years into Obama and the economy seems to be called sucky. I don't know exactly why.

Just sayin'.

Oh, gee maybe it is because of the 2008 financial crisis that put the economy in a tail spin.

5 years later and we are still talking 2008.

Didn't Obama say something about being a one-termer if things didn't get better.

At 5% unemployment you are close to full employment.

Even at the current 8% you have many people looking for jobs...and young people who are really catching the brunt of it.

I am afraid that putting this kind of discussion on an apples to apples terms takes more than what gets discussed here.

Considering we lost a shit load of jobs, I would say we should be grateful for what we have. Things could definitely be better, but they could also be a lot worse. There is no denying that Obama's stimulus created millions of jobs. There is no evidence that Obama's policies have led to the rampant job loss. Even so, a president only has so much control over the nation's economy. Policy wise, however, Obama came through for us. It's just a shame the stimulus wasn't bigger. We could have a lot more people employed today.

 

[Billy000]

I love unemployment numbers as a point of discussion. Nobody is on the same page.

What I do know is that most people seemed to think the economy was doing pretty well when Bush was in office.

Five years into Obama and the economy seems to be called sucky. I don't know exactly why.

Just sayin'.

Oh, gee maybe it is because of the 2008 financial crisis that put the economy in a tail spin.

No, it was electing a democrat congress in 2007 that put us on the road to destruction. All the economic indicators go bad after the democrats take control. No use denying it.

So you are just in denial about Obama's job record huh? Nice.

 

[Listening]

Oh, gee maybe it is because of the 2008 financial crisis that put the economy in a tail spin.

5 years later and we are still talking 2008.

Didn't Obama say something about being a one-termer if things didn't get better.

At 5% unemployment you are close to full employment.

Even at the current 8% you have many people looking for jobs...and young people who are really catching the brunt of it.

I am afraid that putting this kind of discussion on an apples to apples terms takes more than what gets discussed here.

Considering we lost a shit load of jobs, I would say we should be grateful for what we have. Things could definitely be better, but they could also be a lot worse. There is no denying that Obama's stimulus created millions of jobs. There is no evidence that Obama's policies have led to the rampant job loss. Even so, a president only has so much control over the nation's economy. Policy wise, however, Obama came through for us. It's just a shame the stimulus wasn't bigger. We could have a lot more people employed today.

I think that is pretty weak. W'eve seen the economy recover faster in the past.

There are many who feel that Obama's meddling has slowed and stalled the recovery. I am not going to argue one way or the other as I don't think policy can do much for the economy.

It would be good to revisit the stimulus. Cause it does not seem to get much attention in either direction.

If you are Keynesian...I can see why you want more stimulus.

 

[Billy000]

The economy had already tanked according to the progressives.

But yes, if you research what the economists of 2009 were saying, they forecasted an economic recovery by the summer of 2010.....


Then Obama got involved.

Of the hundreds of ways that the economy could have been helped, Bush and Obama chose the worst possible one.

Hmm except that the stimulus package did in fact create many jobs through the unemployment benefit extensions. 2.5x more jobs have been created under Obama's 5 years than all of Bush's 8.

More jobs would have been created if the stimulus was as big as it was supposed to be.

Wow, how many items of data did you have to cherry pick to get that figure?

You can't even claim that more jobs have been returned to under Obama than created under Bush, and this assumes that we hold up Bush's record on job creation as a gold standard, which of course, it is not.

Job growth was steady and increasing under Bush. His average unemployment numbers were about par for any peacetime President, and he was a war time President.

Job growth under Obama is all government while creating a part time private sector. Is it any wonder that the economy continues to stagnate?

But hey, pumping 87 billion dollars a month in the Corporate coffers sure counts as win for Obama......

Lol dude if you did some very basic research, you will see how wrong you really are.

 

[Listening]

Oh, gee maybe it is because of the 2008 financial crisis that put the economy in a tail spin.

No, it was electing a democrat congress in 2007 that put us on the road to destruction. All the economic indicators go bad after the democrats take control. No use denying it.

So you are just in denial about Obama's job record huh? Nice.

Job creation is a strange term when you had a huge rift in the economy. Just like the stock market...many jobs come back on their own.

There is not way to tell how much is due to one thing or the other.

