Obama 1 year later - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 01-20-2010, 02:16 PM

Today is exactly 1 year after Obama was sworn into office as the 44th President of the United States.

How do you feel he has done? Has he lived up to your expectations? Has he lived up to the fail you expected to see?

I give everyone a chance, because actions are louder than any rhetoric and dogma. In the past year, I haven't seen Mr. Obama complete anything that he stated he would. I don't think he's done nothing, but his promises were big and grand. I don't think he delivered a single one.

The stimulus package was too short, it didn't provide enough jobs. I know of many people who got laid off, I know of not a single person who got a job based on the stimulus package. Many that got laid off are still laid off.

The banking crisis, while he gets only to work with what was left, I don't think that there was enough reform or protections. The dismantling of the Glass–Steagall Act under Clinton and not reinstated after the 2007 collapse, is politics as usual.

I'm not sure what to make of the foreign policy but it seems to be more than Mr. Clinton had, though I'm not sure how effective Mrs. Clinton is.

aceventura3 · 01-20-2010, 02:43 PM

Obama is an example of style with no substance. He came from a world of "professorial theory" with no experience of putting theory into application. So, what he says sounds good, it seems logical, and he says it well - but there is a disconnect with translating that into governing. The real issue is, can he grow in the job? My guess is that he will not and that part of the problem is with the people he is surrounded by. He needs a few people in his inner circle who actually have a differing point of view. Hopefully he has learned that he can not turn his agenda over to people like Pelosi and Reid,

ratbastid · 01-20-2010, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

In the past year, I haven't seen Mr. Obama complete anything that he stated he would. I don't think he's done nothing, but his promises were big and grand. I don't think he delivered a single one.

You're mistaken. According to PolitiFact, he's kept 91 promises, compromised on 33, and broken 15. I understand there's some key stuff he promised that we haven't seen. But to say he hasn't delivered a single one is inaccurate.

Now. Are there things--including, perhaps, foundational/philosophical things--that I wish the Obama administration was doing differently? Absodamnlutely. I think their continued efforts to USAify the middle east is disastrously misguided. I'm sad about the continued use of intelligence of sketchy quality and legality. On "homeland security" in general, I give Obama a D.

Thing is, I'm not surprised, because he TOLD us he planned to do that. He's KEEPING promises, in that area. I voted for him knowing full well what his intentions were there. So I don't really feel like I get to be too upset about it.

In other areas he's done exactly what I'd like him to do. He's opened our arms to the international community. Quibble about the details of it if you have to (and I know, oh lord do I know, some of you have to), the efforts he's made to stabilize the economy have had a positive impact. He's putting through health reform and while it's nowhere near what I wish it was, that's mostly because of congress, which seems to me an intractable quagmire at the moment.

So... mixed. Where I disagree with what's happening, I don't get to claim any outrage, at least not with a straight face like some of those who seem to want to cast 1-year-in-Obama as a failed messiah...

aceventura3 · 01-20-2010, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

You're mistaken. According to PolitiFact, he's kept 91 promises, compromised on 33, and broken 15.

How does this work? What standards do you hold Obama to?

Riddle:

I didn't murder 91 people today.
I assaulted 33,
I murdered 15.

What am I?

P.S. - This is a rhetorical question, I did not actually assault or murder any real people today, but I am going to play a little Call of Duty 3 tonight.

Seaver · 01-20-2010, 04:34 PM

Banking Reform.

He's treated the banks with more reverence than any President in history, and instead of actually pushing for reforms he is trying to regulate the pay of the bank CEOs. All that's doing is creating a situation where banks like Citigroup lay off 100k workers and lose 7billion per quarter in order to hurry up and pay back the government so they can give their CEOs whatever the hell they want.

Stop pussyfooting around and put the old regulations on investment banking so the credit can start to flow and we don't have to worry about the bubble popping again (or continue to deflate).

cementor · 01-20-2010, 05:29 PM

Obama has not completed much in the first year. I disagree with most of what this administration has done and is trying to do. It certainly appears that many others (though not on this forum) agree with that assessment. Looking at the last 3 election (especially Scott Brown's win last night) results there is a lot of uneasiness with the direction we are being taken. Mr. Obama had a lot of ideas for change, but I always felt that during the run up to the election there was a lack of understanding of the underlying problems and more importantly a plan for executing these ideas. He has systematically surrounded himself with theoriticians and the result is nothing gets accomplished. The McCain campaign refused to ask the questions about the execution ( in what I believe was the worst run campaign in my 35 years as a voter) and the mainstream media followed suit. In the end we have what we have. The Democrats were outstanding at being obstructionists during the Bush years and the Republicans are equally adept. Frankly if they are incumbents (with very few exceptions) I will vote against them.

Reform is needed in many areas, but in my opinion certain fundemantals have to be adressed before we can impart any change. Tort law reform is paramount, you can't fix healthcare or many of our other big ticket problems either without this being taken care of first, and frankly that will NEVER happen when the foxes (lawyers) own the henhouse. Term Limits for Congress, Line Item Veto or Bill singularity (elimination of earmarks and tag ons etc) None of these is even on the radar screen and won't ever be.

Before some of you jump in I am a conservative, registered Republican AND I'm MAD AS HELL at my bunch of "turds in human suits" because they don't represent me very well either, but I find them less offensive than the band of thieves Mr Obama surrounds himself with. Check their collective records of paying their taxes (any of US would be in jail with sustantial penalties assessed)

All politicians lie (you can tell when their lips move) but Mr. Obama and his "Transparency" line of BS has me totally put out. I didn't trust the last bunch or the bunch before them, but this crew is WAY OUT OF LINE. Previous administrations were liars as well, but they didn't claim to be transparent as this admin did. Change We Can Believe In? I don't think so. I believe the Mandate he felt he got in the last election will be a completely different story come this November.

Over and OUT!

ratbastid · 01-20-2010, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

How does this work? What standards do you hold Obama to?

For the sake of fair conversation (a damn-near lost cause, I know, but keep hope alive!!), I was responding to Cynthetiq's assertion that "I don't think he's kept any of his promises". He actually has. Vastly more than he's broken.

tl;dr (because that's what we're dealing with here): What I'm saying is, the assertion "He has kept zero of his promises" is inaccurate.

