Jobs

[hcap]

No one is happy about the jobs numbers. Some perspective however.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2010/02/recoverystats-cropped-proto-custom_8.jpg

"The red bars are the accelerating rate of job loss during President Bush's last year in office; the blue bars are the decelerating rate of job loss during President Obama's first year of office.

The chart was put together by the House Democratic leadership. Click the graph to see the full image."

--Josh Marshall

[andtheyreoff]

Ok, now we have hcaps pointless stuff out of the way, now all we need is a pointless debate between mostpost, NJ Stinks, boxcar, and bigmack, andymays will not post unless there is a link, and Tom's posts will not be over 4 lines unless it is another "Obama is the worst person in history" speech.

For an actual take on the issue, I say it is good the unemployment rate is falling, but they have to sustain job growth.

[acorn54]

according to a wall street journal article in feb06 paper some experts say it will be around 7 years before the unemployment rate gets back to pre recession level.

it is in the "opinions split are split on jobs creation" article.

i would provide a link but i think it is for subscribers only and i would be violating copyright law.

[Tom]

http://www.amazon.com/Big-Fat-Liars-Politicians-Corporations/dp/1595550089/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265467777&sr=1-5

[lilmegahertz]

At my warehouse, they are "asking" us to take one day furlough every week. Even at 32 hrs we are still considered full-time, but I can only do that until I run out of vacation time/personal time. 16 hrs /pay period is a lot of money to not have......And they have already displaced they call it the entire dry receiving crew for weekends day and night shifts. And they had just announced that Wal-mart is laying off folks. We are trying to do our part by looking at labels and trying to buy the made in America items. If you can find them, it is more expensive but possibly worth it in the long run. Which means no shopping at Wal-mart because you cannot find anything there that is American made or that will last longer than 2 months.

[PhantomOnTour]

Ok, now we have hcaps pointless stuff out of the way, now all we need is a pointless debate between mostpost, NJ Stinks, boxcar, and bigmack, andymays will not post unless there is a link, and Tom's posts will not be over 4 lines unless it is another "Obama is the worst person in history" speech.

For an actual take on the issue, I say it is good the unemployment rate is falling, but they have to sustain job growth.

:lol: :lol:
score!

[LottaKash]

according to a wall street journal article in feb06 paper some experts say it will be around 7 years before the unemployment rate gets back to pre recession level.

it is in the "opinions split are split on jobs creation" article.

i would provide a link but i think it is for subscribers only and i would be violating copyright law.

7-years, I doubt it....What would have to change for that to happen ?....I sincerely don't visualize that happening anytime soon.....Especially, given the current & most previous "insane train wreck of a government" that we have and had....Plus, we have given away nearly all of our meaningful manufacturing base, and no one wants to buy what we have to sell these days (Even IBM, once a rock-steady mainstay, is now owned and operated by the Chinese)....The future of employment, is a bit grim, I think....New jobs, yes, flippin burgers and stocking shelves for coolie wages...

Getting old is not great, but, I must say that I have had a nice enough ride, so, I really feel for the newer gernerations to come, they are going to be really up against it for quite some time, and it definitely won't be their grandaddy's way of life...

best,

[johnhannibalsmith]

Ok, now we have hcaps pointless stuff out of the way, now all we need is a pointless debate between mostpost, NJ Stinks, boxcar, and bigmack, andymays will not post unless there is a link, and Tom's posts will not be over 4 lines unless it is another "Obama is the worst person in history" speech.

For an actual take on the issue, I say it is good the unemployment rate is falling, but they have to sustain job growth.

I need to post more gratuitously, I see... I want to be referenced too!!!!

[Tom]

Ok, now we have hcaps pointless stuff out of the way, now all we need is a pointless debate between mostpost, NJ Stinks, boxcar, and bigmack, andymays will not post unless there is a link, and Tom's posts will not be over 4 lines unless it is another "Obama is the worst person in history" speech.

For an actual take on the issue, I say it is good the unemployment rate is falling, but they have to sustain job growth.

There is no job growth.
The reason it went down is so many are no longer looking for work.
So far, at least 105 of your posts are stupid.....going for the record?
It might be tough to beat, we've had so many goofballs pass through here.
But I have faith in you........go for it, dude! :D

[boxcar]

I need to post more gratuitously, I see... I want to be referenced too!!!!

:lol: :lol: You just dont' get nooooo respect, do ya?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

There is no job growth.
The reason it went down is so many are no longer looking for work.
So far, at least 105 of your posts are stupid.....going for the record?
It might be tough to beat, we've had so many goofballs pass through here.
But I have faith in you........go for it, dude! :D

This is a like a loser at the track celebrating that he didn't lose the vig last month because his losses have declined to only 14.7% of his investment. Why am I not surprised that Hcap and his ilk would be celebrating that? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[jballscalls]

I need to post more gratuitously, I see... I want to be referenced too!!!!

i think the problem JHS is that your posts are generally well thought out and constructed. The people listed above don't really do that (myself included). If you want to become part of the fab five on either side (boxcar, PA, Tom, Arljim and Just Ralph on the right) (46, hcap, most, nj, exacta on the left) you really have to take your game from intellectual and fact based, to partisan and anger based!

[dartman51]

7-years, I doubt it....What would have to change for that to happen ?....I sincerely don't visualize that happening anytime soon.....Especially, given the current & most previous "insane train wreck of a government" that we have and had....Plus, we have given away nearly all of our meaningful manufacturing base, and no one wants to buy what we have to sell these days (Even IBM, once a rock-steady mainstay, is now owned and operated by the Chinese)....The future of employment, is a bit grim, I think....New jobs, yes, flippin burgers and stocking shelves for coolie wages...

Getting old is not great, but, I must say that I have had a nice enough ride, so, I really feel for the newer gernerations to come, they are going to be really up against it for quite some time, and it definitely won't be their grandaddy's way of life...

best,

The bolded statement(bolded by me), is really interesting since Obama says we are going to DOUBLE our EXPORTS over the next 10 years. Exports to where??:confused:

[NJ Stinks]

Ok, now we have hcaps pointless stuff out of the way, now all we need is a pointless debate between mostpost, NJ Stinks, boxcar, and bigmack, andymays will not post unless there is a link, and Tom's posts will not be over 4 lines unless it is another "Obama is the worst person in history" speech.

For an actual take on the issue, I say it is good the unemployment rate is falling, but they have to sustain job growth.

Isn't it post time somewhere? :mad:

Nah. I'm just kidding! Good zinger.

Now about the issue at hand and how GWB.... :lol:

[acorn54]

i think the problem JHS is that your posts are generally well thought out and constructed. The people listed above don't really do that (myself included). If you want to become part of the fab five on either side (boxcar, PA, Tom, Arljim and Just Ralph on the right) (46, hcap, most, nj, exacta on the left) you really have to take your game from intellectual and fact based, to partisan and anger based!


just for arguement sake, even if job loss is decelerating, i dont think it really matters. things are pretty hairy to at least some experts.
the fact that taking seven years for pre-recession levels of unemployment rates to return, is even being talked about means things are pretty hairy as far as i am concerned.

[boxcar]

i think the problem JHS is that your posts are generally well thought out and constructed. The people listed above don't really do that (myself included). If you want to become part of the fab five on either side (boxcar, PA, Tom, Arljim and Just Ralph on the right) (46, hcap, most, nj, exacta on the left) you really have to take your game from intellectual and fact based, to partisan and anger based!

