Unemployment

[MemphisPoke]

Applications for unemployment benefits rose to 471,000 last week, up by 25,000 from the previous week. It was the biggest jump since a gain of 40,000 in February. But don't worry; it's Bush's fault.


http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n70/Albounds/1beb8b2ae6d61633f35d740313c6c610.gif


November of 2012 can not get here soon enough !!!!!

[JimBob]

Applications for unemployment benefits rose to 471,000 last week, up by 25,000 from the previous week. It was the biggest jump since a gain of 40,000 in February. But don't worry; it's Bush's fault.


http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n70/Albounds/1beb8b2ae6d61633f35d740313c6c610.gif


November of 2012 can not get here soon enough !!!!!


November '12 will be way too late; hell, we may already be past the point of no return.

[MajorMike]

Yes, but Obama has a back like a duck, much the way Reagan and Clinton did. Nothing seems to stick to him and I would not be suprised if all the GOP can put up against him is Palin or Huckabee to see him get another 4.

[wood911]

I'm thinking Gingrich is who theGOP is looking at, but he is part of Washington and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the original one world order folks.

[Vulgar Display of Orange]

November of 2012 can not get here soon enough !!!!!

Is the World Series starting late in 2012 too?

[osupride97]

oh, but Al, didn't you hear that they created 300k jobs in April? What the govt didn't tell you is that those are the temporary census jobs, which I believe you are one of. They will go away in a few months.

I'm with JimBob......the damage is done. My grandchildren will still be cleaning up the mess.

[Verb]

Right. Because the economic meltdown doesn't have anything to do with decades of loose regulating and poor oversight of the banking industry. It's all been done in the last 18 months.

[WyomingOSUAlum]

What loose regulating? Are there examples of loose regulating? I'm not saying there aren't any, I'd just like to know what they are.

[Vulgar Display of Orange]

Where's Warren G when you need him?

[JimBob]

What loose regulating? Are there examples of loose regulating? I'm not saying there aren't any, I'd just like to know what they are.

Prolly could start with Fannie/Freddie and their sub-prime lending which goes back to Slick Willie days; end with Fannie/Freddie, "conveniently" excluded from the Dems financial regulation "power grab" passed yesterday.

[wickerbill]

Prolly could start with Fannie/Freddie and their sub-prime lending which goes back to Slick Willie days; end with Fannie/Freddie, "conveniently" excluded from the Dems financial regulation "power grab" passed yesterday.

Seems like I remember a few years where the mighty republicans were in charge and didn't fix it either so both parties are to blame. They're both absolutely worthless and any attempt to place the blame on one over the other is just more partisan BS that gets us nowhere. The politicians like it that way though because they never have to fix the problems. Just either blame it on the previous party in power if you're in power or blame it on the party currently in power if you're not. The partisan sheep just eat it up.

[Verb]

What loose regulating? Are there examples of loose regulating? I'm not saying there aren't any, I'd just like to know what they are.

Just google "sub-prime mortgage crisis" and you can read all about it.

[WyomingOSUAlum]

OK, I just did that. I don't see where loose regulating did anything to anybody.

I do see, however, that lots of people made some very stupid financial decisions and got exactly what they bargained for.

Also, I found literally thousands of pages of banking regulations. I cannot even begin to read through all the regulations that are on the books, from FDIC regulations to Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac regulations to SEC regulations and more and more and more regulations.

Maybe if I knew which regulations were loosely regulated then I'd have an easier time.

It's frustrating to try to make your case for you!

[WyomingOSUAlum]

Seems like I remember a few years where the mighty republicans were in charge and didn't fix it either so both parties are to blame. They're both absolutely worthless and any attempt to place the blame on one over the other is just more partisan BS that gets us nowhere. The politicians like it that way though because they never have to fix the problems. Just either blame it on the previous party in power if you're in power or blame it on the party currently in power if you're not. The partisan sheep just eat it up.


I believe liberal policies got us into a lot of this mess. And you're right, the Republicans didn't do much to fix it.

But fixing something after it's already screwed up is much harder than it needs to be. Ask BP, they'll tell you all about it!

