Say Anything: Jobless Rate Jumps To 7.6%, Democrats And Media Jump To Exploit Panic
The Whistler
· 10 months ago
Wow, businesses are really laying off employees to prepare for the Obama economy.
Rob
· 10 months ago
That's a good point.
How many people are tightening their budgets, and pulling investments out of the market, before the Democrats get a chance to tax everything in sight?
SigFan
· 10 months ago
I talked to a wealthy friend the other day and asked what he was dong given current conditions. Resulted in a long discussion but the upshot was, off-shore and bury.
Almanack
· 10 months ago
I think that some companies are using this economic slowdown as an opportunity to get rid of some of their under perfoming "dead wood."
sanity
· 10 months ago
Thought that was a picture of Kwame Kilpatrick (Detroit's ex-mayor) at first.
[chuckling]
Bat One
· 10 months ago
[quote]Thought that was a picture of Kwame Kilpatrick (Detroit's ex-mayor) at first.[/quote]
Before he was elected... or after he was tossed out of office?
sanity
· 10 months ago
After he was tossed out.
Lyn
· 10 months ago
"the job climate is deteriorating...with no end in sight" that is just not true. Or maybe it is now that Obama is president.
I don't know what February 2009 and March 2009 employment numbers will look like. But I am SURE the Obama regime will use the figures for something. If there is improvement he can gloat. If things get worse he can dictate another spending stimulus enema for America.
A fellow commenter made a clever observation above. Some firms are probably just using the current climate as an excuse to make cutbacks they have long wanted to make. Now they feel they can get away with it. I agree with that. These firms are probably telling laid-off workers to blame Rush Limbaugh, too.
dfwpike
· 10 months ago
[quote]Recession-battered employers eliminated 598,000 jobs in January, the most since the end of 1974...[/quote]
Statements and statistics like this by the media are misleading because they're comparing 2009 to [b]35 years ago[/b]. The labor pool now is much larger than it was in 1974.
DINO
· 10 months ago
Wow. The most jobs lost since 1974. Well, you know what a disaster that Carter was.
What was that? Carter didn't take office until 1977? Then who was Prez in 74? Nixon? A republican? But I thought it was Utopia before Carter?
And you say that the next huge job loss was in 1982? Well, that Carter!
What? You say Reagan was Prez in 82? A republican? But I thought the republicans presided over the good times?
The next big recession with a large loss of jobs was when? 1991? Yeah, that Clinton! What a loser!
What? Bush was Prez then? A republican?
Anybody see a freakin pattern here? Anyone? Stems?
Bat One
· 10 months ago
[quote]How many people are tightening their budgets, and pulling investments out of the market, before the Democrats get a chance to tax everything in sight?[/quote]
Rob,
Excellent point! Checked the prices on Treasuries and tax-free Munis since Obama was elected?
Hannitized
· 10 months ago
Who cares about those 590,000 people who lost their jobs in this month alone? It is fear mongering to talk about it negatively.
What a dip-shit.
Carrick
· 10 months ago
Dino the dim stem:
Wow. The most jobs lost since 1974. Well, you know what a disaster that Carter was.
Better brush up on your math skills a bit.
Apples to oranges again. The job pool is much larger now than in 1974.
Secondly, we are still in 1993-recession levels in terms of % unemployment.
And Carter was a complete disaster. Compare our overall economic numbers to his, and we're sitting pretty in comparison. Thank you for admitting it.
Carrick
· 10 months ago
Dino:
Anybody see a freakin pattern here?
You ignoring reality? That's the correct answer.
The worst recession in the last 50 years started in 1980, while that unmitigated disaster of a president of yours was in office.
Bat One
· 10 months ago
H,
You and I haven't mixed it up in a few months, and I undestand you've tried to turn over a new leaf in honor of witless rookie in the White House. So, here's a chance to show your sincerity:
Please demonstrate which [i]specific[/i] parts of the Obama "stimulus" package will put those laid off autoworkers back to work. And laid off bankers. And all those personnel who were laid off when Home Depot, Lowes, and other such retailers cut back on the number of stores. Or other retailers such as Circuit City, Linens and Things, Macys, and the like who have also cut back?
What part of the Obama bill will rejuvenate the housing market, or the commercial construction business?
