Mike - that's the problem, though. Jobs are cyclical, everyone knows that, and it's natural for them to return regardless of who the president is (after all - jobs returned under Bush too). What's not so obvious is why we're spending close to a trillion dollars on a stimulus package that is failing to produce results.

Mike - that's the problem, though. Jobs are cyclical, everyone knows that, and it's natural for them to return regardless of who the president is (after all - jobs returned under Bush too). What's not so obvious is why we're spending close to a trillion dollars on a stimulus package that is failing to produce results.

Yeah. Can you say Trillions. And that is only for the Jobs Thing. What else should we add in for everything else on Obama's plate.

Can't help but notice you completely ignored my previous post asking your opinion and solution.

Easy. My Opinion is Obama Never should have been elected as he wasn't qualified to start with. And my solution is for someone to build a time machine.

Then I'll ask you -- do you have a better solution? And please explain why you disagree with learned economists and what your economic education is?

And what do you mean "Jobs returned under Bush, too"? Where are you getting that from? Look at the chart!

Why should I give a serious answer as there is no solutions.

First of all, it's a silly argument to say "do you have a better solution?" One doesn't need to have an alternative to criticize policy.

Second, yes, I do have a preferred alternative: reducing barriers to entry for new businesses. That means lowering or eliminating corporate tax rates because most of the job growth comes from small businesses (only the big corporations have the means to seek out loopholes in the tax code), reducing the scale of the government and therefore the tax burden on people.

We would also do well by not pretending that politicians can improve the business cycle and letting the economy sort itself out instead of trying to reward the industries that failed such as banking, real estate and car manufacturing.

I disagree with some economists and agree with others. Just because you've got Krugman crying "more stimulus" doesn't mean that every economist supports that.

As for jobs under Bush - you have to expand that chart, and you will see that after the 2000-2001 recession jobs came back.

I agree. This is painful. I really am trying to have a reasonable debate, but Goldie makes it impossible. I guess I'll go back to ignoring him.

As always, I love discussing politics with anyone who wants to have a real discussion.

First of all, it's a silly argument to say "do you have a better solution?" One doesn't need to have an alternative to criticize policy.

Second, yes, I do have a preferred alternative: reducing barriers to entry for new businesses. That means lowering or eliminating corporate tax rates because most of the job growth comes from small businesses (only the big corporations have the means to seek out loopholes in the tax code), reducing the scale of the government and therefore the tax burden on people.

We would also do well by not pretending that politicians can improve the business cycle and letting the economy sort itself out instead of trying to reward the industries that failed such as banking, real estate and car manufacturing.

I disagree with some economists and agree with others. Just because you've got Krugman crying "more stimulus" doesn't mean that every economist supports that.

As for jobs under Bush - you have to expand that chart, and you will see that after the 2000-2001 recession jobs came back.