Because there was an increase in the total labor pool of 642,000 people. With that large increase in the labor pool, even with a modest increase in the number of people employed, there was an increase in the unemployment rate.
Bush left Obama with an economy that was mid-free fall. Expecting a miraculous recovery within months of Obama inheriting the office is either a fool playing partisan politics or one naive citizen. And even with the low job growth from May, I think we'll all agree that we'd rather have Obama's job growth versus Bush's job loss.
Nope, I was and am correct. The unemployent claims ARE NOT considered it the current government job claims, OBVIOUSLY. How else could a "NET JOBS GAIN" as YOU CLAIM, result in RISING UNEMPLOYMENT? Der....
No, the mortgage crisis, fomented by fraud at Fanni/Freddie , by the DEMOCRATS IN CHARGE THERE, are what caused the economelt,and were nhardly Bush's doing. He should be faulted for not having the stones to take on the Sleazocrats, who fought off EVERY ATTEMPT to reform/look into Fannie and Freddie. The Dim-o-crats had FULL CONTROL of CONGRESS SINCE '06, until they lost the House in '10. Try again...
Oh, 642,000 people "suddenly entered the labor pool"? From where? ( I know..from the "employment pool"!) Is that the bullcrap "spin" you expect to float by here now? So, LOSING ONE'S JOB, is now to be known as "entering the labor pool". Got it. AS I correctly pointed out, if the job numbers posted were "NET GAINS" which means OVER LOSSES, unemployment CANNOT GO UP. Unless , of course, more than half a million people are suddenly "created", and "enter the labor pool". Yeah , we had 383,000 of them "enter the labor pool" just last week.... As I said, save your ridiculous crap for your fellow Leftninnies; they can't count , either....at least you were forced to admit that the JOBS NUMBER DOES NOT INCLUDE THOSE WHO LOST THEIR JOBS , (or , "entered the labor pool" , in Leftninny Liespeak), OVER THE SAME TIME PERIOD= POINT MADE. Thanks for your (although weak), participation in today's Debunking Leftninny Econocrap thread...
Actually, the housing crisis was brought on by the de-regulation of the lending market instituted by Bush, and the consequent entrance of private lenders into the sub-prime market. Fannie / Freddie were victims of the housing crisis. Simple facts, pal.
More like bullcrap, pal. The mortgage bank deregulation took place UNDER CLINTON as did the catastrophic COMMUINITY RE-INVESTMENT ACT. A MoveOn.org Political Action ad plays the partisan blame game with the economic crisis, charging that John McCains friend and former economic adviser Phil Gramm stripped safeguards that would have protected us. The claim is bogus. Gramms legislation had broad bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Clinton. Moreover, the bill had nothing to do with causing the crisis, and economists not to mention President Clinton praise it for having softened the crisis. The MoveOn.org Political Action ad blames a banking deregulation bill sponsored by former Sen. Phil Gramm, a friend and one-time adviser to McCains campaign. It claims the bill "stripped safeguards that would have protected us." That claim is bunk. When we contacted MoveOn.org spokesman Trevor Fitzgibbons to ask just what "safeguards" the ad was talking about, he came up with not one single example. The only support offered for the ads claim is one line in one newspaper article that reported the bill "is now being blamed" for the crisis, without saying who is doing the blaming or on what grounds. Its true that key Democrats opposed the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which would have established a single, independent regulatory body with jurisdiction over Fannie and Freddie a move that the Government Accountability Office had recommended in a 2004 report . Current House Banking Committee chairman Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts opposed legislation to reorganize oversight in 2000 (when Clinton was still president), 2003 and 2004, saying of the 2000 legislation that concern about Fannie and Freddie was "overblown." Just last summer, Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd called a Bush proposal for an independent agency to regulate the two entities "ill-advised." http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/who-caused-the-economic-crisis/ Make up some more nonsense.
Gee it was 3 million just a couple months ago.However how many Jobs were Lost. Thereby the defintion of - net Jobs -. You do comprehend n'cest pas !
One could arguably make the case that the Smart money is no longer tethered to Obama.Obama pulling a real political boner and dissin' Private equity. Obama seems to do dat.Just makes enemies along his path. What is he thinking.? That HE IS the Messiah. History will conclude a pathology of clinical insanity. Obama submit only a page for his medical history as qualification. I mean ... lets BEE 4 REAL.
I agree!!! The unemployment rate that we are being force fed by the Obama regime is an ABSOLUTE FABRICATION. The real numbers are something like 10.6 not 8.2 ( which is still terrible). Finally we agree on something. BTW, isnt it sad that the Obama folks have to lie to even get to 8.2%. just illustrates what a complete failure he is and will continue to be if re-elected.
You are willfully ignoring hundreds of posts on this very forum. I'm not rehashing what you already have seen for your edifiaction. You are just desperate.
You've seen the source a hundred times. Showing it to you again would be banging our heads against a brick wall of stupid.
It's been 3 years and 4 months. Not mere months since Obama took office. Reagan turned Carter's debacle around in 2 years.
bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Fannie and Freddie were full partners in the destruction. It was planned that way by the democrats. Franklin Raines was complicit in the conspiracy along with Senator Chuck Schumer. Schumer precipitated the crisis by throwing Indy Mac bank under the bus by starting a run on the bank. When that didn't trigger the free fall he sought, he did the same thing to Washington Mutual. $500 billion went a glimmer in two days. I can document this, chuckles. Don't even try to debate me on the cause of this problem.
I hope to gawd this happens so you will see how stupid it was to think that Romney was any different than Obama...I really dont care if Romney gets elected.. I know that the biggest difference will be is who is getting the biggest payoffs.
You sure are a gloomy fellow. But since it doesn't matter to you, lets replace Obama in November and see if you're right or not.
republicans love to attack consumer confidence ever chance they get don't they almost like they want America to fail... ...
There'll be hell on Earth if crazy Romney becomes POTUS. In case you've forgotten he's the guy who wears magic underwear and thinks that he's going to become a god with his very own planet and harem.
Sorry, but unlike Desperacrats, who have to make/set up their LIFES' FORTUNES while on the public teat, including while in the White House, Republican Presidents are typically ALREADY VERY SUCCESSFUL in the PRIVATE SECTOR. The wealth of the Clintons was, AND the Obama's will be, EXPONETIALLY INCREASED from before they took up residence at 1600 Pensylvania Ave. , FAR IN EXCESS of the annual salary they earned there. Republican Presidents earn more in the PRIVATE SECTOR, like MOST AMERICANS...
