New labor report: 663,000 jobs lost last month, 2 million lost in 2009, unemployment at 25-year high.
By on Apr 3rd, 2009 at 9:45 am
New labor report: 663,000 jobs lost last month, 2 million lost in 2009, unemployment at 25-year high.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the economy lost 663,000 jobs last month, as national unemployment rises to a 25-year high, at 8.5 percent. Two million jobs have been lost in the first three months of 2009 alone, compared to about 3 million lost in all of 2008; in total, 5.1 million jobs have been shed since the recession began in December 2007. The CalculatedRisk blog called today’s jobs report “extremely weak,” and used this chart to show how serious this recession is compared to past recessions:
However, as the New York Times notes, “Workers are starting to see tax credits from the $787 billion stimulus package show up in their paychecks, and government-financed projects to build bridges and repair roads are ramping up.”
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
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Hannity
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
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
When does this OFFICIALLY becomes the GREAT DEPRESSION II?
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:48 amThis is sad. Ohio has been hard hit. Still, I think it will get better, the question is when?
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:49 amThank goodness for that Massive stimulus package. It seems to be really curbing the loss of jobs in this country. Hey but at least those that have jobs are seeing a little bit extra in their paychecks. That is just ohh so helpful for the unemployed.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:52 amThe minute a Democrat takes office.
Now that the Democrats are in power, we can start calling things by their correct names again. Once again a depression is a depression; torture is torture.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:53 amI patiently await the trolls to sabotage this thread and blame President Obama for the high unemployment rate.
(whoops, Nitch is already here)
I’ll equate it to a water slide. Once you are 2/3rd of the way down, you can’t just stop and climb up.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:07 amFirst you must slow your momentum. Then you stop. Then you get up and SLOWLY climb the stairs again.
To blame President Obama for the current gravitational pull on the economy is stupid, unintelligent, and reeks of DittoHead mentality.
To expect a full recovery less than 3 months into his presidency is irresponsible.
Nitch Says:
Thank goodness for that Massive stimulus package. It seems to be really curbing the loss of jobs in this country.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:52 am
________
I don’t remember there being a magic wand included in the stimulus package that would instantaneously fix every aspect of the economy in the space of a month.
Do explain your alternate four-week recovery plan that would have turned the economy around by now.
Lemme guess – tax cuts for everybody! Yeah, that’ll help the unemployed.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:08 amDRxJapanese Beetle Says:
I’ll equate it to a water slide. Once you are 2/3rd of the way down, you can’t just stop and climb up.
First you must slow your momentum. Then you stop. Then you get up and SLOWLY climb the stairs again.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:07 am
___________
No offense, but that sounds like a totally lame water slide. Couldn’t there at least be a big pool at the bottom we can splash into?
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:11 amUncle Ho Says:
When does this OFFICIALLY becomes the GREAT DEPRESSION II?
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:48 am
___________
Great Depression… or GREATEST Depression?
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:14 amWe’ve seen a slight increase in housing sales, and retail spending. The stock market is gaining again. Jobs are always the last to recover. The Administration has pointed this out repeatedly. It will take longer for that to slow down and reverse itself. At that point – probably the end of this year, we’ll begin to see expansion again, and then recovery.
It takes time…
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:16 amWell, as Eric Cantor put so well yesterday, this is really just a situation where the Dems are over reacting. You can ignore those factual numbers that you display here. Because Rush Limbaugh, Ron Paul and Eric Cantor will tell you that it’s plain old free markets doin’ their thing.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:16 amtoasterhead,
You call this lame?
This is our economy in a nutshell. And worse, once you do slow your momentum, you get one hell of a butt floss as a consolidation prize!
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:16 amconsolidation
consolation
practically the same damn thing, no?
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:18 amEven better for the unemployed are those Republican governors refusing to accept stimulus money to extend unemployment benefits.
Republicans–throwing bricks at an automobile and then mocking the dude driving a dented car.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:20 amO.T. …..
God bless the Iowa Supreme Court! Marriage equality comes to the heartland.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:21 amUncle Ho Says:
When does this OFFICIALLY becomes the GREAT DEPRESSION II?
As far as I’m concerned this is a depression already. Most people I know are either unemployed or so far into ever-increasing debt there’s no light to see at the end of their tunnel. Personally, I’m self-employed and have had seen my income drop by about 80% in the last 18 months. I have been forced to cash out my paltry pension (at a reduced rate, due to my age) just to pay my debt and stay out of foreclosure. Retirement at any age isn’t looking too good for me at any age. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t the rich love the rest of us to work until we die so we’ll be less of a drain on the so-called entitlement programs? I am hard-pressed to find anything I can feel economically hopeful about, either for myself or for the country as a whole. We are sooooo screwed.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:23 amDRxJapanese Beetle Says:
toasterhead,
You call this lame?
This is our economy in a nutshell. And worse, once you do slow your momentum, you get one hell of a butt floss as a consolidation prize!
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:16 am
_________________
Ok, that’s pretty badass, but I’m still willing to bet that there’s a pool at the bottom.
And you have a good point. That water park, made to look like an alpine ski resort in winter, IS our economy in a nutshell. It’s a complete contrivance, built up to dizzying heights on nothing but illusions and trickery, leaving us with nowhere to go but down. The only thing left we have to choose is HOW we fall back to Earth.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:25 amMinus the extraneous “had” in sentence #3 of my prior post ;)
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:27 amAnd the extraneous “at any age” in sentence #5. sheesh I need to go back to bed or fire my editor :)~
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:28 amExit Stage Left Says:
And the extraneous “at any age” in sentence #5. sheesh I need to go back to bed or fire my editor :)~
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:28 am
_________
While we’re nitpicking, the “personally” in “Personally, I’m self-employed” was completely unnecessary and redundant. I mean, it’s not like you can be impersonally self-employed, right?
