Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
dooms day talk-- too negative- there is still a lot of good things happening here that are better than anywhere in the world- unhappy- please feel free to get a passport- do we need changes? - sure!! mankind soon will get some terrific slap by Mother nature or God himself and straighten some of us out- but go visit foreign lands BUT live with THEIR income, and come back and post
The change will not affect how the unemployed are counted or the unemployment rate is computed nor how long those eligible for unemployment benefits receive them.
The article is about a change in the form, not a change in the method of counting.
Our economy is a failure. We borrow money to consume products manufactured abroad. Almost all the wealth in the United States was created decades ago when we had a real economy.
Our criminal justice system is a failure. It's a big money making scheme, many players involved.
Our education system is a failure. It's a disguised form a daycare for kids age 5-30.
Do I even need to discuss our failed political system? Of course a system is going to fail when we let people on welfare have the same vote as people who produce for society.
Welcome to 1976 and the Carter years, only on steroids.
Quote:
Originally Posted by West of Encino
America has become a nation of zombies.
Correction: America has become a nation of progressives. They care more about the word (progressive is such a great word) than the actual result. Like children who are patted on the back for bad behavior and told "how good they are"
Looking at employment rates is looking at the wrong angle. There were a lot of full-time jobs lost, but they were offset by a greater number of part-time jobs created.
Who cares if there are more jobs if the net result is less pay and less benefits? That is not a positive economic direction.
It is positive from the perspective of 2008. I think folks who are simply employed care that they are no longer unemployed.
If you are expecting the roaring 90s or whatever, technolgy and globalization has made developed countries stagnate while the rest of the world catches up.
Our economy is a failure. We borrow money to consume products manufactured abroad. Almost all the wealth in the United States was created decades ago when we had a real economy.
Our criminal justice system is a failure. It's a big money making scheme, many players involved.
Our education system is a failure. It's a disguised form a daycare for kids age 5-30.
Do I even need to discuss our failed political system? Of course a system is going to fail when we let people on welfare have the same vote as people who produce for society.
The Unemployment was adjusted to include MORE people listed as unemployed under Obama. That actually boaster Obama's case. I was not going to touch on that little bit of fact because I don't think it makes much of a difference in the end. But kudos for supporting Obama on this one.
You like to take credit away from Obama by saying unemployment always drops after a recession, but when wages are also stagnant due to the same reason; you like to pretend it's an earth chattering failing.
The problem for you is that the Left can spot holes in your argument from miles away, but of course, they are able to poke all kinds of holes in your logic.... but they don't know what they're talking about. Sure.
.
Your problem is you somehow believe the goernment can jumpstart an economy, when in reality, the only thing they can do is REMOVE money from the economy, in order to spend it, or devalue the currency, by printing more.
Neither scenario is good for the public sector.
Even the CBO admitted that the stimulus bill, would result in lower than what would have taken place beginning in a few years because all of that money has to be reversed, with interest.
You can ignore FACTS, but that doesnt make them not true.
If the Democratic economic strategy actually worked, areas with large government expenditures due to poverty, would turn around and become thriving metropolitan areas.. But they dont.. slums remain slums, no matter how much welfare you pump into them.
America is in MUCH better shape today than it was eight years ago. Maybe you're too young to remember.
You sound like a Trump voter.
I predict deep disappointment.
No question this country is much better off then we were under the dark years of Bush/Cheney. They ran this country into the ground and it may take years more to fix what they wrecked. Pres. Obama has done a good job of turning the ship around, but there is still much left to do.
Your problem is you somehow believe the goernment can jumpstart an economy, when in reality, the only thing they can do is REMOVE money from the economy, in order to spend it, or devalue the currency, by printing more.
Neither scenario is good for the public sector.
If you believe the government cannot jump start an economy, then you have few reasons to vote for Trump over Hillary. At the very least, Hillary can make sure the train runs on time; Trump on the other hand, has no experience and no workable idea he can take to Capital Hill.
The government can jump start an economy, our economy is proof. The thing is, it needs the private sector to pick up the momentum, which it is struggling to do so in some parts of the country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Even the CBO admitted that the stimulus bill, would result in lower than what would have taken place beginning in a few years because all of that money has to be reversed, with interest.
You can ignore FACTS, but that doesnt make them not true.
We know that. It's not a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
If the Democratic economic strategy actually worked, areas with large government expenditures due to poverty, would turn around and become thriving metropolitan areas.. But they dont.. slums remain slums, no matter how much welfare you pump into them.
I don't know what you thought the Democratic economic strategy is, but it is to facilitate private investment with low interest rate. Which worked wonderfully in many metropolitan cities. So well that they are now facing a different problem - too much wealth too soon driving up prices.
Slums don't necessary remain slums in these cities - they gentrify and become middle class or affluent neighborhoods. There is gentrification wars going on, but that's a different topic.
.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
