|
How's this for an average, yuh Clock Beater!
Average Unemployment:
2006 4.6
2007 4.6 2008 5.8 2009 9.3 2010 9.6 2011 8.9(and this is a horse crap phony number)
  |
Posted on 04/29/2012 9:36:29 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The slow start for the economy in 2012 — an annual rate of 2.2 percent in the first three months of the year — is evidence that the recovery is too weak to push joblessness much lower than its current 8.2 percent, and too fragile to withstand the kinds of budget cuts Congressional Republicans are proposing.
A stark divide is developing on the campaign trail. President Obama is centering his agenda on policies to address economic inequality — including more manufacturing jobs and educational opportunities. Mitt Romney is focused on tax cuts for the rich, budget cuts for the poor, and on blaming Mr. Obama for the economic shambles created in the Bush years.
For now, the default policy is to slog on until the end of the year, when lawmakers will be forced to confront the looming federal budget cuts and the simultaneous expiration of the Bush tax cuts, the temporary payroll tax cut and federal unemployment benefits.
The fledgling recovery, beset by lopsided growth, will not be helped by a continuation of high-end Bush tax cuts, nor can the weak economy withstand severe budget cutbacks. Meanwhile, the uncertainty over future policy is yet another harbinger of continued slow growth.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The Old Grey Whore croaks out the same old tune. Raise taxes, increase spending, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.
Iceberg? What iceberg?
To further the analogy in mediaspeak:
The Titanic's 'recovery' has been slowed down by the gradual flooding of its forward compartments.
This is NOT the Obama Economy (wish I slap Hannity every time he spews that crap). We are in a long-wave contraction; four years into a decade of deleveraging and wealth elimination. This is global. It is going to get worse before it gets better.
The biggest mistake both Bush and Obama made was treating this economic cycle like a "recession." Deficit/stimulus spending has, in the past, been helpful in easing a "recession." But we are not in a "recession." We are in a long-wave contraction. You would think that after pumping several trillion dollars into the system, they would get the message.
Obviously not.
Both sides had a seat at this disaster table. A pox on both their houses. For decades they promised goodies in exchange for votes. For decades, the American public gobbled up whatever tripe they spewed out.
We had a chance, in 2010, to do something - but we didn't have enough power to effect real change in spending. Hate to be the messenger: it's now too late.
Wealth is contracting all over the world. ZIRP and hidden inflation will eat whatever is left.
Ultimately, Obama needs to be defeated because he has weakened us considerably as a country and in the World Theater. Our two best choices were Newt and Crazy Uncle Ron (absolutely right on monetary policy but off on foreign policy). We're stuck with Mittens. God help us.
This is NOT the Obama Economy (wish I slap Hannity every time he spews that crap). We are in a long-wave contraction; four years into a decade of deleveraging and wealth elimination. This is global. It is going to get worse before it gets better.
The biggest mistake both Bush and Obama made was treating this economic cycle like a "recession." Deficit/stimulus spending has, in the past, been helpful in easing a "recession." But we are not in a "recession." We are in a long-wave contraction. You would think that after pumping several trillion dollars into the system, they would get the message.
Obviously not.
Both sides had a seat at this disaster table. A pox on both their houses. For decades they promised goodies in exchange for votes. For decades, the American public gobbled up whatever tripe they spewed out.
We had a chance, in 2010, to do something - but we didn't have enough power to effect real change in spending. Hate to be the messenger: it's now too late.
Wealth is contracting all over the world. ZIRP and hidden inflation will eat whatever is left.
Ultimately, Obama needs to be defeated because he has weakened us considerably as a country and in the World Theater. Our two best choices were Newt and Crazy Uncle Ron (absolutely right on monetary policy but off on foreign policy). We're stuck with Mittens. God help us.
Yes, the Old Grey Whore, spewing out more lies. This IS the OBAMAECONOMY. He has been in office 3 and a half years and there has been NO improvement. EPIC FAIL.
Obama increased the debt of every man woman and child in the country by about $20,000 over his term.
Obamacare and the threat of increased taxes has stopped small business employers in their tracks from hiring.
Obama has blocked massive amounts of oil and coal development
increasing the cost of everything - that and endless printing of dollars...
It is true the credit bubble happened before Obama’s term but he was a major player in pushing the credit bubble when in congress and state government.
Obama has made things profoundly worse.
|
How's this for an average, yuh Clock Beater!
Average Unemployment:
2006 4.6
2007 4.6 2008 5.8 2009 9.3 2010 9.6 2011 8.9(and this is a horse crap phony number)
|
Actually it is the Obama Economy. He has worsened the cycle and his incompetent staff couldn’t get a clue at a buffet give away.
Sorry, though, I'm sick of the lie that this is all Obama's fault; or the flip side, that if we elect a Republican things will magically get better. They won't. The next President will inherit a financial graveyard. There isn't a policy change on the planet that will fix this.
Sure there are, as long as your goals are realistic (IOW, no 'instant fix' to 5% unemployment within a year)and policies are sensible - reducing corporate taxation, deficit spending and government waste will make dramatic economic improvements if done competently - both our neighbors Canada and Mexico are doing much better than the US relatively speaking at this point in time with more sensible fiscal and monetary policies.
