Friday, September 04, 2009

Unemployment rate rises to 26-year high

Thanks Obama
That stimulus package that had to be passed without anyone reading it, the one that puts spending out of control..the one that did nothing..

As always, liberal programs sound good, but they never do what they are intended to do.

Here is the shocking part of the report:
Payrolls in construction industries dropped 65,000 after falling 73,000 in July
That is the ONE area where the stimulus should have worked. We should be building things, fixing infrastructure, not creating more and more worthless government programs that do nothing.

Government is not the way to fix things, it is the way to make things worse. However, we are now in an era of big-big government as more and more Americans think it is fine to look to government to take care of everything for them instead of taking care of themselves.

There is a difference between looking for a little help and looking to have everything taken care of for you. The more the government does, the less everyday Americans are going to do..
At some point you run out of people willing to do all the work and way too many people needing to be taken care of. But no liberal can ever argue that less and less people are working.

yes, liberals are making everything "fair"
Beating up on the rich with higher taxes and is that working out for everyone?
All of you that have been laid off, you like not having a job?
But you took it to the rich..the people who create and offer jobs...well done..
Liberals are working on making everyone "equal"...everyone miserable together.


Realism said...

Yes, in 26 years. That would be 1983. Two years after the Reagan tax cuts that he is so famous for.


Realism said...

That makes me wonder...If Reagan caused the highest unemployment rate in the last 30 years with his tax cuts, who caused the LOWEST unemployment rate?

I wonder...

Jason H. Bowden said...

The recession in the early 80s was deepened by the federal reserve, partly by their efforts to tie the discount rate directly to the M1 aggregate -- a monetarist experiment rightly abandoned -- and partly by the Fed's subsequent and successful attempt to wring inflation out of the economy.

The Reagan tax cuts, along with Clinton's NAFTA, are responsible for the longest economic expansion in American history. Given the size of Obama's porky budgets, don't be surprised if we see stagflation in a year or two.

Recessions are inevitable in a market economy, though it takes a real scumbag like FDR to make them last ten years.

Realism said...

Ok, I get it now.

1. If it's a Republican president and a negative economic indicator, then we can look at alternate causality.

2. If it's a Republican president and a positive economic indicator, it is entirely the result of the president's economic policies

3. If it's a Democratic president and a negative economic indicator, it's entirely the result of the president's economic policies.

4. If it's a Democratic president and a positive economic indicator, it's entirely result of the previous Republican president.

Thanks for clearing that up. And to think that people accuse you Republicans of being intellectually dishonest...

"it takes a real scumbag like FDR to make them last ten years." Yes, if only he'd resisted pressure from Republicans to scale back his Keynesian stimulus, the outcome would've been much better.

ReasonableCitizen said...

Before Obama, my nephews in the construction trade worked zero days per month. After stimulus , they now work 40 hours a week.
Appears like a good deal to me...and to them.

Realism said...

...And to the people that your nephews buy stuff from, and to the people that THEY buy stuff from, etc.

Jim said...

Most informed people know that job losses are a lagging indicator, and the President has acknowledged that it will take months to reverse the current trend.

Leading indicators, on the other hand, have been positive.

The Game said...

I'll make it clear that I would LOVE for the things the President is doing to actually be good for right now and the future. So far that does not seem to be the case. And GB gave credit to Reagan and realism doesn't seem to know what he is talking about again.
I'll glad that your nephew got a job and is working, I personally do not see that and really its not good to base the entire economy on your nephew. Those numbers still look really bad...which is understandable, but not when you take obama at his word that we had to pass the stimulus NOW NOW NOW..
That is my main point..that it didn't need to be pased NOW.
I might even agree that SOME of it was good..but it should have been read through while having the stupid crap taken out..the contruction projects..fine and good...but we all know that is not what a lot of the "stiumulus" is

Realism said...

It is my understanding that the idea of a capitalist society is based on several assumptions. Two of those assumptions are that participants will generally act rationally and in their own best interests.

If the stimulus had taken the form of tax cuts, it wouldn't have been effective. Businesses that would've received tax cuts wouldn't have hired more people or increased production. Why should they hire people and increase production when demand was so low?

Individuals wouldn't have spent money either. We saw with the tax breaks that people did recieve, they simply saved it (as they should have, during a time of economic uncertainty) or if they did spend it, they used it to pay down credit card debt in many instances.

This is all logical behavior, and it creates a self reinforcing downward spiral. But fortunately, we are smart enough to create organizations to "promote the common welfare", a.k.a. governments. And the government is large enough to step in and provide a stimulus to the economy. Unfortunately, because of bureaucracy and simple inertia, sometimes the government is not able to move as quickly as we'd like. But to argue that we'd be better off with no stimulus, or that a better stimulus would've been mostly tax cuts makes no sense.

And if you are going to blame Obama's policies for the unemployment rate 8 months into his term, in order to be logically consistent, you would have to blame Reagan even more. I realize that the unemployment rate is affected by a lot of other factors, but your post insinuates that tax policy is the main factor, which is absurd

The Game said...

let me make this simple..if Obama wasn't pushing the stimulus package as the only way to save our country, and that we had to pass it before anyone even had a change to really look at it, I would not be saying anything..
I understand the economy goes up and down and there is very little we can do about it.

but he is god almighty and can fix everything...well...he cant and wont and in the process is bankrupting our country

Jim said...

"if Obama wasn't pushing the stimulus package as the only way to save our country"

Sorry, I think this is nonsense. The stimulus package is a 65-35 mix of demand for goods and services (to replace the demand the economy was lacking) and republican tax cuts, which didn't stimulate because people either paid debt or saved because of economic uncertainty.

Got that? 35% of the stimulus bill was TAX CUTS! And they didn't stimulate. Furthermore, to suggest that the bill was not vetted is simply nonsense. Your suggesting that congressional staffs don't read legislation?

"economy goes up and down and there is very little we can do about it."

Another nonsense statement. The government through monetary policy can have a great effect on the economy? By saying the above, you counter any argument you make that tax cuts help the economy.

"he is god almighty and can fix everything".

Yeah, whatever.

PCD said...

Jim, do you believe in the credit fairy, too?

Anonymous said...

The stimulus is working. How long do you want to continue bashing America? If you were a compassionate citizen you'd applaud the POTUS for taking evasive action to avert a financial meltdown.

But just carry on with your negative, short-sighted observations. There are plenty of examples of stimulus success stories like the comment above. But rather than chasing those down you parrot the America Haters who want to see our great nation fail.

We survived Carter and Bush - the two worst presidents of the modern era - and we'll survive Obama and the others after him.