Well, you could try, I suppose, but I doubt it’d increase your client base…
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:33 amSorry I cant help but make those statements to get the ball rolling. I admit that I would not expect any thing to miraculously turn around this economy. Weather there was a stimulus bill or not. But that does not immediately make the stimulus bill our best option. Saving the big banks without tracing where the money goes is ridiculous, and it probably did save jobs (in china).
Small business is the backbone of this country, with the largest percentage of private non-farm workers, and it should have been the first to be saved. A big firm firing 20,000 here, and another 7000 is NOTHING compared to the amount of small businesses that are disappearing from our great country. Yet lets go ahead and tax Sole-proprietors more. In my mind small-business/entrepreneurship should be the only thing in this country considered too big to fail.
For instance I would guarantee that if you let the major auto companies fail, that within a few months there would be some enterprising billionaire looking to build a better american, with a competitive business structure and a green energy model. But ohh hell no, we cant let that happen, we have to save these idiots, and allow them to continue creating a crap product that cant compete.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:40 amchiroptera toasterhead Says:
While we’re nitpicking, the “personally” in “Personally, I’m self-employed” was completely unnecessary and redundant. I mean, it’s not like you can be impersonally self-employed, right?
Thanks for the grammatical flogging, dude. I promise to use all my free time boning up on it ;)
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:42 amOn second thought…..I think I’ll use my free time to perfect my napping skills :)~
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:43 amOkay, got it. Thanks.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:45 amUnbelievable
Keep in mind that when a home is foreclosed on it shows as a sale of that home due to the deed transfer. A foreclosure of a partially or fully completed building project will book as the sale of a new home as the product of a deed transfer of a home not resided in. Bank liquidations at auction of either will show as a sale of that home again due to the deed transfer according to definition of the deed.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:48 amNitch sez:
Yeah, that Bush stimulus package last year really turned the economy around, didn’t it?
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:50 amRalph,
I never said tax cuts. For instance you could pay off all the outstanding SBA loans, save an enormous of businesses from failing, and give the SBA dramatically more room to lend to new start ups.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:55 amWhen are people going to mention that peak-oil and the high cost of energy production is sinking the world economy? This will recover but unless we build a green energy infrastructure, we will not be vibrant in the long-term. Also the driving force of cheap oil can not be replaced with green energy so I think we all need to rethink how to build economies. Economics needs to become more local. If we don’t start thinking that way, we will have this depression drag out for a long long time. I am not talking about becoming isolationist. Free and fair trade is great. But we need to have policies that support local economics (local farming as compared to industrial farming for example, mass transit is another).
The Party is Over as Richard Heinberg has so clearly stated. We had an opportunity to build a better economy and country and we blew it. Carter placed solar panels on the White House. Reagan immediately took them down as “they sent a bad message to business” – the oil business that is. It said NO to the creative green businesses. We are paying the price for ignorance and electing officials that are bought and paid for by the oil industry.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:58 amI get the sense that people here think this is about political leanings. At no point did I identify which stimulus or any party affiliation. I have only pointed out that I disagree with stimulus package as currently being deployed. I thought that this was Think Progress, not Think Useless. Is anyone going to apply critical thinking skills at all here, or are assumptions and cookie-cutter responses all that is available on this site?
I personally voted for Obama but I refuse to be one of those sheep that thinks he shits gold. He is my elected official and I will critique the hell out of him as much as I please, especially since he got my vote, and I would expect everyone on this site to do the same, other wise what is the purpose.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:05 amWhen does this OFFICIALLY becomes the GREAT [BUSH] DEPRESSION ?
Being in the Newspaper business, and just being laid off today, I can say, without fear of exageration, that the Bush’s Depression has made me Greatly Depressed!
Bastard!
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:07 amSonofNitch Says:
I personally voted for Obama…
There ya go, toasterhead.
I have only pointed out that I disagree with stimulus package as currently being deployed. I thought that this was Think Progress, not Think Useless.
Concern Troll much?
Is anyone going to apply critical thinking skills at all here, or are assumptions and cookie-cutter responses all that is available on this site?
And your magic wand, stimulate the economy to Clinton era 90’s is…?
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:08 amDRxJapanese Beetle
My magic wand would be to post arguments and concepts on this site to see how they are received, countered, and dismantled. Thus allowing for a better understanding and responsible discussion. I have this strange habit of wanting to improve my perspective. But this is starting to seem futile. But at least you can do something cute with my name, ohh joy.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:17 amdoes being condescending help your perspective. Perhaps you can help me to understand how with your engaging and thoughtful responses
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:23 amNitch Says:
Small business is the backbone of this country, with the largest percentage of private non-farm workers, and it should have been the first to be saved. A big firm firing 20,000 here, and another 7000 is NOTHING compared to the amount of small businesses that are disappearing from our great country. Yet lets go ahead and tax Sole-proprietors more. In my mind small-business/entrepreneurship should be the only thing in this country considered too big to fail.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:40 am
___________
You make a very good point – small businesses are absolutely critical to our economy. However, I fail to see how a sole-proprietor making more than $250,000 a year is suddenly “prone to failure” just because his/her tax rate goes up 3%, especially with the gifts given to small businesses with expanded credit, eliminating the capital gains tax, and tax perks for R&D.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:23 amkrystalviews Says:
Being in the Newspaper business, and just being laid off today, I can say, without fear of exageration, that the Bush’s Depression has made me Greatly Depressed!
Bastard!
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:07 am
___________
:(
Guess Bush finally won his War on the Media after all, huh?
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:25 amDr. Moth Matt Says:
This is clearly the fault of Clinton and Obama.
___________
You forgot Carter, Johnson (no, not Andrew… the OTHER Johnson), Kennedy, Truman, and FDR… especially FDR.
There’s PLENTY of blame to go around.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:25 amToasterhead,
For sole proprietorship, The profits are the owners income. So while yes a 3% increase may marginally effect his income, it will not support that owner to grow.
