We saw some good economic news this week as GDP grew 2.5 percent in the third quarter of 2011 and around 100,000 jobs were added bringing the unemployment rate down to 9.0 percent. Certainly, neither number is thrilling. The reason?
Ideally, those trends could signal stronger growth, followed by more hiring. Yet until consumers consistently spend more, businesses are unlikely to hire enough to drive down unemployment.
What's that again, you say?
Many employers are hesitant to step up hiring until they see steady demand from consumers.
So it's not some phantom uncertainty that's being caused by President Obama's policies but the simple fact that consumer spending (70 percent of our economy) isn't where it should be for any real improvement. Why aren't they spending money?
They don't have any.
5 comments:
The Worst President Since Before the Civil War
Barack Obama and his apologists continuously claim that he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression and that if it were not for his policies presently in place, matters would be far worse. The reality is that he did not inherit the worst economy since the 1930s, and his policies have diminished the standard of living for the majority of Americans.
I'll tell you what, Noni. I'll spend some time critically looking at this article if you spend the same amount of time on Michael Moore's site analyzing one of his that is similarly themed. I'll even give just a little more of my time and point one error that I noticed.
The unemployment rate when Barack Obama took office in 2009 was 7.6 percent, not 6.7 percent. This article is going from November of 2008 which isn't an accurate measurement because Bush was still president. It was 7.5 percent in January of 1981 for Reagan.
Even both of these numbers aren't really an accurate measurement of their performance (and that's assuming that you accept the notion that the president seriously affects the economy). Inauguration day is three weeks into January. For our current president, unemployment was at 9.0 percent in April of 2009 when he had been in office for just three months. That's somehow his fault? For Reagan it was 7.2 percent. So, from the standpoint of unemployment, Obama's situation was worse than Reagan's and the worst since the Great Depression.
The other thing to consider is that the highest unemployment has gotten under Obama was 10.1 percent in October of 2009 and that was only for one month (above 10 percent)...9 months into his presidency. With Reagan, we saw 10 straight months of unemployment above 10 percent (maxing out at 10.8 percent) starting in Sept of 1982...one year and 8 months into his presidency. By the metric you link here, that makes him "worse" than Obama, right?
I'll continue my analysis of your link but only if you do the same for a Michael Moore article. By the way, thanks for commenting on this lonely post which I thought had sadly fallen by the wayside.
I would much prefer that you explain how "whoever believes in [Jesus]" means "government".
So, nothing at all on the data I provided? Ah well, I guess we can safely dismiss that link as starting from a faulty premise.
So, nothing at all on the data I provided?
Why should I bother when you have apparently run away from the data and questions in my last posts here and here? Should I simply dismiss your assertions as "starting from a faulty premise" for the same reasons? (If that standard were true, that lack of response would wipe out almost everything you've ever claimed.)
To be honest, I simply haven't had enough time to look at this further. Also, finishing the existing debates is also a higher priority for me.
Post a Comment