The Obama bill is available on-line. Please provide some examples of how all those huge deficits... two, three, and four times the size of the Bush deficits you decried so vigorously last year... are actually going to give those folks who have lost them, their jobs back?
You are certainly not the blithering ignoramus that Dino and Jack are, and I know that unlike them you actually know quite a bit about economics and business, so please, give it a shot, and demonstrate how all those deficits... as far as the eye can see... will get those people their jobs back.
Proof
· 10 months ago
[quote]The most jobs lost since 1974. Well, you know what a disaster that Carter was. [/quote]In sheer numbers, yes. As a [b]percentage[/b] of the workforce, the biggest loss since [b][i]1992[/i][/b].
Hmm. Who was president [i]then?[/i]
Hannitized
· 10 months ago
Bat,
Thank you for the questions.
Please understand that my comment was directed at Rob, for bashing the media for reporting a terrible situation. You just laid out a huge amount of employers who had significant layoffs.
It is not the media's fault for reporting it. If I was unlucky enough to have been laid off, I could easily be insulted if I suspected the media was down playing the economic crisis at the same time the Bush administration was.
Nowhere in the article does it say that they need to support Obamas stimulus package, or that his package should work. That is what Rob argued they are doing and they are not.
He cited Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat, as the person who endorsed the package. Of course she is going to support it, she is a Democrat....politician.
I don't know what Obama's stimulus package will do, or wont do. if it was that easy, I would have imagined Bush would have done what ever was needed to get it fixed. He didn't, now it's Obama's turn.
I expect that both parties will fight it out and come to a resolution and agreement. That is how our political system works, and I am watching and allowing them to do their job....without complaint of either side.
I will take a deeper look into it and see if I can answer your questions at a later time. As of right now, I have not spent necessary to be an authority on the matter.
Bat One
· 10 months ago
H,
An honest answer. Thank you!
Having watched Obama's speech to the caucused Democrats last night, and his fiery performance again today, I think the question of fear-mongering is pretty well settled. I don't doubt that the situation is perhaps dire for many of the workers let go recently, but that hardly justifies the hurry up and don't look attitude of the president and congressional Democrats. Certainly not given the enormity of the proposed list of expenditures and the abbreviate rules under which the proposal is being rushed through.
Of course I know what Obama has [i]said[/i] about creating 4 million jobs, but there is nothing in either his recent behavior or in his abbreviated resume to indicate that the man has either experience or training in economic issues and policies. All I would like to see is some reasonable correlation between those enormous deficit expenditures and the likelihood of getting those people their jobs back.
After all, you were the one who asked if anyone cared about "those 590,000 people who lost their jobs.
Hannitized
· 10 months ago
[quote] I don't doubt that the situation is perhaps dire for many of the workers let go recently, but that hardly justifies the hurry up and don't look attitude of the president and congressional Democrats. Certainly not given the enormity of the proposed list of expenditures and the abbreviate rules under which the proposal is being rushed through.[/quote]
Agreed. And please take not of my willingness to recognize behavior I don't agree with.
I expect a loyal opposition, as long as the opposing views are reasonable. And in this case, I think they are.
I suspect there is much pork in these bills purposefully planted so that they are easily agreed upon to be removed. A distraction from real programs they may fear could come under the knife. Pure speculation on my part.
[quote]Of course I know what Obama has said about creating 4 million jobs, but there is nothing in either his recent behavior or in his abbreviated resume to indicate that the man has either experience or training in economic issues and policies. [/quote]
I trust that Obama has the ability to surround himself with the right people who do have the expertise and training for these economic issues, as I trusted Bush had.
I have faith in his ability to hear the recommendations and make the right choices. I will soon find out if I am wrong in this instance.
Bat One
· 10 months ago
[quote]I trust that Obama has the ability to surround himself with the right people...[/quote]
H,
Would that be the Tim Geithner/Tom Daschle sort of "right people to surround himself with"... or would some earlier choices, such as Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko come to mind?
[quote]I have faith in his ability to hear the recommendations and make the right choices.[/quote]
Your faith is understandable, and an easy choice for now, however it also makes it easy to abrogate your responsibilities as a citizen to be and stay informed. You have been here at SAB long enough to know that those of us on/in the Right are far more voluble and frequent in our criticism of Republicans than are Democrats of any stripe toward their own. Stupid cliches by doltish "progressive" commenters aside, the fact is that the sheep are far more numerous on the left side of the aisle.
