Do Republicans "win" by destroying the reputation of government?

Quote from 124nic8 : You should take your own advice. Here are the job loss facts: [bls.gov]   Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2008 14 -85 -79 -215 -186 -169 -216 -270 -459 -472 -775 -705 2009 -794 -695 -830 -704 -352 -472 -351 -210 -233 -170 -21 -220 705K lost in Dec, 2008. 794K lost in Jan 2009. ^ Ignores the point, that contrary to your assertion, TARP proves that Obama faced an economic crisis when he took office.

intesting because I also have an article by the BLS also..

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2009/03/art2full.pdf

Quote : Substantial job losses in 2008: weakness broadens and deepens across industries The current employment contraction ran through 2008 and has continued into 2009. Compared with the previous contractions, job losses in 2008 accelerated more rapidly. During the first 8 months of the year, job losses were relatively mild,averaging 137,000 per month; then, in September and October, losses accelerated to an average of 351,000 per month. A further acceleration took place during November and December, to an average of 639,000 jobs lost per month.

yet per what you quoted the average would be 740k.

but we can keep reading elsewhere also..

Quote : WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The U.S. economy lost 524,000 jobs in December, closing out the worst year of job losses since World War II, the Labor Department said Friday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09...32394.html

Quote : In December, 524,000 jobs were lost, the government reported, compared with 584,000 jobs eliminated by employers the previous month (a figure revised from the previously reported 533,000).

http://money.usnews.com/money/car...ed-to-know

Quote : The U.S. economy lost 524,000 jobs in December, boosting the unemployment rate from a revised 6.8 percent in November to 7.2 percent—a level most economists did not expect to see until 2009.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/10...0jobs.html

Quote : The nation lost 524,000 jobs in December, reflecting a pervasive fear among employers that if they fail to shed workers quickly their companies may go under in a recession poised to become the worst since the 1930s.

your numbers actually report every single month incorrectly. I suggest you check them.. Unless the BLS article I quoted is wrong, as well as the U.S. News, NYTimes, MoneyWatch, CBS, NBC etc.. (I'm just tired of pasting).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1...67897.html

Quote from DJPlayer : your numbers actually report every single month incorrectly. I suggest you check them.. Unless the BLS article I quoted is wrong, as well as the U.S. News, NYTimes, MoneyWatch, CBS, NBC etc.. (I'm just tired of pasting).

he'll just say he didn't mention those, and thank you for your opinion.

Quote from empiretc : he'll just say he didn't mention those, and thank you for your opinion.

No, I'll just say that if you look at my link, they are the official numbers from the BLS.

So you're wrong, too.

Quote from 124nic8 : No, I'll just say that if you look at my link, they are the official numbers from the BLS. So you're wrong, too.

and I'll say look at my link.. notice I posted the official 2008 summary from the BLS which states:

Quote : A further acceleration took place during November and December, to an average of 639,000 jobs lost per month

when I get a chance I'll discredit your numbers. Because per your link, Obama had the worst month of Job losses in the Month of March 2009. Prior we all thought it was Bush.. but I suppose you proved that now Obama is in fact holder of that prestigious award.

Quote from 124nic8 : Moving the goal posts. Of course income goes down in recession with rising unemployment. You made an assertion about wages, which generally means pay rates not total income. But if you were referring to income, then yes, the Bush recession, which began in 2007, has been hard on the wage earner. Not hard at all on the 1% Republicans.

Reading is fundamental. But you simply demonstrate the lack of facts again.


Between June 2009, when the recession officially ended


A 3.2% decline in incomes during recession is far superior than the disastrous Obama revolution's 6.7% declines in incomes. During the Obama revolution roughly 90% of income gains have gone to the 1%.


Of course, your own words say the truth. A 3.2% decline is hard. The 6.7% decline is truly a disaster.


The Obama minions will do anything to simply hide these truths.

Quote from DJPlayer : and I'll say look at my link.. notice I posted the official 2008 summary from the BLS which states: when I get a chance I'll discredit your numbers. Because per your link, Obama had the worst month of Job losses in the Month of March 2009. Prior we all thought it was Bush.. but I suppose you proved that now Obama is in fact holder of that prestigious award.

