Thank goodness we elected Barack Obama.
Employers throttled back on layoffs in July, cutting just 247,000 jobs, the fewest in a year, and the unemployment rate dipped to 9.4 percent, its first decline in 15 months.
It was a better-than-expected showing that offered a strong signal that the recession is finally ending.
The new snapshot, released by the Labor Department on Friday, also offered other encouraging news: workers’ hours nudged up after sinking to a record low in June, and paychecks grew after having fallen or flat lined in some cases.
For the haters:
“I expect to be held responsible, but I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking.” — President Obama
Only 9.4% of us don’t have jobs.
Woot.
Everyone shut up now, ya hear.
No way that’s no arrogant. No sir.
FoxNews spin (on TV): But those ppl with jobs won’t get Health Care! Obama bad-wrong!
Buck up, Den’. There will be something new for you to blame on Obammy someday.
Dennis 2011: The economy is growing too fast! Unemployment is too low! It’s all Obama’s fault!
I sincerely hope that’s the case that I might feel the economy was growing too fast at that point, Oliver. It’s just amusing to me, though, that you guys think that since he’s Barack Obama that he’s got it all under control. He’s never run anything and he’s hired a bunch of financial people you didn’t approve of, but yet it’s all coming together, bit by bit. Because it just is.
I don’t think Oliver really thinks that, but if it leads to more enjoyable taunting of nitwit ‘conservatives’, I’ll join in too!
Time for the New New Deal! Obama needs to roll out the new WPA, Public Works, and we need to get a lot more FDR and less late-term too little too late Hoover!
the unemployment rate dipped to 9.4 percent, its first decline in 15 months.
How about a little credit?
but yet it’s all coming together, bit by bit. Because it just is.
…its first decline in 15 months.
Yup. Sure looks like it.
When you have a decline from a previously very large number, Duros, it’s a good thing, yes, but it’s not time to start popping open the champagne bottles, either.
Nor is it time for Obama to be barking to well-intentioned people the popular liberal refrain of “STFU”. But apparently any time is a good time to be doing that.
For him, anyway.
It’s all roses and unicorns, isn’t it?
But apparently any time is a good time to be doing that.
When you guys are whining? Yes, it is.
It is a positive sign of improvement after 15 months of decline. Why can’t you acknowledge that?
I can acknowledge a positive development, Duros. But ‘Thank God for Barack Obama” and ‘Move bitch, get out the way’? C’mon, be serious.
You guys aren’t in high school and you’re jawing with some rival school kids.
Ludicris….unemployment numbers. You guys are amazing sometimes.
Dennis, please tell me all the wonderful things President McCain would have done differently had he been elected.
I don’t know what he would’ve done, to be honest. He would’ve done a lot to shore up the banking system, which had to be done. But one thing he wouldn’t have done is tell you guys to get out the way, bitches.
He might’ve told you to get off his lawn, but not get out the way.
“but it’s not time to start popping open the champagne bottles, either”
Which nobody here has suggested we do, dumbass.
Dems are about reality, and the reality is that we might begin to be cautiously optimistic about the US economy’s long-term potential after the disastrous Bush Recession. Historical trends point to the Recession ending in three to four months, which means — well honestly, we’ll have to wait three or four months. But unemployment is a lagging indicator, so even incremental good news is going to make investors and business owners happy, at least a little bit. And the hope is that they’ll decide the worst of it is over, that people are going to begin spending more, and that they need to increase production in order to meet demand. If you had even the slightest understanding of economics I wouldn’t have to explain this to you.
Why are things like logic and analytical thinking so hard for you, Dennis? You’re truly a dumb human being. There’s just no other conclusion that can be drawn from your idiotic postings.
“I can acknowledge a positive development, Duros.”
Still haven’t heard you praise Obama for getting the DOW to 9,300. Because you idiotically used to claim he was single-handedly responsible for driving it down mere weeks after he took office. And now, nothing but the lame silence of a coward and a hypocrite.
Like I said, just plain dumb. No other word for it.
“Only 9.4% of us don’t have jobs.”
