Jobless claims hit six-year high.
By on Aug 7th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Jobless claims hit six-year high.
The Department of Labor announced today that “the number of newly laid off people signing up for jobless benefits last week climbed to its highest point in more than six years as companies cut back given the faltering economy.” Unemployment insurance applications “rose by a seasonally adjusted 7,000 to 455,000″ last week, which is “worse than analysts expected.” The Labor Department had initially forecast that jobless claims would drop to 430,000.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
I’m sure the trolls will find some way to blame this on Bill Clinton. Or the “Democrat controlled” Congress. Or both.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:04 amAnd Chimpy’s brainless status remains the same ……..Worst.President.Ever.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:05 amThanks to the idiot-boy-king-der-chimperor.
Hell is too good a place for le Shrub.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:06 amWho was the official who lowered the % of the unemployment rate and was caught?
August 7th, 2008 at 10:13 amJobless claims hit six-year high.
“Quit whining!” – Spokespeople for the ruling class
August 7th, 2008 at 10:18 amWait until the new uninsured numbers come out at the end of the month. Bush has no clue as to people’s pain. But at least he’s an optimistic sociopath!
August 7th, 2008 at 10:18 amI would like to see all members of the House, Senate, Judiciary, and all branches of top heavy, inefficient sloth like bureacracy be reduced to minimum wage, no health benefits, no retirement. They have to punch a time clock, no overtime pay, no vacation, no sick leave, and most importantly, they all have to wear polyester service uniforms like those worn at fast food places.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:22 amThey must always answer phone when called and say “how may I help you most valued customer”.
Screw up and get canned, no dynasty for their children to perpetuate the corruption.
It is a good thing we are not in a recession…imagine what it would be like then. Man, if only people would stop whining!
August 7th, 2008 at 10:25 am“It’s what makes America great!!” — Wingnut radio, 07 Aug 2008
August 7th, 2008 at 10:27 amMindless claims filed by trolls and the ruling elite are at a 232-year high.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:34 amSounds good in theory but can you point to a case in fact where this has been true?
All evidence is to the contrary, after all Clinton raised taxes on business in the 90’s and business did quite well and plenty of jobs were created…..the last 8 years using yours and georges idea has not proven your statement to be true.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:51 amcera Says:
Whoddathunk you’d be able to post with your head so firmly entrenched in your anus?
August 7th, 2008 at 10:51 amYou can’t blame congress for bush’s energy policy which is why we are in trouble. Why is it always a democratic congress that has to clean up after a republican president gets it wrong?
August 7th, 2008 at 10:53 amAnother “Mission Accomplished”.
The destruction of the middle class.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:54 amthat’s only NEW Jobless people making new claims on Unemployment.
Then there are how many of us whose unemployment ran out a year ago and are not included in those figures.
Then there are those not counted in those figures because they have a temp job at minimum wage when before they were making $70K plus.
Smoke and mirrors
August 7th, 2008 at 10:55 amI guess you don’t think bush’s energy policy and bond with big oil and thier rape of Americans by price gouging has anything to do with it, right?
August 7th, 2008 at 10:56 amcera Says:
Thanks for clearing up what happened in the 90’s cera, now explain the last 8 years of not taxing business and how that is supposed to create jobs and stimulate our economy.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:05 amIdiot troll cera: Space your clump into several paragraphs.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:06 amcera Says:
——————————————————————————–
So the Obama plan is to raise taxes on business as well as capital gains. You dont charge businesses more when you want them to invest in people and product. Obama is using the Jimmy Carter economic policy to make things worse!
Problem is we have a huge deficit (almost $500B for FY08) and an even larger debt (close to $10T). We as a country can not afford to keep borrowing from Japan, China and other countries. This problem is aggrevated by our economy’s sending $700B a year to oil exporting countries such as Saudi Arabia. We will, as a country, be forced to “tighten our belts.” And, looking at the average American’s waistline we have a lot of tightening to do.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:07 amBushes Crawford ranch was energy efficient even before he took office.
WOW! And you can watch Faux News while that tiny head of yours is stuck in you a$$.
Priceless.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:10 amOh, and you might want to post some links to your fcuking retarded Faux nooze “talking points”.
Free thinking, not a viable option for Repukes.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:11 amYaaaaaaaaaaa!
