• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New jobless claims up sharply as layoffs persist

ptif219

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Obama is doing a great job of helping the unemployed.


New jobless claims up sharply as layoffs persist - Yahoo! Finance

The number of people filing new claims for jobless benefits jumped last week after three straight declines, another sign that the pace of layoffs has not slowed.

Initial claims for jobless benefits rose by 12,000 to a seasonally adjusted 472,000, the Labor Department said Thursday. It was the highest level in a month and overshadowed a report that showed consumer prices remain essentially flat.

The rise in jobless claims highlighted concerns about the economic rebound -- especially after a report earlier this week said home construction plunged in May after government tax credits expired.

If layoffs persist, there's a concern that the June employment numbers may show a decline in private-sector jobs after five straight months of gains, said Jennifer Lee, an economist with BMO Capital Markets.

"We've definitely seen the economic recovery hit a wall," Lee said.

First-time jobless claims have hovered near 450,000 since the beginning of the year after falling steadily in the second half of 2009. That has raised concerns that hiring is lackluster and could slow the recovery.
 

jujuman13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Guess this might be the 'Double dip' recession obami said would not happen?
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
74,470
Reaction score
42,563
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
This may be because all the effort we went into combating the economic problem never addressed the true problem. It just took all of our money and gave it to the banks and wallstreet, the very people who drove us into the mess. It just goes to show who Washington is beholden to. Nothing was for the People. If you're going to take my money for projects or economic relief, then let's at least do it right. We should have invested in projects such as creating a true high speed rail system, or laying out a large high speed internet backbone. Those projects could take several years, they won't be permanent. But it will create jobs, it will put people to work till the economy can be flushed out. At least then you work on putting people to work and not rewarding the banks for acting inappropriately. Plus with the internet thing, you can install true net neutrality. Once it's built, private companies can use it; but since it was made with tax payer money we can put in rules for net neutrality. If my money is being taken for economic recovery actions, I'd much prefer to see it spent on projects which will help unemployment rather than helping out the uber rich who caused the mess.
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
19,102
Reaction score
8,144
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Guess this might be the 'Double dip' recession obami said would not happen?
Would you rather have had him say

The economy is in the toilet, and will remain so because to many stupid morons gave out loans to other stupid morons when both groups knew they would and could not be paid back unless housing prices continued to appreciate at unrealistic levels for years to come. That is is going to require America to take a drastic decline in spending and in wage expectations, not to mention pensions will be lost or reduced drastically
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
19,102
Reaction score
8,144
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No I would say it is the same recession Obama and his spending is not helping or changing anything
It has helped and it will hurt

The spending has caused the recession to be shallower then it would have been. Believe it or not without the government deficit spending in the Obama admin, the # of unemployed would be higher, housing values would be lower, and there would be more foreclousures then current levels. The spending will of course hurt future US economic growth,
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
244,342
Reaction score
73,439
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Guess this might be the 'Double dip' recession obami said would not happen?
wait til the dems let the clinton tax hikes hit the people who create jobs. It won't hurt the dembats in 2010 but 2012 is going to be alot of fun for the party of tax hikes and income redistribution
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
244,342
Reaction score
73,439
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
It has helped and it will hurt

The spending has caused the recession to be shallower then it would have been. Believe it or not without the government deficit spending in the Obama admin, the # of unemployed would be higher, housing values would be lower, and there would be more foreclousures then current levels. The spending will of course hurt future US economic growth,
any proof of that claim? do you think the New Deal helped end the depression or prolonged it?
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
19,102
Reaction score
8,144
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
How about simple math

The US government has added 1.4 or so trillion dollars in spending into the US economy over the last year or so (deficit spending). This is economic activity that would not have been replaced by private non governmental spending in that period of time. $1.4 trillion is generally equivalent to 10% of the GDP of the US. You remove that level of economic activity in an already weak economy you would have had an even more drastic contraction in the US economy then what has already occured.

Meaning cuts in the military, both on programs and on staff, cuts in medicare/medicaid. Far fewer people receiving unemployment benifits, which they have used to help maintain consumer spending in the US.

