Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Negative income tax rates for the lowest brackets?
Negative income tax rates for the lowest brackets?
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.I do not think the GOP attacks in this instance. I do agree that it would be a mistake to attack the standing president. It would help him and hurt them. All they simply do is come out and say what needs to be done, which a lot of it being stuff Obama was/is opposed to in the past. Then Obama is faced with a problem of coming out swinging hard... and switching positions, thus acknowledging he was wrong. Or, ignore them and continue as is. But that situation is a catch 22. It also is important to remember this is about context. One plane going down will not set any of this in motion. It would have to be a larger scale attack or multiple instances of attacks- such as several planes going down.While I can see the merit of your very logical argument, it would be somewhat suicidal to attack a standing President who would react strongly to a wave of terrorist attacks. People tend to pull together during crises and look for leadership. If he acts weakly as I suspect a Gore or Kerry would have, then he would be toast for sure.BO coming out with a "Mo More Mr. Nice Guy" approach could rally the country. I personally wouldn't belive a word of it, but I think many might. However, if a strong leader emerged among the Republilcan ranks and played his spin right, the Dems could be toast. The only person I see out there with that kind of ability and ambition is Newt.Two different dynamics, I believe. With Bush, it was a surprise for most everyone (although the magnitude obviously was shocking, anyone paying attention should not have found us being attacked surprising). The nation rallied in the shock and there was not a lot of desire to blame anyone because again... it was a surprise. Hence, almost instant forgiveness. Now, there is the knowledge that they are out there and that our government ought to be keeping us safe. I think, for the most part, if one plane went down, that would be forgivable. However, if there were multiple attacks or a large scale attack, there would be a different reaction. First, there are standing accusations that Obama and the Democrats, through certain actions and non-actions, have made us less safe. Second, it is consistent that Americans trust the Republican party more in terms of keeping us safe. There is suspicion that the Democratic party is ill equipped to keep us safe. That general attitude would explode in the face of successful attacks. Third, it would be a striking contrast to Bush 7 years of safe US soil. Americans would want to know why Bush kept us safe after 911 for so long and Obama failed to in such a short period of time. Finally, the most important thing to consider is expectations. The electorate has an expectation of Obama that he will keep us safe. The demand it. This expectation was not as much stated with Bush because there was nothing to expect him to keep us safe from (very naively) but the danger is known and the American people expect that they are protected. If they are not, they will look to others to keep them safe.A successful terrorist attack might acually help Obama if he played it right. Look at how W's popularity soared after 9/11.Yea, losing less jobs is good news but it is also like being on a sinking ship and someone giving you the good news that they plugged 'one' of the 'leaks'. Sure, it is good to hear but it does little to change the reality of your situation. There is a whole lotta job hiring that needs to be done before the average Joe on the street 'feels' like the economy has turned around. How they feel is going to shape the 2010 elections. I have stated over and over that for Obama, it is all about two things: 1) The economy. He needs the economy to get back on track and to do so without high inflation. 2) He needs to keep us safe. Where goes Obama, goes the Democratic party. At this point, the GOP is on track for significant gains due to the economy. They did dodge a bullet on Christmas, but even if that plot was successful, I am doubtful it would have sunk his administration. There will need to be multiple events like that (successful) or a larger one for the electorate to turn on Obama/Democratic party for that singular reason. At this point, I do not see #1 being doable. I think there are three real possibilities: 1) The economy continues to struggle with little or no gains while not declining as well, akin to that of the Japanese lost decade. 2) We have a double dip recession. 3) The economy gains its footing and starts to grow but that growth is the missing piece for elevated inflation and inflation would then hit hard.
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.He claims he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class, but by simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire, it is in effect, a tax raise.
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.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.
huh?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.
"The Afghanistan-Pakistan review led by the President has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task. The clarity, commitment and resolve outlined in the President's address are critical steps toward bringing security to Afghanistan and eliminating terrorist safe havens that threaten regional and global security."
