Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 37 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
U.S. unemployment rate tops 10%
Published Friday, November 6, 2009
WASHINGTON (AP) — The unemployment rate has passed the psychological threshold of 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. Persistently high unemployment could hurt the recovery by restraining consumer spending, which accounts for 70 percent of the economy.
The report showed that the nation faces a jobless recovery — an economy that can't create jobs even though it is growing.
The unemployed rate jumped to 10.2 percent last month, the highest since April 1983, from 9.8 percent in September, the Labor Department said Friday. The economy shed a net total of 190,000 jobs, more than economists had expected.
The number of unemployed hit 15.7 million, up from 15.1 million. The job losses occurred across most industries, from manufacturing and construction to retail and financial. The job-loss total is based on a survey of businesses, separate from a survey of households that produces the unemployment rate.
Economists say the unemployment rate could reach 10.5 percent next year because employers remain reluctant to hire.
"It's a stark reminder of how much work remains to be done to get people back to work," Christina Romer, head of President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, acknowledged in an interview with The Associated Press.
Some positive signs emerged in the data, Romer said, pointing to a 34,000 increase in temporary service jobs.
"That's often the first sign of firms kind of dipping their toe back into hiring people," she said.
Still, counting those who have settled for part-time jobs or stopped looking for work, the unemployment rate would be 17.5 percent, the highest on records dating from 1994.
"It's not a good report," said Dan Greenhaus, chief economic strategist for New York-based investment firm Miller Tabak & Co. "What we're seeing is a validation of the idea that a jobless recovery is perfectly on track."
Friday's report is the first since the government said last week that the economy grew at a 3.5 percent annual rate in the July-September quarter, the strongest signal yet that the economy is rebounding. But that isn't fast enough to spur rapid hiring.
"You need explosive growth to take the unemployment rate down," Greenhaus said in an interview Thursday.
The economy soared by nearly 8 percent in 1983 after a steep recession, Greenhaus said, lowering the jobless rate by 2.5 percentage points that year. But the economy is unlikely to improve that fast this time, as consumers remain cautious and tight credit hinders businesses. In fact, many analysts expect economic growth to moderate early next year, as the impact of various government stimulus programs aimed at home and car buying fade.
The stock market seesawed in early trading. The Dow Jones industrial average added about 4 points, while broader indexes were mixed.
High unemployment is likely to become a political liability for Obama and Democrats in Congress. Most economists expect the jobless rate will remain above 9 percent through next November, when congressional elections are held. When unemployment topped 10 percent in the fall of 1982, President Ronald Reagan's Republican Party lost 26 seats in the House.
One sign of how hard it still is to find a job: The number of Americans who have been out of work for six months or longer rose to 5.6 million, a record. They account for 35.6 percent of the unemployed population, matching a record set last month.
Congress sought to address the impact of long-term unemployment this week by approving legislation extending jobless benefits for the fourth time since the recession began. The bill would add 14 to 20 extra weeks of aid and is intended to prevent almost 2 million recipients from running out of unemployment insurance during the upcoming holiday season. Obama is expected to quickly sign the legislation.
October was the 22nd straight month the U.S. economy has shed jobs, the longest on records dating back 70 years. The report showed job losses remain widespread across many industries. Manufacturers eliminated a net total of 61,000 jobs, the most in four months. Construction shed 62,000 jobs, down slightly from the previous month.
Retailers, the financial sector and leisure and hospitality companies all continued to reduce payrolls. The economy has lost a net total of 7.3 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007.
The average work week was unchanged at 33 hours, a disappointment because employers are expected to add more hours for current workers before they begin hiring new ones.
There were some bright spots in the report. Professional and business services companies added 18,000 jobs. And temporary employment grew by 33,700 jobs, after losing positions for months. That's a positive sign because employers are likely to add temporary workers before hiring permanent ones.
Still, economists expect jobs likely will remain scarce even as the economy improves. Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial, said that small businesses, a primary engine of job creation, still face tight credit and don't have the cash reserves to support extra workers.
And many companies are squeezing more production from their existing work forces. Productivity, the amount of output per hour worked, jumped 9.5 percent in the third quarter, the Labor Department said Thursday.
That's the sharpest increase in six years and followed a 6.9 percent rise in the second quarter. The increases enable companies to produce more without hiring extra people.
The Federal Reserve said earlier this week that it will keep a key interest rate at a record low level of nearly zero for an "extended period" to support the economy.