DINO
· 10 months ago
I find it oddly amusing when I see people trying to change dates in history. The only places they can change them is in their minds.
[url=http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/research_strategies/market_insight/todays_market/recent_commentary/recessions_bear_markets_history_of_inconsistencies.html]The recession of 82 ran from 7/81-11/82[/url].
Percentage of jobs lost is percentage of jobs lost. I don't care how big the population or workforce is. I can hardly believe you even tried that.
It's not just the percentage today, it's the rate of loss that also matters. And we're crashing badly. Thanks republicans!
You can't be seriously trying to make your case this way. I honestly wonder about your ability to walk and breathe at the same time.
PS to Proof: Bush was President for the entire year of 1992. Dumbshit.
robert108
· 10 months ago
Obama has already proved that he doesn't give a shit about economic recovery or about private sector jobs, by trying to shut down oil exploration and development in this country. He also doesn't care about national security, since he is preventing our own domestic oil industry to compete with the terrorists in the oil market. Money talks, bullshit walks.
Bat One
· 10 months ago
Dino,
Fr what its worth, it might help your attempts at being taken seriously, by anyone, if you could show you know what causes a recession, rather than who happens to be sitting in the Oval Office at the time. It might not hurt too if you understood the difference between leading and trailing indicators, and the amount of time necessary for certain policy actions, by Congress, the White House, the Federal Reserve, and others to work through the system and begin to have full effect. I mention this not only to reprise comments about your obvious ignorance of economic policy matters, but also because that "time to take effect" argument is the very same one Obama will try to make in the coming weeks.
Massive deficit spending programs have not worked to provide the hoped for economic stimulus in the past... here or elsewhere. The inflation and resulting higher interest rates they have caused, however, are very real indeed.
pparets
· 10 months ago
Your mistake in all this, Bat, is that you assume Dino might want to be taken seriously. He has no such goal in mind.
[quote]John [b]McCain said the bill should have been "bipartisan," and it doesn't count that the package is drawing support from Democrats and Republicans[/b].[/quote]
So it turns out that the Obama administration did have bi-partisan discussions and agreements on his stimulus package.
The problem for Republicans appears to be for some Republicans it is not a bill Bush would have passed. The failed policies and ideas of his administration that is.
[quote]First, it's amusing to see Republican leaders redefine words.[b] Democratic leaders and the White House negotiated for days with several Republican senators, and made painful and unnecessary cuts just to earn their support. This, however, isn't "true" bipartisanship, presumably because the far-right is still unhappy.[/b]
[b]Second, President Obama spent a considerable amount of time and energy engaging congressional Republicans directly, soliciting ideas, making changes, and hearing them out. [/b]To hear GOP leaders tell it now, Democrats deserve blame for not incorporating more failed right-wing ideas into the package. (Including hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts wasn't enough to satisfy Republican demands.) The goal, they insist, should be making the failed minority party happy, not rescuing the economy in a time of crisis.
And third, it can't be stated enough that negotiating with people detached from reality is fundamentally impossible. Obama came to the table stating a simple truth: given the circumstances and exhausted options, the economy needs a government stimulus.[b] He was prepared to have good-faith discussions over how much should be spent, where it should be invested, how quickly, etc.[/b]
In response, 90% of the Senate Republican caucus rejected the very idea of a government stimulus, while a leading House Republican said it was time for the failed minority party to emulate the "insurgency" tactics of the "Taliban." For weeks, their ideas fell on deaf ears because they didn't make any sense at all.[/quote]
All Comments
How many people are tightening their budgets, and pulling investments out of the market, before the Democrats get a chance to tax everything in sight?
[chuckling]
Before he was elected... or after he was tossed out of office?
I don't know what February 2009 and March 2009 employment numbers will look like. But I am SURE the Obama regime will use the figures for something. If there is improvement he can gloat. If things get worse he can dictate another spending stimulus enema for America.
A fellow commenter made a clever observation above. Some firms are probably just using the current climate as an excuse to make cutbacks they have long wanted to make. Now they feel they can get away with it. I agree with that. These firms are probably telling laid-off workers to blame Rush Limbaugh, too.
