America on the wrong path to recovery?

[outcaster]

Are we on the wrong path to economic recovery?  I keep hearing that all the time.  Here's what the numbers look like for the last year of the Bush admin and the first year of the Obama admin.  Almost a perfect mirror image when you put the job loss Labor Dept numbers in an "easy to understand" chart</p>

 </p>

 

[EricM]

Not sure I'd rely too much on a chart titled "Cluster**ck Chart of the Day" emoEek emoEek emoUpsmile emoUpsmile

 

[outcaster]

Depends on which side of the chart you like.... the "Red" side is a cluster****

 

[Sniperchoke]

Yeah and we are only another 5 trillion in the hole. Wooooooooooohoooooooooo!!!!!!! Did you know that if you spent $1.00 every second of the day it would only take 96 thousand years to spend one trillion. Barack Hussein Obama MMMMM, MMMMM, MMMMMM!!!!!!

 

[outcaster]

Sniperchoke - 11/1/2010 10:04 PM

Yeah and we are only another 5 trillion in the hole. Wooooooooooohoooooooooo!!!!!!! Did you know that if you spent $1.00 every second of the day it would only take 96 thousand years to spend one trillion. Barack Hussein Obama MMMMM, MMMMM, MMMMMM!!!!!!

When Bush tripled the dept were you griping then? bet not. But since a Liberal black man from Chicago is President, you (and most conservatives) have a "newly found hatred" for deficits now. Funny how that works out, isn't it? If we can keep that graph headed the other way (creating jobs), and stop giving the largest tax benefits to the ones that need them the least, and get our Military out of the middle east, the deficit will take care of itself.

 

[Sniperchoke]

I didn't agree with Bush and Democratic congress tripling the debt and I didn't agree with Obama and a Democratic congress Quadrupaling the debt. Both parties have their faults the road to socialism is just much faster paced with Democrats.. As far as tax benefits going to the ones that need them least as I have said many times before the to 10% of income earners those making over $113,000.00 per year pay 70% of all icome taxes. The bottom 50% of all income earners those making less than 33,000.00 a year pay 2.7% of all taxes. So you tell me which group needs the tax benefits.

 

[outcaster]

Sniperchoke - 11/2/2010 10:42 AM

I didn't agree with Bush and Democratic congress tripling the debt and I didn't agree with Obama and a Democratic congress Quadrupaling the debt. Both parties have their faults the road to socialism is just much faster paced with Democrats.. As far as tax benefits going to the ones that need them least as I have said many times before the to 10% of income earners those making over $113,000.00 per year pay 70% of all icome taxes. The bottom 50% of all income earners those making less than 33,000.00 a year pay 2.7% of all taxes. So you tell me which group needs the tax benefits.

The families making 75K to 125K are the ones being screwed. Yet they are the ones creating the jobs... they deserve the tax breaks. Don't even get me started on payroll taxes, fuel taxes, sin taxes licenses and fees. The poor pays nothing, the richest 3% get the biggest breaks in Federal income taxes, and the middle class carries the load.

 

[SpurHunter]

emoScratch emoScratch
Soooooooo much to go with here......

So your telling me, IF this is even accurate, (I have never heard of this group) that BEFORE Olbumer was even inaugurated, the economic recovery was starting to take place, and that he gets credit for it? emoScratch emoScratch I would say that is a strech for sure.

Danny, you are a smart guy, you do realize how big the economy is right? You also know that it takes years, and years for any change to make its way into a graph like that you have posted?

So how again is the recovery because of the Dem's??

 

[rstewart]

B. Hussein Obama will go down as one of the worst presidents in American history. He was unqualified for the job but we dumbasses elected him anyway. He still doesn't get it. They tout the so-called stimulus as having staved off a depression. What a crock of **edited for profanity**! We pissed away somewhere in the neighborhood of $827 BILLION to "create or save" 3.5 million jobs. No way in hell is that number correct but for the sake of argument I'll use it. That equates to a cost of almost $237K per job. Let me repeat that number for you slow readers, that is $237K per job. Only in government does it make sense to spend $237K to create a job.

 

[Buoy-Master]

Deficit take care of itself?

 

[Liveliner]

If my dates are not too wrong, I remember that the chart starts at the same time that theDemocratstook control of the Legislative Branch of the Government. As you should know, they made the rules and fought "W" tooth and nails. How can you even consider blaming Bush? With Obama it is all democrat control. That is why they are still blaming Bush two years after for their current failures. </p>

Another big issue I have with the chart and media reports is that it is a know fact that the reportings and that chart reflects only the people actively seeking employment through a reporting agency and the numbers drawing unemployment income. We all know Unemployment checks have ended, thousands have given up and have foundalternativemeans for income and many have been forced to move in with their parents. In addition and for the most part many are struggling by stretching out their savings and using their retirement money for survival. </p>

That chart is Doomed Democrat propaganda.</p>

 

[Sniperchoke]

Sin taxes? Are you serious? One of the first things Obama did was increase the Federal tax on cigarettes by 160%. It was over a dollar a pack. That increase in tax alone disproportionatley affected the poor 28 times more than an increase in income tax would have. It also has no measurable affect on the amount of cigarettes sold. Sucks to be a poor smoker under Obama.

