An interesting graphic on unemployment . . .

[Just_A_Guy]

Speaks for itself, I think.

[pam]

I know lots of people currently unemployed here in SLC. The majority being in the construction business.

[john doe]

What's your point? I think it's that almost 10% of Americans are just uneducated republican rubes who don't deserve jobs anyway. If you were any kind of edumacated you would know that pointing out failures of bad policy is not helpful. Besides, Obama recently said he expects unemployment to pass 10%, so it looks like your numbers are wrong.

[Maxel]

Ouchies. Not good.

I just heard, though, that the conservative savior (lower-case "s"), Ronald Reagan, also dealt with unemployment rates higher than anticipated. Can this be true? Oh, the horror...

Having put in the comment that ostensibly makes my post "fair and balanced", I would now like to take the time to opine that the economic geniuses in the White House are not very good at their jobs. I believe this fact was proven when trends in google searches was cited as proof that the recession was over.

[talisyn]

Here in the real universe, the one where the stimulus package did go through, we like to speculate but with the understanding that no one knows what would have happened. It may be that if the stimulus package did not go through a vast space-time warp would have sucked away all of the currency on the planet. Betcha I could even find some statistics and make a pie chart, too.

[Just_A_Guy]

Here in the real universe, the one where the stimulus package did go through, we like to speculate but with the understanding that no one knows what would have happened. It may be that if the stimulus package did not go through a vast space-time warp would have sucked away all of the currency on the planet. Betcha I could even find some statistics and make a pie chart, too.

Except that those statistics were based on the President's numbers--which were presented as "proof" that we had to "Do Something".

We "Did Something", all right:

Are we happy now? Was it worth it?

[lilered]

It would seem to me that facts are facts and politics aside, where I live, folks are hurting. Haven't talked to anyone that is doing better the last couple of years. Some are the same, but most are worse off.

The thought keeps crossing my mind. If Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are in such dire straights, then why didn't our government just simply print more money and put them in the black years ago,. Wouldn't that have helped a lot more people than the present stimulus package? Printing money by our government without any financial backing will devalue the dollar. There is no free lunch. So be prepared to see inflation in the future.

[boyando]

The stimulus package that the President pushed through congress, seem to me, too give jobs too union members alone.

The conservative tax cuts of Reagan and Bush II, were aimed at helping any one with a job. I'm going to miss those evil tax cuts when they sunset, even though I don't make much money. Or maybe cause I don't make much money.

But at least I will have the satisfaction of knowing that a union member will keep his job and the yacht club will pay for my health care. Just don't get sick after July.

Edited September 7, 2009 by boyando

[Maxel]

Perhaps the stimulus package would have done more if... they spent the money allocated to it?

Just a thought. I doubt it, though. Somehow the name of the game with this government seems to be castrating America and weakening it.

[mightynancy]

I'm going to guess that the graph in post #6 is the deficit (it's not labelled. You'd lose points in my class for that).

Do the budget numbers include war spending?

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm going to guess that the graph in post #6 is the deficit (it's not labelled. You'd lose points in my class for that).

I am ashamed. Yes, it's the annual budget deficit.

Do the budget numbers include war spending?

Yes, they do. More here.

[lilered]

Am I the only one that finds it interesting that our Government made a very rapid decision to spend billions to bail out several large Banking/Investment systems just a short time ago. Now after only a few short months,Wallah, most of the Banks have paid these large sums of money back. Which to me begs the questions:

Did they really need the money to begin with?

What did they do in such a short period of time to warrant that kind of lucrative revenue?

Why hasn't any of the phenomenal revenue, been channeled to help anyone that I or you know?

Did they use this money just to buy out their competitors?

Do you know anyone who has received a fresh loan for a new house. I don't. I do know several who are capitalizing on foreclosed houses but still not able to find anyone who can qualify for a loan with reasonable interest. Our local Banks home mortgage rate is at 7 1/2 % at present.

[Just_A_Guy]

My understanding is that with most banks the issue was that they lacked short-term cash flow, but still had assets that would be valuable over the long haul.

But yes; the bank bailouts generally didn't result in consumer relief the way they should have. A lot of ink has been spilled as to why; and I don't pretend to understand it all.

[jadams_4040]

Speaks for itself, I think.

After the horrible mess bush left us in did you have visions of chocalate cakes and daisies springing forth immediately after obama took over? this economic mess we were in was the worst i,ve ever seen in my lifetime, {56} it doest just go "POOF" and disapear overnight.:)

[Palerider]

where is the kool aid.....:)

[Just_A_Guy]

After the horrible mess bush left us in did you have visions of chocalate cakes and daisies springing forth immediately after obama took over? this economic mess we were in was the worst i,ve ever seen in my lifetime, {56} it doest just go "POOF" and disapear overnight.