What I do know is that the multi billion dollar multi national company I work for sat on a pile of cash and chose to take most of it's investement offshore (I am not kidding...getting an investment in domestic brick and mortar was almost impossible) because of concern over the government's policies.

 

[Billy000]

5 years later and we are still talking 2008.

Didn't Obama say something about being a one-termer if things didn't get better.

At 5% unemployment you are close to full employment.

Even at the current 8% you have many people looking for jobs...and young people who are really catching the brunt of it.

I am afraid that putting this kind of discussion on an apples to apples terms takes more than what gets discussed here.

Considering we lost a shit load of jobs, I would say we should be grateful for what we have. Things could definitely be better, but they could also be a lot worse. There is no denying that Obama's stimulus created millions of jobs. There is no evidence that Obama's policies have led to the rampant job loss. Even so, a president only has so much control over the nation's economy. Policy wise, however, Obama came through for us. It's just a shame the stimulus wasn't bigger. We could have a lot more people employed today.

I think that is pretty weak. W'eve seen the economy recover faster in the past.

There are many who feel that Obama's meddling has slowed and stalled the recovery. I am not going to argue one way or the other as I don't think policy can do much for the economy.

It would be good to revisit the stimulus. Cause it does not seem to get much attention in either direction.

If you are Keynesian...I can see why you want more stimulus.

What "meddling" has Obama done?

Policy does create jobs. The stimulus package created jobs.

 

[Listening]

Considering we lost a shit load of jobs, I would say we should be grateful for what we have. Things could definitely be better, but they could also be a lot worse. There is no denying that Obama's stimulus created millions of jobs. There is no evidence that Obama's policies have led to the rampant job loss. Even so, a president only has so much control over the nation's economy. Policy wise, however, Obama came through for us. It's just a shame the stimulus wasn't bigger. We could have a lot more people employed today.

I think that is pretty weak. W'eve seen the economy recover faster in the past.

There are many who feel that Obama's meddling has slowed and stalled the recovery. I am not going to argue one way or the other as I don't think policy can do much for the economy.

It would be good to revisit the stimulus. Cause it does not seem to get much attention in either direction.

If you are Keynesian...I can see why you want more stimulus.

What "meddling" has Obama done?

Policy does create jobs. The stimulus package created jobs.

Probably, the one I hear the most from people is the auto bailout. I've heard numbers from one end of hell to the other.

There is no one complete argument that makes any sense to me.

While the stimulus may have created jobs on the short term (and mostly as I understand it...it saved jobs), so do tax cuts.

Not saying one is better than the other (but I am more in favor of hands off on the part of the government).

 

[cutter]

In a hundred years when our great grandchildren are still struggling under the enormous debt left them by obama, do you think they will think it was money well spent? Maybe they will just think it is it's the result of a greedy generation that didn't mind forcing the future generations to a life of poverty so they could have free cell phones and great health care they cannot give themselves due to the colossal debt left them.

 

[The Rabbi]

Obama's biggest contribution to the debt (in terms of policy) was his stimulus package of 787 billion which was achieved by cutting taxes, extending unemployment benefits, and job creating public works projects. For the next two years, 858 billion was added because of he extended Bush's tax cuts. He increased defense spending by 800 billion a year. What also contributed to the debt under Obama was the low federal income because of low income tax receipts from 2008 financial crisis.

Both Obama and Bush had to contend with higher mandatory spending for social security and Medicare. The Patient Control and ACA was designed to reduce the debt by 143 billion over 10 years but these savings didn't show up til late.


US Debt by President


Here is what Obama did wrong: Extending the Bush tax cuts. The CBO estimates that the Bush tax cuts created 4.6 jobs for every million dollar cut. That is pathetic job growth. Bush was stupid to introduce them and Obama was stupid to extend them. Reductions in the tax rate actually hurt the economy. Every dollar lost in tax revenue only creates 59 cents in growth.

Do Tax Cuts Create Jobs?

What Obama did right: extending unemployment benefits. Not only did this provide relief to the Americans out of work, but it also helped the economy. 19 jobs were created per 1 million in benefits. Every 1 billion, creates 19,000 jobs. Not only that, but every dollar spent on these benefits created $ 1.73 in economic demand. This is because the unemployed spend every dollar they receive on basic essentials, such as food, clothing, and housing. It is estimated that every month these benefits were extended cost tax payers $10 billion. However, it also generated 17.3 billion in economic growth.. Without benefits during this time, demand drops.

