88 Comments

• Digg
• Bury

No you aren't hipman.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Yeah thank God for Hitler

/s

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Yeah right, more like slowed it down. Apparently it took 8 years for the policies to kick in.

My ass it was Keynesian policy. Also, haven't you heard of the panic of 1907 where the government... didn't do jack s**t?

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

It took WW2 to get us out of the depression.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

OK, guys, follow me for a bit on this one; it'll be tough but I have confidence you are capable of understanding. WW2 did not pull us out of The Great Depression. What pulled us out of The Great Depression was the massive and obscene government spending required to field the war machine required for WW2. Had we done nothing more than send over what military we had at the time (and somehow still won the war because had we lost, things would've been obviously worse) we would have still been in depression at the end of the war.

It was the government spending like maniacs (i.e. Keynes theory) building up the war effort that got the economic gears rolling again.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

For f**ks sakes, learn the difference between classical and social liberalism.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

The biggest problem with liberals is that they can't even agree on what liberal means nor admit to being one despite the definition.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

um.. those people who were working the temporary census jobs will, by and large, go back to looking for private sector work. thus increasing parent poster's competition in his respective industry.

thanks for playing, though.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

If hirings are up in whatever sector he/she is in, returning census workers may make a zero net effect on his chances. Did I miss something in the logic?

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@marx2k
Thanks for the link.
I am a recent graduate looking for work in the either the scientific(Physics) field or IT field.
I didn't see any specific that i could relate to the scientific field but the unemployment did go down about 29,000 people over the last month in the IT field which is good. But this information is too general to be able to get excited over. I don't know if this effects my chances with the type of work I am qualified for within the information field. It is a large field.

Regardless the 131,000 jobs lost last month include more than just the census industry and those who worked for the census are going to go back to try to work for the industries they are qualified for. I don't know how many are going to look for jobs in the industries I'm looking into but it can't be assumed that they won't.

The way I look at it 131,000 people becoming unemployed and the fact the that job growth overall was lower than expected doesn't help me at all finding a job.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

I'm realistic enough to know that no president will be ideal that is why I support any political leader that wants to reduce the size of government and let me make my own decisions. I realize that in the process that other wrong decisions may be made but reducing the size of government is a step in the right direction.

Obama is definitely not that man.

Your statement about hoping for a new president is mostly true but there are a few exceptions such as Reagan.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Did you even check out the size of government under Reagan?

The number of employees grew b 8%.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Here are some figures:

http://www.angrybearblog.com/2007/06/comparing-presidents-size-of-government.html

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

your poor attempt at classism ignores that "the rich" as you call them are the people that hire everyone else.

Because you're tainted with bad pseudo economics lets refer to the rich instead as the "employers"...

Think about this again, does taking more money away from employers make it more or less likely that they'll hire people? Exactly. Only a total idiot would not grasp this very simple concept.

As to regulation, it costs money. You have to hire extra people just to fill out all the forms. Then you have to wait. Time is money. If I have to wait six months to get approval for something I might want to do that somewhere else... maybe in a different state... maybe in a different country.

The above are burdens on employers. I think it should be obvious to even the most limited of intellects that putting a burden on employers makes it less likely that they'll employ people.

Drop the taxes and we can attract businesses back to the US that left because we made ourselves uneconomical. We also can trigger explosive internal growth. But this isn't going to happen if you keep kicking business in the junk and then calling them names.

They'll just leave and take their tax base with them. What then? What's your grand solution to that problem? Look at detriot... that's what your philosophy does. It destroys everything it touches... rots it.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Again, poor attempt at classism with use of passe catch phrases and talking points. Think for yourself please.

The rich as you call them are as I said also the employers.

THEY ARE THE EMPLOYERS. They are where the jobs come from. Put additional burdens on the employers and you're going to get less employment. PERIOD.

The rich are the employers. If you'd like, we can divide employers a bit from the rich since there are some that are rich yet employ no one... however, most of the rich do employ someone if only in that they hire lots of companies to do things that poor people do not hire anyone to do. This creates jobs and employment... but whatever.

Your "soak the rich" attitude will only increase unemployment and decrease tax revenues as people start to actually leave the country. It's already started. Americans with the means can leave if you start sharpening your teeth and baying for their blood. Where are you then, genius? Oh that's right... you're screwed because you're a fool.


We live in a global economy which means you have to compete with other countries. You can't have high labor prices, high taxes, high regulation, and high employment. That's like suggesting that you can sell apples for 10 dollars each and expect to find lots of buyers. It won't happen.

The US has made itself uncompetitive. You need to reduce taxes, reduce the burden of regulation (this is not to say you can't regulate, only that the cost on business of regulation must be kept low.), and accept that poor quality labor isn't going to command a high price. Period.

