Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 59

Thread: New jobless claims up sharply as layoffs persist

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: New jobless claims up sharply as layoffs persist

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    It did not keep cut backs in the military throwing a few hundred thousand to the unemployement lines, not to mention the spinoff jobs

    It did not keep medicare and medicaid funded to continue funding providing revenues to doctors, nurses, hospitals and drug companies that would not have recieved this money

    It did not keep GM, Chrysler and the various banks in operation keeping millions employed, not to mention the spin off jobs


    What you fail to consider is how big this economic crisis was, and how much worse it could and can/will be. This is/was not an regular recession, but a debt deleveraging depression. Those are not fun, Japan is still working through theirs and have been for 20 years.
    I don't believe that. If Obama would have let car companies go into bankruptcy they would have been better off. Obama was looking out for the unions. Everything Obama did benefitted someone Obama wanted to pay back

  2. #42
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: New jobless claims up sharply as layoffs persist

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    I don't believe that. If Obama would have let car companies go into bankruptcy they would have been better off. Obama was looking out for the unions. Everything Obama did benefitted someone Obama wanted to pay back
    Where did you get your tin foil hat?

    So you're saying that we would have been better off watching millions of Americans lose their jobs directly at GM and Chrysler, and then watching millions more lose their jobs in supply companies, and then many more lose their jobs supply raw materials to their suppliers and the MILLIONS more who derive their jobs from spending by such workers?

    Or you could just run away from another hard question because it forces you to think.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: New jobless claims up sharply as layoffs persist

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    Tripled the debt? He inherited a debt of $10 trillion. Last time I checked it was not at $30 trillion.

    Please explain how we did exit the great depression...
    Really?

    CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - CNN Fact Check: Is the annual deficit under Obama 12 times the deficit under Republicans? - Blogs from CNN.com


    The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says the budget deficit for 2009 was $1.4 trillion, slightly more than triple the $458.6 billion deficit for 2008.

    An annual budget deficit of $1.4 trillion averages to about $117.8 billion per month.

    The average annual budget deficit during President George W. Bush's presidency was $250.7 billion, ranging from a high of $458.6 billion in 2008 to a low of a $128.2 billion surplus in 2001.

    The national debt held by the public was $5.8 trillion at the end of 2008 and increased by 30 percent to $7.5 trillion at the end of 2009, according to CBO calculations.

    The CBO has projected that if the president's first budget had been enacted as is, the national debt would have increased to $17.1 trillion by 2019, about triple the $5.8 trillion level at the end of 2008. In comparison,
    the CBO said that the debt would have doubled to $11.7 trillion if the president's first budget had not been enacted and if the CBO's baseline economic assumption had instead been in place for the next 10 years.

    The CBO released a projection in January 2009 that the deficit would reach $1.2 trillion in 2009, before the costs for any new economic stimulus plans or new legislation were factored in.

    Bottom line: Hensarling was correct in that the annual budget deficit soared in 2009, though it did not increase by twelve-fold as he asserted in his comments. However, he does come close for some years. The 2009 deficit was about nine times the size of the 2002 and 2007 deficits, when Republicans
    controlled the White House and at least one chamber of Congress.

    Obama was essentially correct when he said he inherited a budget deficit of $1.3 trillion. Though the budget deficit for 2008 was a then-record $458.6 billion, the CBO issued a projection in January 2009, just days before Obama took office that the budget deficit would reach $1.2 trillion that year, before the cost of any new stimulus plan or other legislation was taken into account.

    As for the impact that Obama's first budget would have on the national debt, the CBO estimated the national debt would indeed triple by the year 2019 under the president's budget, from $5.8 trillion to $17.1 trillion. The
    president's budget office, the Office of Management and Budget, projected that the national debt would increase to $16.0 trillion by 2019.

    When the CBO issued its projections for Obama's budget in June 2009, it projected that the national debt would double to $11.7 trillion by 2019 if its pre-Obama baseline economic assumptions were held steady for 10 years. A more recent CBO baseline projection from this month puts the national debt at $14.3 trillion in 2019 and $15.0 trillion in 2020.