For instance, that owner will personally lose income proportional to the salary of the next person he hires. So he has a set of living standards, just like everyone else, that he seeks to maintain. He is losing income due to greater taxes, reduced sales. He is losing net worth from lowered property values, falling markets. What is the likely hood that he will hire another employee. So potentially there is an unemployed individual out there losing out on 30k a year, that will directly effect his life. But he can feel good Knowing that the person who was going to hire him is paying more in taxes, so after that filters through our incredibly efficient government it will make its way back to him.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:37 amDRxJapanese Beetle Says:
SonofNitch Says:
I personally voted for Obama…
There ya go, toasterhead.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:08 am
_______________
I have to give a pass on that one. It’s definitely possible to impersonally vote for people – especially on hack-prone electronic machines. It’s how Bush got elected twice, after all.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:39 amNitch, we are accustomed to seeing concern trolls here, expressing their support for progressive principles while wringing their hands about issues that closely track with right-wing talking points. Your comments sound a little like that routine.
Perhaps we jumped to a conclusion with you that was not warranted.
Perhaps. Time will tell.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:42 amYou make a very good point – small businesses are absolutely critical to our economy. However, I fail to see how a sole-proprietor making more than $250,000 a year is suddenly “prone to failure” just because his/her tax rate goes up 3%, especially with the gifts given to small businesses with expanded credit, eliminating the capital gains tax, and tax perks for R&D.
It is my understanding that $250,000 tax is on income after business deductions. Am I wrong about this?
If after business expenses people have more than $250,000 in income, they should pay more taxes. We are all in this together whether we like that or not.
Money allows for such an abstraction. If a person had a huge silo filled with grain and no one else in the community had any, do you think we should allow that person to hoard their grain while everyone else starved? The abstraction of money allows us to say sure.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:42 amNitch Says:
For instance, that owner will personally lose income proportional to the salary of the next person he hires. So he has a set of living standards, just like everyone else, that he seeks to maintain. He is losing income due to greater taxes, reduced sales. He is losing net worth from lowered property values, falling markets.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:37 am
____________
All the more reason to use economic stimulus to get capital flowing in the economy, and to invest in power and transportation and communications infrastructure that will maximize the efficiency of these small businesses.
If the economy is stagnant and nobody is buying anyway, it’s rather a moot point that the sole-proprietor’s tax rate is marginally increased, isn’t it? That would seem to be the least of his/her worries.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:44 amPagan_American Says:
If after business expenses people have more than $250,000 in income, they should pay more taxes. We are all in this together whether we like that or not.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:42 am
____________
Exactly. I mean, would it kill them to switch to generic caviar for a little while?
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:53 amToasterhead,
I wouldn’t call it the least of his worries, I would say it is an additional worry. How many additional worries do you need right now?
I think that people seem to bunch all business owners together. They forget that entrepreneurs while making a very nice income, founded upon their own ingenuity, are just like the rest of us. You buy a house proportionate to your income, so due they. You send your kid to a college you can afford, They do the same. When things are tough on you, It is also tough on them. We all live to the extent our income will allow us.
But there is one big difference. If sales are down 15% at my company, I still make 30k a year. Where as the owner will lose a significant amount of their income. If a millionaire lose all his worth (as a lot have) I am sure many here cheer for his downfall, but what I see is the loss of millions of dollars of hiring power.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:55 amDr Moth say: Let me guess, this is Obama’s fault too.
No that is a statement of fact. I am not sure who you blame for facts, but not Obama. I guess if I had to I would blame God for facts.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:15 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:23 am
I fail to see how a sole-proprietor making more than $250,000 a year is suddenly “prone to failure” just because his/her tax rate goes up 3%…
_________________________________________________________
Especially when you figure that the higher tax rate ONLY applies to the amount OVER $250,000, not the entire wad. Which means that somebody with a taxable income of — say, $280,000 (Joe-the-Plumber’s fantasy business) — only has to pay $900 more, not $8,400 more.
The Joe-the-Plumbers of the world (as well as all the wingnuts screaming like stuck pigs) always neglect to mention that little fact.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:15 pmGood news for Rich Righties.
They LOVE them some cheap labor.
This is how they create the supply.
Hope those “working class” righties don’t mind competing with Honduran 12-year-olds for jobs.
I’m sure they’ll find a way to blame the wrong causes for their sorry circumstances though. Their “leaders” will help them find those unworthy targets.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:36 pm98% of all small businesses won’t be affected by President Obama’s tax increase on the 5% of the wealthiest Americans.
The vast majority of small businesses make way under $250k and on top of that, they create the vast majority of the jobs out there, something like 80% of all jobs.
I love it how Republicans act like they are the party of small businesses but in reality they are the party of big corporations who destroy small businesses.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:36 pmThe reverse is also true; if sales are up, you still make the same salary but the owner makes more. It’s part of the risk/reward character of business.
The fact that you are “sure” many here would cheer for the downfall of a millionaire is a red flag for those of us who still harbor suspicions of your intent. It is a knee-jerk assumption no more justifiable on its face than my own earlier characterization of your position as “more tax cuts” and reeks of right-wing simplistic prejudice about liberals and progressives.
It doesn’t close the book, as you still seem willing to discuss with some reasonableness and I for one appreciate the effort.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:42 pmRalph, as usual, well said.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:51 pmNitch Says:
Sorry but I cant help but be a troll. Gotta be a jerk to get the ball rolling. Nothing starts a discussion like a mindless inane comment about pretty much NOTHING
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:56 pmAnd I officially became one of that statistic last week. The only thing I am really worried about is health care. The government is paying 65% of my Cobra for 9 months but after that I’m on my own. Being over 60 with a pre-existing condition means that when my Cobra subsidy runs out, I will join the ranks of the uninsured. That’s why I would like to see the Obama administration concentrate of getting his health care for all bill passed at this time rather than declaring war on the Republicans by prosecuting the Bush Crime Family. The prosecution can wait, our economy and health care can’t.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:59 pmwelcome to the club, Bilbo – as much as I’d rather not see you in it, too.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:01 pmNitch Says:
For instance, that owner will personally lose income proportional to the salary of the next person he hires. So he has a set of living standards, just like everyone else, that he seeks to maintain. He is losing income due to greater taxes, reduced sales. He is losing net worth from lowered property values, falling markets.