Cera, aka good_goony, brought up Clinton 19 posts after misshusseinmolly predicted someone would.
Friggin’ hilarious.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:11 amI’ve never seen a more topsy turvy, alternate reality base as the extreme right.
Clinton, president during the prosperous 90’s, had nothing to do with it.
Clinton, out of office during the 21st century, gets blamed for the recession, and 9/11!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
And the reason the Penguins lost to Red Wings in the Stanley Cup finals was not because of Detroit’s superior team, but because of bad officiating.
When your team loses, never EVER put the actual blame on them, eh gigi?
mucking foron!
civil answer.
When you learn (as if) to stop regurgitating bullshit from the Right wing, you just might get a civil answer.
Until then, keep em coming stupid fcuk.
Your ignorance can be highly entertaining.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:14 amcera says:
why cant we all just stop spending, then we wont have to raise taxes.
I imagine then that you are against the war in Iraq for example? How much money is that costing us every minute again?
August 7th, 2008 at 11:16 amReally, seems like Clinton and the dems did just that and more in the 90’s. It only seems to go sour when you inject republicans into the mix.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:17 amYou are an enemy of this country, cera. Come here for your wedgie. We’re not interested in being your friends.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:17 amThis is how you show me respect? By answering my legitimate question with an asinine question?
I guess that means you can’t explain it, big surprise.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:20 amI don’t know, why don’t you talk to your local republican representative. The republicans before 2004 spent more money than any congress in the history of…..well, the world. Care to explain that in terms we can understand?
What happened to the budget surplus?
August 7th, 2008 at 11:23 amFred, in regards to Clinton tax increases helping businesses and creating jobs;
From this article http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/3/6/deconstructing-the-90s-clinton-boom.html it makes the case Clinton inherited a sound economy and his policies tended to mute economic growth. Only in ‘97 after he cut taxes did the economy really take off. Also to keep in mind, innovations in the burgeoning tech sector helped the economy take off spectacularly, as well.
Some would argue the case Alan Greenspan or preexisting conditions had more to do with the economy than Clinton; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1110165.stm however I give Clinton the lion’s share of the credit. The President (read: Bush) can be in a great position to mess up the budget, and Clinton did a great job of making sure his policies did not hamper economic prosperity, hence tax increases when the economy could handle them as opposed to during a slump.
So when you say it sounds good in theory, that is because it *is* good. Common sense economics. Businesses cannot continue to invest money in personnel that they have to pay to the government unless they do so on credit with the notion that the economy is going to more than make up for their higher taxes with economic increases and the prospect of growing sales. Otherwise they downsize and even more people are out of jobs. They cannot afford it and stay in business.
Can you see where the federal minimum wage increase would logically follow this pattern, too? While a weaker economy and less money to invest in personnel necessarily leads to unemployment, so too would having to pay a higher wage while there is less capital available.
Solution? Bring back Bill Clinton and the fiscal conservatism that he presided over!
August 7th, 2008 at 11:28 amcera_googy Says:
you seem to forget. Clinton didnt want to balance the budget in the 90’s and the Republicans shut down the government to get him to do it
Even with your spoon fed talking point enema, you’ve just admitted CLINTON BALANCED THE BUDGET!!!
What’s Bush done for the economy during his terms?
August 7th, 2008 at 11:34 amShall we ask China, or should we just blame Clinton for the last 8 years?
Mucking foron!
And I’m behind again. Fred, it wasn’t Bill Clinton and the Democrats alone that shaped tax policy. In my mind when the same political party controlls the Legislature and the Presidency they can afford to get away with less beneficial (to the economy) tax policy. As you can see with the majority of the Bush presidency and we are still feeling the pinch. When Clinton had to get Republicans on board with tax policy, the results were great for the economy.
In my mind the best scenario is a Democratic president and a fiscally conservative Legislature with a slim enough majority that the President can still control most social and foreign policy decisions.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:34 am#
cera Says:
You guys seem to draw some sort of issue with big oil and republicans. Here is what I see. Al Gore in bed with big energy. He is making millions off his investments in this new energy. He is telling everyone that global warming will kill us if we dont do something immediately. He says you cant argue this point. The temps of the oceans and the air have not gone up in 10 yrs. He wont debate anyone on this. He just bought a huge yacht. He still has an SUV. He still uses 13 times more energy than the ave American. Hypocrite. Bushes Crawford ranch was energy efficient even before he took office.