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%.:( Unemployment Graph for the past few yearsOf course the public will look on them favorably if the numbers decrease, as long as it's significant. As I noted, that's not happening yet. We're simply losing LESS jobs.
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.
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.huh?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."The Afghanistan-Pakistan review led by the President has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task. The clarity, commitment and resolve outlined in the President's address are critical steps toward bringing security to Afghanistan and eliminating terrorist safe havens that threaten regional and global security."
Which is pretty much the structural bottom.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%.:( Unemployment Graph for the past few yearsOf course the public will look on them favorably if the numbers decrease, as long as it's significant. As I noted, that's not happening yet. We're simply losing LESS jobs.
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.
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.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.huh?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."The Afghanistan-Pakistan review led by the President has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task. The clarity, commitment and resolve outlined in the President's address are critical steps toward bringing security to Afghanistan and eliminating terrorist safe havens that threaten regional and global security."
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?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.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.huh?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."The Afghanistan-Pakistan review led by the President has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task. The clarity, commitment and resolve outlined in the President's address are critical steps toward bringing security to Afghanistan and eliminating terrorist safe havens that threaten regional and global security."
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.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%.Unemployment Graph for the past few yearsOf course the public will look on them favorably if the numbers decrease, as long as it's significant. As I noted, that's not happening yet. We're simply losing LESS jobs.
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.
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.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%.Unemployment Graph for the past few yearsOf course the public will look on them favorably if the numbers decrease, as long as it's significant. As I noted, that's not happening yet. We're simply losing LESS jobs.
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.
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.
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?...
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.
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.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?...
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.
Good post. I understand your point, and I agree with you....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.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100108/ap_on_...29ub215bG9zZXM-Economy loses 85K jobs, unemployment rate steady
AP
By CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER, AP Economics Writer Christopher S. Rugaber, Ap Economics Writer – 22 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Lack of confidence in the economic recovery led employers to shed a more-than-expected 85,000 jobs in December even as the unemployment rate held at 10 percent. The rate would have been higher if more people had been looking for work instead of leaving the labor force because they can't find jobs.
The sharp drop in the work force — 661,000 fewer people — showed that more of the jobless are giving up on their search for work. Once people stop looking for jobs, they are no longer counted among the unemployed.
When discouraged workers and part-time workers who would prefer full-time jobs are included, the so-called "underemployment" rate in December rose to 17.3 percent, from 17.2 percent in October. That's just below a revised figure of 17.4 percent in October, the highest on records dating from 1994.
Revisions to the previous two months' data showed the economy actually generated 4,000 jobs in November, the first gain in nearly two years. But the revisions showed it also lost 16,000 more jobs than previously estimated in October.
The report caps a disastrous year for U.S. workers. Employers cut 4.2 million jobs in 2009, and the unemployment rate averaged 9.3 percent. That's compared with an average of 5.8 percent in 2008 and 4.6 percent in 2007. Nearly 15.3 million people are unemployed, an increase of 3.9 million during 2009.
The economy has lost more than 8 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007.
Most economists worry that 2010 won't be much better. Federal Reserve officials, in a meeting last month, anticipated that unemployment will decline "only gradually," according to minutes of the meeting released earlier this week. The Fed and most private economists expect the unemployment rate will remain well above 9 percent through the end of this year.
There were more job cuts Friday. UPS, the world's largest package delivery company, said it will cut 1,800 management and administrative positions to streamline its U.S. package segment. UPS has 408,000 employees worldwide. About 340,000 of those workers are in the U.S.
Many economists had hoped that Friday's report would show the economy gained jobs for the first time in two years. While the revised figures found an increase in November, it was tiny.
"One word sums it up: disappointment," said Jonathan Basile, an economist at Credit Suisse.
Referring to the drop in the labor force, Basile said, "that tells me that Main Street doesn't believe there's a recovery yet, because they're not out looking for jobs yet."
