May Unemployment Rises to 9.1%

[WhipperSnapper]

The extension of the UE was to keep 'the masses' at least somewhat placated a little bit longer. That tax cuts had to happen for that to be achieved is just part of the deal that needed to be struck.

I wonder if the tax cutters who begrudged the unemployment extensions realize that placating the masses keeps the masses from building guillotines.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

A President can only 'fix' an economy by getting the hell out of its way and letting it fix itself. If you work under the false pretense of having to take action or nothing happens, then you will spend all your time attacking the very thing you're trying to save.

The market can be certain of itself, but it cannot be certain with governments f'ing it up and picking winners and losers based on biased distribution of freely printed money. With your hand on the market, certainty is thrown out the window. Without certainty you will not have prosperity.

What about the problem of global labor arbitrage? Left to its own devices, the free market would eventually transform the U.S. into an impoverished third world country. American wages and standard of living would average out with that of the rest of the world.

Given that, should the president sit idly by and allow it to happen (which is pretty much what numerous administrations have done).

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I thought extending the Bush Tax Cuts was supposed to encourage the wealthy "job creators" to "create jobs"

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8TcM54NwFo

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Fvcking tragic to see people still defending Obama as anything but every bit as delusional about this as the rest of them on capital hill.

We need to know what the "Actual without Stimulus" would have looked like.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

So despite Reagan's tax rate cuts the amount of money raised by income taxes went up every year he was in office, but one. And yet you act as if tax cuts in themselves are the source of our problems.

You need to adjust for inflation and factor in population growth. what was the amount of tax revenue raised per capita in those Years? If the economy merely treads water, neither improving and worsening, then tax revenue should increase merely as a result of population growth.

 

[Doppel]

We need to know what the "Actual without Stimulus" would have looked like.

The graph doesn't indicate the effectiveness of the stimulus, merely the ineffectiveness of the Obama administration's grasp of the scope and solution of the situation. Indubitably.

 

[Jhhnn]

The graph doesn't indicate the effectiveness of the stimulus, merely the ineffectiveness of the Obama administration's grasp of the scope and solution of the situation. Indubitably.

It's really more than that. Finance is in no small way a game of confidence. Even if their perceptions were entirely accurate, telling the truth would just have made it worse, because confidence would have been destroyed.

Which is entirely the opposite of the way the Bushistas played their hand, acting as barkers for the rigged casino...

 

[CycloWizard]

It's really more than that. Finance is in no small way a game of confidence. Even if their perceptions were entirely accurate, telling the truth would just have made it worse, because confidence would have been destroyed.

Which is entirely the opposite of the way the Bushistas played their hand, acting as barkers for the rigged casino...

Wow. You are actually willing to go to the mat and say that it's a good thing Obama lied to us because...we can't handle the truth?

 

[ShawnD1]

Wow. You are actually willing to go to the mat and say that it's a good thing Obama lied to us because...we can't handle the truth?

Eh, sometimes. Average people are retarded. They want big government programs but they don't want to be taxed in order to pay for it. Average American has how many thousands of dollars of credit card debt? Average person is also uneducated and about 40% of the US is working at jobs paying $12/h or less. I can understand why government people wouldn't be completely transparent about everything.

That's not just Obama, that's for every politician.

 

[CycloWizard]

Eh, sometimes. Average people are retarded. They want big government programs but they don't want to be taxed in order to pay for it. Average American has how many thousands of dollars of credit card debt? Average person is also uneducated and about 40% of the US is working at jobs paying $12/h or less. I can understand why government people wouldn't be completely transparent about everything.

That's not just Obama, that's for every politician.

There's a difference between lying and not telling the truth. There's a difference between being transparent and telling people what they want to hear. While I absolutely agree that the average voter is mentally incapable of understanding most issues, it's still the responsibility of government to make all information available so we can pretend to make informed decisions. Otherwise we are simply an oligarchy where our betters decide what we need to know and how we need to know it. The buffer between direct democracy (by the stupid and for the stupid) is the republican form of government we have, where even the worst candidate on the list will probably make better decisions than the unwashed masses by direct voting.

 

[Craig234]

Eh, sometimes. Average people are retarded. They want big government programs but they don't want to be taxed in order to pay for it. Average American has how many thousands of dollars of credit card debt? Average person is also uneducated and about 40% of the US is working at jobs paying $12/h or less. I can understand why government people wouldn't be completely transparent about everything.

That's not just Obama, that's for every politician.

Every President faces an issue of 'what not to tell the American public'.

Perhaps the most famous is FDR's running on a platform not to get involved in WWII, which the public did not want to get involved in, while preparing to do so - and using Pearl Harbor to get the US committed to the European war against Germany (shades of 9/11 used for the war in Iraq).