Hey, JB, since by your own admission you're incapable of intellectual or fact-filled thought, just how did you reach your dumb and illusory conclusion about the rest of us? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[mostpost]

There is no job growth.
The reason it went down is so many are no longer looking for work.
So far, at least 105 of your posts are stupid.....going for the record?
It might be tough to beat, we've had so many goofballs pass through here.
But I have faith in you........go for it, dude! :D
Are these the people you're talking about?
U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons
marginally attached to the labor force, plus
total employed part time for economic reasons,
as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all
persons marginally attached to the labor
force.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.4 17.1 18.0 14.0 17.0 17.4 17.2 17.3 16.5
NOTE: Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are
available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a
job-market related reason for not currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for
full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data
That number went down too, from 17.3% in December to 16.5% in January.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I've seen Boxcar author posts that shredded the rollerball on my mouse into oblivion. I'm actually considering filing suit against him for posts that have contributed to increased bouts of migraines due to the strain from diligently following the depth of his retorts.

Now, I'm just addressing the 'construction' aspect here - but if anyone were to win an award for draining his entire thought process in the form of a reply - I think I'd have to deliver it Boxcar. That isn't to say it isn't pointed and perhaps partisan, but you certainly can't deny that he goes to great, great, great, great, great, great lengths to be thorough in many of his replies. :D

[boxcar]

I've seen Boxcar author posts that shredded the rollerball on my mouse into oblivion. I'm actually considering filing suit against him for posts that have contributed to increased bouts of migraines due to the strain from diligently following the depth of his retorts.

Sorry 'bout that. I had no idea I had such effects upon people. PM me and we'll settle out of court. I'm easy...

Boxcar
P.S. I'm particularly distressed over the news of your poor mice, since I love all God's little critters. :( :(

[acorn54]

forget about partisan politics
the economy is too far gone for either the republicans or democrats to turn things around in the forseeable future.
i dont people out of work give a rats ass about democrats or republicans, they just want results to get them back to work and stop the deterioration of their standard of living.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Sorry 'bout that. I had no idea I had such effects upon people. PM me and we'll settle out of court. I'm easy...

Boxcar
P.S. I'm particularly distressed over the news of your poor mice, since I love all God's little critters. :( :(

You'd hate my barn cat... :D

[chickenhead]

it will be many many years before we get back to the employment rates we had before, if we do. Population growth is challenging for any economy to keep up with, to create enough *good* jobs for new people -- climbing out of a fairly enormous hole on top of that will take many many years.

But there is reason to be optimistic, new inventions will be along, new things to build, new industries, etc. Not tomorrow tho.

[boxcar]

forget about partisan politics
the economy is too far gone for either the republicans or democrats to turn things around in the forseeable future.
i dont people out of work give a rats ass about democrats or republicans, they just want results to get them back to work and stop the deterioration of their standard of living.

Time to refresh that tree of liberty, is it?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

it will be many many years before we get back to the employment rates we had before, if we do. Population growth is challenging for any economy to keep up with, to create enough *good* jobs for new people -- climbing out of a fairly enormous hole on top of that will take many many years.

But there is reason to be optimistic, new inventions will be along, new things to build, new industries, etc. Not tomorrow tho.

Quite possibly never, if we don't reverse direction of government. Government is to the economy what a bottle of syrup is to a gas tank.

Boxcar

[chickenhead]

Quite possibly never, if we don't reverse direction of government. Government is to the economy what a bottle of syrup is to a gas tank.

Boxcar

The larger problem, to me, is what kind of footing the economy has. The gov't sets a lot of the incentive structures, mainly, and I'd like to see a lot of those changed, yes. Part of our problem is our incentive structure is based around consumption when a reduction in consumption incentive and a good dose of incentive for saving (investment) would do us a world of good. Unfortunately, changing that incentive structure would result in a double whammy for the economy in the short term and drive things even lower, it seems to me. But it's also necessary to shift from consumption to savings so people can cope with the necessary cuts to our unfunded entitlements that are going to have to come down the pike, eventually (the sooner the better).

Nasty spot we're in.

[boxcar]

The larger problem, to me, is what kind of footing the economy has. The gov't sets a lot of the incentive structures, mainly, and I'd like to see a lot of those changed, yes. Part of our problem is our incentive structure is based around consumption when a reduction in consumption incentive and a good dose of incentive for saving (investment) would do us a world of good. Unfortunately, changing that incentive structure would result in a double whammy for the economy in the short term and drive things even lower, it seems to me. But it's also necessary to shift from consumption to savings so people can cope with the necessary cuts to our unfunded entitlements that are going to have to come down the pike, eventually (the sooner the better).

Nasty spot we're in.

Very nasty, indeed. In fact, so much so, conservatives would need to "fundamentally transform the face of America" (to borrow a BO phrase to restore the equity we once had in our country through our vast manufacturing base. But sadly, I don't see that happening in time to save us from the free fall we're currently experiencing. Too much damage has already been done by the government to the economy and to capitalism. Too many things would have to happen, such as the repeal of the income tax system which would give great incentives for companies to return to our shores or new companies to start up manufacturing-based businesses, since they'd be able to compete in the world market once freed from the millstone of the income tax.

Anyhoo...we are in dire straits and I see no easy or painless way out. I believe America will continue in its decline over the long haul, unless it pleases God to miraculously save us.

Boxcar

[skate]

For an actual take on the issue, I say it is good the unemployment rate is falling, but they have to sustain job growth.

Hark!

let's do this one more time...

good the unemployment is falling.:kiss:

Ana and and, they (?) have to sustain job growth.:eek:


Andnowtheyareoff

[BenDiesel26]

No one is happy about the jobs numbers. Some perspective however.

Here's some more prospective, from Madam Speaker (keep in mind while watching she's third in line for president) on where we would be without the stimulus bill.

-UR5M5teyQ0

[ElKabong]

Here's some more prospective, from Madam Speaker (keep in mind while watching she's third in line for president) on where we would be without the stimulus bill.

-UR5M5teyQ0

Good God, she actually said "500 million".

Sarah Palin is intelligent compared to Pelosi.

[ElKabong]

Hcap can try to spin this all she wants, the economy is still in the shitcan. Our company hasn't hired anyone new since 2008. The previous joint I worked at lost more than half its employees due to layoffs since Jan 2009.

And the current administration has spent the past 12 months chasing the health care/ insurance reform ghost. What an embarrassment this bunch has been.

Failure.

[prospector]

only sector really hiring is government..
i'd like to contribute 25% increase in the unemployed coming from said government workers..

[jballscalls]

Hey, JB, since by your own admission you're incapable of intellectual or fact-filled thought, just how did you reach your dumb and illusory conclusion about the rest of us? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

wouldn't me being unintelligent mean that I can easily spot others who share my lack of intelligence?? :)

[jballscalls]

I've seen Boxcar author posts that shredded the rollerball on my mouse into oblivion. I'm actually considering filing suit against him for posts that have contributed to increased bouts of migraines due to the strain from diligently following the depth of his retorts.

Now, I'm just addressing the 'construction' aspect here - but if anyone were to win an award for draining his entire thought process in the form of a reply - I think I'd have to deliver it Boxcar. That isn't to say it isn't pointed and perhaps partisan, but you certainly can't deny that he goes to great, great, great, great, great, great lengths to be thorough in many of his replies. :D

i can absolutely deny it. He usually just quotes his boy JC or sends out personal insults.

and perhaps partisan?? perhaps?? c'mon.

i mean i'm sure the guy is miles above my pay grade, doesn't change the fact he slings many more insults than he does facts

[boxcar]

wouldn't me being unintelligent mean that I can easily spot others who share my lack of intelligence?? :)

No, because that would require a reasoned, intelligent conclusion, as would recognizing those who you think are intelligent by comparison. :bang: :bang:

Boxcar
P.S. Have considered courses in logic?

