Nation's unemployment rate exceeds 10 percent for the first time in 26 years / LJWorld.com

Archive for Friday, November 6, 2009

It’s expected to get higher

Associated Press

November 6, 2009

Washington — The unemployment rate has surpassed 10 percent for the first time since 1983 — and is likely to go higher.

Nearly 16 million people can't find jobs even though the worst recession since the Great Depression has apparently ended. The Labor Department said Friday that the economy shed a net total of 190,000 jobs in October, less than the downwardly revised 219,000 lost in September. August job losses were also revised lower, to 154,000 from 201,000.

But the loss of jobs last month exceeded economists' estimates. It's the 22nd straight month the U.S. economy has shed jobs, the longest on records dating back 70 years.

Counting those who have settled for part-time jobs or stopped looking for work, the unemployment rate would be 17.5 percent, the highest on records dating from 1994.

The jobless rate rose to 10.2 percent from 9.8 percent in September. Economists say it could climb as high as 10.5 percent next year because employers remain reluctant to hire.

Friday's report is the first since the government said last week that the economy grew at a 3.5 percent annual rate in the July-September quarter, the strongest signal yet that the economy is rebounding. But that isn't fast enough to spur rapid hiring, raising the specter of a jobless recovery.

"You need explosive growth to take the unemployment rate down," said Dan Greenhaus, chief economic strategist for New York-based investment firm Miller Tabak & Co.

Greenhaus said the economy soared by nearly 8 percent in 1983 after a steep recession, lowering the jobless rate by 2.5 percentage points that year. But the economy is unlikely to improve that fast this time, as consumers remain cautious and tight credit hinders businesses. In fact, many analysts expect economic growth to moderate early next year, as the impact of various government stimulus programs fades.

Many economists also worry that persistently high unemployment could undermine the recovery by restraining consumer spending, which accounts for 70 percent of the economy.

One sign of how hard it still is to find a job: the number of Americans who have been out of work for six months or longer rose to 5.6 million, a record. They comprise 35.6 percent of the unemployed population, matching a record set last month.

Congress sought to address the impact of long-term unemployment this week by approving legislation extending jobless benefits for the fourth time since the recession began. The bill would add 14 to 20 extra weeks of aid and is intended to prevent almost 2 million recipients from running out of unemployment insurance during the upcoming holiday season. President Barack Obama is expected to quickly sign the legislation.

The employment report showed that job losses remain widespread across many industries. Manufacturers eliminated a net total of 61,000 jobs, the most in four months. Construction shed 62,000 jobs, down slightly from the previous month.

Retailers, the financial sector and leisure and hospitality companies all continued to reduce payrolls. The economy has lost a net total of 7.3 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007.

The average work week was unchanged at 33 hours, a disappointment because employers are expected to add more hours for current workers before they begin hiring new ones.

There were some bright spots in the report. Professional and business services companies added 18,000 jobs. And temporary employment grew by 33,700 jobs, after losing positions for months. That's a positive sign because employers are likely to add temporary workers before hiring permanent ones.

Still, economists expect jobs likely will remain scarce even as the economy improves. Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial, said that small businesses, a primary engine of job creation, still face tight credit and don't have the cash reserves to support extra workers.

And many companies are squeezing more production from their existing work forces. Productivity, the amount of output per hour worked, jumped 9.5 percent in the third quarter, the Labor Department said Thursday.

That's the sharpest increase in six years and followed a 6.9 percent rise in the second quarter. The increases enable companies to produce more without hiring extra people.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

6 November 2009
at 8:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

edjayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Its Obama's fault…
6 November 2009
at 8:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

Change!
6 November 2009
at 8:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

“First of all, let me give a shout out to the guy who wrote My Pet Goat, and won the Congressional Prize For Literature. Second, the fundamentals of the economy are strong, because of my wonderful stimulus plan. Third, Sorry about all the killing in Texas. Now watch this Drive”

—Obama
6 November 2009
at 8:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

You think this is bad? Wait & see what will happen if crap & raid gets passed!
6 November 2009
at 8:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…

This was not supposed to happen (if it were to happen that is) until next summer. Wow! Tensions are peaking in DC today, you can bet on it.
6 November 2009
at 8:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

It was never supposed to happen. Check out this graph, no it's not a diagram of the trajectory of an Obama Tee shot:

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/mo…

You should see that graph updated, because today we're off that graph.

Off The Graph.

Had enough?
6 November 2009
at 8:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jmadison (Anonymous) says…

The same people (President Obama and the Dems in Congress) who designed an expensive “stimulus” package to prevent double digit unemployment, can not be trusted to implement an expensive “health care reform” bill that will most likely lead to double digit increases in the cost of health care.
The only thing these incompetents in power will stimulate is runaway inflation.

