Unemployment hits 9.8%

[JohnSmith2007 353]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/doh-caterpillar.html

That was downright dishonest Steven. Try copying the entire story next time.

D'oh! Caterpillar CEO Contradicts President on Whether Stimulus Will Allow Him to Re-Hire Laid Off WorkersFebruary 12, 2009 6:16 PM

PEORIA, ILL. -- President Obama today repeated the claim we asked about yesterday at the press briefing that Jim Owens, the CEO of Caterpillar, Inc., "said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off."

Caterpillar announced 22,000 layoffs last month.

But after the president left the event, Owens said the exact opposite.

Asked if the stimulus package would be able to stop the 22,000 layoffs or not, Owens said, "I think realistically no. The truth is we're going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again"

"It is going to take some time before that stimulus bill" means re-hiring, he said.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

he didn't say "the money would save 22,000 jobs"

22,000 is the number catepillar said they'd have to lay off.

"Asked if the stimulus package would be able to stop the 22,000 layoffs or not, Owens said, "I think realistically no. The truth is we're going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again"

"It is going to take some time before that stimulus bill" means re-hiring, he said."

in other words, "some" is not 22,000.

Tomay-toe, Tomaw-toe...the point is that the money would save jobs and Gar-John was asking how the stimulus money helped.

[Dan J 277]

Bush inherited a recession. Granted it wasn't as bad as the one Obama got. Bush's answer was to cut taxes. For 6 years after that we had unemployment in the 4-6% range. Obama's answer was a trillion dollar stimulus and massive bailouts. Two years later unemployment is higher than when he started. Tell me which one worked better.

It turns out, a lot of the growth during the Bush administration was just a big bubble. Bubbles don't last, only sustainable economic growth does.

How much sustainable economic growth really came out of the Bush years?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That was downright dishonest Steven. Try copying the entire story next time.

D'oh! Caterpillar CEO Contradicts President on Whether Stimulus Will Allow Him to Re-Hire Laid Off WorkersFebruary 12, 2009 6:16 PM

PEORIA, ILL. -- President Obama today repeated the claim we asked about yesterday at the press briefing that Jim Owens, the CEO of Caterpillar, Inc., "said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off."

Caterpillar announced 22,000 layoffs last month.

But after the president left the event, Owens said the exact opposite.

Asked if the stimulus package would be able to stop the 22,000 layoffs or not, Owens said, "I think realistically no. The truth is we're going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again"

"It is going to take some time before that stimulus bill" means re-hiring, he said.

Does that change the fact that the stimulus money would directly help those working for Catepillar? You wanted evidence the stimulus money helped and I gave it to you.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Tomay-toe, Tomaw-toe...the point is that the money would save jobs and Gar-John was asking how the stimulus money helped.

Still on that "Gar-John" kick? Loser.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Does that change the fact that the stimulus money would directly help those working for Catepillar? You wanted evidence the stimulus money helped and I gave it to you.

Yes it does change the "fact". The stimulus didn't stop Cat from laying off 22000 people right after the bill was passed. Your attempt at deception was low even for you. Next time print the whole story or don't quote it at all.

Edited December 3, 2010 by JohnSmith2007

[JohnSmith2007 353]

It turns out, a lot of the growth during the Bush administration was just a big bubble. Bubbles don't last, only sustainable economic growth does.

How much sustainable economic growth really came out of the Bush years?

It was not a bubble. The bubble was from the Clinton internet bubble. If you think that after 8 years the sustained 4-6% unemployment rate was a bubble then all job growth is a bubble since at some point some of those jobs are lost to the next recession.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So? After a huge drop like that the economy always comes back a little. The bigger the drop the bigger the gain afterwards. The stimulus was designed to keep unemployment below 8%. It didn't do that. I maintain that without the stimulus the economy would have been the same as it is now. The money was wasted. Show me where the unemployment rate has gone down because of the stimulus.

You can harp on the badly estimated 8% unemployment rate ceiling all you want. The administration had revised that figure long ago as it became clear that the economy was in much worse a shape than was known when the 8% figure was first floated - that was back in Nov/Dec 2008. The economy then started shedding jobs at a rate of 750K/month for December and January leaving us with an unemployment rate above 8% before the stimulus package was even passed and signed. The massive shedding of jobs was slowed significantly in the two months following passage of the stimulus package.

But say, since you're so stuck on and outraged about inaccurate job creation predictions of economic policy, where's your outrage about the promised 5.5 million jobs from the 3+ trillion dollar Bush tax cut packages that never materialized?

[JohnSmith2007 353]

You can harp on the badly estimated 8% unemployment rate ceiling all you want. The administration had revised that figure long ago as it became clear that the economy was in much worse a shape than was known when the 8% figure was first floated - that was back in Nov/Dec 2008. The economy then started shedding jobs at a rate of 750K/month for December and January leaving us with an unemployment rate above 8% before the stimulus package was even passed and signed. The massive shedding of jobs was slowed significantly in the two months following passage of the stimulus package.

But say, since you're so stuck on and outraged about inaccurate job creation predictions of economic policy, where's your outrage about the promised 5.5 million jobs from the 3+ trillion dollar Bush tax cut packages that never materialized?