The_Dunedan · 01-20-2010, 06:49 PM

Let's see:

Deficit: Growing at a rate even George W. Bush would vomit over.

Inflation: Insane. What can't be borrowed is simply being printed. Check out the prices of Gold, Pounds Sterling, and Euros. See how the three relate. Then get to a sink, 'cause you're gonna want to puke.

Wars: Still ongoing.

Gitmo: Still open.

USA PATRIOT Act: Still there.

Economy: Gasping for breath.

Transparency: What transparency? Just for the illiterate, "transparency" means you don't get to hold "negotiations" on a bill in the middle of the night while only inviting those who agree with you.

Bipartisanship: You mean aside from continuing all the worst policies of the Bush Regime? I'll take less bipartisan warmongering and more bipartisan legislative action, if you please.

Honesty: Two words, Barry; "Nebraska" and "Louisiana."

Openess: Because having SEIU leg-breakers enforce Newthink at "town hall meetings" is a really open way to conduct government business...

Banking: Let's see, the banks which nearly bankrupted the country have not only been bailed out, but are now being exempted from fees and charges leveled against those banks which -DIDN'T- provoke the near-collapse of the American economy. Fuck up and get rewarded, play it straight and get the shaft.

Taxes: Well, if you don't -call- it a tax...call it a "fee" or a "surcharge" instead, then it isn't a tax!...unless you're the poor schlub who gets stuck picking up the tab.

Obama, one year on? If we're lucky he'll be voted out in 2012 and become a quickly-forgotten one-term-wonder like Millard Filmore or Benjamin Harrison, soon lost in the mercifully dim mists of time and memory. If things keep going they way they have, he'll end up like Jimmy Carter; voted out after one term of making fools of his constituents. However, given that Mr. Bush was elected twice, something tells me that the American electorate might just be dumb enough to elect this nonce a second time. They'll apparently vote for anybody. At worst, Mr. Obama's policies will piss some fruitbat off badly enough to take a shot at him. As much as I detest Mr. Obama, an assassination attempt (let alone a successful one) is my worst nightmare. Then the rotten little slime gets to be a martyr, and his collectivist cohorts will control every house of government for the next fifty years.

ratbastid · 01-20-2010, 07:29 PM

I really would like you (by whom I mean YOU, sitting in YOUR chair) to go to that link that I posted above. It breaks down, in a rigorously non-partisan way, the specific promises Obama made during the campaign, and whether they've been kept, broken, compromised on, are in progress, or are stalled.

It's easy to work from talking points, but all that produces is an echo chamber of agreement, potentially more and more divergent from facts. I'm inviting this whole thread into a FACT conversation.

Baraka_Guru · 01-20-2010, 07:38 PM

Other things aside, I think it's still too early to adequately grade Obama on the economy. The country is still in the middle of the worst economic contraction since the Depression, and much of the recovery depends on the global economy, which isn't so hot right now either.

When Obama took power, the economy was diving at a rate of over 6 percent per annum, but by the fourth quarter, the economy recorded a growth rate of over 4 percent.

There are other signs of recovery as well (while Obama has been in office, the Dow has recovered significantly), but it's easy to get hung up on unemployment numbers because they hit close to home, whereas the GDP and Dow numbers are abstract. Employment stats are a lagging indicator, which means they are behind indicators such as the GDP (coincident with economic activity) and the Dow (leading, ahead of economic activity). Although the recovery will likely be slow, it's showing signs that it is indeed happening.

And what's not to say that Obama's actions (namely, the stimulus plans) didn't prevent the unemployment rate from being far worse?

I say we need more time to know how things are going. We're still at the bottom here.

Wes Mantooth · 01-20-2010, 08:32 PM

To be honest I have a hard time properly evaluating Obama's first year in office. It would appear on the surface that Obama has had many successes in his first year yet its hard to judge weather or not his acts as President will in the end be good or bad for the nation. I don't think its proper to judge the bail outs on just the immediate returns as the larger repercussions wont be felt for sometime. However the economic downturn has slowed and we have seen small growth, unemployment is still very high and shows no signs of turning around. The surge in Afghanistan seems to have been effective but with the announcement of a troop pull out next year I'm not sure if the surge was necessary or will have any lasting effects given the time table. Health care is still stuck in congress hell and as of right now remains nothing but a pipe dream leaving us with very little evaluate.

On a more immediate level it appears his first year on office has been somewhat wishy washy. I think his support on the left has been crumbling to a certain extent because he appears unable to take a hard line stance on left wing issues nor does he seem willing to flex his super majority muscle and force through the health care bill. The right obviously has never supported him but I fear he's somehow managed to alienate them further with reckless spending, meddling in private business and a weak stance on the Middle East and foreign policy in general. The comparisons thus far with Jimmy Carter aren't without some basis.

Personally I feel thus far he's been pretty much what I expected him to be. There was simply no way he was going to live up to the hype attributed to him nor make any major advancements towards the utopia of change he spun on the campaign trail. In the end I think he's typical of the type of politician we Americans love to elect. He's charismatic, down to earth and great at selling himself yet when he actually has to govern he's just another let down because we love choosing style over substance.

Cynthetiq · 01-20-2010, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

For the sake of fair conversation (a damn-near lost cause, I know, but keep hope alive!!), I was responding to Cynthetiq's assertion that "I don't think he's kept any of his promises". He actually has. Vastly more than he's broken.

tl;dr (because that's what we're dealing with here): What I'm saying is, the assertion "He has kept zero of his promises" is inaccurate.

The most important ones that all the supporters held as the most important things, gitmo, the wars, national security... all those things were the BIG ticket items, he hasn't fulfilled. The rest of the things, he may have promised them, but that's not what people were lamenting about if the Other people were elected.

as far as I'm concerned those are the promises I was concerned about and he hasn't delivered.

