• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fewer layoffs expected as recession winds down

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
First, the good news. Workers probably got slapped with fewer pink slips in July as the worst recession since World War II winds down.

Now, the reality check. A paucity of job openings means nearly 15 million unemployed Americans are still looking for jobs, and their ranks are likely to keep growing into 2010.


Labor Department data due out Friday is expected to show job losses slowing in July to a pace of around 320,000, with unemployment rising to 9.6 percent, up from 9.5 percent the previous month. If the job-loss estimate is on target, it would be a heartening improvement from June's 467,000 job losses — and the slowest pace for job losses since August 2008.
OK, now here comes the spin:

1) From the Republicans - This is the Obama recession, despite the fact that the worst unemployment was in January, and it was the worst month since 1949.

2) From the Democrats - Obama cured the recession, despite the fact that stimuli to the economy takes many months, sometimes even years to do their work.

Now a few facts:

1) This recession was caused not by Bush, nor was it caused by Obama. The groundwork was laid during the Clinton administration, and both Republicans and Democrats are the culprits here. This happened when the Glass-Steagall protections, which effectively separated the banking, investment, and insurance sectors of the economy, so that one sector could not take other sectors with it if it crashed, were dismantled. The bill was created by a Republican (Phil Gramm), overwhelmingly passed (by both Republicans and Democrats), and signed into law by a Democrat (Bill Clinton). Pure, unadulterated greed and dishonesty did the rest.

2) We have not seen any results directly by either the Bush stimulus or the Obama stimulus. Most of what we have seen has been the actual market adjusting to conditions caused by government intervention in the marketplace in the 1990's. The economy took a hit, but is able to recover on its own.

3) Because of government meddling in the markets, by both Democrats and Republicans, we may see the recession ending, but economic growth is going to be weak for many years to come. And that does not even take the inflation, which is going to hit, into account.

4) Democrats and Republicans will still be pointing fingers at each other for years to come, but it takes two to tango, and both parties danced our nation into this mess quite superbly. It is not irony that those who smelt it surely dealt it, and that is all of them, Democrats and Republicans alike. Neither party has cause to whine. Both are responsible.

5) Finally, if you know the real story of this recession, the namecalling, finger pointing, and general douchebaggery from both parties, is going to be quite entertaining in itself. So grab some popcorn, pop open a beer, and enjoy the show.

Article is here.
 
Last edited:
So grab some popcorn, pop open a beer, and enjoy the show.

1947_eating_popcorn_and_drinking_beer.gif
popcorn.gif
 
Ignorance isn't bliss when you're President of the United States. You can lay the problems on Clinton if you want, but Bush is every bit as responsible for not realizing that there was a problem until it was too late. By the time Obama took office, it was already too late.
 
Are we too asume by this OP that if Bush was still president and his fiscal policies were the same as they were? We would have still seen this amount of recovery under those same conditions?
 
I hate to be Doctor doom and gloom but one month with a tiny reduction in unemployment is a pisspoor excuse to be throwing a party and claiming the recession in winding down when the effects of Cap and Trade and the "I don't Care About You Health And Kill Granny Plan". Also the negative effect the Cash for Clunkers Deal is going to have on the used car market. All of this is either yet to show the negative effects or they have yet to run their full course. There have been claims the housing market jumped in June. Not true when the sales were the result of the taking advantage of the extremely poor market prices, which have left most home owners own much more than their homes are worth. You must also consider what negative effects California's coming crash in the farming industry is going to have on the nation's economy because so far that whole effect not completely understood and not being looked at on a national level. It has been almost completely over looked by everyone.
What is happening may be a small blip and to paraphrase Churchill it is not the end or even the beginning of the end. It is the end of the beginning.
 
Are we too asume by this OP that if Bush was still president and his fiscal policies were the same as they were? We would have still seen this amount of recovery under those same conditions?
Most likely, because if you compare economic policy, Bush is every bit as big-government as Obama. Why do you think Obama has yet to tar and feather Bernanke, the Bush-appointed Fed, out of office?
 
Last edited:
I hate to be Doctor doom and gloom but one month with a tiny reduction in unemployment is a pisspoor excuse to be throwing a party and claiming the recession in winding down when the effects of Cap and Trade and the "I don't Care About You Health And Kill Granny Plan". Also the negative effect the Cash for Clunkers Deal is going to have on the used car market. All of this is either yet to show the negative effects or they have yet to run their full course. There have been claims the housing market jumped in June. Not true when the sales were the result of the taking advantage of the extremely poor market prices, which have left most home owners own much more than their homes are worth. You must also consider what negative effects California's coming crash in the farming industry is going to have on the nation's economy because so far that whole effect not completely understood and not being looked at on a national level. It has been almost completely over looked by everyone.
What is happening may be a small blip and to paraphrase Churchill it is not the end or even the beginning of the end. It is the end of the beginning.

I think you may be right on this. Some of the recovery we have seen IMO is just some people taking advantage of current market conditions for short term gains. It is a false recovery at this point, otherwise you would have seen jobs recover and un-employment begin to ease.

I hope I am wrong, but I have not seen anything that indicates otherwise
 
The article says that jobs were cut overall

A net total of 247,000 jobs were lost last month, the fewest in a year.

If the total number of jobs is down, doesn't falling unemployment just mean that a large number of people are no longer looking for jobs, and so don't factor into the numbers despite being unemployed? If that's true, is falling unemployment still a good thing?
 
The article says that jobs were cut overall



If the total number of jobs is down, doesn't falling unemployment just mean that a large number of people are no longer looking for jobs, and so don't factor into the numbers despite being unemployed? If that's true, is falling unemployment still a good thing?

It means that the layoffs are bottoming out, and that jobs will be gained before too long. However, the rate of gaining jobs is going to be much, much lower than the rate they were lost. Our economy is going to remain weak for years.
 
Are we too asume by this OP that if Bush was still president and his fiscal policies were the same as they were? We would have still seen this amount of recovery under those same conditions?

Bush wouldn't have introduced cap and trade. Cap and trade will only kill jobs. The mere threat of cap and trade is going to kill jobs, as we're seeing now. You can't revive the economy by killing jobs. Sorry.
 
It means that the layoffs are bottoming out, and that jobs will be gained before too long. However, the rate of gaining jobs is going to be much, much lower than the rate they were lost. Our economy is going to remain weak for years.

Just because the recession is bottoming out, it doesn't mean that the economy is going to automatically start going up. It could just as easily bottom out and stay there.
 
The spin on this is very positive.

"I shot my foot off but I still have one left to shoot at next time."
 
Back
Top Bottom