Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Unemployment lowest since 2008 (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
bueno
In a class by himself
All it really has to be is spectacular. Drop a plane on the Capital for example. A successful biological attack. something that strikes fear into everyone.Obama IMO is already vulnerable for not giving his generals what they think they need to win in Afghanistan. A successful Republican ploy would focus on Obama's positions and what he has failed to do, but without finger-pointing. I don't belive the Republicans as a group can pull that off. Rush et al will attack, the Republicans in Congress will likely just let BO take the heat. They may even close ranks with the administration inorder to show a "united front." It will take someone like Newt or an organization like the American Conservative Union to rally the populace against the administration. But try to separate Newt or the ACU from the Republican Party. I don't think the Democrats will stand by and let that happen, and they are better at the propaganda game than the right is.I'm not sure the Right can capitalize on the situation. I'm not sure I would want that to be their primary motivation.
Anthony Borbely
Footballguy
The tax cuts did little for the middle class when compared to the bad it did, like being one of the biggest reasons we went from a surplus to a deficit. WAY too much was cut at the top end. I paid less in taxes at the time, but I still didn't like the cuts. The reason I laughed originally was that this was called a middle class tax cut, not to mention it having nothing to do with today's unemployment rates, which is what the thread is about. Sorry for the thread hijack.Folks in lower income brackets got a tax cut that was larger, on a percentage basis, than the rich. What else do you want, naked wealth transfer from rich to poor? Negative income tax rates for the lowest brackets?1% of it was, my bad.Bush's cut the income tax of every income tax rate. Even the lowest tax bracket at 15% was reduced to 10%, the biggest cut in any of the rates. It is a myth that Bush's tax cut was only for the rich. It was across the board and had bi-partisan support.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
Yes, you come out with a list of to do's basically saying, we need to keep Americans safe and this is how we believe we do that.... increase troops to the levels our military leadership have wanted, keep GITMO open, cease civilian trials and move forward with military tribunals, etc. You do it without saying anything about Obama not doing it or failing or anything else but keep it with an attitude of looking forward. The people will remember... hey, these are things Obama did not do... so, it is his fault. That is the political way to play it. With that said, I really hope that this is not something that plays out. I am convinced that the economy will be Obama and the Democratic parties downfall as I do not see how they dig out of the hole that has been dug. Hopefully we get a couple of more less than competent terrorists and get lucky to safety.
Fennis
Footballguy
huh?
Saints-Man
Footballguy
Interesting to note that even given the bad economic environment(mythologically marketed as the worst since the 1930's), as late as Apr 2008 the unemployment was only 5%.
bueno
In a class by himself
The original request was for 40,000 troops by the beginning of 2010, no deadline for withdrawal. Just because a general is forced to make nice with the CIC doesn't mean that privately he agrees with the decision.
bueno
In a class by himself
Which is pretty much the structural bottom.
Fennis
Footballguy
So, I am supposed to believe what you feel McChrystal and Petraeus (not to mention Gates) probably think over what they very clearly and bluntly say? Got it.
bueno
In a class by himself
No, we know what they wanted, it is not what I feel they wanted, but what they said they thoght was necessary prior to BO deciding someting different. You clearly do not have an understanding of why when the CIC makes a decision, his generals back it. It is how they sstay generals. Remember what happened to McArthur?
Saints-Man
Footballguy
I agree. For a long time, 5% unemployment was considered full employment, and was considered unattainable. But for over 7/8's of Bush43's presidency, that level was achieved. While economic situations are not good(I am also without a job), too many people(for political gain) have made this economic downturn(recession, depression, whatever the proper term may be) as a catastrophic economic downturn, which as yet it is not. We still have low interest rates, stable but non-growing GDP, and other neutral economic factors.Which is pretty much the structural bottom.Unemployment Graph for the past few years
The common phrase regarding unemploment in this country is "10% is the new 5%", so an election during a period where unemployment is "down to 9% "(as suggested in the original article like it would be a positive) would not be good for incumbents when the voting public is now facing a far higher number of unemployed than the previous norm.Interesting to note that even given the bad economic environment(mythologically marketed as the worst since the 1930's), as late as Apr 2008 the unemployment was only 5%.
This economic downturn has had two strong negative characteristics, the drop in the stock market and escalating unemployment figures. The former is quite subjective as a measure of economic strength, and the latter, while touching many of us, is bad but not "catastrophic" as the political opportunists would have you believe. The meme of "the worse financial crisis since the 1930's" was fear mongering at its worse, and it is so sad that so many seemingly intelligent people bought into this.