So you are saying that it’s OK for the average worker who loses his job because of the economy to have to lower his standard of living, but it’s not OK for the business owner to have to lower his standard? Why is that?
And who is to blame for his lower standard of living? Might it not be the Bush Administration who tanked our economy? If that business owner is making a net income of over $250,000 and he all of a sudden has to pay 3% more taxes on the net income over $250,000, how is that going to force him to lower his standard of living? He might have to give up a few restaurant dinners a month, but he will still be more than able to put food on his table and send his kids to college. I find it very difficult to feel sorry for that business owner.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:06 pmRalph,
When things are going well, I do have the occasional bonus. But I never get a negative bonus. Though it is feasible that if it gets real bad I could get a cut in wages, or fired. But if it came to that it would mean overall bad news for the owner as well.
To explain, I am a big supporter of Small business. I was an entrepreneur/small business management major, I was the president of the Collegiate Entrepreneurs Organization (CEO), My Grandmother, Mother, and Father all own their own individual companies, all of which are hurting right now.
From what I can tell on the ground level, nothing is being done to help them. So I may get dramatic with my expressions, as do a lot of members. You will not find me commenting on many political posts, I am mainly concerned with the Economy. To go with that I do not feel that the best steps are being taken at the moment.
But my concern is that some members here would support Obama regardless of the steps he takes. He could increase Tax Cuts, and the same people would still praise him. My objective is to not praise but to question if it is right. I can accept being wrong, but I must first be convinced.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:08 pmNitch Says:
I wouldn’t call it the least of his worries, I would say it is an additional worry. How many additional worries do you need right now?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Either he is clearing 250 grand a year and needs to pitch in or he isnt and wont be effected. I dont see the worry.
I think that people seem to bunch all business owners together.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I dont see any thinking. I see repitition of silly talking points and vague unsubstantiated baseless assertions generalized on everyone even though I never saw any such claim on the board.
They forget that entrepreneurs while making a very nice income, founded upon their own ingenuity, are just like the rest of us. You buy a house proportionate to your income, so due they. You send your kid to a college you can afford, They do the same. When things are tough on you, It is also tough on them. We all live to the extent our income will allow us.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
WWWWAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH anyone clearing 250 grand a year is taking advantage of the huge investment society made. He is employing workers educated by the system. Maybe a small business loan. Transporting goods on the tax created highway system using the world class communication system created with tax dollars. He can kick in a little more. The amount he was paying under Clinton when ALL income levels prospered. His contribution will hopefully help turn the economy around which is in his best interest if he wants customers.
But there is one big difference. If sales are down 15% at my company, I still make 30k a year. Where as the owner will lose a significant amount of their income.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
And it if drops to the level he no longer clears at least 250 grand then he wont be effected by the tax and is irrelevant if it doesnt he can afford to pay the tax rate he paid under Clinton
If a millionaire lose all his worth (as a lot have) I am sure many here cheer for his downfall, but what I see is the loss of millions of dollars of hiring power.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
How many of those millionares made their money buying and selling and didnt employ a single person? That is always the canard conservatives use when kissing rich ass. The wealthy have gotten the lions share of tax cuts which have come around every election cycle since 1980 the economy is in the tank its time for them to give some back. Especially since the righ benefit MORE from societies investment than workers do.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:08 pmtombaker Says:
welcome to the club, Bilbo – as much as I’d rather not see you in it, too.
It’s really not too bad. I am economically prepared for it since I am debt free other than a small mortgage which is being paid by my rental. I can survive until my unemployment runs out and if we are still in this financial mess and I can’t find a job, I can always take early retirement. I’m just worried about health insurance. If I have to pay the premiums the for-profit health care companies will charge me, I won’t be able to survive financially. There’s something very wrong with that picture.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:09 pmNitch Says:
From what I can tell on the ground level, nothing is being done to help them. So I may get dramatic with my expressions, as do a lot of members. You will not find me commenting on many political posts, I am mainly concerned with the Economy. To go with that I do not feel that the best steps are being taken at the moment
Then you must not be paying attention because Obama is passing legislation to make loans to small businesses much more available and affordable.
And, his Stimulus plan is there to help small businesses remain in business by creating and preserving jobs. I recently lost my job. So, I am not stopping daily at my local coffee shop to buy a latte and a scone on my way to work. So, because I lost my income, that coffee shop owner is minus one customer (and there are many more like me). Now, if I find another job thanks to the Stimulus, I will be buying my morning latte once again.
So, perhaps you can tell us what you think the best steps are to revive our economy and to stop our slide into a Depression?
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:14 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
There is DEFINITLY something wrong with that picture. This is a big reason we need a universal healthcare system
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:14 pmNitch – I run my own small business.
My main concern right now is having customers who have $ to spend. I serve customers of every conceivable type – from janitors to CEO’s and everywhere in between.
The tax question is purely a secondary, academic exercise. If no one comes through the door and plunks down some $, it really doesn’t matter what % of what is being bandied about by pols. By the same token, I could have 100% of my taxes waived, and that still wouldn’t create the budget necessary to add staff or expand.
The right policy is the policy that puts the greatest amounts of $ in the greatest possible # of different hands. That creates the greatest # of possibilities – not putting it in the hands of the same old few, who will simply spend it to further elevate and insulate themselves.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:38 pmIf your concern is that “some members here would support Obama regardless of the steps he takes” then you haven’t spent much time here, or else you haven’t paid very close attention. Most of us support Obama, but I don’t know of anyone who hasn’t criticized something he’s done already. The fact that many of us are willing to give him some time to enact his policies before deciding that they’re failures could be seen by some predisposed to disparage TPers that we’re all in lockstep behind the President, but it’s actually not the case.