If you can't do that, then the economy will circle the drain and finally flush itself. At which point no one will care what you have to say... The political game you idiots have been playing will be over. Wise up or lose. Your choice. I'm hopping you just lose... I'm tired of arguing this tired point over and over again with people that need instruction manuals to tie their shoes.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

You make a reasonable argument but is overshadowed by your partisan bickering and name calling. But history has shown that trickle down does not work (near zero increment in wages for middle class). There is a clear difference in employers and ultra rich hoarders. I don't pretend to punish the former. But what good is the monopolizing of wealth and taking it out of the country while the economy is held hostage by the premise of "DON'T TOUCH MY MONEY OR NO JOB FOR YOU PEASANT!". People that don't produce any real value might as well leave to their Utopian banana republic with all their money.

It's also foolish to pretend that since we're in a global economy we should accept crap labor for crap wages and offshore because "oh noes our standard of living is too high how dare they demand decent pay" and pretend that the product of said labor will be in demand. Demand by who? Certainly not the people that are without jobs because "they can't compete".

Inexpensive regulation & low taxes certainly help but this should not be translated in to off shoring and off shore banking. No matter how much you lower the regulatory burden they'll claim even less regulation and less taxes until they can pollute like China and pay no taxes yet enjoy all the benefits of US standard of living. How American.

When people like you can be easily brain washed to rally against their own interests we all lose.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

It'll be Obama's after we get out of the one George put us in. The one after that.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Nice try, but this economic blood has STAINED the Republican party for good. To make matters worse, they're still clinging to the SAME broken ideas and ideology which CREATED the economic collapse.

Obama deserves significant blame for refusing to reform the country's trade policies and practices, but he's made FAR more of an effort to fix our economic problems than the Republicans in the House, and ESPECIALLY the SENATE.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

To fix...WHAT???

Lemme see, you said economic problems. I guess pushing a 1.7 trillion deficit, is fine, right? Do you know what that does to the value of a dollar? Yes, it sinks it. It will eventually cost Americans more for normal goods than ever before, and paychecks aren't rising to meet this inflationary costs.

Now, that is so funny that you blame Republicans in the house and senate. But, you forgot one, tiny, itty bitty little fact. THEY DON'T RUN CONGRESS!! THE DEMS DO!!
Pelosi and Ried Incorporated don't even allow any suggestions from the GOP to reach the floor for votes. Just because you don't hear from you mainstream press that the GOP is doing anything doesn't mean they aren't. Because, they are.
They tried to put a health care package of their own through. Dems shut it down.
They tried to put a economic package through. Dems shut it down.
They tried to offer suggestions and ideas to fix the economy. Dems shut them down.
See a pattern?

If you want to blame anyone, blame the people that have run congress from 2006-present. The Dems. They were there during the 2008 housing crash. Hell, McCain even tried to reform the banks in 2006, but Dems, once again, SHUT IT DOWN!!

Sorry if facts get in the way of your conclusions. Funny little things these are, you know.... facts.....

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@friday1970

Are you living in a time warp or just ideological blind? That $1.7 trillion deficit didn't create itself or magically appear the moment the Democrat's were elected. The deficit didn't create the country's economic problems, the economic problems created the deficit.

I'm well aware of the economic impact of deficits, but isn't it interesting how deficits didn't matter when the Republican party was in charge. In fact, as memory serves, the Republican party was handed a SURPLUS before the Republican party assumed power in 2000. The truth is that deficits ALWAYS matter and so does fiscal responsibility. You know, the kind of government responsibility where policy initiatives, wars and tax cuts are FUNDED and where social programs (i.e., Social Security & Medicare) aren't raided to fund pork projects or offset tax cuts.

I always laugh when a conservative tries to blame the Democratic party for the current fiscal mess, even as the hypocrisy drips from their EVERY word. While the Democrat's haven't done nearly enough to repair the damage left behind by 12 years of Republican corruption and incompetence, they deserve some credit for trying. What has the Republican party done? NOTHING, but whine that they've lost political power and keep fighting for the same broken and vapid ideas. If it weren't for their constant obstruction to reform legislation, the country would be better off economically.

Republican ideas weren't considered by the Democrat's? GIVE ME A BREAK! First, they kept trying to sell the same failed ideas of the past. Then, when that didn't work, they insisted upon the need for bi-partisanship on EVERY piece of major legislation. However, rather than negotiate in good faith, Republican legislators used the opportunity to stall legislation, GUT IT, then voted against the very legislation THEY HAD A HAND IN CRAFTING. The ONLY reason the health reform bill did not contain the public option was to APPEASE conservative legislators. The same tactic was used with the Financial Reform bill. So, don't try to sell that crap that Republican's weren't involved in passing ANY legislation.

I don't cut the Democrat's any more slack than I cut Republicans. But, if you're under the illusion that the Republican party stands for ANYTHING noble in this day and age, you're only fooling yourself. The legislative record speaks for itself. Try reading THAT for some eye opening truth.

• Reply