You'll know with Jan and Feb reports if the seasonal adjustments were accurate. Right now, it's hard to tell.
Were the rich excluded from the payroll tax cut?New tax cuts favoring the rich? Yes, really.
Seasonal adjustment is always factored into these numbers.
So Bush is responsible for any recovery. :thumbsup:
Nice, try but Bush implemented tax cuts for the rich. Obama extended them (after a fight) in order to get other necessities passed, but he didn't implement new ones.
I agree 100% this takes time but you still haven't shown that this is due to anything that Obama has done. Trying to deflect the argument to some obstructionism rant was a nice try though. If this keeps happening over the next year I'd be inclined to think policy had something to do with it. But given the timing of this (December) and the fact that it is a spike in an otherwise flat jobs report history I can't see how anyone can attribute this to some Obama policy. If there were a gradual improvement prior to this, maybe I could see that argument but flat to a spike in December, seems more like seasonal job addition than anything else. Guess we will see.
Let's just be clear here. Both Bush and Obama deserve some credit for the stimulus packages. Bush also deserves a large proportion of the blame for the crisis in the first place, and Obama deserves none of the blame for the crisis that was created before he ever became president.So Obama just continued Bush's policies then. With the payroll tax cut. So why by this logic does Obama deserve credit?
I agree 100% this takes time but you still haven't shown that this is due to anything that Obama has done. Trying to deflect the argument to some obstructionism rant was a nice try though. If this keeps happening over the next year I'd be inclined to think policy had something to do with it. But given the timing of this (December) and the fact that it is a spike in an otherwise flat jobs report history I can't see how anyone can attribute this to some Obama policy. If there were a gradual improvement prior to this, maybe I could see that argument but flat to a spike in December, seems more like seasonal job addition than anything else. Guess we will see.
I wonder what Romney's response will be to this news?
They will tell us that they are fraudulent numbers, faked to make Obama look good, while at the same time telling us they are real but it's because of the GOP controlled house.
And the obvious Christmas hiring which is lready posted that discounts the etire point of seasonally adjusted.
Let's just be clear here. Both Bush and Obama deserve some credit for the stimulus packages. Bush also deserves a large proportion of the blame for the crisis in the first place, and Obama deserves none of the blame for the crisis that was created before he ever became president.
So, to sum up:
Credit and no blame for Obama.
Credit not nearly making up for the blame for Bush.
Hmm, I noticed you took my statement that most of the blame belongs with Bush and modified it to all Bush's fault. Did you notice this also, or do you do it subconsciously?Yeah, let's forget the clinton administration pressured Fannie Mae and others into more loans that they KNEW were higher risk...so yeah, all Bush's fault.
The number is better than expect but I wouldn't consider this "great" like some people here are saying. We need to be hitting around 400k a month every month to really get people back to work. Remember that we need 125k just to account for population grown so 200k really means that 75k people went back to work and we still have about 5.5 million fewer private sector jobs than in 2007. After the 1982 recession we were hitting 400k every month for something like 18 months in a row which is what we need to be doing.
Don't get me wrong, there has been a consistent trend of better economic news over the past month. It's just not nearly enough yet to make any significant headway in digging us out of the hole we are in.
edit: To give some perspective if we gain 200k jobs every month it will take another 2.25 years to get back to the number of jobs we had in 2007 ignoring population growth. However, when you include population growth that jumps to 6 years from now to get back to 5ish% unemployment and we are already 3+ years deep in this recession.
So Obama just continued Bush's policies then. With the payroll tax cut. So why by this logic does Obama deserve credit?
The unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in 3 years! W00t! I hope this trend continues and America's economy continues to grow!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/b...00-jobs-unemployment-rate-at-8-5.html?_r=1&hp
http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/06/10002777-hiring-gained-traction-in-december
180,000 people also gave up looking for work.........
The civilian labor force participation rate (64.0 percent) and the employment-
population ratio (58.5 percent) were both unchanged over the month
The real jobless rate is about 11.4% using a realistic labor force participation rate of 65.8% with takes into account those who have stopped looking for work. Essentially, Obama "enjoys" a 2% drop in labor force participation during his presidency which significantly skews the reported unemployment rate to look much better than it really is.180,000 people also gave up looking for work.........