The Economy Thread

[chaseter]

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0906/godzilla-facepalm-godzilla-facepalm-face-palm-epic-fail-demotivational-poster-1245384435.jpg

Why do you hold so tightly to the 8% figure?

You don't really know, but you can forcast what would happen if nothing were done. Just looking at the unemployment numbers and the rate that it was growing prior to Obama taking office, it could have been over 28% unemployment by now (assuming a linear progression). The 11% figure is the number that has been cited by some private forcasters (see the endnotes of the Jobs Forcast Report (http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf)) and was even used in the USAToday article. You could try to forcast it youself if you were to plug the unemployment history (http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp) prior to 2009 and forcast it out using a spreadsheet program like Excel. You might get something similar (or even worse). It all depends on what you plug in to it.
Thank you for finally showing my point.You claim to adhere to facts but the facts you adhered to ended up being wrong. So were they facts in the first place? The jobs forecast was wrong. The economists that thought the first stimulus bill would improve everything were wrong. Now, they are calling for another stimulus because the first one worked so well. As if you didn't learn your lesson the first time, you now will believe private forecasters but you won't believe professional members of the National Association for Business Economics?

You are a partisan just like any partisan politician that has selective hearing. You only read and hear what affirms your own preconceived notions on the matter. Economists are now coming out in droves saying that the stimulus that they thought would work didn't but somehow you can't trust them! What would we have done without the stimulus? I mean 28% unemployment! Thank goodness recovery summer became stagnant summer. Thank goodness this was the year of the census because I don't know what we would have done without all those temporary jobs! Hallelujah!!!

[dnno1]

Thank you for finally showing my point.You claim to adhere to facts but the facts you adhered to ended up being wrong. So were they facts in the first place? The jobs forecast was wrong. The economists that thought the first stimulus bill would improve everything were wrong. Now, they are calling for another stimulus because the first one worked so well. As if you didn't learn your lesson the first time, you now will believe private forecasters but you won't believe professional members of the National Association for Business Economics?

You are a partisan just like any partisan politician that has selective hearing. You only read and hear what affirms your own preconceived notions on the matter. Economists are now coming out in droves saying that the stimulus that they thought would work didn't but somehow you can't trust them! What would we have done without the stimulus? I mean 28% unemployment! Thank goodness recovery summer became stagnant summer. Thank goodness this was the year of the census because I don't know what we would have done without all those temporary jobs! Hallelujah!!!

No, I told you the facts. Obama never said that we would be under 8% after the stimulus. Furthermore your article listed a survey of how economist feel about the economy, which is a matter of opinion, since the numbers say that it is not getting worse than what was expected (they are entitleled to their oplinion of course but the economy could have been worse thant what it is now and it takes time to recover from double digit unemployment). You want some more facts? The economy would have been even better had the Republicans played ball and tried to help. They did nothing to help at all. And you want to blame the Democrats for that? I couldn't seem them doing any better since they were the ones who got us in this mess in the first place.

[chaseter]

No, I told you the facts. Obama never said that we would be under 8% after the stimulus.

Once again, selective hearing.:o

"If we do not pass this Stimulus Package we will see unemployment rise to 8%."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/21/AR2009062101859.html

Before passage of the stimulus bill, the Obama administration had predicted that unemployment would peak at 8 percent before beginning to abate this fall. But unemployment has already reached 9.4 percent, the highest level in a quarter-century, and the situation is not projected to start improving until long after the White House had predicted.

Secondly, the poll wasn't about how they 'felt', it was about what they have 'seen':
NABE conducted the study by polling 68 of its members who work in economic roles at private-sector firms. About 73% of those surveyed said employment at their company is neither higher nor lower as a result of the $787 billion Recovery Act...
That means that in their line of work, their area of expertise, they saw no improvement from the stimulus concerning HIRING that was touted. Not how they felt the stimulus had been performing in their opinion.

[dnno1]

Once again, selective hearing.:o



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/21/AR2009062101859.html

You are suffering from selective reading. There is no actual quote from Obama saying that in your link, although the article says that his administration is saying that. In truth it was actually a report that was written by Christina Romer and Jared Bernstien, before the President even took office and with the disclaimer that there was a significant margin of error in the analysis. Since then (actually 3 months later) the Council of Economic Advisers gave an estimate of the impact of the stimulus and never said anything about 8%. That is a Republican (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/09/eric-cantor/Cantor-and-other-republicans-say-obama-promised-s/) talking point. You will never find an actual quote where President Obama said that.



Secondly, the poll wasn't about how they 'felt', it was about what they have 'seen':

That means that in their line of work, their area of expertise, they saw no improvement from the stimulus concerning HIRING that was touted. Not how they felt the stimulus had been performing in their opinion.

Yeah, the article (which is pretty bogus) talks about a survey and those are based on opinion. The truth of the mater (and the fact) is that the so called National Association for Business Economics put out their own Policy Survey last month and the actual results were that "about 60 percent of NABE members responding to the August survey agree that the federal assistance funds allocated to states through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) were appropriate given the larger economic challenges at the time of the legislation’s enactment; however, a similar share of panelists do not recommend that the federal government continue to “bail out” the states, even after the ARRA funds run out." The stat about 72% of the 68 members polled indicating that employment at their company was neither higher or lower is still opinionated and actually is irrelevant. A majority of the sitmulus money went to infrastructure projects (like roads), medical related activities, government construction projects, and other smaller contracts. I don't think that economists were included, so I wouldn't expect to see any real change in their employment at this time.

[The Squirrel]

You should care. If your state is in double digit unemployment and the national average is not, then that should tell you that there are other states that are not hurting as bad as far as unemployment goes and may even have a need for workers. Just recently there were 800 jobs that went away (http://www.ktla.com/news/mobile/ktla-boeing-job-cuts,0,7435590.story) in Long Beach California and will reappear in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. That means if some folks want a job then they should try and apply in OKC because there might be a need there. This is why you shold pay attention to the national average in comparison to the average in your state. I migh be an indicator of when it should be time to leave.

Yes, because packing up and moving when you have no money is the better answer to having the Government actually do something intelligent.

[chaseter]

Holy crap I cannot believe that dnno1 is still going to refute that they never said that:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/08/obamas-stimulus-promise-m_n_212420.html

That is from the Huffington post...

Obama said his stimulus bill would not let it exceed 8%. He promised that it wouldn't. Why would all of these news sites be saying that he said that if he didn't? What do you want, video evidence?

Here is Barney Frank last month saying that it was stupid to say that:
President Obama, whom I greatly admire … when the economic recovery bill — we’re supposed to call it the ‘recovery bill,’ not the ’stimulus’ bill; that’s what the focus groups tell us — he predicted or his aides predicted at the time that if it passed, unemployment would get under 8 percent. That was a dumb thing to do.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/114753-frank-obama-admin-dumb-to-predict-no-higher-than-8-unemployment

[dnno1]

Holy crap I cannot believe that dnno1 is still going to refute that they never said that:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/08/obamas-stimulus-promise-m_n_212420.html

That is from the Huffington post...

Obama said his stimulus bill would not let it exceed 8%. He promised that it wouldn't. Why would all of these news sites be saying that he said that if he didn't? What do you want, video evidence?

Here is Barney Frank last month saying that it was stupid to say that:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/114753-frank-obama-admin-dumb-to-predict-no-higher-than-8-unemployment

Still no quote from Obama saying that it would stay under 8%. Even Barney frank wasn't sure if it was he (Obama) or one of his aids who said that. Like I said before, he never did. It was in a report, which admitted to have a broad margin of error. It was a number of Republicans (Eric Cantor, John Boehner, Darrel Issa, et. al.) who claim that he said (promised) that. It wasn't so.

[dnno1]

Yes, because packing up and moving when you have no money is the better answer to having the Government actually do something intelligent.

Packing up and moving is a part of survival. The part of the reason why those 800 jobs moved was a cost savings proposal that was instigated by Defense Secretary, Robert Gates (trying to save the taxpayers some money). The prevailing wages and cost of living is a lot lower in OKC and the move would save the Govt millions in the long term. If you want to stay employed in an economy like this (in a country like this) you have to be willing to move (it's part of exercising your right to freedom of movement). That's just the way it is.

[chaseter]

Eh, I don't care to watch campaign videos. I mean if these all happened then I guess he never once said 8%
UErR7i2onW0&feature=related

Here it is in TIME
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1910208,00.html

I am not saying Obama made up that number off the top of his head, but he was repeating what his team came up with...which was wrong.

[chaseter]

Well what a shocker...Jon Stewart just said that the President said 8% and all the guy said that was on said he that he got it from a study.

[The Squirrel]

Packing up and moving is a part of survival. The part of the reason why those 800 jobs moved was a cost savings proposal that was instigated by Defense Secretary, Robert Gates (trying to save the taxpayers some money). The prevailing wages and cost of living is a lot lower in OKC and the move would save the Govt millions in the long term. If you want to stay employed in an economy like this (in a country like this) you have to be willing to move (it's part of exercising your right to freedom of movement). That's just the way it is.

It's also the job of the government (state) to make sure they have job growth in their states.

[dnno1]

It's also the job of the government (state) to make sure they have job growth in their states.

But when the prevailing wage is higher than it is in another state, keeping a business in your state is a very difficult thing to do. That has been the case in California for quite some time now.

