2012 Presidential Election

Originally posted by focus4chumps
and this contradicts the recovering trend how exactly?

Wait, I missed something: why do you want it to, again?

Originally posted by focus4chumps

start of bush's term: jan 2001.......7.3%
end of bush's term: dec 2009.....17.1%
under obama: sept 2012..........14.7%

conclusion: lol stop blaming bush its obama's fault

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

Bush's last day in office was January 20, 2009, not December 2009.

So here's your numbers, again, but corrected:

Start of Bush's term:.............Jan 2001.......7.3%
End of Bush's term:...............Jan 2009.....14.2%
Start of Obama's Term:..........Jan 2009.....14.2%
Right now in Obama's Term:..Jan 2009.....14.7%

Originally posted by dadudemon
So here's your numbers, again, but corrected:

Start of Bush's term:.............Jan 2001.......7.3%
End of Bush's term:...............Jan 2009.....14.2%
Start of Obama's Term:..........Jan 2009.....14.2%
Right now in Obama's Term:..Jan 2009.....14.7%

However looking at the graph you can see that Obama inherited the presidency while unemployment was already skyrocketing. Its been falling fairly consistently for his entire term except for the first nine months. That change probably has nothing to do with Obama, though, unemployment just reached its ceiling.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Start of Bush's term:.............Jan 2001.......7.3%
End of Bush's term:...............Jan 2009.....14.2%
Start of Obama's Term:..........Jan 2009.....14.2%
Right now in Obama's Term:..Jan 2009.....14.7%

my bad. i suppose the mind**** of seeing bush's figures (which he was long exhonerated for. lol) made me overzealous.

regardless, that peak of unemployment that i posted was of bush's recession. plummeting downward market trends dont just magically reset when a new president is elected.

(thanks for not deleting the *smack in the face obvious* graph though)

Originally posted by focus4chumps
my bad. i suppose the mind**** of seeing bush's figures (which he was long exhonerated for. lol) made me overzealous.

No prob. My old posts on KMC should reveal how much I disliked Bush so I was a bit confused as to where you were coming from.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
regardless, that peak of unemployment that i posted was of bush's recession. plummeting downward market trends dont just magically reset when a new president is elected.

(thanks for not deleting the *smack in the face obvious* graph though)

Only a fool would try to blame the massive recession on Obama. Obama has done nothing but work on bringing the nation out of a recession.* I am 10000000% positive DIFFERENT regulations under Bush would have prevented this whole fiasco.

You know what the saddest part about that recession? People probably died as a result. That's horrible and depraved to imagine that the greediness of some caused the deaths of others due to the type of world in which we live.

*Don't take that for an endorsement. I do not support Obama.

well i just dont see how trickle-down economics, which failed disastrously twice, is going to work on the third shot.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
well i just dont see how trickle-down economics, which failed disastrously twice, is going to work on the third shot.

I've researched that and this commentary is important to this thread.

In what way is Romney implementing trickle down economics when he's denied that multiple times? Is he pulling a classic Romney or is the accusation of Trickle shaky, at best?

Here are the biggest "lies" from the campaign, so far:

"President Barack Obama claimed Mitt Romney is planning to raise taxes by $2,000 on middle-income taxpayers and/or cut taxes by $5 trillion. Neither is true.
Romney claimed Obama plans to raise taxes by $4,000 on middle-income taxpayers. That’s not true, either.
It’s also not true that Obama plans “to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements,” as Romney claimed.
Equally untrue is the Obama campaign’s repeated claim that Romney backed a law that would outlaw “all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest.”

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/whoppers-of-2012-final-edition/

I don't see the trickle point in there which means you might be right.

Originally posted by dadudemon
In what way is Romney implementing trickle down economics when he's denied that multiple times?

Its actually very easy for Romney to say he's not doing trickle-down economics while doing trickle-down economics. The underlying philosophy of his economics (cut taxes so the rich will spend more) is extremely similar to trickle-down theories even if it varies on the finer points.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Its actually very easy for Romney to say he's not doing trickle-down economics while doing trickle-down economics. The underlying philosophy of his economics (cut taxes so the rich will spend more) is extremely similar to trickle-down theories even if it varies on the finer points.