6 November 2009
at 8:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Silly_me (Anonymous) says…

I don't think it is completely fair to blame this on Obama..he did inherit a big mess. What I do think where he has faltered is misreading his victory into a mandate for aggressive program change. I voted for him but given the economy I was really hoping he would take a measured, careful approach and make sure steps could be taken to stabilize the economy and job situation before aggresively pushing new programs. Instead, he immediately dives into a new energy policy via Cap and Trade and now a massive expansion of health care programs. I'm not saying these shouldn't be addressed..I beleve they should, but the timing was bad. Another bit of bad news on the job front was the productivity numbers shot up as reported yesterday..companies are getting by with less employees and have no real incentive to hire at the moment..especially with the unknowns of how much health care is going to cost them.
6 November 2009
at 8:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

” runaway inflation.”

What do you think the quickest way to close the so called “gap between rich and poor” is?

You could level the playing field tomorrow: Here, Merril, Cut and Paste this, it will save you some column inches:

—A Tax on wealth, now. 0% on assets up to 100,000, then 50% on 100,000-1,000,000, 90% on assets over a million.

—Write everyone in group a a check for $1,000,000.

That's the agenda, the rest is just details on how to get there.
6 November 2009
at 8:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gccs14r (Anonymous) says…

If we scrapped the idea of a divided system and went to single payer, there wouldn't be any cost to employers. There would be a spike in unemployment among health insurance company bureaucrats, though.

Double-digit inflation, interest rates, and unempoyment were all expected (at least by me), based on the total mess BushCo made of things in eight years. We have one of the three so far. We'll see if the other two show up.

It's funny that, according to the Republican apologists, everything that happened during Bush's term was Clinton's fault, then when Obama was elected, everything became Obama's fault.
6 November 2009
at 8:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

The republican party are masters at putting millions upon millions upon millions of people out of work. All they do with a remarkable degree of consistency is wreck the economy,initiate huge movements of shipping jobs abroad aka the Reagan-Bush Global Economy and try to wreck social security and medicare.

Is there a definite pattern? Absolutely!

1. The Reagan/ Bush Home Loan Scandal
http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com…

2. The Bush/Cheney Home Loan Scandal
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archiv…

3. What did Bush and Henry Paulson do with the bail out money?
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10…

4. Why did GW Bush Lie About Social Security?( This would cost taxpayers $4 trillion and wreck the economy)
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archiv…
6 November 2009
at 8:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

And right on cue, the linkbot wakes.
6 November 2009
at 8:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

AreUNorml (Anonymous) says…

this is all wrong. impossible i say. Obama said that the government created 400 billion new jobs last week. and that we had only needed to use $150 billion of the job creation stimulus money. so everything is perfect. all you naysayers who don't have jobs are just faking it.
6 November 2009
at 9 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

toe (Anonymous) says…

Change we can believe in. Unbelievable.
6 November 2009
at 9:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…

Many good observations here by LJW neighbors. But, fact remains, and you can not deny this–whoever's fault it is (as anyone should be worrying about that right now) is that this new number is VERY politically toxic for Obama/Pelosi/Reid/Dems…….that is a for sure thing. The “double digit” factor is big, big timey stuff, even though it was only about a .4% percent increase…..still it's all psychological.

6 November 2009
at 9:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says…

Well, it looks like the Barry Joe crystal ball crew needs a lot more training. Cash for Clunkers, unemployment, stimulus package economic impact…

And now we're supposed to believe the $1 trillion price tag on so-called health insurance reform?

Not just no, HELL No!
6 November 2009
at 9:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

AreUNorml (Anonymous) says…

Silly_me (Anonymous) says…
I don't think it is completely fair to blame this on Obama..he did inherit a big mess.
*********************
Stop right there. He did not “inherit” a big mess. He ran for the position. He begged this country to give him this job. He had a better plan. Remember?
I don't completely blame Obama for the mess, because I blame every administration and every congress going back about 100 years. Each one has dug us a little deeper into a problem because of failed social experiments.
6 November 2009
at 9:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KS (Anonymous) says…

What started out as maybe a Bush problem is no more. It is now an Obama problem and will be until it is fixed. Unfortunately, there isn't anyone in Washington that knows how to fix it.
6 November 2009
at 9:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

“Unfortunately, there isn't anyone in Washington that knows how to fix it.”

Had Enough?
6 November 2009
at 9:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

newmedia (Anonymous) says…

Another 190,000 jobs lost last month. 10.2 % unemployment. Why not go ahead and add another 1.2 trillion to the debt with a health care bill that a majority of Americans don't want.