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: New jobless claims up sharply as layoffs persist

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Where did you get your tin foil hat?

    So you're saying that we would have been better off watching millions of Americans lose their jobs directly at GM and Chrysler, and then watching millions more lose their jobs in supply companies, and then many more lose their jobs supply raw materials to their suppliers and the MILLIONS more who derive their jobs from spending by such workers?

    Or you could just run away from another hard question because it forces you to think.
    It would have thrown out government contracts causing more money to hire people. Many lost there jobs because of the Obama take over

  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    University of San Diego
    Last Seen
    04-14-11 @ 02:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    672
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: New jobless claims up sharply as layoffs persist

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Where did you get your tin foil hat?

    So you're saying that we would have been better off watching millions of Americans lose their jobs directly at GM and Chrysler, and then watching millions more lose their jobs in supply companies, and then many more lose their jobs supply raw materials to their suppliers and the MILLIONS more who derive their jobs from spending by such workers?

    Or you could just run away from another hard question because it forces you to think.
    You understand that most of car suppliers would be at more/less the same employment?

    If you think that car suppliers only supply one car company, then you don't understand the industry. Merely taking out a two weak (getting weaker) players wouldn't affect the national economy. Only if consumers started buying significantly less cars would it become a problem, but if the demand stays the same... Who gives a crap if the marquee changes from GMC to Ford? From Chevy to Nissan?

  6. #46
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:29 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,431

    Re: New jobless claims up sharply as layoffs persist

    Quote Originally Posted by Areopagitican View Post
    You understand that most of car suppliers would be at more/less the same employment?

    If you think that car suppliers only supply one car company, then you don't understand the industry. Merely taking out a two weak (getting weaker) players wouldn't affect the national economy. Only if consumers started buying significantly less cars would it become a problem, but if the demand stays the same... Who gives a crap if the marquee changes from GMC to Ford? From Chevy to Nissan?
    You do realize that most parts suppliers in the US operate at very thin margins, that most still support the Big 3, rather then Japanese car makers, that losing 30% or more of their business would cause most to go bankrupt.

    You do realize that demand would not have remained the same, and that it did not? Auto sales in the US went from an annual rate of around 16 million a year to about 10 million.

    GM and Chyrsler going bankrupt would have seen not only those two companies going out of business, sending their specific employees on the unemployment lines but about 40% of the parts suppliers as well. This is not to mention that pensioners would have had their pensions cut drastically.
    Happy Hanukkah Cheerfull Kwanzaa
    Happy Christmas Merry New Year Festivus for the rest of us

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    University of San Diego
    Last Seen
    04-14-11 @ 02:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    672
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: New jobless claims up sharply as layoffs persist

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    You do realize that most parts suppliers in the US operate at very thin margins, that most still support the Big 3, rather then Japanese car makers, that losing 30% or more of their business would cause most to go bankrupt.
    You don't realize the quantities of "foreign" cars that are actually produced within the United States. Significantly more "foreign" cars are produced within the United States than are imported by those "foreign" cars and the trend is only getting stronger. Trying to say that "Buy American," for cars, has any relevance is like some bad re-run from the 80s.

    You do realize that demand would not have remained the same, and that it did not? Auto sales in the US went from an annual rate of around 16 million a year to about 10 million.
    If GMC and Chrysler went under, suddenly, less cars would be bought? That's a bad joke. Car sales have little to do with the strength of car manufactors. Actually, the reverse is true.

    GM and Chyrsler going bankrupt would have seen not only those two companies going out of business, sending their specific employees on the unemployment lines but about 40% of the parts suppliers as well. This is not to mention that pensioners would have had their pensions cut drastically.
    So 40% of suppliers go under, but guess what? Those 40% would be remployed by the other car companies picking up the slack.

    As for their pensions, well, they're bloated monstrosities that need to go anyhow.