Like I said, I am without a job and am not attempting to diminish unemployment as a factor of a nation's economic health, nor the effects it has on individuals. However, this is far from the worse economic crisis in my lifetime. The late '70s were far worse(unemployment plus high interest rates) and it probably is on par(but slightly worse) with the economic downturn of the early 90's that chased GB41 from office.
If it continues and unemployment stays high and other economic factors erode, then its effect will have to be re-evaluated. But at this point, this is at most the 2nd worst economic downturn in my lifetime.
bueno
In a class by himself
I disagree thatthe downturn was just unemployment and the stock maket. The Baltic Freight Index flat-lined, corporate profits nose-dived (especially inthe fiance sector) and a tremendous amount of wealth was lost.Nothing Obama has done so far has addressed the root causes of the downturn: cheap credit for people who should not have had it, and a derivatives market that was out of control.I agree. For a long time, 5% unemployment was considered full employment, and was considered unattainable. But for over 7/8's of Bush43's presidency, that level was achieved. While economic situations are not good(I am also without a job), too many people(for political gain) have made this economic downturn(recession, depression, whatever the proper term may be) as a catastrophic economic downturn, which as yet it is not. We still have low interest rates, stable but non-growing GDP, and other neutral economic factors.Which is pretty much the structural bottom.
The common phrase regarding unemploment in this country is "10% is the new 5%", so an election during a period where unemployment is "down to 9% "(as suggested in the original article like it would be a positive) would not be good for incumbents when the voting public is now facing a far higher number of unemployed than the previous norm.Interesting to note that even given the bad economic environment(mythologically marketed as the worst since the 1930's), as late as Apr 2008 the unemployment was only 5%.
This economic downturn has had two strong negative characteristics, the drop in the stock market and escalating unemployment figures. The former is quite subjective as a measure of economic strength, and the latter, while touching many of us, is bad but not "catastrophic" as the political opportunists would have you believe. The meme of "the worse financial crisis since the 1930's" was fear mongering at its worse, and it is so sad that so many seemingly intelligent people bought into this.
Like I said, I am without a job and am not attempting to diminish unemployment as a factor of a nation's economic health, nor the effects it has on individuals. However, this is far from the worse economic crisis in my lifetime. The late '70s were far worse(unemployment plus high interest rates) and it probably is on par(but slightly worse) with the economic downturn of the early 90's that chased GB41 from office.
If it continues and unemployment stays high and other economic factors erode, then its effect will have to be re-evaluated. But at this point, this is at most the 2nd worst economic downturn in my lifetime.
Saints-Man
Footballguy
As for the bold, it is still there and we are almost a year later after Obama took office. This should have been changed immediately. While I in general support Obama, his calls for the banks to lend more money without addressing this root cause as you have identified is a bit irresponsible, IMO. Corporate CEO's making a lot of money does not create financial bubbles like giving credit to people who have no hopes of paying it back. While the former is unseemly, the latter is what contributed to the current economic situation.I acknowledge that I am unaware of the BFI, so I can not intelligently comment. However, are corporate profits reflected in the stock market and the GDP?
bueno
In a class by himself
The BFI is a good measure of the movement of goods worldwide, and therefgore a good measure of the strength of the world (and individual nations) economic output. One could say that the stock price does reflect corporate profits and collectively, the Dow Jones or some other measure reflects the GDP, but in both cases stock price reacts to news.Stock price does not cause the GDP or corporate profits to be lower. There are however, other things that stock price responds to, investor fear being a major one. I objected to your "just unemployment and the stock market" comment, because other factors such as consumer confidence, corporate profits, investor confidence, and the GDP also cratered. Fearand bank failures caused the stock market to crater, but there were some technical indicators that showed this was going to happen anyway. That is why by September, I was 80% cash. You could see this coming, thogh I doubt anyone saw how bad it was going to get.
Saints-Man
Footballguy
Good post. I understand your point, and I agree with you.
The Comedian
Footballguy
Borbely's a one trick pony.I fail to see the humor.
bigbottom
Footballguy
There was talk that we may have even seen a job gain of up to 100,000 jobs in December. An 85,000 job loss was a bit unexpected I think, and certainly bad news.
jamny
Footballguy
December is a tough month to predict job loss/growth. Hopefully January brings better numbers.
