It's not going over anyone's head. Rate of job loss is related to the unemployment rate. The slowing of job loss is why the unemployment rate has stalled out at or around 10%. The point was, and remains that with the Obama stimulus, it was supposed to slow and stall out at around 8%. The point was and also remains that without the stimulus it was supposed to slow and stall out at around 9% and the level at amount of time that the job market was supposed to take to recover was supposed to be longer.
There is no scenario where job losses remained large and never ending. You are giving Obama credit for a scenario that never did exist and never would exist.
What the graph shows is classic for a recession. The graphs shows imbalances being corrected within the economy. Those imbalances would have corrected and people would eventually go back to work REGARDLESS of what Obama or Bush did. They don't go back to work in their old jobs because those are related to the imbalance but new areas of need are generated and they go to work there. Again this is true FOR EVERY RECESSION. The graph shows nothing more than that. There is no graph where everyone lays it down, never works again, and just dies.
Wrong. Obama could have brought the bipartisanship he promised. In this particular matter, while I still would have disagreed with it, he could have put together a true stimulus plan to help displaced workers. Most of the workers were in the construction field. He could have put together plenty of shovel ready work and it would have passed easily. Republicans made dozens of attempts to separate the shovel ready work (about 15% of the entire stimulus last I recall) from the "pay off the Democratic constituencies and grow dependency" portions of the stimulus (about 85%.)
Obama chose his path. It was expensive, ineffective and partisan and he should be judged by the very results he promised.
Yes, yes we know Bush is not responsible for anything that happened while he was in office. He was just taking up space.