  8. #48
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: New jobless claims up sharply as layoffs persist

    Quote Originally Posted by Areopagitican View Post
    You understand that most of car suppliers would be at more/less the same employment?
    Over the long run yes, but in the short run what I said would have come true. Over the long run, compeitors would have ramped up production, built new plants and hired more workers. However, that takes significent amounts of time. In the mean time the economic impacts of their bankruptcy would be immediate and extremely painful. The net change to employment largely would have stayed the same over the long run.

    If you think that car suppliers only supply one car company, then you don't understand the industry.
    Ah, but car suppliers tend to focus on a particular firm. While they supply others, generally most don't supply to the point of non-reliance. Furthermore, remember that the non-Detroit manufactuers didn't and still don't have the capacity to ramp up production to meet the drop in demand from a Detroit bankruptcy. Considering how leveraged some of the suppliers were, any interruption in business would have been fatal. You're thinking over the long run and I agree with your views over the long run, but I'm talking 3-6 months.

    Merely taking out a two weak (getting weaker) players wouldn't affect the national economy. Only if consumers started buying significantly less cars would it become a problem, but if the demand stays the same... Who gives a crap if the marquee changes from GMC to Ford? From Chevy to Nissan?
    See above. Furthermore, you really think Ford would have taken over GM or Nissan to Chevy?
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  9. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    University of San Diego
    Last Seen
    04-14-11 @ 02:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    672
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: New jobless claims up sharply as layoffs persist

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Over the long run yes, but in the short run what I said would have come true. Over the long run, compeitors would have ramped up production, built new plants and hired more workers. However, that takes significent amounts of time. In the mean time the economic impacts of their bankruptcy would be immediate and extremely painful. The net change to employment largely would have stayed the same over the long run.
    But that's Keynesian philosophy right there! In essence, you're shutting down an inefficient part of your economy, razing it to the ground (in an economic sense) and rebuilding it leaner. If you don't agree with demolishing factories to build them up again (better, stronger, faster) then you have to be 110% against Obama's policies which are, basically, rebuilding bridges or schools or whatever it is like a true Keynesian. Remember the old metaphor to explain it? Keynesian policy is a storm that destroys a window, and the economic stimulus is the owner buying a new one? That's all throwing GM and Chrysler would have been. Throwing their, old, broken windows to the floor and having new, fresh and optimistic companies replace them.

    Ah, but car suppliers tend to focus on a particular firm. While they supply others, generally most don't supply to the point of non-reliance. Furthermore, remember that the non-Detroit manufactuers didn't and still don't have the capacity to ramp up production to meet the drop in demand from a Detroit bankruptcy. Considering how leveraged some of the suppliers were, any interruption in business would have been fatal. You're thinking over the long run and I agree with your views over the long run, but I'm talking 3-6 months.
    The longer we draw out inefficiencies in the market, the worse they'll hurt when it finally falls to pieces. For a reference, I point you to the recent financial crisis. You fix things before they get totally destroyed.


    See above. Furthermore, you really think Ford would have taken over GM or Nissan to Chevy?
    I think everyone would get a piece. It doesn't really matter.

  10. #50
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,351

    Re: New jobless claims up sharply as layoffs persist

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Where did you get your tin foil hat?

    So you're saying that we would have been better off watching millions of Americans lose their jobs directly at GM and Chrysler, and then watching millions more lose their jobs in supply companies, and then many more lose their jobs supply raw materials to their suppliers and the MILLIONS more who derive their jobs from spending by such workers?

    Or you could just run away from another hard question because it forces you to think.
    Hard to know where to start. For one thing there are not millions of Americans working for GM and Chrysler.

    Next most folks understand that when a company goes into bankruptcy protection, the company does not stop producing. The workers would have been there but their contracts could have been changed.

    In the bailout not everyone got to keep their jobs, a similar result would have happened if the company went under. My sense is that you know this but are having fun talking about stuff you know would not happen.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •