I guess, thanks to the cagey choice of in dependant variable, they didn't notice that all the losses took place rather before Obama came into office. Freeper detch points that out. Freepers jump into spin mode:
Mr. K just kinds denies the issue:
Those Bush years don’t look so bad now, do they?null and void prefers to disbelieve the numbers:
SGS=Shadow Government Statistics. Their own internal way of calculating unemployment.
No doubt the Real daylight statistics show all the losses took place under Obama:
BillM found some Dems, ripe for the blaming!
When did the Democrats get control of the House from which all spending originates????So I guess Obama is off the hook then, and Boehner is on it?
Look back over time. The economy always tanks with a Democrat legislature. To pretend otherwise is either stupid, or evil, or both.
Gondring doesn't even need Dems to blame the left:
Liberal economic policies don't need to have a (D) after them to do damage.
De-ni-al!
ReplyDeleteRegardless, there is definitely a double standards regarding the economy. When in 2004, the unemployment rate was 5%, the media and the pundits blamed Bush. Now when unemployment is 10%, Obama seems to get a pass.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't really matter what the actual percentage of unemployed people is but the direction the numbers are moving. In 2004 the rate grew to 5% so Bush was blamed. Now the rate has fallen from over 10% to 8.9% so Obama is given credit.
@euphgeek,
ReplyDelete5% id full employment. 8.9% is still pathetically bad. The unemployment has been around 10% for two years now, Obama does not deserve any "credit" for this "accomplishment". Its like saying that you got shot in one kneecap instead of both.
It doesn't really matter what the actual percentage of unemployed people is
LOL, typical liberal double-standard. If this was a Republican president all the libs and media would be screaming for his head.
@Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteIf 5% were full employment, it would be impossible for the percentage to go any lower. We have had lower than 5% unemployment.
No double standard here. If a Republican president was ever able to move the unemployment rate down, he would get credit for it.
Why do you continue to post anonymously? Don't you want to use your Free Republic screen name? ;)
If 5% were full employment, it would be impossible for the percentage to go any lower. We have had lower than 5% unemployment.
ReplyDeleteWe had, but any range from 0-5% is called "full unemployment". Any change of employment from say from 4.5 to 5% is normal hiring and firing. Brush up your Eco 101.
No double standard here. If a Republican president was ever able to move the unemployment rate down, he would get credit for it.
Unemployment rate was around 5% till the last year of President Bush, yet the libs and the media bashed him endlessly for neglecting the economy. Obama has not done diddly squat in his 2 years in office, other than increase the deficit and push a very unpopular health care bill. Unemployment refuses to come down, incomes are going down and deficits are skyrocketing. If this was a McCain admin, the media would be calling for his head.
Why do you continue to post anonymously? Don't you want to use your Free Republic screen name? ;)
I am not a Freeper, and I personally find a conservative partisan as annoying as a liberal partisan like you.
Speculative double standards are sure easy to find!
ReplyDeleteSpeculative double standards are sure easy to find!
ReplyDeleteSpeculative,LOL. The "Clinton recession" became a "Bush recession" after Jan 20,2001. But even now, "Bush's fault" remains Obama's punchline.
The total number of jobs created under Bush for the full 8 years of his presidency was 1 million, a net job loss, compared to 22 million under Clinton. Brush up on your economics 101 yourself.
ReplyDeleteObama has done nothing? Only extreme right partisans and those who pander to them say that the stimulus has failed to do anything. We were hemorrhaging jobs when Obama took office (the partisans were already blaming him before he lowered his hand from taking the oath!) and 2 years later he has managed to lower the unemployment rate. Not by much, true, but the fact remains that the rate is going down. However, you are right on one thing. If McCain were president, people on the left would probably be complaining that the rate wasn't going down fast enough (just speculation, though ;).
Do you find me to be partisan? I suppose I probably am in a way, but I try to side with facts more than I do the left. If that makes me seem partisan to you, perhaps you're not as non-partisan as you imagine yourself to be. :)