How's that Hope and Change working out for you?
6 November 2009
at 9:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

AreUNorml (Anonymous) says…

who in the world could have imagined…… lol
6 November 2009
at 9:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Thing (Anonymous) says…

2010 can't come too soon!
6 November 2009
at 9:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Stedman (Anonymous) says…

I wish McCain was president. Surely we'd all be driving Audi's to our new six-figure jobs saying “Recession? I don't recall a recession.” all while the announcer on the radio takes calls on how the country should spend the huge budget surplus.

6 November 2009
at 9:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Well, Barck Hussein Obama promised “change”.

You got some change, for sure!
6 November 2009
at 10:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jimo (Anonymous) says…

It's hard to imagine that just yesterday Republicans in Congress were arguing against extending unemployment benefits, saying that it would just encourage shiftlessness and prompt people to hold out for the perfect job (instead of settling on a job).
6 November 2009
at 10:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Wallythewalrus (Anonymous) says…

Change? Any Change? Brother can you spare a dime?
6 November 2009
at 10:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

scott3460 (Anonymous) says…

So the wingers hate stimulus spending to stem the unemployment tide. What, pray tell, would they have done differently to change the numbers? Cut more taxes for the rich? Cut government services further? Started another war?
6 November 2009
at 10:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

“TacoBob, we will have to wait and see if it works, now won't we. I mean, doing nothing wasn't an option. It would be really easy to say it won't work before giving it a chance, but the reality is, you don't know, nor do I, although I hope it does work. Just giving the rich more tax cuts wasn't going to work, as we have learned. But please, think about this — if it works and the economy does recover, will you be upset for being wrong?”

“And remember, this stimulus package to keep Americans working is for less money than Bush gave to Wall Street and bankers. Let us all hope both plans end up working.”

—beatrice

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/feb…
6 November 2009
at 10:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

“So the wingers hate stimulus spending to stem the unemployment tide. What, pray tell, would they have done differently to change the numbers? Cut more taxes for the rich? Cut government services further? Started another war?”

Gee, we're out of power, why do you care what we think? We can criticize, that's our job. It'd be nice if the Leftists thought their job was governing instead of whining about Bush.
6 November 2009
at 10:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

“It's hard to imagine that just yesterday Republicans in Congress were arguing against extending unemployment benefits, saying that it would just encourage shiftlessness and prompt people to hold out for the perfect job (instead of settling on a job).”

Let's extend unemployment benefits to everyone forever, and see if you're theory or the Republican theory makes more sense. I'm guessing widespread starvation year 2.

Let's see some change here people!
6 November 2009
at 10:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

AreUNorml (Anonymous) says…

scott3460. I don't hate stimulus that actually creates jobs. what I hate is that we rushed into a $780 billion dollar stimulus package as a reactionary move, with little thought or intelligence. reminds me of the health care bill. What I really hate about the stimulus is that they haven't even spent $200 billion of it. Why did they need that $780 B to begin with? did they have a plan for it, or did someone just reach in a hat and that's the number they pulled out? What if they had allowed the free market to correct itself instead? Most historians now say that the New Deal actually elongated the great depression. And Japan went through a decade of stagnation because of government intervention in the economy.
and yes, cutting government services further is exactly what I'm proposing. it's wasteful, pocket lining, programs that are not helping America, but in fact hurting America.

6 November 2009
at 11:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

rabb (Anonymous) says…

Last time unemployment was this high, Ronald Reagan was in office. Discuss amongst yourselves. Here's a time line to get you started…

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/t…

Here are more details for you econ majors…

http://www.kansascityfed.org/publicat…
6 November 2009
at 11:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jmadison (Anonymous) says…

What would 2 Trillion dollars in the hands of the taxpayers have done for the economy versus the 2 Trillion dollars in the hands of our political class? We may as well throw the 2 Trillion dollars down a giant rat hole with the politicians running the show.
6 November 2009
at 11:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Isn't it odd each time our nations financial institutions crumble there are Bush family near by and a McCain still in office?

Who has history with financial institutions going south such as the savings and loan scandal? Republicans!
http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com…

McCain: The Most Reprehensible of the Keating Five. The story of “the Keating Five” has become a scandal rivaling Teapot Dome and Watergate …
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1989-1…

“Good Billions After Bad” - One Year After Wall Street Bailout, Pulitzer Winners Barlett and Steele Investigate Where All the Money Went

===========
It’s been exactly one year since the onset of the financial crisis and the passage of the Bush administration’s $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. But what were the factors in deciding who received bailout funds? And what happened to all the money? The answer to those two simple questions is: We don’t know. In a new article in Vanity Fair, the Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative team Donald Barlett and James Steele try to find an answer. The problem is, they write, “once the money left the building, the government lost all track of it.”

