September unemployment is 9.8 percent

[MTK]

Great job ruining the thread.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by jsarno

HAHAHA...then what would you catagorize it as?

Unemployment rate IS POLITICAL people. WOW...to even suggest otherwise is well, blind.

Economics and politics are not one in the same. Ever take an economics course?

[budw38]

How is Bush " mostly " responsible for the " mess " we are in ? Clinton Admin. pass the Subprime / CRA's and eliminated the Glass Steagal Act . The Clinton admin . ran our banks and Financial Intstitutions as well as Fannie Mae Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle - Sam Dealey (usnews.com) ...Robert Rubin’s Days Are Numbered | Hennessy's View ....http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008...braines18.html ...Countrywide's Many 'Friends' - News Markets - Portfolio.com. Bush , Republicans could have done better on spending , but lets not ignore the fact that our banks , Fannie -Freddie , Senate and House Finance Commities were run by Frank-Dodd . See video of Fannie Mae CEO D. Mudd w/ Obama on YouTube . Much of the blame goes to Washington , on both sides of the isle , but the Dems need to stop this garabage of " giving " things away as if people are entitled to what they will not work for and earn .

[budw38]

Originally Posted by firstdown

So at what point do we declare that the stimulas bill didn't work or do we just keep waiting until things to turn around to declare its was a sucess?

Do you think an 89,000 car , not built in the USA will help " stimulate " our economy ? Looks like it will help Mr. Al Gore Gore-Backed Car Firm Gets Large U.S. Loan [Finland that will sell for about $89,000....]

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by jsarno

HAHAHA...then what would you catagorize it as?

Unemployment rate IS POLITICAL people. WOW...to even suggest otherwise is well, blind.

For someone who supposedly has an MBA, you have a really poor understanding of economics. The President of the US and the public policy he sets has very little impact on the unemployment rate.

Since you're a fan of analogies, Obama trying to stem the surge in unemployment is akin to building a dyke out of bricks to keep out a 90-foot tsunami.

The stimulus at most could swing unemployment by half a %, and that's IF it's fully successful. But to blame the 9.8% on Obama or the stimulus is ludicrous and reeks of failure to understand economics.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Economics and politics are not one in the same. Ever take an economics course?

Agreed. Someone tell our elected officials.

[Hijinx]

Originally Posted by jsarno

There is no real way of slicing that to make it better, the current administration is failing plain and simple.

The current administration has "failed" us by not being able to undo the work of eight years of buffoons in a mere 9 months. The GOP is almost totally to blame for this by the deregulation of the banks. Yes, a down turn was bound to happen, but it was made much worse by the shading bussiness practices that were allowed.

This economy is living proof that it is a lot easier to screw something up than it is to fix it.


However the truth is the government does not control the economy. Politicians take too much blame when it goes south and far too much credit when it turns around.

[budw38]

Originally Posted by Hijinx

The current administration has "failed" us by not being able to undo the work of eight years of buffoons in a mere 9 months. The GOP is almost totally to blame for this by the deregulation of the banks. Yes, a down turn was bound to happen, but it was made much worse by the shading bussiness practices that were allowed.

This economy is living proof that it is a lot easier to screw something up than it is to fix it.


However the truth is the government does not control the economy. Politicians take too much blame when it goes south and far too much credit when it turns around.

Who refused to deregulate the banks ?

YouTube - Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in...

... your banks were run by , R. Rubin , F. Raines of the clinton admin . Frank<D> and Dodd < D> were the chairmen of the Senate & Congressional finance/banking commities . Countrywide Financial / Fannie Mae were putting money into the Dems in return got subprime and CRA's ... OpenSecrets | Update: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Lawmakers - Capital Eye hard to lay blame on GWB for what happen in the 1990's ..http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...i/Barney_Frank

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

For someone who supposedly has an MBA, you have a really poor understanding of economics. The President of the US and the public policy he sets has very little impact on the unemployment rate.

Since you're a fan of analogies, Obama trying to stem the surge in unemployment is akin to building a dyke out of bricks to keep out a 90-foot tsunami.

The stimulus at most could swing unemployment by half a %, and that's IF it's fully successful. But to blame the 9.8% on Obama or the stimulus is ludicrous and reeks of failure to understand economics.

So $800 billion for at most a half % unemployment rate drop? That was a good way to spend that money.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by steveo395

So $800 billion for at most a half % unemployment rate drop? That was a good way to spend that money.

It looks more like the 800 billion is being used to pay off suporters more then anything else.

[70Chip]

In the end I think Obama will laregly be judged by where this number is in September/October of 2012. Everyone assumes it will come down quite a bit but there is nothing that says it has to. Look at Europe.

[saden1]

What is the purpose of an economic stimulus?

A. Pay off supporters.
B. Build confidence in consumer and corporate spending.
C. Increase the national debt.
D. Reduce unemployment.
E. All of the above.

Please choose best answer.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Agreed. Someone tell our elected officials.

I'm not convinced politics and economics don't go hand-in-hand to some extent. Of course certain folks take the relationship too far in order to advantage of our economically ignorant public.

You can't have capitalism without statism.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

For someone who supposedly has an MBA, you have a really poor understanding of economics. The President of the US and the public policy he sets has very little impact on the unemployment rate.

Since you're a fan of analogies, Obama trying to stem the surge in unemployment is akin to building a dyke out of bricks to keep out a 90-foot tsunami.

The stimulus at most could swing unemployment by half a %, and that's IF it's fully successful. But to blame the 9.8% on Obama or the stimulus is ludicrous and reeks of failure to understand economics.

I'm not disagreeing with you here. I'm just curious though- Obama said the #1 goal of the stimulus is to create 3 million new jobs in two years. I don't have any figures in front of me as to how many adult Americans are unemployed currently, but I would think that if fully successful, 3 million new jobs would swing the rate by more than .5%.

Although I guess it doesn't really matter considering we're around 8 months into those 2 years and unemployment is still rising.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I'm not disagreeing with you here. I'm just curious though- Obama said the #1 goal of the stimulus is to create 3 million new jobs in two years. I don't have any figures in front of me as to how many adult Americans are unemployed currently, but I would think that if fully successful, 3 million new jobs would swing the rate by more than .5%.

Although I guess it doesn't really matter considering we're around 8 months into those 2 years and unemployment is still rising.

Well let's do some rough math. 300 million american citizens, assume 60 million or so are seniors, another 60 million or so are 18 or under, that leaves 180 million. Then some won't be in the workforce for a number of reasons. So figure there are 150 million in the workforce.

Create 3 million jobs, that represents 2% of the workforce.

But then a lot of those jobs Obama is creating are not permanent ones. So while they create a total of 3 million, it doesn't count the ones that go away once a project is finished (infrastructure projects).

So figure a 1-2% improvement in unemployment, based on this very rough math. So now reflecting on it, if fully successful, it's a little better than I first thought.

But still, unemployment is at 9.8%, and if stimulus got a 2% improvement, that's still 7.8% unemployed. Historically very high. There's just nothing any administration could ever do to keep us at the 4-5% we're used to.