Apparently, all this “Hope and Change” in the Age of Obama isn’t working too well for the 9.7% unemployed in this country. This figure represents a loss of almost 1 million jobs this summer alone and is the highest unemployment rate in 26 years. Read more below and watch a video.
Unemployment Reaches 26 Year High
The unemployment rate in the U.S. is 9.7% which is the highest rate in 26 years. It is certainly now inevitable that unemployment will surge past 10% by the end of the year. This is another poke in the eye for a grossly incompetent Obama administration who rammed, as you recall, the $787 billion porkulus bill down Americans’ throats with the false promise of ‘Jobs, Jobs, Jobs’!
These of course are the “official” numbers. The real ones are much worse but rarely reported because of the Labor Department’s very narrow definition of what an unemployed person is. If unemployed people haven’t actually sought jobs in the past four weeks, such as submitting applications or actually interviewing for positions, they’re not included in these numbers. Also not included in the 9.7% are those who want and need full-time jobs but can find only part-time work or are under employed. The unemployment rate would be a whopping 16.5% if those people were included. Completely out of the loop are those who, after benefits ran out, gave up looking for a job – we have no data on them. And as a sidebar, the teen unemployment rates is at 25.5% which is the highest level ever since the Labor Department began keeping it back in 1948.
Was it just 3 months ago that The One himself promised all of us — especially the unemployed — that he would speed up the “shovel ready” yet lagging stimulus projects and “create or save 600,000 jobs”? Heh. More proof positive that when government says they’re the answer (especially this one) they aren’t.
For those who have suffered deeply from the loss of your job or those among us who may feel particularly helpless, pray that in spite of what the feckless Obama administration has done to this country, this 26 year high unemployment rate will be for a short period, and that entrepreneureal spirit that is in America’s DNA and is the backbone of our economic structure, will not be diminished in the process.
Unemployment Reaches 26 Year High Video
Photo: The 405 Club
September 5th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Cathryn while I agree the green jobs czar should go for someone much better, you can’t blame this recession on obama. This is the George Bush jr. deep recession. The obama administration is simply responding to a myriad of problems as best they can, using a formula first launched by Paulson and Bernacke, both Bush appointees that chose “one style” to fix it, which was to save the big boys. If it had been me, I probably would have let the big banks and wallstreet and aig sink or swim on their own, and instead shored up mainstreets commercial banks, money markets, savings accounts and probably done something substantial to try and save the American auto industry as well as a sizable stimulus program, but better targetted and less pork bellies, plus restarted the youth conservation core to fix our national and state parks and teach the old fashioned trades. But then the hard issues of what to do with our two perpetual wars we know of? how better to work the state department. so much to do. its beyond ideology. we need an efficency expert. Years back I had this sinking feeling the US would move to a high unemployment economy, that would still make tons of money for the big boys as worker productivty was ramped even further up. And that is what is happening as our sales and manufacturing sectors have been reduced and outsourced overseas. We could easily go to 12% unemployment and still be a very profitable nation for the owners of capital. Unless you plan to hire some workers to make can openers in the garage for sale at local shops, I don’t see much hope.
September 5th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
[...] 26 Year High: Apparently, all this u201cHope and Changeu201d in the Age of Obama isn.. http://bit.ly/rbAbp Tags: changeu201d, [...]
September 5th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
interesting reuters report, 28% of health care insurance claims were rejected by the blues and kaiser the first half of 2009. That is almost a third of the claims. That seems awfully high, and its strange that different companies would come up with the same percentages. That will go directly to their profit lines, but meanwhile people won’t get care for insurance they or their companys and they are paying for.
September 5th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
actually if they rejected claims then they already received the care.
September 6th, 2009 at 1:20 am
This is another poke in the eye for a grossly incompetent Obama administration who rammed, as you recall, the $787 billion porkulus bill down Americans’ throats with the false promise of ‘Jobs, Jobs, Jobs’!