Why Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits Boost the Economy

Obama so-so spending was his increase in defense spending which did both good and bad, depending on how you look at it.

Lets not forget that there was no spending growth under Obama from Bush's years.

I was right: Under Obama, spending has been flat - Rex Nutting - MarketWatch

Also, 2.5x more jobs were created under Obama's 5 years than all of Bush's 8.

Obama?s Numbers, October Update

What's the bottom line? Republican economic policies only help the wealthy and government can and does create jobs

Are you just here wanting to get your ass kicked again? You claimed in the other thread that the debt was high because the "quality of revenue" was low. When challenged you claimed revenue per GDP. Your own links showed that revenue per gdp was higher now than 4 years ago.
Unemployment under Bush was typically 5% or less. Which is defined as full employment. Under Obama it has never been under 7.6%. Under Bush U.S. debt was rated AAA. Under Obama our debt rating is down. Under Bush total debt climbed to $10B and everyone, including Obama, declared it an unsustainable crisis. It is now $17T and Obama has yet to reveal how he plans to reduce it.
Obama's economics policies are the biggest failures since FDRs. He is worse than Carter. Certainly worse than Bush. Bush's recession has been better than Obama's recovery.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think that is pretty weak. W'eve seen the economy recover faster in the past.

There are many who feel that Obama's meddling has slowed and stalled the recovery. I am not going to argue one way or the other as I don't think policy can do much for the economy.

It would be good to revisit the stimulus. Cause it does not seem to get much attention in either direction.

If you are Keynesian...I can see why you want more stimulus.

What "meddling" has Obama done?

Policy does create jobs. The stimulus package created jobs.

Probably, the one I hear the most from people is the auto bailout. I've heard numbers from one end of hell to the other.

There is no one complete argument that makes any sense to me.

While the stimulus may have created jobs on the short term (and mostly as I understand it...it saved jobs), so do tax cuts.

Not saying one is better than the other (but I am more in favor of hands off on the part of the government).

Obama engineered the screwing of creditors in the GM and Chrysler bankruptcy, giving the unions a lot of the equity. He totally bypassed the normal procedures of bankruptcy courts.
Obama engineered the firing of GM's CEO. Obama's team vetted GM's advertising and what products they would offer, pushing the pitiful Volt, which is now out of production.
Obama meddled in the health care industry, slapping taxes on medical device makers. His policies have thrown, or are about to throw, millions of workers off their health care plans--plans that were working just fine
Obama hectored BP to "just plug the damn hole" like BP had no interest in preventing hundreds of millions of dollars of loss. Federal regulations prevented using Dutch ships to help contain the oil spill.
The Obama Administration has gone after JP MOrgan, the only bank not to take a bail out, after getting Morgan to agree to take over Bear Stearns.
The Obama Administration has been the most anti business administration in history. Virtually none of the members has any experience in business of any kind.

 

[Billy000]

Obama's biggest contribution to the debt (in terms of policy) was his stimulus package of 787 billion which was achieved by cutting taxes, extending unemployment benefits, and job creating public works projects. For the next two years, 858 billion was added because of he extended Bush's tax cuts. He increased defense spending by 800 billion a year. What also contributed to the debt under Obama was the low federal income because of low income tax receipts from 2008 financial crisis.

Both Obama and Bush had to contend with higher mandatory spending for social security and Medicare. The Patient Control and ACA was designed to reduce the debt by 143 billion over 10 years but these savings didn't show up til late.


US Debt by President


Here is what Obama did wrong: Extending the Bush tax cuts. The CBO estimates that the Bush tax cuts created 4.6 jobs for every million dollar cut. That is pathetic job growth. Bush was stupid to introduce them and Obama was stupid to extend them. Reductions in the tax rate actually hurt the economy. Every dollar lost in tax revenue only creates 59 cents in growth.

Do Tax Cuts Create Jobs?

What Obama did right: extending unemployment benefits. Not only did this provide relief to the Americans out of work, but it also helped the economy. 19 jobs were created per 1 million in benefits. Every 1 billion, creates 19,000 jobs. Not only that, but every dollar spent on these benefits created $ 1.73 in economic demand. This is because the unemployed spend every dollar they receive on basic essentials, such as food, clothing, and housing. It is estimated that every month these benefits were extended cost tax payers $10 billion. However, it also generated 17.3 billion in economic growth.. Without benefits during this time, demand drops.

