We needs more Stimulus!!! Unemployment at 10.2%

[Carmen813]

Productivity, the amount of output per hour worked, jumped 9.5 percent in the third quarter, the Labor Department said Thursday.

That's the sharpest increase in six years and followed a 6.9 percent rise in the second quarter. The increases enable companies to produce more without hiring extra people.

Stop working so hard you fools!

 

[BoberFett]

Huh? Hate to break it to you, but the term Wall Street is routinely used to refer to businesses and it's pretty clear that's what I was referring to when you read the sentences that follow in the rest of the post, which actually use your preferred term "business".

Wrong. Wall Street refers to publicly traded companies, not small businesses which employ a massive percentage of Americans.

 

[First]

Wrong. Wall Street refers to publicly traded companies, not small businesses which employ a massive percentage of Americans.

Which misses the point entirely of course. But thanks for the tip gamer.

 

[StageLeft]

Pointing out Obama's chart is not a republican talking point. Projecting what the spending of billions of dollars will do and completely, massively missing the mark is not a talking point. That requires examination as to why it happened, not partisan dismissal as if it's inconsequential. It proves that the government lacks control over the matter to the extent it claimed it did or didn't understand the matter fully but in any case ought to require better defense, next time, of huge expenses of money.

Ignoring it does yourself a disservice. Have more respect for yourself and ask for better from those you pay and elect to lead you. Raise your standards.

 

[soccerballtux]

Read your link, still didn't see any quote from the admin saying "pass the stimulus and unemployment will not go above 8%". I saw projections, but that's not a promise, it's a projection. Why would someone in the admin make an explicit promise about something as uncontrollable as unemployment? So I view such a claim that they made that promise with skepticism.


EDIT: Appears I was correct.

Politifact rated it "barely true" i.e. mostly bullshit.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...r-and-other-republicans-say-obama-promised-s/



In other words, you're buying a talking point at face value. Try thinking a little bit next time.

Politifact is about as biased and liberal as you can get.

 

[jonks]

Politifact is about as biased and liberal as you can get.

Way to refute their analysis.

 

[jonks]

Pointing out Obama's chart is not a republican talking point. Projecting what the spending of billions of dollars will do and completely, massively missing the mark is not a talking point. That requires examination as to why it happened, not partisan dismissal as if it's inconsequential. It proves that the government lacks control over the matter to the extent it claimed it did or didn't understand the matter fully but in any case ought to require better defense, next time, of huge expenses of money.

Ignoring it does yourself a disservice. Have more respect for yourself and ask for better from those you pay and elect to lead you. Raise your standards.

Pointing out how off the projections in the chart are is not the talking point, is completely valid, relevant and should be discussed.

The talking point is "The Obama admin PROMISED that if the stimulus were passed that they'd keep uninsurance under 8%." No such promised was made, and repeating such casts the president as a liar/oath-breaker, which is a character attack. See the difference?

 

[StageLeft]

Pointing out how off the projections in the chart are is not the talking point, is completely valid, relevant and should be discussed.

The talking point is "The Obama admin PROMISED that if the stimulus were passed that they'd keep uninsurance under 8%." No such promised was made, and repeating such casts the president as a liar/oath-breaker, which is a character attack. See the difference?

I see the difference. He did not strictly promise it. Still, when you present a graph while asking for funding or defending a case you do need to defend yourself if you fail to deliver.

 

[Carmen813]

Either Obama's team was inaccurate in predicting job growth or Obama's team was inaccurate in predicting how fucked up the mess they inherited was. Or both.

 

[Budmantom]

Either Obama's team was inaccurate in predicting job growth or Obama's team was inaccurate in predicting how fucked up the mess they inherited was. Or both.

They are either completely incompetent or their plan is working just fine.

 

[jonks]

I see the difference. He did not strictly promise it. Still, when you present a graph while asking for funding or defending a case you do need to defend yourself if you fail to deliver.

As he should, and as his admin has. They have stated multiple times they got it wrong, that things were worse than they predicted and didn't improve as much as they thought it would. I saw Joe Biden say it on MTP, I've seen other admin officials admit it.

Wrong != "you lie!"

 

[BoberFett]

Which misses the point entirely of course. But thanks for the tip gamer.

How's the help desk treating you? The slow economy must be tough on unskilled employees like you.

 

[First]

How's the help desk treating you? The slow economy must be tough on unskilled employees like you.

lol, I can always count on Boober to deflect with irrelevant entirely false info. Keep dreaming up scenarios where you're superior kiddo. Stay strong!

 

[Genx87]

Good lord. Businesses that are polled don't actually say they are uncertain about their futures because an f'ing VAT tax is going to be implemented in the future. And why the hell would healthcare reform stop businesses from hiring again? At least your cap and trade referencs makes some moderate sense even though it doesn't poll at all. Again, for your argument to hold any water there actually has to be data that shows firms aren't (for example) hiring workers because of uncertainty about healthcare, VAT, and cap and trade. There is no such evidence that is anywhere near significant in aggregate polls.