They're not my numbers. I c&p them directly from the BLS website.

We already knew that the Bush recession continued for several months until the stimulus took effect.

But really, what does it matter if the Bush recession caused 650K / month job losses, or 750K / mo? It was still a crisis either way. One which contradicts your assertion that Obama faced no crisis not of his making.

Quote from Krazen1211 : Reading is fundamental. But you simply demonstrate the lack of facts again. Between June 2009, when the recession officially ended A 3.2% decline in incomes during recession is far superior than the disastrous Obama revolution's 6.7% declines in incomes. During the Obama revolution roughly 90% of income gains have gone to the 1%. Of course, your own words say the truth. A 3.2% decline is hard. The 6.7% decline is truly a disaster. The Obama minions will do anything to simply hide these truths.

I can only hope that Obama has reversed the Reagan Revolution and his legacy of 30 years of stagnant wage growth has ended. Unlike you, I think it is too early to reach that conclusion.

Quote from 124nic8 : I can only hope that Obama has reversed the Reagan Revolution and his legacy of 30 years of stagnant wage growth has ended. Unlike you, I think it is too early to reach that conclusion.

Our constitution only allows a president 8 years in office. Eventually you are going to have to find a way to explain the disastrous Obama revolution and declining wages.

Take your time.

I'm just glad Clinton opened up china so we could export all our manufacturing jobs.

Quote from Dumpsterdiver : I'm just glad Clinton opened up china so we could export all our manufacturing jobs.

That was Nixon.

And Reagan who fought for free trade and was rewarded handsomely by the Japanese.

Of course Clinton sucumbed to the Reagan Revolution, too.

Quote from 124nic8 : That was Nixon. And Reagan who fought for free trade and was rewarded handsomely by the Japanese. Of course Clinton sucumbed to the Reagan Revolution, too.

Incorrect. Clinton signed the trade treaty which shortly there after sent all manufacturing to china and eliminated the "made in america" campaign at walmart.

Quote from Dumpsterdiver : Incorrect. Clinton signed the trade treaty which shortly there after sent all manufacturing to china and eliminated the "made in america" campaign at walmart.

I wonder how Clinton never got his own revolution.

Quote from Dumpsterdiver : Incorrect. Clinton signed the trade treaty which shortly there after sent all manufacturing to china and eliminated the "made in america" campaign at walmart.

Clinton made China MFN, but it was Nixon who opened up China. [ucla.edu]

Quote : Nixon’s visit opened China to the world and opened the door for internal reform and national development, said Solomon, adding that China went from a largely peasant nation with 80 percent of people living in rural areas to an industrialized country with more than half of its population living in urban areas within a relatively short period.

Unless you want to persist in inventing your own terminology.....

And it was private companies that sent all manufacturing jobs to China, not the government.

However Reagan's free trade Revolution did play a role by reducing tariffs.

While Clinton climbed on Reagan's free trade bandwagon, in general free trade is a Republican agenda, not Democrats'.

Quote from Krazen1211 : I wonder how Clinton never got his own revolution.

Cause his admin did not mark a paradigm shift like Reagan's did.

He basically climbed aboard the Reagan Revolution bandwagon.

Quote from 124nic8 : Clinton made China MFN, but it was Nixon who opened up China. [ucla.edu] Unless you want to persist in inventing your own terminology..... And it was private companies that sent all manufacturing jobs to China, not the government. However Reagan's free trade Revolution did play a role by reducing tariffs. While Clinton climbed on Reagan's free trade bandwagon, in general free trade is a Republican agenda, not Democrats'. Cause his admin did not mark a paradigm shift like Reagan's did. He basically climbed aboard the Reagan Revolution bandwagon.

Then I wonder why none of those companies went to china before clinton. Hmmm, must not have been open "so we could export all our manufacturing jobs" 20 years prior.

https://www.google.com/search?q=c...rade+china

It's one thing to open for trading and quite another to completely ignore the differences in economic conditions. Dirty disgusting democrats interested only with lining their own pockets and other under the table activities.