Initial jobless claims increase ""unexpectedly""

[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.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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.

The jobs created under Obama are goverment jobs. They cost us all more and infringe on our freedoms at worse. Other jobs created through the "stimulas" bill are only funded for a couple of years

I also credit the predicted election of Obama for Bush's last few months of job losses.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Are you compassionate, or do you just want to keep the beggars off your lawn? If you're compassionate, offer the beggars a sandwich. If your too offended by their presence, have the government force the rest of us to feed them and get them off your lawn.

you got it
in this most terrible of times, just curious. Has anyone ever knocked at your door and offered to shovel your driveway? Mow your lawn, etc?
Yet we had mile long soup kitchen lines in the 30's.

[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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The graph states "job lost" below the 0 line and "job growth" above the 0 line.no it doesn't , it says "jobs lost vertically and Job Loss/Job Growth above horizontally, are you looking at some other graph?Or are you made at how the graph is titled? both

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?? yes, especially if it's your job!!!! So when there was positive job growthit's not positive job growth, it's fewer jobs lost...there's a difference, that wasn't to Obama's credit, but the job losses are? just think of all the jobs he must have saved!!!!

You can't have your cake and eat it too. At least be consistent. you first 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.

why don't the communists just move to one of the many communist utopias around the world that would be more than happy to provide oppression instead of ruining this fine country?

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

why don't the communists just move to one of the many communist utopias around the world that would be more than happy to provide oppression instead of ruining this fine country?

Why the Obama economics plan is working - BusinessWeek.com- msnbc.com

-spence

[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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by likwid

Sunday River in Maine alone employs 400-500 people during the season, they lay off close to 80% of that.

Thats ONE resort, and not even remotely the scale of west coast mountains.

Lets also add in all the seasonal restaraunt staff, seasonal shop staff, winter guides for various outdoor sports, etc. etc. etc. that are done for the season and not getting into their next jobs (outdoor guides, summer season campers/forestry crews/etc.) for another month or so.



Landscraping STARTS out here (hamptons) the end of march and doesn't get going for another MONTH.

But, carry on being dumb, someone has to do it.

Here's an even more difficult concept for you. Seasonal jobs don't hire until they NEED people. I know, shocking.

clearly you have a firm grasp on the explanation for the reasons for the unemployment numbers.....yikes

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Are you compassionate, or do you just want to keep the beggars off your lawn? If you're compassionate, offer the beggars a sandwich. If your too offended by their presence, have the government force the rest of us to feed them and get them off your lawn.

Can you really rely on individual compassion when the people are part of a system? I can offer the beggar a cookie, but if my neighbor isn't doing the same for others the problem will still be there.

The changing pressures of industry and population can't often be normalized by individual action alone.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Are there better options to keep the beggars off ones lawn?

-spence

Yup. While there will always be people who are mentaly ill and need medical attention, anyone can get involved with volunteering helping with the many homeless programs and donating their time to mentoring.

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish he will eat for a life time."

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Can you really rely on individual compassion when the people are part of a system? I can offer the beggar a cookie, but if my neighbor isn't doing the same for others the problem will still be there.

The changing pressures of industry and population can't often be normalized by individual action alone.

-spence

spoken like a true Marxist

you should sneak into your neighbor's house and steal a cookie when he's sleeping...much more civilized than putting a gun to his head...

[likwid]

Originally Posted by scottw

clearly you have a firm grasp on the explanation for the reasons for the unemployment numbers.....yikes

Don't you have illegals to blame?

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

spoken like a true Marxist

you should sneak into your neighbor's house and steal a cookie when he's sleeping...much more civilized than putting a gun to his head...

No, simply an observation. Just like how societal norms break down under the pressure of high urban population. While you're telling someone to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, their friends are looting your car.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by likwid

Don't you have illegals to blame?

In the landscaping industry, absolutely.
I have a buddy who works for a ski resort. He takes every summer off on the tax payers dime and does a little cash house painting for extra money. Another reason to scrap income tax and go to a consumption tax. Even the illegals will pay taxes. And we all know how they like to shop

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Can you really rely on individual compassion when the people are part of a system?

Paul's compassion is what I was responding to. Compassion is a highly personal response. It is the personal response of an individual to the plight of another. It is inherent in human nature, not in the nature of a bureaucracy. Though individuals may collectively create bureacracies, even with compassionate intent, once it leaves their hands it operates as an impersonal mechanism. It knows no personal choice or preference or feeling, and it is not received with gratitude, but with expectation. The "system" owes, is required by law, to dole the handout. There is no person to thank or feel beholden to. Instead of gratitude when the gift is given, there is anger when it isn't. And those that pay, rarely meet the recipients and rarely feel the warm flow of personal generosity. And, as the needy grow, in response to the legal confiscation of their substance, those that pay are told they need to pay more.