Why Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits Boost the Economy

Obama so-so spending was his increase in defense spending which did both good and bad, depending on how you look at it.

Lets not forget that there was no spending growth under Obama from Bush's years.

I was right: Under Obama, spending has been flat - Rex Nutting - MarketWatch

Also, 2.5x more jobs were created under Obama's 5 years than all of Bush's 8.

Obama?s Numbers, October Update

What's the bottom line? Republican economic policies only help the wealthy and government can and does create jobs

Are you just here wanting to get your ass kicked again? You claimed in the other thread that the debt was high because the "quality of revenue" was low. When challenged you claimed revenue per GDP. Your own links showed that revenue per gdp was higher now than 4 years ago.
Unemployment under Bush was typically 5% or less. Which is defined as full employment. Under Obama it has never been under 7.6%. Under Bush U.S. debt was rated AAA. Under Obama our debt rating is down. Under Bush total debt climbed to $10B and everyone, including Obama, declared it an unsustainable crisis. It is now $17T and Obama has yet to reveal how he plans to reduce it.
Obama's economics policies are the biggest failures since FDRs. He is worse than Carter. Certainly worse than Bush. Bush's recession has been better than Obama's recovery.

Uh, yeah it was one percent lower a year ago and it was 4 points higher 13 years ago. Last year was the lowest it had ever gotten. We aren't much better than one year later now are we?

If someone is going to kick my ass on this forum, it sure as hell won't be you lol. Don't flatter yourself. You are a complete simpleton.

You people are so stupid with this unemployment figure under Bush. The financial crisis happened on his watch. The economy went into a tail spin from 2008 on. We were losing 100,000s.of thousands of jobs a month but the job loss rate was dramatically reduced when the stimulus package by Obama came into effect. Obviously the employment rate is going to be higher than it was with Bush. We lost a shit load of jobs. This all happened in his last few months! Get this crap through your heads. Obama inherited a complete mess. There is no denying that, however, under his reign and through his policies, 2.5x more jobs have been created under Obama's 5 than Bush's 8. Unfortunately we have lost more jobs than we have gained and there is no evidence Obama's policies have had anything to do with it.

Facts are facts.

 

[FactFinder]

"Debt under Obama: money well spent (mostly) "


Well spent on what and highly unlikely. Most likely, more wasted than not due to Obama not standing up to his campaign promises to clean up Washington. instead, he settled comfortably in. As did his so called contrarians.

 

[Billy000]

I think that is pretty weak. W'eve seen the economy recover faster in the past.

There are many who feel that Obama's meddling has slowed and stalled the recovery. I am not going to argue one way or the other as I don't think policy can do much for the economy.

It would be good to revisit the stimulus. Cause it does not seem to get much attention in either direction.

If you are Keynesian...I can see why you want more stimulus.

What "meddling" has Obama done?

Policy does create jobs. The stimulus package created jobs.

Probably, the one I hear the most from people is the auto bailout. I've heard numbers from one end of hell to the other.

There is no one complete argument that makes any sense to me.

While the stimulus may have created jobs on the short term (and mostly as I understand it...it saved jobs), so do tax cuts.

Not saying one is better than the other (but I am more in favor of hands off on the part of the government).

The bailout saved the GM from collapse and helped propel it to the profitable status it once was, but it didn't create very many domestic jobs.

It is short term because we are talking about a set amount of money. You can't expect a 787 billion stimulus to go very far. However it did create 2.5 million jobs.

As my thread pointed out, tax cuts do very little to create jobs. Every million cut only created 4.6 jobs. Obama's stimulus created 19 jobs per million. 19000 per billion.

It really is true that the right government legislation can create private sector growth.

 

[Listening]

What "meddling" has Obama done?

Policy does create jobs. The stimulus package created jobs.

Probably, the one I hear the most from people is the auto bailout. I've heard numbers from one end of hell to the other.

There is no one complete argument that makes any sense to me.

While the stimulus may have created jobs on the short term (and mostly as I understand it...it saved jobs), so do tax cuts.

Not saying one is better than the other (but I am more in favor of hands off on the part of the government).

The bailout saved the GM from collapse and helped propel it to the profitable status it once was, but it didn't create very many domestic jobs.

