9.7% unemployment - highest in 26 years
-
torbs;287046 wrote:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Jobless-rate-at-97-pct-216K-apf-2503296744.html?x=0&.v=14discuss.
his address to congress should be interesting
-
so...highest since Reagan (By 1983 Reagan was 2 years into his presidency)? Since we all know that Jimmy Carter was responsible for the economic plunder of the early 80's, I'd say that we have to apply the same measure to the current president...right? Or doesn't political math work that way?
/discuss
-
thrash;287052 wrote:
It's going to be him walking in, shouting "I'm Rick James, BITCH", and then walking out.I'd probably laugh if he did do that. Not because it's the right thing to do mind you....just because it would be kinda funny.
-
But, But....... Obama's Stimulus! It's working! He will just print more money!!!!!! Execs need more vacations anyways.:icon_shaking:
-
MisterCMK;287122 wrote:
I thought the unemployment rate wasn't going to go above 8.5% thanks to the stimulus package...Source? I'm not saying it wasn't said, just would like some backing.
-
Trafik Jamz;287053 wrote:
Since we all know that Jimmy Carter was responsible for the economic plunder of the early 80's, I'd say that we have to apply the same measure to the current president...right?
i assume you mean assigning the blame for this to bush? if that is what you mean, a shorter list might be to ask who doesn't think bush is to blame. -
"The claim that the Obama administration "promised" the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent is a popular talking point among Republican critics of the stimulus."
MisterCMK;287122 wrote:
I thought the unemployment rate wasn't going to go above 8.5% thanks to the stimulus package...:drunken_smilie: republicans
-
24valvenotak;287271 wrote:
"The claim that the Obama administration "promised" the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent is a popular talking point among Republican critics of the stimulus.":drunken_smilie: republicans
They should have stated, "The only reason why we are predicting these low numbers and making these large disclaimers is so the stimulus will pass swiftly"
That would have been a more truthful disclaimer IMO...
I believe this is the graph which is being spoken of in the above article: http://m.factcheck.org/Images/image/2009/Articles/6_16_2009_Making_Sense_Stimulus_Spending/stimulus-vs-unemployment-may-corrected.gif
It's from this article: http://m.factcheck.org/2009/06/making-sense-of-stimulus-spending/
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login