Unemployment increases to 9.8% after poor jobs report

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Again, Democrat controlled Congress. How did Obamacare pass but they couldn't get this through?

Bamacre is right, it's not just one side or the other---IT'S BOTH. Until the partisans retards realize that, this country is gonna stay fucked for a long time.

If you're legitimately asking the question, the Dem's had 60 votes in the Senate at the time they passed the senate reform bill. Those 60 votes were enough to override a filibuster. Then Kennedy died, Brown won his seat, and they lost that ability. In the Senate, 60 > 40, but 41 > 59.

 

[GoPackGo]

And yet you oppose the one faction who most supports your point, the progressives, and support the party that has so much 'sold out' to the interests you criticize.

Yes, the corporatist Dems, the compromising Dems, are very responsible for their part of the sellout policies. Listen to progressives attack them.

But criticizing them is the only part you're getting right in placing blame. You get the progressives and the Republicans wrong, named for your enemies.

Well, Craig...over the last couple of years I am becoming more more results driven, politically.

Ross Perot was so right, when he said of NAFTA's passing - All you are going to hear is the sucking sound of jobs leaving this country. Then we send jobs to China and India.

The Republicans are very much at fault. They should have gotten us out of NAFTA and put restrictions on off-shoring jobs.

We should have some kind of fair tax system where everyone pays something...and we should have passed a Balanced Budget amendment.

At some point business and political leaders had this great idea that the US should be a service based economy and not a manufacturing one and that just does not work.

 

[GoPackGo]

"It will be the poor in rich countries subsidizing the rich in poor countries." - Sir James Goldsmith (1994)

So which have we become?

 

[GoPackGo]

If you're legitimately asking the question, the Dem's had 60 votes in the Senate at the time they passed the senate reform bill. Those 60 votes were enough to override a filibuster. Then Kennedy died, Brown won his seat, and they lost that ability. In the Senate, 60 > 40, but 41 > 59.

I thought HC passed after Kennedy died?

 

[theeedude]

It passed using reconciliation.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I thought HC passed after Kennedy died?

It did in the House. That's why the House had to vote on the Senate bill instead of the other way around. They couldn't get the House version through the Senate after Kennedy died.

 

[theeedude]

Are Republicans in denial that they've been obstructing legislation, or trying to duck responsibility for the consequences of that obstructionism?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Are Republicans in denial that they've been obstructing legislation, or trying to duck responsibility for the consequences of that obstructionism?

I suspect that had some bills been crafted better, there would have been less obstruction.

Pelosi and Reid set the tone for cooperation on Day 0 '08

 

[sactoking]

Well, Craig...over the last couple of years I am becoming more more results driven, politically.

Ross Perot was so right, when he said of NAFTA's passing - All you are going to hear is the sucking sound of jobs leaving this country. Then we send jobs to China and India.

The Republicans are very much at fault. They should have gotten us out of NAFTA and put restrictions on off-shoring jobs.

We should have some kind of fair tax system where everyone pays something...and we should have passed a Balanced Budget amendment.

At some point business and political leaders had this great idea that the US should be a service based economy and not a manufacturing one and that just does not work.

When did I become so out of the loop that both China and India relocated to North America and I missed it?

NAFTA has pretty much nothing to do with outsourcing to India, you can thank the internet for that.

NAFTA has pretty much nothing to do with manufacturing moving to China, you can thank China's own relaxed international economic policies and advances in container shipping tech for that.

 

[dainthomas]

Those tards should actually have to standup and speak non-stop if they believe that much in a bill not being put up for a vote.

Yep, being able file a motion of filibuster or whatever is ridiculous. I have a feeling if Senator Blowhard actually had to read out of a phone book for 24 hours, the vast majority of these threats would melt away.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Ross Perot was so right, when he said of NAFTA's passing - All you are going to hear is the sucking sound of jobs leaving this country. Then we send jobs to China and India.

The Republicans are very much at fault. They should have gotten us out of NAFTA and put restrictions on off-shoring jobs.

NAFTA was nothing compared to GATT...there's plenty of blame to go around.

 

[drebo]

You are suggesting there has been a 50% rise in overall prices?

I'm not contesting it. I believe it would be in the ballpark if you included property, health care, and education.

It may not be exact, but I'd bet it's pretty damn close.

Gas is 3-4x what it was 10 years ago, depending on where you are in the country, and that's not all due to the "war". A candybar is at least twice as expensive now as it was 10 years ago. A ticket to a baseball game is much more expensive, as well.

Some things have come down in price (computers, for instance), but that's mostly due to manufacturing efficiencies, and in spite of inflation.

Prices are definitely a LOT higher now than they were 10 years ago. Government programs, deficits, and welfare tends to do that. And before you "B.B.B.Bush...!" me, I didn't approve of any of those things during Bush's years either, and I did not vote for Bush.

 

[GoPackGo]

When did I become so out of the loop that both China and India relocated to North America and I missed it?

NAFTA has pretty much nothing to do with outsourcing to India, you can thank the internet for that.

NAFTA has pretty much nothing to do with manufacturing moving to China, you can thank China's own relaxed international economic policies and advances in container shipping tech for that.

I am not saying NAFTA had anything do with China...but its a 1 2 3 punch sort of thing.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I am not saying NAFTA had anything do with China...but its a 1 2 3 punch sort of thing.

NAFTA only affected North America. GATT was global and a major reason for the exodus of manufacturing from the US to China.

 

[GoPackGo]

NAFTA only affected North America. GATT was global and a major reason for the exodus of manufacturing from the US to China.

Yeah...that works out great for us!