[wood911]

I could go back and explain how this started with FDR and his creation of Fannie Mae, LBJ expanded it with Freddie Mac, Carter amplified it with the Community Reinvestment Act, Clinton poured gas on the flame with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, Barney Frank denied any crisis when Bush tried to address the issue starting in 2003(not to say there were no R's ignoring it as well), etc. Not to say the R's didn't do their share of stupid stuff but the mess we are in is basically owned by the D's.
Regardless of who was to blame, we have a mess to fix and Obama is not getting it done. The Democratic party has been taken over by the socialists/Marxists and their agenda is to create a situation where we are all dependent on the gov't. Read the Cloward -Pivens Strategy then tell me this is not what is going on.
Watch what is being done, quit listening to the words of either side.

[wickerbill]

I believe liberal policies got us into a lot of this mess. And you're right, the Republicans didn't do much to fix it.

But fixing something after it's already screwed up is much harder than it needs to be. Ask BP, they'll tell you all about it!

Yeah, it's much easier to just sit back, do nothing, and place the blame elsewhere. That's all either party is good for. If the republicans really think they are that much better than the democrats, they need to step up and show some leadership to make the tough decisions for the good of the country.

[WyomingOSUAlum]

Oh, I get your point. For far too long, the McCain Republicans have been in control, which has resulted in more of the same/more of the same/more of the same.

I look forward to having a more conservative leadership take control of the party, offering more of a contrast to the policies of the left.

But still, offering the same level of the blame is unfair, IMO. It's like blaming Obama for not cleaning up the oil spill in the gulf. I wouldn't do that. Maybe the federal government can help after the fact, but I wouldn't blame the guy for the mess in the first place.

[GoPokes83]

I remember when I bought a house and the banker pulled out that shotgun and put it to my wife's head and forced us to take out a loan for twice our monthly take-home. What a horrible experience... He's definitely at fault!

[WyomingOSUAlum]

By chance, was his name George W. Bush?

[wickerbill]

Oh, I get your point. For far too long, the McCain Republicans have been in control, which has resulted in more of the same/more of the same/more of the same.

I look forward to having a more conservative leadership take control of the party, offering more of a contrast to the policies of the left.

But still, offering the same level of the blame is unfair, IMO. It's like blaming Obama for not cleaning up the oil spill in the gulf. I wouldn't do that. Maybe the federal government can help after the fact, but I wouldn't blame the guy for the mess in the first place.

But most of the real estate transactions that took place that caused the bubble took place while Bush was in office. If it was such a bad idea when it was done in the late 90's by the democrats, then why didn't the republicans take care of it once they took charge before it caused the huge damage? It's because they're just as dumb as the democrats and show just as big of a lack of leadership and foresight. Same thing with the oil spill. If the government had performed the inspections and made the drilling rig follow the regulations for maintaining and testing their equipment, then it probably wouldn't have happened. That's not a political thing though. Bush is just lucky he wasn't in charge when it happened because they didn't do a better job of keeping an eye on those offshore platforms than they have under Obama.

I also agree with gopokes83 that blaming it on political parties doesn't tell the full story. The people taking out these mortgages and the bankers approving them did it on their own accord. I don't think the bankers were too disappointed in the billions of dollars they made making these bad mortgages because they knew they could sell them to the next idiot and get rid of their risk. They knew it wouldn't last forever, but at that point they would already have their hundreds of millions in bonuses and their golden parachute to take care of them. The idiots that thought their property values would go up forever got what was coming to them.

[MajorMike]

There isn't anyone to blame for the mortgage problems except for the lending industry. No one could have forseen exactly how that was going to turn out. Yes, people will say, "Oh we discussed that and for sure saw it coming;" but that is like NASA talking about ways to stop a meteor hitting earth and one day they find one that will and NASA sitting there and going, "We told you so."

[WyomingOSUAlum]

But most of the real estate transactions that took place that caused the bubble took place while Bush was in office. If it was such a bad idea when it was done in the late 90's by the democrats, then why didn't the republicans take care of it once they took charge before it caused the huge damage? It's because they're just as dumb as the democrats and show just as big of a lack of leadership and foresight. Same thing with the oil spill. If the government had performed the inspections and made the drilling rig follow the regulations for maintaining and testing their equipment, then it probably wouldn't have happened. That's not a political thing though. Bush is just lucky he wasn't in charge when it happened because they didn't do a better job of keeping an eye on those offshore platforms than they have under Obama.

I also agree with gopokes83 that blaming it on political parties doesn't tell the full story. The people taking out these mortgages and the bankers approving them did it on their own accord. I don't think the bankers were too disappointed in the billions of dollars they made making these bad mortgages because they knew they could sell them to the next idiot and get rid of their risk. They knew it wouldn't last forever, but at that point they would already have their hundreds of millions in bonuses and their golden parachute to take care of them. The idiots that thought their property values would go up forever got what was coming to them.