This is what Keynsian economics is supposed to do, reduce the economic contractions during bad times, but it also should reduce the economic expansion in the good times as the debt is paid back. Continiuous government deficits is not how Keynsian economics is supposed to work
 

ptif219

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It has helped and it will hurt

The spending has caused the recession to be shallower then it would have been. Believe it or not without the government deficit spending in the Obama admin, the # of unemployed would be higher, housing values would be lower, and there would be more foreclousures then current levels. The spending will of course hurt future US economic growth,
There is no proof it helped. It did 2 things. Tripled the debt and expanded government. Obama did not learn from the failed policies of the great depression
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
19,102
Reaction score
8,144
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There is no proof it helped. It did 2 things. Tripled the debt and expanded government. Obama did not learn from the failed policies of the great depression
Going by that level of evidence there is no proof that it did not prevent unemployment from hitting 50% preventing the economic collapse of the US
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,335
Reaction score
50,339
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
No I would say it is the same recession Obama and his spending is not helping or changing anything
There is no proof it helped. It did 2 things. Tripled the debt and expanded government. Obama did not learn from the failed policies of the great depression
There is no proof to your claim, and yet you want proof from some one else?
 

jujuman13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Would you rather have had him say

The economy is in the toilet, and will remain so because to many stupid morons gave out loans to other stupid morons when both groups knew they would and could not be paid back unless housing prices continued to appreciate at unrealistic levels for years to come. That is is going to require America to take a drastic decline in spending and in wage expectations, not to mention pensions will be lost or reduced drastically
Go back and discover who precisely who ordered Fanny and Freddie to 'lend baby lend'.

Then come back to present day and find out the value of Fanny & Freddie on the Stock exchange, then after that, why not go and see how much cash Obama has dripped into these two trash cans?

Then vote accordingly come November.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
There is no proof it helped. It did 2 things. Tripled the debt and expanded government. Obama did not learn from the failed policies of the great depression
Not a single piece eh?

Okay, I fully realize you are going to, as usual, run away from hard questions, but here are some for others to laugh at you on when you flee:
(if you stopped doing that, I'd stop mocking you)

According to you, sending hundreds of billions of dollars as rebates into the economy did nothing to stimulate spending: Do you agree?
According to you, CARS did not increase sales: Do you agree?
According to you, Bonus Depreciation, which was IDENTICAL to Bush's program did absolutely nothing for corporate purchases: Do you agree?
According to you, not letting GM and Chrysler go under, and thereby preventing millions from joining welfare rolls did not help the economy: Do you agree?

That's just for starters. How about you start answering before I really start getting mean?
 

drz-400

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
2,357
Reaction score
551
Location
North Dakota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There is no doubt in my mind, both the bush stimulus and obama stimulus increased disposable income in the economy. Can anyone tell me what two things added together make disposable income? Can anyone tell me what causes an economy to go into recession? Why does GDP go backwards?
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
There is no doubt in my mind, both the bush stimulus and obama stimulus increased disposable income in the economy. Can anyone tell me what two things added together make disposable income? Can anyone tell me what causes an economy to go into recession? Why does GDP go backwards?
And you should now get your shield to protect you from the completely irrelevant insults that are going to come your way.

Ask questions that require economic intelligent, get insults in return. It's how DP works.
 

drz-400

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
2,357
Reaction score
551
Location
North Dakota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Go back and discover who precisely who ordered Fanny and Freddie to 'lend baby lend'.

Then come back to present day and find out the value of Fanny & Freddie on the Stock exchange, then after that, why not go and see how much cash Obama has dripped into these two trash cans?

Then vote accordingly come November.
1. Fannie/Freddie securitize loans, they do not lend money.

Also, its extremely hard when you frame debate like this. The unpleasent fact is that fannie and freddie have been around a long time, and they purchased a large amount of morgages during a housing bubble. Of course if we could have done things different 4 or 5 years ago it would have been great, but that did not happen. We had a company that essentially turns the gears of the morgage economy that had and still has a large amount of negative equity. It would have been very hard to come up with a viable alternative at the time (and remember I am defending the bill President Bush signed).
 

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,745
Reaction score
7,654
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
The easiest thing to do is contrast JFK (R-MA) and Reagan (R-CA) to ObamaMarx (S-IL).
Obama is going in the opposite manner of Reagan and JFK.

Why do we not hear the New Statistic of how many jobs it saved ... LOL.

Instead of cutting taxes and regulations, Obi adds more burdens... in the name of "fairness"...LOL.
His idiotic comments in the following vid underscores his general and reckless philosophy of "spread the wealth around"... to his targets.
TAX AND SPEND.

That money would have been better spent left in the private sector, and with reduced taxation.

Government creates the problem, forcing banks to make bad loans under the full weight and force of the law, and then blames the free market, and then seeks more control over a problem they themselves created.

Fred and Fan also were exempt from reporting as normal companies do, and there were 200-250 people whose only job was to look at these two companies... none of them called out F&F. Wonder why? Warren Buffett stated sarcastically they only had to look at a couple companies every day and failed... and he looks at hundreds.

