Obama = no jobs

[adam]

One year into this mess of a president and still no jobs.

LIes, Lies, Lies

I would hate to be looking for a job in America.

What are you onions?

[bane]

I think the situation would be the same no matter who we elected. You can't fix an economic catastrophy of that scale in a year.

[VinnieKulick]

Just curious, why the White House has backed away from talking about how many jobs the stimulus would create and save. Now they'll just say "we gave them ____________ dollars". Pretty telling about how even they see their failures.

[shadow]

What are you onions?

My onion is that if this was a GOP administration there's no doubt that we'd be hearing the obvious from the right - inherited the worst economic mess since the Great Depression, only a year in and already most economists are saying we're on the rebound, job losses seem to have capped out and we should expect to see the unemployment rate drop soon.

[BTW - the unemployment rate continued to grow under Ronald Reagan (the hero of the right) and peaked at 10.8% - well into his first term - before the job market began to recover.]

It's impossible to debate when people will only see the data in a way that makes the opposition party look unfavorable.

[VinnieKulick]

What are you onions?

My onion is that if this was a GOP administration there's no doubt that we'd be hearing the obvious from the right - inherited the worst economic mess since the Great Depression, only a year in and already most economists are saying we're on the rebound, job losses seem to have capped out and we should expect to see the unemployment rate drop soon.

[BTW - the unemployment rate continued to grow under Ronald Reagan (the hero of the right) and peaked at 10.8% - well into his first term - before the job market began to recover.]

It's impossible to debate when people will only see the data in a way that makes the opposition party look unfavorable.

Yet you begin your argument with "If this was a GOP administration".

Bottom line is this. We were told by economists that this situation WOULD fix itself within two years.
We were told by Obama that Unemployment would stay under 8% if the stimulus was passed.

We haven't even started to talk about the inflation that is going to occur due to the influx of cash into the economy.

[bane]

To be fair, some economists said that, others said we were on the verge of a depression. Additionally, a stimulus bill would have been passed no matter who was in office (unless it was Ron Paul I guess).

[lerxstcat]

What are you onions?

My onion is that if this was a GOP administration there's no doubt that we'd be hearing the obvious from the right - inherited the worst economic mess since the Great Depression, only a year in and already most economists are saying we're on the rebound, job losses seem to have capped out and we should expect to see the unemployment rate drop soon.

[BTW - the unemployment rate continued to grow under Ronald Reagan (the hero of the right) and peaked at 10.8% - well into his first term - before the job market began to recover.]

It's impossible to debate when people will only see the data in a way that makes the opposition party look unfavorable.

Yet you begin your argument with "If this was a GOP administration".

Bottom line is this. We were told by economists that this situation WOULD fix itself within two years.
We were told by Obama that Unemployment would stay under 8% if the stimulus was passed.

We haven't even started to talk about the inflation that is going to occur due to the influx of cash into the economy.

Right, since you are partisan in your argument, the point was made that the same situation would pertain and you'd be using it to defend the incumbent President rather than attack him. Pretty simple to see the point there.

The economy had not been in such bad shape in most people's lifetimes, not in 80 years. The situation was full of unknowns and prediction s were all over the place. Also don't forget that the first $700 billion stimulus was deemed urgently needed by George W. Bush, who, last time I checked, was the most recent Republican President.

When I toook business and economics classes in college, the profs emphasized how the system depends on consumer confidence to function - faith, in essence. If we don't believe, it crumbles.

Our government had to do something to convince the people that it could fix things, or they WOULD have collapsed. You might think it would've all resolved in 2 years, and maybe so.

Or maybe our whole civilization would have collapsed into chaos, looting and murder when half the planet became unemployed and hungry.

The fact that it was unknown territory means that O ONE knew what would happen... just that, with all the predictions, someone would have GUESSED correctly.

If McCain had won, we would HAVE our Great Depression, I believe that now. Republicans would dig moats, hire more bodyguards and ride it out.

[VinnieKulick]

You're obviously listening to people who are unqualified to have an opinion on this topic. Kenneth Rogoff, an economist who endorsed McCain, published a book recently which establishes that unemployment typically rises for 4-5 years after a financial crisis.

Well, just so that I know, where did you get your degree in economics?
Since the I've heard BOTH sides, and have heard BOTH sides say it would even out on it's own, or it would need the stimulus to bring us out, who should I believe? Just the ones that YOU believe?

In a recent paper, Kenneth Rogoff and I examined the international experience with episodes of severe banking crises. The depth, duration and characteristics of the economic slump following the crises traced out a few empirical regularities. Our main findings in that paper can be summarized as follows:

* Financial crises are protracted affairs.
* Asset market collapses are deep and prolonged.

Real housing price declines average 35% stretched out over six years.
Equity price collapses average 55% over a downturn of about three and a half years.

* There are profound declines in output and employment.

The unemployment rate rises an average of 7 percentage points over the down phase of the cycle, which lasts on average over four years.

Link: http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/2877

When he told the truth about the economy, he was criticized for "talking down the economy." You are again listening to the wrong people for your economic analysis. Listen to well respected pragmatic economists who aren't blatantly affiliated with a political party of economic ideology. Don't listen to politicians.

So, let me get it straight, I shouldn't listen to politicians if they tell me that we need to spend money to stop the loss of jobs, right?
Obama said this several times, and certainly somebody who the left seems to think is so brilliant, couldn't be just plain WRONG could he? Or was he just talking out of his ass?

We haven't even started to talk about the inflation that is going to occur due to the influx of cash into the economy.

Nonsense. There is extensive talk every day about the possibility of inflation. Tune into the financial news or pick up the business section of any newspaper. Every time they analyze exchange rates or commodities prices, they talk extensively about the possibility of inflation. Possibility of inflation is very low in this economic environment. Inflation is related to not only the quantity of money but the velocity of money. A protracted financial crisis, a rising savings rate, baby boomers unprepared for retirement, all suggest a low velocity of money for quite a while.[/quote]

Okay, if you say so. When we're facing higher prices across the board for goods and services in three years, we'll revisit this.

[tin00can]

Shouldn't we expect to pay higher prices across the board in a few years? Isn't that a natural progression?