This is a result of the statist's distrust of the individual, and the continual assault on individual freedom with the excuse that the individual is not capable of solving the problems of humanity. The individual is too selfish. Only the collective can eliminate the problems that ail us.

We must be part of the "system."

I can offer the beggar a cookie, but if my neighbor isn't doing the same for others the problem will still be there.

When the needy become, as apparently they are about to do so, half of the population, then, indeed, everyone and his neighbor (if he is not needy) will have to offer the cookie.

The changing pressures of industry and population can't often be normalized by individual action alone.

-spence

Yes, the collective must decide what is normal.

Isn't it interesting that as being "our brother's keeper" becomes more a responsibility of the government, the number of needy brothers expands.

[buckman]

Apathetic-USA.com Intro Movie

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Paul's compassion is what I was responding to. Compassion is a highly personal response. It is the personal response of an individual to the plight of another. It is inherent in human nature, not in the nature of a bureaucracy. Though individuals may collectively create bureacracies, even with compassionate intent, once it leaves their hands it operates as an impersonal mechanism. It knows no personal choice or preference or feeling, and it is not received with gratitude, but with expectation.

The GDP of our nation is the output of a very complex system. Our great wealth is a function of this system which would collapse without structure. Not everybody can be rich, and the rich have built their fortunes (directly or indirectly) on the backs of others.

Bureaucratic compassion is critical part of our economic health, and like everything, should of course be carefully measured.

The "system" owes, is required by law, to dole the handout. There is no person to thank or feel beholden to. Instead of gratitude when the gift is given, there is anger when it isn't. And those that pay, rarely meet the recipients and rarely feel the warm flow of personal generosity. And, as the needy grow, in response to the legal confiscation of their substance, those that pay are told they need to pay more.

I think this is more a function of the individual. The individual is responsible for how they feel about the benefits they may gain from the system. Certainly entitlements can after a period of time make people accustomed to certain behavior, but it's still up to the individual to determine how this is received.

This has nothing to do with class by the way. I'd argue that the corporate elite is just as used to handouts as some welfare recipients.

This is a result of the statist's distrust of the individual, and the continual assault on individual freedom with the excuse that the individual is not capable of solving the problems of humanity. The individual is too selfish. Only the collective can eliminate the problems that ail us.

The very fact that our government has *any* Federal power is affirmation that some problems require a collective solution.

When the needy become, as apparently they are about to do so, half of the population, then, indeed, everyone and his neighbor (if he is not needy) will have to offer the cookie.

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. Even the "needy" end up contributing quite a bit under the current system.

Yes, the collective must decide what is normal.

Some elements of "normal" are certainly in flux. Although, when values are pared down to the essential elements there's very little separation between liberal and conservative ideas as practiced by the bulk of Americans.

Isn't it interesting that as being "our brother's keeper" becomes more a responsibility of the government, the number of needy brothers expands.

Does it? I'd think this is more probably a function of the overall economic condition.

-spence

[EarnedStripes44]

Government in the last 30 years has been the hand-maiden of corporations. Corporate welfare is very real... Adam Smith noted as much when he railed against the Herring's fishery's subsidy nettings in the 18 the century.

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=spence;761240]The GDP of our nation is the output of a very complex system. Our great wealth is a function of this system which would collapse without structure. Not everybody can be rich, and the rich have built their fortunes (directly or indirectly) on the backs of others.

Yes, the GDP is a result of the system. The system produces the rich. Great wealth is functioned from the system. Some stumble into the automatic outputs and become rich. The backs of "others" are strained by this fortuitous accident backed into by the rich. There, bereft of system grace, go the "others" who were not fortunate enough to stumble into the right output. The outputs were already occupied by the rich, thus denying the "others."

Bureaucratic compassion is critical part of our economic health, and like everything, should of course be carefully measured.

Yes, the antidote to the heartless rich is the compassion of the system. It will divest the greedy of their unfair, ill-gotten gains and place the "others" into the alternate compassionate outputs reserved for those unluckies that didn't accidentally fall into the right slots. Carefully measured, of course.

I think this is more a function of the individual. The individual is responsible for how they feel about the benefits they may gain from the system. Certainly entitlements can after a period of time make people accustomed to certain behavior, but it's still up to the individual to determine how this is received.

