PDA

View Full Version : Jobless Claims Up By 20,000



gman0046
11-04-2010, 12:47 PM
Initial jobless claims up by 20,000 to 457,000 for the week ending Oct.30. The revised figure for the previous week was 437,000.
Obama remains helpless to curb the unemployment rate. So much for his promise to keep unemployment below 8%. A failed presidency. A good reason for the Republican Blow Out.

Nate_C
11-05-2010, 01:30 PM
I am no Obama Fan but I don't think you can reasonably blame him for the current unemployment rate. I bet you didn't give credit to Clinton for the economic boom and low unemployment when he was in office, nor do you give much of the blame to Bush. The reality is that we are in a resession of our own doing. For years we consumed on credit and didn't invest. In many areas we have been supassed by other nations. Presidents just don't have that much impact on short run economics.

Blame Obama for excellerating the debt crisis, for the healthcare bill,...ect... but unemployment isn't really his fault. No one can "fix" this, it just needs time and behavioral changes by Americans.

ducknwork
11-05-2010, 01:55 PM
No one can "fix" this, it just needs time and behavioral changes by Americans.


Brilliant!

Roger Perry
11-05-2010, 02:04 PM
Initial jobless claims up by 20,000 to 457,000 for the week ending Oct.30. The revised figure for the previous week was 437,000.
Obama remains helpless to curb the unemployment rate. So much for his promise to keep unemployment below 8%. A failed presidency. A good reason for the Republican Blow Out.



U.S. economy added 151,000 jobs in October







http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40023597/ns/business-personal_finance/

gman0046
11-05-2010, 03:26 PM
The unemployment rate is still 9.6% despite Obongolo promising it wouldn't go above 8%. What say you Perry? Obviously you didn'r read the MSNBC article. I guess Obongolo disciples have to take some solace in small gains. I like BIG GAINS like the Tuesday BLOW OUT.

YardleyLabs
11-05-2010, 03:59 PM
The unemployment rate is still 9.6% despite Obongolo promising it wouldn't go above 8%. What say you Perry? Obviously you didn'r read the MSNBC article. I guess Obongolo disciples have to take some solace in small gains. I like BIG GAINS like the Tuesday BLOW OUT.
While this is another example of a claimed "fact" that is repeated so often it "must be true", Obama never promised that unemployment would not go over 8%. The Office of Economic Advisors released an econometric projection estimating that unemployment would ultimately rise to more than 9.5% in the absence of a stimulus program. Based on the same model, they estimated that with the program that increase would be capped at 8%. They noted in the forecast that the estimate were speculative because of the severity of the downturn and that many economists believed unemployment would increase to 11% or more.

"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error," the report states. "There is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity."
There's also a footnote that goes along with the chart that states: "Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/09/eric-cantor/Cantor-and-other-republicans-say-obama-promised-s/)
Hard to see anything there that looks like a "promise".

Buzz
11-05-2010, 04:13 PM
Hard to see anything there that looks like a "promise".


Jeff, my 12 year old daughter can understand that, but I don't hold out much hope here.

depittydawg
11-05-2010, 10:12 PM
I am no Obama Fan but I don't think you can reasonably blame him for the current unemployment rate. I bet you didn't give credit to Clinton for the economic boom and low unemployment when he was in office, nor do you give much of the blame to Bush. The reality is that we are in a resession of our own doing. For years we consumed on credit and didn't invest. In many areas we have been supassed by other nations. Presidents just don't have that much impact on short run economics.

Blame Obama for excellerating the debt crisis, for the healthcare bill,...ect... but unemployment isn't really his fault. No one can "fix" this, it just needs time and behavioral changes by Americans.

It also needs a review and changes in trade policies and incentives for Corporations to set up shop right here at home.

gman0046
11-06-2010, 09:23 AM
Roger Perry is in a dither over 151,000 jobs being created in October. Just heard on TV (not Fox) that at that if 200,000 jobs were created each month, it would take 12 years to get the unemployment rate at an acceptable rate. Any comments Perry?

