Numbers Don't Lie

[Juneau Smog]

It's almost like holding a mirror up to the last year of the Bush administration.

 

--
Yes we can heal this nation.
Yes we can repair this world.

[Craig Ireneus]

Whatever.

 

All this shows is that job losses had to bottom out at some point.  It would've happeend regardless who was in the White House.

Oh, and it was released by the "Office of the Speaker?"  Just like everything released from Nancy Pelosi's office, I'll hold this information in a dubious light....

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Juneau Smog" group.
To post to this group, send email to js...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jsmog-un...@googlegroups.com
Group Page: http://groups.google.com/group/jsmog
Home Page: http://juneausmog.com
Follow on Twitter: http://twitter.com/akjsmog
Follow on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/juneau.smog

[Juneau Smog]

Thanks for playing Craig. Thanks for informing us how jobs had bottomed out meaning there were no jobs anymore and every single person in the country was out of work. That was big news that day when that happened. I don't remember it too well however, probably because I was too busy at MY JOB!?

 

Is it the part where job losses increased under Bush or where job losses descreased under Obama, the part that would have occured regardless of which one was in the WH?

 

And those letters follow the word "Source" that say "BLS", that means Bureau of Labor & Statistics, as in data from BLS, graph from the speaker. I'm assuming 2/5/10 is the date, or is that dubious too?

[Craig Ireneus]

You're such an ignorant slut.

 

The entire point is it doesn't matter than one side of Fancy Nancy's little "chart" is "blue" and the other is "red."  Such corrections in the market- especially over a 24 month period- happen all the time.  I bet you could find a 24 month record during George W. Bush's presidency that had a simialr trend of job creation & losses.  (Actually, probably not because a more average trend under him would be jobs continually increasing.)  My point is that both sides could've been "blue" or "red."  By job losses "bottoming out" that does not realisitcally infer that means job losses would be 100% with nobody working.  Silly little moonbat.  It merely means that the market shed as much jobs as possible and still be able to function- meagerly, that is, under the dominance of the new socialist dictator in town, replete with his "spymaster" in tow, forcing unconstituional burdens on the level of income those taking risks in the private sector can earn. 

The market was bound to correct itself.  It would've happened under Bush, without some multi-trillion dollar "porkulus" as well.

[Kyle Curtis]

Craig, did you notice the anxiety demonstrated by the financial markets recently? One reason that was often repeated is that various government stimulative effects are going to be phased out over the next year.  What is weird is that instead of the financial markets bucking and preparing for blast off, finally free of the "yoke of oppressive government control" there is an admission by many financial markets that the private market "just isn't there."  So the stimulus will phase out, the official rate of unemployment rate will double, and yet & Brent can jsut sit back and criticize "Obummer" for not extending the stimulus.

Its really incredible how you bend over backwards to avoid giving a black man his due....

[Brent Wolters]

The colors should have switched to blue in September when it was pretty obvious that the democrat was going to win.  So basically, 90% of the jobs lost in the last two years are Obamas fault!  But I can understand why, if I was a moonbat liberal I'd try to blame Bush (despite the very liberal congress he had to work with during his last two years.)

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Juneau Smog" group.
To post to this group, send email to js...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jsmog-un...@googlegroups.com
Group Page: http://groups.google.com/group/jsmog
Home Page: http://juneausmog.com
Follow on Twitter: http://twitter.com/akjsmog
Follow on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/juneau.smog

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2671 - Release Date: 02/05/10 23:35:00

[Kyle Curtis]

Brent, when Lehman Brothers saw McCain ahead by ten points on that day in September, with his selection of Caribou Barbie completely stealing the thunder of Obama-Biden, was the only logical conclusion they came to was "OMG!  A Democrat is going to win!  Better declare bankruptcy!  And bring down the global economy!"

I'm a little concerned about the lack of oxygen affecting your judgment.  I might recommend pulling your head out of your ass.

[Juneau Smog]

Thanks for misrepresenting the facts Brent. The graph cearly says "The Bush and Obama Administrations" and unless I'm incorrect in my history, Obama took office on January 20, 2009, therefore the colors don't lie, but you do.

 

So it was in September when it became apparent that Obama was going to become the next president? I guess that was right when the banks crashed and Bush declared we needed to give the banks $700 billion no questions asked, to avoid economic meltdown? That obviously had nothing to do with job losses, but instead it was the fact that Obama was inching ahead of McCain ever since McCain said he needed to suspend his campaign to go get in the way of everyone in Washington dealing with the banking crisis. But just to clarify, the US takes over failed Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, Lehman goes bankrupt, AIG gets bailed out, and BoA buys out the sinking Merrill Lynch, and apparently everyone started cutting jobs by the hundereds of thousands only because Obama just inched ahead of McCain? 
 
So if it was known that Obama was going to win as early as September, and that's when job losses shot up, how come then when Obama won the presidency in November, only 50k more jobs were lost than were lost during October? So business owners decided to cut jobs only when it began pretty obvious Obama was "going" to win during the months of a systemic financial meltdown, but not when he actually WAS elected president? I mean, Obama just officially elected the next incoming president so obviously the best course of action, if you were a business owner, would have been to immediately just start laying off and firing people right and left, because afterall, the last time a democrat was in office 22.4 million jobs were created by the time he left office.

 

By December, the banks have had their $700 billion for two months already and are still not lending to anyone, most small businesses haven't got their credit freezes lifted, and Detroit is beginning to look like Falujah, but a heck of a lot of CEOs and executives got multi-million dollar bonus packages. Thank goodness Paulson made sure there was no oversight on that $700 billion we just threw down the toilet. Oh but Bush is still in office, so that reckless irresponsible waste of taxpayer money is understandable. By the end of the month job losses shoot up to 630k for the month of December 2008. But this is probably just from the fact that Obama is about to take the oath of office in 20 days and as a Democrat he will raise everyone's taxes, even though he campaigned to lower taxes for the middle class and still to this day has not raised taxes on the middle class. Still, that's enough to make any business owner fire their entire work force. It's a good thing business owners waited two months after he was elected in November to really start the massive firings just to rub things in during the holiday season. Why are business owners so mean?

 

Unfortunately however, after 3 months of credit freezes, 110k businesses filed bankruptcies by the end of December, which as a result leads to something I like to call, "job losses". At this point business owners aren't firing anyone anymore because they don't actually have a business anymore. I suppose this was from the fact that Obama was about to enter the White House in less than a month, however it's not. This was the 10th month in a row that over 100k businesses filed bankruptcies for the month, and 2009 was the largest year for bankruptcies since 2005 when the bankruptcy laws were changed.
 
By the time job losses "bottomed out" at 741k by the end of January, the largest monthly job losses in 40 years, a week after Obama took office, monthly job losses have been steadily decreasing ever since, mirroring the increasing monthly job losses that occured during the year before Bush left office. By this logic one could say, once Obama took office business owners started hiring again, and be factually correct. Although we're currently hovering near positive monthly job growth, in a month or two consistent monthly positive job growth numbers will stick and finally we'll see the unemployment rate really come down, as evidenced with the stabilization and small dips in the unemployment rate we have recently seen.

[Juneau Smog]

Brent fails to offer a point or rebuttal and loses the debate.