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.
Well, I guess at least someone's benefitting from all this economic mess. The banks sure made a killing, LOL. How long they can hold their gains is the real question. I'm at ground zero and I can tell you that the big banks are on borrowed time. To make a long story short, kiss goodbye to every major bank in the USA. The regional ones will probably make it but Bank of America, Wells Fargo, HSBC, Chase, Citigroup, etc. are all going down. That'll definetly put a dent in the housing market; if you have less banks that can make mortgages, how on earth will people be able to buy homes? That's not counting how much $$$$ will be lost when the big banks kick the bucket. I wrote a thread a couple of months ago about how housing prices would fall down to the price of a used car and I wasn't saying that to be funny.
As far as the Great Depression is concerned, yes that was a nightmare for a lot of people. Anyone who has nostalgia for that time period is insane in my opinion. People did whatever they could to survive even if it meant taking someone else's head off. Crime was rampant, domestic violence was a huge problem, disease would spread (influenza spread around the WWI time period and probably killed more people than the war itself), there were civil uprisings, etc...it's fantasy to think that life back then was nicer or more desirable.
And of course the USA has an economic and legal system designed to suck wealth out of the people. Isn't that obvious?
Well said.
Ill be 18 by november 6th and i will proudly vote for Romney and help FIX THIS ECONOMY! Romney has the expertise to fix this economy. Obamas attacks on Bain Capital are disguisting and Anti-American. which any true American will vote against Obama and for Romney. Heck look at Romneys campaign slogan. Believe in America.
Very good campaign slogan i have to say.
Don't buy too much into campaign slogans. Obama's line was "Hope and Change." We see where that got us.
I'm more of a Paul man myself. Romney is too much of a bland milquetoast and seems like a pushover, but given the alternative (Obama) I will vote for Romney without hesitation.
Romney is too much of a bland milquetoast and seems like a pushover...
I will vote for Romney without hesitation.
Hahaha!
Quote:
Don't buy too much into campaign slogans.
Good advice.
Quote:
Obama's line was "Hope and Change." We see where that got us.
That slogan was coined LONG LONG before the debacle of the Bush was revealed.
The "Hope and Change" had NOTHING to do with what turned out to be the main job he had put in his lap on 1/21/09.
He wasn't my first choice either but on that score though... he's done pretty well.
Fantastically well if you consider the forces against him getting anything done.
You don't have to like this truth but it still remains a truth.
The larger lesson to be learned here (if you're willing to look) is to question just how many of the jobs
that were lost in the wake of the Bush economic collapse were actually needed and productive?
The answer is not very encouraging for the unemployed today...
but this still isn't something that a President can fix on his own.
Last edited by MrRational; 06-03-2012 at 10:18 AM..
Don't buy too much into campaign slogans. Obama's line was "Hope and Change." We see where that got us.
I'm more of a Paul man myself. Romney is too much of a bland milquetoast and seems like a pushover, but given the alternative (Obama) I will vote for Romney without hesitation.
Romney is a butt puppet like the rest of them, but it's a matter of selecting option A (which we have clearly had enough of), or the mystery box (Romney). I just hope he doesn't turn out to be a sorry case of "just when you thought it couldn't get any worse!"...
And yes, Ron Paul was clearly the most well spoken, common sense choice available. That's exactly why he didn't stand a chance.
So, we have geniuses here saying that since people are not starving in the streets, it's not as bad as the Great Depression... and the same people think that we need to cut the social safety nets to "force people to work?!" So, basically these puffed-up dolts *want* it to get as bad as the Great Depression! .
Hello, in the Great Depression, People had NEITHER safety net NOR work. 25% were unemployed, and in a society where women were almost never counted in the workforce. Now we are at 8.2%, 11ish if one counts discouraged 4 mill who stopped trying under the Community Organizer, but that still means there were 2.25 times as many per million unemployed in the Great depression than now. And NO ONE is talking about eliminating (base) ui. The talk now concerns extended ui. Grandpa had NEITHER.