Roger Perry
11-06-2010, 10:42 AM
Roger Perry is in a dither over 151,000 jobs being created in October. Just heard on TV (not Fox) that at that if 200,000 jobs were created each month, it would take 12 years to get the unemployment rate at an acceptable rate. Any comments Perry?

Well, gboy, I also heard on the news that during the last 3 months that more jobs were created than in the last 4 years. You do remember the last 2 years of the Bush Admninistration where the unemployment went soaring to record highs? Did you actuaually think the unemployment rate would start going down when Obama took over the office of the Presidency when Bush left office and the Country was on the brink of a Depression? Get real. In case you do not remember where Bush left off, here is a chart even you can understand.

Monthly Unemployment Rate Chart

This chart shows the seasonally adjusted Unemployment Rate from January 2003 through December 2008. The rate was 5.8 percent in January 2003. It peaked at 6.3 percent in June 2003, and then it began an uneven but steady decline. By December 2003 it had dropped to 5.7 percent, below the level it was at in January of that year. The rate continued to decline till it reached a low of 4.4 percent in October 2006. It rose to 4.6 percent by January of 2007, but declined to 4.4 percent again by March 2007. The rate then underwent an uneven increase until it reached 7.2 percent in December of 2008. (The source is the Bureau of Labor Statistics.)

http://www.doleta.gov/Performance/images/Monthly_Unemployment_Jan03.jpg BLS Series LNS 14,000,000 Seasonal Unemployment Rate 16 years and overYearJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7 2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4 2005 5.2 5.4 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.8 2006 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.74.74.74.84.75.02008 4.94.85.1 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.76.16.16.56.77.0
Created: March 27, 2004
Updated: December 31, 2009

http://www.doleta.gov/Performance/Charts/Unemployment_Jan03_09.cfm

Do you see a trend here of the unemployment rate increasing (that is indicated by the yellow line going up) just so you understand.

david gibson
11-06-2010, 10:42 AM
Jeff, my 12 year old daughter can understand that, but I don't hold out much hope here.

tomato tomahto. he didnt promise it verbatim, but his administration did state same with a graphic prediction as part of their argument to get the bill passed. the president is responsible for his underlings, thats what an administration is all about. so what if it isnt a direct quote, it was used by him and his administration as the reason to pass the bill, and it was wrong.

with your logic the issue of transparency - remember having 5 days to read a bill online and having it on c-span ??? - was not a promise either because the word "promise" wasnt used.


here's a democrat admitting it even

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/75117-democrat-obama-should-not-have-said-unemployment-would-peak-at-8-percent

regardless, the intent and deception is real.

depittydawg
11-06-2010, 12:36 PM
tomato tomahto. he didnt promise it verbatim, but his administration did state same with a graphic prediction as part of their argument to get the bill passed. the president is responsible for his underlings, thats what an administration is all about. so what if it isnt a direct quote, it was used by him and his administration as the reason to pass the bill, and it was wrong.

with your logic the issue of transparency - remember having 5 days to read a bill online and having it on c-span ??? - was not a promise either because the word "promise" wasnt used.


here's a democrat admitting it even

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/75117-democrat-obama-should-not-have-said-unemployment-would-peak-at-8-percent

regardless, the intent and deception is real.

How many jobs were we "promised" when Bush ran his tax cuts through congress? How many have they produced?

YardleyLabs
11-06-2010, 12:59 PM
tomato tomahto. he didnt promise it verbatim, but his administration did state same with a graphic prediction as part of their argument to get the bill passed. the president is responsible for his underlings, thats what an administration is all about. so what if it isnt a direct quote, it was used by him and his administration as the reason to pass the bill, and it was wrong.

with your logic the issue of transparency - remember having 5 days to read a bill online and having it on c-span ??? - was not a promise either because the word "promise" wasnt used.


here's a democrat admitting it even

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/75117-democrat-obama-should-not-have-said-unemployment-would-peak-at-8-percent

regardless, the intent and deception is real.
If you are going to accuse a man of breaking a promise, it shouldn't be that hard to find out where he made the promise. He didn't. His economic team made a forecast based on the information available of what would happen if nothing were done. They listed a lot of reasons why that forecast might be too optimistic. It turned out to be too optimistic.