Cera, please cite you assertions. And how, how on Earth, do you figure that it is Gore that is “in bed with big energy?”
Exxon spends about 1% of its RECORD profits on research for alternate energy(which, if properly and fairly taxed would provide a lot of relief to the US coffers as opposed to lining the pockets of the oil execs).
T. Boone Pickens, not exactly some flaming librul, is advocating his own plan.
You provide no substance to your bold claims man.
Where’s the receipt for Gore’s new yacht? Do you know about buying carbon offsets? Don’t call someone a hypocrite when you yourself don’t know – or won’t tell – facts about any of this.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:37 amFirst off I don’t remember it that way, article or no article. I recall bush I being voted out of office because of a failing economy which Clinton inherited.
Democrats have always been better managers than republicans. The wastfulness of the current administration is a shining example. Go back to raygun and bush I and you find the same thing happening. It’s not rocket science.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:40 amclinton had no choice to balance as the republican shut down the government
Newt caved and funded Medicare after it became clear that the American people were blaming Republicans and Newt personallly for the shut-down.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:41 amClinton got the budget he had said he would compromise on initially.
Dole got his @ss handed to him in the next election thanks to Newt’s shutdown.
Please try and keep up.
cera says:
It only seems to go sour when you inject republicans into the mix.
EVERYTHING goes sour when you inject republicans into the mix!
August 7th, 2008 at 11:42 amanything we do is a mute point.
Where is your mute point? I’d like to find it.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:43 amI think you mean ‘moot’
which doesn’t mean what you think it means anyway.
It means ‘open for discussion.’
43
cera
clinton had no choice to balance as the republican shut down the government
Please provide corollary evidence of this. What was the actual issue driving the shut down?
August 7th, 2008 at 11:43 amI am no longer inclined to respond to cera’s incoherance.
Please, when have the republicans been fiscally responsible. Seriously, go back as far as 1929 and you will find the same pattern.
America prospered when it had a democratic president and a democratic legislature with the republicans serving the role of minority opposition.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:45 amcera Says:
95 % of c02 doesnt come from man, its natural. anything we do is a mute point.
“It’s like these guys take pride in being ignorant,”
August 7th, 2008 at 11:45 am#
cera Says:
95 % of c02 doesnt come from man, its natural. anything we do is a mute point.
Please cite this. You are embarassing yourself here.
By the way, just to remind you. Bush inherited a surplus and turned into a gigantic deficit. How do you explain that?
August 7th, 2008 at 11:46 amThe numbers released today are clearly not good. However, they do not address the job mix of those who became re-employed with jobs at less pay and no benefits.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:48 amThis is the true legacy of GWB- the return of surfdom and middle ages living standards.
cera Says:
cera takes two cases, one which a deregulated enron caused and Grey took the blame for and can’t even remember one republican charged….acutally charged with corruption…well I can.
Seems you can’t see the forrest for the trees.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:48 am95 % of c02 doesnt come from man, its natural. anything we do is a mute point.
Didn’t I warn you not to post anymore Faux nooz bullshit?
Or where you born with only a brain stem?
August 7th, 2008 at 11:53 am9/11 tanked the stock market which was already falling and
Good God you fcuking dolt, the stock market has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FEDERAL DEFICIT.
Supreme ignorance is definitely your strong suit!
August 7th, 2008 at 11:54 amwhy do you dems what to be conservative about the enviromment, but spending a lot of money on government programs is fine?
Sheez, this is easier than shooting fish in a bucket.
WE WANT TO SPEND TO SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT, IDIOT.
Please just go the fcuk away you dipshit moron.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:56 amwhy dont we set the minimum wage at 20$/hr or more?
I’ve got a better idea… let’s nationalize Healthcare, which removes a significant burden from both large and small businesses… and then let’s make all higher education at public institutions free for those who can get accepted. After all, they’re public schools too. This would also benefit businesses as they’re labor force would become more and more educated.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:56 am#
cera Says:
why do you dems what to be conservative about the enviromment, but spending a lot of money on government programs is fine?
Let’s be clear here. THe topic is about the increasing unemployment during GW’s presiduncy. It isn’t about environmentalism.