So stop the tear jerker friendly, inaccurate comparisons.
11ish?? Try 18ish!!
As I said, underlying numbers...PLUS, it's not over yet! That 25% statistic you love to quote so much didn't happen until 1934, five years in.
11ish?? Try 18ish!!
As I said, underlying numbers...PLUS, it's not over yet! That 25% statistic you love to quote so much didn't happen until 1934, five years in.
18 includes the underemployed. Unemployed would be the 8.2 percent plus those who quit trying (4 mill under BO, divide that by 150 mill workforce , and it adds 2.7 percent)
The other 7 pct of the U6 are employed, but either p/t or at lower level jobs than desired.
25% from Great Depression were not employed in any manner.
Hello, in the Great Depression, People had NEITHER safety net NOR work. 25% were unemployed, and in a society where women were almost never counted in the workforce. Now we are at 8.2%, 11ish if one counts discouraged 4 mill who stopped trying under the Community Organizer, but that still means there were 2.25 times as many per million unemployed in the Great depression than now. And NO ONE is talking about eliminating (base) ui. The talk now concerns extended ui. Grandpa had NEITHER.
So stop the tear jerker friendly, inaccurate comparisons.
Hahaha... The real unemployment rate is close to 20% and I have no idea why you're assuming that everyone is just sitting around and refusing to work. You hate the unemployed - we get that - and you think that they are all "lazy" or some nonsense. So, Grandpa was lazy, too, since he didn't have a job? Or, do you insanely believe that having a social safety net is making people lazy and if we just kicked everyone out on the streets, magically we'd have plenty of jobs and everyone would be able to work again? Hahaha... wow! Based on that logic, if we cut funding for firefighters and police, we'd have fewer fires and less crime! Wow!
The jobs are GONE - you just can't accept that - and the unemployed aren't the ones who made them vanish. The unemployed are also not the ones who profited from the gutting of our nation. You have a lot of anger, but you're really focusing it on the wrong people.
Hahaha... The real unemployment rate is close to 20% and I have no idea why you're assuming that everyone is just sitting around and refusing to work. You hate the unemployed - we get that - and you think that they are all "lazy" or some nonsense. So, Grandpa was lazy, too, since he didn't have a job? Or, do you insanely believe that having a social safety net is making people lazy and if we just kicked everyone out on the streets, magically we'd have plenty of jobs and everyone would be able to work again? Hahaha... wow! Based on that logic, if we cut funding for firefighters and police, we'd have fewer fires and less crime! Wow!
The jobs are GONE - you just can't accept that - and the unemployed aren't the ones who made them vanish. The unemployed are also not the ones who profited from the gutting of our nation. You have a lot of anger, but you're really focusing it on the wrong people.
It all boils down to the attitude of "blame the American people".
They're fat, they're lazy, uneducated, they don't get involved, they voted for the wrong guy, they lived beyond their means, they're spoiled little brats, they feel entitled, they have no work ethic, watch reality shows, play video games, have babies, won't clean toilets, want unions, eat fast food, hate successful people, on and on and on and on...
Last edited by cadillackid; 06-03-2012 at 01:29 PM..
I am simply stating facts. This is not nearly as bad as the Great depression. It's very severe for a recession, and it is also the new normal. I do think 99 weeks was over the top, and created permanently unemployable people. While total jobs went unaffected, it would have been healthier to offer perhaps 52 weeks, and we'd see fewer 99ers, hundreds of thousands or more of whom would have been reemployed. The 99 weeks IMO made the "already working bonus" in terms of being attractive to employers for new positions even larger. Meaning, folks switching jobs are getting hired faster as the ui rate drops, more than unemployed getting jobs. The rate dropped as many long-term quit trying (4 mill under Obama).
Studies published in the Times documented the dropoff rate in hiring by unemployment duration well. Anyone unemployed should be reading those religiously to avoid the pitfalls of l/t unemployment. the haircut after years out will most likely vastly exceed the haircut posibility of the shorter-term unemployed.
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.