The "other" must, as you say, function correctly within the parameters of the system. The "other" is responsible for correct feelings for their fortunate, guided, placement into the remunaritive output. The "other" must not incorrectly receive the output entitlement, though it is for the "other" to determine the manner of reception.

This has nothing to do with class by the way. I'd argue that the corporate elite is just as used to handouts as some welfare recipients.

The corporate elite, of course, as you say, having unjustly, accidentally, fallen into propitious systemic outputs, are as susceptible as the "other" to expecting the entitlements and so must be careful how they receive them lest they be forced to redistribute the gifts back to the system. They must be sure to stroke the correct elements.

The very fact that our government has *any* Federal power is affirmation that some problems require a collective solution.

It is a fact that the system requires Federal power for all solutions, lest renegades such as States, local units, so-called individuals create a disfunction in the complex output. This would be inneficient. System compassion would be challenged. Chaos, starvation, death would ensue.

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. Even the "needy" end up contributing quite a bit under the current system.

The "needy" are the most important cog in the system. Without the needy, the system would collapse.

Some elements of "normal" are certainly in flux. Although, when values are pared down to the essential elements there's very little separation between liberal and conservative ideas as practiced by the bulk of Americans.

"Normal" is always safely in the middle of the flux. "Normal" is always the centrist position in the ever-changing flux of the expanding system. "Normal" cannot deviate toward the dangerous edge of the system. "Normal" must not make definite statements, nor adhere to opinions or beliefs tainted with individualist perception. The amorphous, soft-edged, malleable concensus of the collective is the guide of the "normal." The ever-expanding system must accomodate all new inputs and remold them into system outputs . . .

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

The GDP of our nation is the output of a very complex system. Our great wealth is a function of this system which would collapse without structure. Not everybody can be rich, and the rich have built their fortunes (directly or indirectly) on the backs of others.

Bureaucratic compassion is critical part of our economic health, and like everything, should of course be carefully measured.


I think this is more a function of the individual. The individual is responsible for how they feel about the benefits they may gain from the system. Certainly entitlements can after a period of time make people accustomed to certain behavior, but it's still up to the individual to determine how this is received.

This has nothing to do with class by the way. I'd argue that the corporate elite is just as used to handouts as some welfare recipients.


The very fact that our government has *any* Federal power is affirmation that some problems require a collective solution.


This is a misrepresentation of the facts. Even the "needy" end up contributing quite a bit under the current system.


Some elements of "normal" are certainly in flux. Although, when values are pared down to the essential elements there's very little separation between liberal and conservative ideas as practiced by the bulk of Americans.


Does it? I'd think this is more probably a function of the overall economic condition.

-spence

The title of this thread is Spence's communist manifesto

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44

Government in the last 30 years has been the hand-maiden of corporations. Corporate welfare is very real... Adam Smith noted as much when he railed against the Herring's fishery's subsidy nettings in the 18 the century.

wow, really? just the last 30 yrs, really? Hmm, who really gave a shat about "taxation without representaion, a cobbler on boylston st?Business owners, period. Did the Mayflower sail for religious freedom or so that a corporation could make money? How dumb are you guys?
Some people are bunker, others stripers. The current admin wants to save the bunker, i want to save the stripers. Let the feed begin.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

The title of this thread is Spence's communist manifesto

That's a stretch.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by spence

The GDP of our nation is the output of a very complex system. Our great wealth is a function of this system which would collapse without structure. Not everybody can be rich, and the rich have built their fortunes (directly or indirectly) on the backs of others.

Yes, the GDP is a result of the system. The system produces the rich. Great wealth is functioned from the system. Some stumble into the automatic outputs and become rich. The backs of "others" are strained by this fortuitous accident backed into by the rich. There, bereft of system grace, go the "others" who were not fortunate enough to stumble into the right output. The outputs were already occupied by the rich, thus denying the "others."

Bureaucratic compassion is critical part of our economic health, and like everything, should of course be carefully measured.

Yes, the antidote to the heartless rich is the compassion of the system. It will divest the greedy of their unfair, ill-gotten gains and place the "others" into the alternate compassionate outputs reserved for those unluckies that didn't accidentally fall into the right slots. Carefully measured, of course.

I think this is more a function of the individual. The individual is responsible for how they feel about the benefits they may gain from the system. Certainly entitlements can after a period of time make people accustomed to certain behavior, but it's still up to the individual to determine how this is received.