What have Georgie’s coporate tax policies brought us in the way of new jobs? Why high unemployment when there are such low taxes on businesses? Maybe because your link between low tax and a good economy are WRONG.
Why is our infrastructure falling apart? Hmmm…maybe there isn’t enough in the tax coffers to cover all the repairs.
Why do you support Big Oil and oppose alternate energy? The creation and initial support of alternate energy (where we are inevitably heading – since oil is not a renewable resource) would create thousands of jobs for Americans. Why do you dislike the American worker so much? WHy do you favor a tax code that only benefits the wealthy and transfers zero benefit to the average American?
Why do you feel compelled to inadequately answer questions and then pose a question unrelated to the fact that unemployment has steadily risen since Bush took office.
What does unemployment have to do, exactly with the deficit Bush has presided over anyhow? (This last one is a real question if anyone would like to answer it. cera won’t, I’m pretty sure)
August 7th, 2008 at 11:57 amthey’re = their… jeebus, I should go back to school.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:58 amYeesh, my grammar and punctuation have suffered after processing the claptrap that cera perpetuates.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:00 pmbelac,
I’m telling you, al;l these typos…it’s cera’s fault. I mean, who cares if there is no evidence or direct correlation. Clinton did it, cera does it, pigs fly, we have a moron running the country (ooops…)
August 7th, 2008 at 12:01 pmI also find it amusing that conservative and conservation got cera tripped up. He must a junior ranking troll who doesn’t have a firm grasp on his terminology yet.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:02 pmcera thinks global warming has caused job loss!
he will debate anyone about this topic on al gore’s new 1,000 ft. yacht replete with 14 diesel engines and a poop deck lined with baby seal fur.
it’s a mute point with this character. fo’ real.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:04 pmcera,
they just released a study showing ER waits in the US have risen from 38 min to about an hour. is this because of the canadian’s flooding the system?
August 7th, 2008 at 12:07 pmLet me tell you about canada’s health system.
And yet few would trade for ours… ranked worst, most expensive and least efficient in the industrialized world. USA #1 again!
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N07438178.htm
August 7th, 2008 at 12:08 pmYeah, Gray Davis in California was left with a deficit after the dot-com crash, but the key factor in the push behind his recall was the California energy crisis that was manufactured by — whom?
Say it with me now, children — E-N-R-O-N. That’s right.
And Ahnold swept into power on a promise to balance the budget.
Well, guess what? He just tried to put all state workers on minimum wage because the budget hasn’t been delivered, and it’s estimated to run a $16 billion deficit, if I’m not mistaken.
Yeah, great management, Ahnold (R).
August 7th, 2008 at 12:14 pmObviously the finer points of statistical anlysis are lost on this one.
Also the broader points and the more basic concepts of economics.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:16 pmcera Says:
Let me tell you about canada’s health system.
Yeah, like we’re going to get some real wisdom from someone who can’t even capitalize Canada.
The topic is U.S. unemployment. Flagged for off-topic.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:16 pmUm… no.
Bush inherited a SURPLUS. You might remember that surplus. Bill Clinton left it for him after raising taxes in the 90s.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:17 pmTen people moved here from Canada last year – all billionaires. Canadian authorities let 1 guy from the US in for comedic reasons.
cera, you’re completely bunk man. CIte some of your claims brother.
I’d cite them if I had any, but I’m not even going to try that hard for you. BTW, still waiting for some answers to my post 64…
August 7th, 2008 at 12:19 pmyea, while cera is busy cracking wise at those MFing (maple foraging) Canadian, he has yet to address – on any level – rising unemployment during the Bush presiduncy.
We’re waiting cera. I know whatever you come up with will be gold – liquid gold even! Maybe some texas tea!
August 7th, 2008 at 12:20 pmDid you know that Canada has 10x the number of people moving here as opposed to going up there as a % of population? I guess socialism isnt all its cracked up to be
First of all, the Conservatives are in power in Canada right now, they’re hardly socialist.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:21 pmSecond, the U.S. dollar is so weak that many Canadians are buying second homes on this side of the border ’cause they seem cheap! That’s part of the reason Washington’s real estate market hasn’t fared as poorly as the rest of the nation.
