Unemployment rate hits 6.4% (Highest since GHB)

[The_Dude]

WASHINGTON - The nation's unemployment rate shot up to 6.4 percent in June, the highest in more than nine years, in an economic slump that has cost nearly a million jobs in the last three months.

Businesses slashed 30,000 jobs just last month, with cuts heavily concentrated on factory assembly lines, the Labor Department (news - web sites) reported Thursday.


Last month's 6.4 percent rate — the highest since the aftershocks of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks — was up 0.3 percentage point from May. That surprised analysts who had predicted a slight rise to 6.2 percent. The last time the rate was higher was in April 1994.


While recent economic indicators point to an economy struggling toward recovery, the latest report demonstrated that America's job market was still very much in a state of recession last

Link

Everyone say "Thank you GWB!"

------------------------------------------

"It's a shame that so many Americans still can't find jobs, and it's a shame that President Bush doesn't have a clue about how to make things better," said North Carolina Sen. John Edwards (news, bio, voting record), a candidate for the White House. "It's clear that the president's tax cuts for the wealthy are failing the rest of the country."

Sen. Bob Graham (news, bio, voting record) of Florida, another presidential hopeful, said the jobless rate is "further evidence that Bushonomics has failed America." One of his rivals, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, said the numbers show "America's working families are under siege — by the Bush administration and by the worsening economy."

"That's not a good record," said the Connecticut senator. "We've got to go back to what worked during the Clinton-Gore years — fiscal responsibility, investments in education innovations, tax cuts for business to create growth."

- Lieberman

"George Bush is well on his way to becoming the first president since Herbert Hoover to lead the country to fewer jobs," said Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, comparing the loss of more than 2 million jobs under Bush to the Republican U.S. president who presided over the 1929 stock market crash and onset of the Great Depression.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean also used the Hoover analogy and said Bush was giving tax cuts to the wealthy while proposing to cut overtime pay for millions of workers.

the above are quote i took from diff articles.
the news is definately not good, a 6.4% unemployment and rising.

sure hope that 6.4% votes for the dem candidate (bad humor).

the tax cuts were supposed to trickle down, and i dont see that happening. more and more people are getting cut everyday.

i just dont think this guy knows what he is doing

[seretogis]

It's quite an impressive feat of oversimplification if you think that GWB is entirely responsible for the current state of the economy and unemployment.

[The_Dude]

i'm not putting all the blame on him. there are lots of other factors that could cause the current shape of the economy.

but, the messed up fiscal policy can definately heavily contribute to this.

[BBtB]

Originally posted by The_Dude
i'm not putting all the blame on him. there are lots of other factors that could cause the current shape of the economy.

but, the messed up fiscal policy can definately heavily contribute to this.

Of course the economy started slumping a good year before he took office. But thats okay. Of course he is not doing a whole hell of a lot to curb it. Atleast not much that I can see.

[The_Dude]

Originally posted by BBtB
Of course he is not doing a whole hell of a lot to curb it. Atleast not much that I can see.

from what i can see, he's makin it worse

[juanvaldes]

political trolls go in the flame forum.

[reconmike]

I think Dude you should look at your boy Slick Willie, because his policies are still effecting this economy.
Just like the Slick one inherited Reagan's good fortune.

World com, tyco, enron are all because willie was asleep behind the wheel.
It is a shame that all had to break during W's watch because slick could have pardoned them also.

Jobs are leaving this country because the american public likes cheap prices.
Stock holders only care about the bottom line, cheaper labor=bigger dividends.
So when you are out of work pick up your chinese built phone, put on your maylasian sneakers, get into your korean built cheap car and drive over to the unemployment office and become a statistic.

[rogue49]

Instead going around pointing the blame at either the left or the right,
or any individual.

How about we take a different route this time.
What do you think the various entities & figures of authority
can do to change this trend?

Or better stated what would you do?

[smooth]

I would start by repealing the enormous tax cuts.

Alocate resources to prosecute the corporate crooks--establish a more secure environment to invest in.

Create tax subsidies for domestic expansion projects in lieu of blanket cuts.