This may surprise you when you get out in the real world and experience how business is run first hand. Govt policy very much affects business investment decisions due to the uncertainties it brings to the table. In 2000 working for a manufacturing firm the worry was a change in policy between clinton and gore\bush. In 03 working for a fortune 250 manufacturing company the concern was how govt was going to jump start consumer demand. In 06 working for an investment banking firm after the democrats smacked the Republicans down investors were uber worried about 12 years of pent up frustration being unleashed, especially in the healthcare sector. Today working for a manufacturing company that produces luxury items healthcare reform, cap and trade, and vat all affect our long term growth possibilities because each has some effect on either the manufacturing or consumer side of the equation.

It doesnt matter whether or not those policies have a real world effect. They are major policies that plunge the market into uncertainties which slows business from investing and growing because they need to know what they are up against.

 

[Double Trouble]

Neither Obama nor his administration directly and explicitly "promised" that unemployment would top out at 8% if the stimulus money was approved. However, they did strongly suggest it, and used that as their main selling point as to why the American public should support the massive expenditure.

Now, in hindsight, I can only come up with two possible scenarios that make sense.

Scenario 1, the administration and their economic advisors are supremely incompetent and had (have?) no clue what they were (are?) doing. Scenario 2, they knew what they were doing but sold the American public a bill of goods to be able to waste hundreds of billions. I guess a combination of #1 and #2 is possible as well.

 

[First]

This may surprise you when you get out in the real world and experience how business is run first hand. Govt policy very much affects business investment decisions due to the uncertainties it brings to the table. In 2000 working for a manufacturing firm the worry was a change in policy between clinton and gore\bush. In 03 working for a fortune 250 manufacturing company the concern was how govt was going to jump start consumer demand. In 06 working for an investment banking firm after the democrats smacked the Republicans down investors were uber worried about 12 years of pent up frustration being unleashed, especially in the healthcare sector. Today working for a manufacturing company that produces luxury items healthcare reform, cap and trade, and vat all affect our long term growth possibilities because each has some effect on either the manufacturing or consumer side of the equation.

It doesnt matter whether or not those policies have a real world effect. They are major policies that plunge the market into uncertainties which slows business from investing and growing because they need to know what they are up against.

I get what you're saying but don't really agree that the current policies under review are any different than any other period in our history. Healthcare, for example, has constantly been under review for decades and is only now getting addressed, but that doesn't mean the economy (be it health insurance firms or what have you) are suffering for it. There's no data on that. There's no data that a VAT tax (which isn't going to happen in any meaningful way, assuming the remote scenario it's ever implemented to begin with) is affecting business decisions. Cap and trade uncertainty is a sensible argument, I can see where the idea that that would disrupt businesses come from. Many (including Nobel prize physicists) see cap and trade as necessary to combat global warming and environmental issues like air quality in the form of reduced particulate matter. But even then, there is very little concern in the community as a whole about those things. As Boober correctly pointed out, the vast vast majority of businesses in the U.S. are small businesses and they make up a majority of the GDP produced by businesses, and they aren't at all affected negatively by health care uncertainty because if they know anything they know any health care reform is a minimum of 2 years away from real implementation so their short-term decisions aren't at all affected. In fact healthcare is likely to have just the opposite effect, as they won't have to pay for it if they don't want to and instead pay a fine, which will likely be lower than the cost of paying health insurance for their employees which means a savings for said small businesses.

 

[Fern]

We needs more Stimulus!!! Unemployment at 10.2%

Didn't Obama sign Stim #2 early today? (I know it's called something else)

I wonder what the unemployed rate really is when adjusted for all the bogus creation claims?

fern

 

[Robor]

1. I'd like to see that quote.
2. The majority of the stimulus funds haven't been spent yet.
3. He said when he took office the turn around would take years.

Did people think what both sides of the aisle were calling "an economic catastrophy unrivaled for decades" would end in a year? some people only hear what they want.

Only partisan hacks with short memories. It's almost as if some of them celebrate this.

 

[BoberFett]

lol, I can always count on Boober to deflect with irrelevant entirely false info. Keep dreaming up scenarios where you're superior kiddo. Stay strong!

It would take a petri dish to find something inferior to you, boy.

 

[glenn1]

Only partisan hacks with short memories. It's almost as if some of them celebrate this.

I'm not celebrating, but I hardly see why I should feel particularly bad either. While there's a small amount of luck involved, those who are doing fine in this economy are those who stayed in school, chose to work in a field where are our skills are valued, didn't go into huge amounts of debt, and avoid social pathologies.

 

[First]

It would take a petri dish to find something inferior to you, boy.

Keep fighting the good fight Paulbot. Leverage those video games "for the kids". lmao.

 

[Bitek]

Way to refute their analysis.

Its well documented facts have a liberal bias.

 

[BoberFett]

Keep fighting the good fight Paulbot. Leverage those video games "for the kids". lmao.

Nope, nothing. I'll have to keep searching. Don't worry, someday we'll find something you can look down on.

 

[First]

^ ...says the level 1 sys tech gamer from Minny.

 

[Patranus]

Obummer