Initial jobless claims increase ""unexpectedly""

[buckman]

"The number of newly laid-off workers seeking unemployment benefits rose last week, a sign that jobs remain scarce even as the economy recovers"

Obama doesn't get it!


Initial jobless claims increase unexpectedly - Yahoo! Finance

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

"The number of newly laid-off workers seeking unemployment benefits rose last week, a sign that jobs remain scarce even as the economy recovers"

Obama doesn't get it!


Initial jobless claims increase unexpectedly - Yahoo! Finance

Are you serious?

"Not everything goes in a straight line," Jennifer Lee, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets, wrote in a research note. "Definitely not the claims data."

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Are you serious?

No, I'm making a funny.

[EarnedStripes44]

Perhaps this is a "jobless" recovery.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44

Perhaps this is a "jobless" recovery.

I wouldn't worry about it..the Kenyan Kommunist told us the he was going to focus like a laser on jobs....wait...maybe that was meant to say he'd be destroying jobs with a laser death ray or something

WIKIPEDIA .....A "jobless recovery" or jobless growth is a phrase used by leftist economists, especially in the United States, to describe the recovery from a recession, where "recovery" is defined as growth in gross domestic product (GDP), which does not produce strong growth in employment, specifically a rapid drop in the unemployment rate to the level it was prior to recession. The first documented use of the term was in the New York Times in the 1930s.[1]not a coincidence

A jobless recovery is usually seen as a bad thing in a capitalist industrialized society. This is primarily because in such a society most people need jobs to earn the money they need to purchase goods and services from the marketplace. Also, secondarily, doing something useful and productive is usually connected to a healthy individual's self-esteem and his or her positive relationships to the larger community. An alternative (Progressive liberal democrat) view is that a jobless recovery could be a step towards a post-scarcity society full of abundance for all if you are a communist moron-- as a new stage of cultural development with increased leisure and volunteerism.in other words, lazy ass government dependents and democrat voters That alternative view represents a trend that many technologists, futurists, and heterodox economists have predicted dreamed of and fantasized about in their deranged leftist cult meetings for decades.

[striperman36]

Now that funny

[EarnedStripes44]

Originally Posted by scottw

I wouldn't worry about it..the Kenyan Kommunist told us the he was going to focus like a laser on jobs....wait...maybe that was meant to say he'd be destroying jobs with a laser death ray or something

WIKIPEDIA .....A "jobless recovery" or jobless growth is a phrase used by leftist economists, especially in the United States, to describe the recovery from a recession, where "recovery" is defined as growth in gross domestic product (GDP), which does not produce strong growth in employment, specifically a rapid drop in the unemployment rate to the level it was prior to recession. The first documented use of the term was in the New York Times in the 1930s.[1]not a coincidence

A jobless recovery is usually seen as a bad thing in a capitalist industrialized society. This is primarily because in such a society most people need jobs to earn the money they need to purchase goods and services from the marketplace. Also, secondarily, doing something useful and productive is usually connected to a healthy individual's self-esteem and his or her positive relationships to the larger community. An alternative (Progressive liberal democrat) view is that a jobless recovery could be a step towards a post-scarcity society full of abundance for all if you are a communist moron-- as a new stage of cultural development with increased leisure and volunteerism.in other words, lazy ass government dependents and democrat voters That alternative view represents a trend that many technologists, futurists, and heterodox economists have predicted dreamed of and fantasized about in their deranged leftist cult meetings for decades.

Comrade, you left the "this article needs additional citations for verification" notice out of your arts and craft project.

But I get it; we took the happy ending of the 1990's for granted. And for 10 years, something spoiled in our brand of capitalism. But we held our noses. Our - not left or right - state of economic affairs shows that even a sophisticated country with studied leadership can stumble badly. This is essentially what occurred in Japan long before we got wind of the stench of our own rotting economic core. The current growth is just simply too slow to reduce unemployment. To borrow from Paul Krugman, we may be in the midst of a "growth recession."

[scottw]

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44

Comrade, you left the "this article needs additional citations for verification" notice out of your arts and craft project.