Reduce middle class brackets and redistribute money more equitably throughtout the middle and lower classes. Using the surplus to subsidize local businesses would create both buying pressure and inroads into destructive monopolies.

[Stare At The Sun]

god damnit, someone impeach/kill that mother fucker. Seriously. First the econ slowly slips away, then the war, and now this. Damnit, if he get reelected im not going to a damn thing other than be hella pissed..but yeah..

[papermachesatan]

Originally posted by rogue49
Instead going around pointing the blame at either the left or the right,
or any individual.

How about we take a different route this time.
What do you think the various entities & figures of authority
can do to change this trend?

Or better stated what would you do?

Actually I think I'm just going to place the blame for a slumping economy on Halx.

That rat bastard...

[HarmlessRabbit]

kind of funny to see juanvaldes call this post a "troll" while remaining silent on sixate's "Treason" post.

The original post appears to be full of facts and quotes. I'm looking for the "troll" aspect, but I don't see it.

Just once I'd like to see those who blame the current economy on Clinton to thank him for the military's preparedness for the invasion into Afghanistan.

[Dragonlich]

You all do know that recessions and such are cyclic things? Every few decades, you have a huge recession, and in between, you have a cycle of ups and downs.

What we have here is not as simple as pointing at one guy. We had the computer and internet hype, which backfired. That hype led to a corporate culture of "more more more", instead of long term planning. That led to corporate fraud. Most of that is a direct result of stock holders losing sight of what is important; the sky was the limit, and nobody gave a rat's arse about tomorrow, let along next year.

Then there's the lingering recession in Japan, the problems in Europe (Germany, France), and even problems in South-east Asia... South America is fucked up, as is Africa. All of those countries are not importing stuff from the US as they once were, which means less demand, and less production. Job losses are a logical result.



(Okay, I'll be honest: it was me. I'm the Jewish conspiracy, the secret world government, and I like to see people lose their jobs. Blame me. )

[Liquor Dealer]

All I can say is that I have been trying to hire help for the past three weeks. I have had an ad in the paper for the past three weeks, I have a reputation as being a more than fair employer and there have been no serious takers. During this time I have had four people come in and ask me for a job - I offered it to three of them and was told they were only applying to keep their unemployment benefits going - they asked for and refused the job when it was offered. Don't quote statistics about unemployment when every paper in the country has "Help Wanted" ads in them. Granted, it might not be the exact thing one is looking for but there are jobs for almost anyone who is really wanting to work.

[Dragonlich]

Liquor Dealer: although your statement isn't true for *everyone*, it does apply to most people.

Take me, for instance: I graduated from university about two years ago, and am a Master of Science, well versed in the ways of logistics, mathematics and programming. I spend 18 months looking for a good job (=unemployed), and finally got a job as computer salesman about 1.5 months ago. That is a far cry from what I wanted to do, or what I was trained to do. I had expected to get about 1800 Euros a month, but now earn 1350. But at least I have a job... There are reports of university graduates working as cleaning ladies/men, so I can't say I'm in a terrible condition either.

[Nad Adam]

Yeah, it's all fucked up here in Sweden too, a friend of mine has a master of physics degree and can't get a job if his life depended on it. Right now he's driving a cab. Another is an engineer with 4.5 years of university behind him, he's selling cinema tickets. Talk about a waste of potential and knowledge.

[The_Dude]

i consider myself unemployed.

i've been actively lookin for work for the past 6 months or so. i've applied @ 5+ places (supermarkets to fast food) and no calls yet.

people that work @ these places tell me that they give priority to older applicants since they're in more of a need.

[reconmike]

Originally posted by The_Dude
i consider myself unemployed.

i've been actively lookin for work for the past 6 months or so. i've applied @ 5+ places (supermarkets to fast food) and no calls yet.

people that work @ these places tell me that they give priority to older applicants since they're in more of a need.

Are going to college in sept.?

Then you are a student not unemployed.

And alot of places will not hire a student because they will have to fill a vacancy when they leave for school.
So it is better for the employer to hire someone who is looking for permanent employment.

[XXXs]

People who blame President Bush for the economic problems are hugely misinformed. As stated above, the economy turned under Clinton's watch. The terror attacks, which may have been prevented if Clinton had caught bin Laden when Bin Laden was being handed to us, hurt the economy even more.