The central bank said economic activity has "continued to pick up," but Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues warned that rising joblessness and tight credit could restrain the rebound in the months ahead.
While the unemployment rate hasn't yet topped the post-World War II high of 10.8 percent set in December 1982, many experts say this recession is worse.
The work force, on average, is older now as the baby boomers have aged and fewer teenagers are out looking for work. Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, notes that older workers are more likely to be employed than younger ones. As a result, it takes a tougher job market to push the rate to 10 percent.
"This may be the toughest employment situation we've seen in the postwar era," Mark Gertler, an economics professor at New York University, said in an interview earlier this week.
___
Associated Press Writer Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.
Comments
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't really know what it means "can't find a job".
"Can't find a job that someone else thought up and made available" would be more accurate.
Maybe the term is part of our cradle to grave preoccupation with being dependent on the efforts of others -- even those of us who are proud of our willingness to work.
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What!? Say it ain't so! The stimulus was supposed to prevent unemployment from going above 8%. I think it's pretty safe to say now that Obama has made "change" a dirty word.
I'm starting to think I'm psychic. Nearly everything I posted about that Marxist fraud before the election has come to pass. Boy, November of 2010 can't get here fast enough!
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, the country was in worse shape from the governance of the previous 8-year presidential administration than we realized.
What would the unemployment rate be without the stimulus money? We'll never know, will we?
Posted by sideline (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 2:49 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Cheney & Rove are most responsible for this mess, I think. Well, them and the people who elected dubbya. Dubbya just came along for the ride.
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Once again, it never ceases to amaze me the number of people who will post on this site without having the first clue what they're talking about. Anybody with the slightest intellectual curiosity would have investigated the causes of our current economic situation and know where to lay the blame. But that's been talked about ad infinitum here and not worth the effort to rehash for you brain-dead Obama Kool Aid drinkers. You misguided souls just keep holding on to the illusion that caused you to support our pathetic embarrassment of a President in the first place as his presidency continues its free fall into obscurity and irrelevance.
Southernwoman, I see you're as informed as always. The unemployment number is actually higher now than what Obama projected had the stimulus not even passed. Go figure. But since he clearly has no clue what the hell he's doing, I guess that shouldn't come as a surprise.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 6:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
k40, do you also post as rushinghjr?
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 8:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Typical Liberal Fiction by Southern Who! Apparently, you are afraid to use your real name? As I have stated before, you are a typical Bush Hater! Just remember that Liberals just can't understand Logic and the Truth! O, by the way/ you're boy, Owhampy is a man without a country! He's destroying American with his Liberal and Socialistic Agenda. He doesn't even know where he was born? You can have his change also! Also, I would like to say thanks for supporting Mayfield for Sheriff!
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
kmbjd do you realize that you sound as ho-hum dumb as rushingjr, only with a year more English?
You guys ponder by ideology instead of observation, then set about to confirm your rightness. The only facts you notice would confirm your prejudices from top to bottom. It's the only type of thought that means anything to you.
On that conservative high-horse we know you guys get lonely. We know it is hard to know more than Obama, Pelosi and the others who are more respected than you two are. And Lord knows you deserve special credit. We are sorry they didn't notice you were available when they chose McCain and that nutty girl from Alaska. Maybe you should have stepped up instead of cheering for the party pariah?
Broaden your concept of self. Hug a tree. Love some whales and some wildlife you don't kill for sport. Read a book about your Muslim enemies so you can be a better warrior. It will make you feel better and maybe then you can quit whining and get to work accumulating the bounty of this great land.
If you guys have so little to do as to immerse yourself in fear and hatred maybe you are just lazy and self interested like the welfare crowd. I am not having any trouble at all prospering from the private sector. But we see you guys are having a real problem.....
Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
southernwoman, do you also post as ijohnson?
I seriously doubt k40 and rushing could possibly be the same, grammer and syntax are way too different.
Actually I heard on a news program that unemployment is closer to 17% because many people have taken part-time jobs, or quit looking and come off the unemployment rolls, going on the welfare rolls instead.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No, Freedom, I don't post as ijohnson, but I'm flattered you asked the question.
Yes, 40 says "brain dead" instead of "idiot" and "Marxist" instead of "Owhampy" - big deal - they sound the same to me.