If I’m not mistaken, the stimulus package has a 2-year spend-out schedule. It passed in what, February? I agree that Obama partially failed here, but only in that the stimulus bill should have been twice the size according to economists who projected what we’d actually need it to be. As it is, we may need a second stimulus, depending on if whether we end up with a “W”-shaped (double-dip) recession or merely a “U”/”L” shaped one. Also, there were too many tax cuts that were not as an efficient use of stimulus money in the package as direct spending, but that’s another story.
The outrageously lame part of your analysis, Cathryn, is that you’re trying to pin our crappy economy on Obama. Now I know you guys are awesome at conveniently forgetting history, but it wasn’t even a year now since the economy went into free-fall. During GWB’s presidency, remember? After he and other Republicans were saying everything was awesome. Remember? When Republicans were “running” everything?
Yeah, I too blame Obama for being overly optimistic on his half-assed stimulus package and how it would help unemployment– but I guess he politically had to be optimistic to get as much through is he could. More was needed. Still, something is better than nothing.
As with every recession, unemployment is a “lagging indicator”. It goes up late in the game and is the last thing to recover. So we’ve got a ways to go still. But most likely the recession (at least this initial dip) is technically over. GDP is probably in positive territory this quarter. So the disaster that started with GWB (and was due in large part to his Fed’s mismanagement of interest rates and an unbelievable, unforgivable lack of regulation in the finance sector) may (hopefully) have ended without the 1930s-level Depression. One that would have certainly resulted without government response (from Bernanke, Paulson, Geithner, et al). We may have inflation to worry about in a few years because of all the money dumped into the system, but at least it’s not DEflation, which is almost impossible to control. In any event, the market doesn’t seem to be worried about inflation at least for the moment.
And we have debt. Lots of debt. But hey- when you have to clean up someone else’s mess, it tends to cost money. (The cost to fix a economy in Depression/deflation of course would have been much, much greater.) So you can thank the previous administration for this stimulus debt as well. At least now the deficit is being calculated honestly. The last $1 trillion stimulus (tax cut) wasn’t included previously in the deficit. Nor was the $1 trillion war. The cost of the drug bill was grossly underestimated (intentionally). I didn’t hear the teabaggers complain about any of those.
In short– our horrible unemployment situation has resulted from the recession. The recession didn’t show up during the Obama presidency or as part of any action he took. And without that stimulus to try to meet the demand hole in our economy (and other necessary evils such as the Wall Street bailout) , we would be smack in another Depression rather than a serious recession. I know of no serious economist who would refute that– even Reagan/Bush era folks from Bernanke to Paulson to Greenspan. (Excepting only a few now majorly discredited ideologues who had their entire world-view exploded into tiny pieces in the last year are still desperately trying to hang on to the slivers of their reputation.) That’s also why there were so many stimulus packages during Bush’s term– both in the early 2000s as well as last year.
So I call BS on your analysis.
September 6th, 2009 at 1:39 am
lisab do you even know the meaning of getting “out there?” as your #4 is totally “out there.” Denial of care is not the same as recieval of care. the automotonic bureaucratic mind is so strange to the rest of us..
September 6th, 2009 at 5:24 am
This is NO LONGER Bush’s recession Brian. Obama owns it.
September 6th, 2009 at 5:28 am
The policies that Obama has put in place are anti-business and anti-growth. He will be a 1 term president as his economic policies are worse than Jimmy Carter’s. It is not that complicated for RATIONAL people to realize this. Brian, as you are not rational, I can understand your tunnel vision.