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10…

===============
2. The Bush/Cheney Home Loan Scandal
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archiv…

3. What did Bush and Henry Paulson do with the bail out money?
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10…

4. Why did GW Bush Lie About Social Security?( This would cost taxpayers $4 trillion and wreck the economy)
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archiv…
6 November 2009
at 11:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

rabb (Anonymous) says…

Almost forgot about “Star Wars”, began in March 1983, when unemployment was about to peak…

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/rd/…
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategi…
6 November 2009
at 11:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

“Isn't it odd each time our nations financial institutions crumble there are Bush family near by and a McCain still in office?”

Isn't it odd each time our nations financial institutions crumble there are commies nearby?
6 November 2009
at 11:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

slaboribs (Anonymous) says…

Initially, this whole financial mess was the fault of the upper level staff at real estate companies, banks, and home builders. Greed, irresponsibility and looking the other way was the popular tone.

Now, it's the politicians lack of earnest and candor that's building another bubble and a new house of cards.
6 November 2009
at 12:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

“Bubbles involve actual investments in real or financial assets—housing in the years since 2000, high-tech stocks in the 1990s, and Dutch tulips in the 17th century. People invest believing that the price of the assets will continue to rise; as long as people keep investing, the price does rise. Once prices start to fall, panic sets in and the later investors lose.

A bubble is similar to a Ponzi scheme. But there need be no fraudulent operator at the center of a bubble. Also, while a Ponzi scheme depends on people giving their money to someone else to invest (e.g., Madoff), people made their own housing investments—though mortgage companies and banks made large fees for handling these investments.

Often, government plays a role in bubbles. The housing bubble was in part generated by the Federal Reserve maintaining low interest rates. Easy money meant readily obtainable loans and, at least in the short run, low monthly payments. Also, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan denied the housing bubble’s existence—not fraud exactly, but deception that kept the bubble going. (Greenspan, whose view was ideologically driven, got support in his bubble denial from the academic work of the man who was to be his successor, Ben Bernanke.)

In addition, government regulatory agencies turned a blind eye to the highly risky practices of financial firms, practices that both encouraged the development of the bubble and made the impact all the worse when it burst. Moreover, the private rating agencies (e.g., Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s) were complicit. Dependent on the financial institutions for their fees, they gave excessively good ratings to these risky investments. Perhaps not fraud in the legal sense, but certainly misleading.

During the 1990s, the government made tax law changes that contributed to the emergence of the housing bubble. With the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, a couple could gain up to $500,000 selling their home without any capital gains tax liability (half that for a single person). Previously, capital gains taxes could be avoided only if the proceeds were used to buy another home or if the seller was over 55 (and a couple could then avoid taxes only on the first $250,000). So buying and then selling houses became a more profitable operation.

And, yes, substantial fraud was involved. For example, mortgage companies and banks used deceit to get people to take on mortgages when there was no possibility that the borrowers would be able to meet the payments. Not only was this fraud, but this fraud depended on government authorities ignoring their regulatory responsibilities.

So, no, a bubble and a Ponzi scheme are not the same. But they have elements in common. Usually, however, the losers in a Ponzi scheme are simply the direct investors, the schemer’s marks. A bubble like the housing bubble can wreak havoc on all of us. ”
6 November 2009
at 12:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

We're off the chart.

6 November 2009
at 12:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

“We're working as hard as we can to re inflate the bubble, Now watch this drive!”

—Obama
6 November 2009
at 12:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

drake (Anonymous) says…

Hope and change. Hope and change
6 November 2009
at 12:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says…

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

We can criticize, that's our job.
******************************************

Absolutely! Remember, dissent is patriotic. Or at least it was for eight years. Now… ?
6 November 2009
at 12:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says…

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Isn't it odd each time our nations financial institutions crumble there are Bush family near by and a McCain still in office?
*******************************************

Ah, Richard the Spambot dusts off some more moldie oldies from his OCD archive.
6 November 2009
at 12:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

slaboribs (Anonymous) says…

Merrill, Your're right. Credit default swaps and mortgage backed securities executed by financial firms a.k.a. (Wall street) a.k.a. (“now” bank holding companies) brought the financial system to a grinding halt.
They couldn't have done it without the irresponsibility of the banks, real estate companies, and builders finding financing for people who had no business entering into the home purchase agreements in the first place.

The government did indeed turn a blind eye to that becuase they didn't want to anger the hands that feed them.
6 November 2009
at 12:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

Actually, defaults inside the Mortgage Backed Securities brought the financial system to a grinding halt.

What caused the defaults?
6 November 2009
at 12:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

“We're working as hard as we can to re inflate the bubble, Now watch this drive!”

—Obama
6 November 2009
at 1 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

RT@IMAO_
There's only so much the president can do about the economy, but one thing he can do is wait on pushing giant new government programs.