I would agree that it's possible the unemployment rate is closer to 17 percent. I do not think they count people whose unemployment benefits have been exhausted.
I also believe we need to pull out of both Afghanistan and Iraq now.
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I suspect that southernwoman was simply making a point. knjdb writes as though intellect were his alone, but tolerates rushingjr's tired simplistic deer camp sloganeering (no offense meant to deer camps). That is probably why she linked them up.
I also assume the unemployment figures are always higher than stated. Hopefully the criteria are not changed often as we only need a standardized method to determine relative improvement or decline.
I do think that this early in the administration odds are that Bush et al are responsible for the economic decline's severity. That should not be a difficult principle for conservatives. After all they were blaming Clinton 8 years after he left office. Blaming Bush 8 months after he leaves should not be much of a stretch.
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
SW and Yea/You two are typical Fools who don't know any better and everyone knows it. You two are the sample of what is destroying American today! You are terrorists in disguise! We Constitutionists will pray for you, because you do need it! The people at the ND just laugh at you two! Also, they you all for supporting Mr. Mayfield for Sheriff! Please pray for our Military with Owhampy as our so-called Commander- In- Chief!
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ouch! I guess Obama's monumental decline is having a more profound effect on my old buddy Yeahuhuh than I imagined. I mean, the vitriol and invective he is spewing is particularly harsh. I guess when you're on a sinking ship the desperation starts to bleed through after a while. Unfortunately for him, he's like a chained pit bull who has no teeth.
Let me see if I can really get him going: Obama's approval rating in the Rasmussen poll (the most accurate and consistent poll out there) hovers between 46 and 48% while his disapproval stays between 51 and 52%. They don't have the votes in the House to pass that health care monstrosity of a bill. Cap and trade doesn't have a prayer of passing. Last Tuesday's election results in Virginia and New Jersey. 40% of the country is conservative, while only 20% is liberal. The Democrat's have been polling behind the Republican's in the generic congressional ballot for the past several weeks. Oh, the list goes on and on...
Ain't reality a b***h?
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I believe it would be impossible for 40 or rjr to have a discussion or argument without attempting to insult and demean anyone opposing their opinions. I wonder if they were born that way and their mothers did not teach them any manners or if they choose to interact with others in this manner.
Posted by bayougal (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 6:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If fingers are going to be pointed for the insanity going on in this country, we should begin by lining up Congress and putting Ms Pelosi at the front. She wants to be the speaker then let her take the heat.
Why would this group of intellectual deficients extend the unemployment benefits for another 20 weeks as a knee-jerk reaction to the release of unemployment figures? Do they really believe the situation will be better within the next 6 months? They promised that this last stimulus would create jobs. Yeah, the jobs created were within the government. If this bunch of misfits expects the country to come out of this recession then they had better snap out of it! Take small business 101 people.
Most new hiring will be done by small businesses. Yet if Pelosi and her bunch had their way, small businesses would be paying for the new health-care bill they're trying to shove down everyones throats. Most of the individuals who fit into their definition of earners making $500,000 or more are business owners who file as individuals. The estimate given by The Joint Tax Committee is approximately 1/3 of the $465 billion would be shouldered by these business owners. In a country where the unemployment rate is 10.2% that's really crazy!
I've also heard talk of a "new" stimulus package. Yeah, let's go for it. Maybe in a few months we'll be at 20%.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 7:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bush left us with a mess, didn't he?
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 11:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
SW/ Why argue with a piece of concrete? You are from the left and as a terrorist, you want to destroy America and our form of government!
Posted by bayougal (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
SW, as for Iraq and Afghanistan, you would need to contact 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in Washington to get any action on that. Afghanistan is going to be Obama's Iraq. Wait and see...
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No way can you honestly compare Obama/Afghanistan and Bush/Iraq.
Posted by eawprops (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
HEY Y'ALL LET'S HIRE MORE DEMOCRATS AND SEE IF WE CAN PUSH THAT NMBER UP TO 20%!!!
WE'RE ALL GONNA GET HANDOUTS FROM THE GOVERNMENT NOW WITH HEALTH CARE SO WHY SHOULD WE CARE?
LET'S ALL JUST LAY BACK ON OUR OVERSIZED BACKSIDES AND TAKE IN FOOD STAMPS, MONEY, AND HEALTH INSURANCE.
