Actually the unemployment rate started to climb in Nov 2006.  Examples
Nov 2007   4.5%
Jan 2008   5.4%
Jun 2008   6%
Dec 2008   7.2%
Jan 2009   7.6%
Now lets look at 4 month time frame:
Oct 2008   6.1%  Jan 2009 7.6%  A RISE OF 1.5%
Feb 2009   8.1%  May 2009 9.4%  A RISE OF 1.3%

THE RATE OF RISE HAS BEEN SMALLER UNDER OBAMA (1.3%) THAN UNDER BUSH (1.5%)
Source of information Bureau of Labor Statistics

I have not yet seen the rates for June, July,August, September—-I am sure it continues to climb but is not an overnight trend begun during this Administration—

BarefootFreddie - 01 November 2009 08:31 PM

Actually the unemployment rate started to climb in Nov 2006.  Examples
Nov 2007   4.5%
Jan 2008   5.4%
Jun 2008   6%
Dec 2008   7.2%
Jan 2009   7.6%
Now lets look at 4 month time frame:
Oct 2008   6.1%  Jan 2009 7.6%  A RISE OF 1.5%
Feb 2009   8.1%  May 2009 9.4%  A RISE OF 1.3%

THE RATE OF RISE HAS BEEN SMALLER UNDER OBAMA (1.3%) THAN UNDER BUSH (1.5%)
Source of information Bureau of Labor Statistics

I have not yet seen the rates for June, July,August, September—-I am sure it continues to climb but is not an overnight trend begun during this Administration—

It was this administration who claimed they could hold unemployment to 8%, if we gave them the $787 billion stimulus.

They got the stimulus, and we have unemployment approaching 10%.

The current policies are driving the unemployment numbers higher, not lower.

2012 - 02 November 2009 10:16 AM

BarefootFreddie - 01 November 2009 08:31 PM

Actually the unemployment rate started to climb in Nov 2006.  Examples
Nov 2007   4.5%
Jan 2008   5.4%
Jun 2008   6%
Dec 2008   7.2%
Jan 2009   7.6%
Now lets look at 4 month time frame:
Oct 2008   6.1%  Jan 2009 7.6%  A RISE OF 1.5%
Feb 2009   8.1%  May 2009 9.4%  A RISE OF 1.3%

THE RATE OF RISE HAS BEEN SMALLER UNDER OBAMA (1.3%) THAN UNDER BUSH (1.5%)
Source of information Bureau of Labor Statistics

I have not yet seen the rates for June, July,August, September—-I am sure it continues to climb but is not an overnight trend begun during this Administration—

It was this administration who claimed they could hold unemployment to 8%, if we gave them the $787 billion stimulus.

They got the stimulus, and we have unemployment approaching 10%.

The current policies are driving the unemployment numbers higher, not lower.

‘Driving Numbers Higher’??  It is hard to ‘Drive’ anything when you have been placed behind the controls of a vehicle someone else has lost total control of—-Physics prove it takes time to apply the brakes and regain control of a full-speed, out of control wreck about to happen. We have avoided the wreck, have a little patience while 8 years of reckless driving is slowed down and control of the vehicle is regained—

BarefootFreddie - 03 November 2009 12:38 AM

2012 - 02 November 2009 10:16 AM

BarefootFreddie - 01 November 2009 08:31 PM

Actually the unemployment rate started to climb in Nov 2006.  Examples
Nov 2007   4.5%
Jan 2008   5.4%
Jun 2008   6%
Dec 2008   7.2%
Jan 2009   7.6%
Now lets look at 4 month time frame:
Oct 2008   6.1%  Jan 2009 7.6%  A RISE OF 1.5%
Feb 2009   8.1%  May 2009 9.4%  A RISE OF 1.3%

THE RATE OF RISE HAS BEEN SMALLER UNDER OBAMA (1.3%) THAN UNDER BUSH (1.5%)
Source of information Bureau of Labor Statistics

I have not yet seen the rates for June, July,August, September—-I am sure it continues to climb but is not an overnight trend begun during this Administration—

It was this administration who claimed they could hold unemployment to 8%, if we gave them the $787 billion stimulus.

They got the stimulus, and we have unemployment approaching 10%.

The current policies are driving the unemployment numbers higher, not lower.