[dnno1]

Eh, I don't care to watch campaign videos. I mean if these all happened then I guess he never once said 8%
UErR7i2onW0&feature=related

Here it is in TIME
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1910208,00.html

I am not saying Obama made up that number off the top of his head, but he was repeating what his team came up with...which was wrong.

Where do I start?

Open transparancy: they have made every attempt within the current laws and policy to be open and transparent as possible a lot of the goings on in government has been available through CSPAN and the Internet at each department's webpage. I don't know what more could one ask for. Then again I recall you were the one that refused to go there to look so of couse you would be easily duped by a rightwing smear campaign.

Lois Branders actually said "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants". Although Obama said "greatest", the meaning was the same (so it wasn't a lie). If that were the case, then every translation of the Bible from the original Greek text would be a a lie as well.

Although there is a 72 hour hold on most bills before it is voted on by Congress. Even though that is the case, most of the legislation handled in Congress has been available online in its different stages from the time if their initiation so the 5 day wait period is an understatement (not a lie).

As for lobbyists and pork barrel projects look to the fourth colum for that info. They havent tried to hide who has been involved in the drafting and negotiation of legislation.

Finally, I fail to see where the Time aticle indicates that Obama actually said that the unemployment would be under 8%. It does cite the January report that was written by two chief economic advisors prior to him taking office that admitted to significant margins of error in its analysis, but that was never the plan once the President took office. I am still waiting for an actual quote from Obama...

[StorminNorman]

So you will concede that minimum wage laws hurt job creation and are bad economic policy?

[chaseter]

Oh dnno...

The ship is sinking but I don't know whether to admire you or call you crazy for adjusting the clock in the dining room and waiting to drown.

[dnno1]

Oh dnno...

The ship is sinking but I don't know whether to admire you or call you crazy for adjusting the clock in the dining room and waiting to drown.

:huh:

[dnno1]

So you will concede that minimum wage laws hurt job creation and are bad economic policy?

No, I never said anything about that. Part of what killed it for California was the housing boom. there were guys who were flipping burgers before that got into selling sub prime loans and jacked their salries up to three times as much as what they were really worth. When they left that industry they expected to make the sam $100 K plus salaries, when all they really were was guys who should have been making $40 K or so (that is just one example). If they had been making the minimum wage in California, their pay would have been a little over $16,000 a year, which is below the Federal Poverty Line (FPL) for a family of 3 (which is about $18K). I am sure that employers in a lot of industries would love to pay everyone the minimum wage, but actually what drives up wages is demand and in basic supply and demand, when you get a surplus in supply (in this case, labor capital) the price (or in this case the wage) goes down, and that is what is happening now.

[GhostPoet]

First we had a crumbling economy, people losing houses left and right. And now apparently the big news story at the moment is Kansas city closing a ton of schools. As well as other regions. Some people comment "Oh, it's fine. It's needed in order to get back on track"

Why does it feel more and more like our country is a sinking boat with people using buckets to pour out the increasing water and all the while saying "it's fine!"

Why does it seem like our government is too busy digging holes for itself, rather then help it's own people...the same government that was once "for the people, by the people"

It doesn't help that our society seems to be stuck in the mold of "it's all about you"...we can't break out of our own self-absorbed mentality to really bother to help others. Thanks to a fumbling government and an uninterested majority we also have an increasingly growing homeless society. And yet still...the same comments are made "It's fine. Everything will sort itself out" And promptly stick their head back in the sand.

That's my opinion. What's yours on the downward trend of our country?

[Motown Marvel]

ehhh, we were having to close schools in detroit BEFORE the recession.

but i'd hardly believe that the popular sentiment to schools closing is "oh it's fine". in fact, i dont think i've ever heard anyone respond like that. but im sure anyone who does is probably in the minority.

[GhostPoet]

America is a ship that is continually taking on water...meanwhile, the people with the buckets who uselessly keep dumping out tiny bits of water each time are all saying "It's fine. We have this under control" A lot of work is put into doing nothing. And it's showing with all the issues our county has.

[chaseter]

What a shocker...

New economic chairman: Unemployment rate 'going to stay high' in near term
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/118221-new-economic-chairman-unemployment-going-to-stay-high-in-near-term

Way to go stimulus:awesome:

[Marx]

I still believe that the stimulus saved us from another great depression...but it doesn't seem to have done anything to fix the jobs situation. :down

[StorminNorman]

Cash for Clunkers was the most successful part of the Stimulus:

Looking back with pride, the British are commemorating the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain, when Churchill said of the pilots fighting the Luftwaffe: Never "was so much owed by so many to so few." Looking ahead with trepidation, Americans are thinking: Never have so many of us owed so much.
Actually, they owed slightly more when the recession began, when household consumer debt was $2.6 trillion. The painful but necessary process of deleveraging is proceeding slowly: Such debt has been reduced only to $2.4 trillion. Add to that the facts that the recession has reduced household wealth by $10 trillion, and that only 25 percent of Americans expect their incomes to improve next year. So they are not spending, and companies, rather than hiring, are sitting on cash reserves.
Democrats who say another stimulus is necessary for job creation, but who dare not utter the word "stimulus," are sending three depressing messages: The $862 billion stimulus did not work; the public so loathes the word that another stimulus will not happen; and prosperity is not around the corner.
Barack Obama has self-nullifying plans for stimulating the small-business sector that creates most new jobs. He has just endorsed tax relief for such businesses but opposes extension of the Bush tax cuts for high-income filers, who include small-businesses with 48 percent of that sector's earnings.

Does this increase anyone's confidence? About as much as noting the one-year anniversary of the end of another of the administration's brainstorms, "cash for clunkers."
The used-car market is an important mechanism for redistributing wealth to low-income persons: The price of a car drops when it is driven out of the dealership, but much of its transportation value remains when it enters the used car market. Unfortunately for low-income people, the average price of a three-year-old automobile has increased more than 10 percent since last summer. This is largely because "cash for clunkers" cut the supply of used cars.
The program provided up to $4,500 to people who traded in a car to buy a new car with better gas mileage, but stipulated that the used car had to be scrapped. The Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby reports that a study by Edmunds.com shows that all but 125,000 of the 700,000 cars sold during the clunkers program would have been bought even if no subsidy had been available. If this is so, each incremental sale cost taxpayers $24,000.
Obama is desperately urging consumers and investors to have confidence in his understanding of economics.
They may, however, remember his characteristic certitude that "cash for clunkers" was "successful beyond anybody's imagination."


From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20100913/OPINION03/9130311/The-clunker-school-of-economics#ixzz0zSvft15M

The unintended consequences of government action.

[chaseter]

Here is the stupid part. Cash for clunkers was a good idea, if they didn't scrap the clunkers. Since they did, it was a stupid idea. Had the dealerships got to keep those cars to re-sell at a lower price and pay back a percentage to the government, everyone would have won. Instead, they think it is smart to pay people for garbage.

[StorminNorman]

Cash for Clunkers were not a good idea due to this fact:

"The program provided up to $4,500 to people who traded in a car to buy a new car with better gas mileage, but stipulated that the used car had to be scrapped. The Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby reports that a study by Edmunds.com shows that all but 125,000 of the 700,000 cars sold during the clunkers program would have been bought even if no subsidy had been available. If this is so, each incremental sale cost taxpayers $24,000."

[chaseter]

Hence my entire post.

[StorminNorman]

I did.

The entire point of Cash for Clunkers was to encourage car sales. The cost of those additional car sales were incredibly expensive. Dealers sending money back to the government from sale revenue would have done nothing to change that. It would have made the difference of each "additional sale" $23,000 instead of $24,000.

The fact thing is the Cash for Clunkers program was epic fail from the beginning. Again, this is what happens when the government sticks it's nose in the economy. Epic Fail.

[StorminNorman]

Here's an essay basically showing how we are dooming ourselves into turning our "Great Recession" into a new Great Depression.

http://mises.org/daily/3866

[chaseter]

I did.

The entire point of Cash for Clunkers was to encourage car sales. The cost of those additional car sales were incredibly expensive. Dealers sending money back to the government from sale revenue would have done nothing to change that. It would have made the difference of each "additional sale" $23,000 instead of $24,000.

The fact thing is the Cash for Clunkers program was epic fail from the beginning. Again, this is what happens when the government sticks it's nose in the economy. Epic Fail.

No, it gives more money to the dealer and allows the poor to buy cheaper cars. The car companies were in the ****ter and car dealershipes were closing left and right. Instead of paying for a piece of metal and throwing the metal away, use the metal as much as you can. That would have stimulated the economy more than just giving people who can already afford a car money to buy a newer car.

[Kane52630]

Best thing ive heard about how to fix the economy

Part 1
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-16-2010/exclusive---bill-clinton-extended-interview-pt--1

Part 2
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-16-2010/exclusive---bill-clinton-extended-interview-pt--2

[8wid]

Best thing ive heard about how to fix the economy

Part 1
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-16-2010/exclusive---bill-clinton-extended-interview-pt--1

Part 2
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-16-2010/exclusive---bill-clinton-extended-interview-pt--2'


:applaud:applaud:applaud:applaud:applaud:applaud
That'll do it!

[Marx]

ECONOMISTS SAY THE 'GREAT RECESSION' OFFICIALLY ENDED LAST SUMMER
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/20/news/economy/recession_over/index.htm?hpt=T1

...sure doesn't feel like it has ended.

[Paradoxium]

It is most likely "W" shape or double dip. In other words, they say it ended on June 2009, couple months after that in 2009, is the start of another. Remember, the NBER announced in fall 2008, the recession started in December 2007. Natch to this recent announcement (now 2010) that it occurred in 2009. Additionally, this time around the NBER did not wait for key indicators to return to pre-recession level numbers.

The June 2009 target is no way going to give Obama much credit either, most of the stimulus money hasn't exactly kicked in June. Nevermind now. This was one of the biggest complaints from the stimulus advocates (i.e. Krugman).

Remember, Obama and Pelosi were (and are still) hammering the "Bush economic residuals" blame game, he would be crediting Bush for that recovery in a twisted way. You can't simply blame Bush for "time horizon A" and its aftereffects, and take credit of the payoffs from the "time horizon A" and its aftereffects. But then this is politics, they did this with the Iraq "pullout" (I use this loosely, since many PMCs remains, and the relabeling), which was a deal hammered out during the Bush tenure. So it won't shock me if he does this.

Now effectively if another recession is announced by NBER down the line, Obama will completely own the recession. At least it will be incredibly easy to pin it on him. Whether he takes credit for the "Bush residuals" or not.

[Paradoxium]

Ignoring the politics, Obama & Bush... the whole schtick.

This could be the NBER's "New Normal", or in another words, 8-10% unemployment is how it is gonna be like for a long time. But then Hong Kong's unemployment rate dropped from 2.4% (a year ago) to 1.9% (now).

[Marx]

JOB SITUATION WORSENS IN 27 STATES
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/21/jobs-picture-gets-worse-in-27-states/

:facepalm:

[GhostPoet]

The government says things are improving now! They never lie.

[chaseter]

Joe Biden meant recovery summer as in everybody is trying to recover what they lost.

[Marx]

The government says things are improving now! They never lie.

:lmao:

:oldrazz:

[Kelly]

I read this awhile back, and just posted it in another thread....but it belongs here....

Interesting find...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/iraq_the_war_that_broke_us_not.html




Total federal outlays: $22,296 billion.
Cumulative deficit: $4,731 billion.
Medicare spending: $2,932 billion.
Iraq War spending: $709 billion.
The Obama stimulus: $572 billion.

[Marx]

BLOCKBUSTER TO FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/09/22/blockbuster-file-bankruptcy-today/

[8wid]

BLOCKBUSTER TO FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/09/22/blockbuster-file-bankruptcy-today/

Well operating video stories through a digital media is no longer feasible for anyone. I expect that someone will reorganize their name either through a new vending machine franchise, online store, or through an operation like a warehouse store where you can also pick up videos you have ordered there instead of downloading them or having them shipped to you.

I read this awhile back, and just posted it in another thread....but it belongs here....

Interesting find...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/iraq_the_war_that_broke_us_not.html

[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/LIST]


Then if those are the real numbers what is causing so much of a deficit or does a large one even exist based on that source?

[Marx]

$42 BILLION SMALL BUSINESS BILL PASSES HOUSE
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/23/smallbusiness/small_business_legislation_house/index.htm?hpt=T1

[Kelly]

Then if those are the real numbers what is causing so much of a deficit or does a large one even exist based on that source?

This is the source of the information...


[Data sources: All data for 2009 and later are from the CBO's recent budget outlook (http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11705) (pdf here (http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11705/08-18-Update.pdf)). For an accounting of Iraq war spending, see Box 1-3 of that report. For an accounting of stimulus spending, see Box 1-2 of that report. For summary federal budget numbers in 2009 and later, see Table 1 of that report.

Federal budget figures through 2008 are from the U.S. Statistical Abstract (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/federal_govt_finances_employment/federal_budget--receipts_outlays_and_debt.html). See Table 457 for overall spending and deficit levels, Table 458 for debt levels, and Tables 459 and 461 for spending in specific categories.]

[Kelly]

Ignoring the politics, Obama & Bush... the whole schtick.

This could be the NBER's "New Normal", or in another words, 8-10% unemployment is how it is gonna be like for a long time. But then Hong Kong's unemployment rate dropped from 2.4% (a year ago) to 1.9% (now).


They are excellent at creating jobs, we are excellent at creating debt, oh and pretend jobs....oh wait, no....saving jobs. But we are shovel ready damn it.

[Marx]

POLL: OVERWHELMING MAJORITY BELIEVE THE RECESSION IS NOT OVER
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/26/recession-not-over-public-says/

When people are struggling just as badly as they ever have...it's a little hard to say things are improving.

[Paradoxium]

$42 BILLION SMALL BUSINESS BILL PASSES HOUSE
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/23/smallbusiness/small_business_legislation_house/index.htm?hpt=T1
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Small-biz-banks-may-spurn-apf-2891489544.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=8&asset=&ccode=

Lulz fail. :funny:

[Figs]

I've been away for a week so ignore this if it's already been posted.

With Warning, Obama Presses China on Currency

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/world/24prexy.html

[Paradoxium]

Revaluation will not reduce the United State's trade deficit. And there is no economic efficiency gain to this, actually it produces a negative economic efficiency.

They should complain about China's barriers to imports.

Has Obama paid attention attention of the Sterling's depreciation and it's trade deficit? Nearly the same as '07 when it was stronger. Hell he should look at the data on Japan and the Yen. In theory it should not be like this, but in reality it plays out different. That's why in science you always need empirical evidence to test theories.

Obama needs to spend less time on oratory lectures and more time on his economics. 'Cause he is risking a ****ing trade war and general price escalation for EVERYONE over shoddy economics and political posturing.

[Hobgoblin]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39449834/ns/business-the_new_york_times


WASHINGTON — Even as voters rage and candidates put up ads against government bailouts, the reviled mother of them all — the $700 billion lifeline to banks, insurance and auto companies — will expire after Sunday at a fraction of that cost, and could conceivably earn taxpayers a profit.

A final accounting of the government’s full range of interventions in the economy, including the bailouts of the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is years off and will most likely remain controversial and potentially costly.

But the once-unthinkable possibility that the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program could end up costing far less, or even nothing, became more likely on Thursday with the news that the government had negotiated a plan with the American International Group to begin repaying taxpayers.

The rescue of the troubled insurer included $70 billion from the bailout program that was enacted two years ago, at the height of the global financial crisis late in the Bush administration, initially to prop up big banks.

At the White House on Thursday, the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, briefed President Obama about A.I.G. and about the broader outlook for the expiring rescue program, putting the projected losses at less than $50 billion, at most. Yet neither the White House nor Congressional Democrats are likely to boast much in the month remaining before midterm elections. For most voters, TARP remains a four-letter word.

Brian A. Bethune, the chief financial economist in the United States for IHS/Global Insight, while critical of parts, called the program over all “a tremendous success. Now obviously, they can’t go out on the campaign trail and say that, because certainly, for a lot of voters, it’s just not going to resonate.”

[Kelly]

And yet, even those with the best credit are having problems getting loans from these banks.....


And since when has any of these people spoken the truth....?

[GhostPoet]

[/B]

They are excellent at creating jobs, we are excellent at creating debt, oh and pretend jobs....oh wait, no....saving jobs. But we are shovel ready damn it.

we're really good at spending money on other countries problems and giving away all our jobs to other countries.

Go us!


oh wait.....

[Kelly]

we're really good at spending money on other countries problems and giving away all our jobs to other countries.

Go us!


oh wait.....

Agreed....that was the Republican's help in all of this mess.....so yeah, agreed.

[Marx]

Layoffs are set to begin this month for a major plant in my area. The total number of employees affected is 400.

:csad:

[Marx]

MILLIONAIRES COLLECTING UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-01/almost-3-000-millionaires-claimed-jobless-benefits-in-2008-irs-data-show.html

I have made my support of unemployment benefits very well known on this forum...but millionaires collecting unemployment benefits just turns my stomach.

[Poeman]

MILLIONAIRES COLLECTING UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-01/almost-3-000-millionaires-claimed-jobless-benefits-in-2008-irs-data-show.html

I have made my support of unemployment benefits very well known on this forum...but millionaires collecting unemployment benefits just turns my stomach.

:cmad::cmad::cmad:

[LastSunrise1981]

MILLIONAIRES COLLECTING UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-01/almost-3-000-millionaires-claimed-jobless-benefits-in-2008-irs-data-show.html

I have made my support of unemployment benefits very well known on this forum...but millionaires collecting unemployment benefits just turns my stomach.

Is this some sort of joke? How about ban millionaires from receiving unemployment benefits? Trying to get as much as they can and giving the middle finger to the actual struggling and unemployed I see.

[The Interpreter]

That seems pretty f****d up. I mean, I can't really say one person deserves unemployment, and another doesn't. But this seems to be really f****d up.

[SuBe]

MILLIONAIRES COLLECTING UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-01/almost-3-000-millionaires-claimed-jobless-benefits-in-2008-irs-data-show.html

I have made my support of unemployment benefits very well known on this forum...but millionaires collecting unemployment benefits just turns my stomach.

