Which will happen first: unemployment dips below 5% or rises above 10%? (it's 7.8% now)
Fast & Furious,Benghazi,Solyndra, AAA downgrade,Did nothing on Oil Spill Disaster for 30 days,6.5 tril new debt, unaffordable health care,blames Bush and everyone else for his failures but takes credit if its good, more lavish vacations than any other pres, no spending cuts, what else can we ask for
Obama ...Obama ..obama the unemployment rate is much higher than 7.8% but if we publish the actual one people would go a little batty. It's over 10% already!!!! Www.shadowstats.com
More people will be working multiple jobs, due to Obama's hours per week restrictions. I believe that this will drive the unemployment number down, while driving the underemployed numbers up.
You people do know you can see a graph of our unemployment history in the US right? Lots of them actually.
Unemployment soared under Bush Jr and since Obama has been in office it has only decreased.
Well.... Guess he DIDN'T have any proof (no surprise there bc what he claimed was false).
You do know our unemployment rate in 2005-2006 was around 4-5%... Right? Enough with the dumb comparisons to Hitler.
The unemployment rate in Germany at the beginning of Hitler's rise to power was 1% or less. Just sayin'... An economy with less than 5% unemployment is downright scary
Funny how this is essentially along party lines.
I may be a bit rusty on my economics but as I recall you really don't want unemployment to fall too low.
The "something for nothing" crowd, didn't understand how it would effect business. Or they didn't care, either way, in order to stay profitable, as O-care makes the cost to hire people more expensive, business are hiring less and/or laying off.
It hasn't caught on yet, but what it means is, no more full time employees, in the minimum wage field, causing more people to need public assistance.
All because of Obamacares mandate to purchase, provide and carry health insurance, or be "Taxed" (it's a fine, I don't give a damn WHAT they call it).
It's 100% true climb, you're wrong. Google it, don't call some one a liar when you're talking out of your ass.
You'll have to scroll down really far, on the 7.8% feed, but here goes....
Massive amounts of layoffs are happening right now as it is cheaper for the low wage companies to cut staffing as a opposed to pay for healthcare for their employees. Get used to hearing this saying...
"30 is the new 40"
They don't count the people not looking for work so the Obama administration won't get over 10%
Didn't you embarrass yourself enough in the other thread Capn?
I'm optimistic about the economy but 5% unemployment is like perfection -- when everyone who wants a job has one. If it had said been 6 or 10, I would have went with 6.
Are we talking real unemployment or the fudged numbers that they report to make themselves look better?
Don't forget Reagan was also busy ending the Cold War...
Definitely. We ought to have had steep spending cuts in this last deal. We'll see how this fiscal cliff thing ends
Agreed! I'm a pragmatists and face economic reality, but I also have imminent faith in our country. I still believe our unparalleled resolve can dig us out of any hole. We simply need to apply ourselves, which is what I argue we start doing sooner rather than later.
Oh, and to an earlier comment about taxation-tax rates of about 75% bring in roughly the income that they would at 25%. The laffer curve shows an overall decrease in revenue once roughly the 50% barrier is breached. After that, people find loopholes (ex:bad investments)Taxes are indeed higher today.
Through the crowd sourcing power of SOH, we can over come. :-) May the 1st SOH congress convene.
Not nearly of this scale though. Don't forget thouh-the actions of the gov in the 90s (repeal of Glass-Steagall, Alan Greenspan's refusal to let the housing market correct itself and poor government housing policy (mandatory lending to unqualified recipients) all gave rise to the collapse in 07-08.
We survived and probably had the best economic times in recent history
And labra- I'm not saying it's not concerning. I'm saying we can't tell yet. That's all. Exploding debt, deep recession, huge amount of unemployed, food stamp users on the rise etc etc... It happened right when Bill Clinton took office. Right after two republican presidents exploded our debt
Running healthcare cost up is a stupid idea.
it's your job to propose something. A counter offer... Anything
Ray- well, lets say concerned then. (Not that you shouldn't be. But I definitely remember a noticeable lack of concern when the prez had an R after his name)
Also, HC reform/health care for our citizens is not a stupid idea. And yeah, if you're a responsible legislator and you oppose something
What concerns me about Obama is that he doesn't take any responsibility. Not only is he not addressing the problem he's making it worse. He's the President. He could do something if he wanted.