I fear that Obama’s team is too tightly aligned with Wall Street, and that the financial sector that’s being bailed out will not make the fundamental changes required for the economy to regain its footing, but I don’t know enough about finance to be sure.
I’m pretty sure, however, that the “bailing out” of small businesses you describe is unworkable due to the scale involved. I like the idea of using bailout fund to pay off small business and consumer debt, but that’s not gonna happen. And the amount of debt involved dwarfs the total already given to financial institutions.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:39 pmEugene,
Either he is clearing 250 grand a year and needs to pitch in or he isnt and wont be effected. I dont see the worry.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Well technically we all need to pitch in, My concern is with supporting entrepreneurs in a way that will give incentive to hire. It is my personal opinion that is far more efficient use of that 3% then running it through all the government channels to be collected in Washington and dispersed again amongst the people.
I dont see any thinking. I see repitition of silly talking points and vague unsubstantiated baseless assertions generalized on everyone even though I never saw any such claim on the board.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
That is based on a feeling I have been getting from society in general. It seems to me that the entrepreneur has gotten lost in all the media palabra. Since it is a feeling in general, it does not need to substantiated, because I do not hold it as fact.
WWWWAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH anyone clearing 250 grand a year is taking advantage of the huge investment society made. He is employing workers educated by the system. Maybe a small business loan. Transporting goods on the tax created highway system using the world class communication system created with tax dollars. He can kick in a little more. The amount he was paying under Clinton when ALL income levels prospered. His contribution will hopefully help turn the economy around which is in his best interest if he wants customers.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Society is taking advantage of the huge investment society made no matter your income level this is a non point.But society has also taken advantage of the huge risk that entrepreneurs have burdened. In the process everyone is rewarded. I do not see any memorials to those who have tried and failed, and have seen plenty of criticism for those that has succeeded.
And it if drops to the level he no longer clears at least 250 grand then he wont be effected by the tax and is irrelevant if it doesnt he can afford to pay the tax rate he paid under Clinton
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
My concern is that this drop in income also equates in closing the doors of the business, which is a far greater negative then the extra tax you get from the guy.
How many of those millionares made their money buying and selling and didnt employ a single person? That is always the canard conservatives use when kissing rich ass. The wealthy have gotten the lions share of tax cuts which have come around every election cycle since 1980 the economy is in the tank its time for them to give some back. Especially since the righ benefit MORE from societies investment than workers do.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:47 pm<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Not as many as those who didn’t.
Bilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
——————————————————————————–
And I officially became one of that statistic last week. The only thing I am really worried about is health care. The government is paying 65% of my Cobra for 9 months but after that I’m on my own
Consider yourself lucky. I just got laid off today from a Newspaper in Texas, after 10 years. Absolutely no heath care in the severance package!!! Good ol’ Texas!
I think I’ll drive over to 10149 Daria Place and throw all my OLD SHOES over the fence at Bush’ house!
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:49 pmIf a 3-4% change in a rate causes a business to fold, it wasn’t being run right in the first place.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:52 pmTomBaker,
The problem is that we could put an unlimited amount of money in every hand, we have the technology to do this. But the ensuing inflation would be bad for everyone. I think it is incredibly important to remember also the economic effects of the steps taken. You cant just hand out large amounts of money to a population that has a skewed understanding of debt and materialism and think it will fix the problem.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:01 pmwho said unlimited? i’m talking about putting people to work or back to work earning wages.
who said “let’s feed inflation”?
so it’s the “questionable moral character” of those at the bottom that is the problem?
are you offering an “Objectivist” analysis here?
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:05 pmI don’t understand how this relates to tom’s comment.
First of all, the idea that “we could put an unlimited amount of money in every hand, we have the technology to do this” is preposterous. Besides that, it’s a rather hysterical exaggeration that illuminates nothing about any proposals being made.
And when you say “You cant just hand out large amounts of money to a population that has a skewed understanding of debt and materialism” I presume you’re talking about American culture in general, right?
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:12 pmquote By John P. Hussman, Ph.D
As Milton Friedman has noted, the burden of government is not measured by how much it taxes, but by how much it spends. The impact is particularly severe when growth in entitlements is high and growth in productivity is low. This is why inflation exploded after the late 60’s, and why it came down after the early 1980’s. This is why the Germans suffered hyperinflation after World War I when its government decided to keep paying workers who had gone on strike.
Always and everywhere, rapid inflation is produced by excessive creation of government liabilities without a corresponding increase in the amount of goods produced by the economy. The Fed doesn’t control this. It doesn’t even matter much what form the liabilities take. If the Germans had decided to issue bonds to striking workers instead of money, bond prices would have been driven to ridiculously low levels, driving interest rates to extremely high levels, creating an unwillingness to hold non-interest bearing money, resulting in a rapid deterioration in the value of money, and hyperinflation just the same.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:19 pmNitch Says:
Eugene,
Well technically we all need to pitch in, My concern is with supporting entrepreneurs in a way that will give incentive to hire. It is my personal opinion that is far more efficient use of that 3% then running it through all the government channels to be collected in Washington and dispersed again amongst the people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The only incentive to hire is more business, that is more people willing to spend their money on the product produced. THAT would mean more people working which is the POINT of the government spending. Think about how many people got jobs because of the economic boom caused by rural electrification. How many work in the cellphone industry only POSSIBLE because of the satellite technology the R&D of which was COMPLETELY from taxpayer money. I dont think your logic holds
That is based on a feeling I have been getting from society in general. It seems to me that the entrepreneur has gotten lost in all the media palabra. Since it is a feeling in general, it does not need to substantiated, because I do not hold it as fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I have a feeling you are making arguments based on things you pull out of your ass. Since it is a feeling I dont need to support it. Wait, you admitted it.
