Record 95,102,000 Americans Not in Labor Force;

That's why he left office with such poor numbers. Democrats hated him because he was a Republican and Conservatives hated him because he was such a putz and rolled over for the left time after time

 

It was not just an opinion. Gruber knew for a fact that Democrats are easily duped by leaders who pretend to like them.

 

Bush - one error in judgment after another. He is fortunate that most Americans believe that he meant well.

 

People will be cannibals in another four years. Hopefully they will eat all of the Repub politicians first.

 

If you can survive without working why would you want to work?

 

Save it bro, I'm not a subscriber

 

You don't know very much about American history, do you?

 

Subscribe today! Before my after Christmas sale is over.

 

Bush's judgments were endorsed by the US Congress. Obamas were primarily on his own.

 

Congress also passed and funded Obama's entire agenda.

 

In the case of Obamacare with no Republican support or votes

 

OK, +1 disaffected. They missed ButterBalls from the count.

 

None the less it is growing and just because they're not of age to work doesn't mean they don't need to be taken care of.

Things like Obamatrade, regulations which send businesses elsewhere, and the open-door illegal immigration policy we have don't exactly help the situation.

 

More than you I would imagine.

 

I'm sure you are right...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/vieilles_annonces/5045211646/in/album-72157624428147638/ May, 1934.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/vieilles_annonces/5045382790/in/album-72157624428147638/ June, 1934

 

The cycles do not coincide with when Presidents take office and nor do Presidents singularly control policies that effect unemployment. We had 52 months of full employment AND average LFPR when the Republicans had majority control after the 2000/2001 slowdown recession then the Democrats took control and we see how their policies totally failed to mitigate the effects of the 2008/2009 recession when they had total control their policies failed to get us into a full recovery, as the Bush/Republican policies did, and produced the worst unemployment record since the great depression.

It was Clinton who inherited a strong recovery and it was Clinton policies which slowed that recovery and slowed the growth rate of tax revenues. It was the Gingrich/Kaisch congress that force tax rate cuts and welfare reform that got the economic growth back on track causing tax revenue growth to soar to double digit It was the Bush/Republican policies that help mitigate the 2001 recession keeping the deficit to a one year high $400B and then as the tax rate cuts kicked in the economy once again took off and tax revenue soared again the they lowered the deficit to a paltry $161B.

THEN the Democrats took control of government and promptly increased revenues 9% in 2008 and then 18% in 2009 taking that last Republican deficit of $161B to their WHOPPING $1,400B that budget signed into law including his additional spending request.

Oh yes there was.

Residential housing which had the boom is only about 3% of GDP. There was broad based solid eocnomic growth, rising incomes and soaring tax revenues.

ROFL funny how Bush doesn't get that excuse. A recession was due after that long sustained period of economic growth. The issue is the Democrat economic policies to deal with it and their utter failure and then their lack of any further efforts preferring the "don't blame us it's all Bush's fault".

And it was THEIR JOB TO EFFECTIVELY DEAL WITH IT. Instead all we get is don't blame us now leave us alone. Bush fixed the economic mess with TARP. Had the Democrats done none of what they did we would have been better off.

 

Quote Originally Posted by rahl View Post
theyve had congress since 2010 mid term elections.

Quote Originally Posted by Bluesguy View Post
The Republicans have had the Congress for 2 years

rahl>> 4 years.

Quote Originally Posted by rahl View Post >> huh? Republicans have had congress for 6 years now.

 

Yes either the House or the Senate. Apparently you don't understand this nor anything about the Constitution you're batting zero.

And still batting zero.

Not whom you claimed passed them which specific policies?

Rand Paul just released one today but THIS IS A DEMOCRAT POLICY what have they submitted in the past 6 years to fix it?

 

If you don't need a job, why should you be counted as unemployed?

 

Utter nonsense, starting with your claim of 52 months of full employment under Bush. Full employment back then was about 5%...

http://www.frbsf.org/our-district/p...-speeches/2006/march/the-u-s-economy-in-2006/

... and we did not have 52 such months...

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000?from_year=2001

Regarding the nonsense that the 110th Congress failed to mitigate the damage... by 2007, it was too late. The damage was done during previous years when toxic loans were being written. By 2006, states were already announcing record levels of foreclosures...

Late Mortgage Payments at 3 1/2-Year High; Foreclosures at Record High

WASHINGTON – A national crisis in the home mortgage industry cast a dark shadow that stretched from Wall Street to Main Street as foreclosures hit a record high in the last quarter of 2006, and the number of Americans failing to make their monthly mortgage payment hit a 3 1/2-year high during the same period.

[...]

Delinquency and foreclosure rates were considerably higher for higher-risk "subprime" borrowers, especially those with adjustable-rate mortgages.