The system is working
From James Pethokoukis of Reuters Businessnews:
Talk about one last gasp from the horrible year that was 2009. On the political front, the December jobs numbers were terrible news for the White House and congressional Democrats in a midterm election year. Here’s how it plays out:
1. Remember this simple formula: Unemployment drives presidential approval numbers and presidential approval numbers drive midterm election results.
2. President Barack Obama’s approval numbers are hovering just a tick below 50 percent. Since 1962, the average House midterm loss for the president’s party when his approval is sub-50 percent is 41 seats. The GOP needs 40 to take the House.
3. And make no mistake, the December unemployment numbers were bad both economically and politically. The 85,000 job loss was worse than expected and will be played that way the media. The continuation of a double-digit unemployment also resonates with voters. And not a in a good way.
4. Then will come the second-take stories that will notice the shrinking labor force, which dropped by nearly 700,000 from November. Had it stayed stable for last month, the jobless rate would have been 10.4 percent. Had it stayed stable since August, the jobless rate would be 11 percent!
5. But wait, there’s more! The U-6 rate rate which combines the basic jobless rate, discouraged workers, part-timers-who-would-rather-be-full-tim ers climbed to 17.3 percent. And the average duration of unemployment rose to a record high 29.1 weeks.
6. Also, there is every indication that as the slowly growing economy eventually draws workers back in the labor force, the jobless rate will creep up to new highs. (Big companies remain cautious about hiring, and small biz remains under pressure due to tight capital markets.) The validity of the Obama recovery plan will seriously be cast in doubt.
7. The sickly labor market will also make is that much harder for the White House and Hill Dems to celebrate what is likely to be a brisk upcoming GDP report in the 4-5 percent range. That seems like an abstract number compared to the unemployment rate.
8. Combine a weak labor market – which may appear to be getting worse to voters – with the moribund housing market and rising gas prices, and you got a toxic triple threat that will be poisonous to Democratic incumbents and further drain Obama’s political capital
9. Also, watch how these numbers play with Senate and House Dems thinking about resigning like Chris Dodd and Byron Dorgan. A big improvement in the jobs numbers might have reassured any worriers that 2010 might not be as tough as some currently think. Now it looks a bit more like the worst fears of Democrats might be realized: losing the House and a half-dozen or more Senate seats.
Talk about one last gasp from the horrible year that was 2009. On the political front, the December jobs numbers were terrible news for the White House and congressional Democrats in a midterm election year. Here’s how it plays out:
1. Remember this simple formula: Unemployment drives presidential approval numbers and presidential approval numbers drive midterm election results.
2. President Barack Obama’s approval numbers are hovering just a tick below 50 percent. Since 1962, the average House midterm loss for the president’s party when his approval is sub-50 percent is 41 seats. The GOP needs 40 to take the House.
3. And make no mistake, the December unemployment numbers were bad both economically and politically. The 85,000 job loss was worse than expected and will be played that way the media. The continuation of a double-digit unemployment also resonates with voters. And not a in a good way.
4. Then will come the second-take stories that will notice the shrinking labor force, which dropped by nearly 700,000 from November. Had it stayed stable for last month, the jobless rate would have been 10.4 percent. Had it stayed stable since August, the jobless rate would be 11 percent!
5. But wait, there’s more! The U-6 rate rate which combines the basic jobless rate, discouraged workers, part-timers-who-would-rather-be-full-tim ers climbed to 17.3 percent. And the average duration of unemployment rose to a record high 29.1 weeks.
6. Also, there is every indication that as the slowly growing economy eventually draws workers back in the labor force, the jobless rate will creep up to new highs. (Big companies remain cautious about hiring, and small biz remains under pressure due to tight capital markets.) The validity of the Obama recovery plan will seriously be cast in doubt.
7. The sickly labor market will also make is that much harder for the White House and Hill Dems to celebrate what is likely to be a brisk upcoming GDP report in the 4-5 percent range. That seems like an abstract number compared to the unemployment rate.
8. Combine a weak labor market – which may appear to be getting worse to voters – with the moribund housing market and rising gas prices, and you got a toxic triple threat that will be poisonous to Democratic incumbents and further drain Obama’s political capital
9. Also, watch how these numbers play with Senate and House Dems thinking about resigning like Chris Dodd and Byron Dorgan. A big improvement in the jobs numbers might have reassured any worriers that 2010 might not be as tough as some currently think. Now it looks a bit more like the worst fears of Democrats might be realized: losing the House and a half-dozen or more Senate seats.