Of course, this is almost never a popular behavior to defend - citizens are not too crazy about saying 'ya, hide info from me' - but it is an issue.

For another example, during the cold war, Presidents and USSR leaders sometimes understood each others' internal pressures better than they got along with their own governments. They could discuss things in private communications at times in terms of 'I know you have to do X and Y or your generals will go after you'. Hence, for example, why JFK ordered his government not to gloat publicly over the USSR's withdrawal of missiles from Cuba.

Sometimes, it's easier to defend; not many today would not sympathize with FDR recognizing the need for the US to get involved in WWII against Hitler. Other times - probably most - it's not as easy to defend, e.g., Reagan's Iran-Contra policies that violated the law to sponsor terrorism against Nicaragua (and bringing cocaine into the US, leading to much of the new crack epidemic), or Ford's secretly approving Indonesia misusing the weapons we gave them for a slaughter in East Timor of 250,000.

It's just too tempting for politicians to misuse attacks around issues like this.

In congressional elections, Republicans attacked Democrats with claims that the Affordable Healthcare Act would reduce Medicare benefits - because it was politically advantageous for them to do so, acting as the protectors of the popular Medicare program. Nevermind their plan to slash it soon after.

On the other hand, I don't think Obama was exactly forthright about his plans for trying to get healthcare by selling out the plan as much as he did.

 

[Jaskalas]

What about the problem of global labor arbitrage? Left to its own devices, the free market would eventually transform the U.S. into an impoverished third world country. American wages and standard of living would average out with that of the rest of the world.

Given that, should the president sit idly by and allow it to happen (which is pretty much what numerous administrations have done).

I hope you know, that nothing I said is in relation to whether we should end open trade. I don't know why you brought that up in the subject of bailouts and stimulus and other responses to the current economic crisis.

Unless you're demanding an end to free trade now while in the middle of this. Which case, why reply to me here, why not create a new thread? I've little understanding of the associations you've placed on this.

My entire post is on the Democrat's government-run economy and destroying our currency to delay / make worse the inevitable pain of an economic depression.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

You need to start reading Thomas Sowell, he will open your eyes on tax cuts for the rich and what happened when they we raised and cut on the wealthiest Americans.

EVerything I have read from him reenforces the need to change the tax code.

When your main argument against raising taxes on the rich is that they will simply avoid paying them you aren't making a compelling case for not raising them. A group which has seen its share of wealth and income rise 30% over the last 20 years has also seen its share (percentage wise) of the income tax rate go down. And lets not get into how unearned tax rates have gone down.

Trickle down has been disproved so many times I cannot believe a Hoover institute member insists on trotting this out.

Combine a higher tax rate, a national luxury tax, along with a healthy estate tax and then we'd be talking.

Ill show him how to raise that Government income.

 

[Zebo]

What about the problem of global labor arbitrage? Left to its own devices, the free market would eventually transform the U.S. into an impoverished third world country. American wages and standard of living would average out with that of the rest of the world.

Given that, should the president sit idly by and allow it to happen (which is pretty much what numerous administrations have done).

Not if you make better. Look at Germany basically supporting PIIGS in Europe with it's largesse. But people require investment for success something we have forgotten and certainly living off debt and selling off our assets like sqaunderville is a recipe for disaster. You're not supposed to give up your ABSOLUTE advantage for COMPARATIVE advantage godfather of free trade said so. Another thing we "half practice" like Keynesian economics we half practice, the esay part, and still call it Keynesian.

 

[BeauJangles]

When your main argument against raising taxes on the rich is that they will simply avoid paying them you aren't making a compelling case for not raising them. A group which has seen its share of wealth and income rise 30% over the last 20 years has also seen its share (percentage wise) of the income tax rate go down. And lets not get into how unearned tax rates have gone down.

All you need to do to see what would happen if you raise taxes on the rich is look at the effective tax rate of major American corporations. Despite ostensibly paying 35% of their income in taxes, companies like GE employ hundreds of lawyers who have helped them get their tax rate down to about 3%.

More importantly, our country's problem is not an income problem, it's a spending problem. Trying to increase revenues isn't the answer, it is only masking the problem.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

The graph doesn't indicate the effectiveness of the stimulus, merely the ineffectiveness of the Obama administration's grasp of the scope and solution of the situation. Indubitably.

It's possible that the Obama Administration had an excellent grasp of the scope of the situation and the solution but just couldn't reveal it publicly for political reasons. It's similar to the health care debate. Obama probably would have much preferred a European-styled socialized medicine system but could never have gotten it through Congress and might have suffered politically for advocating it. We won't know what he was really thinking until and if he discusses it in his memoirs.

