Once again, spending is way down under a Democratic President

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So you like the teabaggers for cutting spending TC?

 

[FA_Q2]

So you like the teabaggers for cutting spending TC?

Naw. It is Obamas praise when spending decreases and jobs increase, the tea parties obstruction whenever jobs decrease, Bush’s fault whenever there is spending increases or spending at all, individual agency’s faults when they have an illegal policy, Obama’s personal success whenever they do something good and Bush’s fault whenever there is a foreign policy problem.

Get your excuses straight, Obama is ONLY responsible for successes.

 

[edthecynic]

So you like the teabaggers for cutting spending TC?

Do you mean the "Obamaquester" that the Tea Bag Brotherhood say is completely and totally Obama's idea????

 

[KissMy]

Here is the big picture. Deficit spending exploded during the end of Bush & beginning of Obama's term. This is mainly due to the bailouts & stimulus. Government spending is only down a little from a really high level it spiked to from bailout & stimulus. Government income is way down. Way more work must be done or the USA will be the next Detroit of Greece.

 

[RKMBrown]

Here is the big picture. Deficit spending exploded during the end of Bush & beginning of Obama's term. This is mainly due to the bailouts & stimulus. Government spending is only down a little from a really high level it spiked to from bailout & stimulus. Government income is way down. Way more work must be done or the USA will be the next Detroit of Greece.

Or we could spend less.

Funny how the democrats take credit for spending cuts while simultaneously blaming republicans for the same spending cuts while simultaneously vilifying the very people who pay for the spending.

 

[pinqy]

You are incorrect. U-3, the most widely used rate is calculated by taking the number of people collecting Unemployment payments vs the number of people employed in full time jobs.

I would love to see a link to your source for that.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What's inconvenient about the U6 is that it is very subjective (therefore bigger margin of error) and it only goes back to 1994 and so can't be compared to any earlier time period. And it Isn't a measure of unemployment since it includes people who have jobs.

Subjective in what manner? Give examples..

Unemployed is objective: either someone is actively looking for work, or they're not. The measure is based solely on action.
Marginally attached are those who looked for work and stopped, but say they actually do want to work. That's more subjective. It's based on what they say they want, not what they're doing. Similarly, part time for economic reasons is about how many hours someone would like to work. Let's say you call the U6 "real unemployment." You would classify someone working 32 hours a week involuntarily unemployed and someone working 6 hours/week voluntarily employed.

Does that really seem objective to you?

Define "working"...

[/QUOTE]

Liberal psycho-babble

 

[pinqy]

Subjective in what manner? Give examples..

Unemployed is objective: either someone is actively looking for work, or they're not. The measure is based solely on action.
Marginally attached are those who looked for work and stopped, but say they actually do want to work. That's more subjective. It's based on what they say they want, not what they're doing. Similarly, part time for economic reasons is about how many hours someone would like to work. Let's say you call the U6 "real unemployment." You would classify someone working 32 hours a week involuntarily unemployed and someone working 6 hours/week voluntarily employed.

Does that really seem objective to you?

Define "working"...

Liberal psycho-babble[/QUOTE]
Econ 101. It's not "liberal", it's how the US has always defined unemployed.

Still waiting for your source that supports your claim on definition.