Aren't you glad we're in a "recovery"?

SamIam • Nov 6, 2009 9:31 am
wrote:
WASHINGTON – The unemployment rate has surpassed 10 percent for the first time since 1983 — and is likely to go higher.
Nearly 16 million people can't find jobs even though the worst recession since the Great Depression has apparently ended. The Labor Department said Friday that the economy shed a net total of 190,000 jobs in October, less than the downwardly revised 219,000 lost in September. August job losses were also revised lower, to 154,000 from 201,000.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091106/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy;_ylt=AhfEfPRQag46UugIeoG1df7gtY54

Yet they tell us we’re in a recovery. Can you sing, “Brother have you got a dime”? :eyebrow:
Nirvana • Nov 6, 2009 10:49 am
Have you read my user title? :thepain2:
lookout123 • Nov 6, 2009 10:53 am
I'm not sure if we're in a recovery or not, only hindsight will be able to verify that. I will say that the recovery period in the economic cycle often looks and feels no different to the average citizen than the descent.

Part of recovery is when businesses realize they have increased sales/cash flow which isn't consumed because they have laid off employees and reduced overhead. The average citizen only consciously feels the recovery is on once we get closer to the peak of the cycle and life is comfortable again.
skysidhe • Nov 6, 2009 11:27 am
I'm not feeling it.
xoxoxoBruce • Nov 6, 2009 12:00 pm
They said from the git-go, unemployment would increase well into 2010, even if the economy started to rebound this year. When we get back to a low unemployment rate, the economy will have been recovered for two years or more.
classicman • Nov 6, 2009 1:43 pm
They also said that the unemployment wouldn't go above 9% if we passed the stimulus package. Its 10.2% today.
TheMercenary • Nov 6, 2009 3:26 pm
classicman;606254 wrote:
They also said that the unemployment wouldn't go above 9% if we passed the stimulus package. Its 10.2% today.
And that is the average. Some parts of the country it is much worse. Thanks.
classicman • Nov 6, 2009 11:11 pm
. . . and others better so it all averages out to what I said.
tw • Nov 7, 2009 12:33 am
classicman;606254 wrote:
They also said that the unemployment wouldn't go above 9% if we passed the stimulus package. Its 10.2% today.
Many 'theys' said lots of things. Which ‘theys’ did Limbaugh quote?

We know stimulus packages averted a complete economic meltdown - a complete lockup of the financial system because nobody could trust anyone's spreadsheets. Nobody knew who was and was not about to go bankrupt. Slowly, we are finally learning who the scumbags have been for most of the past decade. Fortunately we did not have to learn this sooner and the hard way.

Next step is to pay for things such as Mission Accomplished, massive corporate welfare, and for funds borrowed overseas. That means selling off parts of America. Well GM is not trying to use government welfare to not sell off Opel/Vauxhall and other capital assets. That means worse times for more Americans as interest payments on our debts only increases. Suddenly major parts of America (ie Saturn, Pontiac, Saab, etc) have no value - cannot be sold to anyone. So where does the money come from to pay back that borrowed $700 billion?

Jobs are a lagging factor. Finance mismanagement in 1929 caused job losses in 1933. We can expect criminally negligent mismanagement both in industry and in government back in the 2000s to create massive job losses even in 2012 - four years after 2008. That is how economics works. Same time frames and lessons from history say we will all suffer diminished standards of living in future years due to lies that justified 'Mission Accomplished', et al.

Obama accurately warned us when he took office. We will be paying for that gross and intentional mismanagement for most if not all of the next ten years. We must sell off America to pay down debts intentionally created mostly by corruption and lies before 2009.

Currently another $700 billion is floating around inside the American economy making short term 'goodness'. What happens when that money must be repaid with interest? Numerous things singly or in combination can occur including inflation, stagflation, dropping dollar, and fire sales of our capital infrastructure to the world. Last time this happened, Japanese citizens owned more than half of Hawaii. What will we sell off this time? How far must the dollar drop to diminish your income?
classicman • Nov 7, 2009 10:39 pm
tw;606370 wrote:
Many 'theys' said lots of things. Which ‘theys’ did Limbaugh quote?