[...]

New Century Financial Corp. (NEW), which was the nation's second-largest subprime mortgage maker, is scrambling to stay afloat after all its bank lenders cut off funding or informed the company of their intent to do so because of its failure to make payments. The Irvine, Calif.-based company already has stopped accepting all new loan applications.​

Before Democrats took over the 110th Congress, the nation's 2nd leading writers of subprime loans had stopped writing new subprime loans. By 2007, the damage was done[/], there was no mitigating it. Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress and the executive branch leading up to 2006, when the housing bubble began to burst. They're the ones who failed to mitigate the damage.

Then there's your fallacious claim that Clinton slowed revenue growth... the numbers indicate revenue growth grew every year under Clinton, slowing slightly in 1999.



Then there's your fallacious claim that the housing bubble accounted for only about 3% of GDP. You apparently have no idea just how massive the housing bubble was. It was yuge....



As far as your talk about Republicans pushing tax cuts.... that happened in 1997 and the economy was already booming by then. Once Clinton left office, it all fell apart and the Republicans, whom you credit for the economy, even though the economy started improving before they took over, could do nothing with the economy without Clinton.

And then there's your complaint about the $1.4t deficit in FY2009... In January, 2009, before Obama was sworn in, the deficit was estimated to swell to $1.2t. Just in the first 4 months of FY2009, leading up to Obama's inauguration, the debt increased half of that. And we were still operating under the continuing resolution Bush had signed in September, 2008, for months to come.

And lastly, because it bears repeating.... only one Republican president saw unemployment decrease when they left office (going back to the start of BLS). Whereas that never happened while a Democrat was in office. You seem eager to dismiss that as coincidence. I'm not buying it. Not when it's so consistent across the board. Hell, even Trump noticed it...

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mCB6RvRojIQ[/video]

 

I stand corrected. I only noticed his position in your post I responded to.

.... but that was only after saying the other quotes you posted.

 

Ehm ... who had majority in Congress again?

 

Who's Thom Hartman?

I'm just pointing out the facts. In the 1950's and 1960's the rise of the American Middle Class was best represented by the one-parent working households with dad going to work and mom staying home to take care of the children. That's what "middle class" implied. It wasn't a "rolling in the dough" lifestyle but people were able to budget and purchase that 2-3 bedroom ranch style home in the suburbs, purchase a new car ever four to five years, and still manage to save 10% of their income for retirement all on "dad's" income. When Americans were able to do that the labor participation rate averaged below 59%.

The reason "dad" was earning that much was because the unions were negotiating labor compensation based upon productivity increases and the "union wage" drove non-union employers to raise their wages to compete for the labor they needed.

Mike Collins addressed the decline of the unions in Forbes magazine where he points out that part of the reason for the decline of the union was because of their success. In the 1970's while the average household was earning $24,000 per year the union steel workers were earning $40,000 per year. Because union workers earned more there was a decline in support for unions that persists to this day predominately by Republicans.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecol...nions-is-a-middle-class-problem/#75f9629e18be

That seems very odd to me. Why would an American worker be opposed to American workers earning a better income? One of the pet peeves of Republicans are the unions representing those that work for the government and foremost among these is probably the teachers unions.

Republicans point out that teachers unions have been able to secure relatively good wages and benefits that include good health insurance and retirement benefits. So what are Republicans arguing for? Poor wages and no benefits? Is that what they believe all workers should be earning? Should employment compensation be so bad that the person can't afford to live off the income they receive to the point that they require government welfare assistance just to cover their monthly expenditures?

Basically Republicans are saying that instead of raising compensation for the "burger-flippers" of America that require government welfare just to pay their bills so that it's a good paying job with benefits like the "teachers" of America we should lower the compensation for the "teachers" until it's a poor paying job with no benefits requiring them to collect welfare just like the "burger-flippers" of America.

This is an insane economic policy in my opinion. Instead of an economic policy that condemns the teachers and the teachers unions for turning the job into one where the person earns a good living with benefits, not requiring government assistance just to get by from week to week, the economic policy needs to be one that raises the compensation for the low-paying jobs that force the person/household to rely on government welfare assistance.

Think about it.

Republicans right this minute are condemning Obamacare and working to repeal it because Obamacare provides government subsidized health insurance for people/households that only need Obamacare because they aren't represented by a union that's able to negotiate health insurance as a part of the employment compensation package. If the employer provides the health insurance and good compensation, that only the unions can negotiate with the employers, then the employees don't need government welfare.

The federal government provides $6.2 billion in assistance (welfare) for Walmart employees.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoc...-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#9ff7a337cd84

There's only one reason the taxpayers are funding this assistance is because Walmart employees aren't represented by a union that has the "power of the Walmart workforce" to negotiate better compensation.