Lastly, I think you can be damn sure that most of those Canadian’s who are moving here are being sure to keep their Canadian citizenship…
cera is as good at debate as bush is at well, anything. No wonder cera likes him.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:24 pmFred,
Strapped for time, so I apologize in advance for the source. According to wikipedia (search: US Presidential Election 1992);
At least from Wikipedia the election was about Bush I breaking promises, the aftermath of a recession that was ending, and too much focus on foreign policy experience in the post Cold War world.
We already covered Clinton presiding over a Democratic Congress (’93 Tax increases, policy changed to tax cuts when Republicans gained control of Congress), but the immediate prior instance of a Democratic President/Congress was Jimmy Carter. Not the best supporting evidence for your claim.
Prior to that you have Johnson/Kennedy, and if memory serves Kennedy and Johnson had a reputation (this was before my time) of being moderate more so than partisan, which enabled Johnson to win the next election. I’ll cede you to the point on this example.
Before that you get into FDR and the depression, and many economists claim that the New Deal actually prolonged the Depression instead of helping to end it. We could cite studies back and forth, but I’d rather just say that Democrats don’t have much of a better track record when they control the whole thing than when there is a bipartisan split one way or another.
I still feel the solution is the President of one party versus the Congress of the opposition having a very minor majority. I have to take back specifying a Democratic President and a Republican Congress since that only happened under Clinton since 1921. Regardless, they were good times, and it appears to me that the two parties need each other to balance policy out in a way that favors the economy.
I believe that is the nature of a two-party system. When one party controls everything, they take it as a mandate to proceed without consulting or debating across the aisle.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:29 pmAgain, all evidence to the contrary.
Wingnut “common sense” approaches to economics seldom have much to do with real-world results, as is evidenced by the deficits piled on by tax-cut hawks like Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:30 pmNo, I think “what you said before” is the basis on which that statement was founded.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:31 pmcera Says:
OK, if you guys want to go with raising taxes go with that platform. But think of this. If the high price of fuel causes loss of business in all sectors, raising taxes has the same effect. Revenue wont always go up as taxes are increased as its based on consumption by the public. IF the public aint buying because it costs too much, tax revenue goes down, not up
How has lowering the corporate tax rate created jobs thus far? cera, we’re waiting.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:36 pmI see that the RNC dispatched one of its interns to lie about the connection between drilling and gas prices.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:36 pmcera Says:
Hey, look up Ireland and how it turned its economy around by reducing taxes
Look at our economy after Bush lowered taxes against corporations. Let us concentrate on the HERE and the NOW cera. Stay with us here.
Again, how has lowering the corporate tax rate helped stave off job loss?
August 7th, 2008 at 12:38 pmCera~
August 7th, 2008 at 12:41 pmYou do realize that Ireland has been represented by a Center-Left coalition since basically 1983? That they have been moving further left as the Green Party makes gains?
Jeebus… yeah, the economic policies of a Leftist Coalition have done wonders for Irelands economy, thanks for pointing it out…
Oh, and Healthcare is free and public.
cera Says:
How has lowering the corporate tax rate created jobs thus far? cera, we’re waiting.
next to Japan, we have the 2nd highest corporate tax rate. If you want to raise taxes on large corporation like the airline and the auto companies- go ahead
Dubious at best…but whatever…how about a citation?
Going with your “fact,” when they were LOWERED by Bush, we kept losing more and more jobs. Why did that happen? Because they weren’t LOWERED enough? Why would doing something that should have one effect (lower taxes = job growth) have the opposite effect if it isn’t done to the right degree? Explain please.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:43 pmNiffy, interesting anlysis. I agree with you that the nation is best served by a split of power, but overall, Democratic presidents have a significantly better economic track record over a number of factors (GDP growth, employment, deficits) than Republicans over the past sixty years.
One point I’d disagree with is that Johnson’s victory in 1964 was due to a perceived “moderate’ character to his administration. The political climate was different then, as the divisiveness that has fueled Republican national strategy for the past four decades was struggling through a messy birth with Goldwater’s candidacy — not that Goldwater was that divisive; but he was a stong conservative and his emergence gave the conservative wing of the party the motivation to assert itself. Over the next decade or so the Republican Party was flushed of any liberal Republicans (yes, there were some back then) and the sharp ideological divide we’re so familiar with was born in the divide-and-conquer strategy of Nixon (who was also rather moderate in policy, compared to today’s Republicans).