Dunno never listen or watch him. Perhaps you would care to enlighten the rest of us. Apparently you are the one paying attention to that blowhard.
We ASSUME stimulus packages averted a complete economic meltdown - a complete lockup of the financial system because nobody could trust anyone's spreadsheets. Fortunately we did not have to learn this sooner and the hard way.

We don't "know" squat, especially you. Spreadsheets still cannot be trusted. Nothing in that respect has changed. There are plenty of examples. Perhaps the hard way would have been better in the long run. Again you make assumptions.

So where does the money come from to pay back that borrowed $700 billion?

Dunno Ask Obama

Currently another $700 billion is floating around inside the American economy making short term 'goodness'. What happens when that money must be repaid with interest?

Again ask your President.
xoxoxoBruce • Nov 8, 2009 1:47 am
classicman;606608 wrote:


Again ask your President.
Keep in mind, he's your president too. It doesn't matter if you voted for him or not. It doesn't even matter if you loath or love him. Unless you wish to give up your citizenship, you can't opt out.
Redux • Nov 8, 2009 9:08 am
xoxoxoBruce;606632 wrote:
Keep in mind, he's your president too. It doesn't matter if you voted for him or not. It doesn't even matter if you loath or love him. Unless you wish to give up your citizenship, you can't opt out.


Maybe he is secretly one of those Tea Party secessionists

[INDENT]Image[/INDENT]

Classic, tell me it aint so ;)
classicman • Nov 8, 2009 11:51 am
Tom threw that in my face, I just returned the favor.
tw • Nov 8, 2009 9:36 pm
classicman;606608 wrote:
We don't "know" squat, especially you. Spreadsheets still cannot be trusted. Nothing in that respect has changed. There are plenty of examples.


If spread sheets cannot be trusted at all, then why are finance markets no longer in complete lockdown? Why are companies now lending money? Because some spread sheets are trusted enough that the company will not go Bear Stearns tomorrow. And because the government has stepped in to (in some cases) even force liquidity and stability. We almost lost the economy big time. We who deal in reality know that (and profited accordingly on the stock market).

Curious. Everyone is well aware of how vehement I was about a company called GM. It was that obvious even 20 years ago. We know know I was not critical enough. And still extremist where protecting (praising) their scumbag management. What did it finally take to force some reality in GM? Obama finally had to step in and fire Rick Wagoner. The entire corporation (and so many Americans who buy GM products) were that much in denial.

GM is still screwed up. It still refuses to sell off more of America to foreigners - since we have to pay the debts from the past eight years of lying. But that is what a more honest president told us when he entered office. We will be paying for MBA management and overt political lies (including Mission Accomplished) for the next ten years. We know more bad things will happen. The average American income dropped two percent during George Jr’s tenure. It must drop further.

We should expect significant job losses in the next few years. Part of a ten year process of paying back all those tax cuts and other lies. But if GM (and other anti-American companies) does not sell off more capital assets, then the resulting recession will be worse.

How worse? History says if we do not confront reality, then economics takes revenge. Remember stagflation? Another scumbag president - Nixon - in 1968 and 1970 created the reduction of American's living standards in the mid 1970s. He also lied about a war. A problem was corrected only with 20% interest rates and the selling of America wholesale to foreigners. The bills come due four and ten years later. We have lots of lies and MBA manipulated spread sheets still to pay for.

A responsible citizen is preparing themselves for things to get worse. Only one who wants to be hurt still has outstanding credit card debts or car payments. Only short term mentalities (business school graduates) think this year's spread sheets report on the economy this year. Those spread sheets are currently inflated by the $700 billion necessary to unlock an entire American financial system. Something we had to do and now something we have yet to pay for. The most flagrant scumbags who created this problem (ie GM) should be selling themselves off to more responsible companies (Fiat, Toyota, French companies, the Russians, China Inc, etc).