[johnhannibalsmith]

i can absolutely deny it. He usually just quotes his boy JC or sends out personal insults.

and perhaps partisan?? perhaps?? c'mon.

i mean i'm sure the guy is miles above my pay grade, doesn't change the fact he slings many more insults than he does facts

Okay, okay, okay... I was merely trying to point out that his causticness (is that a word?) generally isn't without significant effort to support whatever opinion he is laying on the table. So, in order of above paragraphs - sort of disagree, agree, don't really know for sure...

...I think you may fall into the same category that I do from time to time - you see one of his super-long replies (particularly the religiously-tempered ones) and sort of blurr over and fail to digest the Boxcarianess theory. It's easy to take a pass, particularly if it isn't a subject that grabs you or if it immediately engages theological overtones - but - I still maintain that even if you find his points to be poppycock balderdash gobbledygook, the substance and support of those points are made with good construct, reasoning, and yes, ample flair...err... partisanship. ;)

[jballscalls]

No, because that would require a reasoned, intelligent conclusion, as would recognizing those who you think are intelligent by comparison. :bang: :bang:

Boxcar
P.S. Have considered courses in logic?

no i spent 4 years in those liberal bastions known as University, that was enough

[boxcar]

no i spent 4 years in those liberal bastions known as University, that was enough

That explains everything.

Boxcar

[ElKabong]

Are these the people you're talking about?

That number went down too, from 17.3% in December to 16.5% in January.

People like you ripped W for 5% unemployment. It's now twice that bad. Any spin you put on the economy- any part of the economy- is a pitiful swing at an unhittable pitch.

"GIVE ME CHANGE! We need Change".

"It takes a woman to clean the House!"

Now here we are in an economic mess that will take the better part of a decade or more to dig out of....and the current DC gang is running up record deficits in the process???? **** your goddamn Change.

People like you have ruined this country. You sold weak minded people (the "mushy" middle) a bill of goods that have sent millions of families off the cliff.... From the middles class, to bankruptcy and despair.... 2006 was the beginning of the end for a lot of folks I know. All in the name of "Change".

Give me the goddamn 5% unemployment back. That's the change I want to see. I work twice as hard today than I did 3 yrs ago b/c I don't want to be replaced. That's one form of despair --->"Just hanging on to a job".

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1960639,00.html?xid=rss-topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+time/topstories+(TIME:+Top+Stories)

Construction workers are staring at 25% unemployment (link), and you come here defending "numbers". **** you. Get a clue.

[chickenhead]

You want to make American workers competitive two main things need to happen -- housing prices need to continue going down, and health care costs need to go down. These totally swamp out, so far as cost of employing people, any of the other factors that are usually batted back and forth. People that need to pay for a $300K or $400K house and has another $10K or $15K in yearly medical costs associated with them and their family will never, ever, ever -- work in mfg. They are structurally unable to compete in meaningful ways in the global economy, and if they work in mfg currently, it is probably not sustainable. The math simply does not work and will never work.

Rising housing costs do no good for the economy, whatsoever. A $400K house is much better as a $100K house. The intrinsic value, as a shelter, remains unchanged. There is zero reason to have large amounts of asset value and consumer debt tied up in stationary wood and tar paper. People paying $100K for a house are much more likely to be able to afford to work at a competitive wage with more of the bamboo hut world. But I'm not goofy enough to think any but a very small sliver of people are actually there rooting along with me, neither party would work to make that happen, it's suicide.

The gov't, both parties, are interested in propping up the housing market, with broad public support. This protects both personal and corporate balance sheets -- and does tremendous harm to our ability to create or sustain jobs. On health care I don't believe either party really has any plan whatsoever to reduce costs, because the simply truth is you probably can't significantly reduce them without reducing the quality of care thats provided, to some degree or another, despite all the broad hopes for some kind of magical silver bullet. Costs will continue to escalate, and continue to do tremendous harm to our ability to create and sustain jobs.

[johnhannibalsmith]

You want to make American workers competitive two main things need to happen ... Costs will continue to escalate, and continue to do tremendous harm to our ability to create and sustain jobs.

Loved it... top to bottom, inside to out... :ThmbUp:

[boxcar]

You want to make American workers competitive two main things need to happen -- housing prices need to continue going down, and health care costs need to go down. These totally swamp out, so far as cost of employing people, any of the other factors that are usually batted back and forth. People that need to pay for a $300K or $400K house and has another $10K or $15K in yearly medical costs associated with them and their family will never, ever, ever -- work in mfg. They are structurally unable to compete in meaningful ways in the global economy, and if they work in mfg currently, it is probably not sustainable. The math simply does not work and will never work.

Rising housing costs do no good for the economy, whatsoever. A $400K house is much better as a $100K house. The intrinsic value, as a shelter, remains unchanged. There is zero reason to have large amounts of asset value and consumer debt tied up in stationary wood and tar paper. People paying $100K for a house are much more likely to be able to afford to work at a competitive wage with more of the bamboo hut world. But I'm not goofy enough to think any but a very small sliver of people are actually there rooting along with me, neither party would work to make that happen, it's suicide.

The gov't, both parties, are interested in propping up the housing market, with broad public support. This protects both personal and corporate balance sheets -- and does tremendous harm to our ability to create or sustain jobs. On health care I don't believe either party really has any plan whatsoever to reduce costs, because the simply truth is you probably can't significantly reduce them without reducing the quality of care thats provided, to some degree or another, despite all the broad hopes for some kind of magical silver bullet. Costs will continue to escalate, and continue to do tremendous harm to our ability to create and sustain jobs.

If given a choice between inexpensive housing and substandard health care, the no-brainer would be to shoot for the former. What good is it to live in a great home while enjoying less than good health due to substandard care? Personal health trumps all else.

You wanna solve the housing problem for a labor force in manufacturing? Simple: Have the government build inexpensive homes -- if it can get past pricey union labor. :rolleyes: (Good luck with that.)

There are viable free-market solutions that would help bring health care costs down. Portability is number one. Get the government out of the way and let the insurance companies compete across state lines.

Running a very close second would be tort reform.

But I think we both agree that the artificial, phony propping up of markets (such as housing) needs to end. This is why government needs to step aside and allow the waters of the free market to seek its own level through the laws of supply and demand, etc.

Boxcar

[Valuist]

Let's look between the lines in the alleged recent "drop" in the unemployment rate.

This, from the Real Money site from Friday:

"Effective with data for January 2010, updated population estimates have been used in the household survey. Population estimates for the household survey are developed by the US Census Bureau. Each year, the Census Bureau updates the estimates to reflect new information and assumptions about the growthof the population during the decade. The change in population reflected in the new estimates results primarily from adjustments for net international migration, updated vital statistics and other information, and some other changes in the estimation process.

Seasonality changes things by a lot. January had 16.1 million unemployed while December had 14.7 million----an increase of 1.4 million jobless Americans. Seasonally adjusted, the national rate dropped to 9.7% from 10.0%. If you don't adjust for seasonality, the new unemployment rate rose from 9.7% in December to 10.6% in January.

[acorn54]

forget about the unemployment rate.
the reality is, is that it is impossible to find a job, otherwise washington wouldn't keep extending unemployment benefits.
they have extended them for up to two years so far. yes that's right, people can collect unemployment benefits for not finding a job for two years so far.
that tells you alot more about the state of the job market than a discussion of what the unemployment rate is.

[ElKabong]

Let's look between the lines in the alleged recent "drop" in the unemployment rate.