September 6th, 2009 at 6:50 am
Bryan:
Well first off I want to mention that this really wasn’t a Bush recession if you really look at it, because the idea that everybody should have a home was started by JFK and was increased by Jimmy Carter with the community reinvestment act and Bill Clinton also did similar things. Now I blame Bush for letting spending out of hand, but still this Recession was really not his fault 100%. Also if you look at the at all the Bush spending in his second term obama voted for almost all of it. In fact he voted for some spending bills that were never passed and if they were we would of had higher deficits. Also when Bush first took office there was a recession and 9/11 made the economy go into a deep recession. Now the Bush tax cuts did work, because when he lowered the capital gains tax we actually saw and increase in revenue coming from the capital gains tax. Now Ron Paul in the 2008 debate he said it right in order to cut taxes you have to cut spending first which is why I support a balanced budget amendment. Now there was other problems involving the economy before the housing crisis like gas prices,healthcare cost, and companies were leaving the US at a rapid rate. Now the price of gas going up was do to the Dems, because they were making it harder and harder to drill in the US so Saudi Arabia can raise the cost of gas as much as they want. Healthcare would of been fixed if they did what Bush wanted to get done which was malpractice reform and allowing people cross state lines, because there would of been more competition and no more Lionel Huts slip and fall lawyers out there. Also the companies leaving the US was do to all the liberal regulation on factories and Bill Clintons NAFTA. Now I would consider myself a Republican leaning towards the Constitution party. So I’m opposed to all the regulation giving on businesses and I think we should get rid of the income tax and all current Federal taxes by replacing it with either a 30% tariff or the Fair Tax around 15% that wont tax food or gas. Yet if Bush didn’t get his tax cuts passed there would of been more factories leaving the US. Now Bush did have a plan that would of giving tax cuts and still balanced the budget, but do to 9/11 which was not his fault we would of had tax cuts and still balanced the budget. Also under obama taxes are higher, the deficit has exploded, there are more regulations, and his healthcare reform plan is a joke. So this equals more inflation,more companies leaving the US, higher gas prices do to more regulation and crap and trade,healthcare prices will go up, and at the end of his time in office we would of went from a 10 trillion dollar debt to a 14 trillion dollar debt. Ultimately I feel the only way to fix the economy would be through cutting the Fed to such a point where it only handles foreign policy and we have to secure our borders.
September 6th, 2009 at 6:52 am
Bryan:
Also I forgot to mention if obama keeps on blaming Bush for this mess, because he should just if he keeps on blaming Bush and not giving real answers.
September 6th, 2009 at 10:06 am
So Tim are you saying bush is simply, as always, not responsible. he must lead a charmed life then, but we are the ones still paying. If you feel the need to blame others, at least take responsibility for your mistakes. basic fairness.
September 6th, 2009 at 10:13 am
obama could be a one term president if the right keeps bad mouthing him with its little media hijacks the next 3 1/2 years. hard to say if he will be able to get the microphone now that its been grabbed away from him, even though he was the one elected. the right has performed a quiet coup really, but its unclear how deep it really goes when you look behind the shouters anb birthers. To you guys its all about your wounded narcissism and winning. To many of us its about fixing the countries problems by “really doing something concrete”. Under bush the people’s business domestically was largerly ignored, and clinton’s presidency was wreacked in its second half, so we have 12 years of pent up domestic demand for fixing things, and then we got hit by the bush deep recession, and his two intractable wars. Do you expect obama to be able to fix all that in half a year, especially with all the dirty politics being constantly waged against anything he says or does. I mean if your going to cheat, at least be honest about it. You guys still don’t get what shills you are for protected industries like the health insurance industry, and the financial industry and so forth.
September 6th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Well first off I want to mention that this really wasn’t a Bush recession if you really look at it, because the idea that everybody should have a home was started by JFK and was increased by Jimmy Carter with the community reinvestment act and Bill Clinton also did similar things.
Again, this is a more selective memory. Do you not remember the “ownership society” Bush made a centerpiece of his presidency?
Now I blame Bush for letting spending out of hand, but still this Recession was really not his fault 100%.
I agree it wasn’t his fault 100%. I’ll say 90%. There was some deregulation that Clinton went for at the end of his term, spearheaded by Republicans such as “Nation of Whiners” Phil Gramm (later McCain’s chief economics adviser). But Clinton should never have agreed to undermine critical laws that had been enacted post-Depression, which had successfully kept the kind of insanity that ensued in the last decade from happening. So yeah, all you right wingers can certainly blame Clinton a little for going along with Republicans.
The rest of your post makes almost no sense. It’s like a jumble of random talking points that contract themselves. “Cut the Fed” to the point it “only handles foreign policy”? Huh? “because when [Bush] lowered the capital gains tax we actually saw and increase in revenue coming from the capital gains tax” No, it’s the opposite. Capital gains revenues exploded under Clinton and shrunk under Bush. “Now the price of gas going up was do to the Dems, because they were making it harder and harder to drill in the US so Saudi Arabia can raise the cost of gas as much as they want.” Actually, The Alaska National Wildlife Refuge became a federally protected area by Eisenhower’s administration. Eisenhower, who you’ve probably never heard of, was a Republican US President back in the 50s. The restrictions on offshore drilling were established in the early 1980s during Reagan’s administration. Then Bush in 1990 restricted offshore drilling to only Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and parts of Alaska.
“Healthcare would of been fixed if they did what Bush wanted to get done which was… allowing people cross state lines, because there would of been more competition “
You realize that the reason insurance companies are pushing to have their customers buy across state lines is so that they, the insurance companies can move themselvesto the state that has the most lax laws that allow them to screw over their customers and protect them from lawsuits when they deny coverage, right?
This is exactly what credit card companies did to protect themselves from usury laws. They lobbied states with crappy economies, promising to move their industry to their states if they’d pass laws that let them raise rates at will up to ungodly amounts. South Dakota said “we’ll do it!”, they all moved there, and the screwing of the US credit card customer began. Don’t believe me? Google the 1978 Supreme Court case “Marquette vs. First Omaha Service Corp”. Seriously. Google it. I dare ya. There’s a great “Nightline” documentary that covers this as well. Crossing state lines isn’t about insurance companies competing for YOUR business, it’s about states competing for insurance company’s business. And that would screw you, big time.
And finally, let me address the ludicrous claim that “Also under obama taxes are higher, the deficit has exploded…”. Leaving aside (1) that Bush’s deficit was completely dishonest as he omitted trillions of dollars from his budget including his tax cuts, two wars, and more, and (2) Obama having no rational choice but to spend to fill the demand gap (and he didn’t spend enough)… have you ever taken a look at a graph of the US national debt vs. gdp? Why don’t you do that, and you can compare the debt under “small government” republicans vs. “big government” democrats in the last, say, 30 years and then come back and try again.
And next time, it may not be so necessary to start half your sentences with “Now”.
September 6th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Name(required) you do see the similarity to deregulation of the banking and mortgage industries that the health insurers are willing to agree with. I worry that if we just give them their unfettered version of crossing state lines it will eventually create a mania that will crash the system when enough greedy players take over the scenes. There is so much money in health care, that could be the next area for unscrupulous speculators to mine.
September 6th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Name(required) you do see the similarity to deregulation of the banking and mortgage industries that the health insurers are willing to agree with. I worry that if we just give them their unfettered version of crossing state lines it will eventually create a mania that will crash the system when enough greedy players take over the scenes. There is so much money in health care, that could be the next area for unscrupulous speculators to mine.
Yeah- I take anything the corporations are asking for with a huge grain of salt, especially when they spin it to sound like it’s for the good of the public. When they say they want to increase competition by opening up inter-state coverage, you know it has to be a lie–if they were truly in favor of competition they’d LOVE a public option. But they know a public option would lower their profits by incentivizing them to make health insurance more affordable and their industry more efficient, so they oppose it.
The crossing state lines thing is made to sound “pro-free market” and that’s how it’s sold by right wing radio. The actual motivation is to allow the insurance companies to go state-shopping to find one that will give them the most beneficial (read: profitable) terms possible and shield them from having to responsibly serve and be accountable to the public welfare. Being able to base themselves in a state where they effectively control their own regulation, combined with a mandate for all citizens to buy insurance, would be a *disaster* without a public alternative to keep them competitive.
If insurance companies know their customers can always choose a good public option, they’ll have every incentive to keep their offerings competitive and make them a better alternative than the public option. Better coverage, better prices, etc.