‘Driving Numbers Higher’??  It is hard to ‘Drive’ anything when you have been placed behind the controls of a vehicle someone else has lost total control of—-Physics prove it takes time to apply the brakes and regain control of a full-speed, out of control wreck about to happen. We have avoided the wreck, have a little patience while 8 years of reckless driving is slowed down and control of the vehicle is regained—

At the time our president came into office we all knew that the economy was in bad shape.  Our unemployment was 7.6%

With this in mind, our new president told us that a $787 billion stimulus would prevent the unemployment from going past 8%.  He did not say voters needed to have patience, but rather we should give him the stimulus money & leave the driving to him.

We gave him the money and trusted his driving skills.

It soon became apparent that his driving skills are no better than our previous driver, and his promise of holding unemployment to 8% was nothing more than a cyical line to get the money.

He had no workable plan to really hold unemployment to 8%.

You claim he “avoided” a wreck.  With unemployment now nearing 10%, the only thing he can hope to avoid is the voters. 

The wreck has already happened.

2012 - 03 November 2009 09:23 AM

BarefootFreddie - 03 November 2009 12:38 AM

2012 - 02 November 2009 10:16 AM

BarefootFreddie - 01 November 2009 08:31 PM

Actually the unemployment rate started to climb in Nov 2006.  Examples
Nov 2007   4.5%
Jan 2008   5.4%
Jun 2008   6%
Dec 2008   7.2%
Jan 2009   7.6%
Now lets look at 4 month time frame:
Oct 2008   6.1%  Jan 2009 7.6%  A RISE OF 1.5%
Feb 2009   8.1%  May 2009 9.4%  A RISE OF 1.3%

THE RATE OF RISE HAS BEEN SMALLER UNDER OBAMA (1.3%) THAN UNDER BUSH (1.5%)
Source of information Bureau of Labor Statistics

I have not yet seen the rates for June, July,August, September—-I am sure it continues to climb but is not an overnight trend begun during this Administration—

It was this administration who claimed they could hold unemployment to 8%, if we gave them the $787 billion stimulus.

They got the stimulus, and we have unemployment approaching 10%.

The current policies are driving the unemployment numbers higher, not lower.

‘Driving Numbers Higher’??  It is hard to ‘Drive’ anything when you have been placed behind the controls of a vehicle someone else has lost total control of—-Physics prove it takes time to apply the brakes and regain control of a full-speed, out of control wreck about to happen. We have avoided the wreck, have a little patience while 8 years of reckless driving is slowed down and control of the vehicle is regained—

At the time our president came into office we all knew that the economy was in bad shape.  Our unemployment was 7.6%

With this in mind, our new president told us that a $787 billion stimulus would prevent the unemployment from going past 8%.  He did not say voters needed to have patience, but rather we should give him the stimulus money & leave the driving to him.

We gave him the money and trusted his driving skills.

It soon became apparent that his driving skills are no better than our previous driver, and his promise of holding unemployment to 8% was nothing more than a cyical line to get the money.

He had no workable plan to really hold unemployment to 8%.

You claim he “avoided” a wreck.  With unemployment now nearing 10%, the only thing he can hope to avoid is the voters. 

The wreck has already happened.

If you cannot see a gradual turnaround, then you not only need glasses, you are totally blind, 2012.

If you think the ‘wreck’ has already happened, then you, my friend, have never lived through a full blown recession. How many of your 3 houses did you lose during this so-called ‘wreck’? Probably 3 less than a lot of people, so stop your whining. 8 years of fear and doom and gloom is enough.

If you cannot see a gradual turnaround, then you not only need glasses, you are totally blind, 2012.

Wouldn’t a “gradual turnaround” indicate the number of unemployed was going down instead of up?

2012 - 05 November 2009 04:02 PM

If you cannot see a gradual turnaround, then you not only need glasses, you are totally blind, 2012.

Wouldn’t a “gradual turnaround” indicate the number of unemployed was going down instead of up?

No—It would mean it was beginning to SLOW DOWN, Retail was responding, the GDP was beginning to rise and the Market was beginning to Stabalize.  Sound Familiar? Or are you going to continue to Criticise, no matter what, because, as you said,  ‘You enjoy It’—

Since you are for neither party, as you said, Please Direct me to one New Topic you have begun on the forum that criticised the GOP—I have searched but I may have just missed it—One new topic that YOU began—