Obama fights for credit as unemployment rate hits new low

Kind of, until the last decade it could be considered that those who languished through their unemployment benefits and remained without employment for a full year were in the majority either aging out or somehow disabled. As like no other time since the great depression the ranks of the long term unemployed have swelled to historic highths.

The flaw, once designated as no longer in the workforce there is no mechanism to migrate them back into the unemployment rate at least the manipulated form that suggests 4.9

Cheers
Labour

 

Nor have I. Nor have I seen an attendant rise in pay rates that would substantiate it.

Cheers
Labour

 

Yes. He compared the US economy to his workout routine.

We aren't even back to where we were when the Obama "Recovery" began in the summer of 2009. The first "recovery summer". If you are within commute distance of DC, yeah, you are probably doing okay. But the rest of us? Not doing so well. Big government works great, for government workers. Staggering levels of government debt, work great for government workers.

 

Drinking the kool-aid.

I could have sworn that it was the housing bubble, sub-prime loans and the liberals Community Reinvestment Act. (CRA) that led to the recession and it was Democrat polices that led to the economic collapse.

What's this ?

Well Obama sure was caught off guard when he was asked...

 

We'll, that's not exactly true. Romney never promised unemployment under 6%. That's as far as he promised. Looks like we voted for the right guy the second time around after all.

 

An outdated stat (unemployment rate), tantamount to ERA for pitchers as opposed to the more revealing WHIP.

Labor Participation Rate, oil price, the deleterious effects of the Keynesian printing press; weigh much heavier on the minds of economists than the part time jobs which skew the unemployment number.

 

So,pending there is another administration that decides to bankrupt the country with useless wars and immoral banking practices that basically shuts the economy down with what I would call bad management practices, while the tax payer comes to the rescue, yea, I'm with you. To hell with the big banks and shore up the medium one's as you say. Maybe by going down that road and throwing the big banks under the bus, they'll realize they aren't so powerful after all.

The reason this time I was more for, than against the bail outs, is the panic that I saw with Treasury and with Washington. I didn't want to see the country panic and I think most people saw the panic. That said, I'm not sure the government was all too confident with letting the big banks fail, like what happened in 1929. Not to mention that was a totally different time with a much smaller human population. I honestly could see Anarchy if the government, (Bush and Obama) hadn't decided on a bail out.

But back to your strategy, yes, I think if it happens again, we need a step by step strategy to deal with this in the manner you outlined. And hopefully we will be better prepared in the event we see this unfolding again. Because we can't just keep doing this every couple decades or so. People are burned out with illegitimate wars and living for Wall Streets benefit. The people aren't going to keep taking it. No matter who is president

 

If at some time you ever had a real counter argument, it died with you as a result of this statement.

 

What rock have you been lying under for the last seven years? Does a certain dinner party during Obama's inauguration ring a bell? You know the one where Republicans vowed to do everything they could to hijack his presidency by saying no to everything, of which they did exactly that, to the point of going against their own proposed bills? Are you familiar with any of that? And that is the mastery to Obama's job creation. He's done it on his own in the face of 100% obstruction by the Right.

 

Can you imagine how low those rates would be today if the Right had been on board with Obama in 2011 when he proposed a jobs bill to fix roads and bridges?

 

their fear is exactly why they did what they did... they had no real world experience in managing something like this... now in fairness I could say nobody really had this level of experience, but thats why you break it down into more manageable issues to separate and tackle... and address the fears like you mentioned, what is it that people were fearful of, they were being scared into thinking, they wouldn't be able to get money from banks right, they wouldn't have access to the ATM, basically think of greece and its runs on the bank basically shutting them down and leading to rationing of euros by the week below what it costs to live in one week... they thought they would lose any money they stored in those banks...

thats why if we simply backed the medium sized banks who's only business was loaning money and storing money, we would have successful eliminated that fear because we'd literally have bank rolled the "call on the house"... by immediately transferring those accounts to these medium sized banks and giving them the cash to allow withdrawals we'd have eliminated the largest fear... and we could have at the same time eliminated the "too big to fail" banks that caused this entire problem because they crossed over into investment banking with traditional banking, and through the bankruptcy their either find other funding, or we allow the medium sized banks to purchase the good assets and allow the bad ones to disappear... it was just such basic business sense... and the government had the power all along...

access to current funds, and lines of credit, was all this economic crash was about... we could have solved that in a weeks debate and emergency action which believe it or not, the government already has for these exact scenarios to move accounts from failed organizations (insured deposits) and the treasury has emergency measures it can take with approval to extend immense lines of credit to banking organizations for events like this... we failed to use the measures we have on books... no laws needed... so now that people are secure with money and loans, the rest of it was just a buncha big corporations failing, we'll see that every year in america, nothing new...

the only thing we needed democrats to do back then, was pass new laws to make tougher criminal charges and penalties for banks who cross over into other industries... as well as a way to validate and punish rating agencies... thats all we needed democrats to do back then... well aside from using the tools in the tool bag, rather than ignore the 20 tool chests in the garage when they were looking for a screwdriver, and instead they drove across the country to buy a screwdriver they already owned...

wars though... well I've got this debate on tonight, seems neither political party is going to solve that issue, more of the same on that issue... so we're still screwed there...