The "other" must, as you say, function correctly within the parameters of the system. The "other" is responsible for correct feelings for their fortunate, guided, placement into the remunaritive output. The "other" must not incorrectly receive the output entitlement, though it is for the "other" to determine the manner of reception.

This has nothing to do with class by the way. I'd argue that the corporate elite is just as used to handouts as some welfare recipients.

The corporate elite, of course, as you say, having unjustly, accidentally, fallen into propitious systemic outputs, are as susceptible as the "other" to expecting the entitlements and so must be careful how they receive them lest they be forced to redistribute the gifts back to the system. They must be sure to stroke the correct elements.

The very fact that our government has *any* Federal power is affirmation that some problems require a collective solution.

It is a fact that the system requires Federal power for all solutions, lest renegades such as States, local units, so-called individuals create a disfunction in the complex output. This would be inneficient. System compassion would be challenged. Chaos, starvation, death would ensue.

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. Even the "needy" end up contributing quite a bit under the current system.

The "needy" are the most important cog in the system. Without the needy, the system would collapse.

Some elements of "normal" are certainly in flux. Although, when values are pared down to the essential elements there's very little separation between liberal and conservative ideas as practiced by the bulk of Americans.

"Normal" is always safely in the middle of the flux. "Normal" is always the centrist position in the ever-changing flux of the expanding system. "Normal" cannot deviate toward the dangerous edge of the system. "Normal" must not make definite statements, nor adhere to opinions or beliefs tainted with individualist perception. The amorphous, soft-edged, malleable concensus of the collective is the guide of the "normal." The ever-expanding system must accomodate all new inputs and remold them into system outputs . . .

Perhaps you seem to find it more convenient to just argue against a phantom position never really taken. Or, perhaps you think a centrist position is an impossibility so you need to tell me what I think?

Seriously, who are you talking to?

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

no it doesn't , it says "jobs lost vertically and Job Loss/Job Growth above horizontally, are you looking at some other graph?

Do you know how to read a graph? That big text at the top in bold, is called the Title. The left side starting at top goes from +100,000 down to 0 then far down into the negatives where jobs lost peaked close to -800,000 during Bush's last month.

There were only two months on that graph that had actual job growth. Dec -07 under Bush and Nov-09 under Obama.

If the words were reversed and said Job Growth / Job Loss (or was removed entirely) no meaning of the graph would change.

Maybe this'll help:

[buckman]

The bottom line is, you are no longer entitled to The American Dream, work hard, make money, buy 2 houses, nice cars, maybe a boat if your real greedy. There are needy, lazy, stupid people who are entitled to your money.
The list of entitlements grows, the list of people to fund it shrinks. Yup, that should work.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Do you know how to read a graph? That big text at the top in bold, is called the Title. The left side starting at top goes from +100,000 down to 0 then far down into the negatives where jobs lost peaked close to -800,000 during Bush's last month.

There were only two months on that graph that had actual job growth. Dec -07 under Bush and Nov-09 under Obama.

If the words were reversed and said Job Growth / Job Loss (or was removed entirely) no meaning of the graph would change.

Maybe this'll help:

Thanks for the lesson JD. Maybe reality is what throws the graph off. I'm just happy we passed "stimulas" so unemployment wouldn't rise over 8%. Whew, that was close. Thank you Obama

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Do you know how to read a graph? That big text at the top in bold, is called the Title. The left side starting at top goes from +100,000 down to 0 then far down into the negatives where jobs lost peaked close to -800,000 during Bush's last month.

There were only two months on that graph that had actual job growth. Dec -07 under Bush and Nov-09 under Obama.

If the words were reversed and said Job Growth / Job Loss (or was removed entirely) no meaning of the graph would change.

Maybe this'll help:

umm...that's not the graph that he posted and to which we are referring...so...you must be drinking...


the other bottom line is that it's getting tougher and tougher for these radical leftists to try and claim that they are neither...

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

I'm just happy we passed "stimulas" so unemployment wouldn't rise over 8%. Whew, that was close. Thank you Obama

Why do I keep reading about all these economists who think the stimulus bill helped avert a much deeper recession?

Must all be liberals, they're drawn to economics like flies to %$%$%$%$.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

The bottom line is, you are no longer entitled to The American Dream, work hard, make money, buy 2 houses, nice cars, maybe a boat if your real greedy. There are needy, lazy, stupid people who are entitled to your money.
The list of entitlements grows, the list of people to fund it shrinks. Yup, that should work.

That's the "American Dream"...to buy houses, cars and boats?

-spence