6 November 2009
at 1:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

monkeyhawk (Anonymous) says…

“As head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC], Brooksley Born became alarmed by the lack of oversight of the secretive, multitrillion-dollar over-the-counter derivatives market. Her attempts to regulate derivatives ran into fierce resistance from then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, then-Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and then-Deputy Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, who prevailed upon Congress to stop Born and limit future regulation.

So let's start with September 2008 as we all sat there and watched the economy melting down and heard about things called credit default swaps [CDS]. It wasn't the first time you'd heard of these sophisticated financial instruments. What did you think when you were watching it happen?

It was like my worst nightmare coming true. I had had enormous concerns about the over-the-counter derivatives [OTC] market, including credit default swaps, for a number of years. The market was totally opaque; we now call it the dark market. So nobody really knew what was going on in the market.

And then it became obvious as Lehman Brothers failed, as AIG [American International Group] suddenly appeared to be on the brink of tremendous defaults and turned out had been a major credit default swap dealer and needed hundreds of billions of dollars to keep it alive, the contagion in the marketplace from those failures brought many, many of our biggest financial services companies to the brink of collapse. And it was very frightening.

… How did it happen?

I think it happened because there was no oversight of a very, very big, dynamic, growing market. Market participants don't look out for the public interest. Traditionally, government has had to protect the public interest by overseeing the marketplace and keeping the extreme behavior under some check.

We had no regulation. No federal or state public official had any idea what was going on in those markets, so enormous leverage was permitted, enormous borrowing. There was also little or no capital being put up as collateral for the transactions. All the players in the marketplace were participants and counterparties to one another's contracts. This market had gotten to be over $680 trillion in notional value as of June 2008 when it topped up. I think that was the peak. And that is an enormous market. That's more than 10 times the gross national product of all the countries in the world.”
ttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/interviews/born.html
6 November 2009
at 1:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

“So let's start with September 2008”

Oh yeah. That's where to start. Not 1977.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communit…
6 November 2009
at 1:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

Meanwhile, we blew a trillion dollars on a stimulus that by the White House's numbers, actually made unemployment worse.

Let's print another trillion!
6 November 2009
at 1:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

What a pretty day. I tried to think, 12 people are dead, We've got a major decision to make regarding Afghanistan, Unemployment is off the chart, and We can't get a Swine Flu Shot because Obama apparently picked Brownie (heckuva job, katie) to be HHS director. What would Obama Do? (WWOD?)

Time

For

Golf

!

Had Enough?
6 November 2009
at 1:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

preebo (Anonymous) says…

Unsavoryagent,

The real humor in your comments comes from the fact that you honestly think President Obama, could even remotely say something as vapid and unintelligible as Fmr. President Bush, Aka The Decider. Let's be honest, their not running out to print shirts with Obama-isms. However, they did create a term for your favorite President's winning phrases.

In the interest of actual addressing the topic of this article…
It's clear that the stimulus missed the mark on keeping unemployment out of the double digits, but imagine what it would be like without it. Secondly, anyone, and I do mean ANYONE, who knows anything about economics knows that unemployment numbers are a lagging indicator of economic activity. So this was a long time coming…
Not excusing Obama's White House, but lets be realistic.
Was it Reagan's fault in '83 or Carter's? I'm willing to bet you give Reagan the pass on that one. hmmm. Interesting…
6 November 2009
at 2:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

“I hear that Dr. Joe Medicine Crow was around, and so I want to give a shout-out to that Congressional Medal of Honor* winner. It’s good to see you.”

—Barack Obama Obamateurism of the day, 11/5/2009

“It's clear that the stimulus missed the mark on keeping unemployment out of the double digits, but imagine what it would be like without it”

Why yes, thanks to the White House, we know exactly what it would be without it.

Under 8%
6 November 2009
at 2:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

You're right about '83, we should do what they did then to drop unemployment and interest rates. I can't remember, how many trillion dollars did they flush down the toilet on stimulus in '83?

Wait, they cut taxes? Hmmmmm, that could work! Thanks!
6 November 2009
at 2:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

preebo (Anonymous) says…

Where did you get your numbers? As a matter of fact, they, being Reagan, raised taxes (particularly on the highest tax bracket to 51%) Go ahead, I'll wait while you look it up…

As for the 8% unemployment? Where on Earth did you get that number?

6 November 2009
at 2:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

preebo (Anonymous) says…

Interest rates are already at record lows, so… Next?
If you look at the average tax rate in 1979 it was actually lower than in 1983, hmmm.