Can you imagine the outcry if Bush would have proposed getting out of the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae business? Even suggesting that there was a problem that needed to be addressed was unpopular. You're willing to chalk it up to stupidity, but I attribute it to political pressure (and the accompanying lack of gonads to do the right thing).

Once society becomes accustomed to feeding at the government teat, it's impossible to wean off of it.

[WyomingOSUAlum]

There isn't anyone to blame for the mortgage problems except for the lending industry. No one could have forseen exactly how that was going to turn out. Yes, people will say, "Oh we discussed that and for sure saw it coming;" but that is like NASA talking about ways to stop a meteor hitting earth and one day they find one that will and NASA sitting there and going, "We told you so."


Weren't many of the subprime mortgages picked up by Fannie and Freddie, and thereby subsidized by the federal government? I'm almost positive that's the case.

I just don't see the banks lending the money to people who weren't able to pay without the federal government ready to pick up the tab.

I just see this as another liberal idea gone awry. Yes, it would be nice if everybody could afford a home of their own. But look what happens when the federal government interferes in places it has no authority.

The GM bailout is another perfect example. A month or so ago, GM runs commercials about how they have paid off their government loans ahead of schedule. But where did they get the money to pay off the government loans? From the government, of course!

I can't remember his exact words, but when Bush said that we needed to abandon capitalism in order to save it, I wanted to jump into the TV screen and punch him in the nose. You want to know why he had such low approval ratings? Because of stupid crap like that. EVERYBODY hated that guy in the end!

So we bail out the auto makers, we bail out the banks, we pay off the loans with money that we have borrowed from somebody else and some day, the house of cards will collapse.

We borrow billions of dollars in order to have a "stimulus package". What's it done to help? Not much, apparently. Then we have billions of dollars to TARP our way out of trouble.

We are "shovel ready", all right, but only in a "one foot in the grave" sort of way.

[Vulgar Display of Orange]

So, to sum it up the government should stand idly by while the global economy collapses. Please tell me you aren't one of the people who cashed out their 401k in january 2009 and bought gold.

[WyomingOSUAlum]

Please tell me you aren't one of the people who counts a pair of workboots purchased with federal stimulus money as a "job saved"!

I believe the government's fingerprints are all over this fiasco.

If a company pays its CEO billions of dollars, makes poor decisions, wastes money and can't pull its own weight, IT SHOULD FAIL.

The labor contracts that these companies have signed with the UAW are RIDICULOUS. They deserve to go bankrupt.

[wood911]

Bush tried to do something about the mortgage problem several times but could get no support from congress. He didn't have the super majoriity Obama has enjoyed the last year and a half plus there was bi-partisan opposition. His problem was more about wars and spending and an unfunded mandate to buy prescription drugs.

[Vulgar Display of Orange]

So...just to be clear. Your stance is Obama and congress (except the republicans) suck and all of the other presidents and congressmen that have ever served (besides the republicans) suck because unemployment is high AND taxpayers should do absolutely nothing to stop giant companies that employ tens of thousands of people - not to mention hundreds of thousands of people who are employed by companies that primarily rely on these giant companies - from failing....simultaneously. I literally can't argue with that logic.

[wickerbill]

Can you imagine the outcry if Bush would have proposed getting out of the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae business? Even suggesting that there was a problem that needed to be addressed was unpopular. You're willing to chalk it up to stupidity, but I attribute it to political pressure (and the accompanying lack of gonads to do the right thing).

Once society becomes accustomed to feeding at the government teat, it's impossible to wean off of it.

Proves my point that the republicans don't have the balls to do what's best for the country if it's unpopular. Don't see how you can blame it all on the liberals while also admitting that the republicans won't fix it. At least the democrats passed the healthcare overhaul even though most people were against it. While we may not like what they're doing at least they can get something done while the republicans stand around with their thumb up their ass most of the time focusing on the far right wing crap instead of making the country better.

Can you not tell I'm totally disillusioned with the political parties in this country? I just honestly can't understand how people can be so supportive of the republican party over the past 5-10 years. It's not good enough to be a better alternative to the democrats. We need to demand more than just sucking a little less than the other party.