 

[chucky2]

Standard rightwing hogwash.

We're dealing with a concept of "Shared Sacrifice", remember? If those at the top aren't called upon to sacrifice in the form of taxes, what sort of sacrifice will they make?

It's clear that higher taxes and reduced expenditures are necessary. What would make anybody think Repubs would be amenable to raising taxes *after* cutting expenditures, anyway?

Shee-it, Sherlock- the Ryan plan makes it clear that they want to cut top tier taxes to nothing- zero taxes on capital gains- and to approach fiscal responsibility, maybe, at the expense of the non-Rich exclusively.

I'm quite frankly amazed and dismayed that middle class people are so well indoctrinated that they think Repub Leaders will do something other than what they said they would, or that the promised results will somehow materialize any better than they have up to this point.

Let me translate their pitch into plain English-

"Cornholio! You'll like it!"

I'm not at the top tier you partisan hack, I only make around $65-$70k a year - depending on how bonus's are paid the next year.

I'm frankly amazed, given how reckless the Fed Gov has proven itself to be - over and over, again and again - that any taxpayer would sign up for increased taxation rates until the Fed Gov can meaningfully prove to their bosses - those same taxpayers who are being asked to pony up more - that they have actually fixed their spending problems.

If they tell me they need to move my tax rate for 30% or WhateverTF it's at now, to 39%, so be it. I'm willing to take that hit to help get the country out of the shape it's in.

But before they go and do that to 10's of Millions of Us, I'd think they'd first say, Look, we've locked down our balanced budgets - the kind where they don't print money to make them "balanced" - for the next 4 years these increased taxes will be in affect. Now we need you All to pay more in to dig us out of the hole.

Have they done that hack? No.

Have they done anything even remotely close to that hack? NO.

The only think remotely amazing is why you're still posting here. You should have sold off all your worldly possessions years ago, to donate that money to the Fed, since you believe in giving them more of your $$$. Get back to us when you've done that (posting from the library PC of course), then you can talk about raising taxes w/o curbing massive Gov spending.

The complete and total idiocy of Lib's never amazes me. Ever...

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

I wonder if the tax cutters who begrudged the unemployment extensions realize that placating the masses keeps the masses from building guillotines.

Of course they do, you don't think the politicians want to see the populace really PO'd, as in riots and whatnot, do you? They want them just displeased enough to let the Pol's lead them around by their desperate pocketbooks...Hope and Change!

 

[Budmantom]

This IS the Obama economy and it will only get "better".

 

[chucky2]

You can't blame O'Bummer for this, he did inherit a sh1t economy, of that there is no question. Not that B00000ssh didn't inherit a declining economy and then a set of nationally disasterous events - none of which helped.

The problem is, where do we go from here?

Spending like a mofo with the answer of, 'Lets spend more and let "the rich" pay for it all, hardy har har' is not acceptable. Somewhere sometime we need a balanced budget that actually starts paying off all the debt We've incurred...which means, not making a 'balanced budget' balanced by raising taxes by hundreds of Billions and then not having to cut back spending at all/hardly at all.

The Gov needs to do due dilligence and massively cut back spending and commit - without being able to get out of it - to sticking to those cutbacks.

Good luck with that, the majority of our Pol's don't have the b@lls to do it.

 

[96Firebird]

How long does it take before new college graduates get added to the unemployment statistics? A lot of people just graduated and can't find jobs, could be the reason for the spike?

 

[JSt0rm]

The reason there was a spike in unemployment claims was because people are beginning to feel more optimistic about the economy and have started looking for jobs again.

 

[chucky2]

Last I heard it was like 53% of college grads can't get jobs or something like that. I've told my two cousins who are going to be Freshman next year, to get into Air Force ROTC if they can. Let them pay for college, do your 4-5 years, then make a decision to either get out or stay in and do your 20. Graduating with $80-$100k in college debt, just to have no job or some POS job, would seriously suck. Sure glad I didn't have that problem...

 

[chucky2]

The reason there was a spike in unemployment claims was because people are beginning to feel more optimistic about the economy and have started looking for jobs again.

Hahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

<breath, breath>

Hahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Man, that was a good one! :thumbsup::biggrin:

 

[96Firebird]

Last I heard it was like 53% of college grads can't get jobs or something like that. I've told my two cousins who are going to be Freshman next year, to get into Air Force ROTC if they can. Let them pay for college, do your 4-5 years, then make a decision to either get out or stay in and do your 20. Graduating with $80-$100k in college debt, just to have no job or some POS job, would seriously suck. Sure glad I didn't have that problem...

Yeah, I have some friends who just graduated with me and are having a hard time finding jobs. Thankfully I found one, even if it isn't the greatest. At least it is something...