Derwood · 01-20-2010, 08:38 PM

Can't give him more than a C/C+ for his first year. Color me disappointed

Baraka_Guru · 01-20-2010, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

The most important ones that all the supporters held as the most important things, gitmo, the wars, national security... all those things were the BIG ticket items, he hasn't fulfilled. The rest of the things, he may have promised them, but that's not what people were lamenting about if the Other people were elected.

as far as I'm concerned those are the promises I was concerned about and he hasn't delivered.

With all due respect, in light of the economy, how many Americans are concerned with gitmo, ending the war, and national security as immediate and pressing issues? You mentioned you know many people still without jobs. Where do you think the most pressure is being applied to the presidency at this moment? Just how far up the scale is gitmo compared to the economy? Do you not expect Obama to prioritize accordingly? What would you think if he spent much more time on gitmo and foreign relations at the cost of letting the economy collapse?

Cynthetiq · 01-20-2010, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

With all due respect, in light of the economy, how many Americans are concerned with gitmo, ending the war, and national security as immediate and pressing issues? You mentioned you know many people still without jobs. Where do you think the most pressure is being applied to the presidency at this moment? Just how far up the scale is gitmo compared to the economy? Do you not expect Obama to prioritize accordingly? What would you think if he spent much more time on gitmo and foreign relations at the cost of letting the economy collapse?

It hasn't been on jobs... that's for sure.

It hasn't been with the banks, because they are still doing what their doing and then some. I don't believe the DOW since it was manipulated before you believe it's not being manipulated again? With no oversight or no reforms, just the bankers being good because they want to?

It hasn't been on National Security because some asshole tried to blow up an airliner on Christmas day.

I seem to recall:

January 22, 2009 - so he's got a 2 more days to hit that target.

Quote:

Obama Signs Executive Order To Close Guantanamo Bay
The Obama administration called on Thursday for the closure of Guantanamo Bay within the next year. The move will be greeted with widespread approval around the world, the end of a blotch on America's image abroad. Coming in the form of an executive order, it carries with it the power of law.

The economy was in the shitter before he signed that, it was still in the shitter while he focused on healthcare reform.

He's done little to nothing but talk about shovel ready jobs...

ASU2003 · 01-20-2010, 10:10 PM

I gave my overview in the 41st senator thread. He has to work on policies that individual groups in the left want. He won't win lots of points with everyone, but he needs to do more. And I'm tired of these polls that don't differentiate the negative from doing things they don't like versus not doing enough things he should be doing.

I think he could have handled a few things better. They started the Healthcare thing two months early or two months late. Copenhagen should have happened in the summer, and he should have set us on a new energy direction. He did get a supreme court justice seated that is good.

There is a lot of anxiety over America in general that is getting blamed on the White House, but they aren't really responsible. What is the person complaining about the national debt going to do in order to fix it without cutting more jobs? Have they stopped buying imported products? It's the 60 year olds that fear inflation in retirement that are really worried. The stock market is doing better, I think a lot of people who are over 50s & 60s were scared when their 401k lost a lot of money, but they should feel better now if they rode out the dip in the market.

It's still early. But we shall see what he says at the State of the Union next week. (More people care about a fictional island on a TV show than the state of our messed up country)

The democrats need to come up with a new plan since people feel like they need to work and are addicted to it. (It is probably easier to be an entrepreneur and do it yourself than find a job, but I know no one who has lost a job in my set of friends & family. I don't blame the government* for the unenployment rate, I blame the people who all of a sudden (smartly) started saving and the raising fees from companies who have a product that is mandated or in high demand)

*You can probably search my posts for the minimum wage ones. I'm surprised no one has suggested the correlation between when min wage increases started was the same time things started downhill. Although it didn't have the intended purpose of limiting CEO pay and excessive compensation at companies that are just middlemen.

pan6467 · 01-21-2010, 06:34 AM

All I can say about the first year is if his goal was to push the centrist Dems further away and to look elsewhere for candidates, he accomplished his goal. I see 2010 being a huge election year with the GOP pulling off 1994 type victories and the Dems making excuses and not doing a damned thing to listen.

dc_dux · 01-21-2010, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Today is exactly 1 year after Obama was sworn into office as the 44th President of the United States.

How do you feel he has done? Has he lived up to your expectations? Has he lived up to the fail you expected to see?

I give everyone a chance, because actions are louder than any rhetoric and dogma. In the past year, I haven't seen Mr. Obama complete anything that he stated he would. I don't think he's done nothing, but his promises were big and grand. I don't think he delivered a single one.

The stimulus package was too short, it didn't provide enough jobs. I know of many people who got laid off, I know of not a single person who got a job based on the stimulus package. Many that got laid off are still laid...

The stimulus package was envisioned as a 18-24 month program and according to both GAO and CBO has created or saved hundreds of thousands of jobs to-date. States and local governments particularly have been the beneficiaries and prevented significant job loss or service cuts.

Some jobs will never come back,. but in the longer term, the goal of the stimulus program is also to retool the economy, with most of the funds not having yet been spent (by intent) with a focus on supporting new technologies in energy and health care, a national broadband network, worker retraining, etc.

Quote:

The banking crisis, while he gets only to work with what was left, I don't think that there was enough reform or protections. The dismantling of the Glass–Steagall Act under Clinton and not reinstated after the 2007 collapse, is politics as usual.

The House passed the administrations banking/financial services reform bill last month.

While it doesnt completely restore Glass- Steagall, the Wall Street Financial Reform and Consumer Protection Act proposes signficant regulatory reform of banking and financial services.

Other first year achievements:
Expanded SCHIP program to provide health insurance to millions of children of working class families.

Credit Card Bill of Rights legislation, Women's pay equity legisation.

The most sweeping land conservation legislation since Teddy Roosevelt.

The start of procurement reform.

More openness and transparency with FOIA reforms and, for the first time, barring thousands of lobbyists from serving on Executive Branch advisory committees that help write regulations.....

Not a bad first year.

I think he over-promised on the domestic side and, on the national security side, he's done what he promised, and maintained much of the status quo.

ratbastid · 01-21-2010, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

The most important ones that all the supporters held as the most important things, gitmo, the wars, national security... all those things were the BIG ticket items, he hasn't fulfilled. The rest of the things, he may have promised them, but that's not what people were lamenting about if the Other people were elected.

as far as I'm concerned those are the promises I was concerned about and he hasn't delivered.

