May Unemployment Rises to 9.1%

[fskimospy]

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.

HANDS OFF!

Such a novel concept these days, letting nature take its course. The only reason we have a problem today is due to the bailouts of 2008. You are the problem, that you deny this reality means you will never fix the economy - only ruin it.

Can you provide any credible economic analysis that shows TARP being responsible for the economic difficulties today?

 

[ElFenix]

As a general rule, but obviously that's not always the case, and I'm waiting to see any evidence that such a thing would be the case here.

there can't be any evidence for this specific instance because it's counter factual.

 

[fskimospy]

there can't be any evidence for this specific instance because it's counter factual.

This is not the first time the government has bailed something out, surely in the historical record we should be able to see some evidence for bailouts having a negative impact?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by dmcowen674
This started under your hero Bush and Obama failed at trying to fix it.

How would your next Republican hero fix it?

I am not a fan of any of the supposed "stimulus" or bailouts. It's quite obvious there needs to be a correction instead of trying to the same old failed BS that just delays the pain and actually makes the situation worse.

You didn't answer the question.

You have got to be a Politician.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by dmcowen674
This started under your hero Bush and Obama failed at trying to fix it.

How would your next Republican hero fix it?

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.

HANDS OFF!

Such a novel concept these days, letting nature take its course. The only reason we have a problem today is due to the bailouts of 2008. You are the problem, that you deny this reality means you will never fix the economy - only ruin it.

Bush was all hands off in that he de-regulated the hell out of business and this is the result.

So you want another Republican in there to make it even worse?

How will that help?

 

[ElFenix]

This is not the first time the government has bailed something out, surely in the historical record we should be able to see some evidence for bailouts having a negative impact?

but you said for this time. that's like asking whether i would have had more fun going out with the gf or with the boys last night. if i choose one that's the only one i can do.


beyond the just general subsidies the only major bailouts i can think of are chrysler and some of the S&L things in the 80s. some have argued that knowing of the S&L bailout history created moral hazard on the part of lending institutions which helped get us into the mess we're in today. if that's the case, is that really worth it? again, don't know, getting blitzed was fun but the hangover sure does suck. maybe i should have spent the time with the gf. we'll never know.


ultimately we don't know how much damage would be caused by not having bailouts, or by bailouts focused on different things. there's simply not enough history and data there, the experiences don't repeat all that well, conditions change big time in the intervening decades, etc.

 

[rudder]

This is not the first time the government has bailed something out, surely in the historical record we should be able to see some evidence for bailouts having a negative impact?

So you see no negative impact of the federal government bailing out private high risk takers? How do you think the housing market got so bad? Fannie mae and freddie mac buying 40% of subprime mortgages and lenders being slack on underwriting because there was no risk to them.... no negative impact there.

What about individual companies? GM... got the bailout and will still need tens of billions to manage their pension liabilities... maybe had they been left alone and filed bankruptcy.. a leaner meaner car company would have evolved.

 

[Throckmorton]

Most of them start with a "g" and rhyme with "overnment." For example:

1. Regulate that people who don't deserve mortgages must get them. Shocking outcome: these people don't pay back their loans, tanking the housing market not only for themselves, but for those of us who had good credit and paid our bills.

2. Anti-business political bellowing generated huge amounts of uncertainty. Shocking outcome: people like me who were thinking of starting a small business couldn't afford the huge gamble without knowing the extent we would be thrown under the bus if all of this rhetoric were actually institutionalized. Therefore, we didn't hire anyone, generate new products and revenues, and didn't improve the quality of life of people who might have used our products.

3. Bailouts of large corporations. Shocking outcome: huge corporations that should have died stuck around, clogging up the marketplace for small, more agile businesses that would have created more jobs and ideas to bear.

There are others, but hopefully you get the idea.

Is this post a parody?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally Posted by dmcowen674
This started under your hero Bush and Obama failed at trying to fix it.

How would your next Republican hero fix it?




You didn't answer the question.

You have got to be a Politician.

learn how to quote you twit.

next R hero? Uhh.. I didn't vote for McCain you moron so your question ASSumes blind allegiance. My post was probably a bit to complicated for you to understand... so I didn't expect a rational response.

 

[Jaskalas]

Can you provide any credible economic analysis that shows TARP being responsible for the economic difficulties today?

To clarify I meant all the actions taken from bailouts to stimulus. Everything that has lead to printing the dollar. Perhaps I am mistaken to have included bailouts in this discussion given the payback involved. So I need to reframe what I'm saying.

We suffer from a weak dollar and market uncertainty - a result of government's hand in the cookie jar. The proof is in your own logic. You say we must spend more. You say we must stimulate. Why? Because you did so in the first place and the money has run out. This action itself is both the attack on the dollar and the source of market uncertainty.

Had our government not interfered unemployment would have been higher, for a time, but the rebound would have been true and wholesome. Not built on the back of our currency. Not subject to the maniacal whims of our politicians.

Imagine a recovery in which Republicans cannot say NO to the source of jobs and GDP. Government money is not all its cracked up to be. By its political and uncertain nature it causes a great deal of turmoil. More of it is the last thing a healthy market needs.

If it does recover it'll be in spite of your stimulus, not due to it.

 

[Throckmorton]

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

 

[uclaLabrat]

Most of them start with a "g" and rhyme with "overnment." For example:

1. Regulate that people who don't deserve mortgages must get them. Shocking outcome: these people don't pay back their loans, tanking the housing market not only for themselves, but for those of us who had good credit and paid our bills.