September 6th, 2009 at 11:12 am
So Tim are you saying bush is simply, as always, not responsible. he must lead a charmed life then, but we are the ones still paying. If you feel the need to blame others, at least take responsibility for your mistakes. basic fairness.
Bush ? I did not mention Bush.
September 6th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
All the bloviating back and forth, simply put, obama’s policies have worsened the economy. He knew what he was getting into when he campaigned for president, and assured the American people that he had the solutions to the problems. He also promised the stimulus bill’s passing would stop unemployment from reaching past 8%. He cajoled the American people, and if there’s a recovery it will be a jobless one.
The government takeover of healthcare(if it passes) and cap and trade will create higher unemployment. Conservative, liberal, Independent, not the issue here, we are all Americans. The problem is partisan politicians like this administration, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, going about an agenda that hurts the country under the name of the democrat party, and just because of this other democrats go along with it. If it were a Republican or other I would equally be against these policies. This is not a Republican/democrat issue, it is a socialist agenda aimed at permanently transforming this country into something it was never meant to be.
Now, is higher unemployment part of obama’s plan? Perhaps he wants to get more people to rely on the government for a handout. He hasn’t created any jobs but advocates taking from the rich to GIVE to the poor, instead of creating work for them. Think about it, everything this man does is calculated, there is no coincidence.
September 6th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Wow. Calm down.
The economic mess started with the lack of regulations and rules regarding the housing market. Please remember which party was opposed to new rules and regulations regarding giving mortgages to people who, in most unbiased eyes, should not have been given mortgages.
This caused an enormous housing bubble, which, when burst, led to too much toxic debt. This caused the markets to fall further (housing markets.)
This led to panic and, thus, to our current situation. If employers had had incentives to maintain their workforce, the recession and panic would have been much less. In fact, the overarching panic may not have occurred at all.
Artificially creating “jobs” (none of which will put my wife back to work) isn’t the answer. These aren’t jobs that the unemployed will get. I beg somebody to give me an example of a job within the stimulus plan that would put my wife back to work.
Employers need to have a reason to rehire staff. Incentives do wonders.
I have not said anything controversial, so I respectfully ask you not to call me names when you respond to this comment.
Frank
September 6th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
There was a perfect example of the lack of partisanship in CT this summer.
We have an almost veto-proof state legislature (democratically controlled) and a very reasonable republican governor.
There was a huge deficit and so a deal had to be cut between Governor Rell and the democratic leadership.
The democratic leadership, IMHO, decided to play hardball and not to negotiate. It was my way or the highway. After nearly two months, a deal was cut. It was mainly a give in by Governor Rell. She agreed to a “sin” tax and a surtax on the “very rich.”
So there’s a deal. The bill was passed. I’m so thankful that the republican governor and her staff read the bill. The democrats tried to add an amendment to increase spending by 10 million dollars or so. Thank goodness that the governor has a line item veto.
Oh, and the bipartisan address to the legislature to finalize the bill had democratic lawmakers caught on tape playing solitaire on their government issued laptops. One legislature was quoted as saying that there wasn’t enough time to digest the contents of the deal and so she agreed with whatever the democratic caucus said.
Where has compromise gone?
Frank
September 6th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
That would be a good project Frank for the Bureau of Labor Statistics to develop a tracking model for studying the jobs the stimulus us supposed to be creating and how successfully they either do or donot transfer to the ongoing public or private economy.
September 6th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
All the bloviating back and forth, simply put, obama’s policies have worsened the economy.
Simply put, obama’s policies have saved the economy.
He knew what he was getting into when he campaigned for president, and assured the American people that he had the solutions to the problems.
This is a fair “criticism” if you can call it that I guess.
He also promised the stimulus bill’s passing would stop unemployment from reaching past 8%. He cajoled the American people, and if there’s a recovery it will be a jobless one
Agreed with the last point too, but it is not Obama’s doing. It is the direct result of an economy that exploded a year ago from a lack of regulation.