It is survival of the fittest, after all. Isn’t that the principle here. Calvinist Invisible Handers should be proud that the system is doing exactly what it should be doing – rewarding the fittest and punishing those weaker than. Bentham’s carrot and stick. You know the routine, it’s in all the text books. Full employment can only happen under a planned economy – is that what you want, Dennis?
I’d love to join in the celebration here, but I can’t. Many people have simply given up looking for work, and have been taken off the unemployment statistics.
The actual unemployment rate is over 16%…..So while it’s great less jobs were loss this month. Noone is getting hired at this point.
You guys aren’t in high school and you’re jawing with some rival school kids.
Could’ve fooled me.
He might’ve told you to get off his lawn, but not get out the way.
“+5″ Exp points for that one.
“I can acknowledge a positive development, Duros.”
Ok.
Go ahead.
I’ll wait.
Many people have simply given up looking for work, and have been taken off the unemployment statistics.
And that was true of the numbers last year as well.
“I’d love to join in the celebration here, but I can’t.”
Who’s celebrating? And why are you such an idiot?
“Economy Healing, Bit By Bit” is a far cry some saying something stupid, false, and triumphal like, I dunno, “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.”
Obviously. But let’s not celebrate because a quarter of a million were laid off, and over 700,000 got taken off the unemployment rolls…
Again. Who’s celebrating?
Tell me, Jaim, did you ever, even once, praise George Bush at any time on the DOW rise to the 14,000 level? You have a blog, so if you did there, or anywhere that you can point to, please provide a link.
Oliver – clearly you’ve forgotten the rule of eight – a Democratic President is never responsible for anything good that happens for the first eight months of his administration, and a republican one is never responsible for anything bad that happens for the first eight years of his.
“Tell me, Jaim, did you ever, even once, praise George Bush at any time on the DOW rise to the 14,000 level?”
It was artificial wealth that has since proven disastrous. It was wealth based on thin air. It partly explains the high unemployment rate that you’re so concerned with.
“Again. Who’s celebrating?”
I think his deaf and even a little blind.
Wow, recession is ending. Who would have ever thought something like that would happen? And of course, Oliver attributes it to nothing more than the election of Barack Obama. Hilarious. Of course, I’ve been arguing with people for years that the economy runs in cycles and that this would turn around sooner rather than later. The stimulus package had nothing to do with this. NOTHING. It won’t have anything to do with it and in the end, the only thing the so-called ’stimulus’ package will have done is add nearly another trillion dollars on top of nearly $4 trillion in spending.
Oh and one has to love the President of The United States telling those who don’t buy into his pot-of-gold at the end of the rainbow scenario to basically “SHUT THE F**K UP.” Nice. Thanks Mr. President.
Ohh, Jaim. Anything positive ever on your blog about Bush in his eight years on your blog? Anything?….anything…?
Please don’t make me use your ‘fucking hypocrites’ charge you love to throw out right back on you.
to basically “SHUT THE F**K UP.” Nice. Thanks Mr. President.
Well, somebody has to say it. Lord knows, you ain’t listening around here.
We are fucked, when we consider loosing 250,000 jobs good news. Hopefully the trend continues.
Sounds like in sucida|’s perfect world, Ben Stein, Vince Schiavelli, Steven Wright and Charles Krauthammer would have made one hell of a rock band.
[quimby]Whew, thank God that’s over. I was worried for a little bit.[/quimby]
71 bank failures so far this year, trillions more in debt, cap & tax, budget busting ObamaCare, residential & commercial real estate nuked, Mediacre insolvent, Sociual Security insolvent, Freddie & Fanne insolvent, unemployment at 50 year highs, no recovery in sight….yeah baby…green shoots!
““Economy Healing, Bit By Bit” is a far cry some saying something stupid, false, and triumphal like, I dunno, “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.”
Get over George Bush. I DO NOT LIKE GEORGE BUSH. I DO NOT LIKE BARACK OBAMA. I don’t even like 98% of the politicians currently serving. Not all of us suck the dick of the party we belong to. Most of them suck, in both parties.
* The unemployment rate going down ?
* The stock market is moving up ?
* Economist predicting that the recession is coming to an end?
* Banks starting to lend to each other again ?
* Home sales are rising in some parts of the US ?
Does that prove that Obama’s economic policies are working!!
Don’t bet on it!!