Johnson was very liberal on civil rights, the hot-button issue of the day, and at the time, prevailing wisdom was that Democrats were the party of strong, hawkish national defense, Republicans the party of isolationism.
In short, it was a very different political landscape. But Johnson’s run to the middle in ‘64 was kind of a no-brainer, against Goldwater.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:43 pmcera Says:
did you know that Bush had the longest running economic growth over any other President- fact- look it up
Then why is unemployment continuing to rise? How do you define “economic growth”? Are you for real?
August 7th, 2008 at 12:44 pmI am of a differing opinion. Please explain why there is always a financial debacle when republicans get in office and apply thier cure for all….de-regulation.
happened under hoover….happened under raygun….happening now under bush, again.
seems like a pattern to me.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:44 pmNiffy
August 7th, 2008 at 12:46 pmIncidents like the S&L and sub-prime scandal are by design. They are for the sole purpose of taking money from the middle and lower class and putting it in the pockets of the wealthy minority of Americans.
#
cera Says:
Again, how has lowering the corporate tax rate helped stave off job loss
well, we have had about 5% unemployment for the past 7 yrs which is historically low, we have the Dems in Congress telling us we need the illegal laborers because of all the jobs needing done, what else do you want?
Then why are we still losing jobs? Read the thread cera. Look at the title.
Also, the way we define unemployment is bogus. It only counts those that are currently enrolled with unemployment benefits. It’s an artificial number that doesn’t count those that have run out of eligibility for beneifts and still can’t find work.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:47 pmcera, you are truly so confused that I have no idea how to help you find your way out of your tangled maze of misconceptions.
As soon as one of your misconceptions is identified and dismantled, you swing on a vine to the next, and you perch there for a while until that one is chopped down. Then you’re off to the next and the next and the next, skimming through the treetops of a tangled, dense overgrowth of misconceptions.
But you seem happy there. I guess it’s your natural habitat.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:49 pmI would say unemployment loss is due to the restrction of oil supply- thanks Nancy
“BURNING STRAWMAN ON ISLE 105, BURNING STRAWMAN ISLE 105″
August 7th, 2008 at 12:53 pmDo any of you guys run a succeful business out there?
Since you don’t, but I do, I’ll tell you, raise prices as the market demands, so over the past 4 years, our average prices have only increased about 10 percent.
We make money hand-over-fist. It’s a service/entertainment business.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:56 pmcera Says:
I would say unemployment loss is due to the restrction of oil supply- thanks Nancy
This makes ZERO sense.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:03 pmcera
I mean, we want unemployment loss. Your mastery of the English language certainly didn’t earn you your supposed 50k parttime gig.
I smell a rat…
August 7th, 2008 at 1:04 pmSome trolls are funny. cera is not one of these.
You haven’t even addressed the main point of the thread one bit.
Helath care and the federal deficit AREN’T the topics.
Please answer my questions on post 64. Thanks!
August 7th, 2008 at 1:05 pmcera Says:
ok, any loss of employment is because high gas prices will tank the economy. restricting supply is the fault of nancy pelosi
This is a complete lie and still doesn’t make sense. How do you do that?
August 7th, 2008 at 1:07 pmYou can’t. You’ve simply stated how off base your views of the way the world works are. You haven’t addressed the topic YET. You’ve been on tangents this whole thread, ranging from converative environmentalists to socialist Canada, to who knows what.
You’re incoherent. A 6th grader could see that.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:15 pmPlus, none of what you just said jives with your spiel about the economy experiencing “unprecedented” growth under Bush (laugh!) or how unemployment is historically low.
So which is it?
Also, I thought you claimed high corporate taxes killed jobs, and now it’s fuel costs.
You make ZERO sense.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:17 pmIf your really interested in where the economy is going, you might want to check out this movie trailer. The Movie I.O.U.S.A. will be in theaters this month.
David Walker, former comptroller for the US government, who resigned earlier this year, now heads the Peter G. Peterson Foundation which is devoted to warning the public about the looming bankruptcy of the US government. I have just discovered that they have a movie coming out in theaters in a few weeks and you might want to send the link below onto friends and family to help get the word out. A movie trailer is available at a link on their web site The name of the movie is I.O.U.S.A. This movie won the 2008 Sundance festival award.
http://www.pgpf.org/
August 7th, 2008 at 1:17 pmBoo, cera killed this thread hard.
