• 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!

Jobless rate tops 10 pct. for first time since '83

Why does the American right always go for the "lower taxes" crap? It is so funny, that on one hand you are complaining about the budget deficit (only when you are not in power of course) and then you are willing to INCREASE that deficit by cutting taxes....

The problem from the offset for small business and any business was the credit crunch. While the credit crunch is not as bad as it was a year ago, it is still around for especially smaller business. And without credit, no business can expand and in many cases even provide day to day capital for things like wages.

And you company cut jobs to "prepare for extra tax burdens"? LOL yea right. A company cuts jobs for two reasons. Either the orders have dried up and they dont need the workers, or they want to improve the balance sheet for the shareholders and a quick and easy way of doing that is cutting the work force, the biggest (usually) cost of them all. But cutting jobs to prepare for a mythical right wing inspired tax hike? give me a freaking break.

Yeah! How stupid of us to want to keep our money, vice giving it to the government to blow on enititlement programs for the welfare class. Why the hell should we want to keep it? I mean we only worked our asses off to earn it.
 
Why does the American right always go for the "lower taxes" crap? It is so funny, that on one hand you are complaining about the budget deficit (only when you are not in power of course) and then you are willing to INCREASE that deficit by cutting taxes....

I do think it is important to find ways to free up capital at this point in time. A tax increase would be a big no no IMHO at this point in time.

The problem from the offset for small business and any business was the credit crunch. While the credit crunch is not as bad as it was a year ago, it is still around for especially smaller business. And without credit, no business can expand and in many cases even provide day to day capital for things like wages.

And you company cut jobs to "prepare for extra tax burdens"? LOL yea right. A company cuts jobs for two reasons. Either the orders have dried up and they dont need the workers, or they want to improve the balance sheet for the shareholders and a quick and easy way of doing that is cutting the work force, the biggest (usually) cost of them all. But cutting jobs to prepare for a mythical right wing inspired tax hike? give me a freaking break.


I think we need to get the credit markets working again.
 
So in regards to unemployment what alternitives would you propose?
First and foremost, cut taxes, eliminate most regulation, severely punish actual crimes.

Second, i would pass a constitutional amendment barring Federal interference in the education of minors, since people grounded in reality reject quasi-socialist schemes which have brought us to where we are, but tend to empower centralized authority.

Also, I'd encourage the public to accept that there is no such thing aqs a company that is "too big to fail."

And finally, I'd alter the law, to recognize extortion by another name: unionization.
 
Why does the American right always go for the "lower taxes" crap? It is so funny, that on one hand you are complaining about the budget deficit (only when you are not in power of course) and then you are willing to INCREASE that deficit by cutting taxes....

This has been proven time and time and time and time again. I don't know why this is so hard to grasp for so many.

Quick, would you rather have 10 percent of $20, or 9 percent of $30? The latter, of course.

The more revenue a company makes, the more there is to tax. The more PEOPLE that company employs, the more income there is to tax. The more money being paid to people, the more they buy, which raises revenue where they buy, which means more to tax. So the lower the tax rates, the lower the tolerable risk; and the lower the risk, then more risk companies are willing to take.

Alternatively, when you raise tax rates (and threaten to raise them even more), the tolerable risk of companies does not allow them to commit to growth in staff and facilities, which also are subject to those higher taxes.

Lowering tax rates increases tax revenue for the government and DECREASES the deficit. It's been proven again and again.
 
Last edited:
Much of the reason that % unemployment jumped was a statistical one. The over all worker pool in the statistical model shrank yet again while the number of unemployed raised a tad. This means that the % would rise relative more, which it did.

Basically it means, that people dropped out of the worker pool because they gave up looking for work according to the statistical model. Does not mean they are not unemployed any more, just that they are not counted as such.

So this means that the unemployment rate is even higher?
 
I do think it is important to find ways to free up capital at this point in time. A tax increase would be a big no no IMHO at this point in time.

Oh I agree fully. Having a tax increase is not the best of things at this time, however it depends a lot on who is gonna get it. Sorry if I dont have any tears for the rich having their taxes jacked up a tad.

But scaremongering as the right is doing over and over again in their never ending political battle against the Obama administration does not help. For once it would be nice if the right actually talked facts and figures instead of dreaming up the boggie man at ever turn.

I think we need to get the credit markets working again.

Yep, but if you listen to the usual suspects on the right.. cutting taxes, deregulating everything and giving a free ride to business would make everything so much better. Its funny how they forget so fast how we got into the problem in the first place...
 
First and foremost, cut taxes, eliminate most regulation, severely punish actual crimes.

Okay what would you due about credit default swaps?
Second, i would pass a constitutional amendment barring Federal interference in the education of minors, since people grounded in reality reject quasi-socialist schemes which have brought us to where we are, but tend to empower centralized authority.

What the heck does this have to do with unemployment now or in the future?

Also, I'd encourage the public to accept that there is no such thing aqs a company that is "too big to fail."

And you are complaining about unemployment. Just imagine that the big banks and AIG had failed.
 