Remember that just a short while ago…..
* Countrywide,Ameriquest, Indymac Bank went bellie up
* Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had to get taken over by the feds
* The administration engineered a $700 billion emergency taxpayer bailout called the TARP program
* Washington Mutual was seized by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
* The Dow Jones Industrial Average caps its worst week ever with its highest volatility day ever recorded in its 112 year history
* Lehman Brothers collapsed
* The US Federal Reserve lent $85 billion to American International Group (AIG) to avoid bankruptcy.
* The US government agreed to rescue Citigroup
* Economists were predicting the coming of the second great depression
* The term “falling off a cliff….excuse me? hmmm….you sure…oh…
Ah, Excuse me….
That all took place under the Bush administration?!
…..Never mind.
“Tell me, Jaim, did you ever, even once, praise George Bush at any time on the DOW rise to the 14,000 level? You have a blog, so if you did there, or anywhere that you can point to, please provide a link.”
Dennis, I’m not the fucking moron who directly equated a president’s performance with the DOW. That was you, fuckwit. It was you CONSTANTLY after Obama took office. Every hour of every fucking day of your desperate, childish trolling of these boards.
As an adult, my take is this — there are vicissitudes to the market that a president can only control to a certain extent, and over a long period of time. Certainly not by the hour. Over EIGHT YEARS, Bush proved he was a poor steward of the economy. He left office with America in the throes of the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression (another gift from a Republican president). Don’t think the DOW is the only factor? Fine, let’s look at job growth — fail. Let’s look at wage growth — fail. Let’s look at people moving from the lower/working class into the upper class — fail.
We adults know that Obama can’t be judged in full until the end of his eight years. And guess what — if the DOW plummets again, if wages are still stagnant, if job growth is still negative, then he will have been a failed president, just like Bush.
But as to the point of this post, there are small signs of recovery after seven months. Nobody is opening champagne, nobody is proclaiming Obama a genius, people like me just feel like a) things are demonstrably better right now, economically speaking, than they were at the proverbial free-fall at the end of Bush II b) declining numbers for unemployment, even small ones, are a good indicator not just for me, but more importantly for business owners who are gun-shy about hiring right now.
Like I said, I’m happy to explain basic economic principals to the ignorant like yourself, but at your age you should really enroll in a CC for some classes or read some books.
And for the umpteenth time, nobody here is celebrating. Just acknowledging that there is some light at the end of the tunnel.
Jay writes: “Wow, recession is ending.”
Nobody. Fucking. Said. This.
“Not all of us suck the dick of the party we belong to.”
Thanks for the over-share.
Oh yes you did, you lying stack of Korean dog shit. You have stated numerous times on here that Bush destroyed the economy and took the DOW down- ALL his fault.
Much more directly than what you accuse me of having said was Obama’s responsibility. You have double standards, a poor memory and you lie pathologically, Jaim. It almost makes me think you were if not thrown out of the US, at least nudged out.
“You have stated numerous times on here that Bush destroyed the economy and took the DOW down- ALL his fault.”
Over an eight year span, that’s exactly what he did. Couldn’t have put it better myself.
As I tried to explain to you in small words above, tying a president’s performance to the daily market performance is stupid, and this is exactly what you started doing in January. Tying the market’s performance to the president’s over eight years? Perfectly sensible, but it’s also worth looking at other numbers like unemployment (Bush = fail), wage growth (Bush = fail), general confidence in the American economy (Bush = fail).
Typical Republican — afraid to take responsibility for his own words.
You put any quote of mine here and I’ll take responsibility for it for that day and tie it to what he said. He said a lot of stupid shit then that he backed away from soon thereafter because he knew he was making investors very nervous as he was trying to force the porkukus bill down our throats.
I’ve done this several times, but if you want to do it again, go right ahead. And Bush was in the sixth and seventh year of his presidency when the DOW was reaching new heights, and even then you had nothing positive to say, so that makes your statements more BS. If Obama deserves credit for the DOW at 9300, then Bush deserved tons when it was at 14,000. No liberal bloggers did and neither did you. So your logic is fallacious.
As usual.
“Bush deserved tons when it was at 14,000″
And he deserves complete scorn for what happened after.