Remember, with our Country's Tax Code, you could have $1,000,000 cash in the bank, a Million Dollar home, 4 sports cars all paid for, and a freaking helicopter sitting on the roof of your house and you as long as you don't have a job, you WILL be considered in Poverty. And can receive all of the benefits that come along with it.

[Figs]

MILLIONAIRES COLLECTING UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-01/almost-3-000-millionaires-claimed-jobless-benefits-in-2008-irs-data-show.html

I have made my support of unemployment benefits very well known on this forum...but millionaires collecting unemployment benefits just turns my stomach.

Absolute ********. I wonder if a lot of those cases are because they spent their money like fools and don't have much left to support themselves. I can understand people that lost most of it in the stock market but for others, that's BS.

[Kelly]

Absolute ********. I wonder if a lot of those cases are because they spent their money like fools and don't have much left to support themselves. I can understand people that lost most of it in the stock market but for others, that's BS.

For some reason, I doubt it....they are probably simply adding to their coffers....

[chaseter]

Latest unemployed: Stimulus-subsidized workers
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/30/news/economy/subsidized_jobs_program/index.htm

How 'bout that stimulus! Jobs saved...for one year.:whatever:

[Marx]

That's a huge problem I have with this administration. It's a bit hard to praise and praise 'job creation' when the only jobs that were created were temporary or part-time. We need full-time, permanent jobs! People cannot be expected to maintain a living on anything but that.

[StorminNorman]

Government cannot create real jobs.

[chaseter]

I wonder why California is short billions and their economy is hurting for it.

$69 million in California welfare money drawn out of state
Las Vegas tops the list with $11.8 million spent at casinos or taken from ATMs, but transactions in Hawaii, Miami, Guam and elsewhere also raise questions. Officials say budget cuts hinder investigations
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/04/local/la-me-welfare-20101004

.......................__ ............
......<ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL>.
........................| |...........
................... __\||/____......
.\\...............|'-|--| .\\....\.....
..\ \_...........|--|---|..\\ ....\....
../ L \____,/-------\___\___\
.|LOL|-------------O----- ----,\..
..\ L /______,---''-----------, /...
../ /.............\_________ ,/....
.//.............____//___ __\\__/.

[Paradoxium]

Besides being the lowest unemployment rate in the world at 1.9% right now, Hong Kong's retail sales is up 14.7% (http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/press_release/press_releases_on_statistics/index.jsp?sID=2621&sSUBID=16933&displayMode=D) (from a year ago), along with a jump in exports at 36% (http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/press_release/press_releases_on_statistics/index.jsp?sID=2619&sSUBID=16910&displayMode=D). Comparatively speaking, still one of the more economically free places.

[Marx]

JOBLESS CLAIMS FALL
http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/07/news/economy/initial_claims/index.htm?cnn=yes&hpt=T2

The only reason they may have fallen is because people's benefits expired or may have found SEASONAL work. (Not exactly something to proclaim 'victory' on.)

[Kelly]

Seasonal work will definitely go up....and many retailers have said they are ALREADY hiring for seasonal help and that they may end up hiring more than last year this season.

I would imagine the reason for that is the fact that they are on skeleton crews as it is.....and seasonal help is cheaper than full time help.

[Paradoxium]

Gallup Finds U.S. Unemployment at 10.1% in September (http://www.gallup.com/poll/143426/Gallup-Finds-Unemployment-September.aspx)PRINCETON, NJ -- Unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, increased to 10.1% in September -- up sharply from 9.3% in August and 8.9% in July. Much of this increase came during the second half of the month -- the unemployment rate was 9.4% in mid-September -- and therefore is unlikely to be picked up in the government's unemployment report on Friday.

U.S. Payroll Drop Tops Forecast on Teacher Firings (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-08/employers-in-u-s-cut-more-jobs-in-september-than-economists-had-estimated.html)The U.S. lost more jobs than forecast in September, reflecting a decline in government payrolls that shows the damage being done by rising budget deficits.

Employers fired 95,000 workers after a revised 57,000 decrease in August, Labor Department figures in Washington showed today. The median estimate of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News called for a 5,000 drop. The unemployment rate held at 9.6 percent.

Private payrolls that exclude government agencies climbed 64,000, less than forecast, underscoring the concern expressed by some Federal Reserve policy makers that the rebound from the worst recession since the 1930s has been too slow and may require easier monetary policy. Unemployment forecast to average at least 9 percent through 2011 may restrain consumer spending, the biggest part of the economy.

The Labor Department today also published its preliminary estimate for the annual benchmark revisions to payrolls that will be issued in February. They showed the economy may have lost an additional 366,000 jobs in the 12 months ended March 2010. The data currently show a 1.7 million drop in employment during that time.

“If we’re only creating jobs at this pace, the unemployment rate is going to go higher,” said Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist at IHS Global Insight in Lexington, Massachusetts, who forecast a 65,000 gain in private payrolls. “We aren’t creating enough jobs to keep it steady.”

The unemployment rate is forecast to average 9.2 percent next year, according to the median forecast in a Bloomberg Survey of economists last month.

SEC Failure to Regulate MBS Resulted in "Interconnected Ponzi Scheme with Various Types of Concurrent Fraud" (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/10/sec-failure-to-regulate-mbs-resulted-in.html)
The problems associated with a clogged foreclosure system continue to mount. Foreclosures in 23 states have been halted by major banks after allegations surfaced of various illegal practices.

PBS has a video discussion of some of the issues in 'Robo-Signing' Paperwork Breakdown Leaves Many Houses in Foreclosure Limbo (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec10/foreclosures_10-06.html)
Congress Passes Bill To "Streamline Foreclosure Process"

Adding fat to the burning fire of consumer anger, Congress ramrodded a measure that would "streamline the recognition of notarizations across state lines", arguably validating much of the robo-signings.
Obama is probably veto'ing it. It passed by "voice vote", no record was kept (who held what position).

[Paradoxium]

http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/2306/imagethumb4.png

Outfailing a failure :woot:

[Paradoxium]

In this paper we present evidence from high-frequency data collections dedicated to tracking the effects of the financial crisis and great recession on American households. These data come from surveys that we conducted in the American Life Panel – an Internet survey run by RAND Labor and Population. The first survey was fielded at the beginning of November 2008, immediately following the large declines in the stock market of September and October 2008. The next survey followed three months later in February 2009. Since May 2009 we have collected monthly data on the same households. This paper shows the levels and trends of many of these data which summarize the experience and expectations of households during the recession.

We find that the effects of the recession are widespread: between November 2008 and April 2010 about 39 percent of households had either been unemployed, had negative equity in their house or had been in arrears in their house payments. Reductions in spending were common especially following unemployment. On average expectations about stock market prices and housing prices are pessimistic, particularly long-run expectations. Among workers, expectations about becoming unemployed have recovered somewhat from their low point in May 2009 but still remain high. Overall the data suggest that households are not optimistic about their economic futures.http://www.nber.org/papers/w16407.pdf

[Kelly]

For some reason some around here are oblivious to that information around here dox.....

[chaseter]

Cheney is actual still causing these problems.

[8wid]

US INVOLVED IN WAR AGAINST IRAN & PAKISTAN LEADING TO US BANKRUPTCY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZSYlqdGFi4)

[Marx]

Another company in my area is preparing to close. 400 people will be out of a job.

Where is that economy supposed to be improving again? :huh:

[StorminNorman]

When we go to the FairTax.

[Marx]

When we go to the FairTax.

'Fairtax' is not the cure all solution to our problems...and that's all I really have to say about that.

[Kane52630]

When we go to the FairTax.

'Fairtax' is not the cure all solution to our problems...and that's all I really have to say about that.

uh oh, I can hear SuBe coming in any minute lol

[Kelly]

'Fairtax' is not the cure all solution to our problems...and that's all I really have to say about that.

But I'm willing to try it.....cause what we have....sucks.:csad:

SuBe has given us pages of "why it will work"....but I'm waiting for someone to tell me "why it won't work"....no one around here has done that.

[Paradoxium]

Another company in my area is preparing to close. 400 people will be out of a job.

Where is that economy supposed to be improving again? :huh:

Well Marx, to other countries of course. Especially a ton of the "green projects" touted by the stimulus (went to a few countries in Europe and in Asia). At least the ones that survived the temporary ******** phase. Since it is too expensive and inefficient to operate in the United States. Likewise, I have a number of friends who no longer have any interest investing in the United States (equities).

You can spend but you can't control capital flow. At least a certain limit.

People need to learn this now or learn it the hard way. Politicians don't care about these types of nuances, they are more concerned for the next election cycle. Until of course they burn the whole thing down and let you tidy it up.

Good times man :woot:

[Paradoxium]

Production in U.S. Unexpectedly Falls for First Time in a Year (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-18/industrial-production-in-u-s-unexpectedly-falls-for-first-time-in-a-year.html)

[8wid]

Here's a sick idea to get a job, bomb Iran and waited to get drafted you Americans. Then the factories will start up again.

[StorminNorman]

'Fairtax' is not the cure all solution to our problems...and that's all I really have to say about that.

To all? No.

To many? Yes.

Which is not to say I that I don't have answers to all our problems. :cwink:

[Paradoxium]

The only solution is to bulldoze it and reboot.

This is why I supported Obama for '08, and will support him for '12.

[Marx]

MICHIGAN TO GAIN UPWARDS OF 1200 FORD JOBS
http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/25/news/economy/ford_investment_michigan/index.htm?hpt=T2

That's some good news. :up:

[Kelly]

Ford did it right....which is why I drive one.

[8wid]

The only solution is to bulldoze it and reboot.

This is why I supported Obama for '08, and will support him for '12.

I'm willing to wait until the third year of Obama's term to decide when I back him again, but the system will not be rebooted with the current structure of the government for any president, until they themselves are rebooted.

[dnno1]

Layoffs are set to begin this month for a major plant in my area. The total number of employees affected is 400.

:csad:

That sounds like Avon. I read where they were scattering those jobs to Illinois, New Jersey, Mexico, and China, but that's not supposed to be completed until 2012 some time.

[Marx]

I just heard the economy added 151,000 jobs and how President was 'happy' about the news. What the administration seems to continue to conveniently overlook is that the large majority of them are seasonal holiday jobs. :down

[Marx]

STUDY: LONGER TERM UNEMPLOYMENT IS 'DISASTER' ON HEALTH
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/05/study-longterm-unemployme_n_779743.html

I think this is more of a 'duh'.

[Carcharodon]

I just heard the economy added 151,000 jobs and how President was 'happy' about the news. What the administration seems to continue to conveniently overlook is that the large majority of them are seasonal holiday jobs. :down....should he have been 'sad'? :whatever:

[Marx]

....should he have been 'sad'? :whatever:

Did you genuinely miss my point? Or purposely overlook it? Trying to portray seasonal holiday jobs as proof of an 'improving' economy is completely dishonest.

[Bill]

Did you genuinely miss my point? Or purposely overlook it? Trying to portray seasonal holiday jobs as proof of an 'improving' economy is completely dishonest.

He could be parsing your post as him being merely happy about more jobs rather than it being any indication of what they're doing is actually working.

[Kelly]

I don't know that it is a true indication that what they are doing is working. If in January, February and March we see numbers on jobs going up....at that point I will begin seeing an improving economy as far as jobs.

I think once we know more about what our taxes are going to look like, that may help my 403 B and Ovation out as far as the stock market.

So it is still a wait and see for me.

[Carcharodon]

Trying to portray seasonal holiday jobs as proof of an 'improving' economy is completely dishonest.That's not what you said. I take no issue with this statement. Your last statement was a bit absurd. I'm sure even you can realize that.

[Kelly]

Well, since seasonal work is just that, how does it say that the economy is improving? NOW, if there is a huge upsurge in seasonal hiring, THAT might could be seen as the the economy improving, but I haven't seen or read anything that says there is a huge increase in seasonal hiring. If the holiday sales are an increase of 4%+ that could certainly be seen as an improvement in the economy....and you may very well see that IF the President and his leadership right now let us know what the hell is going to happen with taxes.

[AG1973]

If President Obama presented a plan for a flat tax of 10% on all income levels and instituted a 2% federal tax on all goods and sold in the U.S. the Republicans would fight him on it.

If President Obama called for a 5 or 10% cut on government programs across the board republicans would still fight him on it.

If the President pulled all our troops out of Afgahanistan to cut spending republicans would still fight him on it.

Giving rich folks tax breaks is not going to save the economy as republicans repeatedly assert...

[Kelly]

We shall see...

[Carcharodon]

Well, since seasonal work is just that, how does it say that the economy is improving?It doesn't. At all.

[StorminNorman]

If President Obama presented a plan for a flat tax of 10% on all income levels and instituted a 2% federal tax on all goods and sold in the U.S. the Republicans would fight him on it.

If President Obama called for a 5 or 10% cut on government programs across the board republicans would still fight him on it.

If the President pulled all our troops out of Afgahanistan to cut spending republicans would still fight him on it.

Giving rich folks tax breaks is not going to save the economy as republicans repeatedly assert...

It's not going to save the economy, but raising taxes on small business owners IS going to do FURTHER damage to the economy.

[Paradoxium]

Raising taxes on big business is not going to get you the return you think. Many bigger business can afford a bunch of lawyers to circumvent it. So you have politicos who raise the rate in hopes of more revenue, and the ones who get hurt are the smaller or medium sized business who comply with these taxes and regulations. Since they don't have millions just for lawyers.

Case in point:

Google 2.4% Rate Shows How $60 Billion Is Lost to Tax Loopholes (http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aujAc626t9WY)

In other words, you probably generate more revenue from closing loopholes than raising taxes. Hence the elasticity of reported incomes. Why when tax rates go up, people make a greater effort to shelter their earnings. Is it such a shock GE - who owns a big government apologist - basically pays nothing in income tax (http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/ge_7000_tax_returns/)? On top of getting bailout money (http://seekingalpha.com/article/105984-general-electric-gets-a-140b-bailout-what-s-the-point-of-aaa)?

[Kelly]

How hard is it for people to understand that the rich employ people to do nothing except get them AROUND their taxes, and the part that gets taxed, they simply hit the consumer in some way to make that money up.

I don't get it......why is that so hard to understand.

[AG1973]

How hard is it for people to understand that the rich employ people to do nothing except get them AROUND their taxes, and the part that gets taxed, they simply hit the consumer in some way to make that money up.

I don't get it......why is that so hard to understand.

So, what is the answer; don't make the rich guy pay taxes?

[Kelly]

Don't tax him out the ass thinking that that is the end all to end all.

Especially when you have states like California and New York that already do that with their state income taxes, to the point of having an exodus of industry to the south which is happening.



OOOOH, and do what we have to do in order to balance our budget....


SPEND LESS...

[Hobgoblin]

How hard is it for people to understand that the rich employ people to do nothing except get them AROUND their taxes, and the part that gets taxed, they simply hit the consumer in some way to make that money up.

I don't get it......why is that so hard to understand.

Amen. A professor at college told us that Rupert Murdoch had dual citizenship in the US and Australia. When its tax time in one country, he transfers his fortune to the other. When its tax time in that country, he moves it back to the other.

[8wid]

The Wall Street Conspiracy - a real one.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/n6jr2vkk6cA?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/n6jr2vkk6cA?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[AG1973]

Don't tax him out the ass thinking that that is the end all to end all.

Especially when you have states like California and New York that already do that with their state income taxes, to the point of having an exodus of industry to the south which is happening.



OOOOH, and do what we have to do in order to balance our budget....


SPEND LESS...

To fund the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans will cost us a few billion dollars. The high end tax burden would go back to what it was under Clinton. If you are rich you can get out of paying a large percentage of your taxes. My not being a millionaire, I still have to pay my taxes...

Tax loopholes that allow rich people to not pay their taxes need to be closed. The other thing is go to a flat tax rate and a 2% federal sales tax. If that is not done the cut-off bar needs to be moved up. Those individuals that make $500,000 or more should have their Bush tax cuts expire.

[chaseter]

Stupid idea - raise taxes during a recession.

I agree that our tax code needs to be reworked.

[Kelly]

To fund the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans will cost us a few billion dollars. The high end tax burden would go back to what it was under Clinton. If you are rich you can get out of paying a large percentage of your taxes. My not being a millionaire, I still have to pay my taxes...

Tax loopholes that allow rich people to not pay their taxes need to be closed. The other thing is go to a flat tax rate and a 2% federal sales tax. If that is not done the cut-off bar needs to be moved up. Those individuals that make $500,000 or more should have their Bush tax cuts expire.

Tax loopholes closed: I agree....totally.

Tax cuts expire: Not at this time, later on.....yes, no problem with that...but this is not the time.

[sithgoblin]

Anyone seen the NYT's Budget-solving game?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

You can solve the deficit!

[Fascist Hunter]

Some inconvenient truths. Republicans are not fiscally conservative. (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/11/who-owns-the-debt.html) Billionaires have an effective federal tax rate almost half that of the middle class. (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3869458&page=1) Quantitative Easing Explained (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k&feature=player_embedded)

[Hobgoblin]

Some inconvenient truths. Republicans are not fiscally conservative. (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/11/who-owns-the-debt.html) Billionaires have an effective federal tax rate almost half that of the middle class. (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3869458&page=1) Quantitative Easing Explained (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k&feature=player_embedded)

I respect the heck out of Warren Buffet, but this article was written in 2007, just before the recession. Raising taxes on the ultra rich was one thing at that time but everyone seems to agree that raising taxes now is a terrible idea.

[Fascist Hunter]

I respect the heck out of Warren Buffet, but this article was written in 2007, just before the recession. Raising taxes on the ultra rich was one thing at that time but everyone seems to agree that raising taxes now is a terrible idea.

that's not true. despite the corporate media trying to convince everyone that it is. most economists think that it needs to go back to at least the Clinton levels. it didn't create any jobs when Bush cut them. all it did was add to the deficit.

[Hobgoblin]

that's not true. despite the corporate media trying to convince everyone that it is. most economists think that it needs to go back to at least the Clinton levels. it didn't create any jobs when Bush cut them. all it did was add to the deficit.

I cant say either way. Seems like a lose-lose either way. But lets not borrow any more money from China, no matter what.

[chaseter]

that's not true. despite the corporate media trying to convince everyone that it is. most economists think that it needs to go back to at least the Clinton levels. it didn't create any jobs when Bush cut them. all it did was add to the deficit.

Yes it is true. There is no feasible plan on this planet to get out of a recession that includes raising taxes. It doesn't exist. Please show me an economic study that has increasing taxes as a way to bring the economy out of a recession.

It did create jobs when Bush cut them:huh: We had a recession in 2001, taxes were cut in 2003, and the economy recovered and Bush had 4% unemployment at the end of 2005.

You know what is weird!? Look at the unemployment rates and look at when the Democrats increased the minimum wage. Shocking huh? While I agree that increasing it from $5.15 to $5.85 was good for everyone, it started to cause mass firings because businesses had to offset instant loss. Increasing it to $7.25 in less than 2 years was stupid. What do you think is going to happen when you increase minimum wage $2.10 in 24 months? Are companies going to hire people or are companies going to fire people? It was a stupid thing to do amidst the recession brought on by the 2007 housing crisis.

[Fascist Hunter]

Yes it is true. There is no feasible plan on this planet to get out of a recession that includes raising taxes. It doesn't exist. Please show me an economic study that has increasing taxes as a way to bring the economy out of a recession.

It did create jobs when Bush cut them:huh: We had a recession in 2001, taxes were cut in 2003, and the economy recovered and Bush had 4% unemployment at the end of 2005.

You know what is weird!? Look at the unemployment rates and look at when the Democrats increased the minimum wage. Shocking huh? While I agree that increasing it from $5.15 to $5.85 was good for everyone, it started to cause mass firings because businesses had to offset instant loss. Increasing it to $7.25 in less than 2 years was stupid. What do you think is going to happen when you increase minimum wage $2.10 in 24 months? Are companies going to hire people or are companies going to fire people? It was a stupid thing to do amidst the recession brought on by the 2007 housing crisis.

that's a bunch of hooey. (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/01/along-the-minimum-wage-battle-front/?partner=rss&emc=rss) In actuality the rate of job loss since the new minimum took effect has been positive. I tend to think the job losses were a result of the economic bubble popping and the credit drying up along with decreased demand for goods and services. Also let's not gloss over the fact that even with Bush's biggest tax cuts in history that he was the first president to ever have a negative job loss over his two terms. If you count the rate of loss that we were experiencing when Obama took office and now Obama has saved or created more jobs than Bush's entire 8 yrs in office. He couldn't even keep up with the growth in population. And that's with his starting 2 wars and the jobs that created.

[chaseter]

That study has nothing to do with the rate in which to increase minimum wage. Are they talking about 50 cents or 5 dollars? Would there be no ill effects if minimum wage went from $5.15 to $10.15? It also never states when wages should increase, during a recession or during prosperity. Will there be negligible effects during times of prosperity or during times of economic decline? I agree that raising it 75 cents isn't going to destroy our economy. Raising it over $2 in 2 years does.

What do you think is going to happen during a recession, which is when these increases occurred? It is rather very simple. If you increase the minimum wage during a recession by over $2, are companies going to hire more people to get us out of the recession?

Also, look at the states that have higher minimum wages than the federal level (green states) and look at the states with the same rate as federal (blue states). Now which of those states are doing better than the other? Is Nevada, California, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Massachusetts, Connecticut doing better than Texas, Nebraska, Iowa, Colorado, Utah, Missouri??? Let me save you some time, no.


HAHAHA. Bush lost more jobs during his presidency than Obama? Bush's average rate of unemployment was 5-something percent. What is Obama's? How many jobs has Obama created? If Bush's tax cuts went into effect in 2003 and I will give him 2 years like Obama has had, what was unemployment in 2005 compared to unemployment in 2010?

Unemployment was 6.1% in 2003 when Bush's tax cuts went into effect. They were 5.0% two years later.
February 2011 the stimulus package was passed with 8.2% unemployment. It right now is at 9.6%. Please tell me how that is a gain in jobs.

[Fascist Hunter]

That study has nothing to do with the rate in which to increase minimum wage. Are they talking about 50 cents or 5 dollars? Would there be no ill effects if minimum wage went from $5.15 to $10.15? It also never states when wages should increase, during a recession or during prosperity. Will there be negligible effects during times of prosperity or during times of economic decline? I agree that raising it 75 cents isn't going to destroy our economy. Raising it over $2 in 2 years does.

What do you think is going to happen during a recession, which is when these increases occurred? It is rather very simple. If you increase the minimum wage during a recession by over $2, are companies going to hire more people to get us out of the recession?

Also, look at the states that have higher minimum wages than the federal level (green states) and look at the states with the same rate as federal (blue states). Now which of those states are doing better than the other? Is Nevada, California, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Massachusetts, Connecticut doing better than Texas, Nebraska, Iowa, Colorado, Utah, Missouri??? Let me save you some time, no.


HAHAHA. Bush lost more jobs during his presidency than Obama? Bush's average rate of unemployment was 5-something percent. What is Obama's? How many jobs has Obama created? If Bush's tax cuts went into effect in 2003 and I will give him 2 years like Obama has had, what was unemployment in 2005 compared to unemployment in 2010?

Unemployment was 6.1% in 2003 when Bush's tax cuts went into effect. They were 5.0% two years later.
February 2011 the stimulus package was passed with 8.2% unemployment. It right now is at 9.6%. Please tell me how that is a gain in jobs.

For one thing you're not counting the loss of jobs Bush had in his first 4 yrs. only the last 3.5. Also you're not seeing the decrease in the loss of jobs as a gain. Even though it's still on the negative for those first 12 months it was getting better. That's how you end up with a higher % at the end of the period you're using. You're selectively omitting that which doesn't fit the narrative. And the biggest thing you're overlooking is the residual effects of the last few months of Bush's term. As if it all happened when Obama took over. Who deregulated the markets? Opened up credit default swaps? Repealed Glass-Stegall? The GOP house and senate along with GHW on the CDS.Clinton on Glass-Stegall. Not Obama. Reagan paved the way with bank bailouts during the S&L Keating 5 debacle. Bush continued the deregulations though and with his &quot;Ownership Society&quot; program he opened the floodgate for the banks to make bad loans and overextend themselves. There's a lot of blame to go around on why we are in the shape we're in (and some Dems are just as guilty) but making Obama the bad guy in all this is wrong. He hasn't done everything the way I want him to but he's not to blame for all the things some people have laid at his feet. And the minimum wage hike is not a major factor in the unemployment figures. It didn't even affect some of the bigger states. There weren't many jobs that paid minimum anyway. No the factors responsible for the unemployment are the govt selling the American worker out to the multinational corporations and Wall st. for a few pieces of silver in their pockets. If your theory on min wage and job losses were correct only min wage jobs would have disappeared.

[chaseter]

You were talking about how Bush's tax cuts were bad. I proved to you that they weren't. Bush did have a loss of jobs in his first 4 years due to the recession in 2001 from the dotcom bubble bursting. You then went on to say that Obama has created more jobs than Bush. No he hasn't. His stimulus package didn't stimulate anything and talking about what he saved is purely hypothetical just like it would be purely hypothetical to talk about how bad things could have been had Bush not signed into law his tax cuts. Those points are moot. What isn't moot is the results of Bush's tax cuts causing a decrease in unemployment and Obama's stimulus package/Democrats increasing minimum wage causing an increase in unemployment. Add to that their bolstering that they are going to let the tax cuts expire during a recession, all of which are causing economic uncertainty, and you have a reactionary market where businesses will not hire and they will not expand. The market is stagnant because of the terrible policies of this administration.

Now back to my original point, show me a situation in which massive tax increases get countries out of a recession. Show me where a reputable economist says that decreasing taxes is the absolute worse thing that you can do during a recession.

[Paradoxium]

This is like a flashback of 2 years ago. The same old hatchet partisan arguments. If you want to blame derregulation fine, but it didn't start with Reagan, it was his predecessor Carter. Hell a number of capitalist credited Carter in a positive way for this reason.

And besides I love how regulation is a magic fairy dust that solves everything, and people pay almost no attention to the details. Or how it a lot of times it never accomplishes its intended outcome, or its hand in failures. But hey Cuumo, who had a dirty hand in the Subprime debacle got elected. Who am I to argue care about the details.

If you've actually worked or known anyone in the industry, you would know regulation actually increased during the Bush era. The catch? The quality and enforcement was hot garbage, just like the ones Obama and his cronies have done. Different hats same incompetence.

How about enforcing basic stuff like fraud laws. Even libertarians are hard press to argue against stuff like this, since it is one of the most basic function of the government. Outside of maybe the anarchos

Ok Obama, Make Good On Your Promise (http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=169643)The White House warned banks Tuesday it would pursue them for any mortgage practices that violated the law, piling pressure on the financial sector after two institutions lifted their freezes on home foreclosures. The nation's largest bank, which was the only mortgage lender to temporarily stop foreclosures in all 50 states while it investigates problems, will begin refiling paperwork in those 102,000 cases that require a judge's approval next Monday. About 30,000 foreclosures will remain on hold in the 27 states where a judge's approval isn't necessary. That's an admission that 102,000 cases had falsely-sworn documents submitted to courts. Whoever—
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;

is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.
Are you lying Mr. President?

Because if you are not, I fully expect that within the next 24 hours Eric Holder will issue a 102,000-count indictment.