You stink at presenting a clear, logical viewpoint.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:17 pmcera_goony says:
I am 41 yrs old, have a 300k house thats paid for and am semi retired. I have never paid a dime of interest on a credit card, and have saved money and just paid cash for a new car. I make about 50-60k a yr parttime.
Gawd. Where have I heard this BS before?
Hey! Are you our favorite misogynist wonder boy, JMH?
August 7th, 2008 at 1:21 pmWell yes, your house is paid for because you LIVE WITH YOUR PARENTS!!!
Now, tell us the story of Urban Heat, Mr. Ivy League Stanford dude!
cera misogynist hendler Says:
personal attacks always result when the ‘other’ side has no argument– keep um coming I find them mildly humorous
derailing the thread because you can’t debate is what I find amusing.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:33 pmOh, and the consistent changing of your posting name.
LOL/Little jason is back….Let’s see at ten cent’s per post how much is our old little flakie troll making today..? Well I’m not wasting my time posting any responses to this wacko…She will have to earn her keep the old fashioned way, standing on a corner in fish net stocking with a tin cup….P, B & J…
August 7th, 2008 at 1:42 pmRalph, a genuine thank you for that information on the Johnson and the 60’s. I would like to see a return to that more moderate path by all parties and it is heartening to see the (slow) rise of moderate politicians again in the Midwest at least.
However, in regards to Republican vs. Democratic heads of state and their various economic factors, the following chart (caution: Heritage.org link) ranks Presidents in regards to unemployment. Discounting the war economy presidents, you do get Johnson and Clinton at the top. To be fair it is Clinton’s second term with the Republican Congress under him. Overall I think the graph for unemployment at least shows Democrats are not “significantly better” than Republicans, rather, that the two are roughly comparable.
It is harder to find a handy graph for President and GDP growth, but according to an article documenting GDP growth under Bush at 7.2 in 2003 they mention “U.S. economic growth surged in the third quarter at the fastest pace in nearly two decades.” So Bush had the highest in the past 20 years, going back to a height not hit since Reagan was in office. This tends to say, at least recently, Republican presidents had higher GDP growth than Clinton, but I will be the first to admit without better evidence, this house of cards could fall apart in a soft breeze.
As per debt, I could be skewered for this but I do not see national debt as that big of an issue as long as the number isn’t in the trillions (current no-no). Debt spending can be tolerated if circumstances permit and the ability to get back to a surplus are readily available. With huge outlays coming for social programs, this position is becoming obsolete unless spending for these programs decreases to acceptable levels.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:47 pmSee, the problem with cera is that “sixth grade economics” is far too simplistic for real world situations.
Yet this is his economics.
I continually find myself amazed at how many stone idiots are able to pay their mortgages and car payments. I guess intelligence doesn’t have a lot to do with making money.
That’s not to say that intelligence is a handicap; it’s not. It just doesn’t have much to do with it.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:47 pmYou can debate any way you like — with yourself on Word Processor. In the meantime, we’re flagging you.
UnAmerican pos.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:49 pmcera Says:
I am not Jason, have no idea who that is
August 7th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Amnesia sucks, huh? Me thinks who also have no idea about proper grammar and puntuation.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:52 pmNiffy, since you introduced a Heritage Foundation chart, I feel justified in countering with a solid article by Michael Kinsley anlyzing this very question.
the article is from 2005, but I think it’s safe to say that the economic performance of the Bush Economy over the intervening three years has not altered the results.
It’s pretty interesting reading. Enjoy.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:53 pmFred,
I usually try to stay away from class warfare claims, but my understanding of the fiasco is that banks were making loans they shouldn’t have to unqualified clients that couldn’t pay for them. They relied on the housing boom to increase their home equity to sustain their loans, and when equity froze and dipped, they went under.
The problem was banks and lenders making loans that they normally would not have under different circumstances. The real question is did they make the loans because of the booming market, or because of government policies that dictated they loan to at-risk clients? I know what I think, but it leads to a discussion I do not want to get into in this thread.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:54 pmjason cera hendler Says:
debate?, all I get is assumptions about my philosophy and am called the most obscene things. I wont debate someone unless I get civil responses. its that simple
Translation:
August 7th, 2008 at 1:55 pmI’m here to disrupt. I made a pretty asinine an*logy from the Clinton era, to which reasonable responses were made, to which I couldn’t refute, and thus, I side stepped the issue, and started another asinine subject. its that simple.
