What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
96 Comments
- CCoburn3, on 10/22/2009, -24/+49Over half a million more unemployed. And people dropping off the unemployment records (and out of the government statistics) because they cannot find a job. THAT'S what the Obama administration calls improvement.
Of course the Obamites will be out in force telling us it is all Bush's or even Reagan's fault. - CCoburn3, on 10/22/2009, -2/+26If it only WERE 10%, it would be better. Even the government, which keeps crooked books, admits that the real unemployment rate is closer to 17% & more honest bookkeepers put it at over 20%.
- mikeyh0, on 10/22/2009, -15/+29They - that is, the Obama administration - have referred this unemployment rate as the "new normal". What was wrong with the "old normal"? You know, 5% unemployment instead of 10%! This group running our country at this time seem hell-bent on destroying it. And telling us everything is just fine while they do it. I watched "V For Vendetta" again the other day - it was a good reminder of what extent those in power will do to keep or increase their control over citizens.
- killdashnine, on 10/23/2009, -2/+13Job recovery always lags behind economic recovery.
- elcalrissian, on 10/22/2009, -0/+10is it just me, or do news agencies just put this article on the shelf, and pull it our once a month?
How many more months of "Jobless claims rise more than expected" until someone actually gets the 'expected' figures correct.
OR
Stop believing whoever is coming up with the 'expected' figures. - ghengiskhan1, on 10/22/2009, -15/+25Wow do big government beauracrats have low expectations or what!?
10% unemployment will be the new norm? Only a useless government beauracrat or useless government dependent would find this acceptable.
Only a douche bag obama voter would find this acceptable. - CCoburn3, on 10/22/2009, -4/+12It's called the Cloward-Piven Strategy.
- GeorgeClayton, on 10/23/2009, -0/+8In the news: Analysts suck and can't predict anything.
Panic Ensues.... - heliumflash, on 10/23/2009, -1/+8Actually No Child Left Behind was a horrible policy because it forced teachers to teach students how to take tests and not how to learn the material.
- JimSwarthow, on 10/23/2009, -9/+15Obama is stupid for saying he'll create jobs and his critics are just as stupid for expecting him to create jobs.
1 more time for the world: GOVERNMENT DOESN'T CREATE JOBS, THE PRIVATE SECTOR CREATES JOBS - InfiniteNothing, on 10/23/2009, -0/+6What about world war II. Didn't we spend ourselves out of the great depression?
- johndk, on 10/23/2009, -1/+6Certain level of quality of what?
- niradg, on 10/23/2009, -3/+8it's all Obama's fault. if only he had regulated the mortgage and derivative markets years before he became a US Senator.
- RagManX, on 10/23/2009, -3/+8Did you miss the part where 20 months into Reagan's 1st term unemployment was up over 3 points from what it was when Carter left? I love how people speak highly of Pres. Reagan's economic recovery but forget to mention that it took 34 months for him to get unemployment numbers to consistently show below what Pres. Carter turned over to him and 30 months to even get better than what he inherited.
How can Pres. Obama be criticized for not achieving in 9 months what it took Pres. Reagan almost 3 years to achieve? Talk about a group that holds a Pres. up as a messiah. - InfiniteNothing, on 10/23/2009, -0/+5Actually, expectations were so positive because the jobless rate has been going down lately.
- Phoenix99, on 10/23/2009, -4/+8And if the economy began to recover exponentially around here, all these negative, sore loser repugs that post on here would be championing around shouting, "GWB's policies finally took hold! It's not the current administration that had anything to do with it!"
- Mujokan, on 10/23/2009, -0/+3EU and Switzerland had a massive amount of stimulus, and they weren't even housing most of the basket-case banks.
- macromorgan, on 10/23/2009, -5/+8I'm no fan of Obama but his efforts haven't had enough time to take affect. The "stimulus" as it's called was going to take about 9 months to a year after it had passed before it would begin impacting the economy postively (the weakening of the dollar would have been immediate). Let's give it a few more months before we pass judgement.
Now about that lie that the stimulus would have immediate benefit... that was a load of horse ***** if I ever heard one. - PakoBedejo, on 10/23/2009, -3/+6I think you mean Republicratic & Demolican economic disaster... Both have a hand in it. The biggest lie each party spreads is that it's the other party's fault.