THE BIG QUESTION HERE IS WHO IS GOING TO WORK TO PAY FOR THESE LAZY P.O.S'S TO SIT BACK AND TAKE MORE FROM THOSE OF US WHO ACTUALLY WORK AND DON'T CRY FOR MORE F'..N HANDOUTS?
JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS I'D LIKE ANSWERS TO.
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ever wonder how good ol conservative boys were blaming Clinton for economic woes for 8 years after he was out of office but they now act like GWB was never in there and the present woes are all Obama's??
I wonder, southernwoman, if it ever occurs to them that blaming the other guys constantly and never owning up to their own culpability is an act of intellectual cowardice? I don't know for sure if it is intellect or pride that is the problem.
Could be, they just never noticed when GWB tried to burn the economic candle at both ends and in the middle that he was being irresponsible and something could go very wrong. All their bills came due at once. Was it O'Reilly that said he hoped a Democrat won so the Republicans could claim it was Democrats' fault when Bush's economic cows came home and the bills had to be paid?
Mama always told me that when I was wrong it weren't manly to blame someone else.
Eawprops -- the same ones of us are going to pay for those who don't and can't work that do already. High health costs are directly related to the fact that when deadbeats don't pay their bills the prices rise. You're already paying for it now -- assuming you're working like I am.
Ever notice that you are whining about who is going to pay when the changes are made and the rest of the opposition is squealing communism because the House voted to force people to keep heath insurance? Does that strike you as two groups of whiners who think they are on the same side complaining about the exact opposite things?
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 6:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So let me get this straight, Obama said that if his ridiculous "stimulus" bill passed, unemployment wouldn't go above 8%. The unemployment rate now stands at 10.2%. But we conservatives are whining for pointing out this simple fact. It's all Bush's fault, right?
The Democrats force banks to make loans to people who can't pay them back and refuse to allow anybody to interfere with Fannie and Freddie and the entire economy nearly collapses as a direct result of the unintended consequences of their utter stupidity. But we're whining if we point this out. After all, it's all Bush's fault.
The Democrat's want to force people, using the threat of jail and heavy fines, to purchase health insurance whether they want it or not, something that is so fundamentally unconstitutional and unAmerican that it is breathtaking. (And don't hand me any garbage about people having to buy car insurance. Driving is a privilege and involves the operation of dangerous machinery that can put others at grave risk both physically and economically. Plus, since you don't have to own a car, you don't have to have car insurance.) But let me guess, it's somehow Bush's fault, right?
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
40, would you go even concede that GWB CONTRIBUTED to the mess OUR country is in?
Mind you, your opinion will have no effect on what I believe, one way or another.
Just curious.
Posted by bayougal (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 6:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hasn't every president that has ever been elected in this country dealt with issues which were brought forth from the previous administration? YES. Obama is no different.
HOWEVER, as has been noted in different news organizations worldwide, there has never been a president in this country's history who has spoken so negatively or repeatedly about his predecessor's administration. People whether you want to admit it or not this type of blame game LOOKS BAD!! It takes away from the very respect that this office deserves.
Like MY mom always said, " If you want respect, you have to give it."
Posted by SniperX (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lets all quit work and just let the government feed and cloth us. We can all live in housing projects, smoke all the dope we want, and hit the stores on the 1st and 15th of each month.
Wait, no one will be at the stores because we all quit working.
I guess we will all become government employees and subjects. The Democrats dream!
Posted by MIN1 (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Every now and then I read all of the wisdom posted by my beloved friends neighbors in Natchez.
I hope this unemployment estimate of 10% is close to correct. Why, because I just read an article on WND.com that states it is Really 22%. Ouch!
Posted by mseyes47 (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I want to thank all of you for keeping me entertained while I've been housebound for two weeks with children with swine flu. And me and my husband are taxpayers. We work our arses off to support our family and we couldn't get any free help if our lives depended on it! Gets real discouriging seeing how much comes out of our paychecks to pay for people that SIT on their arses and collect free food , money and healthcare. So many of them riding around in fancy vehicles and dealing drugs too. Sorry but I haven't seen anything good come from Obama. Maybe in time....
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
knbjd like I said. You want to hold Obama to a standard you did not hold the other guys to. And your reasoning is at best circular -- and at worst does not even make a circle.
If Clinton pushed on rules that would empower the poor for loans that would hang them how long would a Republican congress and a Republican president in unison be allowed to fix that problem? 4, 5, 6 years? Not long enough? Your standards are showing.