People were saying just about what you were during Jimmy Carter's latter days, and looked how that turned out after a year or so of economic austerity. To say that the US is in some sort of unique economic 'graveyard' is basically only defeatism.
What is left out of the picture are the different philosophies of Democrats and Republicans. Bush came into office with a Clinton recession. He then coped with 9/11 economic disaster and massive cost for both the Iraqi and Afghanistan Wars.
President Bush tax cuts worked. During his first six years of his administration, until Sept 2007, he had accomplished in bringing down the unemployment numbers to 4.4%. In economic terms, that is pretty much considered full employment. He was also on a glide path with the Debt trajectory sharply coming down.
So what happen! The same disaster that always happens to Republicans. They lose control of Congress to the Democrats. The party who controls Congress will pretty much dictate where the economy philosophy of the legislation that they will produce.
If you take a look at President Clinton first years, he was very fortunate to have a Republican controlled Congress. Clinton was forced to come to the middle and agree with Republicans on important conservative oriented fiscal legislation. He also benefited from the greatest militarily downsize in the history of the nation. Not only did the Republican led Senate help him from impeachment, you can say that the Republicans in Congress saved him economically. By the time Bush came into office, the economy had taken a turn towards recession because the Democrats won control of the Congress from the Republicans.
What does it matter? Everything! Democrats change the conservative approach to government 180 degrees. They began on a spending spree, they fought tax cuts, they push for more entitlement programs, etc with President Bush bipartisan help.
President Bush won election with a new Republican controlled Congress. Again the free market approach of the Republican Congress quickly began to show positive results with increased revenue, sharp increase in national employment figures in all sectors, a strong military, etc. The media, aligned and coordinated with the radically liberal Democrats illustrated daily their perfectly bias reporting. They hyped favorable coverage to the Democrat Party and attacked or discounted all favorable data for the Bush Administration. The media focused on the Iraq War and continued to hid or sensor Bush economic successes.
In the last two years of President Bush Administration, the Democrats gain control once again of the Congress. Immediately, all legislative priorities and focus shifted dramatically toward massive increased spending on social programs. Bush in a bipartisan effort pushed a prescription drug program to his discredit.
Obama, never receives any blame for the spending spree of the Democrat controlled Congress in which he served as a US Senator. The escalating social ineptness hitting us today were spurred while Obama and the Democrats controlled Congress. It was under his watch. Obama was and is the largest proponent of spending. Although the Banking and Home Mortgage Industry encountered problems long before the Democrats took control of the Congress, they were in charge and acted as road blocks to impede any action by the Bush Administration to get a handled on the upcoming crisis.
Why is it that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi who control Congress during the critical years of spending, get such a free pass from the mainstream media? Where are the Republican leaders who are standing up to defend Bush and call out the Democrats in Congress for their socialistic spending spree while they control Congresses prior to Obama election. Obama is just carrying on what he learned as a Democrat US Senator.
You are not alone for holding this view among freepers.
While I have some problems with Richard Koo’s solutions to a balance sheet recession, I agree with his diagnosis of the problem.
The only saving grace the US and Canada had were the influx of immigrants who had bulwarked the fertility rate. If the recent reports about more Mexicans leaving than coming continues as a long term trend, the US is looking at the same demographic inverted pyramid as Japan and Spain.
Just this week Spain abruptly ended socialized health care benefits to illegal aliens, while Spain’s native population has the lowest fertility rate in Europe.
The US and Spain have plenty of real estate bubble housing stock sitting vacant, and no young families to fill the homes.
“A stark divide is developing on the campaign trail. President Obama is centering his agenda on policies to address economic inequality — including more manufacturing jobs and educational opportunities. Mitt Romney is focused on tax cuts for the rich, budget cuts for the poor, and on blaming Mr. Obama for the economic shambles created in the Bush years”.
Wow, in all of the years I have been suffering through Ny Times editorials, that has got to be the most biased paragraph I have ever read. Campaign season has officially begun,
Ya know, for just ONCE, I wish the Rich Fat Cats at the NYT would care about America and it's workers, not its unionists, but it's workers, over their tiresome, politically correct political agenda!!!
Yeah, fat chance.
The sky is falling, the sky is falling..................
From memory.....
Between February 2009 (Obama’s first full month) and March 2012 (last reported month), the total number of employed persons went up 700,000.
In the same time period, total USA population went up more than 10 million.
According to ECRI, the Great Recession “officially” ended in June 2009, almost 3 years ago, and just 4 months after Obama took office.
I can't speak for Spain, but in the USA legal and illegal immigration played a major role in the housing bubble.
From memory.....
The top three foreclosure markets are in California's central valleys.
The next three are in Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and southern Arizona.
As late as December 2007, Bank of America and Countrywide were running home mortgage ads that stated:
“No Social Security Number Required”
What is the truth about the American economy?
Excessive government steals incentive. In other words, it injures individual, family, and community spirit and hope.
This passage from Samuel says it very well:
“So Samuel spoke all the words of the LORD to the people who had asked of him a king. And he said, “This will be the procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots. “And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots..“He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers. “And he will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. “And he will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards, and give to his officers and to his servants. “He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys, and use them for his work. “He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants.
“Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.” Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel, and they said, “No, but there shall be a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.” (1 Samuel 8:10-20).
More heads-I-win-tails-you-lose 'reporting' from the NYTimes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.