But I get it; we took the happy ending of the 1990's for granted. the "happy ending" of the 1990's was also a bubble if you recall, And for 10 years, something spoiled in our brand of capitalism.yes and that was government/congress (maybe you missed Greenspan's testimony the other day) inserting it fingers into the banking system and forcing banks to make loans that should never have been made and the culture that it created which began long before the 10 years that you refer to But we held our noses. some did Our - not left or right - state of economic affairs your opinion shows that even a sophisticated country with studied leadership if you voted for Obama, studied leadership??? can stumble badly. This is essentially what occurred in Japan no, no, no...Japan's "lost decade" resulted from massive government spending to try to fuel their economy, we are only just entering that phase long before we got wind of the stench of our own rotting economic core. The current growth is just simply too intentionally slow to reduce unemployment. To borrow from Paul Krugman, we may be in the midst of a "growth recession." we are in the midst of " the remaking of America"

Comrade...you paint a picture of what you think has and is happening but it has no basis in fact....this economy is in ruins under the weight of massive debt that has and continues to be piled on in the form of liberal social programs, entitlements, benefits and promises....from RI -9.5 BILLION in unfunded obligations to public sector employees...to California 550 BILLION (that's half a TRILLION) in unfunded obligations to same and everywhere in between....now healthcare who's actual cost has been tinkerd and lied about to make it palatable to the sleazy politicians who voted for it...next phase is to find new ways to suck the life out of every American who works and participates in this failing economy....the folks running the country currently are vampires and they have their teeth in our necks, there can't be growth with massive debt ever increasing, rising taxation and new regulation....and we're told to expect high unemployment for a long...long time....but keep rooting along with the heterodox economists and futurists that the "jobless recovery" will bring Utopia and leisure and volunteerism and a Post-Scarcity Economy

what you need to decide is whether you prefer to be responsible for your own success in a free market economy or...whether you want to make the government responsible for guaranteeing your "happy ending"

oh, almost forgot...the Bush tax cuts are set to expire as well...that should help spur job slow growth

[likwid]

Most service industry related jobs are laying off this time of year. IT service related industry slows down EVERY year right about now and cuts its fat.

One example is ski resorts. How many do we have in this country?

I know reality is less fun than saying its Obama's fault, but think people.

[striperman36]

like this VAT vacuum the wallet thingy

U.S. eyes sales tax - BostonHerald.com

[buckman]

Perhaps Sh#t like this has something to do with it:

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripert...omeowners.html

I'm no senior economist , I'm just guessing

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

Perhaps Sh#t like this has something to do with it:

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripert...omeowners.html

I'm no senior economist , I'm just guessing

That's already been whined about ad-nauseum.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

That's already been whined about ad-nauseum.

Sorry we make you sick JD.

[RIJIMMY]

go to the Wrentham outlets this Saturday at 11am. You wont get a parking space . Then go home and google "1930s depression" and compare
You have no idea how incredibly good we have it despite Obama telling how catastrophic things are and how we are experienceing the worst recession since the depression. this is all an organized sham to redistribute wealth, demonize capilatism and slam through legislation that benefits the democrats base and puts the non tax paying majority in permanent control of the votes making it impossible for hard working people to control their tax dollars. Amen.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

go to the Wrentham outlets this Saturday at 11am. You wont get a parking space . Then go home and google "1930s depression" and compare
You have no idea how incredibly good we have it despite Obama telling how catastrophic things are and how we are experienceing the worst recession since the depression. this is all an organized sham to redistribute wealth, demonize capilatism and slam through legislation that benefits the democrats base and puts the non tax paying majority in permanent control of the votes making it impossible for hard working people to control their tax dollars. Amen.

At least I got my laugh for the day (redistribue wealth demonize capitalism ect. ). 12 months ago, our financial system was on the edge of ruin and we were in the worse economic situation since the great depression - certainly not as bad. However, how bad would it have been if the safety net put in place over the last 50 years not been there?

[PaulS]

Just stole this graph

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Just stole this graph

the graph states "job lost" on the Bush Side then / "job growth" on the Obama side....the graph is for "job loss" and during the down turn the loss was greatest and eventually you start to run out of jobs to lose...there is no "job growth" represented by the graph, only fewer jobs lost per month(with the exception of 1 month) on the Obama side...this is very disingenuous...the jobs lost per month on the JoBama side are in addition to the jobs lost previously, not an increase in the number of jobs "job growth"...but a glance at the graph would make you think (if you are the Hopey Change type)there's an increase in employment "job growth" and things are on the upswing...we're just shedding jobs at a slower rate....

