Unemployment went from 8.1 to 8.2

[The Rabbi]

Bad news, altogether. No excuses.

A comparison, however:

Europe is now averaging their highest unemployment since the depression. This after austerity measures like those proposed by US Republicans to fight debt.

Since we are obviously doing WAY better than they are, how is it that you think Obama's policies are "preventing job growth".

Euro-Area Unemployment Reaches Record 11%, Led by Spain

Also, since Asian economic indicators have fallen through the floor recently, a .1% rise in unemployment is not really looking that bad by comparison.

China factory surveys signal wider economic weakness | The Republic

By comparison Spain is doing better than Zimbabwe. And anotehr 4 years of Obama we might be neck and neck with them.
I don't want to be doing slightly better than Europe. I want to be doing what this economy is capable of, which is a hell of a lot better than we've had the last 4 years.
Europe's problem is not austerity like the GOP proposes. Europe's problem is about 25 years of the policies Obama and the Dums have given us: high taxes, more social services, high regulations, more bureaucracy.
We might see some slowdown paring down the government temporarily, as we did in 1980-1982. But the growth that will come after that, roughly 1983-2007, will more than make up for it.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Actually it would have meant more solid companies like ford would have seen a huge increase in business and employment.

The bullshit is thinking that by spending borrowed tax money, to prop up a company that could not survive on its own due to bloated compensation packages and poor sales, we did the right thing. I'm not a fan of giving out corporate welfare to big/rich companies like GM. I'm also not a fan of giving govt handouts to union workers that make over 50 bucks an hour in total compensation already (the handout comes in the forum of the bailout to GM to pay their WAY ABOVE THE AVERAGE salaries).

Not hardly. It would have meant less choices for the consumer, a greater dependence on foreign manufacture, and put a dent in national security interests. It would have also resulted in higher prices for the consumer, due to less competition.

GM/Chrysler were on the verge of bankruptcy because capitalism failed. The Bush near depression was a result of Wall Street greed, and a real ponzi scheme using mortgage derivitves, predatory lending, and credit default swaps in a way that was unsustainable. It wasn't a stupid mistake, it was a calculated strategy fo fuck over the market. GM, and all automotive companies were on the shit end of the stick, when America lost close to 10% of its wealth, do to the Wall Street scheme.

Capitalism didn't fail. It was GM's crap products, low demand, union demands that failed them. Govt has failed us by taking our 35 billion and not returning it to us.

Low demand is the key. The low demand occurred because we were in the worst recession since the great depression. That was a failure of capitalism.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

How is showing the whole Obama record a distraction?

Why do you refuse to show the whole record??

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2012/06/01/news/economy/may-jobs-report/jobs-infographic-06012.top.jpg

I would rather see one for net jobs created/lost than one for just gross jobs created

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Bullshit. If it weren't for the bailout, GM would have been forced into Chapter 7, and our largest domestic auto company would have gone belly up. That would have meant loseing tens of thousands of good paying jobs, and tens of thousands more in supporting economies.

Actually it would have meant more solid companies like ford would have seen a huge increase in business and employment.

The bullshit is thinking that by spending borrowed tax money, to prop up a company that could not survive on its own due to bloated compensation packages and poor sales, we did the right thing. I'm not a fan of giving out corporate welfare to big/rich companies like GM. I'm also not a fan of giving govt handouts to union workers that make over 50 bucks an hour in total compensation already (the handout comes in the forum of the bailout to GM to pay their WAY ABOVE THE AVERAGE salaries).

Not hardly. It would have meant less choices for the consumer, a greater dependence on foreign manufacture, and put a dent in national security interests. It would have also resulted in higher prices for the consumer, due to less competition.

GM/Chrysler were on the verge of bankruptcy because capitalism failed. The Bush near depression was a result of Wall Street greed, and a real ponzi scheme using mortgage derivitves, predatory lending, and credit default swaps in a way that was unsustainable. It wasn't a stupid mistake, it was a calculated strategy fo fuck over the market. GM, and all automotive companies were on the shit end of the stick, when America lost close to 10% of its wealth, do to the Wall Street scheme.

OMG... how colossally stupid.

 

[Annie]

Not hardly. It would have meant less choices for the consumer, a greater dependence on foreign manufacture, and put a dent in national security interests. It would have also resulted in higher prices for the consumer, due to less competition.