And yes we all must pay for insurance to use the roads because all of us that use them contribute to liabilites for us all.
And so what if we at some point realize that if John Doe doesn't pay his hospital bills AND hospitals are legally required to treat, then the rest of us have to bear the costs and so we will take exactly the same tack. We have to because nobody is going to pay the bills and you can't shoot sick people in the head or send them to dying barns to get rid of them.
Exactly how perfect does your country have to be before you get busy and make the most of it? There came the time when the people who could not make ends meet got the floor and spoke up about health care. That is where we are right now.
You guys might as well face it. We haven't had free enterprise for a very long time and the people who have rigged the game have made billions on laws suited for them. Now is time the laws changed a bit. Don't pretend any of this communist conspiracy stuff.
Like I said so much of conservative banter amounts to slogans you guys tell one another to impress and gain standing with your peers. The rest of us aren't going to listen to it for a while.
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 6:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The bottom line, when you boil it all down, is that the government is the root cause of all of these problems. Period. Government interference only makes things worse. That has been demonstrated time and again throughout history. More government is not the answer. As is always the case, more government will only make compound our problems. Period. Anybody who doesn't understand this is hopelessly naive or ignorant of history.
And I hate to tell you, but most sloganeering occurs on the left, not the right. "Change we can believe in" is the most recent and glaring example. Unfortunately, none of you Obama supporters took the time to ask exactly what that meant. Now we're stuck with this Presidency and this Congress and will all suffer because of it.
We already have $100 TRILLION in unfunded mandates. Nothing is being done or even discussed to address this. Instead, Washington politicians seem to be hell bent on making the problem worse. As long as they can hold on to their power, which is their only real consideration.
The point is, politicians of both parties are completely out of control and have lost sight of what their real purpose is: to serve the American people in the most practical, efficient and responsible manner possible and make policy decisions with that goal in mind. Judging by what's going on in Washington, that's not even a consideration.
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"only compound"
Posted by stateofnatchez (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 11:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So when is your Obama ever gonna take responsibility.......maybe 3 yrs from now??? ...........yeah, it sounds more like the same excuses from the very people that help put him in office.
I love that blogs pretty much stay around forever. It's gonna be poetic to read these ten years from now.
Oh wait, what happened again in Virginia and New Jersey???? Just wait til Nov 2010!!
Yeah, Obama's gonna make Jimmy Carter adm look like a walk in the park when he finishes giving away most of this country. I LOVE it. History ain't gonna be kind on this one. Maybe some of you dead heads will figure it out when you wake up.
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on November 11, 2009 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
kmbjd I will accept that your last post is an admission that -- as far as the immediate alternatives -- you don't have a party of sufficient clout or wisdom to offer a solution to the government thing -- since both parties have done basically the same thing using government when they got the chance. One side marginally more favors lower income types, the other favors those who already have capital and clout.
Saying government is the problem -- itself a wonderful slogan bandied about constantly by your side -- falls stupid when you realize everyone seems to agree we have to have roads, the biggest military in the world, drug laws to protect the suicidal and the infirm, inspected food, regulation of medicine, regulated airlines and flight paths, police, fire protection, good sewers, utilities, courts, yada, yada.
That said, the next step in this country has been mandated to be what is on the plate. People will get cold feet during the time things are being hammered out. It won't come quick enough because of the same "serve me" instincts that make people want everything right now -- stateofnatchez' post is an example of that.
Most folks whine like babies but never bother to go over the details of what IS happening in government except far enough to support their prejudices. After that, they are fresh out of ideas that they can actually implement and stoop to whining.
I do think it is cute to see Republicans -- to use a conservative slogan -- being "nattering nabobs of negativity". And you guys just need to realize that it ain't manly to complain so much. You just lost power due to your incompetence and inability to satisfy the voters. Face it and be constructive for a while.
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on November 12, 2009 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My last post isn't an admission of anything of the sort. The simple answer to most of these problems is the free market. The free market is always a more efficient mechanism for handling the problems that this country faces. In the free market, people have an incentive to do things correctly, because if they don't they go out of business.
With government you have just the opposite situation. The political class is motivated by what is politically expediant and what will satisfy whatever constituency they need to please to maintain their power. Plus, they're not spending their own money or using their own resources so they don't have to worry about how much money this program costs, or how much money that program wastes. They can always blame the other guy. As long their heart was in the right place and their supposed intentions were pure.