If jobs remain scarce, consumer confidence and spending could flag, potentially slowing the economic recovery. Many analysts estimate the economy grew by 4 percent or more at an annual rate in the October-December quarter, after 2.2 percent growth in the third quarter.
But the economy will need to grow faster than that to bring down the unemployment rate. And the concern is that much of the recovery stems from temporary factors, such as government stimulus efforts and businesses rebuilding inventories.
Still, some economists said that a recent trend of improvement remains in place. The economy lost an average of nearly 700,000 jobs in the first three months of last year, a figure that dropped to 69,000 in the fourth quarter.
And the private service sector added jobs for the second straight month, said Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist at Global Insight, though the gains have been concentrated in temporary workers.
"Firms are still being very cautious, so the first thing they are turning to aren't full-time employees, but temps," he said. Companies have added about 166,000 temp workers since July.
The average work week remained unchanged at 33.2 hours, near October's record low of 33. Most economists hoped that would increase, as employers are likely to add hours for their current employees before hiring new workers.
Job losses remained widespread: manufacturing lost 27,000 jobs and construction shed 53,000, while retailers, the leisure and hospitality industries and government also cut workers.
Some companies are continuing to layoff workers: UPS said Friday it will cut 1,800 jobs. And defense contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. said Wednesday that it is cutting 1,200 workers, or less than 1 percent of its work force.
Borbely's a one trick pony.I fail to see the humor.He claims he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class, but by simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire, it is in effect, a tax raise.
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.Economy loses 85K jobs, unemployment rate steadyAPBy CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER, AP Economics Writer Christopher S. Rugaber, Ap Economics Writer – 22 mins agoWASHINGTON – Lack of confidence in the economic recovery led employers to shed a more-than-expected 85,000 jobs in December even as the unemployment rate held at 10 percent. The rate would have been higher if more people had been looking for work instead of leaving the labor force because they can't find jobs.
December is a tough month to predict job loss/growth. Hopefully January brings better numbers.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.Economy loses 85K jobs, unemployment rate steadyAPBy CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER, AP Economics Writer Christopher S. Rugaber, Ap Economics Writer – 22 mins agoWASHINGTON – Lack of confidence in the economic recovery led employers to shed a more-than-expected 85,000 jobs in December even as the unemployment rate held at 10 percent. The rate would have been higher if more people had been looking for work instead of leaving the labor force because they can't find jobs.
Odd that this managed to quickly fall to the second page without Borbely, Perry, Tobias, Mathias, tim, Fennis, Desert_Power, or white m0nkey posting to tell us how the employment numbers continue to improve on their way to positive gains...Economy loses 85K jobs, unemployment rate steadyThe sharp drop in the work force — 661,000 fewer people — showed that more of the jobless are giving up on their search for work. Once people stop looking for jobs, they are no longer counted among the unemployed.Revisions to the previous two months' data showed the economy actually generated 4,000 jobs in November, the first gain in nearly two years. But the revisions showed it also lost 16,000 more jobs than previously estimated in October.The report caps a disastrous year for U.S. workers. Employers cut 4.2 million jobs in 2009, and the unemployment rate averaged 9.3 percent. That's compared with an average of 5.8 percent in 2008 and 4.6 percent in 2007. Nearly 15.3 million people are unemployed, an increase of 3.9 million during 2009.The economy has lost more than 8 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007.Most economists worry that 2010 won't be much better. Federal Reserve officials, in a meeting last month, anticipated that unemployment will decline "only gradually," according to minutes of the meeting released earlier this week. The Fed and most private economists expect the unemployment rate will remain well above 9 percent through the end of this year.