He accused Obama of the tickle-down policies.

Can it be considered Trickle-Down if he cuts taxes on more than just the rich, though? Wouldn't it be more apt to call that "cutting taxes" than Trickle-Down?

To be honest, I am not well-versed in Trickle-Down arguments.

Here's what I thought Trickle-Down economics were:

1. Cutting taxes on corporations and the rich.
2. Creating new laws that favor corporations and big business.
3. Relaxing regulations that primarily impact corporations and the rich.

{{citation needed}}

Okay: http://money.howstuffworks.com/trickle-down-economics.htm

Of those 3, Romney answers:

1. No.
2. Don't know or yes.
3. Can't really say: regulation changes he wants (if he were specific enough) should impact all SE climes. It not sure about this.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
and this contradicts the recovering trend how exactly?

start of bush's term: jan 2001.......7.3%
end of bush's term: dec 2009.....14.2%**
under obama: sept 2012..........14.7%

conclusion: lol stop blaming bush its obama's fault

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

Is the Romney campaign saying "Unemployment isn't recovering under Obama", "Unemployment isn't recovering fast enough, but under Romney it will improve more" or something else?

Originally posted by Robtard
"Unemployment isn't recovering fast enough, but under Romney it will improve more"

They are saying this and Romney, I think, said that almost verbatim in the first debate. He has definitely used the word "slow" in reference to the economic recovery towards Obama.

The real problem with using unemployment as a measure of an economy's health is the issue of discouraged workers. As the economy heals and more people who have previously abandoned hope of finding employment (Occupy Protestors among others) return to the job market and thus inflate the unemployment figure.

Similarly, it isn't difficult to imagine a scenario where the economic situation becomes so bleak that millions of job seekers throw in the towel and the unemployment rate plummets even as the economy sinks to new lows.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The real problem with using unemployment as a measure of an economy's health is the issue of discouraged workers. As the economy heals and more people who have previously abandoned hope of finding employment (Occupy Protestors among others) return to the job market and thus inflate the unemployment figure.

I thought you were going somewhere else with that. I thought you were going to say, "and more jobs are being created by the unemployment rate magically stays the same." Because, some people, that come back to the market, get a job in less than a month.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Similarly, it isn't difficult to imagine a scenario where the economic situation becomes so bleak that millions of job seekers throw in the towel and the unemployment rate plummets even as the economy sinks to new lows.

Yes, this is why I dislike the U-3 number.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The real problem with using unemployment as a measure of an economy's health is the issue of discouraged workers. As the economy heals and more people who have previously abandoned hope of finding employment (Occupy Protestors among others) return to the job market and thus inflate the unemployment figure.

Similarly, it isn't difficult to imagine a scenario where the economic situation becomes so bleak that millions of job seekers throw in the towel and the unemployment rate plummets even as the economy sinks to new lows.

That's why the graph is showing U-3 as well as U-6.

U-3 is more common because we know the U-3 number with reasonable certainty and its standard across a bunch of countries. U-6 is more accurate but less precise.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
He can't win, don't kid yourself.

I know he won't win, but I can't vote for either of the other two.

Not the most logical decision on my part, but no matter what happens at least I can say:

"Don't blame me, I didn't vote for that guy."

Hehe 😄

Originally posted by sweersa
I know he won't win, but I can't vote for either of the other two.

Not the most logical decision on my part, but no matter what happens at least I can say:

"Don't blame me, I didn't vote for that guy."

Hehe 😄

YouTube video

If Obama is reelected, he will be impeached and removed from office.

Originally posted by Jim Colyer
If Bush is reelected, he will be impeached and removed from office.

Haha, look at Romneys face. It looks like he wants to carpet bomb a Na'vi village.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Haha, look at Romneys face. It looks like he wants to carpet bomb Obama's village.