I never said there is no role for govenment. But the governments role should be limited. Far more so than the way we find things today. Go to USdebtclock.org if you want to see in black and white the utter disaster the our federal government has become. It's truly a sphincter tightening experience. Yet what are the Dems proposing? What is their solution? Why, their solution for everything: Spend, spend, spend. Then spend some more. What? The spending's not working? It's only making things worse? Well, by God, let's spend some more! Oh yeah. And tax. We can't forget that.
I hate to tell you, but it doesn't work. It has never worked. It never will work. The fact that libs keep going down this path should tell anyone with even the slightest degree of intelligence that the left is hopeless collection of complete morons, or they have a more nefarious agenda. I happen to think it's a combination of the two.
Reagan said it best when he summed up the Democrat's governing philosophy in this way: "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it." (God how I miss those times, when we had a real President.)
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on November 13, 2009 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Clear your mind for a second kndgb.
You don't have an alternative. THAT is what you admitted. You admitted you don't have a party that supports what you espouse. Last time the Republicans were in office without a check or balance they showed you they are blowing smoke up your patoot. What they miss in new taxes they give away as perks and special laws to industries. When they piled up a few excesses their mistakes affected the entire economy. Before Bush was out he was giving away money to special interests like a fool just to see the corpse kicking a bit.
You don't have free enterprise in this country and the people who are best connected will never give you free enterprise. You can just as easily say you have a solution as I could say a bunch of aboriginies could produce nuclear power without a reactor just because they have some uranium.
Most people like to say they want free enterprise but they mostly just want lower taxes for themselves, and freedom from their business being regulated. They would leave in place -- through laziness or ignorance -- the protections for insurance, lawyers, corporations, doctors, police, the military and monied interests from A to Z.
From the ground up we use government from so basic a level as to prohibit a human being from appearing in public in his natural state up. Where you live, how you live, what animals you can keep, what flowers you can smoke, what you can drink, what you can buy or sell, what you can do on certain weekdays, and to own anything you must pay for the systems that enforce all of it. Leave all that in place but claim to support free enterprise for lower taxes and all you are doing is becoming another special interest group in a NON-free enterprise system.
If you don't get it that is OK. But at least you heard it. I don't like it either but I am not such a moon-pie that I think we can take a pass on doing the best we can with what we are working with.
As far as having a real president -- wasn't Reagan in office nearly 2 years when he had 10.8% unemployment? Then he busted the budget with deficit spending and gave himself a pass? See -- even your heroes don't keep your standards.
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on November 13, 2009 at 7:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We don't have free enterprise in this country? Have you lost your mind? (That question was purely rhetorical, of course.) Our free enterprise is overly regulated, but we do have a system of free enterprise nonetheless. And you claim you don't like things the way they are but you support Obama? Huh? He's doing his level best to make the situation far worse.
I will agree with you that the Republican's did lose their way. They tried to become Democrat's lite and they paid a heavy price. My hope is that the party will return to Reagan conservatism, if not out of an affinity for the ideology itself, then because it is the politically expedient thing to do. It's the best we can hope for.
Reagan inherited a mess. The difference between him and Obama is that Reagan took the appropriate steps to fix the problem. And it worked. Obama is doing the polar opposite, following a formula that has failed every time it's been tried.
Reagan busted the budget? Reagan was working with a Democrat Congress nearly the entire time he was in office. He did the best he could with what he had. Plus, budget deficits under Reagan topped out a 6% of GDP, and that was for only one year. Our deficit this year is 10% of GDP and the Obama White House is predicting deficits of at least 7% of GDP for the next decade.
The bottom line is, I want what is best for this country. Obama and the Dems are trying to transform this country into something that it's never been, and will ultimately destroy us.
Posted by bayougal (anonymous) on November 14, 2009 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Anyone who cares to remember history clearly knows that Ronald Reagan had serious issues to deal with following Carter's fiasco. If you care to read up, check out "The Eighties-America in the Age of Reagan" by John Ehrman. Ehrman correctly states that "these economic changes left Americans better off at the end of the Reagan years than at the beginning."
Reagan also brought respect and admiration back to the United States. People felt proud to be Americans. Unlike the current president, who goes abroad and speaks of us as if we were children needing to be scolded. Carter casts a pretty sorrow image of us also.
Heroes? Yep, Reagan fits the bill.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)