If he doesn't, and you and I both know he won't, you will once again be shown to be a bald-faced LIAR.And he didn't

[Marx]

UPDATE: HOUSE FAILS TO PASS NEW UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT EXTENSION
http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/18/news/economy/unemployment_benefits_extension/index.htm?hpt=T2

[enterthemadness]

Good or bad? I'm leaning towards bad...

[chaseter]

They already have 99 weeks of unemployment. That is 2 years. 2 years is a long time to be looking for a job and not get one single employment opportunity.

[Carcharodon]

I wouldn't doubt that it happens, though.

[Bathead]

They already have 99 weeks of unemployment. That is 2 years. 2 years is a long time to be looking for a job and not get one single employment opportunity.

That's not necessarily their fault.

[Marx]

They already have 99 weeks of unemployment. That is 2 years. 2 years is a long time to be looking for a job and not get one single employment opportunity.

I wouldn't doubt that it happens, though.

That's not necessarily their fault.

Exactly guys.

[Paradoxium]

More heartwarming news:

No. 1 Trading Firm Declares Global Growth Story Over (http://www.cnbc.com/id/40234711)
via CNBC

The 19 Countries Most Likely To Default: Ireland Surges Higher (http://www.businessinsider.com/19-countries-most-likely-to-default-2010-10)
via Business Insider

I mentioned some of these countries a year or two ago. I am still waiting for Venezuela (number 1 on the list). Love to see that imbecile Chavez dance in the flaming pits of Tartarus :woot:

[fifthfiend]

How hard is it for people to understand that the rich employ people to do nothing except get them AROUND their taxes, and the part that gets taxed, they simply hit the consumer in some way to make that money up.

I don't get it......why is that so hard to understand.

Because it makes no sense whatsoever.

EDIT:

Don't tax him out the ass thinking that that is the end all to end all.

Especially when you have states like California and New York that already do that with their state income taxes, to the point of having an exodus of industry to the south which is happening.

By your own words, it doesn't matter if you tax him out his ass, since actually he has a perfect ability to avoid taxes and/or pass on those costs to the marketplace.

Which brings me back to my previous point re: your views make no sense whatsoever.

[fifthfiend]

They already have 99 weeks of unemployment. That is 2 years. 2 years is a long time to be looking for a job and not get one single employment opportunity.

10 percent unemployment: Because Everyone Just Decided To Be Lazy

EDIT:

It did create jobs when Bush cut them:huh: We had a recession in 2001, taxes were cut in 2003, and the economy recovered and Bush had 4% unemployment at the end of 2005.

And the same tax cuts were still in effect when the economy imploded in 2008.

[chaseter]

10 percent unemployment: Because Everyone Just Decided To Be Lazy
There has to be a cutting off point. 2 years is long enough. Sorry, we can't afford to keep people on unemployment for 4 years. We currently have 10% unemployment because of this administration's failed policies and their inability to instill confidence in businesses and the market. Talking about raising taxes on the businesses that hire people is not the way you stimulate the economy during a recession.

And the same tax cuts were still in effect when the economy imploded in 2008.
And the Democrats were in charge in 2006 when they won the midterm elections. Your point? The tax cuts didn't cause the recession, what a terribly ignorant thing to suggest.

[chaseter]

I wouldn't doubt that it happens, though.
Oh I am sure it happens no doubt but I would bet that it isn't the case for the majority.

That's not necessarily their fault.
Not in all cases no it isn't their fault. I am sure that there are people that situation happens to. But, 2 years is a very long time. Other cities and states have more job opportunities. Moving may have to be an option. Selling your house and living in an apartment may have to be an option. Selling one car instead of having two or more may have to be an option. Not having satellite or cable tv may have to be an option. This situation sucks but we can't keep people on unemployment for years and years and years. Bad stuff happens. The government shouldn't always be the safety net for everyone's woes. We are headed to a point in society where we have no responsibilities and no consequences for our actions because the government will be there for us. No. That isn't how things work. There is a huge government housing complex that is 10 or 15 stories high by where I work and it is lined with satellite dishes for satellite tv. There are some nice cars in the parking lot.

[Kelly]

Because it makes no sense whatsoever.

EDIT:



By your own words, it doesn't matter if you tax him out his ass, since actually he has a perfect ability to avoid taxes and/or pass on those costs to the marketplace.

Which brings me back to my previous point re: your views make no sense whatsoever.


One of 2 things ARE HAPPENING....

1. Corporations are moving to more tax friendly countries, along with jobs....

2. The consumer gets the brunt of the cost....

If you can't understand those two things, I'm sorry...but at least I won't be as rude in my comment to you as you seem to enjoy being....give your opinion, that's cool but don't **** it up with rudeness...

[chaseter]

Kel your views make no sense but I am not going to tell you why my views make sense. That makes perfect sense.

[Kelly]

Kel your views make no sense but I am not going to tell you why my views make sense. That makes perfect sense.

That makes no sense....lol

[Venom'sDad]

Iceland.... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101126/ap_on_re_eu/eu_iceland_election)

[Marx]

MODEST SALES FOR 'BLACK FRIDAY'
http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/27/news/economy/Black_friday_2010_sales/index.htm?hpt=T2

[Kelly]

Won't do much....

People are cutting back on their Christmas shopping plain and simple....

[Marx]

Hence the term 'modest' and not 'strong'... :cwink:

[Kelly]

Black Friday in this day in age does nothing for the economy, or Christmas sales for that matter. It's just something that we use now to make us feel better about the economy for about 15 minutes until we realize that all the big ticket items have now been bought, and all that is left is buying the wrapping and bows.

[Marx]

Unemployment benefits for nearly 2 million people expire in just under an hour.

[LastSunrise1981]

Unemployment benefits for nearly 2 million people expire in just under an hour.

I thought it was set to expire later on this month or sometime next year?

[StorminNorman]

Unemployment benefits for nearly 2 million people expire in just under an hour.

:up:

[Marx]

Yes...'thumbs up' for people losing their unemployment benefits right before christmas. I sincerely hope you never find yourself in the position you're condeming. :dry:

[StorminNorman]

I would never accept unemployment.

I don't like the thought of anyone having their source of income stopped before Christmas, but those that receive unemployment payments are accepting money they should never have any opportunity to. Stopping of unemployment payments of any kind is an achievement for morality, even if there are unfortunate consequences.

[Iron_Stark]

Unemployment benefits for nearly 2 million people expire in just under an hour.

How nice they got us into this s*** hole of a mess, now they don't want to continue to help.

[StorminNorman]

Who is "they"?

Republicans?

You think the economic problems we are facing are so small and simple they can be blamed on one party? One administration? One decade of leadership?

Do you guys realize that throughout the 40's and 50's and 60's Capitalism was pretty much exclusively taught at two locations: University of Chicago and NYU (F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises were the two professors fighting against New Deal era "State Capitalism" and both of their professorial salaries had to be covered by the libertarian Volker fund).

Decades of economists are simply wrong about economic theory. And they are the ones that have written government economic policy. That's the reason we are in this "s*** hole of a mess".

[chaseter]

I would sell my house, car(s), televisions, etc. and cancel my internet, cell phone, cable, etc. bills and eat rice and beans before I take unemployment. Also, savings account, 401k, and stock market investments FTW.

[Backdrifter]

Who is "they"?

Republicans?

You think the economic problems we are facing are so small and simple they can be blamed on one party? One administration? One decade of leadership?

Do you guys realize that throughout the 40's and 50's and 60's Capitalism was pretty much exclusively taught at two locations: University of Chicago and NYU (F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises were the two professors fighting against New Deal era "State Capitalism" and both of their professorial salaries had to be covered by the libertarian Volker fund).

Decades of economists are simply wrong about economic theory. And they are the ones that have written government economic policy. That's the reason we are in this "s*** hole of a mess".

This.

[chaseter]

Any people that think the public sector should be more prevalent than the private sector needs to be taken out to the back and dealt with promptly. Even after all the failed government run programs and enterprises, they want more:dry:

[Paradoxium]

Employers in U.S. Announce Most Job Cuts in Eight Months, Challenger Says (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-01/employers-in-u-s-announce-most-job-cuts-in-eight-months.html)

[Kelly]

Any people that think the public sector should be more prevalent than the private sector needs to be taken out to the back and dealt with promptly. Even after all the failed government run programs and enterprises, they want more:dry:


Nah, they just need to move to North Korea....

[samsnee]

This whole "extending the Bush tax cuts" debate is just a political football. Whatever you do, the truth is, most of the jobs aren't coming back. I'd wager a lot of the unemployed out there are above 50. Experienced people with good sets of skills. But when companies look at the bottom line, they're more expensive to take on because of higher salary demands and insurance premiums.

Now you can argue that those who have been unemployed for a long time could take a job in fast food, or retail, or something hourly to help pay bills. But what if you are working 2 or 3 of those jobs to make ends meet, even after cutting out unnecessary expenses like cable, or gym memberships, etc? How are you supposed to find time to actually interview for a "real" job that pays a decent salary? So you're 55 years old, not young enough to collect Social Security. Too old for any company to want to take you on. Working at least 2 near-minimum wage jobs to make ends meet. When you were working, you paid your taxes a like a good citizen should, made smart investments with your money, and played by the rules. So now what do you do? Don't just say tap into your 401k or IRA, because you did already. But the well's running dry, and your basic living expenses can't get any cheaper.

[chaseter]

If you are over 50 and don't have any savings or it doesn't last for more than a couple of years then well.....

[samsnee]

If you are over 50 and don't have any savings or it doesn't last for more than a couple of years then well.....

That's not a real solution. That's the usual "Guess your **** out of luck" attitude that everyone takes that isn't productive. Even if one were to have savings that lasted until they retired, then what? They're supposed to live solely off of social security?

[chaseter]

That's not a real solution. That's the usual "Guess your **** out of luck" attitude that everyone takes that isn't productive. Even if one were to have savings that lasted until they retired, then what? They're supposed to live solely off of social security?

You looking to this administration to define productivity? What isn't productive is not saving any money and spending your entire paycheck. What isn't productive is not paying for insurance and instead spending that money on other items and when you have a medical condition you have no money. What isn't productive is not saving for your future.

It's how we are as a country now. We don't save and when we get in trouble we look to the government as our safety net. We live in a country where it is the norm to have thousands upon thousands of dollars in credit card debt. Why? I honestly don't know.

[Figs]

I would never accept unemployment.

I don't like the thought of anyone having their source of income stopped before Christmas, but those that receive unemployment payments are accepting money they should never have any opportunity to. Stopping of unemployment payments of any kind is an achievement for morality, even if there are unfortunate consequences.

Have to agree with this. Anytime I was ever close to thinking I was going to be "let go" or straight up fired at a job I knew within myself I would never suck on the goverment's tit. I started to look for a job before the possible lay-off/firing would happen.

Now I understand some of these people didn't have time since they were abruptly laid off due to the economy and jobs are hard to find(in certain areas and field that is) but how long can you stay on it before you need to be let go.

It's horrible that it's around the holidays, but we're hurting money wise and there are jobs out there. It's just that people don't want crappy jobs even if that's all they can get. I live in CA and believe me, if people stopped being picky there wouldn't be that many jobs left for illegal immigrants. Yeah, it's ****** work, but would you rather be pennyless on the streets?

It's how we are as a country now. We don't save and when we get in trouble we look to the government as our safety net. We live in a country where it is the norm to have thousands upon thousands of dollars in credit card debt. Why? I honestly don't know.

Most likely because a lot of Americans have been semi-brainwashed to go ape **** when it comes to consumerism. We've become greedy and feeling this need to buy **** that we don't need...so we charge it when we don't have any money left from our paychecks...because we spent it on other ****. :funny:

[chaseter]

Why look for a minimum wage job where you would get $300 a week when you can get $300 a week from the government for doing nothing?

[Figs]

Why look for a minimum wage job where you would get $300 a week when you can get $300 a week from the government for doing nothing?

Good point. That's why people are going to get a rude awakening real soon.

[chaseter]

And to be fair, I know that doesn't describe everyone. There are truly people out there that need help. However, I would say that 2 years of unemployment is highly abused by a lot of people just like every government program is and unless it is retooled, we can't afford it. I find it hilarious and ironic that the self termed 99 weekers that are about to have their benefits ended are out protesting and spending time lobbying in Washington but they aren't out looking for work!?!?!?! It's like illegal immigrants out protesting in the streets against Arizona's law. It makes zero sense.

[Figs]

And to be fair, I know that doesn't describe everyone. There are truly people out there that need help. However, I would say that 2 years of unemployment is highly abused by a lot of people just like every government program is and unless it is retooled, we can't afford it. I find it hilarious and ironic that the self termed 99 weekers that are about to have their benefits ended are out protesting and spending time lobbying in Washington but they aren't out looking for work!?!?!?! It's like illegal immigrants out protesting in the streets against Arizona's law. It makes zero sense.

I agree, two years and you can't find any type of work is a stretch. Some may say it's easier said than done but I don't buy it.

[doih]

Most likely because a lot of Americans have been semi-brainwashed to go ape **** when it comes to consumerism. We've become greedy and feeling this need to buy **** that we don't need...so we charge it when we don't have any money left from our paychecks...because we spent it on other ****. :funny:

A problem is that things have gotten to the point where if people didn't buy all that ****, the economy would blow up anyway. I mean, think about it. If everyone was 'happy,' they wouldn't be trying to keep up with all their neighbours and such, and this would drastically drop production. Businesses wouldn't be making as many items and the need for services would decrease.

We need to find a medium between the countries that have strong savings cultures and countries that are consuming to excess.

[chaseter]

We are the leading country that is consuming to excess.

[Marx]

And to be fair, I know that doesn't describe everyone. There are truly people out there that need help. However, I would say that 2 years of unemployment is highly abused by a lot of people just like every government program is and unless it is retooled, we can't afford it. I find it hilarious and ironic that the self termed 99 weekers that are about to have their benefits ended are out protesting and spending time lobbying in Washington but they aren't out looking for work!?!?!?! It's like illegal immigrants out protesting in the streets against Arizona's law. It makes zero sense.

Are long-term unemployed supposed to be chained to their computers? Looking for another job is a full-time job on its own.

I know I've said this several times since this topic has been brought up, but I sincerely hope those of you who are so harshly condemning unemployment benefits and the unemployed never find yourself in a similar situation that millions of people are now facing.

[chaseter]

If you don't have a job and I am paying for you to not have a job, then you bet your *** you should be chained to your computer looking for work. You shouldn't be out at the movies, eating out at a restaurant, or better yet...lobbying in Washington or out protesting in the streets. The abuse of government aid in this country is ridiculous. They could go spend that entire check on lottery tickets for all the government knows. Government aid programs need massive retooling.

[Kelly]

Does anyone know who the economists are that she speaks of?

h-1zcut65-8

[Marx]

I just heard that the unemployment rate has risen to 9.8 percent. Good grief...

[Venom'sDad]

You are not paying their unemployment fully, per say. The company they work for, pays matching funds into unemployment insurance, along with with state gov, and a small percentage of the workers wage, all go towards unemployment.

And unemployment rate is more like 15-16%. Government numbers skew the figures lower than the actual. It's all depend on whose calc. you believe and factors involved.

[Marx]

You are not paying their unemployment fully, per say. The company they work for, pays matching funds into unemployment insurance, along with with state gov, and a small percentage of the workers wage, all go towards unemployment.

And unemployment rate is more like 15-16%. Government numbers skew the figures lower than the actual. It's all depend on whose calc. you believe and factors involved.

...especially when you figure in the underemployed and those who have just given up for the time being.

[StorminNorman]

Does anyone know who the economists are that she speaks of?

h-1zcut65-8

Wrong ones.

[Marx]

POLL: HALF WORSE OFF THAN TWO YEARS AGO
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/09/poll-51-percent-say-theyre-worse-off-now-than-2-years-ago/

Not good...

[VampElvis]

Ron Paul, Author of `End the Fed,' to Lead Panel Overseeing Central Bank

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-09/ron-paul-author-of-end-the-fed-to-lead-fed-oversight-panel.html

And there was much lol.

[StorminNorman]

Good, I thought there was a chance Boehner would f*** this up.

[Paradoxium]

http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/111583/want-to-get-a-job-interview-pay-attention-to-your-looks

Good looking women's odds of getting jobs are lower. If you a good looking guy, play it up. One of my theories I cited and now corroborated.Resumes for attractive men (photo included): These had a response rate that was 45 percent higher than for plain-looking men whose photo was included, and double the call-back rate for male resumes that were sent without a photo.

Resumes for women with no picture: These had a response rate that was 30 percent higher than for attractive women whose photo was attached to the resume, and 22 percent higher than "plain" women whose photo was attached.The basic reason? Women do most of the hiring, and young ones at it.
So what gives? Here's a hint if you haven't yet figured it out: Who is typically in charge of screening? Yep, young women. After the survey was complete, the researchers contacted the firms they had sent applications to and determined that 24 of the 25 firms had a female employee between the ages of 23-34 doing the screening. The authors conclude that one of the major factors at play here is that "female jealousy of attractive women in the workplace is a primary reason for the punishment of attractive women."

[Kelly]

They called this last recession, a "mancession" because men fared far worse than women.

2 main reasons that were cited were...

1. Men in the business world do many of the same jobs as women, but are paid far higher, so they were the first to be let go when costs needed to be cut.

2. Careers where women equal men in pay have not been hit quite as hard by the recession as manufacturing, banking, etc....those are in the fields of education and the medical field.

[hippie_hunter]

Ron Paul, Author of `End the Fed,' to Lead Panel Overseeing Central Bank

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-09/ron-paul-author-of-end-the-fed-to-lead-fed-oversight-panel.html

And there was much lol.

:awesome:

[Paradoxium]

They called this last recession, a "mancession" because men fared far worse than women.

2 main reasons that were cited were...

1. Men in the business world do many of the same jobs as women, but are paid far higher, so they were the first to be let go when costs needed to be cut.

2. Careers where women equal men in pay have not been hit quite as hard by the recession as manufacturing, banking, etc....those are in the fields of education and the medical field.
Men tend to work in cyclical industries. Stuff like banking and construction were bubbles. That said, just imagine China, look at their real estate bubble, overabundance of dudes as a result of a lame government policy. Yessh. Not going to be pretty.

[Thread Manager]

This thread is now closed it has a continuation thread 347140