- RagManX, on 10/23/2009, -0/+3Since 1970 and prior to the current administration, the best the unemployment rate has been was just ever-so-slightly under 4% in the last year of Pres. Clinton's last year in office. The highest it has been in the past 20 years you suggest we look at is a little over 7.6%. The current rate is 9.8%.
Of course, if you count the "real unemployment rate" which includes unemployed and no longer looking nor collecting benefits, then yes it is around 15% (although I don't have that exact current number). But if you want to use that measure for the current, then you need to use the same measurement for previous administrations, which takes the previous 20+ years range from around 6% (under Pres. Clinton) to around 14% (under each Pres. Bush this happened) or even 18% using "real unemployment rate" and including the Reagan years.
Please don't point out how great the number is with one yardstick and then use a different measuring device to point out how bad it is. It's bad now. It was better before. No need to exaggerate the now by changing standards to get that point across. - theeggman, on 10/23/2009, -2/+5Actually a lot of it has to do with Summers, Rubin and Greenspan. I'd explain more but I really don't think people care enough to get informed.
- PakoBedejo, on 10/23/2009, -3/+6HOLY *****! I didn't see that coming!
/s - Mujokan, on 10/23/2009, -4/+7The overwhelming reason for this recession is actions taken during the Bush administration. If that's not obvious to you, your brain may be due for servicing.
- scutter, on 10/23/2009, -3/+6Members of the Obama administration have admitted that the stimulus is not working as expected. There was an article the other day that, among other things, showed that countries that have resisted the stimulus (spending spree) have fared better in this economy. A great example is Canada, whose per-capita "stimulus" spending was roughly 1/3 of the US, but whose unemployment has been much better.
- killdashnine, on 10/23/2009, -0/+3I think the evidence is lacking, actually. The Dow is positive, but isn't enough. Job claims shouldn't be trending down either. Mixed signals.
Christmas will probably tell us what's going on. If people spend and stores do ok that's a milestone. - rebrad, on 10/24/2009, -0/+3Unemployment in socialist countries normally run in the 12% to 20% range. It really doesn't matter who's running the show as long as the economic policy is to expand socialism. Might as well get used to it. As California is finding out, Michigan is not a model of success.
- phogasmic, on 10/23/2009, -0/+3Free market? Aren't the unregulated CDS's what caused this mess.
- FormerBabby, on 10/23/2009, -0/+3Ya had me until the V part.
- shig, on 10/23/2009, -1/+3Larry Summers runs this country, and nobody even knows who he is.
- LeepII, on 10/23/2009, -1/+3More than expected, expected by whom? People that don't get their news from MSM know this is the next Great Depression and things are still going down.
- inactive, on 10/23/2009, -0/+2How come when you call obama voters douchebags you get positive diggs?
Never works for me...ok, let me try this again.
Obama. voters. are. uneducated. douchebags. - xt0xicx, on 10/23/2009, -3/+5Yeah because quadrupling the United States national debt and causing huge budget deficits while saying we're going to reduce the size of government is good policy.
- LokitheComplex, on 10/23/2009, -0/+2lol
I'm not advocating communism I'm just expecting what the market to do what makes sense. - cbsx01, on 10/23/2009, -0/+2Supply is up and demand is down...
- RagManX, on 10/23/2009, -1/+3" What was wrong with the "old normal"? You know, 5% unemployment instead of 10%! "
Unemployment was 7.6% when Pres. Obama took office. If you have issues with us not having 5% unemployment any more, you need to go back to Apr. 08 when it was last there and ask Pres. Obama why he isn't already making changes to gov't financial policy to help keep it there. Of course, his not being president at the time might weigh in on that decision, but why don't you do the time travel and let us know?
I don't think the almost 10% we're suffering now is acceptable, but let's not forget how we got here. Hint: It has almost nothing to do with the last 6-9 months of gov't actions. - Mujokan, on 10/23/2009, -0/+2You would have had scorched earth had the government done nothing about the meltdown.