GM/Chrysler were on the verge of bankruptcy because capitalism failed. The Bush near depression was a result of Wall Street greed, and a real ponzi scheme using mortgage derivitves, predatory lending, and credit default swaps in a way that was unsustainable. It wasn't a stupid mistake, it was a calculated strategy fo fuck over the market. GM, and all automotive companies were on the shit end of the stick, when America lost close to 10% of its wealth, do to the Wall Street scheme.

Capitalism didn't fail. It was GM's crap products, low demand, union demands that failed them. Govt has failed us by taking our 35 billion and not returning it to us.

Low demand is the key. The low demand occurred because we were in the worst recession since the great depression. That was a failure of capitalism.

You surely are not claiming that GM's problems were just evident in 2007?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Bullshit. If it weren't for the bailout, GM would have been forced into Chapter 7, and our largest domestic auto company would have gone belly up. That would have meant loseing tens of thousands of good paying jobs, and tens of thousands more in supporting economies.

Actually it would have meant more solid companies like ford would have seen a huge increase in business and employment.

The bullshit is thinking that by spending borrowed tax money, to prop up a company that could not survive on its own due to bloated compensation packages and poor sales, we did the right thing. I'm not a fan of giving out corporate welfare to big/rich companies like GM. I'm also not a fan of giving govt handouts to union workers that make over 50 bucks an hour in total compensation already (the handout comes in the forum of the bailout to GM to pay their WAY ABOVE THE AVERAGE salaries).

Not hardly. It would have meant less choices for the consumer, a greater dependence on foreign manufacture, and put a dent in national security interests. It would have also resulted in higher prices for the consumer, due to less competition.

GM/Chrysler were on the verge of bankruptcy because capitalism failed. The Bush near depression was a result of Wall Street greed, and a real ponzi scheme using mortgage derivitves, predatory lending, and credit default swaps in a way that was unsustainable. It wasn't a stupid mistake, it was a calculated strategy fo fuck over the market. GM, and all automotive companies were on the shit end of the stick, when America lost close to 10% of its wealth, do to the Wall Street scheme.

It would not have meant less choice it would mean the surviving manufacturers would have the business to increas their available model line.

Also companies like toyota and hyandai make a lot of their cars here in the USA, so that is another claim you just made which isn't totally true.


I for one do not like you trying to justify giving welfare to rich corporations in an effort to keep them in business.

 

[saveliberty]

Capitalism didn't fail. It was GM's crap products, low demand, union demands that failed them. Govt has failed us by taking our 35 billion and not returning it to us.

GM is and was ranked in the top 25 automakers in the world, so you may want to retract the crap label. I think we kicked out about 14-15 million units the year prior to the bankruptcy, so no, it was not a demand issue. It was union/management relations, benefits and over capacity. That is why the bankruptcy helped far more than a bailout. It is also the reason the turn around has been very successful. Try to separate what GM did from what Obama did. Thanks.

 

[HUGGY]

Not good for America, I'm sure the excuses and reasons will start flowing shortly. Obama's policies are preventing job growth, it's a simple as that.

]Not good for America = not good for Obama. This is the mantra and marching orders from the party of fear that USED to claim they stood for American values. Telling.

Losing!

Good Americans have woken up to you traitorous fucks. A cold hard wind is gonna blow in November for you.

Dress up for the weather.

 

[The T]

Not hardly. It would have meant less choices for the consumer, a greater dependence on foreign manufacture, and put a dent in national security interests. It would have also resulted in higher prices for the consumer, due to less competition.

GM/Chrysler were on the verge of bankruptcy because capitalism failed. The Bush near depression was a result of Wall Street greed, and a real ponzi scheme using mortgage derivitves, predatory lending, and credit default swaps in a way that was unsustainable. It wasn't a stupid mistake, it was a calculated strategy fo fuck over the market. GM, and all automotive companies were on the shit end of the stick, when America lost close to 10% of its wealth, do to the Wall Street scheme.

Capitalism didn't fail. It was GM's crap products, low demand, union demands that failed them. Govt has failed us by taking our 35 billion and not returning it to us.

Low demand is the key. The low demand occurred because we were in the worst recession since the great depression. That was a failure of capitalism.

^^"Zero-Sum Game' Accolyte" speaks...

 

[Wiseacre]

Not hardly. It would have meant less choices for the consumer, a greater dependence on foreign manufacture, and put a dent in national security interests. It would have also resulted in higher prices for the consumer, due to less competition.

GM/Chrysler were on the verge of bankruptcy because capitalism failed. The Bush near depression was a result of Wall Street greed, and a real ponzi scheme using mortgage derivitves, predatory lending, and credit default swaps in a way that was unsustainable. It wasn't a stupid mistake, it was a calculated strategy fo fuck over the market. GM, and all automotive companies were on the shit end of the stick, when America lost close to 10% of its wealth, do to the Wall Street scheme.

