Economy recovering; Republicans despondent

[Tony]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/us...nd-romney.html

The Labor Department reported on Friday that the unemployment rate had fallen all the way back to the level of President Obama’s first full month in office, to 8.3 percent, from a high of 10 percent in late 2009. Yet unemployment also remains higher than it has been for any presidential election since

the Great Depression

.

It looks pretty clear now that Obama will win another 4 years. What's not so clear is why the press seems to be assuming Romney will be the Republican nominee. I can see right wingers responding to this 'terrible' news by wanting a wacko candidate like Gingrich.

[Black Dog]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/us...nd-romney.html



It looks pretty clear now that Obama will win another 4 years. What's not so clear is why the press seems to be assuming Romney will be the Republican nominee. I can see right wingers responding to this 'terrible' news by wanting a wacko candidate like Gingrich.

Let me get this straight....Obama is a shoo-in because there has been no improvement during his tenure? Clearly I'm missing something.

[cindylu]

I don't know if the economy is going to turn around like we'd all like to see but I'm just glad some people are working.

[Tony]

Let me get this straight....Obama is a shoo-in because there has been no improvement during his tenure? Clearly I'm missing something.

You sure are. The downward slide that was initiated during the Bush years, and only stopped when he was shown the door.

[Black Dog]

You sure are. The downward slide that was initiated during the Bush years, and only stopped when he was shown the door.

Really? Here's a chart that tells a different story...

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

LNS14000000_59078_1328415884748.gif

[Tony]

Actually I think that chart might prove my point - it climbs just as Bush is leaving. But it also hit 10% under Reagan, so I'm not even sure there's a lot a president can do about it.

[Black Dog]

That's the unemployment rate you see climbing. How does that prove your point?

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[Tony]

I know that; I followed your link. I made two points when starting this thread:

• The economy is improving.
• Republicans would have preferred that not happen so they could win the presidency.

I don't think it proves or disproves either of my points. Before you say it does, you have to look at Reagan's 10% unemployment rate also.

[derricksonb]

I made two points when starting this thread:

• The economy is improving.
• Republicans would have preferred that not happen so they could win the presidency.

I don't think it proves or disproves either of my points. Before you say it does, you have to look at Reagan's 10% unemployment rate also.

Are we supposed to blindly accept The New York Times opinion that the economy is improving and unemployment is down? Do you have any concrete evidence to support The New York Times claims? The simple fact is tat the reportable unemployment rate is down from when Obama took office, but that's mostly due to the fact that the benefits for most people who were claiming unemployment at that time have expired and cannot be renewed and are therefore no longer reported.

[JediKnight]

Are we supposed to blindly accept The New York Times opinion that the economy is improving and unemployment is down? Do you have any concrete evidence to support The New York Times claims? The simple fact is tat the reportable unemployment rate is down from when Obama took office, but that's mostly due to the fact that the benefits for most people who were claiming unemployment at that time have expired and cannot be renewed and are therefore no longer reported.

I believe the Times was using the Bureau of Labor and Statistics monthly jobs report for the basis of the story. according to taht reort the economy added 243,000 new jobs in January. It is awfully funny to see republicans attempt to downplay the report and put a negative spin on it. I think they would have preferred the economy be stagnant going into the election.

[derricksonb]

I see on the BLS website where 243K jobs were added in January. It also states that while job gains are increasing, unemployment is also increasing in during the 2nd quarter of FY12.

I am in no way trying to put a negative spin on the situation (believe me we'd all be in a better position if the economy really improved and people were albe to go back to work) rather I am trying to present the opportunity to have a balanced discussion about the facts and not highlight the positive while ignoring the negatives facts.

[Tucker]

Would not matter to me if the unemployment rate went down to 6%! Voodoo math on who are the unemployed and who isn't, is nothing more then a donkey spin. Fact is that a large percentage of middle class fell into the poverty class in the name of change. Gas prices, food prices, is the base of wealth and substainabilty for the middle class and that is through the roof. I hear no echo of this issue with noboma and company. Lets not build pipe lines to Canada, lets raise taxes and lets tell people what to eat, how to raise our children and the list goes on.