No, look, here's my point. Of your specific examples, only closing Gitmo is a broken promise. He promised to expand the engagement in Afghanistan while drawing down troops in Iraq, and he's done exactly that. "National security" is so broad an area, it's almost impossible to talk about in terms of specific promises made and kept/broken, but as someone who actually paid attention to what Obama said as a candidate, the action and inaction I'm seeing from them is entirely expected action and inaction, regrettable though I find it.

Obama detractors like very much to put common liberal agendas into his mouth and then claim he's failed as a savior. Reality diverges from this view significantly. Feel free to keep regurgitating nonsense, but I'm going to try my damnedest to keep bringing FACTS to the table. Hopefully at least I'll get you to a place where you're unable to say these things with a straight face.

dc_dux · 01-21-2010, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

The most important ones that all the supporters held as the most important things, gitmo, the wars, national security... all those things were the BIG ticket items, he hasn't fulfilled. The rest of the things, he may have promised them, but that's not what people were lamenting about if the Other people were elected.

as far as I'm concerned those are the promises I was concerned about and he hasn't delivered.

I dont know many supporters who thought the national security program he campaigned on, as opposed to domestic programs, was the most important component of his agenda. In fact, many supported him in spite of his proposed national security policies. Her certainly did not promise to get out of Afghanistan or repeal the Patriot Act.

It is also naive to think that the Executive Branch can accomplish significant reforms or significant new policy initiatives on its own. Even with a Democratic majority in Congress, one would have to be blind to not see the obstructions and delays that have come into play in the legislative process.

aceventura3 · 01-21-2010, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

For the sake of fair conversation (a damn-near lost cause, I know, but keep hope alive!!), I was responding to Cynthetiq's assertion that "I don't think he's kept any of his promises". He actually has. Vastly more than he's broken.

tl;dr (because that's what we're dealing with here): What I'm saying is, the assertion "He has kept zero of his promises" is inaccurate.

I understand and I see your point.

---------- Post added at 03:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:27 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

With all due respect, in light of the economy, how many Americans are concerned with gitmo, ending the war, and national security as immediate and pressing issues?

I am. Your point kinda suggests people can only be concerned about one thing and that there is no correlation between the things you list.

---------- Post added at 03:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:31 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

...Credit Card Bill of Rights legislation...

This one is not an accomplishment. Credit lines were reduced, interest rates increased to absurd levels, and new credit is difficult to get. Thanks, Mr. President.

dc_dux · 01-21-2010, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

....This one is not an accomplishment. Credit lines were reduced, interest rates increased to absurd levels, and new credit is difficult to get. Thanks, Mr. President.

This one had bi-partisan support (at least, more than most) and has been unanimously praised by nearly every consumer advocacy organization across the political spectrum.

Baraka_Guru · 01-21-2010, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I am. Your point kinda suggests people can only be concerned about one thing and that there is no correlation between the things you list.

I didn't mean to suggest that they aren't on the radar. What I mean to say is that the priorities shift given the environment. The guy who lost his job because the auto plant removed an entire shift? I'm not sure he's thinking that much about gitmo or whether air travel security is up to par. When you're getting behind in mortgage payments and racking up your credit cards because you're unemployed or underemployed....you tend to want employment rather than the closing of gitmo or the resolution of situations across the world. You tend to think about home.

It's about priorities. What do you think Obama is most pressed about? Is it not the economy? What is the average American most concerned about right now? Is it gitmo? The environment?

What are the immediate and pressing issues for most people right now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

The economy was in the shitter before he signed that, it was still in the shitter while he focused on healthcare reform.

He's done little to nothing but talk about shovel ready jobs...

Where do you get your news?

Or, to be fair, could you please clarify your position? Do you want more government intervention?

I know your position on banks, but what about the rest of the economy? What do you think about Obama's plan for a bank tax?

I know you wanted more stimulus. Is there anything else?

aceventura3 · 01-21-2010, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

This one had bi-partisan support (at least, more than most) and has been unanimously praised by nearly every consumer advocacy organization across the political spectrum.

Your point is not relevant. When I look at my personal and business statements/bills I really don't care what consumer advocacy organization say, nor does any other "real" person who has experienced what I have experienced. The sudden change in the availability and cost of credit has had a major impact on individuals and small business. why do you ignore this reality?

Cynthetiq · 01-21-2010, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

No, look, here's my point. Of your specific examples, only closing Gitmo is a broken promise. He promised to expand the engagement in Afghanistan while drawing down troops in Iraq, and he's done exactly that. "National security" is so broad an area, it's almost impossible to talk about in terms of specific promises made and kept/broken, but as someone who actually paid attention to what Obama said as a candidate, the action and inaction I'm seeing from them is entirely expected action and inaction, regrettable though I find it.

Obama detractors like very much to put common liberal agendas into his mouth and then claim he's failed as a savior. Reality diverges from this view significantly. Feel free to keep regurgitating nonsense, but I'm going to try my damnedest to keep bringing FACTS to the table. Hopefully at least I'll get you to a place where you're unable to say these things with a straight face.

I haven't ever claimed for him to be a savior, just politics as usual because that's how things work in Washington or any other group of people that become a machine.

My view of his supporters were via media and people's facebook and twitter updates. Other than that, it's based on the actions or inactions he's taken.

regarding the other accomplishments, because I didn't see them as promises, the SCHIP, CARD, etc. are expected. A president doesn't just work on 1-5 items on their list.

I still don't agree with the reform for credit since it hasn't helped in my opinion, just gave the bankers a deadline and the grace period to fuck with people to make that deadline ineffective.

I never thought he'd repeal the Patriot Act, I did think that he wasn't going to extend the same provisions that Bush II was decried about with such vitriol, but Obama continuing them, seems to have been given a pass.

aceventura3 · 01-21-2010, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

What are the immediate and pressing issues for most people right now?