Society is taking advantage of the huge investment society made no matter your income level this is a non point.But society has also taken advantage of the huge risk that entrepreneurs have burdened. In the process everyone is rewarded. I do not see any memorials to those who have tried and failed, and have seen plenty of criticism for those that has succeeded.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No it ISNT a non point. I use the highways to get to work. HL Hunt used them to build a trucking company and become a billionare. Thats fine. Good for him. However that means it isnt too much to ask that he kick back MORE to support this kind of investment since he got more out of it. There is some deserved criticism of those who succeeded. George Bush is a perfect example. He bankrupted every business he ever ran. He made his money by buying 2% of the Texas Rangers then used his FAMILY NAME to get a tax increase on the citizens of Arlington Texas to build the stadium. That made the Rangers worth a LOT more money and the GIFTED him 10% more of the team. The ONLY thing he succeeded in was fighting his way to the head of the line for the genetic lottery. There are many Bill Gates and Warren Buffets. Fine however they ALSO benifitted from societal investments. Bill wouldnt be mega rich without the societal investment to build the internet. So YES it is a valid point
My concern is that this drop in income also equates in closing the doors of the business, which is a far greater negative then the extra tax you get from the guy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are mixing scenarios. IF he closes his doors it wont be because of the TAX, that wont effect him unless he is clearing 250 grand. IF he closes his doors it will be because the economy SUCKS which the tax increase is meant to be part of the solution for.
Not as many as those who didn’t.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You have some evidence of that? Or did you just pull THAT out of your ass also? You DO realize that just because you have built this picture of the world in your head which is little more than a fantasy that it is silly to base your arguments on what FITS that picture if you cant in some way establish it is true, dont you?
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:23 pmRalph,
look above his most recent post. He stated to get as much money in as many different hands as possible.
it is not that preposterous,we could run printing presses until we are blue in the face which it seems like we are doing. a few years ago the world supply of US. dollars stood at about 1 trillion, after this current stimulus bill it will be about 15 trillion. Obama even stated this after the G20 conference yesterday. So in effect we will have a 15 fold increase in supply in dollars. With global decline in demand like the loss of our reserve status. Any basic understanding of economics will tell you there will have to some inflation as a reaction. The question is how severe.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:25 pmIt’s considered good form to provide a link when posting a quote like this.
When a link to an original source is lacking, one gets the impression that perhaps there is something missing.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:26 pmNitch Says:
Except that isnt all they are doing. The stimulus package also repairs infrastructure long ignored and invests in new technology for new jobs.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:27 pmNitch Says:
John WHO? Meanwhile Paul Krugman and Joeseph Stiglitz BOTH Nobel prize winners for economics say the real problem with the stimulus package is that it isnt big ENOUGH
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:29 pmturn on a TV
10 minutes of every hour consists of “Entrpeneurs” running ads.
When paid advertising hours roll around on many cable channels, it goes to 100% “Entrepeneurial” advertising.
Who could take an honest look around, and declare the spirit of PT Barnum dead?
The papers and news channels run stories almost daily on spirited Americans, put-upon by the downturn, reinventing themselves and taking a creative shot at going into business.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:31 pmNitch Says:
Yes but no one is TALKING about standing on a streetcorner handing out 100 dollar bills or burrying the money in the desert and waiting for it to be found. Rather putting people to WORK doing CONSTRUCTIVE WORK which hopefully will pay dividends down the road like the highway system did, like building the hydroelectric plants and rural electrification did.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:31 pmNitch Says: yada yada yada…
I notice you still haven’t answered the question I gave to you in #59. So, I’ll ask it again.
So, perhaps you can tell us what you think the best steps are to revive our economy and to stop our slide into a Depression?
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:32 pm“as much” – as is prudent and warranted
to
“as many” – as are able and willing to work
or do you really assume I’m a reckless idiot?
i wasn’t lying when I said I own and operate my own business
shouldn’t that earn me a little cred with a free market booster?
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:33 pmI understand now. Thank you.
I think it’s unfortunate that you chose to interpret tom’s comment as a call to simply pass out money. That seems a little simplistic, and even straw-mannish.
I agree. It’s an unworkable solution. It substitutes devaluation for debt. But your suggestion still strikes me as a hysterical response to tom’s comment, intent on avoiding the substance of his suggestion of The right policy is the policy that puts the greatest amounts of $ in the greatest possible # of different hands.
Where I read about a plan for distributing, you see a plan for printing more money.
I just find it curious, that’s all. It seems like a dodge. A sophisticated dodge, but a dodge nonetheless.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:34 pmyou got that right, ralph.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:35 pmNitch Says:
For instance I would guarantee that if you let the major auto companies fail, that within a few months there would be some enterprising billionaire looking to build a better american, with a competitive business structure and a green energy model. But ohh hell no, we cant let that happen, we have to save these idiots, and allow them to continue creating a crap product that cant compete
And in the mean time thousands of of those small businesses you are so fond of would also fail. The entrepreneur who would build those green cars wouldn’t come along fast enough to save the businesses and the jobs that would fail along with the American auto makers.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:43 pm…
I know - if only there were enough Cheap Labor!
I’m going to do my part by voluteering to work for minimum wage and no bennies to help that guy out!!!
“Together, if we work hard and sacrifice much, we can forge a New Honduras, by cobbling together the remains of what was once the wealthiest nation on Earth.”
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:50 pmkrystalviews Says:
Consider yourself lucky. I just got laid off today from a Newspaper in Texas, after 10 years. Absolutely no heath care in the severance package!!! Good ol’ Texas!