 

[fskimospy]

It may not be exact, but I'd bet it's pretty damn close.

Gas is 3-4x what it was 10 years ago, depending on where you are in the country, and that's not all due to the "war". A candybar is at least twice as expensive now as it was 10 years ago. A ticket to a baseball game is much more expensive, as well.

Some things have come down in price (computers, for instance), but that's mostly due to manufacturing efficiencies, and in spite of inflation.

Prices are definitely a LOT higher now than they were 10 years ago. Government programs, deficits, and welfare tends to do that. And before you "B.B.B.Bush...!" me, I didn't approve of any of those things during Bush's years either, and I did not vote for Bush.

Actually over the last 20 years inflation has been pretty low, and quite stable. Studies on the optimal rate of inflation usually decide it's somewhere between 1% and 5%, with more on the lower end. (probably if you averaged them you'd get somewhere around a 2-3% optimal rate)

Considering that, the US rate over the last two decades has been somewhere around 3%, maybe a bit higher. Considering the risks of deflation, that's coming pretty close to hitting the nail on the head.

 

[GoPackGo]

Actually over the last 20 years inflation has been pretty low, and quite stable. Studies on the optimal rate of inflation usually decide it's somewhere between 1% and 5%, with more on the lower end. (probably if you averaged them you'd get somewhere around a 2-3% optimal rate)

Considering that, the US rate over the last two decades has been somewhere around 3%, maybe a bit higher. Considering the risks of deflation, that's coming pretty close to hitting the nail on the head.

If you look at the cost of automobiles and homes for example...they have gone up considerably in the last 20 years.

Medical Costs, Insurance Costs and college tuition costs have SKYROCKETED over the last 20 years so somewhere the numbers do not add up when you compare the numbers they want to tell us and reality.

 

[Zebo]

Worst month in years! And During xmas!

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[fskimospy]

If you look at the cost of automobiles and homes for example...they have gone up considerably in the last 20 years.

Medical Costs, Insurance Costs and college tuition costs have SKYROCKETED over the last 20 years so somewhere the numbers do not add up when you compare the numbers they want to tell us and reality.

This is why you look at the economy as a whole instead of cherry picking things. It doesn't really matter to me if you believe it or not, that's what the numbers are.

 

[sactoking]

I am not saying NAFTA had anything do with China...but its a 1 2 3 punch sort of thing.

Ahhh, when I read your original statement (highlighted in my earlier post) I read it as having a causal relationship.

 

[yllus]

We Have Now the Same Employment-to-Population Ratio We Had Eleven Months Ago

 

[Zebo]

Well, Craig...over the last couple of years I am becoming more more results driven, politically.

Ross Perot was so right, when he said of NAFTA's passing - All you are going to hear is the sucking sound of jobs leaving this country. Then we send jobs to China and India.

The Republicans are very much at fault. They should have gotten us out of NAFTA and put restrictions on off-shoring jobs.

We should have some kind of fair tax system where everyone pays something...and we should have passed a Balanced Budget amendment.

At some point business and political leaders had this great idea that the US should be a service based economy and not a manufacturing one and that just does not work.

Liberals are to blame too. When people can sit at home and in section 8 and still get iphones there is no political will to stop the leaks.

I don't understand paying people to sit at home AND paying china for my i Phone. Craziness.

 

[drebo]

This is why you look at the economy as a whole instead of cherry picking things. It doesn't really matter to me if you believe it or not, that's what the numbers are.

They can tell us whatever they want, but when average prices are more than 50% higher than they were 10 years ago, that is a glaring indicator of inflation. Maybe GLOBAL inflation is at 2-3%. US inflation, in reality, is far, far higher.

I know we're no more wealthy than we were 10 years ago, and supply is no lower than it was 10 years ago in relation to demand. That really only leaves one thing.

 

[fskimospy]

They can tell us whatever they want, but when average prices are more than 50% higher than they were 10 years ago, that is a glaring indicator of inflation. Maybe GLOBAL inflation is at 2-3%. US inflation, in reality, is far, far higher.

I know we're no more wealthy than we were 10 years ago, and supply is no lower than it was 10 years ago in relation to demand. That really only leaves one thing.

No, we're talking about US inflation, not global inflation.

Of course the prices are higher, at 3.5% inflation (which seems like a decent estimate to me), prices of all goods should be about 41% higher than they were 10 years ago. If inflation is even marginally higher, it could certainly approach 50%. That's how compound interest works.

The average person in America might not be wealthier, but America as a whole is quite a bit wealthier than it was 10 years ago. (in inflation adjusted terms about 30% wealthier with only a 10% or so increase in population) The only problem is that the vast majority of that increase in wealth has gone to a very very small group of people. That's why the median US wage hasn't really changed despite such a large increase in GDP.

 

[MrX8503]

OK, agreed that our debt is not at dangerous levels yet, but don't you agree that money spent by federal govt today doesn't stay here and bleeds out to cheap labor countries and we eventually don't gain anything from it?

The dangerous spike you see from the 1940's is from the Great Depression. Although the debt we are experiencing today isn't as high, it has some similarities.

The debt from the 1940's was money spent for WWII towards manufacturing jobs. Although we accrued huge debt, the explosion of jobs helped pull the US out of the depression.

We are experiencing huge debt again in 2010, but its a necessary debt in order to survive the recession. How quickly we recover from this recession is dependent on how that government money is spent.

You suggest that a lot of that money results into jobs sent overseas. To me that is an argument that cannot be proven so I'm not going to get into that. What I will say is that if its unskilled labor, jobs will always go overseas no matter what. Unskilled labor is cheap labor and its cheaper overseas.