The irony is that with 10% unemployment, there is 90% employment. If 3% are at risk of foreclosure, 97% are not, and so it goes. I would say under a broad umbrella that includes the risks of losing a job, home, health, safety, etc. the things you listed are all related.

Baraka_Guru · 01-21-2010, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The irony is that with 10% unemployment, there is 90% employment. If 3% are at risk of foreclosure, 97% are not, and so it goes. I would say under a broad umbrella that includes the risks of losing a job, home, health, safety, etc. the things you listed are all related.

They're all related, I agree, but things tend to get boiled down to the lowest common denominator. With unemployment at 10%, people tend to worry about their jobs, yes. And the ripples this causes leads to a drop in consumer spending, which is a hamper on the economy. The stresses that cause this kind of unemployment also cause employers to reduce or eliminate wage/salary increases. Including other factors, this puts a stress on cost of living, and the cycle continues. When you have this going on, I can only imagine that the issue in gitmo, though important, isn't really a pressing matter compared to: It's the economy, stupid.

People are watching the unemployment number with a fascination and concern that casts a shadow over much else.

aceventura3 · 01-21-2010, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

They're all related, I agree, but things tend to get boiled down to the lowest common denominator. With unemployment at 10%, people tend to worry about their jobs, yes. And the ripples this causes leads to a drop in consumer spending, which is a hamper on the economy. The stresses that cause this kind of unemployment also cause employers to reduce or eliminate wage/salary increases. Including other factors, this puts a stress on cost of living, and the cycle continues. When you have this going on, I can only imagine that the issue in gitmo, though important, isn't really a pressing matter compared to: It's the economy, stupid.

People are watching the unemployment number with a fascination and concern that casts a shadow over much else.

I did not do as well on verbal SAT's as I did in math, but I will give this a shot.

Gitmo is to national security and "blank" is to the economy.

I would fill the blank in with something like taxing wall street bonuses. But if you compare the economy to national security rather than gitmo to the economy, I think national security would rate as high as the economy. I would also add that I think an administration can have a big impact on national security in a short period of time while that would not be true of the economy.

Seaver · 01-21-2010, 08:56 AM

Quote:

The irony is that with 10% unemployment, there is 90% employment. If 3% are at risk of foreclosure, 97% are not, and so it goes. I would say under a broad umbrella that includes the risks of losing a job, home, health, safety, etc. the things you listed are all related.

We're not at 10% unemployment. Trust me when I say this (as a recently laid off employee), we're closer to 17-20%. I know of many people who couldn't find a job in 6 months and got kicked off of unemployment benefits. Statistics from the government only count those pulling Unemployment, so my friends who got kicked off it are officially "under-employed".

When 1 in 5 people you know are unemployed, it's a huge psychological factor. Even if you're making the same you were 5 years ago, you're sweating bullets. The general psychology of America won't right itself until we get back on track.

aceventura3 · 01-21-2010, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

We're not at 10% unemployment. Trust me when I say this (as a recently laid off employee), we're closer to 17-20%. I know of many people who couldn't find a job in 6 months and got kicked off of unemployment benefits. Statistics from the government only count those pulling Unemployment, so my friends who got kicked off it are officially "under-employed".

When 1 in 5 people you know are unemployed, it's a huge psychological factor. Even if you're making the same you were 5 years ago, you're sweating bullets. The general psychology of America won't right itself until we get back on track.

I agree there are problems with measuring unemployment. I look at the commonly published number for trending purposes.

Martian · 01-21-2010, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Statistics from the government only count those pulling Unemployment, so my friends who got kicked off it are officially "under-employed".

I keep hearing this, and thought I'd check into it. After all, it sounds like a monumentally flawed way of collecting statistics.

Google quickly turned up the Bureau of Labor Statistics, who had this to say:

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLS.gov

Where do the statistics come from?

Early each month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of the U.S. Department of Labor announces the total number of employed and unemployed persons in the United States for the previous month, along with many characteristics of such persons. These figures, particularly the unemployment rate—which tells you the percent of the labor force that is unemployed—receive wide coverage in the media.

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.

Other people think that the Government counts every unemployed person each month. To do this, every home in the country would have to be contacted—just as in the population census every 10 years. This procedure would cost way too much and take far too long. Besides, people would soon grow tired of having a census taker come to their homes every month, year after year, to ask about job-related activities.

Because unemployment insurance records relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country...

...There are about 60,000 households in the sample for this survey. This translates into approximately 110,000 individuals, a large sample compared to public opinion surveys which usually cover fewer than 2,000 people. The CPS sample is selected so as to be representative of the entire population of the United States. In order to select the sample, all of the counties and county-equivalent cities in the country first are grouped into 2,025 geographic areas (sampling units). The Census Bureau then designs and selects a sample consisting of 824 of these geographic areas to represent each State and the District of Columbia. The sample is a State-based design and reflects urban and rural areas, different types of industrial and farming areas, and the major geographic divisions of each State....

...Every month, one-fourth of the households in the sample are changed, so that no household is interviewed more than 4 consecutive months. This practice avoids placing too heavy a burden on the households selected for the sample. After a household is interviewed for 4 consecutive months, it leaves the sample for 8 months, and then is again interviewed for the same 4 calendar months a year later, before leaving the sample for good. This procedure results in approximately 75 percent of the sample remaining the same from month to month and 50 percent from year to year...

...Each person is classified according to the activities he or she engaged in during the reference week. Then, the total numbers are "weighted," or adjusted to independent population estimates (based on updated decennial census results). The weighting takes into account the age, sex, race, Hispanic ethnicity, and State of residence of the person, so that these characteristics are reflected in the proper proportions in the final estimates.

A sample is not a total count, and the survey may not produce the same results that would be obtained from interviewing the entire population. But the chances are 90 out of 100 that the monthly estimate of unemployment from the sample is within about 290,000 of the figure obtainable from a total census. Since monthly unemployment totals have ranged between about 7 and 11 million in recent years, the possible error resulting from sampling is not large enough to distort the total unemployment picture...

...A selected number of households are reinterviewed each month to determine whether the information obtained in the first interview was correct. The information gained from these reinterviews is used to improve the entire training program.