How can the economy be fixed? I think it is currently on track. The unemployement rate is a lagging indicator and will continue to go up even when the economy is turning around. The unemployment rate is only at 6.4%. Most economists believe the ideal rate is in the neighborhood of 4-5%. Were not too far off. I say wait 3-4 months and the economy will no longer be an issue.

One way to quickly kill the economy is to raise taxes, which is what "repealing" the tax cuts would be. Another way would be to increase spending, which is what the democratic candidates universal health care ideas would do.

[The_Dude]

Originally posted by reconmike
Are going to college in sept.?

Then you are a student not unemployed.

And alot of places will not hire a student because they will have to fill a vacancy when they leave for school.
So it is better for the employer to hire someone who is looking for permanent employment.

i've been looking my entire sr yr and am looking now.

so, i think i'm unemployed (and i'm actively looking)

[Jesus Pimp]

Originally posted by XXXs
People who blame President Bush for the economic problems are hugely misinformed. As stated above, the economy turned under Clinton's watch. The terror attacks, which may have been prevented if Clinton had caught bin Laden when Bin Laden was being handed to us, hurt the economy even more.

Yet Bush can't find Bin Laden or Saddam and has sent US troops to Iraq for his personal and lobbyist gains. Rather than working to alleviate problems back at home.

[seretogis]

Originally posted by Jesus Pimp
Yet Bush can't find Bin Laden or Saddam and has sent US troops to Iraq for his personal and lobbyist gains. Rather than working to alleviate problems back at home.

As far as finding Bin Laden goes, according to Mansoor Ijaz (a counterterrorism expert and foreign affairs analyst), "I think the decision was made very early on .. not to focus too much on going in and getting him. If we got through to the second layer [of defense] there would be an instruction given to commit , as they call it, 'the final act', in which bin Laden would martyr himself. Pakistan's intelligence service told our people last May: '..if you martyr this guy, there may be an automatic instruction which goes out that you don't want to have to deal with. Better that you guys deal with your problems one at a time, and when there isn't a real functional al Qaeda operation globally, then we can discuss whether and how to go get him.'"

[smooth]

Originally posted by XXXs
One way to quickly kill the economy is to raise taxes, which is what "repealing" the tax cuts would be. Another way would be to increase spending, which is what the democratic candidates universal health care ideas would do.

Well, no one responded to my proposals.

Once the tax cuts go through (these ones, anyway) there is no guarantee that the money will be reinvested in our economy. In fact, in a global economy one could expect the opposite to occur. Even if people reinvest their new money it won't go into their local economy--it will be sent to Wall Street and seek the lowest price for the highest return.

The money will definately be dispersed throughout the market--no one disputes that. Others only _hope_ the best return will occur here--tax cuts can't force domestic investment.

Credits and rebates, however, would force domestic investment. Build a factory--tax free. Hire three new workers--tax free for X amount of time. Need a business--money available through low interest (2-3%) and tax free.

How is a program along these lines worse than just giving people their money back? The people who are going to invest will still receive the money they would have gotten under the blanket cuts while the others don't. Even libertarians believe the government's role should be relegated to economic concerns. Allowing the economy to tank is no good for anyone.

While it's true that economies are cyclical it's also true that a free market economy can sit at the bottom forever as well as remain at the top--just like we witnessed during the depression.

[Kadath]

I don't care who's at fault for the current economic state. What I want is to hear something out of Bush about his plans to employ the people of this nation. Though I suppose with the open invitation on attacking US troops, we'll have lots of vacancies in the armed forces soon.
And Dragonlich is correct. The unemployment rate does not address the underemployed.

[Sparhawk]

Don't worry, the tax cuts will trickle down to those 6.4%!!! Just like they did under Reagan and Bush I!!!

[Sparhawk]

Originally posted by BBtB
Of course the economy started slumping a good year before he took office. But thats okay. Of course he is not doing a whole hell of a lot to curb it. Atleast not much that I can see.

