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.
People falling off the unemployment rolls that number of 9% is wrong.. if they counted all that went on welfare or just had to live on one paycheck the number would be in the double digits , probably @ 15% or higher.
It is as wrong or correct as it has been for decades. Why do you think we had 5% unemployment rate between Jan 2001 and Jan 2008 when the private sector jobs grew at a third the pace compared to labor force? All but people with the habit of suffering with Ostrich Syndrome should have been aware of that then, as they claim to do now.
Besides, there is always hoping to economy getting worse so republicans can win elections. No?
People falling off the unemployment rolls that number of 9% is wrong.. if they counted all that went on welfare or just had to live on one paycheck the number would be in the double digits , probably @ 15% or higher.
I know. Obama's policies are essentially aborting millions of people from the US workforce, which makes the U2 numbers look better for his speeches. The U6 figures show the true tragic state of affairs in this Obama calamity, we are forced to call our US economy.
It is as wrong or correct as it has been for decades. Why do you think we had 5% unemployment rate between Jan 2001 and Jan 2008 when the private sector jobs grew at a third the pace compared to labor force? All but people with the habit of suffering with Ostrich Syndrome should have been aware of that then, as they claim to do now.
Besides, there is always hoping to economy getting worse so republicans can win elections. No?
We don't have to hope things get bad, they are bad. Obama claimed this was "the worst economy since the Great Depression", back in 2008, and its only gotten worse. Obama has nothing positive to run on for reelection; even if he got the economy back to where it was when he took office, it would still be "the worst economy since the Great Depression".
We don't have to hope things get bad, they are bad. Obama claimed this was "the worst economy since the Great Depression", back in 2008, and its only gotten worse. Obama has nothing positive to run on for reelection; even if he got the economy back to where it was when he took office, it would still be "the worst economy since the Great Depression".
Well, you and the rest of y'all do hope that the economy sucks, the more the merrier. Having said that, do you disagree that 2007-2009 recession wasn't one of the worst since the Great Depression? If you do, on what grounds? If you don't, why are you whining about the statement?
Clearly you're biased. This whole post is "Obama is right, Republicans are wrong." And you have the gall to say his "backers" are the middle class? How about union thuggery and the Big Payoff that was the "stimulus?" Unbelievable.
Do you realize that Obama himself is raiding Social Security with the payroll tax decrease, but yet Social Security is a Sacred Cow to Democrats!
Actually as long as the payroll tax reduction is temporary, it will have minor implications for the long-term health of Social Security.
Regarding the stimulus and your concern over "union thuggery and the Big Payoff," (a claim which has so little merit I shouldn't dignify it) it's important to see where the stimulus money went.
The stimulus was $788 billion, of which $300 billion were tax cuts; leaving the remaining $500 billion of spending, spread over more than 2 years. What was that $500 billion? Extrapolating from BEA data, aid to state and local governments was about $250 billion; aid to individuals (mainly unemployment insurance and food stamps): $140 billion and everything else about $100 billion. So where is the union thuggery? Is that providing aid to the states who then gave it to local communities so they didn't have to fire needed teachers and police? Or is it that construction workers may have been unionized?
And bear this in mind: no country has driven itself into a debt crisis with stimulus — nor has any country with significant debt regained investor confidence through austerity.
Actually as long as the payroll tax reduction is temporary, it will have minor implications for the long-term health of Social Security.
Regarding the stimulus and your concern over "union thuggery and the Big Payoff," (a claim which has so little merit I shouldn't dignify it) it's important to see where the stimulus money went.
The stimulus was $788 billion, of which $300 billion were tax cuts; leaving the remaining $500 billion of spending, spread over more than 2 years. What was that $500 billion? Extrapolating from BEA data, aid to state and local governments was about $250 billion; aid to individuals (mainly unemployment insurance and food stamps): $140 billion and everything else about $100 billion. So where is the union thuggery? Is that providing aid to the states who then gave it to local communities so they didn't have to fire needed teachers and police? Or is it that construction workers may have been unionized?
And bear this in mind: no country has driven itself into a debt crisis with stimulus — nor has any country with significant debt regained investor confidence through austerity.
You're very obtuse in your cheering for this Administration. By saying that state local governments received $250 billion without also acknowledging that those funds were intended for public employee union's and other union bureaucrats shows you have zero interest in acknowledging the facts on the ground. Are you doing this intentionally?
Again, why should we accept your analysis when clearly you feel that this Administration and Democrats can do no wrong?
You're very obtuse in your cheering for this Administration. By saying that state local governments received $250 billion without also acknowledging that those funds were intended for public employee union's and other union bureaucrats shows you have zero interest in acknowledging the facts on the ground. Are you doing this intentionally?
Again, why should we accept your analysis when clearly you feel that this Administration and Democrats can do no wrong?
Mark Hemingway: Mandatory PLAs put tax dollars into union coffers | Mark Hemingway | Columnists | Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2010/12/mark-hemingway-mandatory-plas-put-tax-dollars-union-coffers - broken link)
Oh, I'm very critical of the Administration. I'm just not buying into your narrative that the stimulus' purpose was to give money to cronies. I got stimulus money to put solar panels on my roof and I never spoke to Obama nor am I a union member.
Since more money went to general tax-cuts and private contractors than union employees, it discredits the argument.
Besides, if the stimulus money saves teachers and police why should anyone care whether those teachers and police were unionized? It's a deflection to point fault where there isn't any.
Reading your link from Mark Hemingway at the Weekly Standard declare that the stimulus failed is all I needed to read to dismiss anything else he said. The meme that the stimulus failed is just plain wrong.
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.