[WyomingOSUAlum]

So...just to be clear. Your stance is Obama and congress (except the republicans) suck and all of the other presidents and congressmen that have ever served (besides the republicans) suck because unemployment is high AND taxpayers should do absolutely nothing to stop giant companies that employ tens of thousands of people - not to mention hundreds of thousands of people who are employed by companies that primarily rely on these giant companies - from failing....simultaneously. I literally can't argue with that logic.


So...just to be clear. Your stance is Obama and congress (except the republicans) suck and all of the other presidents and congressmen that have ever served (besides the republicans) suck because unemployment is high

No. Liberal idealogy sucks and the Republicans suck when they go along with liberal idealogy.


taxpayers should do absolutely nothing to stop giant companies that employ tens of thousands of people - not to mention hundreds of thousands of people who are employed by companies that primarily rely on these giant companies - from failing....simultaneously. I literally can't argue with that logic


I remember reading a report about a year ago in which some of the labor contract terms were disclosed. You've got people working the assembly line who are making $65 an hour. They work for 25 years and have a full retirement with health benefits paid for the rest of their lives. If the company lays them off, they continue to be paid their full salary! There was more, but that's all I can remember off the top of my head.

Does that sound a bit greedy to you? It does to me. You've got workers who are basically strangling the goose that is trying to lay the golden egg. Well, congratulations to the UAW. The goose is dead.

I continuously hear about how greedy corporations are. Are unions capable of being greedy, too? I contend that they are.

So should greedy stupid workers who work for stupid greedy corporations be allowed to fail? Or should the rest of us be forced to pay for the greed and stupidity of others?

[WyomingOSUAlum]

Proves my point that the republicans don't have the balls to do what's best for the country if it's unpopular. Don't see how you can blame it all on the liberals while also admitting that the republicans won't fix it. At least the democrats passed the healthcare overhaul even though most people were against it. While we may not like what they're doing at least they can get something done while the republicans stand around with their thumb up their ass most of the time focusing on the far right wing crap instead of making the country better.

Can you not tell I'm totally disillusioned with the political parties in this country? I just honestly can't understand how people can be so supportive of the republican party over the past 5-10 years. It's not good enough to be a better alternative to the democrats. We need to demand more than just sucking a little less than the other party.


I have conceded the point all along that the Republicans did not destroy liberal policies when they had the chance. So when VDoO paints me as a hack partisan, I don't get it.

What right-winged crap are you talking about? The party has been controlled by McCain-types for a very long time. The Reagans have been NOWHERE forever.

[Vulgar Display of Orange]

I don't think you are a partisan hack. You are just talking out of both sides of your mouth, and blaming everything on liberalism whatever that means doesn't help. So I guess my question is do you have a solution or do you have a bumper sticker?

[wood911]

Just for the record, the socialists have stolen the democratic party. If you are a democrat, you have no party. While the republicans haven't exactly exhibited great amounts of courage, they are not trying to "fundamentally transform" this nation into a socialist state. My goal is to get enough conservatives in congress to shut down BO and his socilaist/communist friends then dealwith the republicans. Term limits would be a good thing.

[WyomingOSUAlum]

I don't see the "both sides of my mouth" issue.

My solution is to begin the slow process of getting the federal government out of funding retirement. We have a moral obligation to fund social security for retirees and for those who are close enough to retirement that cannot make other plans because it is too late in their lives. It will take at least 40 years, but at least that's one less black hole of bankruptcy that we won't have to fund. It's a simple concept, you live within your means and you save and plan for your future. I just looked at my Social Security statement and it clearly reads that my projected benefits will be paid at a 70% rate of what I've earned unless the Congress acts quickly to provide more funding.

My solution is to get the government out of housing. The war on poverty has been going on since LBJ. Where has it gotten us? Pretty much the same place the war on drugs has. TRILLIONS of dollars have been sucked into the black hole and I don't see much of a return on the investment.

My solution is to get the government out of subsidizing private industry, be it the auto workers or the bankers. STOP IT.

And now we're collecting taxes to fund another HUGE boondoggle called "health care reform". In a quick review of other federally supervised social programs, I predict the same results as other federal social programs. It will be in the red as soon as it starts, triggering more federal borrowing and taking money from the private sector.

There is no worker's paradise. Cuba sucks. Why we are trying to emulate them is beyond me. But the European countries do this or that. SCREW THEM. They suck as well.

We are well on the way to sucking as much as they do!

