Comments about ‘Obama: New jobs report a sign economy on rebound’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, March 9 2012 1:31 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Riverton Cougar
Riverton, UT

Whether or not the economy is actually rebounding has yet to be seen. There are many factors to look at. Anyway, even if it is rebounding, don't you think it's a little late? Four years? That's a long time for the economy to be down. We knew the economy would rebound eventually, but the fact that it is just now starting to happen means that it is happening DESPITE Obama, not BECAUSE Obama. He is obviously slowing down the recovery a lot.

Besides, with another president not only would the economy have possibly recovered faster, but even if it recovers just as slowly, we would not have added a record $6 trillion of national debt in only 3 years!

ThatsSoUtah
Fredericksburg, VA

@Riverton Cougar
You're making a lot of assumptions about things that you can't possibly know.

Obama has done nothing to help job growth? How do you go about proving that? The economy didn't recover overnight? So what, it tanked because of years of problems. It took years to come back. It is coming back though, under the Obama presidency.

With another president, the economy could have tanked further into recession and thousands of other possibilities.

There is no possible way to know what another person would have done. If McCain was elected, we'd probably be spending trillions of dollars on more wars and still be in Iraq with Guantanamo bay being an even more popular destination.

worf
Mcallen, TX

ThatsSoUtah,

"It is coming back though, under the Obama presidency."

Really? From what, new manufacturing plants, or drilling? Keystone? You need to be more result driven.

Mark B
Eureka, CA

Let"s see if I've got this right. At the end of the Bush administration the US economy was losing jobs at the rate of 750,000 a month. The current administration has added jobs for 23 straight months. Cougar, though, thinks that isn"t fast enough, and wants to go (I guess) right back to what almost wrecked us instead. My question is: where do they teach this kind of logic, so that I'll know not where NOT to enroll by mistake?

the truth
Holladay, UT

The actual truth is under Bush's presidency with a republican controlled congress we never lost jobs, unemployment was alwasy under 7%.

But if we believe all the lies and half truths that the left tells, then this what we learn:

With democrat contolled congress we lost 750000 jobs, unemployment rose over 7%,

with a democrat controlled congress and presidency, unemployment went over 10% and debt akyrocketed, and policies that deny and even lose jobs and money in the energy sector, attack on job creators (the rich and corporations)

then with repulican controlled house, we get the economy rebounding.

coincidence? I think not.

Phranc
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@the truth
you make it to easy sometimes. The very fact that unemployment never actually went over 10% is enough to show the validity of your arguments. Do you know the last time it actually went over 10%? 1982 spiking at 10.9% in Dec 1982 Reagan was president and the republicans controlled the senate. coincidence? I think not.

A1994
Centerville, UT

The problem, dear Obama supporters, is that the rate is not falling below 8%. It hasn't for a very long time. In fact, it hasn't been below 8% since his first month in office. If Obama's policies were effective, it wouldn't remain that high. His policies do not lend themselves to job creation. If you think the unemployment rate is ever going to go lower than 7.5% if Obama gets re-elected, you're fooling yourself. Even with a recession and a terrorist attack in 2001, the unemployment rate under George W.Bush averaged about 5.5%. Go to the Bureau of Labor Stats website if you need a visual. There may be jobs being added, but at a very slow rate and with many people under-employed. This is the new Democratic mantra: It's bad, but if it wasn't for us, it would be much worse. We need Romney to sort this out.

Phranc
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@A1994
well you are right about one thing a visit to the division of labor stats website is very revealing. Unemployment started an exponential growth rate starting in June 2007 when it was 4.4% (a year and a half before Obama took office) and by the time Obama actually took office it was already at 7.8% and growing out of control. It should be pretty clear to anyone that looks at these charts that Obama clearly did not create the mess, he just got stuck with the job of trying to clean it up.

Riverton Cougar
Riverton, UT

"Unemployment started an exponential growth rate starting in June 2007 when it was 4.4% (a year and a half before Obama took office) and by the time Obama actually took office it was already at 7.8% and growing out of control."

Yet 2006 is when Democrats took over the House. Coincidence? I think not.

"The very fact that unemployment never actually went over 10% is enough to show the validity of your arguments."

Fact: In October 2009, the monthly unemployment average was exactly 10%. That means that half the month saw higher than 10% unemployment. Even if you don't buy that, arguing that it wasn't that high when it pretty much was is comical. Bush's unemployment average? About 5.4%. Obama's? About 9.7%. Besides, if Bush was the problem, then the economy would have plummeted sooner than 2007. Something must have changed in the 2006-2007 time period...

Phranc
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@riverton cougar
So I take it the do not teach basic logic classes at BYU. Explain this reasoning to me please. When a republican was the president and the democrats controlled the house it was congressÂs fault the economy was failing but now that a democrat is president and republicans control the house congress gets the credit for the economy going well? I would also remind you that the democrats control both the senate and the executive branches.

Riverton Cougar
Riverton, UT

@Phranc

It makes perfect sense. According to the constitution, who regulates commerce? Is it the power of Congress or the President? I pointed out that in 2006 a change occurred in the House, and then in the economy (for the worse). Later, there's a change back in the House, and a change in the economy (for the better). Coincidence?

Looking at who in government has power over what in the economy, it would seem it isn't so much of a coincidence. Besides, what you claim is illogical is not really. Like I said, knowing what the constitution grants powers to, it makes sense. Did they not teach the constitution where you went to school?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments