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 6th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Name:
He was in office for 9 months.
September 6th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Lisa,
LOL! My new policy enacted a few days ago is that I won’t read her posts. Yet it is apparent, from the responses of others, that she keeps bringing my name up. I guess she will be cyber stalking me next.
Knova,
You brought the heavy lumber tonight brother.
September 6th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
I am actually trying to be nice. I simply don’t understand why people write books to put on a blog. It is kind of like a resume. You can’t get the hiring manager’s attention in 5 seconds, it is in the circular file. The only reason I will look at Brian’s longer postings is he has a track record here…that and seeing someone blog on acid is entertaining
September 6th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
for some reason she doesn’t like you MDefl
September 6th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
What in the world is it that the President did to save the economy? The stimulus has hardly been used so I don’t think that it was the stimulus bill.
It wasn’t the spending of the bill– it was the promise that the money WOULD be spent that reassured markets that the demand hole in the economy would be (at least partially) filled. Remember, the stock market is forward-looking. That’s why these dummies who say “let’s pull the plug on the stimulus cuz it looks like we don’t need it” are just talking politics. They know full-well what would happen if the announcement was made that this money wasn’t coming– the whole system would FREAK.
The fed printed new money and, thus, made the dollar worth less. That didn’t do it.
Think about it a second. First of all, by creating money (ie, “quantitative easing”), more money was available for banks to repair their balance sheets and eventually to loan money. The problem was a total credit freeze– economic constipation. The TARP money acted as a laxative to loosen things up.
As far as the dollar being worth less… that’s what people thought might happen, but that’s not actually what happened. Rather, when the world freaked out, they turned to the dollar as a safehaven in what they called a “flight to safety”– with entire governments going down, everyone wanted treasury bills. So the government found it easy to get loans at incredible rates by selling bonds.
Second– don’t forget that when there are more dollars out there, and dollars are worth less, that means that money OWED in dollars to other countries are worth less too. Which means that while inflation can screw everyone in our country, it REALLY screws our debtors. In fact, inflating our way out of debt is something the Chinese are seriously concerned we’re going to do. It screws Americans too– acting as kind of a hidden tax on everyone to pay down our national debt.
The European countries are recovering faster because they did not do what the President wanted them to do. So, by not doing what President Obama did, the economy improves faster. That does not sound like fixing the economy.
That’s not true. First of all, we indirectly boosted numerous foreign banks by bailing out OUR banks and especially AIG who owed foreign banks billions of dollars. France’s Societe Generale got 11.9 billion. Deutsche Bank of Germany got $11.8 billion. England’s Barclays got 8.5 billion. UBS and Credit Suisse (Switzerland) got 5.6 billion directly. (It does seem however that much of this money the taxpayer may actually get back… with interest.)
Second, most of the countries given as examples who are having recoveries actually had stimulus plans proportional to the US and also had more severe recessions than we did in the first place.
Recessions naturally fix themselves. It would have fixed itself if MacCain had been elected. Even McCain.
That’s because McCain would have done exactly what Obama did– a massive stimulus. Only he would have probably emphasized more tax cuts (isn’t that just the way…) and probably more spending on the military and less on programs that will have longer-term benefits for economic growth.
September 6th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
How does it feel to write that stuff and have nobody get beyond the 2nd sentence? Your Magnum Opus and nobody cares. What a Ma-roon.
Your loss. It’s out there for ya to read. If you can’t handle it, well, I guess you can wallow in the swill of your ignorance.
Stay dumb and angry.
September 6th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
“swill of your ignorance.”
Swill…ouch that hurts. But I did read your post, at least the short one. You probably don’t have classes tomorrow, go have a beer or a doob.
September 6th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Name:
Mccain was conservative on spending and he wanted to drill for oil and natural gas which would of fixed the economy in two minutes.
September 6th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Bushs recession ?
Anyone with any basic economic literacy knows that anything Obama has put a dime into, his signature onto, his idea/policy in play is his.
Both Bush and McCain went before this suck a$$ 111th congress and begged that they do something about the impending bubble of doom that was about to explode.
They both were told to get f*cked
September 6th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
“your los”
Oh,so, your sh*t on a stick is ice cream ?
Like Brian and his puked up bowls of alphabet soup, its a gift ?
September 6th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
its an appertif in one’s foward quest for knowledge
September 6th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
There are some strange people here.
Lisa,
Yea, I got that impression.
September 6th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
61- See Brian, that was short and actually somewhat funny. Keep telling yourself that “Brevity is the soul of wit.”
September 6th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Ghost– ya got the whole Internet at your disposal. Use it. Sorry if all the book-learnin’ makes your brain hurt, but it’s worth it.
Mccain was conservative on spending and he wanted to drill for oil and natural gas which would of fixed the economy in two minutes.
It would have fixed the economy in ten years when things finally went on line. The two minutes is how long it would have lasted before we used up our resources, leaving us with the same problems, more pollution, and fewer options.