And supplementary to that:

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLS.gov

Who is counted as unemployed?

Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Actively looking for work may consist of any of the following activities:

* Contacting:
o An employer directly or having a job interview
o A public or private employment agency
o Friends or relatives
o A school or university employment center
* Sending out resumes or filling out applications
* Placing or answering advertisements
* Checking union or professional registers
* Some other means of active job search

I've clearly excised large portions of the quoted article here; what I've removed pertains largely to procedural issues in interviewing and data collection. You can read the whole thing for yourself here, if you'd like.

To be perfectly frank about it, unless you can come up with a compelling reason for me to believe you over what appears to be a US government website I'd have to conclude that you're flat out wrong on this one.

Cynthetiq · 01-21-2010, 09:58 AM

martian, he's talking about U-6 which is also a BLS statistic, it just isn't the on that gets the press. That number his 17.6% in December of last year.

Table A-12. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

Quote:

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers..

NOTE: Marginally attached workers are persons who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and
are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached,
have given a job-market related reason for not looking currently for a job. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those
who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. For more information, see "BLS intro-
duces new range of alternative unemployment measures," in the October 1995 issue of the Monthly Labor Review. Updated population con-
trols are introduced annually with the release of January data.

Martian · 01-21-2010, 10:17 AM

It stands to reason that a broader net yields a higher number.

Folks who want to make the situation look as grim as possible might be interested in getting the highest possible number. Should we include the 'marginally attached' housewife who's open to taking a job if it falls into her lap?

Regardless, UI still has little to do with it, which makes Seaver at best confused and misinformed.

None of this is to say that the current economic situation is sunshine and roses -- clearly it's not. On the other hand, it's deceitful to compare unemployment rates to this U-6 metric without being totally clear that they're measuring different things.

Baraka_Guru · 01-21-2010, 10:44 AM

Regardless, it's all relative. When things were booming, what was the "other" unemployment at? Ten percent? Higher?

Unemployment is used as one measure of several for understanding a nation's relative position in the current business cycle. It's not used purely for figuring out how to solve unemployment in the quest for full employment.

dippin · 01-21-2010, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

martian, he's talking about U-6 which is also a BLS statistic, it just isn't the on that gets the press. That number his 17.6% in December of last year.

Table A-12. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

U-6 unemployment is also not calculated using info from unemployment benefits.

Cynthetiq · 01-21-2010, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

U-6 unemployment is also not calculated using info from unemployment benefits.

No it's useful to knowing just how many truly unemployed people there are. When my wife falls off the unemployment insurance in 3 months, while she's able to and willing to work, looking for a job, she's no longer included in the unemployment rate.

as far as it being deceitful, Martian, I'd say it's equally deceitful for politicians to say that unemployment is dwindling since less people on taking UI benefits, when in reality they just no longer qualify for them due to the length of looking was further than the allotted time to land a new job.

Craven Morehead · 01-21-2010, 11:15 AM

Rise in jobless claims signals bump in recovery - Yahoo! Finance
published today

Quote:

The Labor Department report said the number of people continuing to claim regular benefits dropped slightly to just under 4.6 million. The continuing claims data lags behind initial claims by a week.

But the so-called continuing claims do not include millions of people who have used up the regular 26 weeks of benefits customarily provided by states and are now receiving extended benefits for up to 73 additional weeks, paid for by the federal government.

More than 5.9 million people received extended benefits in the week that ended Jan. 2, the latest period for which data are available. That's an increase of more than 600,000 from the previous week. The data for emergency benefits lags behind initial claims by two weeks.

The rising number of people claiming extended unemployment insurance indicates that even as layoffs are declining, hiring hasn't picked up. That leaves people out of work for longer periods .

I'm in the latter category, on extended unemployment insurance. And the first 20 weeks of that is a about to expire. Keep people working and the rest becomes easy. I'm mre concerned about how I'm going to pay my bills than health coverage.

dippin · 01-21-2010, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

No it's useful to knowing just how many truly unemployed people there are. When my wife falls off the unemployment insurance in 3 months, while she's able to and willing to work, looking for a job, she's no longer included in the unemployment rate.

as far as it being deceitful, Martian, I'd say it's equally deceitful for politicians to say that unemployment is dwindling since less people on taking UI benefits, when in reality they just no longer qualify for them due to the length of looking was further than the allotted time to land a new job.

This is false. Again, unemployment insurance has NOTHING to do with how the unemployment rate is calculated.

Unemployment in calculated using surveys. Both the "regular" unemployment figure and the U6 unemployment figure.

How is the unemployment rate related to unemployment insurance claims?

The regular unemployment figure is based on a few questions on that survey. Basically: have you worked for pay in the reference period? If not, have you looked for work? To calculate U6 unemployment, they go beyond that: if the person has not looked for work they'll ask why, and those who say that they stopped looking for work because they couldnt find anything are counted as discouraged workers. If they have a job, they'll be asked about the nature of the job, and if they are still looking for work. That is where the marginally attached figures come from.

But, again, unemployment insurance data has nothing to do with how the unemployment rate is calculated.

Your wife's ability to collect unemployment insurance is irrelevant in counting her as unemployed or not. If she is still looking for a job and is surveyed, she will be counted as unemployed. If she stopped looking for a job because she couldn't find anything, she'll still be counted as a discouraged worker and included in U6 figures.

pan6467 · 01-21-2010, 11:57 AM

3 words... Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts

OOps that 4 words.

Seaver · 01-21-2010, 12:08 PM

Regardless... if experienced college-educated professionals spend +6 months without any decent employment opportunities it's a shit economy.

I can't even get a job in retail sales at an Old Navy... they know I wouldn't stick around beyond finding a decent job and no decent jobs are open right now.

01-20-2010, 02:16 PM	#1 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	Obama 1 year later Today is exactly 1 year after Obama was sworn into office as the 44th President of the United States. How do you feel he has done? Has he lived up to your expectations? Has he lived up to the fail you expected to see? I give everyone a chance, because actions are louder than any rhetoric and dogma. In the past year, I haven't seen Mr. Obama complete anything that he stated he would. I don't think he's done nothing, but his promises were big and grand. I don't think he delivered a single one. The stimulus package was too short, it didn't provide enough jobs. I know of many people who got laid off, I know of not a single person who got a job based on the stimulus package. Many that got laid off are still laid off. The banking crisis, while he gets only to work with what was left, I don't think that there was enough reform or protections. The dismantling of the Glass–Steagall Act under Clinton and not reinstated after the 2007 collapse, is politics as usual. I'm not sure what to make of the foreign policy but it seems to be more than Mr. Clinton had, though I'm not sure how effective Mrs. Clinton is. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

01-20-2010, 02:43 PM	#2 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Obama is an example of style with no substance. He came from a world of "professorial theory" with no experience of putting theory into application. So, what he says sounds good, it seems logical, and he says it well - but there is a disconnect with translating that into governing. The real issue is, can he grow in the job? My guess is that he will not and that part of the problem is with the people he is surrounded by. He needs a few people in his inner circle who actually have a differing point of view. Hopefully he has learned that he can not turn his agenda over to people like Pelosi and Reid, __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

01-20-2010, 04:34 PM	#5 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Banking Reform. He's treated the banks with more reverence than any President in history, and instead of actually pushing for reforms he is trying to regulate the pay of the bank CEOs. All that's doing is creating a situation where banks like Citigroup lay off 100k workers and lose 7billion per quarter in order to hurry up and pay back the government so they can give their CEOs whatever the hell they want. Stop pussyfooting around and put the old regulations on investment banking so the credit can start to flow and we don't have to worry about the bubble popping again (or continue to deflate). __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

01-20-2010, 05:29 PM	#6 (permalink)
cementor Crazy Location: Denver	Obama has not completed much in the first year. I disagree with most of what this administration has done and is trying to do. It certainly appears that many others (though not on this forum) agree with that assessment. Looking at the last 3 election (especially Scott Brown's win last night) results there is a lot of uneasiness with the direction we are being taken. Mr. Obama had a lot of ideas for change, but I always felt that during the run up to the election there was a lack of understanding of the underlying problems and more importantly a plan for executing these ideas. He has systematically surrounded himself with theoriticians and the result is nothing gets accomplished. The McCain campaign refused to ask the questions about the execution ( in what I believe was the worst run campaign in my 35 years as a voter) and the mainstream media followed suit. In the end we have what we have. The Democrats were outstanding at being obstructionists during the Bush years and the Republicans are equally adept. Frankly if they are incumbents (with very few exceptions) I will vote against them. Reform is needed in many areas, but in my opinion certain fundemantals have to be adressed before we can impart any change. Tort law reform is paramount, you can't fix healthcare or many of our other big ticket problems either without this being taken care of first, and frankly that will NEVER happen when the foxes (lawyers) own the henhouse. Term Limits for Congress, Line Item Veto or Bill singularity (elimination of earmarks and tag ons etc) None of these is even on the radar screen and won't ever be. Before some of you jump in I am a conservative, registered Republican AND I'm MAD AS HELL at my bunch of "turds in human suits" because they don't represent me very well either, but I find them less offensive than the band of thieves Mr Obama surrounds himself with. Check their collective records of paying their taxes (any of US would be in jail with sustantial penalties assessed) All politicians lie (you can tell when their lips move) but Mr. Obama and his "Transparency" line of BS has me totally put out. I didn't trust the last bunch or the bunch before them, but this crew is WAY OUT OF LINE. Previous administrations were liars as well, but they didn't claim to be transparent as this admin did. Change We Can Believe In? I don't think so. I believe the Mandate he felt he got in the last election will be a completely different story come this November. Over and OUT! __________________ Cementor If I was any better I'd have to be twins!

01-20-2010, 06:49 PM	#8 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Let's see: Deficit: Growing at a rate even George W. Bush would vomit over. Inflation: Insane. What can't be borrowed is simply being printed. Check out the prices of Gold, Pounds Sterling, and Euros. See how the three relate. Then get to a sink, 'cause you're gonna want to puke. Wars: Still ongoing. Gitmo: Still open. USA PATRIOT Act: Still there. Economy: Gasping for breath. Transparency: What transparency? Just for the illiterate, "transparency" means you don't get to hold "negotiations" on a bill in the middle of the night while only inviting those who agree with you. Bipartisanship: You mean aside from continuing all the worst policies of the Bush Regime? I'll take less bipartisan warmongering and more bipartisan legislative action, if you please. Honesty: Two words, Barry; "Nebraska" and "Louisiana." Openess: Because having SEIU leg-breakers enforce Newthink at "town hall meetings" is a really open way to conduct government business... Banking: Let's see, the banks which nearly bankrupted the country have not only been bailed out, but are now being exempted from fees and charges leveled against those banks which -DIDN'T- provoke the near-collapse of the American economy. Fuck up and get rewarded, play it straight and get the shaft. Taxes: Well, if you don't -call- it a tax...call it a "fee" or a "surcharge" instead, then it isn't a tax!...unless you're the poor schlub who gets stuck picking up the tab. Obama, one year on? If we're lucky he'll be voted out in 2012 and become a quickly-forgotten one-term-wonder like Millard Filmore or Benjamin Harrison, soon lost in the mercifully dim mists of time and memory. If things keep going they way they have, he'll end up like Jimmy Carter; voted out after one term of making fools of his constituents. However, given that Mr. Bush was elected twice, something tells me that the American electorate might just be dumb enough to elect this nonce a second time. They'll apparently vote for anybody. At worst, Mr. Obama's policies will piss some fruitbat off badly enough to take a shot at him. As much as I detest Mr. Obama, an assassination attempt (let alone a successful one) is my worst nightmare. Then the rotten little slime gets to be a martyr, and his collectivist cohorts will control every house of government for the next fifty years. Last edited by The_Dunedan; 01-20-2010 at 06:51 PM..

01-20-2010, 07:29 PM	#9 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	I really would like you (by whom I mean YOU, sitting in YOUR chair) to go to that link that I posted above. It breaks down, in a rigorously non-partisan way, the specific promises Obama made during the campaign, and whether they've been kept, broken, compromised on, are in progress, or are stalled. It's easy to work from talking points, but all that produces is an echo chamber of agreement, potentially more and more divergent from facts. I'm inviting this whole thread into a FACT conversation.

01-20-2010, 07:38 PM	#10 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Other things aside, I think it's still too early to adequately grade Obama on the economy. The country is still in the middle of the worst economic contraction since the Depression, and much of the recovery depends on the global economy, which isn't so hot right now either. When Obama took power, the economy was diving at a rate of over 6 percent per annum, but by the fourth quarter, the economy recorded a growth rate of over 4 percent. There are other signs of recovery as well (while Obama has been in office, the Dow has recovered significantly), but it's easy to get hung up on unemployment numbers because they hit close to home, whereas the GDP and Dow numbers are abstract. Employment stats are a lagging indicator, which means they are behind indicators such as the GDP (coincident with economic activity) and the Dow (leading, ahead of economic activity). Although the recovery will likely be slow, it's showing signs that it is indeed happening. And what's not to say that Obama's actions (namely, the stimulus plans) didn't prevent the unemployment rate from being far worse? I say we need more time to know how things are going. We're still at the bottom here. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

01-20-2010, 08:32 PM	#11 (permalink)
Wes Mantooth Junkie Location: Tennessee	To be honest I have a hard time properly evaluating Obama's first year in office. It would appear on the surface that Obama has had many successes in his first year yet its hard to judge weather or not his acts as President will in the end be good or bad for the nation. I don't think its proper to judge the bail outs on just the immediate returns as the larger repercussions wont be felt for sometime. However the economic downturn has slowed and we have seen small growth, unemployment is still very high and shows no signs of turning around. The surge in Afghanistan seems to have been effective but with the announcement of a troop pull out next year I'm not sure if the surge was necessary or will have any lasting effects given the time table. Health care is still stuck in congress hell and as of right now remains nothing but a pipe dream leaving us with very little evaluate. On a more immediate level it appears his first year on office has been somewhat wishy washy. I think his support on the left has been crumbling to a certain extent because he appears unable to take a hard line stance on left wing issues nor does he seem willing to flex his super majority muscle and force through the health care bill. The right obviously has never supported him but I fear he's somehow managed to alienate them further with reckless spending, meddling in private business and a weak stance on the Middle East and foreign policy in general. The comparisons thus far with Jimmy Carter aren't without some basis. Personally I feel thus far he's been pretty much what I expected him to be. There was simply no way he was going to live up to the hype attributed to him nor make any major advancements towards the utopia of change he spun on the campaign trail. In the end I think he's typical of the type of politician we Americans love to elect. He's charismatic, down to earth and great at selling himself yet when he actually has to govern he's just another let down because we love choosing style over substance. __________________ “My god I must have missed it...its hell down here!”

01-20-2010, 08:38 PM	#13 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	Can't give him more than a C/C+ for his first year. Color me disappointed __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

01-20-2010, 10:10 PM	#16 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	I gave my overview in the 41st senator thread. He has to work on policies that individual groups in the left want. He won't win lots of points with everyone, but he needs to do more. And I'm tired of these polls that don't differentiate the negative from doing things they don't like versus not doing enough things he should be doing. I think he could have handled a few things better. They started the Healthcare thing two months early or two months late. Copenhagen should have happened in the summer, and he should have set us on a new energy direction. He did get a supreme court justice seated that is good. There is a lot of anxiety over America in general that is getting blamed on the White House, but they aren't really responsible. What is the person complaining about the national debt going to do in order to fix it without cutting more jobs? Have they stopped buying imported products? It's the 60 year olds that fear inflation in retirement that are really worried. The stock market is doing better, I think a lot of people who are over 50s & 60s were scared when their 401k lost a lot of money, but they should feel better now if they rode out the dip in the market. It's still early. But we shall see what he says at the State of the Union next week. (More people care about a fictional island on a TV show than the state of our messed up country) The democrats need to come up with a new plan since people feel like they need to work and are addicted to it. (It is probably easier to be an entrepreneur and do it yourself than find a job, but I know no one who has lost a job in my set of friends & family. I don't blame the government* for the unenployment rate, I blame the people who all of a sudden (smartly) started saving and the raising fees from companies who have a product that is mandated or in high demand) *You can probably search my posts for the minimum wage ones. I'm surprised no one has suggested the correlation between when min wage increases started was the same time things started downhill. Although it didn't have the intended purpose of limiting CEO pay and excessive compensation at companies that are just middlemen.

01-21-2010, 06:34 AM	#17 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	All I can say about the first year is if his goal was to push the centrist Dems further away and to look elsewhere for candidates, he accomplished his goal. I see 2010 being a huge election year with the GOP pulling off 1994 type victories and the Dems making excuses and not doing a damned thing to listen. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

01-21-2010, 10:17 AM	#33 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	It stands to reason that a broader net yields a higher number. Folks who want to make the situation look as grim as possible might be interested in getting the highest possible number. Should we include the 'marginally attached' housewife who's open to taking a job if it falls into her lap? Regardless, UI still has little to do with it, which makes Seaver at best confused and misinformed. None of this is to say that the current economic situation is sunshine and roses -- clearly it's not. On the other hand, it's deceitful to compare unemployment rates to this U-6 metric without being totally clear that they're measuring different things. __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

01-21-2010, 10:44 AM	#34 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Regardless, it's all relative. When things were booming, what was the "other" unemployment at? Ten percent? Higher? Unemployment is used as one measure of several for understanding a nation's relative position in the current business cycle. It's not used purely for figuring out how to solve unemployment in the quest for full employment. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

01-21-2010, 11:57 AM	#39 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	3 words... Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts OOps that 4 words. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

01-21-2010, 12:08 PM	#40 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Regardless... if experienced college-educated professionals spend +6 months without any decent employment opportunities it's a shit economy. I can't even get a job in retail sales at an Old Navy... they know I wouldn't stick around beyond finding a decent job and no decent jobs are open right now. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas