Then I guess we shouldnt say Socialism is a bad thing?

 

As for Cali, they are a donor state (meaning they pay more federal taxes than they receive in federal benefits) if the state didnt have to subsidize the conservative Southern states, the California economy would be much better off.

 

Once again a Socialist policy.

 

I guess I am just confused as to what economic policies people are presenting here.

 

That being said, abuse is far more rampant with illegal immigrants as they can not seek legal relief. When you have LEGAL IMMIGRANTS, they have to pay taxes, they have the rights of other Americans (thus if there is minimum wage everyone has to play by the same rules).

 

Restriction of labor is more mercantilism/protectionist, as opposed to free market.

Then I guess we shouldnt say Socialism is a bad thing?

 

As for Cali, they are a donor state (meaning they pay more federal taxes than they receive in federal benefits) if the state didnt have to subsidize the conservative Southern states, the California economy would be much better off.

 

Once again a Socialist policy.

 

I guess I am just confused as to what economic policies people are presenting here.

 

That being said, abuse is far more rampant with illegal immigrants as they can not seek legal relief. When you have LEGAL IMMIGRANTS, they have to pay taxes, they have the rights of other Americans (thus if there is minimum wage everyone has to play by the same rules).

 

Restriction of labor is more mercantilism/protectionist, as opposed to free market.

 

I think most of us support collectively contributing for the better of society. To what extent these mandated contributions should be in-place, what should be a socialized service, and if excessive mandated contributions and entitlements harm society.. .those are the issues.

 

As far as your suggestion that the existence of sovereign countries is not a "free market" attribute, I don't agree with that.

Missed this one. The 10 year US Treasury note dropped to its lowest rate ever earlier this week, then has broken that record 2 days in a row. Beat the mark set in 1946 on Wednesday, and has dropped another 10% or so since then already.

And the banks keep right on buying without an effect to their capital ratios. Hello, bigger bubble then 2008.

Bush still gets blamed for a recession that technically started six weeks after he took office...

 

At least that started under his Presidency. And Republicans said for years that it was "Clinton's recession" and it was so completely unfair to blame Bush for it. But yet they turn around and blame Obama for a recession that started over a year before he took office.

At least that started under his Presidency. And Republicans said for years that it was "Clinton's recession" and it was so completely unfair to blame Bush for it. But yet they turn around and blame Obama for a recession that started over a year before he took office.

 

Not the recession, the recovery years later, important difference.

Not the recession, the recovery years later, important difference.

jenks mentioned dec 2007.

jenks mentioned dec 2007.

 

jenks=Republicans?

Don't make me spam this thread with Romney campaign talking points and conservative political cartoons.

Don't make me spam this thread with Romney campaign talking points and conservative political cartoons.

 

So where do you switch over blame for financial conditions?

Some time after someone's policies actually start to be implemented?

Some time after someone's policies actually start to be implemented?

 

Which means what, four years?

Which means what, four years?

 

No, it means whatever you want to mean for the convenience of whichever side you happen to be arguing for. That means it would be anywhere between Immediately and 40 years.

Which means what, four years?

 

When the stimulus passed at a minimum, more appropriately as the funding went out. Mid-Late 2009?

When the stimulus passed at a minimum, more appropriately as the funding went out. Mid-Late 2009?

 

Accounting for the velocity of money, this has been Obama's economy for about a year and a half or two years by your standards.

Accounting for the velocity of money, this has been Obama's economy for about a year and a half or two years by your standards.

Ok?

Hey all I was pointing to was that unemployment hasn't gotten any better under Obama. It's gotten worse. Yes, he inherited a s***ty economy, but he has done nothing to improve that situation in almost 4 years.

 

I'm also a huge fan of Obama taking credit for what Bush started - the auto bailout. So...he gets it both ways. s***ty job market = "Bush's fault." Auto industry rebounding - "I did it all!"

Hey all I was pointing to was that unemployment hasn't gotten any better under Obama. It's gotten worse. Yes, he inherited a s***ty economy, but he has done nothing to improve that situation in almost 4 years.

 

I'm also a huge fan of Obama taking credit for what Bush started - the auto bailout. So...he gets it both ways. s***ty job market = "Bush's fault." Auto industry rebounding - "I did it all!"

 

You used December 2007 as your starting point. Unemployment has gotten better under Obama even if you look at rates other than the typical U3.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/whats-the...l-jobless-rate/

 

s***ty job market and global financial collapse in 2007 & 2008 = "not Obama's fault" at the very least. Bush provided emergency loans to the automakers and Obama's administration ran through the managed bankruptcy process. I don't know that Obama's claimed "I did it all" as most of his campaign rhetoric in this area has been contrasting him against Romney's private-equity stance, not Bush. But if you're going to be critical of Obama for taking too much of the credit there, how about Romney taking "a great deal of credit" for the auto bailouts?

You used December 2007 as your starting point. Unemployment has gotten better under Obama even if you look at rates other than the typical U3.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/whats-the...l-jobless-rate/

 

s***ty job market and global financial collapse in 2007 & 2008 = "not Obama's fault" at the very least. Bush provided emergency loans to the automakers and Obama's administration ran through the managed bankruptcy process. I don't know that Obama's claimed "I did it all" as most of his campaign rhetoric in this area has been contrasting him against Romney's private-equity stance, not Bush. But if you're going to be critical of Obama for taking too much of the credit there, how about Romney taking "a great deal of credit" for the auto bailouts?

 

Sounds like a lot of regurgitated political double speak.

Where's the double-speak? How on earth is it fair to hold Obama accountable for unemployment losses from December 2007-January 2009? On what standard is jenks' claim that "unemployment has gotten worse under Obama" actually true, even if you use January 20th, 2009 as the starting point?

Where's the double-speak? How on earth is it fair to hold Obama accountable for unemployment losses from December 2007-January 2009? On what standard is jenks' claim that "unemployment has gotten worse under Obama" actually true, even if you use January 20th, 2009 as the starting point?

 

?

 

In Jan 2009 u3 was less than 8%. In May 2012 it's at 8.3%. How is that not worse? That's 2 years after the recession started. Yes, obviously that's the 07-08 recession affecting the 09 numbers, but nothing is better in terms of unemployment in Obama's presidency. Having things get worse and then getting them back down isn't "better" from where he started.

You're right, if you include January 2009 for Obama, unemployment has gotten "worse" under his Presidency. If you use February 2009, it's improved ever-so-slightly.

 

Do you think there's anything that anyone could have done starting on 1/2/09 to prevent U3 from reaching 10% in late 2009?

Edited June 4, 201213 yr by StrangeSox

You're right, if you include January 2009 for Obama, unemployment has gotten "worse" under his Presidency. If you use February 2009, it's improved ever-so-slightly.

 

Do you think there's anything that anyone could have done starting on 1/2/09 to prevent U3 from reaching 10% in late 2009?

 

Spending a year on passing legislation for job/economic growth instead of health care?

 

 

Spending a year on passing legislation for job/economic growth instead of health care?

 

U3 was above 9% in May 2009 and hit 10% in October. The stimulus bill was passed in early February, well before anyone started to focus on health care.

 

What could have been done in such a short time period to stop it from getting that high?

 

You're right, if you include January 2009 for Obama, unemployment has gotten "worse" under his Presidency. If you use February 2009, it's improved ever-so-slightly.

 

Do you think there's anything that anyone could have done starting on 1/2/09 to prevent U3 from reaching 10% in late 2009?

 

This is a perfect highlight of political double speak.

 

If/when/else.

 

IF we exclude this, THEN his numbers are awesome.

 

IF we start at 2008.

 

IF we don't do X, Y or Z.

 

Like I said, political double speak.

 

So...seriously, are you asking where I'm finding the political double speak?

 

All the f*** over the place.