Don’t get me wrong– there are plenty worse people than McCain. His heart seems to be in the right place. But he’s shown repeatedly that he sucks at making important decisions– he picked that quitter for his running mate for example. She, more than he, is the kind of incompetent, non-curious, obnoxious, hypocritical, dishonest, and clueless politicians that typify the worst of conservatism.
September 6th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
No.
I’m strange, people who LOL at their own jokes are strange.
Brian and Name are the smoker you are the drinker you get
September 6th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Yeah Brian.
Truffles are very rare and expensive but still taste like dried bat poo.
I know, a liberal snuck some on me once claiming he was Jack Ruby and the poo was a bullet
September 6th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Nameless,
I respectfully disagree with almost everything that you wrote.
Great prose; beautiful writing; but I respectfully disagree.
… and don’t call me ignorant and out of touch.
“The reason I say the tax cuts were ideological and not supported by any kind of sound economic policy is because tax cuts were ALWAYS the solution to ANY problem for Bush. If the economy was bad, Bush said we needed tax cuts to stimulate the economy.”
… and they did stimulate the economy. A lot faster than the non stimulated economy today.
“If the economy was good, Bush said we could finally afford to give tax cuts to the people under the guise of “giving them more of their own money”.”
It was their money. The only concern that I had was that they should have tried to cut the deficit first.
“It was all tax cuts, all the time.”
No it wasn’t and you, the talented writer should know that. If you don’t know that, then you may not be as intelligent as you appear.
“Tax cuts without any cut in spending (in fact, with an explosion of spending).”
Whoa. Who has smashed the explosion of spending bubble? Yes, President Obama. Please don’t excuse this spending by saying that it was necessary. So were the tax cuts.
“Tax cuts. Tax cuts. So without any income, how did he afford the new spending? Borrowing! Or as McCain put it, “intergenerational theft”.”
… and the champion intergenerational thief this calendar year is President Obama.
“For all the crap Democrats get for being “tax and spend”,”
Yes, they do.
“conservatives are far, far worse as “borrow and spend” (or “spend and spend”).
… and who is the champion spend and spender? Yes, President Obama.
“Totally irresponsible, totally harmful.”
Yes, President Obama is being much more irresponsible than President Bush ever was.
“And the teabaggers …”
… and now I understand from whence you come. Please don’t call people names, unless you want me to call you a name.
“should be furious at Bush who cut taxes when they were not needed”
Why weren’t they needed? They stimulated the economy.
“as opposed to Obama’s spending when it was absolutely needed to save the nosediving economy.”
Very debatable. Incentives to hire would have been much more effective.
Respectfully submitted.
Frank
September 6th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Name, wait, you’re telling me that McCain sucked at making decisions, at least he had a record to show his decision making process, whether you agreed with him or not. With Obama we got a man who spend just over 150 days in the US senate and a whole lot of time essentially running for president and voting present. No track record, no experience but a lot of hope and change. Well, now you see what you get, a man who has not made a wise decision yet, nearly everything he has done has been full of fail. Essentially this is the problem with most Democrat politicians, none of them have ever run a business or done anything real productive outside politics.
September 6th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Micky, you make a good point, everyone likes to give Bush ownage of the economy but it is convenient that the Dems have controlled congress since 2006 and could effectively block anything in the senate for the entire Bush presidency. Don’t get me wrong, Bush did a lot of dumb things, but his tax policy is the one thing he did right (although clearly his social spending was out of control).
September 6th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
I disagree. Obama has made some wise decisions. reappointing bernacke early to the Fed is helping stablize the markets. This is a better choice than appointing Summers or Volker even. Letting Geitner loose on the financial mess has turned out to be working. The slow deliberate approach of changing the SEC and other regulators seems to be sending the right message also. Curiously, even Pakistan is cooperating more with us in NW Pakistan and the drone program. Thats political. Retrieving the kidnapped reporters takes a big issue off the table. basically he’s just in trouble with the special interests and the right by taking on health reform, speaking to students?(didn’t bush read to them about a goat when the twin towers were attacked?). He also put an end to the professor and cop squabble. Its a mixed picture to be sure and but over all it is different than previous governments in some ways. Frankly by fixing our financial system first everything else is possible as everything has to be financed. remember a lot of this health insurance brew ha ha, is orchestrated by industry and right wing political operatives, and that is a fact.
September 6th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
I think you guys do a disservice to the nation as a whole by making it sound like everything is tumbling down and the sky is falling when its clearly not. You should have some integrity to your actions. there can be legit disagreements, but your basic tenant is you want him out of the presidency with egg on his face. so you are not even negotiating. Your stance lacks integrity of give and take politics.
September 6th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
you guys also fail to understand just how great the damage was done to our financial system by the way bush didn’t regulate it with the agencies he had. the sec for starters, the elimination of the short uptick rule, allowing naked shorting, his appointees overturned decades of financial regulations when they controlled the federal agencies…..this is big, its certainly corruption, and criminal malfeasance of the agencies charters to work for the betterment of the people’s interests and welfare…losing your 401k to speculators is absolutely criminal
September 6th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
I respectfully disagree with almost everything that you wrote.