This, from the Real Money site from Friday:

"Effective with data for January 2010, updated population estimates have been used in the household survey. Population estimates for the household survey are developed by the US Census Bureau. Each year, the Census Bureau updates the estimates to reflect new information and assumptions about the growthof the population during the decade. The change in population reflected in the new estimates results primarily from adjustments for net international migration, updated vital statistics and other information, and some other changes in the estimation process.

Seasonality changes things by a lot. January had 16.1 million unemployed while December had 14.7 million----an increase of 1.4 million jobless Americans. Seasonally adjusted, the national rate dropped to 9.7% from 10.0%. If you don't adjust for seasonality, the new unemployment rate rose from 9.7% in December to 10.6% in January.

One of our radio stations here is mostly finance oriented. The morning hosts "drilled deeper into the January jobless numbers" on friday....>> The length of time the avg jobless person has experienced as being unemployed, is higher today than ever before.

Ever...

And yet you have hcap and mailbagger in here trying to put a spin on things. Disgusting. They're either ignorant or Elle Light wannabe's.

[mostpost]

People like you ripped W for 5% unemployment. It's now twice that bad. Any spin you put on the economy- any part of the economy- is a pitiful swing at an unhittable pitch. "GIVE ME CHANGE! We need Change".

"It takes a woman to clean the House!"

Now here we are in an economic mess that will take the better part of a decade or more to dig out of....and the current DC gang is running up record deficits in the process???? **** your goddamn Change
[
People like you have ruined this country. You sold weak minded people (the "mushy" middle) a bill of goods that have sent millions of families off the cliff.... From the middles class, to bankruptcy and despair.... 2006 was the beginning of the end for a lot of folks I know. All in the name of "Change".

Give me the goddamn 5% unemployment back. That's the change I want to see. I work twice as hard today than I did 3 yrs ago b/c I don't want to be replaced. That's one form of despair --->"Just hanging on to a job".



http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1960639,00.html?xid=rss-topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+time/topstories+(TIME:+Top+Stories)
I wasn't here for most of the Bush Administration, so I don't know what others were saying. And I don't think you know either. The 9.7% unemployment rate is unacceptable, but it is an improvement over the previous month. It is the result of a recession that can be laid at the feet of
Construction workers are staring at 25% unemployment (link), and you come here defending "numbers". **** you. Get a clue.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't here for most of the Bush Administration, so I don't know what others were saying. And I don't think you know either. The 9.7% unemployment rate is unacceptable, but it is an improvement over the previous month. It is the result of a recession that can be laid at the feet of George Bush

[QUOTE]Let's try and put this simply so you can understand. The growing deficits began because Bush tried to conduct an unnecesary war without raising the money pay for out that war. He also lowered taxes without cutting costs. Through most of his term Republicans controlled Congress and even when they didn't, Democrats never had enough votes to override a Presidential veto. Yet Bush rarely used the veto and never used it on a budget issue.
What is causing the current deficits. One, we are now paying for the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of these wars (Iraq) was totally unnecesary. The Other (Afghanistan) could have ended years ago if Bush hadn't taken us into Iraq.
Two, we are spending trillions to prop up banks and auto companies. The banks in particular needed saving due to unregulated loans and business practices. These practices were the result of the Grammm-Leach-Bliley act, which deregulated banking and erased the lines between investment firms and banking firms. That law was passed during the Clinton Administration and he deserves criticism for it, but Republicans voted for it 99% in the House and 100% in the Senate.
Three. we are spending Trillions on stimulus to restart the economy. because in spite of what you think, stimulus, not tax cuts, is the only way to do this.


The really sad thing is that you cannot see that it is the policies that you so blindly follow that have created the situation we are in. During the 2004 campaign, a lady at a Town meeting addressed George Bush and told him that she had to work three jobs to support her family. The totally out of touch Bush replied, "Well that's just wonderful. That's the American way."
No, you ****ing idiot. That is not the American Way. The American Way is a person having one job that pays enough to support a family. :mad: :mad:

[PaceAdvantage]

People like you ripped W for 5% unemployment. It's now twice that bad. Any spin you put on the economy- any part of the economy- is a pitiful swing at an unhittable pitch.

"GIVE ME CHANGE! We need Change".

"It takes a woman to clean the House!"

Now here we are in an economic mess that will take the better part of a decade or more to dig out of....and the current DC gang is running up record deficits in the process???? **** your goddamn Change.

People like you have ruined this country. You sold weak minded people (the "mushy" middle) a bill of goods that have sent millions of families off the cliff.... From the middles class, to bankruptcy and despair.... 2006 was the beginning of the end for a lot of folks I know. All in the name of "Change".

Give me the goddamn 5% unemployment back. That's the change I want to see. I work twice as hard today than I did 3 yrs ago b/c I don't want to be replaced. That's one form of despair --->"Just hanging on to a job".

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1960639,00.html?xid=rss-topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+time/topstories+(TIME:+Top+Stories)

Construction workers are staring at 25% unemployment (link), and you come here defending "numbers". **** you. Get a clue.You're like the anti-Suff. Bravo! :lol:

[lsbets]

Hey, mosty got his change and now things are a hell of a lot worse. Any thinking person can look at what happened and figure it out pretty easily, but the mindless lemmings take the KO line and follow it off a cliff.

[hcap]

This is pretty straightforward

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2010/02/recoverystats-cropped-proto-custom_8.jpg

In other words (God forbid!) if Winston W Bush was elected for a turd term we would still be at the bottom.
I do believe there WAS a trend, and a now a NEW trend.

It could be much worse. A Republican could be President :(

[mostpost]

Hey, mosty got his change and now things are a hell of a lot worse. Any thinking person can look at what happened and figure it out pretty easily, but the mindless lemmings take the KO line and follow it off a cliff.
Manufacturing numbers are on the rise. Existing home sales are up. 10.9% more building permits were issued in December as opposed to November. GDP grew at the rate of 5.7% in the last quater of 2009. Much higher than previous quarters Unemplyment fell to 9.7% from 10%. Unemployment including those who had quit looking fell from 17.3% to 16.5%. The rate at which jobs were being lost dropped from near 700,000 per mont last winter to 11,000 per month in Jan. 2010
Things are not yet good, but they're improving.

lsbets, every response I get from you consists of insults and unsubstntiated opinion. And you call me a lemming. At least I have facts in hand as I jump off the cliff. :lol:

[Tom]

Facts?
Hehehe.....good one mostie, good one. :lol:

[dartman51]

Manufacturing numbers are on the rise. Existing home sales are up. 10.9% more building permits were issued in December as opposed to November. GDP grew at the rate of 5.7% in the last quater of 2009. Much higher than previous quarters Unemplyment fell to 9.7% from 10%. Unemployment including those who had quit looking fell from 17.3% to 16.5%. The rate at which jobs were being lost dropped from near 700,000 per mont last winter to 11,000 per month in Jan. 2010
Things are not yet good, but they're improving.

lsbets, every response I get from you consists of insults and unsubstntiated opinion. And you call me a lemming. At least I have facts in hand as I jump off the cliff. :lol:

That 700,000 is just a drop in the bucket. According to Pelosi, if we don't pass the new jobs bill, we'll be losing 500 MILLION jobs pr month. Must be more people in America than I thought there was. Who knew?? :confused:

[Tom]

Oh, that is because everyone is out of 5 jobs! Just ask mostie.

[lsbets]

Oh, that is because everyone is out of 5 jobs! Just ask mostie.