When R's tried to warn about F&F... the D's went ballistic. F&F was a political slush fund for Dems... a vote buying machine without oversight.


http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset+Tree/Asset+Viewers/Audio+Video+Asset+Viewer.htm?guid={A138FFB8-5B6A-4C6A-A8CC-70C6E4FF39DA}&type=Audio



JFK (R-MA) Address at the Economic Club of New York, December 14, 1962
We need not accept an unemployment rate Of 5 percent or more, such as we have had for 60 out of the last 61 months. There is no need for us to be satisfied with a rate of growth that keeps good men out of work and good capacity out of use.

There are a number of ways by which the Federal Government can meet its responsibilities to aid economic growth...

...--to cut the fetters which hold back private spending. In the past...It could also be done by increasing Federal expenditures more rapidly than necessary, but such a course would soon demoralize both the Government and our economy...

The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system...

I am not talking about a "quickie" or a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm, to ease some temporary complaint. I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last 5 years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking.

In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the Federal Government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.

Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital.

In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.

I repeat: our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and a budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy; or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve--and I believe this can be done--a budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness; the second reflects an investment in the future.

This Nation can afford to reduce taxes, we can afford a temporary deficit, but we cannot afford to do nothing. For on the strength of our free economy rests the hope of all free nations. We shall not fail that hope, for free men and free nations must prosper and they must prevail.
Thank you.

.
 
Last edited:

drz-400

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
2,357
Reaction score
551
Location
North Dakota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The stimulus did provide tax credits, transfer payments, and incentives that all in effect rose disposable income. Tax cuts would have the same effect, only on a broader area. Why would a tax cut be less effective than for example, unemployment payments at providing stimilus to the economy? I'll give you a hint, it has to do with utility.
 

ptif219

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Not a single piece eh?

Okay, I fully realize you are going to, as usual, run away from hard questions, but here are some for others to laugh at you on when you flee:
(if you stopped doing that, I'd stop mocking you)

According to you, sending hundreds of billions of dollars as rebates into the economy did nothing to stimulate spending: Do you agree?
According to you, CARS did not increase sales: Do you agree?
According to you, Bonus Depreciation, which was IDENTICAL to Bush's program did absolutely nothing for corporate purchases: Do you agree?
According to you, not letting GM and Chrysler go under, and thereby preventing millions from joining welfare rolls did not help the economy: Do you agree?

That's just for starters. How about you start answering before I really start getting mean?
It did nothing for jobs or to improve the economy. Unemployment continues to increase
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
19,102
Reaction score
8,144
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There is no proof it did anything.
It did nothing for jobs or to improve the economy. Unemployment continues to increase
It did not keep cut backs in the military throwing a few hundred thousand to the unemployement lines, not to mention the spinoff jobs

It did not keep medicare and medicaid funded to continue funding providing revenues to doctors, nurses, hospitals and drug companies that would not have recieved this money

It did not keep GM, Chrysler and the various banks in operation keeping millions employed, not to mention the spin off jobs


What you fail to consider is how big this economic crisis was, and how much worse it could and can/will be. This is/was not an regular recession, but a debt deleveraging depression. Those are not fun, Japan is still working through theirs and have been for 20 years.
 

winston53660

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
29,265
Reaction score
10,128
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What you fail to consider is how big this economic crisis was, and how much worse it could and can/will be. This is/was not an regular recession, but a debt deleveraging depression. Those are not fun, Japan is still working through theirs and have been for 20 years.
It was like Enron, as long as the stock goes up everything will be okay. It is a great time to be a bottom feeder.
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
19,102
Reaction score
8,144
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It was like Enron, as long as the stock goes up everything will be okay. It is a great time to be a bottom feeder.
I agree

The problem is of course Enron was only so big, Japan's bubble was economy wide affecting their stock market and real estate to extreme degrees

The US bubble were not as big, but the US does not have the savings that Japan had/has to make up for the bubble bursting
 

apdst

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
131,998
Reaction score
30,569
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It did not keep cut backs in the military throwing a few hundred thousand to the unemployement lines, not to mention the spinoff jobs

It did not keep medicare and medicaid funded to continue funding providing revenues to doctors, nurses, hospitals and drug companies that would not have recieved this money

It did not keep GM, Chrysler and the various banks in operation keeping millions employed, not to mention the spin off jobs


What you fail to consider is how big this economic crisis was, and how much worse it could and can/will be. This is/was not an regular recession, but a debt deleveraging depression. Those are not fun, Japan is still working through theirs and have been for 20 years.
Which makes me wonder why it's suddenly ok to kill of the oil and gas industry, plus the spin off jobs. Things that make you go, hmm!
 
Top Bottom