The underestimate didn't cause the problem. The problem was already there, courtesy of eight years of economic insanity. I believe that, in his last few months in office, Bush acted almost rationally for the first time and took actions that helped avert an even greater disaster -- backtracking on almost all that he had championed before. Obama tightened up some of those actions and added his own that also served to mitigate the impact of the disaster.

Nobody had the power then or now to take us back as if the disaster had never happened. The problem with screwing things up royally is that there is no quick fix. That was true for Iraq and Afghanistan and is true for our economy.

It will take us over 10 years to fix all that was broken by the profligate stupidity of the last administration,. It is not clear that the current administration can get the job done, but it is clear that we will fail by returning to the same types of policies that got us here to begin with.

Even if the economy is "fixed", the fix is likely to be at a standard of living more compatible with what we produce instead of the lifestyle we lived by charging the cost to someone else. Some people seem to be demanding a return to the fictional economy we saw in 2004-06. That is like an alcoholic assuming that his "cure" will allow him to go back to drinking two bottles of rotgut a day.

The cure for an alcoholic is to live without alcohol. The cure for what ails our economy is to reach a point where we are operating without any deficit on a long term basis (allowing for a mix of short term deficits and surpluses to counter natural fluctuations in the economy). That means, through a mix of private and public action, funding both our productive years and our non-productive years, and it means paying our bills when we are sick as well as when we are well. No one can fix our problems over night and any real solution is going to add to the pain along the way.

david gibson
11-06-2010, 01:20 PM
personally, i dont see it as breaking a promise at all. its more like a deliberate misleading to get support for his agenda. dishonest at the core.

more than 10 years to fix what you say the last administration flubbed up? based on what The Apologist is doing, add another 30 yrs to fix his idiocy.
from what i recall the last administration operated in a far more bipartisan environment. do the nmames frank and dodd mean anything to you? i suppose you think they are just squeaky clean and you can find a way to blame bush for their incompetence as well.






If you are going to accuse a man of breaking a promise, it shouldn't be that hard to find out where he made the promise. He didn't. His economic team made a forecast based on the information available of what would happen if nothing were done. They listed a lot of reasons why that forecast might be too optimistic. It turned out to be too optimistic.

The underestimate didn't cause the problem. The problem was already there, courtesy of eight years of economic insanity. I believe that, in his last few months in office, Bush acted almost rationally for the first time and took actions that helped avert an even greater disaster -- backtracking on almost all that he had championed before. Obama tightened up some of those actions and added his own that also served to mitigate the impact of the disaster.

Nobody had the power then or now to take us back as if the disaster had never happened. The problem with screwing things up royally is that there is no quick fix. That was true for Iraq and Afghanistan and is true for our economy.

It will take us over 10 years to fix all that was broken by the profligate stupidity of the last administration,. It is not clear that the current administration can get the job done, but it is clear that we will fail by returning to the same types of policies that got us here to begin with.

Even if the economy is "fixed", the fix is likely to be at a standard of living more compatible with what we produce instead of the lifestyle we lived by charging the cost to someone else. Some people seem to be demanding a return to the fictional economy we saw in 2004-06. That is like an alcoholic assuming that his "cure" will allow him to go back to drinking two bottles of rotgut a day.

The cure for an alcoholic is to live without alcohol. The cure for what ails our economy is to reach a point where we are operating without any deficit on a long term basis (allowing for a mix of short term deficits and surpluses to counter natural fluctuations in the economy). That means, through a mix of private and public action, funding both our productive years and our non-productive years, and it means paying our bills when we are sick as well as when we are well. No one can fix our problems over night and any real solution is going to add to the pain along the way.