Still waiting on your 8% figures for unemployment in 2009…
6 November 2009
at 2:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

Scroll

Up

Been

There

Since

8:20 AM

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/mo…
6 November 2009
at 2:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

“Where did you get your numbers? As a matter of fact, they, being Reagan, raised taxes (particularly on the highest tax bracket to 51%) Go ahead, I'll wait while you look it up…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemp-Rot…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Refo…

Result:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia…

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfac…

enjoy
6 November 2009
at 2:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

“phased-in 23% cut in individual tax rates; top rate dropped from 70% to 50%”

then

“The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28%”

Unemployment fell from 10 to 5%

Federal revenues rose 22 odd percent in his 8 years.

Did you see that?

Are you there? Uh oh, is that the sound of a 20 year old's illusions crashing down around us?
6 November 2009
at 2:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

scott3460 (Anonymous) says…

“Gee, we're out of power, why do you care what we think? We can criticize, that's our job.”

That's your job if your an advocate of two party gridlock. Many Americans wish, in the words of our President, that those in your party would pick up a mop, instead of carping from the sidelines.
6 November 2009
at 2:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

I would, but mopping with that mop he's got is just spreading the s*** all around. We're better off telling him to get a mop and some nice clean water and hope for change.
6 November 2009
at 2:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

The mop is printing money, which is the most regressive taxation ever devised:

Inflation. The elderly and poor pay most.

“Grab a mop!”

—Obama

“It's not a mop, and you're not wearing any clothes”

—me
6 November 2009
at 2:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Low Road to High Finance:

McClatchy Expose Reveals How Goldman Sachs Sold Off Billions in Mortgage Securities After Anticipating Housing Collapse

A five-month investigation by McClatchy Newspapers has revealed that Goldman Sachs made secret bets against the housing market while simultaneously selling off billions in soon-to-be worthless securities.

In 2006 and 2007, the bank reportedly peddled more than $40 billion in securities backed by at least 200,000 risky home mortgages, but never told the buyers it was secretly betting that a sharp drop in US housing prices would send the value of those securities plummeting.

We speak to McClatchy reporter Greg Gordon.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/4…

6 November 2009
at 3 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

scott3460 (Anonymous) says…

You bring your own mop and the quality is dependent upon your skills. I guess many in your party prefer carping to working. Telling.
6 November 2009
at 3:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

“You bring your own mop and the quality is dependent upon your skills”

My mop is get government out of the way. That mop is currently illegal.
6 November 2009
at 3:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

http://www.bigrivermagazine.com/br.st…
6 November 2009
at 3:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

edjayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Its Obama's fault. Everything that is wrong or a problem is Obama's fault. I forgot to put gas in my car-Obama's fault. I didn't get my unemployment extension-Obama's fault. (Actually the state of kansas fault).

What a pretty day. I tried to think, 12 people are dead, We've got a major decision to make regarding Afghanistan, Unemployment is off the chart, and We can't get a Swine Flu Shot because Obama apparently picked Brownie (heckuva job, katie) to be HHS director. What would Obama Do? (WWOD?)

Yes its all Obama's fault.
6 November 2009
at 3:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

Interestingly, you are free to continue using your s*** covered mop in my world.
6 November 2009
at 3:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

scott3460 (Anonymous) says…

“My mop is get government out of the way. That mop is currently illegal.”

Sounds familiar. Oh yeah, the philosphy of george w. bush and the republicans for the last 8 years. That sure worked well. What is it, exactly that you think the government is standing in the way of? And what do you claim is illegal?
6 November 2009
at 3:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

I'd like to see where Bush and the republicans got government out of my way.

“And what do you claim is illegal?”

Owning the fruits of my labor. Buying the lightbulb I want or the toilet I want. Soon the LCD I want. Driving the car I want. Paying my employees what they and I agree to. yadda yadda
6 November 2009
at 3:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ShePrecedes (Anonymous) says…

What a nice Bush legacy!!
Let's give Bush thanks.

6 November 2009
at 3:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ShePrecedes (Anonymous) says…

Unsavoryagent, while I am not an Obama fan, I must say that many economic models call for stimulus $s to pull a country out of recessions.

It is the money spent on wars that we didn't need that you should be witching about.
6 November 2009
at 3:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Clinton and democrats in no way implemented the housing bubble. Their idea was to create more opportunities for home owners. They had no idea that Bush/Cheney/Paulson
would create this fraudulent scheme……although they should have considering history.
http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com…

“Then Bush-Cheney-Paulson came along with their criminal minds. They decided to not give a damn what mortgage lenders did so long as Wall Street banks were doing well even if FRAUD was part of the deal.

A bubble is similar to a Ponzi scheme: early participants can do well while later ones incur losses; it is based on false expectations; and it ultimately falls apart. But there need be no fraudulent operator at the center of a bubble. Also, while a Ponzi scheme depends on people giving their money to someone else to invest (e.g., Madoff), people made their own housing investments—though mortgage companies and banks made large fees for handling these investments.