Honestly Dennis, if your favorite team starts off the season 4-0 but ends up at 4-12, do you see sports writers effusively praising the coach? No, they call the guy a chump.
Bush was a disaster. His failures on the economy and on national security and Iraq and failing to capture Osama bin Laden were compounded after a period of eight years. Obama, after a mere seven months, has overseen some positive developments re: job growth and Afghanistan (a top Taliban leader was just killed in a missile strike). The fact that you can’t bring your little pea-brain to accept this hard, cold fact says a lot about you and your very limited mental capacity.
Jaim, if you truly believed what you just wrote, you would have given George Bush credit the period immediately following 9/11 as the DOW under George Bush recovered very nicely, as it did from the dot.com bubble too. You are admitting that you never did. By your logic, there should be nothing said about Obama on the positive until his season is over, too.
And there is no positive development attributed to Obama regarding job growth. We haven’t had job growth, you idjit. And WTF did Obama have to do with the missile strike on the Taliban leader? Did you ever give Bush credit for any of the Taliban leaders killed during his presidency?
“By your logic, there should be nothing said about Obama on the positive until his season is over, too.”
OMG! Dennis just said something intelligible!
Nobody in this thread has heaped garlands upon Obama. Personally, I’ve just stated (along the lines of the post) that there are some positive signs re: unemployment, and unemployment tends to be a bellwether indicator of long-term growth. Long-term, as in, it’s been seven months, let’s see where we are at the beginning, middle, and end of 2010. Bush did eight years’ worth of damage to the US economy, and you started harping on the freaking performance of the DOW and tying it personally to Obama back in January, either because you’re dumb, hyper-partisan or indeed, both.
“And WTF did Obama have to do with the missile strike on the Taliban leader?”
Um, maybe because he’s the mother-loving Commander-in-Chief of the United States? You do realize he doesn’t give a press conference every time he orders attacks on terrorists, right?
Christ, how do you manage to tie your own shoes and leave the house every morning?
Two things, Jaim.
First, Oliver started out this thread with ‘Thank God for Barack Obama’. Then he posted a video of Ludicrous rapping out the words ‘Get out the way’. That sound a lot like a celebration and a braggadocios taunting that Obama has things well under control. Your saying no one is heaping garlands upon Obama is laughable.
Second, if Obama gets credit for a missile strike for being CIC, and I’ll give some to him, then Bush deserves credit too. And I doubt you ever gave him one scintilla of credit for anything in the GWOT.
Did you? If not, you are a hypocrite.
I can’t speak for Ludacris. He hasn’t been returning my phonecalls.
“Bush deserves credit too”
For having seven years and failing to catch OBL? Off to blog a quick thank-you for that.
‘Nor is it time for Obama to be barking to well-intentioned people the popular liberal refrain of “STFU”’
I seem to recall a recent time in which those who opposed them were barred from attending Republican town halls, and were delegated to fenced in areas well away from the facilities in which they were held.
You CAN’T be suggesting that Democrats who are appalled at the hysterics and disruptions of their town halls are in the same league as those who stifled opposition and branded all dissent as traitorous?
No one on the Left is calling for anyone to shut up, but some civility and decorum would go a long way towards making your opposition to all things Obama at least partially credible.
‘Ludicris….unemployment numbers. You guys are amazing sometimes.’
Sarah Palin; Obama’s “Death Panel” Could Kill My Down Syndrome Baby.
What else you got?
‘He would’ve done a lot to shore up the banking system, which had to be done.’
He didn’t even acknowledge there WAS a problem with the banking system until he suspended his Presidential campaign to rush back to Washington to find out why his support of Bush economics had driven the economy to the brink of collapse.
Yabba Dabba Dumb.
‘Second, if Obama gets credit for a missile strike for being CIC, and I’ll give some to him, then Bush deserves credit too. And I doubt you ever gave him one scintilla of credit for anything in the GWOT.’
Holy fuck; so Dumbya gets only praise from you for starting a war in Iraq that was utterly unnecessary and which he completely mishandled, not to mention totally abandoning Afghanistan in order to facilitate his Iraqi debacle, he ushers in the era of fiscal malfeasance which nearly destroys the world economy and severely debilitates yours, but you want to give him credit for briefly surging the Dow YEARS ago?
