Unemployment continues to rise

[1bad65]

Despite Obama's promise his 'stimulus' plan would create jobs, unemployment is still rising.

"The number of newly-laid off workers seeking jobless benefits unexpectedly rose last week, as the economy recovers at a slow and uneven pace.

Layoffs have slowed and the economy began to grow in last year's third quarter, but companies are reluctant to hire new workers. The unemployment rate is 10 percent and many economists expect it to increase in the coming months.

The Labor Department said Thursday that initial claims for unemployment insurance rose by 36,000 to a seasonally adjusted 482,000. Wall Street economists expected a small drop, according to Thomson Reuters."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100121/..._fi/us_economy

On Tuesday night, Newt Gingrich pointed out that through 1994 unemployment varied from 5.6% to 6.6%, and the Democrats got crushed in the 1994 elections. He then pointed out we are now poised to have over a full year of unemployment at or near 10%. He said if that happens, the 2010 November elections are gonna be alot worse for the Democrats than 1994 was.

[David Jamieson]

Despite Obama's promise his 'stimulus' plan would create jobs, unemployment is still rising.

"The number of newly-laid off workers seeking jobless benefits unexpectedly rose last week, as the economy recovers at a slow and uneven pace.

Layoffs have slowed and the economy began to grow in last year's third quarter, but companies are reluctant to hire new workers. The unemployment rate is 10 percent and many economists expect it to increase in the coming months.

The Labor Department said Thursday that initial claims for unemployment insurance rose by 36,000 to a seasonally adjusted 482,000. Wall Street economists expected a small drop, according to Thomson Reuters."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100121/..._fi/us_economy

On Tuesday night, Newt Gingrich pointed out that through 1994 unemployment varied from 5.6% to 6.6%, and the Democrats got crushed in the 1994 elections. He then pointed out we are now poised to have over a full year of unemployment at or near 10%. He said if that happens, the 2010 November elections are gonna be alot worse for the Democrats than 1994 was.

and you think this is Obama's fault why?

[1bad65]

and you think this is Obama's fault why?

1. Because no government in history has ever spent it's way out of a recession.

2. Cap-and-Trade. Obama said he would enact this, which is a HUGE tax on business. Businesses are wary of hiring when they see their operating costs are fixing to skyrocket.

3. Bailouts. These have rewarded bad business practices. Instead of allowing good businesses to prosper via tax cuts, he has rewarded the failing ones.

4. Refusal to cut taxes. EVERY TIME in american history that large tax cuts have been enacted, the economy has flourished. Every time.

[uki]

they're hiring for the census... perhaps that's all those jobs that were promised?? LMAO!!!

[Reality_Check]

1. Because no government in history has ever spent it's way out of a recession...

...4. Refusal to cut taxes. EVERY TIME in american history that large tax cuts have been enacted, the economy has flourished. Every time.

Source: http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

Unemployment rate when Ronald Reagan took office in January 1981: 7.5%

President Reagan cut taxes in August of 1981.

Unemployment rate in August 1981: 7.4%

Unemployment rate in:

September 1982: 10.1%
October 1982: 10.4%
November 1982: 10.8%
December 1982: 10.8%
January 1983: 10.4%
February 1983: 10.4%
March 1983: 10.3%
April 1983: 10.2%
May 1983: 10.1%
June 1983: 10.1%

Month unemployment rate drops below the 7.4% of August 1981: September 1984. Three years after the huge tax cut.

Also, I'm going to quote a post I made in September of 2008 (http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/foru...&postcount=743)

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html

http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm

Of course, Reagan did cut taxes in 1981. Only to raise them in 1982 (twice), 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_b...0310290853.asp

Also, if the tax cuts pay for themselves, then why do Repulican presidents run up such huge deficits?

[BoulderDawg]

I wouldn't even bother with statistics. Not only do the teabaggers ignore them but they can't understand them anyway!

I was laughing at Obama and his reaction to the Mass senate race. "We are going to radically scale down this health care bill"...........Hmmmmm I had hoped that Obama wasn't that stupid. Doesn't he know the Teabaggers are not interested in any healthcare bill. The way I see it it's all or nothing. If I was Obama I would simply not budge from the original bill with the public option. You got to stand on your principles at some point.

I was also laughing at how now the GOP thinks they are running things with 41 votes. Have they ever stopped to consider that things could change quickly and the Dems have long memories. I see years in Washington where no bills worth anything are debated and passed. That's ashame.

[Kansuke]

If I was Obama I would simply not budge from the original bill with the public option.

It would be great if he was as stupid as you. He may well get there yet...

[BoulderDawg]

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama stepped up his campaign against Wall Street on Thursday with a far-reaching proposal for tougher regulation of the biggest banks.

I wonder why he thinks this would be any different from health care. The big financial houses control the GOP.......not a chance any of them will go against them.

[Kansuke]

So... anyone who donates to a party "controls" them?

[1bad65]

Unemployment rate when Ronald Reagan took office in January 1981: 7.5%

Unemployment rate in August 1981: 7.4%

And the unemployment rate in December 1988 was 5.3%

So over his full term Reagan cut the unemployment rate by 2.3%. Try again.

I wouldn't even bother with statistics. Not only do the teabaggers ignore them but they can't understand them anyway!

Once I again I prove you wrong.

Source: http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth....=Create+Report

[1bad65]

If you really want to see how good Reagan was, take a look at the prime interest rate when Reagan took office vs when he left. I'll give you a hint, under Carter it was at record highs, highs that have still never been surpassed.

And we could also talk about the inflation rate as well.

[Drake]

The problem is that Reagan is gone, and the republicans have yet to find anyone close to his caliber. In 22 years.

[BoulderDawg]

If you're going to compare Reagan with Obama then you can only compare them at the same times in their presidency. Two years into Reagan's term unemployment was through the roof!

In any case if Reagan is such a good president then you guys should bring him back.

[1bad65]

If you're going to compare Reagan with Obama then you can only compare them at the same times in their presidency. Two years into Reagan's term unemployment was through the roof!

Let's just do that comparison:

Obama:
Jan 2009: 7.6%
Dec 2009: 10.0%

Reagan:
Jan 1980: 7.5%
Dec 1980 8.5%

They both started with almost identical percentages, yet it grew only 1% after a year of Reagan, and it grew 2.4% percent under Obama.

So by YOUR standards, Obama is doing 2.4 times worse than Reagan!

And that's not even taking into account Reagan inherited record high prime interect rates (22.5%), and inflation at 13.58%. Obama inherited low interest rates (~5%) and an inflation rate of only 3.85%.

Can you guys at least make this somewhat challenging?

Source: http://www.miseryindex.us/iRbyyear.a...9&EndYear=2009

[Reality_Check]

And the unemployment rate in December 1988 was 5.3%

So over his full term Reagan cut the unemployment rate by 2.3%. Try again.



Once I again I prove you wrong.

Source: http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth....=Create+Report

And President Obama has had two full terms to cut unemployment?