It is short term because we are talking about a set amount of money. You can't expect a 787 billion stimulus to go very far. However it did create 2.5 million jobs.

As my thread pointed out, tax cuts do very little to create jobs. Every million cut only created 4.6 jobs. Obama's stimulus created 19 jobs per million. 19000 per billion.

It really is true that the right government legislation can create private sector growth.

It was still meddling in the eyes of many.

That was the question I answered.

"Saving" GM isn't necessarily a good thing.

 

[Billy000]

Probably, the one I hear the most from people is the auto bailout. I've heard numbers from one end of hell to the other.

There is no one complete argument that makes any sense to me.

While the stimulus may have created jobs on the short term (and mostly as I understand it...it saved jobs), so do tax cuts.

Not saying one is better than the other (but I am more in favor of hands off on the part of the government).

The bailout saved the GM from collapse and helped propel it to the profitable status it once was, but it didn't create very many domestic jobs.

It is short term because we are talking about a set amount of money. You can't expect a 787 billion stimulus to go very far. However it did create 2.5 million jobs.

As my thread pointed out, tax cuts do very little to create jobs. Every million cut only created 4.6 jobs. Obama's stimulus created 19 jobs per million. 19000 per billion.

It really is true that the right government legislation can create private sector growth.

It was still meddling in the eyes of many.

That was the question I answered.

"Saving" GM isn't necessarily a good thing.

Uh okay call it what you want but it didn't hinder economic growth.

GM is a vital part of the auto industry. It was good it was saved. The problem with you righty tighties is that you get so bogged down on philosophy. This no government philosophy can be harmful. You have to look at facts for what they are. Some times government intervention is a good thing.

 

[The Rabbi]

Obama's biggest contribution to the debt (in terms of policy) was his stimulus package of 787 billion which was achieved by cutting taxes, extending unemployment benefits, and job creating public works projects. For the next two years, 858 billion was added because of he extended Bush's tax cuts. He increased defense spending by 800 billion a year. What also contributed to the debt under Obama was the low federal income because of low income tax receipts from 2008 financial crisis.

Both Obama and Bush had to contend with higher mandatory spending for social security and Medicare. The Patient Control and ACA was designed to reduce the debt by 143 billion over 10 years but these savings didn't show up til late.


US Debt by President


Here is what Obama did wrong: Extending the Bush tax cuts. The CBO estimates that the Bush tax cuts created 4.6 jobs for every million dollar cut. That is pathetic job growth. Bush was stupid to introduce them and Obama was stupid to extend them. Reductions in the tax rate actually hurt the economy. Every dollar lost in tax revenue only creates 59 cents in growth.

Do Tax Cuts Create Jobs?

What Obama did right: extending unemployment benefits. Not only did this provide relief to the Americans out of work, but it also helped the economy. 19 jobs were created per 1 million in benefits. Every 1 billion, creates 19,000 jobs. Not only that, but every dollar spent on these benefits created $ 1.73 in economic demand. This is because the unemployed spend every dollar they receive on basic essentials, such as food, clothing, and housing. It is estimated that every month these benefits were extended cost tax payers $10 billion. However, it also generated 17.3 billion in economic growth.. Without benefits during this time, demand drops.

Why Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits Boost the Economy

Obama so-so spending was his increase in defense spending which did both good and bad, depending on how you look at it.

Lets not forget that there was no spending growth under Obama from Bush's years.

I was right: Under Obama, spending has been flat - Rex Nutting - MarketWatch

Also, 2.5x more jobs were created under Obama's 5 years than all of Bush's 8.

Obama?s Numbers, October Update

What's the bottom line? Republican economic policies only help the wealthy and government can and does create jobs

Are you just here wanting to get your ass kicked again? You claimed in the other thread that the debt was high because the "quality of revenue" was low. When challenged you claimed revenue per GDP. Your own links showed that revenue per gdp was higher now than 4 years ago.
Unemployment under Bush was typically 5% or less. Which is defined as full employment. Under Obama it has never been under 7.6%. Under Bush U.S. debt was rated AAA. Under Obama our debt rating is down. Under Bush total debt climbed to $10B and everyone, including Obama, declared it an unsustainable crisis. It is now $17T and Obama has yet to reveal how he plans to reduce it.
Obama's economics policies are the biggest failures since FDRs. He is worse than Carter. Certainly worse than Bush. Bush's recession has been better than Obama's recovery.