Well at least (1) you read it, and (2) you are respectful. So I’ll try to do the same…
Great prose; beautiful writing; but I respectfully disagree.
Fair enough.
… and they did stimulate the economy. A lot faster than the non stimulated economy today.
Most economists agree– and again, I invite you to google around– the tax-cut based stimulus does not get the bang for your buck that direct spending does. The reason for this is generally attributed to the fact that in bad times people will hang on to extra stimulus money or pay off old debt; they do not use their checks for new purchases and they do not invest it. To be an effective stimulus, it has to be injected into the economy and circulate through it, keeping jobs going, keeping manufacturing/production in gear.
Incidentally, money spent in areas of the economy that are hurting most (that is, poor people and the middle class) are MOST likely to spend the money instantly, since they are living paycheck to paycheck and need to buy food and medicine. The rich will just sit on it. The stimulus checks reflect this fact. Tax cuts proportionally go to the rich first.
… and they did stimulate the economy. A lot faster than the non stimulated economy today.
No they didn’t. As a regular listener to conservative-leaning business channel Bloomberg News, I can tell ya somewhere around 9 out of 10 economics professors on asked on the “Bloomberg on the Economy” podcast say the $200 checks were less effective than direct spending would have been. The podcasts are available- go listen to them. Google “Tom Keene”, the host.
It was their money. The only concern that I had was that they should have tried to cut the deficit first.
That was the thinking of Congress during the Depression and turned out to be 100% the WRONG thing to do in a recession. When you pay off foreign debts in such a period you contract the money supply. That chokes the system and makes the problem worse in several ways. Which is exactly why the Fed did the opposite this time.
Republicans are right that a recession is the wrong time to raise taxes– unfortunately, they think that ANY TIME is the wrong time to raise taxes. Taxes will eventually have to be raised by a republican or democrat to pay off the debt (or we will just inflate our way out of it and pay it off..)
Put another way– a tax of 0% won’t work. A tax of 100% won’t work. The right amount is somewhere in the middle, and it’s probably going to have to move around to reflect changing demands. To have a single-minded view that less is always better is insane.
“It was all tax cuts, all the time.”
No it wasn’t and you, the talented writer should know that. If you don’t know that, then you may not be as intelligent as you appear.
Now I’m not going to count Reagan raising taxes or George Bush I. raising taxes because (A) this is generally swept under the rug by most Republicans and (B) it does not represent current GOP party thinking. When did GWB *ever* suggest raising taxes? Please correct me if I’m wrong but I can’t think of a single time.
Grover Norquist– notorious government-hater and head of “Americans for Tax Reform” has a promise they ask Republicans to sign which they call the “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” promising never to raise taxes under any circumstances, period. In the 111th Congress it has 172 House signatories and 34 Senate signatories. The list of names is here
This is a no-new-taxes pledge that is unmatched by any kind of “no-new-spending” pledge.
So I think I’m right.
“Tax cuts without any cut in spending (in fact, with an explosion of spending).”
Whoa. Who has smashed the explosion of spending bubble? Yes, President Obama. Please don’t excuse this spending by saying that it was necessary. So were the tax cuts.
The tax cuts were not necessary. The tech bubble recession recovery was well underway by 2001 and certainly by 2003.
… and the champion intergenerational thief this calendar year is President Obama.
Well, I agree it would have been great to go back to a Clinton-era balanced budget. But it was not economically possible considering how close we were to a total economic collapse.
… and who is the champion spend and spender? Yes, President Obama.
See above. There was no other choice. If he hadn’t spent it you’d be blaming him for the 2nd Depression while standing in a bread line. It was a lose-lose choice for him.
Yes, President Obama is being much more irresponsible than President Bush ever was.
That is a pretty high bar you’ve just set. But no, Bush’s abandonment of regulatory responsibility in nearly every facet of his government lead directly to the economic requirement that government interfere in numerous ways to keep the bleeding patient from dying.
Bush shot the patient in the chest numerous times, left it in an alley, and now you’re complaining to the doctor about the medical bill.
“And the teabaggers …”
… and now I understand from whence you come. Please don’t call people names, unless you want me to call you a name.
Wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been called a name on here. If you’re a teabagger, I apologize.
“should be furious at Bush who cut taxes when they were not needed”
Why weren’t they needed? They stimulated the economy.
They stimulated it right into a superbubble. We should have used the tax cut money to pay off the debt as we were doing under Clinton.
Very debatable. Incentives to hire would have been much more effective.
You can’t have incentives for businesses to hire when the banking system has exploded and you are in a deflationary spiral. There would be no way to borrow or make payroll without a bank, and the money you paid your employees would be worth less every day in relation to what profit you could make from the goods and services you sell.
September 6th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
” think you guys do a disservice to the nation as a whole by making it sound like everything is tumbling down ”
Pot, meet stupid kettle
September 6th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Watch Bill Moyers broadcast this past week on pbs on the health care debatea and the nature of the corporation and its legal rights in general and I think he sums it up brilliantly. He has an amazingly good essay at the end that is literally shocking in how presciently he presents the whole problem. kudo’s.