He's busy jumping off a cliff with his "facts". :lol: :lol: :lol:

[ElKabong]

Manufacturing numbers are on the rise. Existing home sales are up. 10.9% more building permits were issued in December as opposed to November. GDP grew at the rate of 5.7% in the last quater of 2009. Much higher than previous quarters Unemplyment fell to 9.7% from 10%. Unemployment including those who had quit looking fell from 17.3% to 16.5%. The rate at which jobs were being lost dropped from near 700,000 per mont last winter to 11,000 per month in Jan. 2010
Things are not yet good, but they're improving.

lsbets, every response I get from you consists of insults and unsubstntiated opinion. And you call me a lemming. At least I have facts in hand as I jump off the cliff. :lol:

Do you think today's economy is better than 2006, before the dems took over congress? Straight question.

[boxcar]

He's busy jumping off a cliff with his "facts". :lol: :lol: :lol:

Wonder if he was smart enough to trade those in for a parachute before he took off?

Boxcar

[ElKabong]

This is pretty straightforward

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2010/02/recoverystats-cropped-proto-custom_8.jpg

In other words (God forbid!) if Winston W Bush was elected for a turd term we would still be at the bottom.
I do believe there WAS a trend, and a now a NEW trend.

It could be much worse. A Republican could be President :(

When we had a repub president the unemployment rate was half of what it is today.

You putting up all these bogus assed charts when the jobless rate is at double digits is pathetic. It's like watching Dan Rather get pissed off at people not believing his hatchet job on W's ANG record in 2004..."Why aren't you people paying attention to my phoney made up documents? They'll sink GWB! People, look at these phoney documents!!".

Take the #'s and stick it, little girl. The economy is in the shitter. Anyone putting a smiley face on things today has lost credibility (in your case, that happened yrs ago)

[mostpost]

Do you think today's economy is better than 2006, before the dems took over congress? Straight question.
Why don't you ask me if I've stopped beating my wife. The question is a phony one because it assumes that it was the actions of a Democratic Congress that caused the current economic situation. My answer is today's economy is not better than in 2006, that is obvious. But I reject your theory that this is the fault of the Democratic Congress. If you think the Democratic Congress is responsible then perhaps you can tell me specific actions they took which caused the problems. Then tell me whether some of those actions were also endorsed by the Bush Administration. Because Congress can't do anything on its own. And that Congress was far from being able to over turn a Presidential veto.
I DO NOT EXPECT YOU TO ANSWER. All you are about is anger without information.

[ElKabong]

OK Mailbagboy, I'm man enough to answer your question even tho you're not man enough to step up to the plate on mine.

Fannie and Freddie. W and Secty Snow wanted tighter Reg's on GSE's, thought the economy was headed the wrong direction & wanted to hit the brakes on some problems.....Next thing you know Barney Frank (is it ok if I call him a TeaBagger?) and a few Dem black DC leaders were railingon W for being a racist and over reacting.

Now look at what's happened.

Go google NY Times' 9/11/03 write up on this. Even tho you're a union boy I think you're capable of doing that.

Want more?? This congress has run up record deficits. Can you prove me wrong?? No you cannot. This most recent budget has the country SPENDING more $$ than the GDP of every other country on the planet except two.

Go deliver mail. Make use of your talents...

[jballscalls]

just curious, but why are you making it sound like delivering mail is not a good or noble profession?? seems like your putting someone down for doing a job, being a courier, which seems like a noble profession. My old man drove a truck for 25 years, you going to mock him?? i talk while animals run in a circle, you going to demean me for it?

[mostpost]

OK Mailbagboy, I'm man enough to answer your question even tho you're not man enough to step up to the plate on mine.Two things wrong with that statement; I did answer your question which was:
Do you think today's economy is better than 2006, before the dems took over congress? My answer was:
My answer is today's economy is not better than in 2006, that is obvious. But I reject your theory that this is the fault of the Democratic Congress. If you think the Democratic Congress is responsible then perhaps you can tell me specific actions they took which caused the problems. Then tell me whether some of those actions were also endorsed by the Bush Administration.
Clearly your original question referred to the 110th congress which took office in 2007. Your reply here has suddenly shifted to the 108th congress and the subject has shifted to GSEs. I will have an answer on that later.

[mostpost]

just curious, but why are you making it sound like delivering mail is not a good or noble profession?? seems like your putting someone down for doing a job, being a courier, which seems like a noble profession. My old man drove a truck for 25 years, you going to mock him?? i talk while animals run in a circle, you going to demean me for it?
He does that because he lacks answers. Conservatives are at a disadvantage because they have fervent beliefs and little evidence to back up those beliefs. Hence, when you show them their theories don't stand up to scrutiny, they become angry and lash out. They can't comprehend that that what they believe is wrong, so they block out any evidence that disproves their beliefs.
As far as my career at USPS, I decided shortly after I came to this forum that if I was going to post my opinions people should have some context as to who I am. Thus, I answered the bio questions as completely as I could so they could have that context.

[boxcar]

He does that because he lacks answers. Conservatives are at a disadvantage because they have fervent beliefs and little evidence to back up those beliefs. Hence, when you show them their theories don't stand up to scrutiny, they become angry and lash out. They can't comprehend that that what they believe is wrong, so they block out any evidence that disproves their beliefs.
As far as my career at USPS, I decided shortly after I came to this forum that if I was going to post my opinions people should have some context as to who I am. Thus, I answered the bio questions as completely as I could so they could have that context.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Methinks you might actually missed your calling as a stand-up comedian.

Your bio does help explain, however, why you are so disconnected from reality as this pertains to the private sector.

Boxcar
P.S. I'm hoping that both of are still around to see the day when the USPS actually runs in the black and shows a profit for it operations. You just gotta know I'd be the first to scream bloody murder about their obscene, over-the-top profit margin. :lol: :lol:

P.P.S -- But more realistically, I think we both know hell would freeze over first.

[Tom]

just curious, but why are you making it sound like delivering mail is not a good or noble profession??

You should see the shape my Simulcast Weekly arrives in. :rolleyes:

[Tom]

P.P.S -- But more realistically, I think we both know hell would freeze over first.

Seen DC this weekend?
Looks like HELL did freeze over! They are calling it Snowpocolypse. :lol:

[mostpost]

Fannie and Freddie. W and Secty Snow wanted tighter Reg's on GSE's, thought the economy was headed the wrong direction & wanted to hit the brakes on some problems.....Next thing you know Barney Frank (is it ok if I call him a TeaBagger?) and a few Dem black DC leaders were railingon W for being a racist and over reacting.

Now look at what's happened.

Go google NY Times' 9/11/03 write up on this. Even tho you're a union boy I think you're capable of doing that.
You did not provide a specific link. I found this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-21admin.18841572.html?_r=1
Excerpts/w comments
The global financial system was teetering on the edge of collapse when President George W. Bush and his economics team huddled in the Roosevelt Room of the White House for a briefing that, in the words of one participant, "scared the hell out of everybody."
Bush, according to several people in the room, paused for a single, stunned moment to take it all in.
"How," he wondered aloud, "did we get here?"
the story of how we got here is partly one of Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.

From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own home with his conviction that markets do best when let alone.
He pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities

Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies, but was unwilling to compromise when his former Treasury secretary wanted to cut a deal. (The fact here is there were at least four bills introduced in Congress in 2003 which addressed the problem. None of them got out of committee. This was at atime when Republicans controlled the Senate 51-48 and the House 219-205. The Compromise referenced above refers to a bill introduced in 2005 which easilly passed the House.)
As early as 2006, top advisers to Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming.
"There is no question we did not recognize the severity of the problems," said Al Hubbard, Bush's former chief economics adviser, who left the White House in December 2007.
Lawrence Lindsay, Bush's first chief economics adviser, said there was little impetus to raise alarms about the proliferation of easy credit that was helping Bush meet housing goals.