 

[Liveliner]

I just heard on television that unemployment is up Thirty Percent since Obama has taken office and the people are mad. Duh !!! Who is being fooled by Propaganda

 

[outcaster]

I wondered how long it would take for someone to use the label "Democrat Propaganda". The graph lists "Job Losses" not un- employment numbers. The graph simply took Dept of Labor job loss stats and put them in an "easy to understand" graph that my third grader could understand. Liveliner , if you had bothered to actually read the graph instead of just calling it democrat propaganda, you would know that. Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion.... they however are NOT entitled to their own set of Facts. Spur, The Blue side of the graph starts Jan 09, the first month Obama was on the job. You're right, this economy may take 6-8 more years to fully recover. The graph illustrates to me that some of the things the Obama has put in place, at least for now has stopped the bleeding. Maybe you have better explanation. Billy, If the economy can recover, if we get the tax structure back to "normal", if we can get military spend under control, the budget deficit will disappear like pounds off a fat girl on ephedrine

 

[Liveliner]

I did read that Danny. Am I wrong in thinking that Job loss and unemployment do go hand in hand. Reality is that there were just so many jobs that could be lost. Based on the numbers of businesses that were destine to fail, The business reductions caused by the failing economy and no work for the self-employed. What that chart does not show and distorts is the fact that when there were no more jobs that can close, it appears to show improvements. That is where I can see the propaganda come into play. The chart shows the decline in numbers of job losses as if that is a good thing. What is does not show is jobs being created as the bar goes back up. Actually the bar should have been level until jobs were being created at the rate they were being lost as the bar went lower. That is an unfair and bias chart. Thus, my comment Propaganda.</p>

If that chart was correct, then everyone would be back at work in November 2009 plus new jobs available as the chart shows.</p>

 

[tyler ware]

I have forgotten what actually happened, but didn't the stimulus happen under the Bush admin? I thought is was close to the election time.

Thanks

TW

 

[outcaster]

The bleeding has to stop before the healing can begin. I believe they call it triage. Speaking of "Job Creation" Let's look at it historically. Going back 50 years. It's been those godless, whiny, pinko, liberal, socialist DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTS that out performed their Republican counterparts when it comes to creating jobs in our economy. Source: Dept of Labor

George W Bush 375,000 jobs per year
Bill Clinton 2,900,000 jobs per year
George H W Bush 625,000 jobs per year
Ronald Reagan 2,000,000 jobs per year
Jimmy Carter 2,600,000 jobs per year (bet ya didn't know that)
Gerald Ford 745,000 jobs per year
Richard Nixon 1,700,000 jobs per year
Lyndon Johnson 2,300,000 jobs per year
John F Kennedy 1,200.000 jobs per year
Dwight D Eisenhower 438,000 jobs per year
Harry S Truman 1,100,000 jobs per year

Democrats: 2,020,000 jobs per year avg
Republicans: 980,000 jobs per year avg

In 2009 the Obama Admin would have had to create 4,200,000 jobs just to keep up with the job losses. The Beloved Ronald Reagan never did half that in his best year.

 

[Liveliner]

outcaster - 11/2/2010 9:33 PM The bleeding has to stop before the healing can begin. I believe they call it triage. Speaking of "Job Creation" Let's look at it historically. Going back 50 years. It's been those godless, whiny, pinko, liberal, socialist DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTS that out performed their Republican counterparts when it comes to creating jobs in our economy. Source: Dept of Labor George W Bush 375,000 jobs per year Bill Clinton 2,900,000 jobs per year George H W Bush 625,000 jobs per year Ronald Reagan 2,000,000 jobs per year Jimmy Carter 2,600,000 jobs per year (bet ya didn't know that) Gerald Ford 745,000 jobs per year Richard Nixon 1,700,000 jobs per year Lyndon Johnson 2,300,000 jobs per year John F Kennedy 1,200.000 jobs per year Dwight D Eisenhower 438,000 jobs per year Harry S Truman 1,100,000 jobs per year Democrats: 2,020,000 jobs per year avg Republicans: 980,000 jobs per year avg See if you can spin that!

</p>

I like that info Danny, I did not know those facts. Good to know, But I do not see how that applies to our last four years and Obama who isdefinitelyno John F.Kennedy.</p>

 

[outcaster]

Liveliner - 11/2/2010 10:44 PM

outcaster - 11/2/2010 9:33 PM The bleeding has to stop before the healing can begin. I believe they call it triage. Speaking of "Job Creation" Let's look at it historically. Going back 50 years. It's been those godless, whiny, pinko, liberal, socialist DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTS that out performed their Republican counterparts when it comes to creating jobs in our economy. Source: Dept of Labor George W Bush 375,000 jobs per year Bill Clinton 2,900,000 jobs per year George H W Bush 625,000 jobs per year Ronald Reagan 2,000,000 jobs per year Jimmy Carter 2,600,000 jobs per year (bet ya didn't know that) Gerald Ford 745,000 jobs per year Richard Nixon 1,700,000 jobs per year Lyndon Johnson 2,300,000 jobs per year John F Kennedy 1,200.000 jobs per year Dwight D Eisenhower 438,000 jobs per year Harry S Truman 1,100,000 jobs per year Democrats: 2,020,000 jobs per year avg Republicans: 980,000 jobs per year avg See if you can spin that!

</p>

 I like that info Danny,  I did not know those facts.  Good to know, But I do not see how that applies to our last four years and Obama who is definitely no John F. Kennedy.</p>

Maybe it's because he has to follow the worst performing President in the last 60 years. He has one helluva mess to clean up. And history tells me that Democrats will always out perform Republicans in creating jobs and helping our economy. The American people want instant gratification and have the political attention span of a 2 year old. Do you really believe that Obama could have created 4.2 million jobs this year? No President has ever come close to that in the last 60 years.

 

[Liveliner]

I guess we could keep this discussion going but the very best thing to do is to remain friends and wait it out to see what the outcome will be. History will tell. I hope to be around in January, 2015. Lets pick this up then. We may need to do an update in mid November, 2012 if things go as per the current movement of the masses.
I promise that if I am wrong, I am man enough to concede. David