14. That's how many "rallies" we had in the Great Depression. Real unemployment 21.7%. Federal government spent 334 billion in the first 2 months of 2010 (an all time record), it took in 105 billion. Foreclosures hit all time record in Feb. Moody's warns of the loss of AAA credit rating over debt. Greece teetering on collapse, followed by almost the entire western world.

If you think this is over just wait and see.

have you checked oil prices lately?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

the graph states "job lost" on the Bush Side then / "job growth" on the Obama side. - this is very disingenuous...

Couldn't totally follow what you are saying but if the left side of the graph is measuring a different stat that the right side and using the job loss/job growth heading to represent the right and left side, I totally agree that the it is disingenous.

The fact remains that the economy was in a free fall and has started to stablize. Are we out of the woods yet, of course not.

I work in the insurance industry and the insurance companies were hurt by their insured companies laying off people. So if you insured company x in 2009 and it had 5,000 ees in 1/09, by 12/09 they had 4,500 ees. Most insurers are now forecasting enrollment will be flat in 2010 b/c their insureds have stopped laying people off and have slightly starting hiring people back.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

the graph states "job lost" on the Bush Side then / "job growth" on the Obama side...

The graph states "job lost" below the 0 line and "job growth" above the 0 line. Or are you made at how the graph is titled?

Bush had 800,000 jobs lost in his last month and some of you people are bitching over a report of under 100,000 lost?? So when there was positive job growth, that wasn't to Obama's credit, but the job losses are?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. At least be consistent. If you're going to relate the jobs situation directly to the Dems policies, then that relation is made to all conditions.

If you don't like it, I know someone looking for a roommate in Costa Rica.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

At least I got my laugh for the day (redistribue wealth demonize capitalism ect. ). 12 months ago, our financial system was on the edge of ruin and we were in the worse economic situation since the great depression - certainly not as bad. However, how bad would it have been if the safety net put in place over the last 50 years not been there?

keep bouncing up and down on that safety net with a big grin... because your great grandchildren will be paying outrageous taxes to pay for the safety nets that you cheer today........you do know that all of the "safety nets" put in place are operating only due to deficit spending....right???? as in....there's no money for them???? Social Security is paying out more than it is taking in this year....wait....where's all the money they've collected since early last century to pay these retirees back their contributions......and all of the unfunded obligations that are currently bankrupting us at the state and federal level? what will you do when the "safety net" checks stop coming ?????

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

keep bouncing up and down on that safety net with a big grin... because your great grandchildren will be paying outrageous taxes to pay for the safety nets that you cheer today.. what will you do when the "safety net" checks stop coming ?????

Actually, it won't effect me at all. I know that I pay more in taxes than the vast, vast majority of the public.

My cheering of the safety net has to do with my compassion for people less fortunate than myself.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Actually, it won't effect me at all. I know that I pay more in taxes than the vast, vast majority of the public.

My cheering of the safety net has to do with my compassion for people less fortunate than myself.

I guess if you define your compassion as your willingness to blindly pay arbitrary taxes to support and perpetuate failed programs that keep others mired in poverty and generationally begging at the government trough, it explains a lot....

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Actually, it won't effect me at all. I know that I pay more in taxes than the vast, vast majority of the public.

My cheering of the safety net has to do with my compassion for people less fortunate than myself.

The safety net is not equated to your compassion. It is forced on everyone including those that have desire to be part of it. Your compassionate donation is indistinguishable from that forced from others who hate it. Your compassion is truly dinguished, in voluntary donations outside of the tax system.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by PaulS

At least I got my laugh for the day (redistribue wealth demonize capitalism ect. ). 12 months ago, our financial system was on the edge of ruin and we were in the worse economic situation since the great depression - certainly not as bad. However, how bad would it have been if the safety net put in place over the last 50 years not been there?

12 months ago, you still couldnt get a parking spot at the outlet mall.
You should be laughing at how gullible you, and most Americans are.

The debt created by Obama is far more detrimental to this country than the recent economic crisis.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

12 months ago, you still couldnt get a parking spot at the outlet mall.
You should be laughing at how gullible you, and most Americans are.

The debt created by Obama is far more detrimental to this country than the recent economic crisis.

Yup, your the smart one and Bush did not quickly take a surplus and turn it into a deficit

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Yup, your the smart one and Bush did not quickly take a surplus and turn it into a deficit

The "surplus" was already reduced by half during the last half of Clinton's term due to the burst of the dot.com bubble. The decline merely continued during the first half of Bush's first term before the economy rebounded and roared again until the housing "bubble" (which expanded due to pre-Bush policies) exploded.