"No one wanted to stop that bubble," Lindsay said. "It would have conflicted with the president's own policies."(This conflicts with the story being spread now that the Bush Administration was opposed to easy credit.)

For much of Bush's tenure, government statistics show, incomes for most families remained relatively stagnant while housing prices skyrocketed. That put homeownership increasingly out of reach for first-time buyers like West

"This administration made decisions that allowed the free market to operate as a barroom brawl instead of a prize fight," said L. William Seidman, who advised Republican presidents and led the savings and loan bailout in the 1990s. "To make the market work well, you have to have a lot of rules."

But Bush populated the financial system's alphabet soup of oversight agencies with people who, like him, wanted fewer rules, not more.

Like minds on laissez-faire

The president's first chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission promised a "kinder, gentler" agency. The second was pushed out amid industry complaints that he was too aggressive. Under its current leader, the agency failed to police the catastrophic decisions that toppled the investment bank Bear Stearns and contributed to the current crisis, according to a recent inspector general's report.

As for Bush's banking regulators, they once brandished a chain saw over a 9,000-page pile of regulations as they promised to ease burdens on the industry. When states tried to use consumer protection laws to crack down on predatory lending, the comptroller of the currency blocked the effort, asserting that states had no authority over national banks.
(So on the one hand Bush is infavor of stronger regulations and on the other his comptroller of the currency is stopping states from regulating banks.)
"This administration made decisions that allowed the free market to operate as a barroom brawl instead of a prize fight," said L. William Seidman, who advised Republican presidents and led the savings and loan bailout in the 1990s. "To make the market work well, you have to have a lot of rules."

But Bush populated the financial system's alphabet soup of oversight agencies with people who, like him, wanted fewer rules, not more.

Like minds on laissez-faire

The president's first chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission promised a "kinder, gentler" agency. The second was pushed out amid industry complaints that he was too aggressive. Under its current leader, the agency failed to police the catastrophic decisions that toppled the investment bank Bear Stearns and contributed to the current crisis, according to a recent inspector general's report.

As for Bush's banking regulators, they once brandished a chain saw over a 9,000-page pile of regulations as they promised to ease burdens on the industry. When states tried to use consumer protection laws to crack down on predatory lending, the comptroller of the currency blocked the effort, asserting that states had no authority over national banks.
(The article goes on to discuss Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Armando Falcon Jr. was preparing to take on a couple of giants.

A soft-spoken Texan, Falcon ran the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, a tiny government agency that oversaw Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two pillars of the American housing industry. In February 2003, he was finishing a blockbuster report that warned the pillars could crumble.
Falcon's report outlined a worst-case situation in which Fannie and Freddie could default on debt, setting off "contagious illiquidity in the market" — in other words, a financial meltdown. He also raised red flags about the companies' soaring use of derivatives, the complex financial instruments that economic experts now blame for spreading the housing collapse.
Today, the White House cites that report — and its subsequent effort to better regulate Fannie and Freddie — as evidence that it foresaw the crisis and tried to avert it.

But the back story is more complicated. To begin with, on the day Falcon issued his report, the White House tried to fire him.

as Falcon was in New York preparing to deliver a speech about his findings, his cellphone rang. It was the White House personnel office, he said, telling him he was about to be unemployed.
His (Falcon's) warnings were buried in the next day's news coverage, trumped by the White House announcement that Bush would replace Falcon, a Democrat appointed by Bill Clinton, with Mark Brickell, a leader in the derivatives industry that Falcon's report had flagged.
Michael Oxley, an Ohio Republican and then-chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, had produced what Snow viewed as "a pretty darned good bill," a watered-down version of what the president sought.
(First they were for it.)
When the bill passed the House, the president issued a statement opposing it, effectively killing any chance of compromise.
(Then they were against it.)

Jason Thomas had a nagging feeling.

The New Century Financial Corp., a huge subprime lender whose mortgages were bundled into securities sold around the world, was headed for bankruptcy in March 2007.
As Thomas began digging into New Century's failure that spring, he became fixated on a particular statistic, the rent-to-own ratio.

Typically, as home prices increase, rental costs rise proportionally. But Thomas sent charts to top White House and Treasury officials showing that the monthly cost of owning far outpaced the cost to rent. To Thomas, it was a sign that housing prices were wildly inflated and bound to plunge
the prevailing view at the White House was that the problems in the housing market were limited to subprime borrowers
That fall, Representative Rahm Emanuel, a leading Democrat, former investment banker and now the incoming chief of staff to President-elect Barack Obama, warned the White House it was not doing enough. He said he told Joshua Bolten, Bush's chief of staff, and Paulson in a series of phone calls that the credit crisis would get "deep and serious" and that the only answer was big, internationally coordinated government intervention.
(A democrat suggests an excellent solution)
Instead, Bush developed Hope Now, a voluntary public-private partnership to help struggling homeowners refinance loans.
(A Republican rejects that solution)
(RESULT?
Within days, Bear Sterns collapsed, (and thus began the financial crisis of '08-'09)

The White House responded to this article by trying to shift the blame to Barney Frank. Barney Frank did indeed speak out against the new rules, but Republicans were in control of Congress from 2001 to 2007. In that time only one piece of legislation on GSEs passed the House and that was killed by Bush.

[mostpost]

You should see the shape my Simulcast Weekly arrives in. :rolleyes:If I was your mailman, I'd tear up your Simulcast Weekly too. My regret would be that it only comes once a week. :lol: :lol:

[ElKabong]

Mailbagger,

Talk about wearing down a mouse wheel....

I remember it as such...W and the Secty pushed for reforms, even named Fannie and Freddie by names. Enter Barney Frank (turns out a boyfriend of his was a company officer there). Rails on W for wanting to destroy a good thing. Then a black congressman from the south outed W as a racist.

Speaking of running out of a legitimate arguement. Pull a race card.

As far as your profession- You are what you are. Your most difficult decision all day is deciding what slot to place an envelope in. Nothing noble about it. In fact there are people who've accomplished far more in life that are out of work now, that could easily replace you. Very easily. And do it for less money.

Which brings us back to this shitty 0bama economy...

[PaceAdvantage]

Oh Lordy...doesn't anyone know how to use the Interwebs?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?pagewanted=1

Read it and weep mostpost...written in 2003 in the New York Times of all places:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.Here is where it gets good:''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

[PaceAdvantage]

Based on the above quote in 2003, how is it that Barney Frank is still in power? Maybe mostpost can answer this one for me.

Mel Watt still has his seat as well....unfreakinbelievable...

And they call Republicans ditto heads? :lol:

[boxcar]

Oh Lordy...doesn't anyone know how to use the Interwebs?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?pagewanted=1

Read it and weep mostpost...written in 2003 in the New York Times of all places:

Here is where it gets good:

Mosty just forgot that liberals believe home ownership is somehow a birthright. So much for social engineering... :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

Read those two quotes from Frank and Watt again, and tell me that this very mindset, the mindset that has the balls to say the above in 2003, the mindset that gave us the COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT in 1977, isn't majorly responsible for our current economic conditions.

"Certainly not!" says mostpost and the rest of the ditto heads...it's all George W. Bush and the war in Iraq's fault...:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Tom]

PA, you got a mean streak......throwing FACTS around like that! :lol:

[mostpost]

Oh Lordy...doesn't anyone know how to use the Interwebs?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?pagewanted=1

Read it and weep mostpost...written in 2003 in the New York Times of all places:

Here is where it gets good:
You guys keep posting the same thing over and over. You ignore my repeated question. If George Bush was so set on strenghtening the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, why didn't he push the legislation to accomplish that goal? Why did none of the several bills proposed to do this in 2003 get out of committee?
Here is a quote from the article you linked:
Congressional Democrats (who) fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
Here is a quote from the article I linked:
From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own home with his conviction that markets do best when let alone.

He pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities, an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition to expand the Republican tent — and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.
From this we see that Bush was in favor of increasing home ownership just as were Frank and friends. But perhaps Bush advocated stricter controls on who could borrow towards a home.
So Bush had to, in his words, "use the mighty muscle of the federal government" to meet his goal. He proposed affordable housing tax incentives. He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.
Almost sounds like Barney Frank.
If you insist that the Bush Administration was sincere, then explain why they were working to replace Armando Falcon, the head of OFHEO, who had prepared a report outlining the accounting errors being practiced by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And explain why the man they chose to repace Falcon was a man who had been a leader in the derivitives industry. (The very industry which was to be responsible for the upcoming crisis.)

This does not sound like an administration intent on regulation.

[ElKabong]

It's back to Dan Rather's "look at my fake documents" crap again....

The facts will stare mosty in the face and he'll spin another way...The economy is fantastic, man. Just fantastic.

[mostpost]

Read those two quotes from Frank and Watt again, and tell me that this very mindset, the mindset that has the balls to say the above in 2003, the mindset that gave us the COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT in 1977, isn't majorly responsible for our current economic conditions.

"Certainly not!" says mostpost and the rest of the ditto heads...it's all George W. Bush and the war in Iraq's fault...:lol: :lol: :lol:
ditto head? DITTO HEAD? DITTO HEAD?
Ditto heads are the low information voters who listen to Limbaugh and don't think for themselves. Ditto heads are the people who think Barney Frank single handedly stopped housing reform when Republicans had majorities in both houses of Congress and a president in the White House.

[price]

I don't want to get into D or R...as I think they both suck. I remember a poster here...a truck driver who was in bad shape back just a little while ago. What happened to him I wonder? I know I have prayed for him because I can relate.

I look at myself...married...2 kids in college and my job is being threatened. At least it feels that way and I am a government contract employee for the FAA....so for all the talk of government spending I guess it isn't in aviation weather. Anyway I am so scared about the future I have checked my life insurance to see if suicide is covered...and I doubt I am the only one. I am terrified and just sick over the whole mess. I wish I had the answers, but I do not. Everytime the phone rings I am afraid its the big ziggy coming to get me, checking my e mail I am afriad of more bad news from the rumor mill.

[cj's dad]

I don't want to get into D or R...as I think they both suck. I remember a poster here...a truck driver who was in bad shape back just a little while ago. What happened to him I wonder? I know I have prayed for him because I can relate.

I look at myself...married...2 kids in college and my job is being threatened. At least it feels that way and I am a government contract employee for the FAA....so for all the talk of government spending I guess it isn't in aviation weather. Anyway I am so scared about the future I have checked my life insurance to see if suicide is covered...and I doubt I am the only one. I am terrified and just sick over the whole mess. I wish I had the answers, but I do not. Everytime the phone rings I am afraid its the big ziggy coming to get me, checking my e mail I am afriad of more bad news from the rumor mill.

The fact that you even mention that is scary. My God man, if you are considering that please see a professional and ask for help.

My wife's sister tried to commit suicide by injecting herself with insulin (she was a RN) and she was found in a coma. She was brain dead and eventually removed from life support by the family. One word DEVESTATING !!

Suicide is a very selfish act - it destroys families and solves nothing.

Keep the faith and seek help if you feel overwhelmed - it is out there.
If you are a religious person, seek counseling through a member of the clergy, but beyond all do not give up.

[boxcar]

Good advice, CJ.

Price, don't let the circumstances forced upon us by godless men beat you down. This world and all that's in it will one day pass away. Everything here is temporary -- here for only a season, like all of us.

There is plenty of help out there -- plenty of people who genuinely care. And they have answers. Seek that help to overcome your depression or anxiety. You can get through this and you'll be a better person for it.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

I don't want to get into D or R...as I think they both suck. I remember a poster here...a truck driver who was in bad shape back just a little while ago. What happened to him I wonder? I know I have prayed for him because I can relate.

I look at myself...married...2 kids in college and my job is being threatened. At least it feels that way and I am a government contract employee for the FAA....so for all the talk of government spending I guess it isn't in aviation weather. Anyway I am so scared about the future I have checked my life insurance to see if suicide is covered...and I doubt I am the only one. I am terrified and just sick over the whole mess. I wish I had the answers, but I do not. Everytime the phone rings I am afraid its the big ziggy coming to get me, checking my e mail I am afriad of more bad news from the rumor mill.
You need to realize that you provide so much more for your family than just food and shelter. Your presence is much more important than your presents.
Have you spoken to your family about this? Sharing a burden can lighten it. There's a time to be a hero and this is not that time.
If you read this forum a lot, you know that CJ'sDad and I never agree on anything. But this time he is right. If you're a church goer a good first step would be to talk to your clergyperson. See your doctor. Possibly you're clinically depressed. That can be treated.
I'm not trying to make a diagnosis, just thinking of possibilities. I'm not trying to say the situation isn't serious, just trying to help you find solutions. Good solutions.
These are not the best of times, but they will get better. You should be here to share them. :)

[ElKabong]

Price,

Please take a step back and look at things. You'll have grandkids that will treasure time with you. Other friendships will develop.

Things will get better.

I've had this talk with a person that I used to work with. He lost his job in January 2009, hasn't had a nibble since. He's an alcoholic now, can't mask the pain of so-called rejection (can't find a job). He has 2 grown kids and will be a grandfather soon. The thought of suicide (he says) comes and goes but he knows there are better times ahead.

God only knows how many people face this these days, but things WILL get better. Life has its ups and downs. Please know that better days are ahead.

[PaceAdvantage]

ditto head? DITTO HEAD? DITTO HEAD?You're the biggest parrot/cheerleader on here...thus you are a ditto head in my book.

Instead of demanding that Barney Frank resign for his utter lack of skills, you continue to clamor on about Bush.

I thought BUSH was a dope? Isn't that what you tell us?

I thought you guys held Democrats to a higher standard than BUSH.

What's Barney Frank's excuse?

Why don't you demand that he resign for insisting all was well with Fannie and Freddie in 2003?

[nijinski]

I'm scared as well. I walk into work each day not knowing if mine will be the next job cut , pay is frozen but not the rent and bills.

I understand your fears Price , but again very good advice in the two prior posts.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Without restating the advice that others have offered you Price - just be aware that you aren't alone. You are not the only one that struggles with finding value in life or living, that the pressures and adversities often don't seem worth the effort of what seems a directionless or unfulfilling voyage. You aren't uncommonly weak or valueless, just vulnerable. Absolve yourself of the pressures that are out of your control. Relieving much of that complication will help you enjoy what is good and focus on that which is within your control, a feeling that will help you rediscover your value.

[Tom]

price, hang in there - people love you and need you.
I suspect you are a lot richer than you realize.
Think about it.....:ThmbUp:

[chickenhead]

interview last night on CR with Brazilian Eike Batista, I did not know him before, but he'll likely be the worlds richest man soon, stands to make around $100 billion return on a $1 billion bet he made in shallow water oil fields. I thought there were a few good things in here about investing, about China, about Brazil, etc-- but my ears perked up when he made a point about home indebtedness and its effect on the economy, he made a point when talking about the competitiveness and rosy future of Brazil that their mortgages only totalled 3.5% of GDP. US is about 90% of GDP. Obviously this points to us living much much better, but makes competition awfully tough.