P.S. but imagine for a moment democrats cut households making lets say $25,000 or less (the "poverty line") a check for $25,000 dollars... so roughly $250 billion... and then democrats cut households making between $25,000 and $40,000 a check for $10,000... so roughly another $250 billion... for $500 billion dollars, combined with funding the bank roll of medium sized banks (which eventually would have been paid back 100% plus interest) we could have not just solved the problem, but prevented it from almost happening entirely... because people would have spent SO much money on big ticket items and erasing debt and other things, net assets would have increased for even people in poverty making minimum wage... you could have lifted millions out of poverty, stabilized the lower middle class, which ultimately would have kept the middle class and upper class rolling in the dough... all for $500 billion... by giving taxpayers their money... rather than to corporations who lost it all...

(I guess I'm rambling and repeating a lot of things I already said, I guess I don't have much more to add, minus super fine details which don't add much to the discussion)

 

did you know that many of those shovel ready projects bankrolled by the bailout bills... still have yet to be started... how many years after... lol...

my own city of milwaukee is sitting on money it got from that process, for transit, and they won't be spending that money until 2017 at current estimates...

so my city won't have spent the money to help the economic collapse, until after the president leaves office... almost 8 years after it was given that money...

P.S. although I will add, americans are in for a rude awakening if they don't commit significant amounts to infrastructure soon... another future disaster where we waited too long to repair things that our only option will be to replace them at a far greater cost, with a significantly less lifespan and ultimate dollar value for the money we did spend for that lifespan...

 

to add a counter point... you mean the same inauguration where Obama promised to work with and bring together both political parties, but then on his next breathe would demean and belittle them for their beliefs and wants... I mean the guy said he wants to bring people together and work with then, and then called them idiots... it reminds me of a wonderful video that has become my favorite in recent months... a politician shaking you with one hand, then slapping you with the other... at the same time!

[video=youtube;fTPkeHsKgJ4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTPkeHsKgJ4[/video]

 

You may well be right. And then again, maybe not. If Obama improves more now on quality of jobs with higher wages, then just shear unemployment percentages, then I think the Left has a chance. We will see.

 

Yea, you make a good point. But, those sentiments of a bipartisan romance Obama thought he was going to have, quickly eroded, when he found out the Right decided to be unfaithful instead. He realized then, his wedding plan dreams with the Right were over before they ever started.

 

If you're going to quote someone and respond to them, at least read what they wrote.

I specifically said "There's only one thing that matters, how many people are not working that should be"

I bolded and underlined the key word since the first time I wrote it obviously wasn't clear enough.

All the groups you mentioned clearly don't qualify as groups who should be working.

 

heh you're basically trying to say "the republicans cheated first in this marriage"... when both never actually made the commitment to marriage in the first place... this was never a marriage that one side failed at, it was two people sleeping with each other until they stopped getting what they wanted, so they slept around with others while still living together, and they thought somehow that would be reasonable or work out somehow... it was never going to work out because neither wanted to work on the relationship...

thats basically my fun analogy for the night heh... both were cheating, neither committed... but I won't discount or excuse Obamas actions... thats the difference...

P.S. how did you like that video though, I thought that was like the best example of politicians I have ever seen in my entire life... what a catch on video!

 

I mostly like obama but yeah, our economy is still screwed up. Social security says over 50% of people make less than 30k a year. a 50k salary puts you in the top 15%. That's no good.

 

Are you saying Bush was an Authoritarian? You will notice that before the Great Recession between 2001 and 2009, we were losing factories at an alarming rate; http://prospect.org/article/plight-american-manufacturing

This occurred during a time when Reaganomics was the big game in town too.

 

We need fresh, well thought out ideas and good cooperation from both parties if we want out of this.

 

well then the first thing we need to do, is reject the candidates we're given until we get normal people running for office... rather than political attack dogs for either party... because currently, we're not voting for an american president, we're voting for a republican or democrat president... american isn't even on the ballot...

 

Lie number one, it wasn't all Republica or Bush's policies that caused the economy to collapse. Democrats had a lot to do with it.

Number two, unemployment is low because of all the part time jobs his administration has created with his policies. Instead of hiring one full time employee and having to give him health care and a bunch of benefits, why not hire two part time employees and give him no benefits?

 

Lie number one, it wasn't all Republica or Bush's policies that caused the economy to collapse. Democrats had a lot to do with it.

Number two, unemployment is low because of all the part time jobs his administration has created with his policies. Instead of hiring one full time employee and having to give him health care and a bunch of benefits, why not hire two part time employees and give them no benefits?

Number 3. Also it was Bush that started the recovery, by bailing out the banks, GM and Chrysler. Obama carried on what Bush started.

 

I don't discount that possibility on Obama's end either. He could have been playing the faithful card the whole time, but knew cheating was inevitable, while playing the victim just the same. The problem was, the Right got caught first before we could ever figure out if Obama was unfaithful or not. Now that the Right got caught first, Obama said to (*)(*)(*)(*) with this romance. And that was the end of that.

Yea, the video made me laugh. It reminds me of what we have been talking about. They thought they had a romance, the romance ended, but every now and then for old times sake, they'll have a quickie.

 

This was due to NAFTA and free trade. Don't try and blame it on Reagan. The economy was already in a recession when Bush took office. He said then he didn't want to be blamed for it.