Great News: New Jobless Claims At 9 Month Low / Retail Sales Rise (unemployment rate, Iraq)

[RD5050]

Originally Posted by wjtwet

Unemployment is at 9.8% and is suppose to go above 10 % and then stay there. After Obama promised us it would not go above 8.5% if we passed his stimulus. And you think it is good that new Jobless claims fell to 521000 new claims. That is one million new jobless people every two months to add to the 9.8% unemployment.

And you use Orwellian new speak and call it good news.

I'd say 9.8% looks pretty good when compared to 25% during the great depression!

Remember it was close to 8% when Obama took office.

A 2% increase is a lot better than a 17% increase!

[RD5050]

Originally Posted by wjtwet

I agree and have said if we want to stimulate the economy get rid of the income tax for one year. that would so more than any government program. Can you imagine what it would be like to take home your money

Can you imagine how much your idea would increase the National Debt?

[wjtwet]

Originally Posted by RD5050

I'd say 9.8% looks pretty good when compared to 25% during the great depression!

Remember it was close to 8% when Obama took office.
very orwellian of you to compare apples and oranges.

A 2% increase is a lot better than a 17% increase!

very orwellian of you to compare apples and oranges.


More Orwellian new speak. He promised us if we passed the stimilus it would not go above 8.5% .

Not good news anyway you look. So stay in Orwellian speak, however I will point out half million new unemployed every month is not good news.

[cleanhouse]

Originally Posted by RD5050

I'd say 9.8% looks pretty good when compared to 25% during the great depression!

Remember it was close to 8% when Obama took office.

A 2% increase is a lot better than a 17% increase!

It looks alot better then 100%.

Are you black?

[wjtwet]

Originally Posted by RD5050

Can you imagine how much your idea would increase the National Debt?

the two stimulus were 1.6 trillion. Divide it out over federal income tax payers evenly. so it would not have an effect as to where we are. instead of Stimulus bill loaded with pork give it to the people that pay. You want a stimulus give it to the people.
Seems the Dems do not care about the debt as long as governement gets the money, but lets not give it to the people.

[cleanhouse]

Originally Posted by wjtwet

the two stimulus were 1.6 trillion. Divide it out over federal income tax payers evenly. so it would not have an effect as to where we are. instead of Stimulus bill loaded with pork give it to the people that pay. You want a stimulus give it to the people.
Seems the Dems do not care about the debt as long as governement gets the money, but lets not give it to the people.

You have that right-- all of a sudden Queen Pelosi is worried about costs!

Deficit May Limit Obama's Ability to Boost Employment - Politics and Government * US * News * Story - CNBC.com (http://www.cnbc.com/id/33228552 - broken link)

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by natalayjones

I have to disagree with you on that comment. Just like I don't blame Bush (or Clinton) for the way the economy fell; I don't(won't) credit Obama with any economic rising.

You don't credit Clinton with signing NAFTA, Permanent MFNTS for China or the GLBA that rescinded Glass-Steigall? You don't see the connection between Clinton requiring Fannie and Freddie to purchase high risk home loans at a time when banks were being denied mergers by the Fed due to unsatisfactory CRA report cards and the NINJAs and ARMs that were the result? You don't see how banks were able to convert the risky loans they were forced to make under Clinton's enforcement of the CRA into CDOs, thanks to the afore mentioned repeal of Glass-Steigall, that became the toxic assets that cause last years financial meltdown?

[RD5050]

Originally Posted by wjtwet

very orwellian of you to compare apples and oranges.


More Orwellian new speak.

He promised us if we passed the stimilus it would not go above 8.5% .

Not good news anyway you look. So stay in Orwellian speak, however I will point out half million new unemployed every month is not good news.

He is not a prognosticator.

He cant predict how every single company in the entire US will be affected by the recession.

So holding him to his original 8.5% GUESS is ludicrous!

His original estimate was based on the economic data he had at that time.

And as new data was received, his original estimate turned out to be low.

At least Obama was a lot closer with his estimate on unemployment than Bush was with the cost of the Iraq War!

Bush told the American people the war would cost 60 billion.

It has since cost 15 times that number, and still counting.

[burdell]

This isn't good news for the "The hell with the country, we just wanna see Obama fail at any cost" herd.

[nat_at772]

Originally Posted by momonkey

You don't credit Clinton with signing NAFTA, Permanent MFNTS for China or the GLBA that rescinded Glass-Steigall? You don't see the connection between Clinton requiring Fannie and Freddie to purchase high risk home loans at a time when banks were being denied mergers by the Fed due to unsatisfactory CRA report cards and the NINJAs and ARMs that were the result? You don't see how banks were able to convert the risky loans they were forced to make under Clinton's enforcement of the CRA into CDOs, thanks to the afore mentioned repeal of Glass-Steigall, that became the toxic assets that cause last years financial meltdown?

I don't credit Clinton, Bush, or Obama alone for the current economic state of the country. For some reason it bothers me to think that one man has the power to destroy or save the nation all by himself.