Wow, Texas doesn’t have COBRA coverage for when you lose your job. I thought that COBRA was a federal program. You really do need to check into that. Especially since through the Stimulus the government will pay 65% of your COBRA costs for 9 months.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:52 pmEugene,
Eugene,
The only incentive to hire is more business, that is more people willing to spend their money on the product produced. THAT would mean more people working which is the POINT of the government spending. Think about how many people got jobs because of the economic boom caused by rural electrification. How many work in the cellphone industry only POSSIBLE because of the satellite technology the R&D of which was COMPLETELY from taxpayer money. I dont think your logic holds
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is a chicken or egg argument but there are a few flaws. First a company must survive to produce said product for it to be bought. If the point of government spending is “more people working” why have the Auto companies continued to lay off workers after the bailout? That logic does not hold. And in all fairness the progress of this country was as much due to entrepreneurs like Carnegie and Rockefeller as the government. Railroads and Oil were the backbone of our growth. Damn our Founding Fathers were business men. How much of our defense is based upon contracts our government has with Weapons, and Vehicle manufacturers. You may think I am pulling this out of my ass, but I venture to state that more innovation has originated outside our government then from within, though it may be close, and both have benefited.
I have a feeling you are making arguments based on things you pull out of your ass. Since it is a feeling I dont need to support it. Wait, you admitted it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry I didn’t realize you were laying down so many concrete facts. I am so overwhelmed by your momentous argument, in which you claim… well I am not sure what your incredible claim is, except “govment throw monies on problem, no longer see problem” (caveman voice)
No it ISNT a non point. I use the highways to get to work. HL Hunt used them to build a trucking company and become a billionare. Thats fine. Good for him. However that means it isnt too much to ask that he kick back MORE to support this kind of investment since he got more out of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Technically speaking he does kick back a larger amount and percentage then you. On the same note your argument could be used for supporting those who do not have kids not having to pay school taxes, since they get LESS out of it.
You are mixing scenarios. IF he closes his doors it wont be because of the TAX, that wont effect him unless he is clearing 250 grand. IF he closes his doors it will be because the economy SUCKS which the tax increase is meant to be part of the solution for.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions” I know what a tax increase is “meant” to do but no one is all that sure if that is what it will do or if it the best method. That’s why we have these debates.
You have some evidence of that? Or did you just pull THAT out of your ass also? You DO realize that just because you have built this picture of the world in your head which is little more than a fantasy that it is silly to base your arguments on what FITS that picture if you cant in some way establish it is true, dont you?
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:59 pm>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you can’t see the importance of the entrepreneur, or the inefficiencies of our government you are blind.
Bilbo and Tombaker,
So giving them an exorbitant amount of money and having them still fire people is a better answer. They do not keep the restaurant up the street open. I would say keeping them is more hurtful then losing them.
I have a feeling there would be plenty of unemployed lining up to work in new american auto industry. Along with that a better business model that could change the face of the automobile industry. We have the big 3 all making clones of the same turd, relentlessly polluting our world, yet you find that as a better option then letting them be replaced by true American ideals?
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:08 pmOk I have to ask everyone else here. Does Nitch make any sense to you. As far as I can tell he hasn’t even told us what his solution to fixing the economy is. He just tries to negate anything people here say. And he ignores most posts like mine where I pointed out that if we allow the Auto Industry to fail, many of his beloved small businesses will fail too.
Me thinks Nitch is a not to bright concern troll who hasn’t yet made one valid argument.
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:09 pmRelying on the “latest fads” to come along as the primary economic foundation of a major industrial nation seems naive at best, and magical thinking at worst.
Our economy needs to live on “us making things”
not
Vince Shlomi selling them.
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:12 pmNitch Says:
Bilbo and Tombaker,
So giving them an exorbitant amount of money and having them still fire people is a better answer. They do not keep the restaurant up the street open. I would say keeping them is more hurtful then losing them.
You call the pittance they were given to stay alive (compared to what was given to Wall Street) an “exorbitant amount of money”. And of course they are laying people off and that’s because people aren’t buying cars because they can’t afford them or they can’t get a loan to buy them.
You still haven’t addressed the fact that if we allow the auto industry to fail many shall businesses that support the auto industry will also fail. I thought you were a champion of the small business.
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:14 pm“Exorbitant amount”
equals:
“as much” – as is prudent and warranted
to
“as many” – as are able and willing to work
Really???
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:15 pmRalph,
I put it that way because that is what is being done. It is not a side step, it is an account of what is actually happening. The government is purchasing toxic assets from the banks to keep them solvent. This will promote more lending, leading to more money in individuals hands (if all goes as planned). The issue is that that money that the bank is lending come from the actual purchase of the toxic assets (an issue skirted around at G20) so in some form whether electronic or tangible, the money will exist. The money supply will grow.
One of the big downs sides of this is that the only way the government has to shrink money supply is by selling assets, usually T-bills, in exchange for cash. But with this plan the main assets they will have to sell are toxic, crippling their ability to shrink the supply.
I posted this on another post, But I think it sums up what I am saying.
http://www.marketskeptics.com/2009/03/fed-is-planning-15-fold-increase-in-us.html
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:19 pmThere have been plenty. Since 1976.
Using delicate words to describe a race to the bottom still gets us to the bottom.
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:25 pmMy point is to have a stimulus with greater focus on small business then big business. Have greater regulation on those playing with our money and our assets. Do not increase the money supply exponentially crippling the value or our dollar. Allow those who have grown too large and are unable to adapt to the times, to fail. To carefully consider the powers given to the FED. To step outside of typical party stances to find solutions to our current issues.
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:30 pmSorry, but all I’m hearing here from Nitch are rehashed principles of Club for Growth mythology, smartly-dressed in Chamber of Commerce clothing.
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:30 pmIs it allright if I ask what everyone else thinks is the best way out of the depression?
As I have stated above my overall objective is to better understand points and counterpoints to what I think. So far Ralph and Eugene and others have been helpful, and would like to keep this an open dialog. I can feel a bit of aggression building towards me so it may be best to step back for a while.
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:42 pmNitch Says:
WRONG on so many levels
This is a chicken or egg argument but there are a few flaws. First a company must survive to produce said product for it to be bought. If the point of government spending is “more people working” why have the Auto companies continued to lay off workers after the bailout? That logic does not hold.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I WORK in the railroad industry. Carnagie was one of the founders of the railroad I work for. He was PAID by the government for every mile of track he laid and was GIVEN land on each side of the right of way ALSO given him to develop to buy the rolling stock. The government investment in creating the railroads was HUGE. So your example works better as MY example. Public cost private profit.