Giving excuses I see. As I said before, the bigger the drop the bigger the recovery. All of the gains made were because of that fact. The stimulus didn't create very many jobs, it didn't even stop the job loss. Get this through your head. Unemployment has gone up since the stimulus, not down. It did nothing to stop the hemoraging of jobs.

On the other hand the Bush tax cuts gave us 6 years of 4-6% unemployment. Try and think about that.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Tomay-toe, Tomaw-toe...the point is that the money would save jobs and Gar-John was asking how the stimulus money helped.

no, the point is you said

Who said it was only one person? The CEO of Catepillar said the money would save 22,000 jobs. Do you know anyone who works for Catepillar? Because if not, you don't know what you are talking about.

some jobs are not 22,000 jobs.

Edited December 3, 2010 by charles!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Bush inherited a recession. Granted it wasn't as bad as the one Obama got. Bush's answer was to cut taxes. For 6 years after that we had unemployment in the 4-6% range. Obama's answer was a trillion dollar stimulus and massive bailouts. Two years later unemployment is higher than when he started. Tell me which one worked better.

Bush inherited a 4.2% unemployment rate which went up to 6.3% by June 2003 (+2.1%). The recession lasted 8 months (Jan 2001 - Nov 2001) and GDP contracted just 0.3% - making it the mildest recession since the Great Depression. With that in mind, unemployment peaked a full 19 months after the recession was over. It then recovered to 4.4% by Mar 2007 (it took 4 years to get close to where he started) before deteriorating severely to 7.6% by Jan 2009 when he left office with the economy continuing to shed 600K - 700K jobs monthly.

So, let's see. Obama came in at 7.6% unemployment with jobs being shed at an incredible rate. The Great Recession is the longest and one of the strongest since the Great Depression lasting 18 months and seeing GDP contract 4.1%. And yet, the unemployment rate climbed only midly beyond the rise that we had seen under Bush rising from 7.6% to 10.2% (+2.6%). It also peaked earlier - about 9 months after the end of the recession.

Remember also that one of big differences in this reciovery over the last is that people no longer live heavily on credit but rather have undergone a shift - both forced and chosen - to return to living within their means. During the Bush years, much of the economic growth was driven by consumption on credit. From 2000 to 2007, borrowing added about $300 billion to consumer cash flow annually. Over the past two years, the trend to pay down debt rather than accruing new debt reduces consumer cash flow by about $150 billion dollars a year. What this means is that we're taking about a half a trillion dollars worth of consumer cash flow out of a mainly consumption driven economy. That'll slow things down, won't it?

While it is certainly not a bad thing that we're coming back to reducing debt and building up savings vs. burning through savings and incurring debt in the long run, this hurts the recovery of an economy that is dependent on consumption. Now, you can cut taxes which would allow people to more rapidly build up savings or repay debt but that would do little in terms of creating demand and hence in terms of creating jobs.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Dog, I wonder. If there were a rep in the white house right now and he did exactly the same things Obama did and we had exactly the same economy right now would you be giving him the same pass you are now giving Obama? I really doubt it. All you seem to want to do is spout DNC talking points and cherry pick stats. Yet again you fail to acknowledge that the stimulus hasn't stopped the hemoraging of jobs, or the fact that unemployment is higher now than when it was signed. You sir, are a hyper-partisan. I know that you understand what I am saying, you just can't admit it because you can't admit that the Obama way of dealing with this economy has failed. It has been entertaining watching you attempt to defend the indefensable. Tell you what, try asking someone that has been out of work for two years if he thinks Obama has done a good job. Even better, tell me why the dems were so roundly thrown out in the last election if the things they did were so good. We just had the biggest shift in Congress since the '20s. That didn't happen because people see the good things the dems have done. If you want to live in the fantasy land of yours then you are welcome to it. I prefer to live in reality.

Edited December 3, 2010 by JohnSmith2007

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It was not a bubble. The bubble was from the Clinton internet bubble. If you think that after 8 years the sustained 4-6% unemployment rate was a bubble then all job growth is a bubble since at some point some of those jobs are lost to the next recession.

There was no bubble that popped towards the end of Bush's term? Where have you been? Sleeping?

The $5 - $6 trillion dollars in additional consumer debt that piled up in those "prosperous" 8 years had no effect on the GDP? People borrowed money and bought products and services - 6 trillion dollars worth of such - without that adding to the GDP, the economy and the job market? Consumers borrowed massive amounts of money and just flushed it down the toilet? Of course not. This was a good part of the borrowed prosperity. Can consumers sustain that which we know and agree the government cannot - spending significantly more than they take in? Of course not. So this party had to come to an end and it did. And quite a hangover it left behind...

[^_^ 5,021]

Dog, I wonder.

That's Mr. Dog to you, Gar-John-san.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Dog, I wonder. If there were a rep in the white house right now and he did exactly the same things Obama did and we had exactly the same economy right now would you be giving him the same pass you are now giving Obama? I really doubt it.

You may doubt it but I would be as supportive of such model as I am today. The approach makes sense whether it's a Republican or a Democrat or an Independent pursuing it. Do I think that the Obama administration is doing all the right things in regards to helping the economy getting back on it's feet? Not by a long shot. But when you look at effectiveness studies in terms of stimulating measures for the economy, the focus the administration is having is geared more towards the more effective measures and less towards the least effective. I would have preferred to see much more in terms of future oriented investment projects. Problem with those is that they take time to get underway and the economy needed a push quickly.