Capitalism didn't fail. It was GM's crap products, low demand, union demands that failed them. Govt has failed us by taking our 35 billion and not returning it to us.

Low demand is the key. The low demand occurred because we were in the worst recession since the great depression. That was a failure of capitalism.

No, it was a failure of gov't.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Actually it would have meant more solid companies like ford would have seen a huge increase in business and employment.

The bullshit is thinking that by spending borrowed tax money, to prop up a company that could not survive on its own due to bloated compensation packages and poor sales, we did the right thing. I'm not a fan of giving out corporate welfare to big/rich companies like GM. I'm also not a fan of giving govt handouts to union workers that make over 50 bucks an hour in total compensation already (the handout comes in the forum of the bailout to GM to pay their WAY ABOVE THE AVERAGE salaries).

Not hardly. It would have meant less choices for the consumer, a greater dependence on foreign manufacture, and put a dent in national security interests. It would have also resulted in higher prices for the consumer, due to less competition.

GM/Chrysler were on the verge of bankruptcy because capitalism failed. The Bush near depression was a result of Wall Street greed, and a real ponzi scheme using mortgage derivitves, predatory lending, and credit default swaps in a way that was unsustainable. It wasn't a stupid mistake, it was a calculated strategy fo fuck over the market. GM, and all automotive companies were on the shit end of the stick, when America lost close to 10% of its wealth, do to the Wall Street scheme.

OMG... how colossally stupid.

Is that your best rebuttal, you simple-minded twit?

 

[The T]

Not hardly. It would have meant less choices for the consumer, a greater dependence on foreign manufacture, and put a dent in national security interests. It would have also resulted in higher prices for the consumer, due to less competition.

GM/Chrysler were on the verge of bankruptcy because capitalism failed. The Bush near depression was a result of Wall Street greed, and a real ponzi scheme using mortgage derivitves, predatory lending, and credit default swaps in a way that was unsustainable. It wasn't a stupid mistake, it was a calculated strategy fo fuck over the market. GM, and all automotive companies were on the shit end of the stick, when America lost close to 10% of its wealth, do to the Wall Street scheme.

OMG... how colossally stupid.

Is that your best rebuttal, you simple-minded twit?

Translation: "What"?

 

[Dick Tuck]

Actually it would have meant more solid companies like ford would have seen a huge increase in business and employment.

The bullshit is thinking that by spending borrowed tax money, to prop up a company that could not survive on its own due to bloated compensation packages and poor sales, we did the right thing. I'm not a fan of giving out corporate welfare to big/rich companies like GM. I'm also not a fan of giving govt handouts to union workers that make over 50 bucks an hour in total compensation already (the handout comes in the forum of the bailout to GM to pay their WAY ABOVE THE AVERAGE salaries).

Not hardly. It would have meant less choices for the consumer, a greater dependence on foreign manufacture, and put a dent in national security interests. It would have also resulted in higher prices for the consumer, due to less competition.

GM/Chrysler were on the verge of bankruptcy because capitalism failed. The Bush near depression was a result of Wall Street greed, and a real ponzi scheme using mortgage derivitves, predatory lending, and credit default swaps in a way that was unsustainable. It wasn't a stupid mistake, it was a calculated strategy fo fuck over the market. GM, and all automotive companies were on the shit end of the stick, when America lost close to 10% of its wealth, do to the Wall Street scheme.

It would not have meant less choice it would mean the surviving manufacturers would have the business to increas their available model line.

Also companies like toyota and hyandai make a lot of their cars here in the USA, so that is another claim you just made which isn't totally true.


I for one do not like you trying to justify giving welfare to rich corporations in an effort to keep them in business.

Toyota and Hyandai receive significant government support. They, along with Ford, were all losing major money during the economic collapse. Had we let GM and Chrysler collapse, it would have meant tens of thousands of direct jobs lost, and probably double or triple that in indirect jobs. I doubt that any of the other car companies would have made up for that when they themselves were losing money.

 

[DiamondDave]

Who in the hell do you think is planning to fill the power vacuum when right wing trash shrinks government to point where they can drown it in a bathtub? I guess you're really stupid enough to believe that corporate largess doesn't have significant control over government right now. I guess you're too idiotic to understand that further shrinking of government won't give corporations more power of control over the people.