Uh, yeah it was one percent lower a year ago and it was 4 points higher 13 years ago. Last year was the lowest it had ever gotten. We aren't much better than one year later now are we?

If someone is going to kick my ass on this forum, it sure as hell won't be you lol. Don't flatter yourself. You are a complete simpleton.

You people are so stupid with this unemployment figure under Bush. The financial crisis happened on his watch. The economy went into a tail spin from 2008 on. We were losing 100,000s.of thousands of jobs a month but the job loss rate was dramatically reduced when the stimulus package by Obama came into effect. Obviously the employment rate is going to be higher than it was with Bush. We lost a shit load of jobs. This all happened in his last few months! Get this crap through your heads. Obama inherited a complete mess. There is no denying that, however, under his reign and through his policies, 2.5x more jobs have been created under Obama's 5 than Bush's 8. Unfortunately we have lost more jobs than we have gained and there is no evidence Obama's policies have had anything to do with it.

Facts are facts.

Yes Billy, facts are facts. And the fact is you are wrong.
Let's try this again. Can you put these numbers in order from highest to lowest?
15.0;15.2;16.7

I'll help. Those numbers are in order. They represent, from your own link, revenue as a percentage of GDP for 2011, 2012, and 2013. The numbers have gotten bigger, not smaller.
Ass kicking #1.

Unemployment under Bush reached a maximum of 7.8% For most of his 2 terms it was closer to 5%. There was lots of job loss at the end of his term but that was mostly stabilized by the time Obama got in office.
For Obama 7.3% was the best showing. And even there we cannot trust the gov't figures much because we know they are manipulated. Equally, workforce participation is the lowest it's ever been. If it were where it was when Obama took office the UE rate would be over 10%.
Obama has not created many jobs. More people have dropped out of the labor force, gone on disability, than have gotten jobs.
Ass kicking #2.

Finally, are you giving Obama credit for creating jobs or not? Or does he get credit when jobs are created but Bush gets blame when not enough are? Your last sentence is completely incoherent. Even for you.
Ass kicking #3.
I'd say you're way behind here. "Behind". Get it?

 

[The Rabbi]

The bailout saved the GM from collapse and helped propel it to the profitable status it once was, but it didn't create very many domestic jobs.

It is short term because we are talking about a set amount of money. You can't expect a 787 billion stimulus to go very far. However it did create 2.5 million jobs.

As my thread pointed out, tax cuts do very little to create jobs. Every million cut only created 4.6 jobs. Obama's stimulus created 19 jobs per million. 19000 per billion.

It really is true that the right government legislation can create private sector growth.

It was still meddling in the eyes of many.

That was the question I answered.

"Saving" GM isn't necessarily a good thing.

Uh okay call it what you want but it didn't hinder economic growth.

GM is a vital part of the auto industry. It was good it was saved. The problem with you righty tighties is that you get so bogged down on philosophy. This no government philosophy can be harmful. You have to look at facts for what they are. Some times government intervention is a good thing.

Of course it hindered economic growth. GM is a grossly inefficient enterprise. That's why it loses money on its operations. If GM went bankrupt the profitable parts of the company would be sold and expanded. The unprofitable parts shut down.
Ever hear of Schumpeter? No probably not.

 

[Billy000]

Are you just here wanting to get your ass kicked again? You claimed in the other thread that the debt was high because the "quality of revenue" was low. When challenged you claimed revenue per GDP. Your own links showed that revenue per gdp was higher now than 4 years ago.
Unemployment under Bush was typically 5% or less. Which is defined as full employment. Under Obama it has never been under 7.6%. Under Bush U.S. debt was rated AAA. Under Obama our debt rating is down. Under Bush total debt climbed to $10B and everyone, including Obama, declared it an unsustainable crisis. It is now $17T and Obama has yet to reveal how he plans to reduce it.
Obama's economics policies are the biggest failures since FDRs. He is worse than Carter. Certainly worse than Bush. Bush's recession has been better than Obama's recovery.

Uh, yeah it was one percent lower a year ago and it was 4 points higher 13 years ago. Last year was the lowest it had ever gotten. We aren't much better than one year later now are we?

If someone is going to kick my ass on this forum, it sure as hell won't be you lol. Don't flatter yourself. You are a complete simpleton.

