Which will happen first: unemployment dips below 5% or rises above 10%? (it's 7.8% now)
Funny, Fox News (Glen Beck, O'reilly, etc) all warned that unemployment would be in the double digits, nearing 15% at the end of Obama's first term. Whoops, wrong again, and that is while fighting the worst recession in 80 years.
Hey Okie, time for you to get out of OK. Your state consumes more tax revenue than you generate, as with most Red states. Rip on Dems all you wish, but without Blue State tax revenue most of the South would be even worse off than you currently are.
...so go peddle your futile party hackery elsewhere climbtrad. The ONLY way out of this mess is 3rd party, because your political band of idiots, thieves and criminals is every bit as much to blame for the state of this country as the republicans you so loath.
There WAS economic growth after the bush tax cuts! Wtf are you talking about? And you presume to say I'm the one without facts? Bush was an idiot! You can't cut taxes, increase spending, and grow the size and scope of government. That's a recipe for disaster. I'm not a republican...
Hey Breck, where did you go to school to learn that a Nazi was left, and not right? Hitler loved white people, no blacks, Jews, etc.
It can't currently be 14% the question stated that its under 10... Can't remember now exactly!
How about some documentation. Your numbers are no where close to any numbers I have read anywhere or seen, except for Fox News and their friends.
Bush never had us at total employment. That is absurd. Bush came in, and back came the deficits, and two wars, and tax cuts. I miss Clinton!
I love the comments by Anarchy when he can't argue the facts back to you. If trickle down economics worked, then where are all the jobs 10 years after the Bush tax cuts?
...And your argument is INCREDIBLY self-defeating. Deregulation unleashed the private sector to do what it does best...make money...without having to wade through 2 miles of bureaucratic red tape. That's the big reason this stuff was able to be innovated and manufactured for mass consumer use!
I honestly don't think the options are likely at all.
Hahahaha! I LOVE that you think this is true....because Carter, the liberal to rule all liberals, was doing a GREAT friggin job! Let's ignore the fact that our unemployment numbers are being doctored just to cover for this pathetic hack, Reagan didn't have 3 rounds of QE propping up the stock market
but it never has guys, the point of reference is no different than it has ever been. you're right, it doesn't count those groups of people, but the rate is a good indicator for the economy.
Silly democrats; this recession is not over yet. And the rise in taxes this year will surely make those unemployment numbers go up.
Nor does it count the under employed. Those who have taken less pay in order to make ends meet. I admire these people tremendously.
Just think how good it will be when he gets those coins minted.
Right, back when Bush had us at near full employment, the Dems and media started tracking "underemployment" and counting people who earned a satisfactory amount of money but weren't in their "ideal" career.
It's a game.
And population size is still not the reason for unemployment.
Obama came into office with the unemployment rate at 7.8%, after 43 months, it was back at 7.8%, which is after a bad recession. It's also worth the note that it took Mr. Reagan 43 months to get the unemployment rate from 7.5% back to 7.5%. Obama is doing just as good a job as Reagan w/ unemployment
1. I'm not a republican.
2. Obama promised to have this fixed by now, along without other things he didn't deliver on.
3.It isn't going to go down until Obama stops painting economic success and the job creators in this country as the enemies of progress.
Breck, Breck, Breck.
What kind of paint thinner are you huffing?
Just some comparison for the Republicans: (u3)
Reagan- took office in January 1981 with the u3 rate at 7.5%, by November 1982, hit 10.8%, after the huge tax cut of August 1981. Only after the computer, the cd, and the cellphone did the Reagan u3 end at 5.4%, and it wasn't because of Reaganomics.
In February 2008, the U3 rate was 4.9% and it jumped to 7.3% by December, the fastest increase in unemployment ever. It hit 10% in October of 2009 (u3)
U6- the lowest it's been is 6.9% in April 2000. And the highest was 17.1% in April 2010, currently it is 14.4%
Milkdud, that's the u3 rate which so many republicans like you claim isn't legitimate. Also, please look at July-December of 2008, and realize Bush caused a crisis even though the unemployment rates were fine the rest of his term. Just look how quickly it went up.
It counts those who are on benefits only if they applied for a job while on their benefits.
....... I hope for the best and expect the worst
It becomes naïveté at some point, not optimism.
. . . After four years it becomes his economy just like his predecessor...
MSNBC does not pressure him they praise him as if he is God of Gods. Remember Obama can move heaven and earth.
Sarcasm. These are names conservatives get called when they suggest the government cut spending or balance the budget.
There is a fine line between optimistic and clueless.
And how did you get his sexual preference from an economic discussion.
And he's not wrong about Fiat money. You can't create wealth by printing it.
How did he become a Nazi by wanting to be successful without high taxes wasted on idiotic government programs. The last time I checked , Nazies were extremely far left. Not right.
The actual unemployment is probably or has probably already hit 10%. The 7.8% that they claim only takes into account those that are on unemployment. It does not take into account those who can no longer get the benefits nor those who have quit looking for work.
You clearly just want to bring back slavery. Oh, and you probably keep a picture of Hitler, Jesus, and Obi Wan Kenobi singing backup for Elvis on your mantle.
Wow, the Dems sure are optimistic!
Unemployment was at 4.6% in January 2007, the last time the Republicans had control of the government.
Population size has little or nothing to do with it.
It will never hit 10. It is a phony, manipulated number.
Okie: you forgot sexist.
Real unemployment is already well above 10%....
I'm sure that the rules for employment rate will be changed before it gets to 10% so it will look like it's really lower. I mean, technically it's at 14% now but the rules defining it have been altered to make it look like 7.8%.
I don't wanna google!
When was the last time it was under 5??
Oh, it depends. With higher taxes, and regulations, probably up. The government intervention seems to have made the plucking model invalid :(
Even under the best circumstances it will be very hard to get under 5%. The population is just to big to be supported by any realistic job market that we can expect in the near future. This is regardless of who leads the country and what taxes are like.
You're obviously white, homophobic, against lunches at school, hate teachers, and just want to save money for your second yacht. How compassionate you are! Nazi!
Creating fiat money out of thin air by means of fractional reserve banking and fed reserve counterfeiting is NOT going to aid in job creation.
"Proposed" govt spending cuts and overtaxing the people won't get us there either.
Our government is fu(king us into oblivion.
Why do you blame a healthcare program for jobs? Not arguing, asking.
I've never met a democrat that didn't like a tax increase, on everybody else.
The way they count it can be anything they want it to be.