The housing bubble was in part generated by the Federal Reserve maintaining low interest rates. Easy money meant readily obtainable loans and, at least in the short run, low monthly payments. Also, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan denied the housing bubble’s existence—not fraud exactly, but deception that kept the bubble going. (Greenspan, whose view was ideologically driven, got support in his bubble denial from the academic work of the man who was to be his successor, Ben Bernanke.)

In addition, government regulatory agencies turned a blind eye to the highly risky practices of financial firms, practices that both encouraged the development of the bubble and made the impact all the worse when it burst. Moreover, the private rating agencies (e.g., Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s) were complicit. Dependent on the financial institutions for their fees, they gave excessively good ratings to these risky investments. Perhaps not fraud in the legal sense, but certainly misleading.

During the 1990s, the government made tax law changes that contributed to the emergence of the housing bubble. With the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, a couple could gain up to $500,000 selling their home without any capital gains tax liability (half that for a single person). Previously, capital gains taxes could be avoided only if the proceeds were used to buy another home or if the seller was over 55 (and a couple could then avoid taxes only on the first $250,000). So buying and then selling houses became a more profitable operation.

And, yes, substantial fraud was involved. For example, mortgage companies and banks used deceit to get people to take on mortgages when there was no possibility that the borrowers would be able to meet the payments. Not only was this fraud, but this fraud depended on government authorities ignoring their regulatory responsibilities.

A bubble like the housing bubble can wreak havoc on all of us.”
6 November 2009
at 3:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

“Unsavoryagent, while I am not an Obama fan, I must say that many economic models call for stimulus $s to pull a country out of recessions.”

“It is the money spent on wars that we didn't need that you should be witching about.”

Ever read about the great depression?
6 November 2009
at 3:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

“Unsavoryagent, while I am not an Obama fan, I must say that many economic models call for stimulus $s to pull a country out of recessions.”

How's that working? You know, the models are gone, we're living in the thing. Here was the model:

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/mo…

We're not even on that chart.

I'm declaring the model is crap. If y'all don't want to believe that, enjoy mopping, but I am…

R
O
F
L
M
A
O
6 November 2009
at 3:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Mortgage Meltdown by Bush admin
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/15…

( Jeb Bush and George Walker were on the payroll of Lehman Bros when it went down)
6 November 2009
at 3:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

Merrill, why are Barney Frank and Tim Geithner trying to reinflate your bubble?

Why bring Clinton into this?

Wait, are you a real person?
6 November 2009
at 3:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

Hey merrill, care to comment on the unemployment numbers? They are worse than Obama said they'd be without the trillion.
6 November 2009
at 3:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

“I guess many in your party prefer carping to working.”
I seem to recall a remarkable amount of carping from the sinister side of the aisle between Jan 20, 2001 and Jan 20, 2009.

6 November 2009
at 3:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

How would Obama know exactly how any numbers would look. He had know idea Bush/Cheney/Paulson has rigged up a fraudulent Wall Street Banking scheme much less know he would be responsible for replacing 8 million jobs and that number is climbing.

Obama cannot be responsible for this mess that set the entire world economy tumbling.
6 November 2009
at 3:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

“Those Hit Hardest Get No Bailout”

Taxpayers’ bailout money for AIG bonuses has rightfully provoked a massive backlash against AIG, Wall Street, President Barack Obama and his economic advisers, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers. The U.S. public now owns 80 percent of AIG. The outrage is bipartisan: Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley even suggested that AIG executives “resign or go commit suicide.” New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo just released details on the bonuses, exposing AIG’s ridiculous claim that they are “retention bonuses” aimed at keeping key employees, since 11 of those who received bonuses of $1 million or more are no longer employed by AIG.

These AIG millionaires may need to return their unearned millions (Congress may pass a tax law aimed just at them, taxing their bonuses at 100 percent). But will the outrage help those who have been hardest hit by the economic meltdown? Will the hundreds of millions of dollars in various stimulus packages and bailouts find its way to regular people who are trying to get by, or will it go only to corporations deemed “too big to fail,” leaving behind millions of people who are, apparently, small enough to fail?

The Center for Social Inclusion has just issued a report on the economic meltdown and how best to solve the problem. It links race to the lack of opportunity and to the prevalence of the notorious subprime mortgages that triggered the economic crisis.

CSI Executive Director Maya Wiley told me, “We have to stimulate equality in order to stimulate the economy.” Access to education, transportation, housing and a clean environment give people a firm footing to respond to crisis and to succeed. Noting that “shovel-ready” stimulus jobs in construction will disproportionately favor those who are already in that industry, predominantly white males, Wiley is pushing for “community benefits agreements for construction jobs [that] ensure when the government has construction contracts, low-income people, people of color, women, are going to have their fair share of those jobs.” Since people of color are more likely to live far from available jobs and are less likely to have cars, Wiley says, “we must ensure that the way transportation dollars get spent go to transit … to connect people who need jobs to the places where there are jobs.”

