Unemployment numbers
- Thread starter 804brown
- Start date
MAKAVELI
Well-Known Member
You're right the numbers don't show how bad Bush m....ed up our economy.
Last edited by a moderator:
ImWaitingForTheDay
Annoy a conservative....Think for yourself
The one thing you can count on republicans to do is screw things up!
For those who need a "Refresher" on republic policy......
Recessions Since 1950 and Party in WH at
Onset
Jul 1953 - May 1954 Republican
Aug 1957 - Apr 1958 Republican
Apr 1960 - Feb 1961 Republican
Dec 1969 - Nov 1970 Republican
Nov 1973 - Mar 1975 Republican
Jan 1980 - July 1980 Democrat
Jul 1981 - Nov 1982 Republican
Jul 1990 - Mar 1991 Republican
Mar 2001 - Nov 2001 Republican
Dec 2007 - Jun 2009 Republican
There have been 22 recessions since 1900.
16 have started under Republican leadership, 6
under Democrat leadership and the 2 worst 1929
and now when Repubs had control of WH and congress for more than 8 years(the
only times in history)
http://www.nber.org/cycles.htm...
Given repub economic history, the 2 largest
depressions in our history, the only 2 times they have had control of congress
and WH for more than 8 years.. why does anyone listen to them on economics,
when they never show supporting economic data.. just beliefs.
For those who need a "Refresher" on republic policy......
Recessions Since 1950 and Party in WH at
Onset
Jul 1953 - May 1954 Republican
Aug 1957 - Apr 1958 Republican
Apr 1960 - Feb 1961 Republican
Dec 1969 - Nov 1970 Republican
Nov 1973 - Mar 1975 Republican
Jan 1980 - July 1980 Democrat
Jul 1981 - Nov 1982 Republican
Jul 1990 - Mar 1991 Republican
Mar 2001 - Nov 2001 Republican
Dec 2007 - Jun 2009 Republican
There have been 22 recessions since 1900.
16 have started under Republican leadership, 6
under Democrat leadership and the 2 worst 1929
and now when Repubs had control of WH and congress for more than 8 years(the
only times in history)
http://www.nber.org/cycles.htm...
Given repub economic history, the 2 largest
depressions in our history, the only 2 times they have had control of congress
and WH for more than 8 years.. why does anyone listen to them on economics,
when they never show supporting economic data.. just beliefs.
moreluck
golden ticket member
It has nothing to do with Bush.....checking the broad spectrum just makes sense for people who can think for themselves.You're right the numbers don't show how bad Bush friend....ed up our economy.
For instance.......You move to Florida because you heard that there's no income tax......you failed to check the 'other' taxes. Maybe the property taxes are twice what you were used to paying and the sales tax more than you paid in your other state and licensing the cars requires a property-type tax now where it was only a set fee in your old state.
It's really breaking yourbank....Bush's fault? No, you failed to get the whole picture of the tax situation..
Babagounj
Strength through joy
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11161150/Are-you-among-the-worlds-wealthiest.html
If you have $3,650, including the value of your home, you’re among the wealthiest half of people in the world. (This is net wealth - so, once debts have been subtracted.)
If you have $3,650, including the value of your home, you’re among the wealthiest half of people in the world. (This is net wealth - so, once debts have been subtracted.)
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
Looks like less people are working to provide for their families.
If the are not working to provide for their famies, how are their families being provided for?
More people on food stamps, welfare and public assisted housing.
A Democrat's dream, more people enslaved to the government.
We all know how the Democrats love slavery.
throwaway10
Well-Known Member
What I'd love to see, is actual unemployed #'s not the %of unemployment claims.
Many people have given up trying to get jobs.
Many people have given up trying to get jobs.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
One possible reason being put forth for the decline in labor participation, is the elimination of long term unemployment benefits. It costs money to look for a job. Another reason put forth is that a great many people who would normally be 'labor participants' are now excluded, many of them minorities, due to the uneven 'justice' administered due to a failed 'war on drugs' and for profit prisons.
Interestingly, all of the above could be fixed by more government.
Interestingly, all of the above could be fixed by more government.
1989
Well-Known Member
Huh?
moreluck
golden ticket member
Labor participation has dropped because JOBS have been outsourced to other countries. Labor participation is reflecting outsourced jobs since most of them left during the BUSH administration.
You wont hear the right wing mouthpieces talking about this, but they will only focus and keep your focus on the numbers.
What do you people think would happen to the labor participation rate when jobs are outsourced in the millions and not replaced??
TOS.
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
Again you TROLL PATROL members want it both ways. Didn't you all say that the president was just a FIGURE HEAD?
Besides, it's congress that spends the money and has a much greater influence on the economy than the president. Would like to see your chart with those years and which party controlled congress.