You people are so stupid with this unemployment figure under Bush. The financial crisis happened on his watch. The economy went into a tail spin from 2008 on. We were losing 100,000s.of thousands of jobs a month but the job loss rate was dramatically reduced when the stimulus package by Obama came into effect. Obviously the employment rate is going to be higher than it was with Bush. We lost a shit load of jobs. This all happened in his last few months! Get this crap through your heads. Obama inherited a complete mess. There is no denying that, however, under his reign and through his policies, 2.5x more jobs have been created under Obama's 5 than Bush's 8. Unfortunately we have lost more jobs than we have gained and there is no evidence Obama's policies have had anything to do with it.

Facts are facts.

Yes Billy, facts are facts. And the fact is you are wrong.
Let's try this again. Can you put these numbers in order from highest to lowest?
15.0;15.2;16.7

I'll help. Those numbers are in order. They represent, from your own link, revenue as a percentage of GDP for 2011, 2012, and 2013. The numbers have gotten bigger, not smaller.
Ass kicking #1.

Unemployment under Bush reached a maximum of 7.8% For most of his 2 terms it was closer to 5%. There was lots of job loss at the end of his term but that was mostly stabilized by the time Obama got in office.
For Obama 7.3% was the best showing. And even there we cannot trust the gov't figures much because we know they are manipulated. Equally, workforce participation is the lowest it's ever been. If it were where it was when Obama took office the UE rate would be over 10%.
Obama has not created many jobs. More people have dropped out of the labor force, gone on disability, than have gotten jobs.
Ass kicking #2.

Finally, are you giving Obama credit for creating jobs or not? Or does he get credit when jobs are created but Bush gets blame when not enough are? Your last sentence is completely incoherent. Even for you.
Ass kicking #3.
I'd say you're way behind here. "Behind". Get it?

You and I both know you are losing this argument horribly. Stop kidding yourself. Revenue is very low. A percentage point hardly makes a difference.

You are completley wrong about the jobs lost in Bush's final months:

Sept. 2008: 432,000 lost
October 2008: 289,000 lost
November 2008: 803,000 lost
Dec 2008: 661,000 lost
January 2009: 818,000 lost
February 2009: 724,000 lost
March 2009 799,000lost
April 2009 692,000 lost
May 2009 369,000 lost
June 2009 482,000 lost
July 337,000 lost
August 231,000 lost
Sept 199,000 lost
October 202,000 lost
November 64,000 GAINED
Dec 2009 109,000 lost
January 2010 40,000 lost
February 2010 35,000 lost
March 2010 189,000 GAINED
April 2010 232,000 GAINED
May 516,000 GAINED

As you can see, the stimulus not only slowed down the job loss rate dramatically, it also began to CREATE jobs. In total, the stimulus created 2.5 million.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Uh, yeah it was one percent lower a year ago and it was 4 points higher 13 years ago. Last year was the lowest it had ever gotten. We aren't much better than one year later now are we?

If someone is going to kick my ass on this forum, it sure as hell won't be you lol. Don't flatter yourself. You are a complete simpleton.

You people are so stupid with this unemployment figure under Bush. The financial crisis happened on his watch. The economy went into a tail spin from 2008 on. We were losing 100,000s.of thousands of jobs a month but the job loss rate was dramatically reduced when the stimulus package by Obama came into effect. Obviously the employment rate is going to be higher than it was with Bush. We lost a shit load of jobs. This all happened in his last few months! Get this crap through your heads. Obama inherited a complete mess. There is no denying that, however, under his reign and through his policies, 2.5x more jobs have been created under Obama's 5 than Bush's 8. Unfortunately we have lost more jobs than we have gained and there is no evidence Obama's policies have had anything to do with it.

Facts are facts.

Yes Billy, facts are facts. And the fact is you are wrong.
Let's try this again. Can you put these numbers in order from highest to lowest?
15.0;15.2;16.7

I'll help. Those numbers are in order. They represent, from your own link, revenue as a percentage of GDP for 2011, 2012, and 2013. The numbers have gotten bigger, not smaller.
Ass kicking #1.