The group United for a Fair Economy also highlights the racial wealth divide, noting that “24 percent of blacks and 21 percent of Latinos are in poverty, versus 8 percent of whites. In the corporate world, we are seeing the highest executive pay and the biggest bailouts in history. CEO pay is 344 times that of the average worker.”

Obama has surrounded himself with financial advisers who are too cozy with Wall Street, like Summers and Geithner. It’s time to direct the stimulus to the people who need it, to those whose tax dollars are funding it.
6 November 2009
at 4:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

“Obama cannot be responsible for this mess that set the entire world economy tumbling.”

OK Wesley Mouch, that would have been good to know about a year ago.

Next year, lets elect some reps who will be responsible.

Had enough of “Obama cannot be responsible?”
6 November 2009
at 4:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

edjayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Hey merrill, care to comment on the unemployment numbers?

I will. Those numbers would be the same if McCain was in. He has no magic wand. Jobs aren't being created because they are now permanently gone. The CEO's raided the pantry so jobs had to be cut to keep the companies afloat. At least Obama tried something instead of wondering around with his pants down like the Republicans.
6 November 2009
at 4:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jayhawklawrence (Anonymous) says…

The inability of our government to work together and do what is best for the American people instead of fighting each other like pigs at the feed trough is a big part of what caused people to get so scared they all hunkered down and the economy skidded to a stop.

Isn't that about as obvious as the smell at a feedlot.
6 November 2009
at 5:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sulla (Anonymous) says…

Build more fast food and pizza joints;get rid of the minimum wage and do away with child/safety labor laws then the unemployment rate will be about zero in no time .They didn't have any problems with unemployment in the 19th Century when gold was as good as gold, the youngins worked sun up to sun down, and most of all Gawd was in our public schools and they didn't teach kids that they were monkeys…
6 November 2009
at 6:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blue73harley (Anonymous) says…

My booze and ammo supply is up 10%. Life is good.
6 November 2009
at 7:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…

” At least Obama tried something instead of wondering around with his pants down like the Republicans.”

By his own admission, Obama “trying something” (with a trillion dollars of my grandkid's money) was worse than not trying anything.

Mission Accomplished: 10.4%

Had enough?

6 November 2009
at 7:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says…

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Low Road to High Finance:

McClatchy Expose Reveals How Goldman Sachs Sold Off Billions in Mortgage Securities After Anticipating Housing Collapse
****************************************

Hey, Richard, where did former NJ governor Corzine make his money?
6 November 2009
at 7:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says…

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Mortgage Meltdown by Bush admin
*********************************************

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4…
6 November 2009
at 8:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…

So Obama extends UE bennies in lieu of the 4.5 million jobs he promised that are not there? Again, when will people wake up to the fact we have made an error in electing this man?

Those of you who voted for him, do you feel sorta like Diane Keaton in “Looking For Mr. Goodbar”? Especially the conversation (or lack thereof) in the car scene?
6 November 2009
at 9:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Joe Biden; some people's vice-president, is a born-again halfwit!

Joe said:

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009…

“The truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy,” Biden told me [George Stephanopoulos]. . .

Biden acknowledged administration officials were too optimistic earlier this year when they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at 8 percent as part of their effort to sell the stimulus package. The national unemploymnet rate has ballooned to 9.5 percent in June — the worst in 26 years.”

Marion writes:

What kind of administration hires halfwits?
6 November 2009
at 10:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ComradeRedRooster (Anonymous) says…

The Obama regime and its neo-marxists have really screwed up. 10%….WOW!

Obama is at fault, he promised money to anyone and everyone, no work required. Now you have people taking him up on his offer.

Obama = pathetic
7 November 2009
at 4:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

VoiceOfReason (Anonymous) says…

Hey! Where'd Preebo go? I was really looking forward to his explanation about those tax rates he thought he knew so much about. C'mon…enlighten us about the 81 and 85 tax “increases”.
7 November 2009
at 1:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jimo (Anonymous) says…

“Let's extend unemployment benefits to everyone forever, and see if you're theory or the Republican theory makes more sense. I'm guessing widespread starvation year 2.”

Stupidest, most irrelevant, non-reality comment so far this month.
7 November 2009
at 5:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ComradeRedRooster (Anonymous) says…

Obama is going to wait until the unemployment rate gets to 15% and then open work camps. Arbeit Macht Frei

7 November 2009
at 8:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

“CSI Executive Director Maya Wiley told me,…”
Really? She said that to you, merrill? Or are you just back into doing copy/paste without revealing your sources again?