Statements and statistics like this by the media are misleading because they're comparing 2009 to [b]35 years ago[/b]. The labor pool now is much larger than it was in 1974.
What was that? Carter didn't take office until 1977? Then who was Prez in 74? Nixon? A republican? But I thought it was Utopia before Carter?
And you say that the next huge job loss was in 1982? Well, that Carter!
What? You say Reagan was Prez in 82? A republican? But I thought the republicans presided over the good times?
The next big recession with a large loss of jobs was when? 1991? Yeah, that Clinton! What a loser!
What? Bush was Prez then? A republican?
Anybody see a freakin pattern here? Anyone? Stems?
Rob,
Excellent point! Checked the prices on Treasuries and tax-free Munis since Obama was elected?
What a dip-shit.
Better brush up on your math skills a bit.
Apples to oranges again. The job pool is much larger now than in 1974.
Secondly, we are still in 1993-recession levels in terms of % unemployment.
And Carter was a complete disaster. Compare our overall economic numbers to his, and we're sitting pretty in comparison. Thank you for admitting it.
The worst recession in the last 50 years started in 1980, while that unmitigated disaster of a president of yours was in office.
You and I haven't mixed it up in a few months, and I undestand you've tried to turn over a new leaf in honor of witless rookie in the White House. So, here's a chance to show your sincerity:
Please demonstrate which [i]specific[/i] parts of the Obama "stimulus" package will put those laid off autoworkers back to work. And laid off bankers. And all those personnel who were laid off when Home Depot, Lowes, and other such retailers cut back on the number of stores. Or other retailers such as Circuit City, Linens and Things, Macys, and the like who have also cut back?
What part of the Obama bill will rejuvenate the housing market, or the commercial construction business?
The Obama bill is available on-line. Please provide some examples of how all those huge deficits... two, three, and four times the size of the Bush deficits you decried so vigorously last year... are actually going to give those folks who have lost them, their jobs back?
You are certainly not the blithering ignoramus that Dino and Jack are, and I know that unlike them you actually know quite a bit about economics and business, so please, give it a shot, and demonstrate how all those deficits... as far as the eye can see... will get those people their jobs back.
Hmm. Who was president [i]then?[/i]
Thank you for the questions.
Please understand that my comment was directed at Rob, for bashing the media for reporting a terrible situation. You just laid out a huge amount of employers who had significant layoffs.
It is not the media's fault for reporting it. If I was unlucky enough to have been laid off, I could easily be insulted if I suspected the media was down playing the economic crisis at the same time the Bush administration was.
Nowhere in the article does it say that they need to support Obamas stimulus package, or that his package should work. That is what Rob argued they are doing and they are not.
He cited Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat, as the person who endorsed the package. Of course she is going to support it, she is a Democrat....politician.
I don't know what Obama's stimulus package will do, or wont do. if it was that easy, I would have imagined Bush would have done what ever was needed to get it fixed. He didn't, now it's Obama's turn.
I expect that both parties will fight it out and come to a resolution and agreement. That is how our political system works, and I am watching and allowing them to do their job....without complaint of either side.
I will take a deeper look into it and see if I can answer your questions at a later time. As of right now, I have not spent necessary to be an authority on the matter.
An honest answer. Thank you!
Having watched Obama's speech to the caucused Democrats last night, and his fiery performance again today, I think the question of fear-mongering is pretty well settled. I don't doubt that the situation is perhaps dire for many of the workers let go recently, but that hardly justifies the hurry up and don't look attitude of the president and congressional Democrats. Certainly not given the enormity of the proposed list of expenditures and the abbreviate rules under which the proposal is being rushed through.
Of course I know what Obama has [i]said[/i] about creating 4 million jobs, but there is nothing in either his recent behavior or in his abbreviated resume to indicate that the man has either experience or training in economic issues and policies. All I would like to see is some reasonable correlation between those enormous deficit expenditures and the likelihood of getting those people their jobs back.
After all, you were the one who asked if anyone cared about "those 590,000 people who lost their jobs.
Agreed. And please take not of my willingness to recognize behavior I don't agree with.