How can you be so obtuse?
By your logic, even YOU should be heaping praise on Obama for the positive signs the economy is showing, but you’re still trying to find a way to malign him and shower the kudos on Dumbya.
THAT. MAKES. NO. SENSE.
Shirley you can’t be serious saying that. Every day someone here tells someone to STFU. Every day someone on the Left tells people on the right to STFU. That statement is laughable. Even for someone who’s not an American citizens.
Seriously, Gil, you must believe I have plenty, otherwise you wouldn’t post four diatribes in a row addressing only things I have said on this thread. There are quite a few other conservatives who have commented on the ridiculousness of the assertion that Obama is some sort of economic guru who are much smarter than me, yet you chose four things I’ve said to remark on. Bizarre.
That is a patently false assertion. If you want to revise that statement or retract it before I take the two seconds it would take to thoroughly deconstruct and debunk it, you may have it. Even the day he made the stupid blunder of a statement that the fundamentals of the economy were sound that Obama seized on by taking the one part of the sentence that made McCain look stupid, he went into detail about the financial crisis. That was well before he suspended his campaign. But before I go one, I’ll let you walk that one back if you’d like to.
You have no idea what the conversation/argument with Jaim was, jrfunky. Like another idiot very similar to you here in Zython, you always tend to come in very late to a thread and start spouting off crap as you read it before taking the time to understand what the context of the response was as it pertained to a prior post to someone else. In short, you’re a buffoon. Even a casual glance at your website shows not one original thought on it. Almost without exception, everything on there is the subject of a post that was made here previously. My guess is your Canadian audience isn’t aware of that so no one calls you on your leeching.
The argument I made was that if I should be giving Obama credit for his economic stewardship, then so should have Jaim at at least some point over his eight years. He never did. So we’re both partisans. It’s a circle argument. And jrfunky, you are about the last person who posts here who should be calling someone else obtuse. People for the most part stopped even responding to you after that day you ridiculously asserted that before Michael Jackson came along, no black singers ever even got on the radio, that the ones they played were white guys covering black singers’ songs. I still laugh when I think about it.
“The argument I made was that if I should be giving Obama credit for his economic stewardship, then so should have Jaim at at least some point over his eight years. He never did.”
No, the argument you started to make after President Obama’s innauguration was that daily performance of the DOW = daily (hourly?) performance of the president. And you’ve failed to congratulate Obama for doing a pretty good job of stabilizing and/or improving the US markets.
But let’s stay friends, little Dennis. You gave Bush II eight years to fuck up the economy, you’ve given President Obama seven months to right the wrongs of the GOP.
I’m sure we’ll still be arguing come late 2010, but I’m also sure that I’ll be right and you’ll be wrong once again. Trends look reasonably good for Obama, “HOPING HE FAILS” looks pretty silly.
You’re becoming tiresome, Jaim. Keep telling yourself the trend is favorable for Obama as his poll numbers continue to plummet. Funny the negative correlation continues to hold up as I stated last week between his favorability and the DOW. Funny that.
The trend numbers for Obama look like the northern border of Virginia, Jaim. And I’m not talking Tyson’s Corner or Dulles, either. I’m talking VA Beach or Sandbridge. Obama could even see the Outer Banks from his back porch right now.
Funny the negative correlation continues to hold up as I stated last week between his favorability and the DOW. Funny that.
Oh really Dennis? Have you completed your deep research into the phenomenon? Have you crunched all the numbers?
Dennnis, when you first brought this up you claimed there is a factual causal link between the two numbers:
You didn’t bother to back this statement up in the last thread. But since you brought it up again, I’m certain you have your evidence all to hand, now. So Dennis, let’s have it.
@fafaroo
MARKET APPROVAL
STOCKS RALLY WHEN PREZ RATINGS DIVE
-Terry Keenan
This came out shortly after my post last week. I don’t know Terry reads the comments here or if we were just thinking the same thoughts, but I need to email her and show her some of my findings and monitor this oddity a little closer.
Stay tuned, my friend.
Dennis, did you read that whole article I wonder:
Thanks for the definitive proof that things are turning around Dennis!
Much appreciated.