Damn our Founding Fathers were business men. How much of our defense is based upon contracts our government has with Weapons, and Vehicle manufacturers. You may think I am pulling this out of my ass, but I venture to state that more innovation has originated outside our government then from within, though it may be close, and both have benefited.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are missing the obvious point. HOW much of the research and devolopment for high tech is done WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS by the pentagon? The dfense contracts ARE an example of GOVERNMENT not private innovation. Think internet. It STARTED as the Arpanet for the defense dept and was developed for private enterprise with TAX DOLLARS.
Sorry I didn’t realize you were laying down so many concrete facts. I am so overwhelmed by your momentous argument, in which you claim… well I am not sure what your incredible claim is, except “govment throw monies on problem, no longer see problem” (caveman voice)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I guess that would be because you are stupid since I made the argument clear enough. MUCH of what YOU are calling private investment is REALLY social investment. For some reason you just seem congenitally unable to understand that. Since MUCH of that government investment benifitted the economy THEN there is no reason to just keep saying it wont NOW. I am sorry but I dont know how much simpler I can make this. Just what part of it cant you understand?
Technically speaking he does kick back a larger amount and percentage then you. On the same note your argument could be used for supporting those who do not have kids not having to pay school taxes, since they get LESS out of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not really. Since they benifit EVERY time they get change or arent killed because someone cant read a stop sign or a poison warning they STILL get a HUGE benifit from everyone being educated. Also NO he doesnt pay any since he is dead and when he did I am betting a lot of his income was capital gains which are taxed at a LOWER level than I pay.
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions” I know what a tax increase is “meant” to do but no one is all that sure if that is what it will do or if it the best method. That’s why we have these debates.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If YOU think the government is ALWAYS inefficient or that ONLY the entrepenuer should be served no matter WHAT it does to the economy then you are stupid
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:52 pmNitch
I think the BEST way out of the economic crisis in the LONG run is to invest in industries where we can export goods and technology while at the same time promoting the making and keeping of GOOD PAYING MIDDLE CLASS JOBS. Our economy went into BOOM times after the GI bill created the greatest middle class on the Planet in the 50’s even with the highest tax rate in the upper 80s and even 90 percent. We need greater amounts of people doing productive work and making enough money to do more than just survive but also eat out and buy new cars and TVs
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:57 pmOnce again my post somehow dropped a paragraph. I wrote it and it didnt show up. I am not going over it again though overall the answer still works
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:00 pmGeorge W. Bush should be blamed for job losses and unemployment.
“Job Loss Figures Deliver a Blow to Bush . . . George Bush yesterday became the first US president since Herbert Hoover in the Depression to preside over a loss of jobs when the last set of employment figures published before next month’s election showed only a modest improvement in September. On the day that President Bush was preparing for his second televised debate with his Democrat challenger, John Kerry, he was given the unwelcome news that more than 800,000 jobs had been shed in the past four years” (Retrieved December 29, 2008, from http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/10-8-2004-60283.asp).
Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang, J.D. Candidate
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:04 pmB.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
And the huge increase in the tax on tobacco on April Fool’s Day will certainly increase unemployment.
Only s complete fool would begin a regressive tax in the midst of a recessionary period, during which consumer spending is shrinking already…and smokers are consumers and spend a whole lot of money each year.
So let’s increase the tax on a certain product to try to force people to stop buying that product, while tying this supposed “increase” in tax revenue to an expansion of SCHIPS…a contradictory policy which 1) will no doubt negatively impact the revenue of tens of thousands of small businesses across America, leading to even more lay offs of workers, adversely affecting even more American children and 2) will probably lead to an underfunded SCHIPS, because if the rabid anti-smokers are successful in getting smokers to quit or cut back, then projected tobacco tax revenue will sharply decrease. DUUUHHH!!
Yep, April Fool’s Day was definitely a fitting day for this latest arch-conservative prohibition effort to begin.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:46 pmHaving been laid off twice in 19 months, I knew exactly what I had to to do. No, I didn’t look for a taxpayer funded handout from some dope in congress. No, I didn’t cry the blues because the government owes me something. No, I didn’t complain because someone else has more money than me … I started my own business.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:50 pmoh the fruits of american style capitalism.
but we can keep on blaming everyone from ceo’s to wall street and not look at the system that created this economic decline.
bet many of these unemployed lined up to vote for reagan economics and the trickle down theory that trickled up.
the end result very small middle class.
today on npr radio a person with an mba was working for ten dollars per hour.
look to india for the future of america.
with communism man exploits man with capitalism it is the other way around.
how few americans understand that simple axiom.
April 4th, 2009 at 1:40 amkwsventures Says:
You probably got laid off twice because you are the stupidest worker and low haning fruit. Good luck with that business. I hope it is something that even a moron can do because you ARE a moron
April 5th, 2009 at 7:42 pmIt took little bush eight years,to rape and pillage this country of all it’s wealth,with out a mumble out of the republicans.Now less then three months into a DEMOCRATIC regime,the loyal oppoosition,has all the answers.How is this possible?Do they really think that they are still believable.I think not.When they are represented by a big fat puss ass like rush(THE DANCER)and the deviate O’riely or the air head hannity,you can’t expect any real help to try to get this country back on it’s feet.The last real REPUBLICAN this country had was IKE,He built highways across this nation.Warned us about the military-industrial complex,and wouldn’t help Nixon in his run for the presidency.Now the RNC is made up of the old DIXYCRAT party.A long dieing party.GOOD RIDDANCE to bad rubbish.
April 6th, 2009 at 4:32 amOK Pat obviously senile dementia has set in. Time to see the nice young men that will need to take care of you soon.burun estetigi rent a car arac kiralama
April 18th, 2009 at 6:13 amsac ekimi