Yeah! How stupid of us to want to keep our money, vice giving it to the government to blow on enititlement programs for the welfare class. Why the hell should we want to keep it? I mean we only worked our asses off to earn it.

Fine by me, cut taxes, but then dont complain about the budget deficit! Like it or not they are linked.

But cutting taxes wont help with the lack of credit out there... how do you propose to fix that.. cut more taxes?
 
First and foremost, cut taxes, eliminate most regulation, severely punish actual crimes.

Second, i would pass a constitutional amendment barring Federal interference in the education of minors, since people grounded in reality reject quasi-socialist schemes which have brought us to where we are, but tend to empower centralized authority.

Also, I'd encourage the public to accept that there is no such thing aqs a company that is "too big to fail."

And finally, I'd alter the law, to recognize extortion by another name: unionization.


Just a small nuance here -- those tax cuts don't only benefit large corporations but much of the NEW start up businesses. Without those tax cuts, these small new businesses cannot get off the ground and therefore cannot help the unemployment rate which lags behind. Keep taxing and spreading the wealth, those small businesses wanting to launch do not, therefore the indicator goes from lag ... to stagnant.

BTW - my corporation (300,000 employees) just cut approximately 20% which will hit in December... so expect approximately 30,000 or 50% of that 60,000 number to be on unemployment during the holidays because they didn't find another job either internally or externally.
 
Fine by me, cut taxes, but then dont complain about the budget deficit! Like it or not they are linked.

But cutting taxes wont help with the lack of credit out there... how do you propose to fix that.. cut more taxes?

Cut taxes, cut spending... they do go hand in hand.
 
By your measure, which is correct, the actual unemployment rate is likely more like 13 percent if you count those workers.

Also, the administration keeps trying to count "saved jobs" as created jobs. Not sure how they justify that exactly, or how they can even know if a job is "saved".

In heavy blue states like Michigan, New Jersey, etc, the unemployment rates are creeping close to 20 percent.

Aren't most of the governmt jobs temporary? They're saving jobs by giving people jobs over here, while somebody over there loses a job. Way to go!

I don't know how they count "saved jobs", either.
 
Oh I agree fully. Having a tax increase is not the best of things at this time, however it depends a lot on who is gonna get it. Sorry if I dont have any tears for the rich having their taxes jacked up a tad.

Yeah I don't think how many Rolls Royce's are sold drives the economy in any significant way. So if taxes go up a tad on the uber rich I do not think it will be all that bad.
 
Yeah I don't think how many Rolls Royce's are sold drives the economy in any significant way. So if taxes go up a tad on the uber rich I do not think it will be all that bad.

But there's the problem. These rich people didn't become rich because they were stupid, or they didn't understand money. They are the ones who drive the economy with the business and profit they create.

Their income won't change. Their overhead might, but not their income. If they have to fire a operations manager and a couple of admins to maintain their income, they will. They expect a certain return based on a certain risk; that's the way business is justified and done.

Rich people don't have to work. They don't have to invest. You put the pinch on them, they'll just take their ball and go home. Then the rest of us will be screwed.
 
But there's the problem. These rich people didn't become rich because they were stupid, or they didn't understand money. They are the ones who drive the economy with the business and profit they create..

They get rich because they have something that someone else wants and is willing to pay for.
 
They get rich because they have something that someone else wants and is willing to pay for.

Yeah, if you're running a lawn service.

Big business is far more involved than that. The risks are weighed and managed heavily. Investors are secured through such intense management of resources. Taxes, current and future, as well as economic forecasting, has a great deal to do with that.
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QffRCDimg2E"]YouTube- Obama's Double Digit Unemployment[/ame]

This administration and the Congress wasted $787 billion dollars. But at least the abstinence programs are paid for.
 
This administration and the Congress wasted $787 billion dollars. But at least the abstinence programs are paid for.

keynes.jpg


Oh god of economics! Tell us how much more we need to spend to fix this!
 
Some have argued that tax cuts for businesses would quickly help address the nation's high unemployment rate. On the surface, the idea of lowering the overall costs of employment as a means of creating incentives for firms to hire new people sounds attractive. Unfortunately, the dynamics behind the current recession argue otherwise.

1. The lack of hiring is not due to high costs of employment, but sluggish demand for products and services. Employment costs have risen very slowly in the past year, so workers have not suddenly become 'unaffordable' for businesses to retain or hire so to speak.

A combination of data ranging from a sluggish recovery in real personal consumption expenditures, declining consumer credit/household deleveraging and considerable slack when it comes to capacity argues that the lack of hiring necessary to lower the nation's unemployment rate stems from reduced demand for products and services. Businesses have no pressing need to embark on an expansionary phase when aggregate demand is weak. Therefore, sustained economic growth during which demand for businesses' products and services increases, not tax cuts, would be far more likely to lead to a meaningful recovery in the employment market.