The system is workingOdd that this managed to quickly fall to the second page without Borbely, Perry, Tobias, Mathias, tim, Fennis, Desert_Power, or white m0nkey posting to tell us how the employment numbers continue to improve on their way to positive gains...Economy loses 85K jobs, unemployment rate steadyThe sharp drop in the work force — 661,000 fewer people — showed that more of the jobless are giving up on their search for work. Once people stop looking for jobs, they are no longer counted among the unemployed.Revisions to the previous two months' data showed the economy actually generated 4,000 jobs in November, the first gain in nearly two years. But the revisions showed it also lost 16,000 more jobs than previously estimated in October.The report caps a disastrous year for U.S. workers. Employers cut 4.2 million jobs in 2009, and the unemployment rate averaged 9.3 percent. That's compared with an average of 5.8 percent in 2008 and 4.6 percent in 2007. Nearly 15.3 million people are unemployed, an increase of 3.9 million during 2009.The economy has lost more than 8 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007.Most economists worry that 2010 won't be much better. Federal Reserve officials, in a meeting last month, anticipated that unemployment will decline "only gradually," according to minutes of the meeting released earlier this week. The Fed and most private economists expect the unemployment rate will remain well above 9 percent through the end of this year.
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.From James Pethokoukis of Reuters Businessnews:
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.
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.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.From James Pethokoukis of Reuters Businessnews:
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.
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.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.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.From James Pethokoukis of Reuters Businessnews:
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.
Odd that this managed to quickly fall to the second page without Borbely, Perry, Tobias, Mathias, tim, Fennis, Desert_Power, or white m0nkey posting to tell us how the employment numbers continue to improve on their way to positive gains...Economy loses 85K jobs, unemployment rate steadyThe sharp drop in the work force — 661,000 fewer people — showed that more of the jobless are giving up on their search for work. Once people stop looking for jobs, they are no longer counted among the unemployed.Revisions to the previous two months' data showed the economy actually generated 4,000 jobs in November, the first gain in nearly two years. But the revisions showed it also lost 16,000 more jobs than previously estimated in October.The report caps a disastrous year for U.S. workers. Employers cut 4.2 million jobs in 2009, and the unemployment rate averaged 9.3 percent. That's compared with an average of 5.8 percent in 2008 and 4.6 percent in 2007. Nearly 15.3 million people are unemployed, an increase of 3.9 million during 2009.The economy has lost more than 8 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007.Most economists worry that 2010 won't be much better. Federal Reserve officials, in a meeting last month, anticipated that unemployment will decline "only gradually," according to minutes of the meeting released earlier this week. The Fed and most private economists expect the unemployment rate will remain well above 9 percent through the end of this year.
It looks like positive job growth will start in early 2010.
Good spin. I'm pretty sure it's the same take Obama will put on this later today in his press conference.Odd that this managed to quickly fall to the second page without Borbely, Perry, Tobias, Mathias, tim, Fennis, Desert_Power, or white m0nkey posting to tell us how the employment numbers continue to improve on their way to positive gains...Economy loses 85K jobs, unemployment rate steadyThe sharp drop in the work force — 661,000 fewer people — showed that more of the jobless are giving up on their search for work. Once people stop looking for jobs, they are no longer counted among the unemployed.Revisions to the previous two months' data showed the economy actually generated 4,000 jobs in November, the first gain in nearly two years. But the revisions showed it also lost 16,000 more jobs than previously estimated in October.The report caps a disastrous year for U.S. workers. Employers cut 4.2 million jobs in 2009, and the unemployment rate averaged 9.3 percent. That's compared with an average of 5.8 percent in 2008 and 4.6 percent in 2007. Nearly 15.3 million people are unemployed, an increase of 3.9 million during 2009.The economy has lost more than 8 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007.Most economists worry that 2010 won't be much better. Federal Reserve officials, in a meeting last month, anticipated that unemployment will decline "only gradually," according to minutes of the meeting released earlier this week. The Fed and most private economists expect the unemployment rate will remain well above 9 percent through the end of this year.It looks like positive job growth will start in early 2010.
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.Odd that this managed to quickly fall to the second page without Borbely, Perry, Tobias, Mathias, tim, Fennis, Desert_Power, or white m0nkey posting to tell us how the employment numbers continue to improve on their way to positive gains...Economy loses 85K jobs, unemployment rate steadyThe sharp drop in the work force — 661,000 fewer people — showed that more of the jobless are giving up on their search for work. Once people stop looking for jobs, they are no longer counted among the unemployed.Revisions to the previous two months' data showed the economy actually generated 4,000 jobs in November, the first gain in nearly two years. But the revisions showed it also lost 16,000 more jobs than previously estimated in October.The report caps a disastrous year for U.S. workers. Employers cut 4.2 million jobs in 2009, and the unemployment rate averaged 9.3 percent. That's compared with an average of 5.8 percent in 2008 and 4.6 percent in 2007. Nearly 15.3 million people are unemployed, an increase of 3.9 million during 2009.The economy has lost more than 8 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007.Most economists worry that 2010 won't be much better. Federal Reserve officials, in a meeting last month, anticipated that unemployment will decline "only gradually," according to minutes of the meeting released earlier this week. The Fed and most private economists expect the unemployment rate will remain well above 9 percent through the end of this year.It looks like positive job growth will start in early 2010.
If your comment would have been something other than:Maybe you would have gotten more responses.:crickets:Only Fennis shows up, and then only to be obtuse. You lefties need to grow a pair.
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.:crickets:Only Fennis shows up, and then only to be obtuse. You lefties need to grow a pair.
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.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.
Too early. Give it until 2013 is the only fair thing for Obama.
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.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.
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: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.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.
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: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.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.
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.From James Pethokoukis of Reuters Businessnews: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.
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.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.
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".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.
I wouldI wouldn't be shocked if we didn't get below 8% unemployment for the rest of the decade. Hope its not the case but some economists are saying its a possibility.
Agreed, Obama will have a hard time getting unemployment below 8 percent. Looks like 4 and out for ObamaI wouldn't be shocked if we didn't get below 8% unemployment for the rest of the decade. Hope its not the case but some economists are saying its a possibility.
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.
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.Agreed, Obama will have a hard time getting unemployment below 8 percent. Looks like 4 and out for ObamaI wouldn't be shocked if we didn't get below 8% unemployment for the rest of the decade. Hope its not the case but some economists are saying its a possibility.
:crickets:Only Fennis shows up, and then only to be obtuse. You lefties need to grow a pair.
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.Economy loses 85K jobs, unemployment rate steadyAPBy CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER, AP Economics Writer Christopher S. Rugaber, Ap Economics Writer – 22 mins agoWASHINGTON – Lack of confidence in the economic recovery led employers to shed a more-than-expected 85,000 jobs in December even as the unemployment rate held at 10 percent. The rate would have been higher if more people had been looking for work instead of leaving the labor force because they can't find jobs.
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.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.
Not necessarily. I've posted about this type of thing before when some supposedly good numbers like this were reported. The problem with making a big deal out of losing less jobs is that at some point you've lost all the jobs that can be lost. At some point you HAVE to hit rock bottom. Are we there yet? Dunno, but I don't think these numbers reflect better on the Dems as you're suggesting. We're STILL losing jobs, and your suggestion not only in the thread title but in your analysis is that "unemployment is decreasing". And that's just not true. When the number of people out of work starts actually decreasing we can have this discussion.Gee, thanks for the advice.Do you consider this to be good news?Just because the AP has dumb writers doesn't mean you have to follow suit. Learn to think for yourself.You make a good point, but I was not trying to be deliberately misleading. As you know, this is how everyone reports it. I got the title from the AP story.Timmy,
Your thread title is misleading at best. Losing LESS jobs is not the same as unemployment decreasing. You realize that if 100% of everyone was laid off this week then next week new claims would be ZERO. Would that mean unemployment was decreasing?