FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Obama trying to take credit for less unemployment





darthrevan
As the title states, he is trying to say there is less unemployment claims in October than there was in some previous months, well duh! It is time for companies to hire for the temporary Seasonal employees for Christmas that is a given to me. What do you think about the claim?
slimviking
darthrevan wrote:
As the title states, he is trying to say there is less unemployment claims in October than there was in some previous months, well duh! It is time for companies to hire for the temporary Seasonal employees for Christmas that is a given to me. What do you think about the claim?


A temporary fluctuation have nothing to do with global politics.
darthrevan
None the less, he still wants to claim he has created more jobs or less unemployment claims
deanhills
I don't think the unemployment rate is a foolproof indication of economic progress at all. It's still very high at almost 8%.

The types of jobs that have been created that are purely in the services sector and not in industry and manufacturing are also a bad indicator of progress.
darthrevan
deanhills wrote:
I don't think the unemployment rate is a foolproof indication of economic progress at all. It's still very high at almost 8%.

The types of jobs that have been created that are purely in the services sector and not in industry and manufacturing are also a bad indicator of progress.


I agree this temporary hiring is not much improvement also unemployment will go up once the seasonal jobs is done.
ocalhoun
I think that as long as people believe the president has any control over unemployment numbers, we're doomed to never fix the actual problems.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
I think that as long as people believe the president has any control over unemployment numbers, we're doomed to never fix the actual problems.
Although I agree that the President doesn't have direct control, I do think he can influence the numbers through decisions that are being taken. For example, during the famous bail-outs of the "poor" banks in Manhattan who had lost billions during their swindles of end of 2008, they could have been persuaded, in exchange of the bailouts, to make funding available to small start-ups, and to similarly bail out deserving small businesses.

OR. Instead of bailing out his campaign funding buddies in the banks, Obama could have helped to separate the banking business from investments and insurance, so there was no co-mingling of interests that would naturally cause the marketing of poor investment products to banking customers. He could also have set up small banking corporations where they were really needed to help bail out those in trouble with making their mortgage payments and deserving business start-ups. I'm dead certain that could have made a difference to employment numbers.

Instead the Banks that got bailed out, prospered, and continued to thrive safely ensconced in their ivory towers of greed and manipulation of politics and corporations. Still flogging poor investment products to their customers. As though nothing had happened before.
MYP415
The Fed probably deserves more credit than anyone on the hill.
deanhills
MYP415 wrote:
The Fed probably deserves more credit than anyone on the hill.
Excellent point! Often we're so focused on what we see on television, that we don't realize where the power really resides.
handfleisch
darthrevan wrote:
As the title states, he is trying to say there is less unemployment claims in October than there was in some previous months, well duh! It is time for companies to hire for the temporary Seasonal employees for Christmas that is a given to me. What do you think about the claim?

GOP confusion in their talking points is a big reason they lost in a landslide. Here is the confused mind of the modern right winger in the USA:
The government doesn't make jobs.
But Obama should be blamed for unemployment because he's president.
However, president Bill Clinton doesn't get credit for balancing the budget, the conservative forces in Congress gets credit.
But Bush is not to blame for turning that budget surplus into a massive deficit and for the Great Recession that started under him. That's big spending liberals.
However, the economy now is all Obama's fault, the conservative Congress has nothing to do with it.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
However, the economy now is all Obama's fault, the conservative Congress has nothing to do with it.
I'd agree he was not directly responsible, however it did happen on his watch however, so technically he is responsible as he was President at the time.
Related topics
Avatar Size
Adam & Eve
Does being pro-war contrast w/ religion (e.g. Christianity)?
What if your beliefs are wrong?
God of War Review and Discussions
Is science a social and political construct?
Why girls always loud and angry?
John McCain will really keep taxes low
Obama's First 100 days - a start on Gitmo BUT not enough
Obama's Unemployment Numbers Keep Going Up
Why is Ossama Bin Laden still missing?
PayPal vs. Google Checkout vs. whatnow?
Obama's birth certificate
Are sins real?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.