Lets talk about the diminishing rights of the citizens, lets talk about fast and furious, lets talk about how we bailed out wall street and the housing market.

And while we are at it lets put down ford for not needing the bail out and showing GM how it is done.

Lets keep blaming Bush, that cracks me up.

The President is shooting holes in the Constitution and the base of this nation. He needs to go.

[JediKnight]

Lets talk about the diminishing rights of the citizens

All right let's talk about them, what are they?

[Tony]

Lets talk about the diminishing rights of the citizens

Hey. You'll get no argument from me. I agree Obama isn't doing nearly enough to oppose nonsense like SOPA or ACTA or the damn Patriot Act.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

The President is shooting holes in the Constitution and the base of this nation. He needs to go.

When did he pass 'acts' that eroded our rights and/or freedoms? I understand he renewed some, but when did he actually override any of our rights and which ones? I admit I've been paying less attention lately, so I really am intrigued.

[Leprechaun]

Hear me now and listen to me later ... the BIG CRASH (think the Geat Depression) will happen in the middle of 2016 no matter who is president. Bet the farm on stocks now but sell your load by Christmas 2015. You've got a few years to learn how to be a cash-basis consumer, and do what it takes to become frugal!!! (Remember, I predicted the Great Recession back in 2007!!!!)

[faithwalk]

When did he pass 'acts' that eroded our rights and/or freedoms?

The most recent example is when he is forcing insurance companies to pay for birth control (morning after abortion pills) when that should in no way be the president's right to do so. Why is he forcing the insurance companies to give out free abortions. And don't you believe it's out of the kindness and generosity of insurance companies to pay for this. It is coming out of my and your pockets. And that is unconstitutional.

[KatherineA]

OMG - he is not "forcing insurance companies to pay for birth control" He is also not forcing insurance companies to give out free abortions. The morning after pill is not an abortion pill either Why do you think that it is? the sperm may not have even met an egg yet . . . Sperm can take as little as 45 min to find an egg and can remain alive and looking for 72 hours.

I suppose this hasn't been reported on Fox 5 yet, but anyway . . .

The regulation at the center of the controversy requires religious-affiliated groups such as charities, hospitals and universities, but not churches themselves, to provide employees coverage for birth control as other health insurance providers must do. The Catholic Church opposes most methods of birth control.

In a compromise to religious leaders who want to restrict women's reproductive rights and personal decisions the President offered a compromise today:

The compromise sought to accommodate religious organizations, such as Catholic hospitals and universities, outraged by a new rule that would have required them to offer free contraceptive coverage to women employees.

Instead, the new approach puts the burden on insurance companies, ordering them to provide workers at religious-affiliated institutions with free family planning if they request it, without involving their employer at all, the White House said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8181MX20120210

I don't understand the "conservative" church goin right who supposedly believe in no government intrusion But is willing to let the government in when it comes to women and decisions about their body.

[HolyCannoli]

When did he pass 'acts' that eroded our rights and/or freedoms? I understand he renewed some, but when did he actually override any of our rights and which ones? I admit I've been paying less attention lately, so I really am intrigued.

When did he pass 'acts' that eroded our rights and/or freedoms? I understand he renewed some, but when did he actually override any of our rights and which ones? I admit I've been paying less attention lately, so I really am intrigued.

NDAA. The government can now detain American citizens indefinitely without charge. Many believe that with the passing of this bill, habeas corpus can now be thrown out the window. Funny that there was little more than a peep about this but the sheep went crazy over the internet freedom and who susan g koman chooses to give their money to.

Here is what the ACLU has to say:

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law

“President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.”
“We are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court,” said Romero.

[Tony]

I'm not sure that a lot of us didn't notice it. I think it's more that we saw there was an issue we could make a difference with, versus one we couldn't. A lot of people on both sides have jumped on this whole Patriot Act nonsense since 9/11.

Besides, it's only "the terrorists" they intend to secretly whisk off for life, isn't it?