When the Republicans act like conservatives, then I like them. Otherwise, they suck too!



Liberalism is the pathway to socialism is the pathway to communism. So I'm not really excited to be part of the slippery slope.

[pistolpete2002]

I don't see the "both sides of my mouth" issue.

My solution is to begin the slow process of getting the federal government out of funding retirement. We have a moral obligation to fund social security for retirees and for those who are close enough to retirement that cannot make other plans because it is too late in their lives. It will take at least 40 years, but at least that's one less black hole of bankruptcy that we won't have to fund. It's a simple concept, you live within your means and you save and plan for your future. I just looked at my Social Security statement and it clearly reads that my projected benefits will be paid at a 70% rate of what I've earned unless the Congress acts quickly to provide more funding.

My solution is to get the government out of housing. The war on poverty has been going on since LBJ. Where has it gotten us? Pretty much the same place the war on drugs has. TRILLIONS of dollars have been sucked into the black hole and I don't see much of a return on the investment.

My solution is to get the government out of subsidizing private industry, be it the auto workers or the bankers. STOP IT.

And now we're collecting taxes to fund another HUGE boondoggle called "health care reform". In a quick review of other federally supervised social programs, I predict the same results as other federal social programs. It will be in the red as soon as it starts, triggering more federal borrowing and taking money from the private sector.

There is no worker's paradise. Cuba sucks. Why we are trying to emulate them is beyond me. But the European countries do this or that. SCREW THEM. They suck as well.

We are well on the way to sucking as much as they do!

When the Republicans act like conservatives, then I like them. Otherwise, they suck too!



Liberalism is the pathway to socialism is the pathway to communism. So I'm not really excited to be part of the slippery slope.

Good post Wyo!!! Completely agree.

[Vulgar Display of Orange]

Wyo thats like saying that conservatism is the pathway to fascism. Neither extreme is the way to go. Unfettered, unregulated capitalism is equally as destructive as socialism if not more so. Just like everything else the answer is somewhere in between, so its a bit ridiculous to call out moderates who are willing to cross the aisle rather than do nothing but bitch/campaign.

[pistolpete2002]

Wyo thats like saying that conservatism is the pathway to fascism. Neither extreme is the way to go. Unfettered, unregulated capitalism is equally as destructive as socialism if not more so. Just like everything else the answer is somewhere in between, so its a bit ridiculous to call out moderates who are willing to cross the aisle rather than do nothing but bitch/campaign.

Now you're putting words in Wyo's mouth. I've never seen him say that conservatism is the pathway to fascism. And I don't want to speak for Wyo, but I'm sure he feels the same as me and does not want conservatives to cross the line into facism and I'm sure he can admit that. However, I've haven't seen you once STILL, and I know you've been called out on it, admit that the current administration is already on the pathway to the socialist/marxist and that pathway IS NOT good for America!!!!!

You set here and give a big gungho to everything Obama does while its obvious that he is trying to have the government control 100% of everything we do. IS THAT WHAT YOU REALLY WANT???

[WyomingOSUAlum]

Wyo thats like saying that conservatism is the pathway to fascism. Neither extreme is the way to go. Unfettered, unregulated capitalism is equally as destructive as socialism if not more so. Just like everything else the answer is somewhere in between, so its a bit ridiculous to call out moderates who are willing to cross the aisle rather than do nothing but bitch/campaign.


At no time in our history has conservativism lead to fascism.

Liberalism, on the other hand, has lead to many socialized aspects in our society. Now we've got the federal government owning shares of auto makers. I can't believe it, but the federal government has an ownership stake in private industry, just like they subsidize Freddit and Fannie. It's one debacle after another.

I'm against this idea when Bush pushes to bail out AIG. I'm against it when Obama bails out whoever. I don't care who does it, I'm against it when it happens. I'm very equal opportunity that way!

Now I'm just waiting to see what gets nationalized next!

[bleedorange]

...taxpayers should do absolutely nothing to stop giant companies that employ tens of thousands of people - not to mention hundreds of thousands of people who are employed by companies that primarily rely on these giant companies - from failing....

This.

[wood911]

Fascism is a very dangerous thing in that it can be accomplished from the left or right. IMO, political leanings tend to be more circular than linear. Hitler was the leader of the German Socialist Party. Capitalists tends to lean more toward anarchy than fascism.

[MemphisPoke]

Good post Wyo!!! Completely agree.

Make that another that totally agrees.