[Joe]

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste…it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before." – Rohm Emanuel

[PaulS]

Deficits/Surpluses From 1940 Until 2010

I deleted everything prior to 1970. So now Bush's deficit has to do with what Clinton did but Obama's deficit has nothing to do with Bush did?

Year Nominal Dollars Inflation Adjusted
1970 2.8 Billion Dollar Deficit 15.316 Billion Deficit
1971 23 Billion Dollar Deficit 120.52 Billion Deficit
1972 23.4 Billion Dollar Deficit 118.638 Billion Deficit
1973 14.9 Billion Dollar Deficit 71.222 Billion Deficit
1974 6.1 Billion Dollar Deficit 26.23 Billion Deficit
1975 53.2 Billion Dollar Deficit 209.608 Billion Deficit
1976 73.7 Billion Dollar Deficit 274.901 Billion Deficit
1977 53.7 Billion Dollar Deficit 187.95 Billion Deficit
1978 59.2 Billion Dollar Deficit 192.4 Billion Deficit
1979 40.7 Billion Dollar Deficit 118.844 Billion Deficit
1980 73.8 Billion Dollar Deficit 190.404 Billion Deficit
1981 79 Billion Dollar Deficit 184.07 Billion Deficit
1982 128 Billion Dollar Deficit 281.6 Billion Deficit
1983 207.8 Billion Dollar Deficit 442.614 Billion Deficit
1984 185.4 Billion Dollar Deficit 378.216 Billion Deficit
1985 212.3 Billion Dollar Deficit 418.231 Billion Deficit
1986 221.2 Billion Dollar Deficit 429.128 Billion Deficit
1987 149.7 Billion Dollar Deficit 279.939 Billion Deficit
1988 155.2 Billion Dollar Deficit 277.808 Billion Deficit
1989 152.5 Billion Dollar Deficit 260.775 Billion Deficit
1990 221.2 Billion Dollar Deficit 358.344 Billion Deficit
1991 269.3 Billion Dollar Deficit 420.108 Billion Deficit
1992 290.4 Billion Dollar Deficit 438.504 Billion Deficit
1993 255.1 Billion Dollar Deficit 374.997 Billion Deficit
1994 203.2 Billion Dollar Deficit 290.576 Billion Deficit
1995 164 Billion Dollar Deficit 227.96 Billion Deficit
1996 107.5 Billion Dollar Deficit 145.125 Billion Deficit
1997 22 Billion Dollar Deficit 29.04 Billion Deficit
1998 69.2 Billion Dollar Surplus 89.96 Billion Surplus
1999 125.6 Billion Dollar Surplus 159.512 Billion Surplus
2000 236.4 Billion Dollar Surplus 290.772 Billion Surplus
2001 127.3 Billion Dollar Surplus 152.76 Billion Surplus
2002 157.8 Billion Dollar Deficit 186.204 Billion Deficit
2003 374 Billion Dollar Deficit 430.1 Billion Deficit
2004 413 Billion Dollar Deficit 462.56 Billion Deficit
2005 319 Billion Dollar Deficit 347.71 Billion Deficit
2006 248 Billion Dollar Deficit 260.4 Billion Deficit
2007 162 Billion Dollar Deficit 165.24 Billion Deficit
2008 455 Billion Dollar Deficit 455 Billion Deficit
2009 1400 Billion Dollar Deficit 1400 Billion Deficit
2010 1350 Billion Dollar Deficit 1350 Billion Deficit

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Deficits/Surpluses From 1940 Until 2010

I deleted everything prior to 1970. So now Bush's deficit has to do with what Clinton did but Obama's deficit has nothing to do with Bush did?