Of course the economy had already had a recovery from that slump, and is now in a bigger slump. Of course you knew that

[geep]

Originally posted by Sparhawk
Of course the economy had already had a recovery from that slump, and is now in a bigger slump. Of course you knew that

Whatever you're smokin' Sparhawk, I want some. Most major indicators, including, now, factory output, are on the rise. Lower unemployment will follow. I wasn't happy when GWB yielded to pressure from the left and extended the unemployment benefits. Liquor Dealer is not unique in the fact that people turn him down for jobs because it will effect their unemplyment compensation, I've had the same experience. We had several people who after being laid off for 6 months refused to come back after being called because they would rather collect unemployment benefits than work. Two things that happened under Clintons watch that didn't help the economy will have lingering effects- the tech bubble and corporate corruption.

BTW Smooth- get a cheap tax program, look up the tax tables and do a couple of tax scenarios on the middle class incomes. A family of three (father, mother and child) who makes $40k/yr pays NO income tax and gets about $1300 dollars MORE back from the government. You can't cut their taxes if they aren't PAYING any. Compare that to a family of 7 making $95k and PAYING $7,000 in taxes. Do your math-which family has more income per household member?

[smooth]

Well, geep, I didn't write anything about cutting taxes for people making 40K a year--reread my proposal. I stated that I would reduce middles class brackets and repeal the blanket cuts and return them as credits to people who invest and expand domestically.

I'm not going to run your arbitrary families because they don't make any sense and are irrelevant to my proposal.

Reality check: your workers probably have other reasons besides laziness for not wanting to come back to your business after you laid them off six months ago. If they were so lazy, why would you want them to come back?

I suspect they would rather collect what they can from you and find another work environment instead of working for a business that treats them like they are disposable.

[The_Dude]

Originally posted by geep
Whatever you're smokin' Sparhawk, I want some. Most major indicators, including, now, factory output, are on the rise.

the overall GDP is not rising much. it's almost flat.

[geep]

Originally posted by smooth
Well, geep, I didn't write anything about cutting taxes for people making 40K a year--reread my proposal. I stated that I would reduce middles class brackets and repeal the blanket cuts and return them as credits to people who invest and expand domestically.

Originally posted by smooth
Reduce middle class brackets and redistribute money more equitably throughtout the middle and lower classes.

Did I miss something? Do you think people making $40k/yr are upper income? Lower income?

Originally posted by smooth
I'm not going to run your arbitrary families because they don't make any sense and are irrelevant to my proposal.

Truth is you can't give people a tax break who aren't paying taxes. If you plan to "redistribute" income at other families expense, then you are simply beefing up a system already in place. People who invest ARE the recipients of the blanket cuts- they are the people who will add jobs and create new businesses, which is the only way unemployment will drop. If the goverment just hands out money, it will not create a single job.

Originally posted by smooth
Reality check: your workers probably have other reasons besides laziness for not wanting to come back to your business after you laid them off six months ago. If they were so lazy, why would you want them to come back?.

I never said they were lazy- don't put words in my mouth. Perhaps they are smart- after all they're the ones getting something for nothing. I'm just stating the reasons they gave.

Originally posted by smooth
I suspect they would rather collect what they can from you and find another work environment instead of working for a business that treats them like they are disposable.

They don't collect unemployment from me- they collect it from YOU.

[smooth]

40K for a family of three is on the lower spectrum of wage earners--evidenced by your claim that they don't pay any fucking taxes.

(here: 2 wage earners @ $10/hr for 40 hrs/wk for 12 months = $38,400).

People who invest ARE the recipients of the blanket cuts- they are the people who will add jobs and create new businesses, which is the only way unemployment will drop. If the goverment just hands out money, it will not create a single job.

Why do you waste my time? How is giving tax rebates to those who invest domestically "handing out money?"

[OrionNomad]

I took an upper division economics class a couple of semesters ago. Global, and our country's economics lag by about 4-5 years. Clinton inherited the previous administrations good wealth and cruised during his two terms, leaving just as things started to go down hill. Bush inherited his gigantic mess, and if is re-elected may see things turn back up by the end of his second term.

Why give tax cuts to the poor, the majority of them don't pay taxes, the people who need tax cuts are the middle and lower upper class. These people generally have educations that will protect them from becoming unemployed and maintaining their spending habits will stabilize the economy.