Conservative, liberal, Independent, not the issue here, we are all Americans. The problem is partisan politicians like this administration, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, going about an agenda that hurts the country under the name of the democrat party, and just because of this other democrats go along with it. If it were a Republican or other I would equally be against these policies. This is not a Republican/democrat issue, it is a socialist agenda
First of all, it’s the DemocratIC party, not the Democrat party. Second, there is no “socialist agenda”. That’s paranoia. Third, if you’re going to be partisan for partisan’s sake, at least have the dignity to admit it. If not to us, than to yourself.
The economic mess started with the lack of regulations and rules regarding the housing market. Please remember which party was opposed to new rules and regulations regarding giving mortgages to people who, in most unbiased eyes, should not have been given mortgages.
The economic mess started with policy and ideology that goes back decades. You misunderstand the lack of regulation that caused this– banks did not need regulations to encourage (or force) them to give bad loans. They were DYING to give bad loans, because there was no regulation of their securitized derivatives! They gave bad loans, created derivative paper (CDOs), and sold them immediately– the bubble was for the CDOs, and the mortgages themselves were just a way to feed the demand. In fact, the supply of bad loans wasn’t BIG ENOUGH for the banks. Thus, they created worthless paper on top ofworthless paper– credit default swaps– essentially bets (“insurance”) on TOP of the bad loans– which were created to continue feeding the bubble so there was more paper to sell in more markets.
Banks didn’t need regulation to make them give bad loans– they did it right and left because they could create unregulated fictional assets out of them. The bad loans were just an excuse to create mortgage-backed securities that they could then make profit on.
Their ability to do that was the result of a philosophy that the market knows best under all circumstances and can take care of itself. It also resulted from a Fed policy that continued to encourage the bubble despite plenty of warning that the market was going out of control (and an ideological bias that resisted interference). Ultimately, the whole scam collapsed under its own weight, taking down Wall Street and almost the world economy with it… had Bernanke and the taxpayers not stepped in to save our collective butts in ways that truly sucked for all of us but were preferable to the 1930s-style alternative.
Thanks, Phil Gramm! Thanks, George Bush! Thanks, Ronald Regan! And thanks, Bill Clinton too!
September 6th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Brian-
“obama could be a one term president” For once I hope you are 100% correct.
September 6th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
for once? I am probably one of the most accurate discussers here on this entire blog. you guys just don’t give credit to where credit is due if it doesn’t pass your “ideological” screen. You are just not scientists in this life. That is a real hole in one’s education to not apply scientific observations to the natural world that surrounds them anc record them accurately. More people should take the full year course in Chemistry, Physics, or Biology in college at the very least. These one sememster survey courses to meet an AB requirement are useless.
September 6th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Obama said his 787 billion dollar stimulus package would save or create 4 million new jobs
WHERE ARE THE JOBS, MR PRESIDENT ???
September 6th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Name:
Bushes time in office was destroyed, because Clinton was weak on Foreign Policy and he never dealt with Iraq during his time in office causing 9/11. Now I think you can agree with me that 9/11 was 0% his fault. Also I just want to add that people make fun of the Republicans for the birth certificate people, but I talk to people who are Dems and we have some conversations about 9/11 and what it was like and they blame Bush for it saying he shot a missile into the World Trade Center. Also you still didn’t respond to my statement of the Bush tax cuts, because if they weren’t passed we wouldn’t of gotten out of the Clinton/Gore recession. Also if it wasn’t for the tech boom Clinton would of failed to fix the economy. And he was hated for his first two years in office. And is it just me or was he liked when the republicans took control in 94. Now I’ll give Clinton some credit for becoming a moderate in 94. Now the real problem that created the housing bubble was not Bush, but the idea that because this was your country your land you deserve to have a piece of it was what killed the economy. Now if we eliminated the Federal Reserve and went back to the Gold Standard, because there would be no more lending and all this crap. Now I feel Bush made a lot of mistakes with Iraq,the spending, and his drug plan which increased the price of care. Also obama voted for the bailout and all the other wasteful debt. So he voted himself this and this Recession. Now I say lets eliminate the most of the Federal Government and make it only handle foreign policy and border security, because that would solve all our problems.