Oh, and I’m still a virgin!!!
jason misogynist cera hendler Says:
I have a torn tendon on my 2nd left proximal phalanx, which makes typing difficult
You always have an excuse, my boy. Always an excuse.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:57 pmLike when you claimed you have Asperger’s Disease, and that’s why you’re a 41 year old virgin who’s never dated.
True enough, but deficit spending should be used as a short-term strategy, not as a permanent condition. As I understand mainstream economic theory (an imperfect understanding to be sure) it is wise for a nation to accumulate a surplus when the economy is strong (like Clinton did) and to go into deficit when the economy is weak, as a measure to pump more capital into the economy and keep people employed.
Bush was working on draining the surplus even before we were attacked. He said, “it’s your money, not the governments.” Then, when the economic slowdown hit after 9/11, the cushion Clinton had piled up was almost gone. bush plunged into deficit spending almost immediately, when fiscal policy based on sound fundamentals rather than childish resentments might have helped carry us through with less damage to our credit rating and ultimately less addition to the national debt.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:59 pmOkay, so that excuses your typing… what’s your excuse for your faulty thinking?
August 7th, 2008 at 2:00 pmcera Says:
ok, let me put it in 6th grade economics. Lets say that Winnebago, who manufacturs out of Iowa cannot sell any of their product because of high gas prices. They begin to layoff people. The one person in this country who wont even let a vote on drilling/alt energy is Pelosi. Her obstruction is keeping prices high. Obama saying for months he will not drill is also keeping prices high and supply low. how much simpler can I make it?
Gas prices are falling. That completely undercuts your argument, but continue making an ass out of yourself.
August 7th, 2008 at 2:02 pmRalph, thank you for the link, it was an interesting read. Unfortunately I think Kinsley skews the argument based on the years in question that he studies. He mentioned 1981 as a starting point, and cleverly attributes it to the Republicans, “let’s start our measurement in 1981, the date when many Republicans believe that life as we know it began.” Why start in 1981? Because Jimmy Carter was President before that and that would not help his claims that Democrats (read: Clinton as the only Democrat President in the period) are the better stewards of the economy.
So the comparison Kinsley makes pits Clinton, previously governor of a more conservative state anyway, against Reagan and the two Bush Presidencies. I already argued that Clinton was more fiscally conservative because of the Republican controlled Congress, and I do not think the article refutes any of the claims I made against a bipartisan split considering the pitfalls he stumbles into. Push the study back to include more than a single Democratic President not heavily skewed already to be fiscally conservative, and I think that would change the findings dramatically to be more parable.
August 7th, 2008 at 2:10 pmNiffy, did you read the whole article? Because Kinsley did not start in 1981. He started in 1959. He chose 1981 as an additional starting point because that was the start of the “Reagan Revolution”. Makes sense to me.
Kinsley spends quite a bit of time examining economic records back to Kennedy/Johnson and Nixon, as well as Carter and the Reagan era. He does a sub-anlysis of Reagan through Bush 43 but that’s not the entire anlysis by any means.
it sounds like all you saw was the 1981-present stuff.
August 7th, 2008 at 2:14 pmHer obstruction is keeping prices high.
Bullshit, o’ one so full of shit.
You elected an oil criminal crony.
It’s actually YOUR fault stupid shit.
The truth hurts, but when the glove fits, you must NOT acquit.
August 7th, 2008 at 4:24 pmMaybe its true, maybe its not. If the econemy was was that bad would I-Phones and Wii consoles still be flying off the shelves? These are examples of non essential things bought wth disposable income….
August 7th, 2008 at 4:37 pmbeef_tip Says:
Maybe its true, maybe its not.
Time to go cash in your McBush tokens for a free penile implant.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:51 pmU have to give to Bush he knows how to put the blame on someone else. Bill Clinton u did a fine job of messing up our economy. Bill u raised taxes and jobs went up. Mr. tax cuts lowed tax and eveyone out of a job. What a country. Now lets elect M.C. Cain and continue the jobless rate decline.
August 8th, 2008 at 2:25 pm