But as you see, the downward trend started after the internet bust.
Or as soon as President Bush took office.
That's fair to say. As I've often mentioned, I am in no way a fan of Bush's domestic record.
It's also fair to say it leveled off pretty quickly after he was elected, as well. You can't say that about the time under Pres. Obama's administration. 4 years of steady declines.
VP debate tomorrow night should be interesting.
I'd say Ryan closed the gap in the second half of the debate, but Biden won. He was a interrupting bully, and a little embarrassing at times, but he won. Actually, I thought Ryan was surprisingly ineffective on some subjects that are usually his strengths.
If anything, I think this shows just how good Romney is at debating. Both Romney and Ryan discussed similar points, but Romney articulated them more effectively.
That was the most bizarre debate I've seen in a while. I guess I'd call it a draw.
Is there a reason for the different format of the VP debate vs the Presidential one (sit down vs podium)?
I think each debate has a different format. The next one will be a town hall.
Looks like Romney is making significant gains in Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Colorado.
And it tightened up in OREGON?????
Prof, I guess my question about the participation rates would be... what policies do you think led to it going down like it has? Do you consider this as bleeding caused by the previous administration that the new one couldn't stop fast enough? Or do you think something passed under the current administration that directly lead to this?
From every source I've read, it seems like the job situation has gotten better since late 2008. There must be either a lot of people who lost unemployment benefits, or a lot of new one-income households. It's hard to explain how there are so many more people actively working, while there are less people looking for work at the same time.
Prof, I guess my question about the participation rates would be... what policies do you think led to it going down like it has?
I actually think Romney did a great job of explaining this. Many of the regulations that were placed on banking after the collapse were very ambiguous. Combine uncertainty with continued low interest rates and banks simply aren't encouraged to risk loans to small businesses or individuals. Higher risk, lower reward.
Do you consider this as bleeding caused by the previous administration that the new one couldn't stop fast enough? Or do you think something passed under the current administration that directly lead to this?
The Obama administration was not in power during the collapse, so I can hardly blame them for the collapse. I don't think anyone has. What I do believe is that they're prescriptions for curing the problem have not helped, and have likely hurt what natural market forces would have been able to accomplish. Our recovery has been pathetic. We should have hit 4% growth a year ago. Instead growth has slowed over the last 2 years.
Population growth. Out economy added 114,000 jobs in September, but needs to add over 200,000 just to keep up with new demand. Also, more and more young people are dropping out of the work force. Very troubling.
The bottom line is this: We need serious economic growth to improve the job situation. We have not had that, and in fact, we're moving in the wrong direction.
Last edited by Professor S : 10-13-2012 at 12:40 PM.