No; but judging by the election results a lot of people believed Obama when he said he understood the problem and had a workable plan to solve it.

This graph demonstrates that either a) the President's economic team has no idea what it's doing, or b) the President's economic team does know what it's doing, but doesn't give a rat's posterior as long as it has an excuse to fund pet projects.

Either way, Dubya has nothing to do with it.

Edited September 7, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[jadams_4040]

It would seem to me that facts are facts and politics aside, where I live, folks are hurting. Haven't talked to anyone that is doing better the last couple of years. Some are the same, but most are worse off.

The thought keeps crossing my mind. If Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are in such dire straights, then why didn't our government just simply print more money and put them in the black years ago,. Wouldn't that have helped a lot more people than the present stimulus package? Printing money by our government without any financial backing will devalue the dollar. There is no free lunch. So be prepared to see inflation in the future.

It is true inflation follows a good economy; too bad we cant have a good economy and no inflation.:)

[talisyn]

So what were the numbers if Pres. Bush II hadn't signed off on the first stimulus bill? Remember that one? The one where the economy was tanking even before Pres. Obama ran for office? The economy did not magically crash when Obama took office, this had been going on for years.

My fellow workers and I did a lot of discussing when the economy started tanking (mostly, are people gonna be able to buy french fries?) and we figured if the stimulus bill, instead of giving money to banks and whatnot, gave $10,000 to every single US citizen the economy would have been back on track before January. People would have caught up on mortgages, they would have bought cars...Give money to people who don't make political contributions? Yeah, like that would ever happen

Edited September 7, 2009 by talisyn
gloom and doom

[Palerider]

Lets also not forget the money we had to give the Car Companies...and then to sit back and watch Chrysler send all those jobs to Mexico...

[lilered]

Back to my last question. If the Banks were indeed on the brink of going under and our entire financial community was in trouble of being insolvent. Then how did a short term loan of billions of dollars allow them to save themselves from this disaster and pay back the entire loan is such a short term.

Common Sense would dictate that; if they are in need of billions of dollars to pay debtors off to stay solvent, they do not then have the necessary cash flow to repay back such a huge debt loan in such a short time. If this is a true statement, then where did they raise the capital to repay the loan?

I suspect personally they didn't need it, but simply used it as a very short term loan and made money on the loan money by investing it. But of course that would be illegal, wouldn;t it?

[Just_A_Guy]

My fellow workers and I did a lot of discussing when the economy started tanking (mostly, are people gonna be able to buy french fries?) and we figured if the stimulus bill, instead of giving money to banks and whatnot, gave $10,000 to every single US citizen the economy would have been back on track before January. People would have caught up on mortgages, they would have bought cars...Give money to people who don't make political contributions? Yeah, like that would ever happen

TARP-I was, IIRC, about $700 billion. Postulating a US population of 250 million, that's about $2,800 for every man, woman, and child in the US. Still a nice chunk of change.

Back to my last question. If the Banks were indeed on the brink of going under and our entire financial community was in trouble of being insolvent. Then how did a short term loan of billions of dollars allow them to save themselves from this disaster and pay back the entire loan is such a short term.

Today's September 7th. Let's say you will get paid $2,000 on September 15th. You have $300 in the bank right now. Your rent payment of $850 is due on September 10th. Are you "insolvent"? Technically, no; because your assets (including "accounts receivable") total $2,300 whereas your liabilities are only $850.00. But you do have a cash flow issue; and unless you can come up with some extra cash before the tenth you're going to be in a world of hurt.

In a nutshell, that's what happened to the banks. They had plenty of assets, but they were in forms that couldn't be touched for the immediate future (outstanding loans, real property that couldn't be sold, bonds that could not yet be redeemed, etc).

I suspect personally they didn't need it, but simply used it as a very short term loan and made money on the loan money by investing it. But of course that would be illegal, wouldn;t it?

One of the issues that came out shortly after TARP-I (and discussed in excruciating detail on this forum) was that some of that money went to bonuses for AIG upper-middle management. Some people (myself included) felt these bonus were justified, but the whole debacle made it painfully clear that the federal government had not imposed sufficient guidelines as to what the companies could and couldn't do with the money.

[john doe]

TARP-I was, IIRC, about $700 billion. Postulating a US population of 250 million, that's about $2,800 for every man, woman, and child in the US. Still a nice chunk of change.

Good thing you were studying math in school instead of getting indoctrinated by socialists, huh?