You are aware that the US was hemorrhaging 700,000 jobs per month during the last months of the Bush Cheney administration ? ?

Oh, and by the way, President Obama was able to stop the job loss within one year. The jobs are coming back slow but at least people ARE NOT losing jobs at the rate of the Bush-Cheney era.

GM Ford and Chrysler are alive and the conservative Osama bin Laden, and 50 of his top henchmen are dead

I have always wondered how Americans came to accept the idea the government can really sirect the economy.

Without doubt, there are some things that can be done such as manipulating the money supply.

Still, it is hopelessly tied in with politics. For instance, the "stimulus program". I understand that 40-50% of that money went to supporting local governments. I don't understand why they were not allowed to shrink even though that would appear to be a failure of government. It seems to me that if "stimulus" was the real desire, it would have been more effective to send a check to each taxpayer. That would have stimulated the "free market".

The jobs are NOT coming back. Because of population growth the economy must produce 150,000 jobs a month just to break even. That means figures like 70 and 80 thousand jobs created are really job LOSSES 4 years into the nightmare of this failed crackhead.
Source: The Obama fellating CNN of July 2, 2011-
"the economy needs to add about 150,000 jobs just to keep pace with population growth. "

I should mention that the NASDAQ opened at 1,520.76 on Obama's Inauguration Day and is at 2,937.33 . That’s a 92 percent increase -- almost a doubling.

The Dow opened at 8,279 on the morning Obama took the oath of office and is at 12,772 That’s a 50 percent increase,

The value of my 401k is up 70 % since Bush and Cheney left office

You want numbers? 80,000 new jobs ...85,000 new on disability. There are less producers and more non producers each month. More now on disability than the population of NYC. But why worry?...Hussein will lead us out of the forest and into the sawmill.

"I should mention that the NASDAQ opened at 1,520.76 on Obama's Inauguration Day and is at 2,937.33 . That’s a 92 percent increase -- almost a doubling."

Exactly Sammy-the brain damaged crackhead has been great for his fellow millionaires, Wall Street and the banks. They are the ones keeping his $40K a couple fundraisers packed.
It's the rest of us who are being crushed by his failed four years.

Huh. Look at that:

The increasing stock market since 2008 lines up perfectly with the increase in government debt. It's almost as if the government effectively printed money from the future and sank it into the stock market at the expense of jobs and the real economy...

I should mention that the NASDAQ opened at 1,520.76 on Obama's Inauguration Day and is at 2,937.33 . That’s a 92 percent increase -- almost a doubling.

The Dow opened at 8,279 on the morning Obama took the oath of office and is at 12,772 That’s a 50 percent increase,

The value of my 401k is up 70 % since Bush and Cheney left office
Posted by Sammy in Arizona at July 7, 2012 5:59 PM

Sammy, you prime A-hole!
On March 10, 2000 the NASDAQ was at 5132, it now under 3000.
On January 14, 2000 the Dow was at 11,722.
So your 12 year plus 401 K return, under 2 Democrat Presidents and one neo-con plus 8 out of 12 years of a Democrat Senate is approximately She-it.
With these figures is there still any doubt why government pensions, predicated on delusional 8.25 "expected returns" have gone the way of the dodo bird?

310,000 new jobs and 5.6% unemployment = "too early to celebrate"
80,000 new jobs and 8.2% unemployment = "step in the right direction"

These are not incompatible statements. Why create controversy where there is none?

Tommy: For all practical purposes, there has been only one Democrat in office since 2000.

"I should mention that the NASDAQ opened at 1,520.76 on Obama's Inauguration Day and is at 2,937.33 . That’s a 92 percent increase -- almost a doubling."

One has to be careful in such analysis. An increase in the supply of money generally results in a reduction in the value of money.

For instance, in 1973 a well equipped Chevrolet Impala cost about $4,000. Today, one can drop $24,000 on a well equipped Chevrolet Impala. Even if my figures are slightly in error, is that rising price an "improvement"?