I'm not ignoring that. It is concerning. But we can't tell anything that's going to happen in the future. We can't. Too many unknowns. We especially can't decipher what can happen through this app. The indicators are a great start but it's going to take a while to shake the effects of recession imo
I'm mad? I don't think so.
If somebody objects to a stupid idea are they obstructionists?
Maybe thats a good thing.
The fact is costs go up with OC and fewer of us will be covered.
Combine that with underemployment, food stamp crisis, Medicare deficits and an education crisis and we have a real problem. These issues must be addressed now. We're fostering government dependency which simply deepens the crater sized holes we're already in.
Palindrome-don't assume things about me. I do not give the Bush Admin. leeway for their spending and increased in the national debt. $10 trillion (though not all by Bush) is a huge deal. What concerns me about Obama is his spending and the incredible rate at which our public debt is increasing.
Granted. The dems have spent quite a bit. There's no denying that. 6-7 trillion and counting is a HUGE number no matter how you slice it
What more research should I do? I study the economic indicators. I think low CCI, another recent rise in unemployment, spending problem that is yet to be addressed and the coming insolvency of OASDI) are all perfectly good cause for concern for our economic future. These are signs we can't ignore.
offered absolutely no alternative? Is that really the type of government you want?
Senator 1: I have a bill
Senator 2: I have an objection to it
Senator 1: ok. What do you propose
Senator 2: ... idk. But I don't like it!
... Really Ray?
I remember the process for this bill. There WAS give and take. O'care was SUPPOSED to be single payer. Then it was just delayed and delayed and delayed. I understand objections but the republicans offered NOTHING to substitute... So, I don't understand. Your mad bc they didn't listen to people who
Do you see declining healthcare or insurance costs?
Where can I buy affordable insurance?
Fair enough. I recognize they inherited debt/deficits, but they (dems in first 2 years) only rose both to higher, unprecedented levels. I didn't mean to insinuate they created the entire crisis. Rather, I meant to say that they have been incredibly successful in exacerbating it.
Maybe THAT is "proof" you really ought to do more extensive research on things before accepting it as proof.
Research isn't about putting together puzzle pieces for your narrative and worldview. It's about learning. They CAN be exclusive to each other btw
The process didn't work because OC was forced through with disregard to due process.
There was no give an take, no committee, no choice.
We are capable of better.
Blaming Republicans doesn't improve the law or justify the process.
Fantasy land? You DO know SoH is a fantasy land right? This place gave Mitt Romney a 400 or so electoral lead over Obama and a 61-39 popular vote win.
.... No no. I wouldn't point fingers when in comes to "fantasy land" but I do enjoy the fact that you immediately snatch it up and label it "proof"
I don't know about that. I've read the bill and it doesn't place restrictions on who or where you can get insurance so long as you're insured but I can double check.
Labra- I was going to say something but... Then I read "the deficits and debt THEY created" --- that's where I checked out.
I can give plenty of first hand examples of waste and abuse in healthcare. I have purchased healthcare for less than half of what it would have cost me with insurance.
Only big insurance companies exist in OC.
OC is not Affordable.
Labra- sure it looks bad right now. But, again, you don't know what the future holds. You don't know. Neither do I. It's funny how 6 trillion dollars is apparently so cataclysmic to conservatives and the right but the 10 trillion previously there wasn't a big deal at all. Hahaha politics is funny
Also, and I really mean to stress this: if the republicans don't like it so much and if conservatives want this that and the other, why hasn't a SINGLE alternative been proposed? It leaves me with that same impression I had earlier: it's being contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian
Also, healthcare exchanges are also present to give you that increased competition as well. So, idk. Seems like a decent step in the right direction. It needs more but it's a framework
RayX- increased competition is great. I don't see how ACA hinders that. It even gives room for states to make their own programs as they see fit...? So, what I'm trying to say is the freedom is there for whatever program your state wants. It's a step in the right direction.
Palindrome-your original post is absurd and insulting. Sure, no one can tell you precisely what unemployment will be at in a year or two, but you can't ignore the looming economic signs such as our debt, our deficits, and our ridiculous practice of subsidizing unemployment.