I expect a loyal opposition, as long as the opposing views are reasonable. And in this case, I think they are.
I suspect there is much pork in these bills purposefully planted so that they are easily agreed upon to be removed. A distraction from real programs they may fear could come under the knife. Pure speculation on my part.
[quote]Of course I know what Obama has said about creating 4 million jobs, but there is nothing in either his recent behavior or in his abbreviated resume to indicate that the man has either experience or training in economic issues and policies. [/quote]
I trust that Obama has the ability to surround himself with the right people who do have the expertise and training for these economic issues, as I trusted Bush had.
I have faith in his ability to hear the recommendations and make the right choices. I will soon find out if I am wrong in this instance.
H,
Would that be the Tim Geithner/Tom Daschle sort of "right people to surround himself with"... or would some earlier choices, such as Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko come to mind?
[quote]I have faith in his ability to hear the recommendations and make the right choices.[/quote]
Your faith is understandable, and an easy choice for now, however it also makes it easy to abrogate your responsibilities as a citizen to be and stay informed. You have been here at SAB long enough to know that those of us on/in the Right are far more voluble and frequent in our criticism of Republicans than are Democrats of any stripe toward their own. Stupid cliches by doltish "progressive" commenters aside, the fact is that the sheep are far more numerous on the left side of the aisle.
[url=http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/research_strategies/market_insight/todays_market/recent_commentary/recessions_bear_markets_history_of_inconsistencies.html]The recession of 82 ran from 7/81-11/82[/url].
Percentage of jobs lost is percentage of jobs lost. I don't care how big the population or workforce is. I can hardly believe you even tried that.
It's not just the percentage today, it's the rate of loss that also matters. And we're crashing badly. Thanks republicans!
You can't be seriously trying to make your case this way. I honestly wonder about your ability to walk and breathe at the same time.
PS to Proof: Bush was President for the entire year of 1992. Dumbshit.
Fr what its worth, it might help your attempts at being taken seriously, by anyone, if you could show you know what causes a recession, rather than who happens to be sitting in the Oval Office at the time. It might not hurt too if you understood the difference between leading and trailing indicators, and the amount of time necessary for certain policy actions, by Congress, the White House, the Federal Reserve, and others to work through the system and begin to have full effect. I mention this not only to reprise comments about your obvious ignorance of economic policy matters, but also because that "time to take effect" argument is the very same one Obama will try to make in the coming weeks.
Massive deficit spending programs have not worked to provide the hoped for economic stimulus in the past... here or elsewhere. The inflation and resulting higher interest rates they have caused, however, are very real indeed.
He is here to do one thing only... vent.
[url=http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016790.php]Read this:[/url]
[quote]John [b]McCain said the bill should have been "bipartisan," and it doesn't count that the package is drawing support from Democrats and Republicans[/b].[/quote]
So it turns out that the Obama administration did have bi-partisan discussions and agreements on his stimulus package.
The problem for Republicans appears to be for some Republicans it is not a bill Bush would have passed. The failed policies and ideas of his administration that is.
[quote]First, it's amusing to see Republican leaders redefine words.[b] Democratic leaders and the White House negotiated for days with several Republican senators, and made painful and unnecessary cuts just to earn their support. This, however, isn't "true" bipartisanship, presumably because the far-right is still unhappy.[/b]
[b]Second, President Obama spent a considerable amount of time and energy engaging congressional Republicans directly, soliciting ideas, making changes, and hearing them out. [/b]To hear GOP leaders tell it now, Democrats deserve blame for not incorporating more failed right-wing ideas into the package. (Including hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts wasn't enough to satisfy Republican demands.) The goal, they insist, should be making the failed minority party happy, not rescuing the economy in a time of crisis.
And third, it can't be stated enough that negotiating with people detached from reality is fundamentally impossible. Obama came to the table stating a simple truth: given the circumstances and exhausted options, the economy needs a government stimulus.[b] He was prepared to have good-faith discussions over how much should be spent, where it should be invested, how quickly, etc.[/b]
In response, 90% of the Senate Republican caucus rejected the very idea of a government stimulus, while a leading House Republican said it was time for the failed minority party to emulate the "insurgency" tactics of the "Taliban." For weeks, their ideas fell on deaf ears because they didn't make any sense at all.[/quote]