2. Anti-business political bellowing generated huge amounts of uncertainty. Shocking outcome: people like me who were thinking of starting a small business couldn't afford the huge gamble without knowing the extent we would be thrown under the bus if all of this rhetoric were actually institutionalized. Therefore, we didn't hire anyone, generate new products and revenues, and didn't improve the quality of life of people who might have used our products.

3. Bailouts of large corporations. Shocking outcome: huge corporations that should have died stuck around, clogging up the marketplace for small, more agile businesses that would have created more jobs and ideas to bear.

There are others, but hopefully you get the idea.

Those sound good in principle, provided the right checks are in place. I feel the most fundamental problem is concentration of wealth at the top. With so much of the pie focused there, the have-nots have to pick over the scraps, which has cut the bottom out of our consumer-based economic model.

I don't think government is a 4-letter word. Regulation is not in and of itself evil, it's just been designed to be that way by the idiots making the laws. I don't think the bail out should have let the too-big-to-fail crowd get even bigger, but they should probably be dismantled into smaller corps to prevent this thing from happening again. Allowing them to fail, I still believe, would have been the worst of all options....bailing them out was certainly not the best, but maybe we can still create some competition by breaking up the industry a bit.

I agree completely with 1. Not sure about 2, I have no idea what the issues are with regards to starting a new business. I'm pretty pissed about the off-shoring of jobs...this recession is now about unemployment and the housing market, for the most part.

 

[Ape]

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

As the stimulus was supposed to keep unemployment under 8%. Seems politicians on both sides know dick about how the economy works let alone how to fix it.

 

[theeedude]

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.

HANDS OFF!

Such a novel concept these days, letting nature take its course. The only reason we have a problem today is due to the bailouts of 2008. You are the problem, that you deny this reality means you will never fix the economy - only ruin it.

HANDS OFF worked great under Bush. Would do again A++++

 

[her209]

Most of them start with a "g" and rhyme with "overnment." For example:

1. Regulate that people who don't deserve mortgages must get them. Shocking outcome: these people don't pay back their loans, tanking the housing market not only for themselves, but for those of us who had good credit and paid our bills.

What governmental regulations forced the share of subprime mortgages issued to jump from about 4% to 11% of total mortgages in the first quarter of 2004 when it was around 3% from 2000 to the end of 2003?

source

 

[ProfJohn]

The GOP controlled Michigan is pulling the same thing on the State level here. Giving every dime we have in Michigan to big business to spur job growth. We all know that tax cuts don't create jobs, demand and having customers who can actually buy your product/service does.

Wouldn't tax cuts create demands by giving people more money to spend??

More money in your pocket = more money to spend?? Simple concept.


BTW the best thing we can do now to help the economy is to suspend the SS withholding on the first $20k worth of income. That would put more money into the pockets of both business and individuals.

 

[soundforbjt]

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

Why should they when they're making record profits with a smaller workforce?

The people who believe this probably also believe corp tax rates are too high even though the top 12 corps paid negative corp taxes this year.

 

[JTsyo]

This started under your hero Bush and Obama failed at trying to fix it.

How would your next Republican hero fix it?

While I'm no fan of Bush, he just got caught with the hot potato when the music stopped. The bubbles is what has driven the US economy for the past few decades.

 

[cganesh75]

i thought companies were hoarding money because of the fear that bush tax cuts will end. why are the jobs still not being created, now that we have extended that stupid tax cuts for 2 more years.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Depends on where you are but yeah, some places it's terrible. Where I live there are tons and tons of jobs available, at least in IT.

what city? or at least give us a state.

 

[soundforbjt]

i thought companies were hoarding money because of the fear that bush tax cuts will end. why are the jobs still not being created, now that we have extended that stupid tax cuts for 2 more years.

You've been listening to Faux News and Talk radio again haven't you?

 

[CPA]

Extending the Bush tax cuts was a bad idea, yes. He did it in exchange for extended unemployment benefits, which were a good idea. I don't think we know enough yet to see if the bargain he made was a good one. Hopefully he succeeds in letting them expire next time they are up for renewal.

No, extending unemployment benefits was a horrible idea.

If you aren't aware, more than half the states are now saddled with federal loans for those extended benefits. These loans and deferred interest come due this November. Guess how they are going to pay for it? They're going to assess special taxes on companies, who then will pass it on to the consumer - Florida and Michigan have already passed the special assessments. And how is the Feds going to help if the states can't pay back these loans? Well, Obama's budget calls for the elimination of the FUTA tax credit, which will, you guessed it, increase the tax expense on companies, who will then pass it on to the consumer.

So, as you can see, the extended unemployment benefits did nothing but increase taxes on us. Sorry, but that's not a good idea.

 

[CPA]

Originally Posted by dmcowen674
This started under your hero Bush and Obama failed at trying to fix it.

How would your next Republican hero fix it?




Bush was all hands off in that he de-regulated the hell out of business and this is the result.

So you want another Republican in there to make it even worse?

How will that help?

BULLSHIT, he did. have you heard of Sarbanes-Oxley? One of the biggest regulatory bills on corporations ever. it literally created a new industry.

 

[CalvinHobbes]

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

You must have read that wrong, it was to keep the rich rich.

 

[Zebo]

It's actually over 20% using old stats but presidents keep making BLS change the way it's calculated...sorta like there is no inflation but a single trip to a grocery store or gas pump this year will tell you different.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

I prefer, for my money, to look at employment rate of population, no lying, just w2's/population.