We will be paying for massive irresponsible management (ie tax cuts, Mission Accomplished) for the next ten years. And yes, that includes the massive number of American soldiers having up to five deployments. And that still will get worse now that we must refight the Afgan war - since a wacko president even all but protected bin Laden. We have major debts outstanding AND many more pending thanks to wholesale mismanagment especially after 2001.

Both Democrats and Republicans wanted to double the SEC budget back in 2001. Harvey Pitts refused to take the money because making fraud acceptable was the political agenda. More mistakes we have yet to pay for.
TheMercenary • Nov 9, 2009 8:00 pm
More great news on the home front. Not.

Paterson: NYS Will Be Broke Before Christmas
Delivers Scary News To Legislature, Says Only Way To Fix Problem Is To Have Immediate Cuts To Education, Hospitals

http://wcbstv.com/cbs2crew/david.paterson.special.2.1300362.html
TheMercenary • Nov 19, 2009 3:37 pm
Regents Set to Raise Tuition in California by 32 Percent

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/education/20tuition.html

That is pretty dramatic! They are going to increase fees on my kids next year, a few hundred each, but 32% is outrageous.
classicman • Nov 19, 2009 4:28 pm
Thats ok - You're one of those old rich cigar smokin R's - you can afford that. . . no problem.:greenface
TheMercenary • Nov 19, 2009 6:46 pm
classicman;609937 wrote:
Thats ok - You're one of those old rich cigar smokin R's - you can afford that. . . no problem.:greenface


Hell, I wish.
xoxoxoBruce • Nov 20, 2009 1:21 am
classicman;609937 wrote:
Thats ok - You're one of those old rich cigar smokin R's - you can afford that. . . no problem.:greenface


Nope, he's not old.
TheMercenary • Nov 20, 2009 10:18 am
Nor am I rich or republickin. But I do smoke a cigar every now and again. :)
classicman • Nov 20, 2009 11:01 am
Good, cuz we've been taxing them.
TheMercenary • Nov 20, 2009 11:05 am
Not the Cuban ones I have. :)
Shawnee123 • Nov 20, 2009 11:35 am
Isaac Miller and Irene Van, who traveled to U.C.L.A. late Wednesday night in a bus caravan from Berkeley, said they worried about how higher fees would affect illegal immigrant students, who are not eligible for financial aid, and minority students, already dwindling in number since Proposition 209 prohibited affirmative action.


Hahaha...hey guys. Didn't notice that? Where's the "fuck illegals" bandwagon when you need it?

Anyway...

California students have the lowest tuition anywhere. Their "fee" model has been a subject of debate for a long time.

But the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office gave a hint of the controversy surrounding the topic of fees in a news release it issued about Chancellor Marshall (Mark) Drummond's testimony before a legislative subcommittee Tuesday. Drummond, celebrating enrollment growth, attributed the increases to the reduction in enrollment fees. "With fees down from $26 to $20 per unit this semester ... we are pleased to be able to meet the needs of more Californians and that’s very good news.”


We have the lowest tuition in the state, and our fees aren't nearly as low as comm colleges in CA. Families have been known to uproot to CA to get nearly free, comparatively, tuition.

So, though 32% sounds like a huge amount, and the increase to the students mean less refunding from federal aid programs so less money in their pocket, desperate times call for desperate measures and CA students still aren't paying what most students around the country are paying.
TheMercenary • Nov 20, 2009 2:46 pm
Interesting. I didn't know they were that low. But man 32% still sounds like a hike on a college kid or family supporting them on a budget.
Shawnee123 • Nov 20, 2009 3:08 pm
We met with our division VP today and I mentioned this subject. He was the one who told me how low CA tuition is, and yes it can be a hardship for some, but still it's a pretty cheap education. Would be hard to get slammed with it out of nowhere. The students are protesting, which is the role I expect from students, and I hope good talks come out of it...heavy on the civil disobedience.

States are suffering and can't fund higher education as it has in the past. We got no state grants for students this year due to our low tuition, and won't get it next year either.
TheMercenary • Nov 20, 2009 3:10 pm
We have the HOPE Scholarship program and it has been a Godsend. Not only for us but for hundreds of thousands of people.