Those complaining about the war in Iraq hurting the economy don't realize that wars have a positive effect on the economy. The munitions are made in america, in american factorys. The planes and ships and vehicles and weapons are all made in america by americans. Increase (something along the lines of a couple billion dollars) in military spending will go into the american economy. The soldiers are americans and will eventually end up spending their money usually in america boosting the american economy. War is what pulled us out of the great depression, both World Wars gave the economy tremendus boosts, leaving America a world power in both cases. Time for class, i'm off.

[The_Dude]

Originally posted by OrionNomad
[B]I took an upper division economics class a couple of semesters ago. Global, and our country's economics lag by about 4-5 years. Clinton inherited the previous administrations good wealth and cruised during his two terms, leaving just as things started to go down hill.

- maybe it's the wealth that helped ghb in his reelection campaign.

[Jesus Pimp]

Originally posted by OrionNomad


Those complaining about the war in Iraq hurting the economy don't realize that wars have a positive effect on the economy. The munitions are made in america, in american factorys. The planes and ships and vehicles and weapons are all made in america by americans. Increase (something along the lines of a couple billion dollars) in military spending will go into the american economy. The soldiers are americans and will eventually end up spending their money usually in america boosting the american economy. War is what pulled us out of the great depression, both World Wars gave the economy tremendus boosts, leaving America a world power in both cases. Time for class, i'm off. [/B]

How do you know these munitions and vehicles are made in the America but Americans? The way things are, they could be made in mexico or indonesia for all we know. These are different times my friend.

[Dragonlich]

Originally posted by Jesus Pimp
How do you know these munitions and vehicles are made in the America but Americans? The way things are, they could be made in Mexico or Indonesia for all we know. These are different times my friend.

Well, most of them *are* made in the US. But even if they were not, that still leaves transport across the US, storage in the US, US soldiers needing US supplies, etc. etc. Military spending is probably one of the fastest ways to invest in the economy, economically speaking. You can either do that, or go for long-term infrastructure investment.

By the way, might I suggest that the economy is not as good right now because of a myriad of reasons, most rather independent of Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton *and* Bush Jr?

For example, Reagan's investment in the military is at least partly responsible for the end of the Soviet Union. Paradoxically, this has led to a more dangerous world, especially with Muslim extremism on the rise. A dangerous world leads to uncertainty about the future, and is never good for investment. The Tech bubble bursting only made those doubts bigger, as did 9-11, and corporate fraud, and the war in Iraq, and many, many other things... Most of these consequences were never predicted, nor expected. But I guess it's easier to blame someone, be it your political opponents, an anonymous enemy, or some big (Jewish/Whitey/Fundy) conspiracy.

The economy is too complex for anyone to have any direct impact - anything Bush does can either help, or make it worse. Everything has multiple consequences, most quite unpredictable. The only thing Bush can do, is *try* and steer the economy in a direction he and his advisors think it should go. Nobody knows if it'll work, and nobody knows when we will see results either... his advisors can only do their calculations, and hope their historic data can be used to predict the future well enough.

(FYI, my credentials: I have a university degree in mathematical economics)

[geep]

Originally posted by smooth
40K for a family of three is on the lower spectrum of wage earners--evidenced by your claim that they don't pay any fucking taxes.

(here: 2 wage earners @ $10/hr for 40 hrs/wk for 12 months = $38,400).

According to the IRS the median AGI in Tax Year 2001 was $28,117. The Census Bureau lists the median income per household as $42,148 in 2000.

Originally posted by smooth
Why do you waste my time? How is giving tax rebates to those who invest domestically "handing out money?"

Handing out rebates gives a "one time" boost to the economy. Once the money is gone, so are the benefits. Investing the money in businesses or other growth-oriented ventures CONTINUOUSLY reinvests itself, creating real growth in terms of things like employment. Webster defines rebate like this

a return of a part of a payment

So it isn't really a rebate because they never made any fucking payment. Sorry to waste your time with FACTS.

[The_Dude]

Originally posted by geep
Handing out rebates gives a "one time" boost to the economy. Once the money is gone, so are the benefits. Investing the money in businesses or other growth-oriented ventures CONTINUOUSLY reinvests itself, creating real growth in terms of things like employment.

where is the mone "gone" to?? the people are going to spend the money to the businesses.