- endlessirony, on 10/23/2009, -2/+4Bush deficit was ~ 11 trillion dollars, Obama has only racked up 1.6 trillion so far unless you have a time machine you can't say what the final deficit is going to be (only estimates exist currently barring nothing changes). Also Bush came into office with a surplus and 5% unemployment. Unemployment was 8% when Obama took office not 5%.along with Bush's deficit and 2 messy wars.
Their situations are light years apart, I will blame him for not putting back regulations, keeping wall street happy with tax payer money etc. But your entire post is dead wrong. - IHaveIssues, on 10/23/2009, -1/+3I'm in Canada and to be fair we didn't get the large credit crunch meltdown and its side effects due to proper banking regulation. There wasn't much stimulus injection to start with.
- diggduggDOOM, on 10/23/2009, -0/+2Canada is a bad example, scutter.
- endlessirony, on 10/23/2009, -0/+2That is not true government can spend you out of depression, the great depression, Germany's rise to power and china's recent stimulus which greatly increased their GDP prove that it works. To be fair only 1/3 of the stimulus package has been spend the problem is the trillions that were wasted during the Bush years and kept being dispensed by the Obama administration to wall street.
If Government spend the TARP money and the money lost on interests, cuts and loopholes to help wall street on the actual economy instead of wall street unemployment would have gone down drastically. - bbjohnnyt, on 10/23/2009, -2/+4Please, do not distract the White House from their parties with stuff like this.
- scutter, on 10/23/2009, -0/+2This is very true. I hope we've started the economic recovery, but evidence right now points to the contrary.
- bbjohnnyt, on 10/23/2009, -1/+3It's more like 17% if you use real statistics not doctored by the Obama administration That include people who completely gave up looking and are now "officially" out of the work force and those who were formerly employed full-time but are now employed in part-time jobs. Also, unemployment by teens who are looking for work is at 52%!
- RagManX, on 10/23/2009, -1/+3Hate to disprove myself, but it's necessary to correct my numbers. It was 22 months in, not 20, when unemployment was over 3 points higher. And it was 44 months not 34 when unemployment went below Pres. Carter's end-of-term number to stay. Finally, it took 40 months to dip below that end-of-term number for the first time, not 30.
I apologize for not representing the Reagan success story correctly. I was going from memory of an earlier analysis I had done of unemployment data during different administrations. When I checked the numbers to make sure what I'd posted was correct, I found out I gave Pres. Reagan more credit for successful economic recovery than the actual official statistics would support. For those wondering, all numbers gathered from official gov't statistics here:
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServle ... - rrwest, on 10/24/2009, -0/+1You can have an economic recovery without adding a single new worker to the workforce.
Thats because economic indicators like stock prices and Dow Jones trading levels reflect what the top 5 - 15% of the economy is willing to pay for their stocks and how much they want to buy with what workers would normally call discretionary income. That is, it is income left over after paying for mortgages, food and other necessities.
Why don't people get it?
Most of the economy now runs on borrowed money for the benefit of the financiers of the world. Many would like nothing more than to eliminate things like workers from the equation so that wage increases and work stoppages due to illness would never happen and the money would flow uninhibited to their accounts.
At one time stock prices and other investments would generally insure that someone in the company would benefit those who do the actual grunt work for he company. The money "went to the factory floor" and did not stay on top as it does now.
The stimulus money should have been forcibly tied to keeping domestic employment at then-current levels, not merely to support a failed financial system that relies on so much borrowed money. - phogasmic, on 10/23/2009, -3/+4"runaway spending from the Democrat Congress" Yes, I'm sure it was the Democrats idea to expand military spending and increase our Nuclear arsenal.
- Maddoktor2, on 10/23/2009, -0/+1CW, you're contradicting yourself by conveniently omitting the fact that No Child Left Behind was in and of itself a new target.
- boozedrinker, on 10/23/2009, -1/+2AAHHH ***** YOU DICK! YOU ARE ALL OVER DIGG TODAY!
Please quietly ***** off and burn in hell ;-)
Have a nice day,
Digg Community - ghengiskhan1, on 10/23/2009, -0/+1Because Im Ghengis ***** KHAN! Thats why.
-
Show 51 - 98 of 98 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is