Unemployment under Bush reached a maximum of 7.8% For most of his 2 terms it was closer to 5%. There was lots of job loss at the end of his term but that was mostly stabilized by the time Obama got in office.
For Obama 7.3% was the best showing. And even there we cannot trust the gov't figures much because we know they are manipulated. Equally, workforce participation is the lowest it's ever been. If it were where it was when Obama took office the UE rate would be over 10%.
Obama has not created many jobs. More people have dropped out of the labor force, gone on disability, than have gotten jobs.
Ass kicking #2.

Finally, are you giving Obama credit for creating jobs or not? Or does he get credit when jobs are created but Bush gets blame when not enough are? Your last sentence is completely incoherent. Even for you.
Ass kicking #3.
I'd say you're way behind here. "Behind". Get it?

You and I both know you are losing this argument horribly. Stop kidding yourself. Revenue is very low. A percentage point hardly makes a difference.

You are completley wrong about the jobs lost in Bush's final months:

Sept. 2008: 432,000 lost
October 2008: 289,000 lost
November 2008: 803,000 lost
Dec 2008: 661,000 lost
January 2009: 818,000 lost
February 2009: 724,000 lost
March 2009 799,000lost
April 2009 692,000 lost
May 2009 369,000 lost
June 2009 482,000 lost
July 337,000 lost
August 231,000 lost
Sept 199,000 lost
October 202,000 lost
November 64,000 GAINED
Dec 2009 109,000 lost
January 2010 40,000 lost
February 2010 35,000 lost
March 2010 189,000 GAINED
April 2010 232,000 GAINED
May 516,000 GAINED

As you can see, the stimulus not only slowed down the job loss rate dramatically, it also began to CREATE jobs. In total, the stimulus created 2.5 million.

Suure. Let's play spin doctor. Stimulus? What stimulus? If that money were truly helping, there would be more people participating in the labor force. Consider your argument annulled.

Current Labor Force Participation Rate as of October:

 

[FactFinder]

Yes Billy, facts are facts. And the fact is you are wrong.
Let's try this again. Can you put these numbers in order from highest to lowest?
15.0;15.2;16.7

I'll help. Those numbers are in order. They represent, from your own link, revenue as a percentage of GDP for 2011, 2012, and 2013. The numbers have gotten bigger, not smaller.
Ass kicking #1.

Unemployment under Bush reached a maximum of 7.8% For most of his 2 terms it was closer to 5%. There was lots of job loss at the end of his term but that was mostly stabilized by the time Obama got in office.
For Obama 7.3% was the best showing. And even there we cannot trust the gov't figures much because we know they are manipulated. Equally, workforce participation is the lowest it's ever been. If it were where it was when Obama took office the UE rate would be over 10%.
Obama has not created many jobs. More people have dropped out of the labor force, gone on disability, than have gotten jobs.
Ass kicking #2.

Finally, are you giving Obama credit for creating jobs or not? Or does he get credit when jobs are created but Bush gets blame when not enough are? Your last sentence is completely incoherent. Even for you.
Ass kicking #3.
I'd say you're way behind here. "Behind". Get it?

You and I both know you are losing this argument horribly. Stop kidding yourself. Revenue is very low. A percentage point hardly makes a difference.

You are completley wrong about the jobs lost in Bush's final months:

Sept. 2008: 432,000 lost
October 2008: 289,000 lost
November 2008: 803,000 lost
Dec 2008: 661,000 lost
January 2009: 818,000 lost
February 2009: 724,000 lost
March 2009 799,000lost
April 2009 692,000 lost
May 2009 369,000 lost
June 2009 482,000 lost
July 337,000 lost
August 231,000 lost
Sept 199,000 lost
October 202,000 lost
November 64,000 GAINED
Dec 2009 109,000 lost
January 2010 40,000 lost
February 2010 35,000 lost
March 2010 189,000 GAINED
April 2010 232,000 GAINED
May 516,000 GAINED

As you can see, the stimulus not only slowed down the job loss rate dramatically, it also began to CREATE jobs. In total, the stimulus created 2.5 million.

Suure. Let's play spin doctor. Stimulus? What stimulus? If that money were truly helping, there would be more people participating in the labor force. Consider your argument annulled.

Current Labor Force Participation Rate as of October:

Republicans and Bush were riding the housing bubble that was in many ways propped up by them, The obvious cause of the crash was the housing bubble. The obvious people responsible were those in charge. Case closed..... Though I am agnostic to the issue.. Obama inherited one hell of a mess. Created by the responsible party> Bush and company....PERIOD.