[smooth]

Originally posted by geep
According to the IRS the median AGI in Tax Year 2001 was $28,117. The Census Bureau lists the median income per household as $42,148 in 2000.



Handing out rebates gives a "one time" boost to the economy. Once the money is gone, so are the benefits. Investing the money in businesses or other growth-oriented ventures CONTINUOUSLY reinvests itself, creating real growth in terms of things like employment. Webster defines rebate like this



So it isn't really a rebate because they never made any fucking payment. Sorry to waste your time with FACTS.

OMG, geep, I can't believe I keep getting caught up with you. I try to ignore you for the most part but then this shit happens.

Who never made any "payment"? The 40K is your figure; maybe you're arguing that middle class Americans don't pay taxes--I don't know what the hell you're trying to point out anymore and, frankly, I don't care because I haven't ever seen you contribute anything useful to a discussion with me and would rather you didn't even respond to my posts.

Right now the majority of the tax cuts are going to the wealthy in the hopes they will reinvest it. Obviously (to me, at least), the claim is that wealthy people pay more in taxes and deserve some relief. Furthermore, the _hope_ is that they will reinvest it.

I already described far, far above why returning that money does not ensure they will invest it domestically. Instead, I propose that the government should give small business and large corporations tax concessions if they invest domestically rather than blanket cuts while crossing our fingers and hoping they invest it domestically. This seems to be hard for you to fathom.

On a seperate issue I proposed that middle income wage earners' brackets should be reduced to invigorate spending. This isn't a rebate and it doesn't even relate to your ridiculous points about who is paying more or no taxes. Our economy needs a one-shot boost even if your analyses was correct--unless you weren't paying attention to what the Fed was doing and the reasons they stated they were lowering interest rates (HINT: a one-time boost to the economy to drive reinvestment).

So, yeah, you are wasting my time--not with facts, with riduculous points. So much for attempting to honor rogue's request.

[smooth]

Originally posted by geep
Did I miss something? Do you think people making $40k/yr are upper income? Lower income?



Truth is you can't give people a tax break who aren't paying taxes. If you plan to "redistribute" income at other families expense, then you are simply beefing up a system already in place. People who invest ARE the recipients of the blanket cuts- they are the people who will add jobs and create new businesses, which is the only way unemployment will drop. If the goverment just hands out money, it will not create a single job.

Perhaps I should put it in SIMPLE terms. Even conceding your point that 2 wage earners pulling 40K comprises the middle class workers I was referring to:

If a family doesn't pay any taxes in April then reducing their tax bracket won't reduce their tax obligation--it simply allows them to keep more wages from their check that they will otherwise receive at the end of the tax year.

Are you listening? I didn't say reduce their tax obligation or give them more credit or return payments they never made. Reducing one's bracket, in the case of a family that won't end up paying taxes, allows them more liquid income to spend. For the other family, the 95K, regardless of what class level you think they are part of, this _would_ reduce their tax obligation. WOW, they would have more liquid income as well.

The result would be that the lower classes would spend their liquid income while the upper classes invest domestically. Odd how that works...

[geep]

Originally posted by smooth
unless you weren't paying attention to what the Fed was doing and the reasons they stated they were lowering interest rates (HINT: a one-time boost to the economy to drive reinvestment).

Lowering the interest rate is not "one time" money. When a business borrows money from the bank, it is seldom at a fixed rate. Rather, it is at a rate fixed at a certain percentage above prime (i.e. "1 point above" or "1/4 point above") and floats with the prime rate. Since the amount of the monthly installment to repay the loan depends on the interest rate of the loan, and the bank calculates the interest daily, every day the prime rate stays low saves the borrower money. This savings is for loans made today and for loans made 2 years ago.

Originally posted by smooth
OMG, geep, I can't believe I keep getting caught up with you. I try to ignore you for the most part but then this shit happens.

I don't come here to post things that you like, I come here to post my opinion. If you don't like what I have to say then don't respond. While I can respect your opinions and welcome them, I certainly don't deserve to be put down for mine.