Personally I'd like to see a dramatic reduction in the amount of government welfare assistance but we'll never see that unless there are enough unions and enough union membership to effectively counteract the downward pressure on compensation imposed by the "market" today because the "market" is already driving people into the poor house and that forces the amount of welfare requited up.

The following expression is 100% accurate.

Anti-Union = Pro-Welfare ​

Only organized labor has the economic power necessary to counter-act the downward pressure on compensation imposed by the Market. Without that balance the compensation continues to decline until people can't afford to live on the compensation they receive and the government is forced to make-up for the shortfall with welfare assistance.

 

Obama never had the mission to "fix" the economy. The man has never known anything about economies or how they work, but he was a useful "Pied Piper" community-organizer. It was his job to run a big government Welfare Circus while the country's Democrat-concocted central bank (the Federal Reserve) used ultra-loose policies to rescue those who were "too big to fail", pick winners and losers, and completely overturn free-market Capitalism.

Much the same thing was done in Europe by its own central bank, the European Central Bank, working hand-in-hand with the Federal Reserve in this country.

Obama was little more than a house pet and hand-puppet for these central bankers, but he did a good job of it. Now, eight years later, we've got an even more dangerous bubble building than we had in 2005 - 2006. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. My honest impression is that given the smothering, all-powerful economic autocracy of "the Fed", Donald Trump won't be able to change things for the better.

Hint: Central bankers want planet-wide control of all economies, and they'll get it with continued manipulation, coercion, and concentration of power in themselves.

 

Oh there are ranges depending on who you ask and I have no problems stating it was full employment within those ranges AND average LFPR.

"The 20th century British economist William Beveridge stated that an unemployment rate of 3% was full employment. For the United States, economist William T. Dickens found that full-employment unemployment rate varied a lot over time but equaled about 5.5 percent of the civilian labor force during the 2000s.[2] Recently, economists have emphasized the idea that full employment represents a "range" of possible unemployment rates. For example, in 1999, in the United States, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) gives an estimate of the "full-employment unemployment rate" of 4 to 6.4%. This is the estimated unemployment rate at full employment, plus & minus the standard error of the estimate.[3]"

THAT excuses the Democrats from doing nothing? It's too late by some unknown measure?

Last quarter of 2006! Give me a break, as I said they took over the job so it was their's to mend not sit there say it's too late.

Where did I say revenues did not increase? I said he SLOWED the rate of tax revenue increase from 9% to 7% with his tax rate increase. Do read more carefully.

Housing was still under 5% of GDP it is not the major driver of GDP growth.

"Residential investment (averaging roughly 3-5% of GDP), which includes construction of new single-family and multifamily structures, residential remodeling, production of manufactured homes, and brokers’ fees. "
https://www.nahb.org/en/research/ho...ntribution-to-gross-domestic-product-gdp.aspx

Tax rate growth had slowed from the 9% to 7% and recovery was slowing down and the tax rate cuts helped to kick it back into high gear and tax revenues soared and that along with welfare reform the Republicans balanced the budget and produced the surpluses.

Yes the Democrats including one Senator Obama passed their 9% spending increase for FY2008 and then for FY2009 held up the budget so Bush could not threaten higher spending with veto's as he had done in 2008 so the incoming Democrat president could include their spending. And yes the forced a continuing resolution for FY2009 in order to do that.

"In FY2009, Congress did not complete work by September 30, 2008. President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009.

The Democrats purposely held off on the appropriations process because they hoped they could come into 2009 with a new Democrat-friendly Congress and a President who would sign bloated spending bills. Remember, President Obama was in the Senate when these bills were crafted and he was part of this process to craft bloated spending bills. CQ reported that “in delaying the nine remaining bills until 2009, Democrats gambled that they would come out of the November 2008 elections with bigger majorities in both chambers and a Democrat in the White House who would support more funding for domestic programs.” And they did.
The Truth about President Obama's Skyrocketing Spending


"Unlike last year, when Bush forced Democrats to accept lower spending figures, this year could prove more difficult for the president. The fiscal year begins Oct. 1, less than four months before he leaves office.

"He doesn't have us over a barrel this year, because either a President Clinton or a President Obama will have to deal with us next year," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We are not going to be held hostage to the unreasonableness of this president."

Much of the president's plan has little chance of passage, lawmakers and budget experts say. Nearly $200 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings need congressional approval, which Democrats are unlikely to provide. "Dead on arrival," vowed Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-03-bush-budget_N.htm

And again Presidents are not king they do not singularly control the government or the economy. The Democrats took control of the government in 2007 and proudly announced no more Republican/conservative policies and we see what happened when the economy began a slowdown, total mismanagement.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mCB6RvRojIQ[/video][/QUOTE]