Anyway, a lot of interesting stuff in here I thought, from a guy most people in US probably don't know.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10851

[skate]

Love the report.

Was the $1 billion cash? Reading again...

The 90%, i'm sure (i think) you didn't mean was the debt to GDP.

Which brings me (hello) to ask a question.

Roughing it, we now have a yearly debt of $1.4Tri., with a yearly GDP/$14 to $15 Tri., which if (yearly debt) does not launch a strong econmy is a problem.


The Fed Debt, outstanding, (not up to date) is, let's say $14/$15 Trillion. As you know, has accumulated over 'x' years. To compare that debt with the GDP, it would be debt to credit type, accounting.
We would then need , to balance our sheets, a total debt value and a total value of GDP, not just a yearly GDP, but rather a total value, which i would think to be All Value, house, roads, bonds, stocks etc. etc.

[chickenhead]

Was the $1 billion cash? Reading again...

I believe he raised cash via private equity placements to buy the leases, so it was direct investment, cash. There's probably plenty of financing involved in the actual buildout, so you can cheer about that if you want, but probably not too much, its only costing him $8/bbl to get at the oil. I imagine its spinning off more cash than they know what to do with.

The 90%, i'm sure (i think) you didn't mean was the debt to GDP.

I said mortgages, so I think I probably meant mortgages. ;). Overall they just are not leveraged anything like we are, publicly, privately, wherever, was I think his point. he, like you would, sees that as a very large runway for them.....

[price]

Thanks. I am meeting with our Pastor on Saturday we had a nice talk on the phone today.

[mostpost]

Thanks. I am meeting with our Pastor on Saturday we had a nice talk on the phone today.
As Siskal and Ebert would say. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[skate]

I believe he raised cash via private equity placements to buy the leases, so it was direct investment, cash. There's probably plenty of financing involved in the actual buildout, so you can cheer about that if you want, but probably not too much, its only costing him $8/bbl to get at the oil. I imagine its spinning off more cash than they know what to do with.


He says he expects about $100 Billion, nice move.



I said mortgages, so I think I probably meant mortgages. ;). Overall they just are not leveraged anything like we are, publicly, privately, wherever, was I think his point. he, like you would, sees that as a very large runway for them.....

So, that's why i wasn't sure, most likely you ment what you said;). probably, anyhow.

the post from Reinhart
REINHART: Debt is debt. We’re very close to that 90%. Other government agencies are holding government debt and netting that out, but in the end the federal government is going to be liable. And gross debt of the federal government still doesn’t take into account the massive guarantees (by government-owned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). If anything, 90% is a generous measure.:D

[hcap]

NYTimes.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/economy/17leonhardt.html?hp

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/02/17/business/economy/17leonhardt_graphic/17leonhardt_graphic-popup.jpg


One more time......


http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/363/jobrecovery.jpg

[Tom]

Until we have real jobs - manufacturing jobs - we are not turning anything around. Yes, government creates some jobs - nut not sustainable jobs. Construction is a one time deal. Manufacturing depends on multi levels of value added activity and it it sustains itself.

Employment is not good - the real rate is very high, forget the 10% 8% misleading numbers.

[Robert Goren]

I agree about manufacturing jobs. Construction jobs are merely short term, not very good, fix. I know I am going to raise the ire of some here, but niether are small business jobs. We need jobs from large businesses like auto maker and their suppliers

[chickenhead]

not related to any stimulus in any but maybe some very indirect way -- but our company has around 100 open recs we just opened up. If you're a Senior SW programmer with a telecom background in the Bay Area, hit me up! I can get you a job! (and me a $4K referral bonus :) )

For our industry, 2000-2002 still ranks as worse than the current situation. At least so far. That was our bubble collapse.

[PaceAdvantage]

Didn't Bush start all this stimulus stuff? Why aren't you giving him credit, hcap?

[mostpost]

Didn't Bush start all this stimulus stuff? Why aren't you giving him credit, hcap?
From the "Is Anyone Really Surprised" thread
Tom
Registered User




Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 38,474
vCash: 684 Quote:
Originally Posted by lamboguy
the stimulus bill started with the bush administration. are you glad about that too?




No it didn't.


__________________
Etch-a-Sketch....the Amish Laptop!

[cj's dad]

To those of you who disparage/dismiss construction jobs, I say you have no idea what you are talking about; at least in this part of America.

Then again Maryland is the wealthiest state in the country, and most are not working in manufacturing.

[wes]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23143814


Didn't Bush start all this stimulus stuff? Why aren't you giving him credit (yes)



wes

[Tom]

To those of you who disparage/dismiss construction jobs, I say you have no idea what you are talking about; at least in this part of America.

Then again Maryland is the wealthiest state in the country, and most are not working in manufacturing.

Not disparaging it at all...we just need more. Our pathetically moronic government cannot see the obvious....at any level. They are too busy looking to steal our money from us to pay for their failures.

[PaceAdvantage]

From the "Is Anyone Really Surprised" thread
Tom
Registered User




Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 38,474
vCash: 684 Quote:
Originally Posted by lamboguy
the stimulus bill started with the bush administration. are you glad about that too?




No it didn't.


__________________
Etch-a-Sketch....the Amish Laptop!Why would you quote Tom as a response to my inquiry?

[mostpost]

Why would you quote Tom as a response to my inquiry?
Because you never believe anything I say. Tom said, in a respose to lamboguy, that the stimulus did not begin with Bush. I agree with Tom. :eek:
Of course it really depends on how you define stimulus. Bush did institute a series of tax rebates and tax breaks for businesses which invested in new equipment. That those measures did not improve the economy is obvious.
Since the passage of the Obama stimulus in Feb. 2009 the economy has gone from 6% contraction to 6% expansion. Job loss has gone from 600,000 per month to 11,000 per month. Housing starts have improved. Manufacturing has increased. Things are not perfect, but they are getting better.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... Job loss has gone from 600,000 per month to 11,000 per month...

In another report Thursday, the Labor Department said that the number of newly laid-off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits jumped to 473,000 last week, an increase of 31,000 over the previous week.

http://www.yahoo.com/_ylt=AkjZyzeSpLeehFcI57ZIrn.bvZx4/SIG=14ptd36uo/**http%3A//us.rd.yahoo.com/finance/news/rss/story/*http%3A//us.rd.yahoo.com/finance/news/topfinstories/*http%3A//biz.yahoo.com/ap/100218/us_economy.html

[Tom]

I was referring to the Porkulus Bill.

Bush, as the lefties have insisted, is the man behind TARP, which was a huge success and all the money paid back, with interest.

However, the money never got back to the people, so we can now all agree, Obama took a successful program and ruined it.

Obama snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Sorry, George.....you did your part. The fool dropped the ball.

[ElKabong]

In another report Thursday, the Labor Department said that the number of newly laid-off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits jumped to 473,000 last week, an increase of 31,000 over the previous week.

http://www.yahoo.com/_ylt=AkjZyzeSpLeehFcI57ZIrn.bvZx4/SIG=14ptd36uo/**http%3A//us.rd.yahoo.com/finance/news/rss/story/*http%3A//us.rd.yahoo.com/finance/news/topfinstories/*http%3A//biz.yahoo.com/ap/100218/us_economy.html


Hcap and mailbagger think that an increase in newly laid-off workers is a good thing.....Must be a liberal mindset because I see no reason to pump sunshine on an increase of jobless folks.

[acorn54]

the fact is so many people out of work already, can't get much worse.
putting a positive spin on job losses is what you expect from one of obama's sycophants.