And Dennis, I have another question for you.
The article states this:
So this apparently holds true for every president going back to 1959. There have been six Republican presidents since 1959.
So how does that jibe with this:
Furthermore, falling approval ratings can hamstring an ambitious chief executive bent on expanding the role of government — a scenario that Wall Street often applauds and which appears to be happening right now.
Are we to believe that all six of the Republican presidents were “bent on expanding the role of government” which had the stock market nervous?
The article doesn’t state this is effect is only apparent during democratic administrations. So what gives?
Or is this a case of conservatives picking the explanation they prefer to explain coincidence, not causation?
Americans witnessed this phenomenon firsthand on Inauguration Day; despite the national excitement about an Obama presidency and an approval rating near 70 percent, the Dow plunged 332 points.
The correlation is stark, and there may be two reasons behind the relationship. First of all, poll numbers are a lagging indicator of voter sentiment.
By the time a president starts to get blamed for a bad economy and high unemployment, the worst may be over, and the stock market begins to sense this.
Furthermore, falling approval ratings can hamstring an ambitious chief executive bent on expanding the role of government — a scenario that Wall Street often applauds and which appears to be happening right now.
@fafaroo
Dear, dear. And you try so hard, too.
In one sentence you embolden that ‘the worst may be over, and the stock market begins to sense this’, and then in the next sentence you say that is definitive proof that things are turning around.
This is a Strowbridgean leap of logic. For you even. The kind of thing you’d have heart palpitations if I was ever bold enough to try that kind of dishonesty here.
The kind of thing that makes me shake my head and wonder why I even bother trying to educate guys like you. Your method of arguing is bizarre.
It’s a work in progress, falafaroo; I told you that last week. Terry and I need more data points. Again, stay tuned.
Again, stay tuned.
I fail to see the reason.
The kind of thing that makes me shake my head and wonder why I even bother trying to educate guys like you. Your method of arguing is bizarre.
This from the guy who would have us believe that the stock market feared Reagan was “bent on expanding the role of government.”
I didn’t say that last statement, fafaroo.
I don’t know if your obsession is causing your regression, or vice versa, or if the two are just coming on with you at the same time, but something is going on with you that is somewhat alarming.
I didn’t say that last statement, fafaroo.
If you buy the argument presented in the article you linked to, Dennis, than you must believe it to be true.
But it seems you realize just how specious that argument is so I have to ask you, why did you link to the article in the first place to support your claims?
The effect presidents have on the stock market is overrated.
How was the market doing when Bush’s approval dropped below 30%? It must have been soaring to new heights!
“The effect presidents have on the stock market is overrated.”
I agree, but try telling that to little Dennis.
Here’s what we do know: eight years of Bush was a disaster for the markets, and more importantly for the economy in general (jobs, wages). Eight months of Obama? Jury is definitely still out, but there are some positive signs. There are also the historical numbers, which argue that a U-shaped Recession (i.e., the Bush Recession) usually lasts about 24 months, and that we’re 20 months into this one.
Do the math.
Wow, first a Strowbridgean, and then now a Jaim-ian leap of logic.
Terry Keenan didn’t mention Reagan. I linked to the article because she was writing about the same phenomena I talked about last week, the interesting negative correlation between Bam’s poll number plummeting and the stock market’s rising, and the mirror opposite a few months ago….even his rise in the polls last summer when the market was tanking. Because I linked to it and commented on what I thought was interesting doesn’t mean I stand by all her statements or believe all of them to be true, fafaroo. Surely you aren’t that obtuse.
You just made up that line of argument and attributed a statement to me not made by me, but not even a statement made by the author of an article I linked to.
That’s weird. That’s shit Strowbridge and Jaim do. Now you getting down in the same sewer those two play around in.
Terry Keenan didn’t mention Reagan.
You really can’t follow a simple argument so it’s no wonder you’re so easily duped by just baseless and self-contradictory statements as Keenan’s.
I can follow you fine, fafa. It’s just not worth it. It’s like someone throwing you a garden hose that’s all tangled up. Is it really worth it to figure it out and untangle it when all you wanted was just to fill a watering can. You get quite tiresome, but the effort you put into your Quest is appreciated all the same.