In fact, if one looks at the tax relief provisions of the $787 stimulus package, one finds that tax incentives to encourage consumption and tax incentives to fuel hiring were largely ineffective. The majority of tax relief aimed at increasing consumption was saved not spent. According to Professor Nouriel Roubini's RGE Monitor, the more than $6.0 billion in tax incentives provided in the $787 billion stimulus package for firms to hire disadvantaged workers did little to boost hiring.

2. Given the experience with the fiscal stimulus' tax cuts, arguably the weakest part of the package, and the recession's having been driven by a shock to aggregate demand (not aggregate supply), the benefits of corporate tax cuts would be far more likely to contribute to firms' bottom lines than renewed hiring. Given considerable public disdain for the financial- and automotive-sector bailouts, it is not very likely that the use of the tax code to boost corporate profits at a time of subdued hiring would be politically popular. The political realities associated with direct bailouts may well have contributed to lawmakers providing a $10.4 billion "backdoor bailout" rather than direct one to companies in the just-enacted jobless benefits extension law by allowing them to apply their 2008-2009 losses to any five years prior to 2008, with some modest limitations. The provision is a backdoor bailout, albeit a modest one, because under current law, the loss carryback extended to two years and some of those firms would not have benefited without the expanded carryback period.

3. On grounds of fiscal discipline, such tax cuts would also be problematic. At a time when public debate over the nation's burgeoning fiscal deficit has sharpened, revenue and/or spending offsets for any tax cuts would be necessary to avoid worsening the nation's budget deficits. Moreover, to the extent that "temporary" tax cuts become permanent, the nation would experience an increase in its structural budget deficits. Examples, including regular waiving of tiny Medicare spending restraints aka the "doctors's fix" and past extensions of "temporary" spending increases/tax cuts, illustrate a real policy-driven risk that cyclical increases in the budget deficit could be transformed into structural ones.

4. The steady increase in the mean and median duration of unemployment and possibility that select sectors (finance, real estate, and automobile manufacturing) could wind up smaller through at least the medium-term than they were prior to the recession points to a larger structural component to unemployment in recent years. Tax cuts will not change the structural dynamics. Investments in education would probably do more to shift skills to where the labor market is evolving, but such investments would be longer-term in nature. They would not immediately result in a significant reduction in the unemployment rate.

In sum, hiring will increase once companies are confident in a sustained and durable economic recovery. That will take some time, namely it will require economic growth to be reasonably robust and sustained for the time necessary for businesses to see demand for their products and services increasing to the point that they need to hire additional people and for employers to be confident that the trend will continue. Before then, the unemployment rate could continue to climb into at least the first part of next year and then slowly decline, largely due to the number of layoffs decreasing relative to a low-level of hiring.
 
By your measure, which is correct, the actual unemployment rate is likely more like 13 percent if you count those workers.

Also, the administration keeps trying to count "saved jobs" as created jobs. Not sure how they justify that exactly, or how they can even know if a job is "saved".

In heavy blue states like Michigan, New Jersey, etc, the unemployment rates are creeping close to 20 percent.

.
By MICHAEL COOPER and RON NIXON
Published: November 4, 2009
In June, the federal government spent $1,047 in stimulus money to buy a rider mower from the Toro Company to cut the grass at the Fayetteville National Cemetery in Arkansas. Now, a report on the government’s stimulus Web site improbably claims that that single lawn mower sale helped save or create 50 jobs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/us/05stimulus.html?_r=1

We need to buy another 100,000 of these lawnmowers.

($104,700,000 for 5,000,000 jobs vs $787,000,000,000 for ? jobs.)
 
Last edited:
Insufficient demand? When savings are near 0 and you're saying that there isn't enough demand, then I think you need to reexamine your economic ideas. You can't push demand anymore when savings is already non-existent.
 
Jobless rate tops 10 pct. for first time since '83 - Yahoo! Finance

But I thought the Obama plan would prevent unemployment from breaching 8%...

Obama will be remembered as the Edsel of Presidents.
Edsel Obama.
Introduced amid huge hype, fanfare and hysteria of being the new Hope, post partisan, post racial stud... Edsel Obama flopped when he came to market... proved to be your typical Hard Left Democrat with little game except whining and Chicago thug political skills.

zimmer-albums-conservitoons-picture1122-2794458013-fd76785498.jpg


zimmer-albums-conservitoons-picture1121-2794457235-d2edc269fa.jpg


zimmer-albums-conservitoons-picture1123-edsellogoe.png

Even the logos have similarities. Perhaps he'll drop the Weather Underground styled logo and adopt this one on his next go... if the party lets him take a second run at screwing the nation.

.
 
Insufficient demand? When savings are near 0 and you're saying that there isn't enough demand, then I think you need to reexamine your economic ideas. You can't push demand anymore when savings is already non-existent.

I'm guessing your meaning the discount rate set by the fed when you say savings. Yes, the discount rate is at .5%. This would mean the fed is trying to encourage spending. This is an indicator of insufficient demand in the market. Why would the fed be trying to encourage spending if demand was already high?
 
Back
Top Bottom