Did Obama actually have a recovery plan? It seemed he punted to Pelosi and let her spend $800 billion on random acts of pork barrel spending and hoped it worked. I guess this is the hope and change plan.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
The biggest mistakes of the Obama administration so far has been to hand everything over to Pelosi and say 'I would like a stimulus please.' or 'I would like health care reform please.' and then step back and hope for the best while she does everything within her power to screw the country over.
Obama had a further left voting record when he was a Senator than Pelosi had. He's letting her carry his baggage so that he has at least a modicum of cover, and she's teflon in her district when re-election comes up. He did manage to screw some of that up with his strong arm/woodshed middle of the night meetings at the WH on health care, though.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fennis
Footballguy
Good spin. I'm pretty sure it's the same take Obama will put on this later today in his press conference.
Fennis
Footballguy
I'm not sure how that is spin, but thanks I guess.Good spin. I'm pretty sure it's the same take Obama will put on this later today in his press conference.
Anthony Borbely
Footballguy
If your comment would have been something other than:
Maybe you would have gotten more responses.
bostonfred
Footballguy
Nobody wants to talk politics with you when you act like this. One possible explanation is that nobody wants to talk politics. Another is that nobody wants to talk to you when you act like this. I totally understand why you prefer to think it's that nobody wants to talk politics.
If your comment would have been something other than:
Well, at least a couple of you showed up. I guess it took an extreme statement to get you back in here.What is your response to the nearly 1M additional job loses - with the looming expectation of even more job loses as companies continue to cut the seasonal labor that caused the mild lessening of of the unemployment numbers? How soon do you expect to see the uptick that you were predicting only a month or less ago? 3 months? 6 months? A year? more? It's currently actually getting uglier, not better.
Parrothead
Footballguy
CrossEyed
Footballguy
Too early. Give it until 2013 is the only fair thing for Obama.
Anthony Borbely
Footballguy
This has not been my battle. I don't recall being overly enthusiastic about unemployment right now. That's why I didn't comment on it. I think you just lumped anyone who has any kind of liberal thoughts into one pile.If your comment would have been something other than:Maybe you would have gotten more responses.
Well, at least a couple of you showed up. I guess it took an extreme statement to get you back in here.What is your response to the nearly 1M additional job loses - with the looming expectation of even more job loses as companies continue to cut the seasonal labor that caused the mild lessening of of the unemployment numbers? How soon do you expect to see the uptick that you were predicting only a month or less ago? 3 months? 6 months? A year? more? It's currently actually getting uglier, not better.
Then please accept my apologies. I thought you were one of the group that was gleeful about the jobs fiasco turning around in the face of what appeared to be obvious temporary increases.This has not been my battle. I don't recall being overly enthusiastic about unemployment right now. That's why I didn't comment on it. I think you just lumped anyone who has any kind of liberal thoughts into one pile.If your comment would have been something other than:Well, at least a couple of you showed up. I guess it took an extreme statement to get you back in here.What is your response to the nearly 1M additional job loses - with the looming expectation of even more job loses as companies continue to cut the seasonal labor that caused the mild lessening of of the unemployment numbers? How soon do you expect to see the uptick that you were predicting only a month or less ago? 3 months? 6 months? A year? more? It's currently actually getting uglier, not better.
Anthony Borbely
Footballguy
I thought part of the stimulus was supposed to go towards infrastructure projects, such as new roads and/or bridges, or road repair. There has been little if any of that done here in Michigan and we have a ton of long-term projects that could start in a day if the funding was there. Obviously, this is not a cure or anything, but some of these projects are 2 years long and there is no question that would help...at least until things improve. I know most would still not like this because it adds to the deficit, but the thousands of people who could be working right now would mean more tax revenues, more consumer spending, and fewer foreclosures. From what I read, half the stimulus money has not been spent, so I really have to winder what on earth they are waiting for and where the first half of the money went. It certainly has not done anything here. As an aside, I live in a suburb in Wayne County (same county Detroit is in) and I believe unemployment here is over 20% and foreclosures are through the roof and getting worse. Since the stimulus already is in effect, it would be nice to at least see some of it used to create jobs.
Anthony Borbely
Footballguy
Thanks, accepted. Generally, jobs almost always lag stock market recovery by about 6-9 months after a recession and that's for a normal recession. I will be shocked if there is any noticeable improvement before summer. Thing might flatten out at the bottom before then. I do think the worst is over, but it's going to be a slow and painful process to see more jobs.Then please accept my apologies. I thought you were one of the group that was gleeful about the jobs fiasco turning around in the face of what appeared to be obvious temporary increases.This has not been my battle. I don't recall being overly enthusiastic about unemployment right now. That's why I didn't comment on it. I think you just lumped anyone who has any kind of liberal thoughts into one pile.If your comment would have been something other than:Well, at least a couple of you showed up. I guess it took an extreme statement to get you back in here.What is your response to the nearly 1M additional job loses - with the looming expectation of even more job loses as companies continue to cut the seasonal labor that caused the mild lessening of of the unemployment numbers? How soon do you expect to see the uptick that you were predicting only a month or less ago? 3 months? 6 months? A year? more? It's currently actually getting uglier, not better.
Andrew74
Footballguy
These are the kickers. People are dropping out of the labor force, which is depressing the unemployment rate. If anyone is looking for a meaningful drop in that rate before the end of the year, I think they will be sorely disappointed. Once we get any sniff of job creation, the unemployment rate will likely start going up. We need at least 100,000+ jobs a month to maintain a stable unemployment rate, ceteris paribus.But the real problem is the duration of unemployment. People aren't finding jobs. The continuing claims series, IMO, is masking the problem. Yes that series is declining quite rapidly, but the extended claims series is reaching new highs. Traditionally, that signaled hiring but this time I think it is a false signal - people are just going on the federal roles.
Statorama
gangster
Anthony, Anthony, don't you know how this game is played? Those funds won't be pumped in until it gets closer to the 2012 re-election campaign.Am I saying that Obama would willingly keep unemployment numbers depressed until it could benefit him the most to improve them? Damn straight.
KnowledgeReignsSupreme
Footballguy
A cynical person might suggest they are waiting for the 2010 election cycle to start. A play on the "We already have Bin Laden but we are waiting until the 2004 elections to announce it".
Last edited by a moderator:
Gopher State
Footballguy
Chadstroma
Footballguy
No, if you are critical of the "stimulus" then you are a blind partisan hack that just hates Obama and love the party of no. Never mind the fact that Obama, Pelosi and Co promised that if they passed that pile of manure that unemployment would not go above 8%. Nevermind that anyone with a brain could look at the collection of political paybacks and pork spending that was labeled a "stimulus" and tell you it would have little positive impact, if any, and would just weigh us down with more debt. Because, remember, if they did not pass that crap- it would have been worse. You have to get use to the arguments by now... if the economy gets better- the stimulus worked! If the economy does not- the stimulus worked by making it not as bad as it could have been. Kinda like the Global Warming argument. If it is hot- it is Global Warming. If it is cold- it is Global Warming. If you position yourself right no matter what happens... then you win. As long as people do not use critical thinking.
Statorama
gangster
At this point I'm almost ready for President Pelosi. At least you know where she's coming from and not trying to con you.
bigbottom
Footballguy
No, if you are critical of the "stimulus" then you are a blind partisan hack that just hates Obama and love the party of no. Never mind the fact that Obama, Pelosi and Co promised that if they passed that pile of manure that unemployment would not go above 8%. Nevermind that anyone with a brain could look at the collection of political paybacks and pork spending that was labeled a "stimulus" and tell you it would have little positive impact, if any, and would just weigh us down with more debt. Because, remember, if they did not pass that crap- it would have been worse. You have to get use to the arguments by now... if the economy gets better- the stimulus worked! If the economy does not- the stimulus worked by making it not as bad as it could have been. Kinda like the Global Warming argument. If it is hot- it is Global Warming. If it is cold- it is Global Warming. If you position yourself right no matter what happens... then you win. As long as people do not use critical thinking.
Obama keeps using the last month of Bush as his baseline. Anything is better than the freefall panic we were in for that brief period. But panics are temporary and it would stabilize no matter who was president. Besides, Bush's bailout was far superior policy to Obama's so-called stimulus. Bush's policy actually stabilized banks and is getting paid back. We will never see a dime back from Obama's massive flushing of cash down the toilet.
Fallerjw
Footballguy
Similar threads