Year Nominal Dollars Inflation Adjusted
1970 2.8 Billion Dollar Deficit 15.316 Billion Deficit
1971 23 Billion Dollar Deficit 120.52 Billion Deficit
1972 23.4 Billion Dollar Deficit 118.638 Billion Deficit
1973 14.9 Billion Dollar Deficit 71.222 Billion Deficit
1974 6.1 Billion Dollar Deficit 26.23 Billion Deficit
1975 53.2 Billion Dollar Deficit 209.608 Billion Deficit
1976 73.7 Billion Dollar Deficit 274.901 Billion Deficit
1977 53.7 Billion Dollar Deficit 187.95 Billion Deficit
1978 59.2 Billion Dollar Deficit 192.4 Billion Deficit
1979 40.7 Billion Dollar Deficit 118.844 Billion Deficit
1980 73.8 Billion Dollar Deficit 190.404 Billion Deficit
1981 79 Billion Dollar Deficit 184.07 Billion Deficit
1982 128 Billion Dollar Deficit 281.6 Billion Deficit
1983 207.8 Billion Dollar Deficit 442.614 Billion Deficit
1984 185.4 Billion Dollar Deficit 378.216 Billion Deficit
1985 212.3 Billion Dollar Deficit 418.231 Billion Deficit
1986 221.2 Billion Dollar Deficit 429.128 Billion Deficit
1987 149.7 Billion Dollar Deficit 279.939 Billion Deficit
1988 155.2 Billion Dollar Deficit 277.808 Billion Deficit
1989 152.5 Billion Dollar Deficit 260.775 Billion Deficit
1990 221.2 Billion Dollar Deficit 358.344 Billion Deficit
1991 269.3 Billion Dollar Deficit 420.108 Billion Deficit
1992 290.4 Billion Dollar Deficit 438.504 Billion Deficit
1993 255.1 Billion Dollar Deficit 374.997 Billion Deficit
1994 203.2 Billion Dollar Deficit 290.576 Billion Deficit
1995 164 Billion Dollar Deficit 227.96 Billion Deficit
1996 107.5 Billion Dollar Deficit 145.125 Billion Deficit
1997 22 Billion Dollar Deficit 29.04 Billion Deficit
1998 69.2 Billion Dollar Surplus 89.96 Billion Surplus
1999 125.6 Billion Dollar Surplus 159.512 Billion Surplus
2000 236.4 Billion Dollar Surplus 290.772 Billion Surplus
2001 127.3 Billion Dollar Surplus 152.76 Billion Surplus
2002 157.8 Billion Dollar Deficit 186.204 Billion Deficit
2003 374 Billion Dollar Deficit 430.1 Billion Deficit
2004 413 Billion Dollar Deficit 462.56 Billion Deficit
2005 319 Billion Dollar Deficit 347.71 Billion Deficit
2006 248 Billion Dollar Deficit 260.4 Billion Deficit
2007 162 Billion Dollar Deficit 165.24 Billion Deficit
2008 455 Billion Dollar Deficit 455 Billion Deficit
2009 1400 Billion Dollar Deficit 1400 Billion Deficit
2010 1350 Billion Dollar Deficit 1350 Billion Deficit

The trend, as your list shows, has been a fluctuating but steadily increasing deficit with the astounding 4 years of "surplus" during Clinton's final term. That is so astounding that it is amazing no-one has since suggested doing, specifically, what Clinton "did" to achieve those numbers. What he actually "did," was drastically cut military spending and re-invest some of the debt into low interest bonds, neither of which could account for the huge reversal in deficit. Of course, he was forced to curb some spending by the Gingrich Congress, but that was not enough either, since spending was still quite high. There was this market phenomenon referred to as the Dot. Com Bubble which artificially inflated the economy, creating a large influx of tax revenue, especially Social Security, collected. Much more Social Security money than usual was collected than required to pay current recipients so there was a huge "surplus", and since there is no "lock box" for that surplus it was used to buy Government Securities. Thus, instead of having to go the usual rout of borrowing from private sector agencies or foreign countries to pay for National debt obligations, the Government borrowed from itself by using the big surplus Social Security inflow, creating the illusion of deficit reduction. Yes, the deficit was "reduced" into a "surplus", but the National debt kept rising, and especially so in regard to the huge Social Security i.o.u's accrued by this magical method of deficit reduction. Of course, with the burst of the Dot. Com Bubble, the huge inflow of tax revenues was eliminated so this method lost a great deal of its source. You'll note that the "surplus" was almost cut in half in 2001 which was the last year (Oct. 1 2001), of the Clinton budget. Things went back to normal huge and growing deficits after that as the magical "source" of deficit reduction disappeared. And Obama's deficits are not a result of the Bush deficits. The only way to reduce deficits WITHOUT DECEPTION OR ACCOUNTING TRICKS is to spend less than is recieved in taxes. Spending more, no matter what you say is necessary to "stimulate" an economy, will always create deficits. And Obama has, and projects, to spend way more than is "necessary."

And the National Debt (distinct from annual budget deficits/surpluses) will massively increase.

[buckman]

Apathetic-USA.com Intro Movie