Less regulation. Let the free market be free. Nice sounding words, but an idiotic ceding of a good balance of power. Here's some facts. Corporations don't give a shit about anything but profit. That's all there is for them. It's neither good nor bad in and of itself. The only check that the American people have to control excess and public harm is through government.

I'm sure a faux libertarian like yourself actually believes that an individual can seek judicial remedy. You're a total idiot.

Again

Please show where any corporation has governmental power or the power to take away your freedoms and rights...

We'll be waiting

Who, besides yourself, do you claim to be representing? Please define "we", so I know which pissants I'll be addressing.

Translation:

"I have nothing. So I will act like I have a point and go back to spouting the same shit in hopes that someone will believe me"

Again...

Please show where any corporation has governmental power or the power to take away your freedoms and rights...

 

[Dick Tuck]

OMG... how colossally stupid.

Is that your best rebuttal, you simple-minded twit?

Translation: "What"?

What a nice reach around. I'm sure that Soggy appreciated that you used baby lotion.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Again

Please show where any corporation has governmental power or the power to take away your freedoms and rights...

We'll be waiting

Who, besides yourself, do you claim to be representing? Please define "we", so I know which pissants I'll be addressing.

Translation:

"I have nothing. So I will act like I have a point and go back to spouting the same shit in hopes that someone will believe me"

Again...

Please show where any corporation has governmental power or the power to take away your freedoms and rights...

Was it too tough of a question? You claimed to be speaking for someone other than yourself. So if you're not delusional, please state who it is you claim to speak for.

 

[The Rabbi]

Who, besides yourself, do you claim to be representing? Please define "we", so I know which pissants I'll be addressing.

Translation:

"I have nothing. So I will act like I have a point and go back to spouting the same shit in hopes that someone will believe me"

Again...

Please show where any corporation has governmental power or the power to take away your freedoms and rights...

Was it too tough of a question? You claimed to be speaking for someone other than yourself. So if you're not delusional, please state who it is you claim to speak for.

He speaks for me on this issue.
I also want to hear what governmental power a private corporation has to take away freedoms and rights.
Are you going to answer the question?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Not hardly. It would have meant less choices for the consumer, a greater dependence on foreign manufacture, and put a dent in national security interests. It would have also resulted in higher prices for the consumer, due to less competition.

GM/Chrysler were on the verge of bankruptcy because capitalism failed. The Bush near depression was a result of Wall Street greed, and a real ponzi scheme using mortgage derivitves, predatory lending, and credit default swaps in a way that was unsustainable. It wasn't a stupid mistake, it was a calculated strategy fo fuck over the market. GM, and all automotive companies were on the shit end of the stick, when America lost close to 10% of its wealth, do to the Wall Street scheme.

OMG... how colossally stupid.

Is that your best rebuttal, you simple-minded twit?

It's the only rebuttal necessary to the mindless drek you posted. You are obviously either full of shit or as mindlessly retarded as rdean and Truthmatters.

 

[pinqy]

Yup it sucks no matter how we slice it. It (the economy) has sucked since bush's last few months to be honest.

Just imagine if we kept those who are no longer eligible to file for unemployment but are not working figured into the numbers! It would look even more horrible.

As has been pointed out to you many times, the Unemployment Rate is not and has never been based on UI benefits. The rate does include those no longer receiving benefits, those who never received benefits, and even people who never worked and are looking for their first job.

They do a CPS and use the number claiming benefits from that sample to figure it for the whole country. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.pdf

Read your link again. It specifically says they do NOT use benefits data. It's not even asked in the survey: http://www.census.gov/cps/files/questionnaire/Labor Force.pdf

Unemployed means did not work during the reference week, could have taken a job if offered in the reference week, and actively looked for work in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week. (those on temporary layoff don't have to look to be classified as unemployed). Look at Table A-11. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment and note that most of those categories are not eligible for UI benefits.

 

[naturegirl]

As has been pointed out to you many times, the Unemployment Rate is not and has never been based on UI benefits. The rate does include those no longer receiving benefits, those who never received benefits, and even people who never worked and are looking for their first job.

They do a CPS and use the number claiming benefits from that sample to figure it for the whole country. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.pdf

Read your link again. It specifically says they do NOT use benefits data. It's not even asked in the survey: http://www.census.gov/cps/files/questionnaire/Labor Force.pdf

Unemployed means did not work during the reference week, could have taken a job if offered in the reference week, and actively looked for work in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week. (those on temporary layoff don't have to look to be classified as unemployed). Look at Table A-11. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment and note that most of those categories are not eligible for UI benefits.

So since you're so smart how about you tell us how and why unemployment is up again??