Even if it were a legit number, the 8.3% February unemployment rate, released today by the Labor Department, would be simply terrible—and unacceptable. It would still extend the longest streak of 8%-plus unemployment since the Great Depression. The U.S. economy hasn’t been below 8% unemployment since Obama took office in January 2009. And back in May 2007, unemployment was just 4.4%.
But, unfortunately, the true measure of U.S. unemployment is much, much worse.
1. If the size of the U.S. labor force as a share of the total population was the same as it was when Barack Obama took office—65.7% then vs. 63.9% today—the U-3 unemployment rate would be 10.8%.
2. But what if you take into the account the aging of the Baby Boomers, which means the labor force participation (LFP) rate should be trending lower. Indeed, it has been doing just that since 2000. Before the Great Recession, the Congressional Budget Office predicted what the LFP would be in 2012, assuming such demographic changes. Using that number, the real unemployment rate would be 10.4%.
3. Of course, the LFP rate usually falls during recessions. Yet even if you discount for that and the aging issue, the real unemployment rate would be 9.5%.
4. Then there’s the broader, U-6 measure of unemployment which includes the discouraged plus part-timers who wish they had full time work. That unemployment rate, perhaps the truest measure of the labor market’s health, is still a sky-high 14.9%.
5. Recall that back in 2009, White House economists Jared Bernstein and Christina Romer used their old-fashioned Keynesian model to predict how the $800 billion stimulus would affect employment. According to their model—as displayed in the above chart, updated—unemployment should be around 6% today.
6. As Ed Carson of Investor’s Business Daily points out, it’s been a whopping 49 months since the U.S. hit peak employment in January 2008. The average job recovery time since 1980 is 29 months, not including the current slump.
7. And how long might it take to get back to the 4.4% unemployment rate that existed under President George. W. Bush? Well, let’s say the goal was to get back to that rate in 5 years. And let’s assume the LFP rate returns to the CBO trend. According to a jobs calculator created by the Atlanta Fed, the U.S. economy would have to generate about 225,000 jobs a month, every month, for the next 60 months to hit that target. But few economist think we’ll see sustained job growth like that, especially since it assumes the economy would avoid recession during that span.
Indeed, JPMorgan just cut its GDP forecast for this quarter to 1.5% from 2.0% and says there is “some downside risk” to its second-quarter forecast of 2.5%.
The U.S. labor market is slowly getting healthier, but it’s a long way from being healthy.
What about all the US citizens working outside the US because they can’t find decent jobs at home? Do they count as employed or unemployed? How many millions of us are there I wonder?
We need to bring BACK all those jobs that went overseas. Telemarketers, customer services, manufacturing and we must let American companies know that we as citizens are not happy that they forsake loyalty to our countrymen by taking their business out of here yet expect us to buy their malfunctioning junk from China.
Our Gov’t. should have incentives in place for a consistent period of time-years- that companies can count on to lure them home. Control the union problem which is busting up our country and provide stability with tax expectations. You can’t run a business on uncertainty!!
Bring back that offshore money too.
Even Apple is not made here. How awful is that?
During Democratic administrations, everyone knows that the President isn’t responsible for controlling the economy and therefore cannot be held responsible for anything that goes wrong. He just deserves full credit for anything that goes right. It’s only during Republican administration that the president controls the economy enough to be held responsible for every bad thing that happens. If anything good happens then, it is always attributable to Democratic opposition to the President. Now do you understand?
Your name should be LACKEY
Willford…your name should be SLACKEY …or Willford.
Um, Willford? Check the battery in your Detecto-Sarcasmo-Meter. . . .
The fate of the unemployment rate’s continued improvement is essentially tied to the proposition that a lot of young people and people in the prime working years never come back. But if that’s the case, then the U.S. will face huge deficits, since nearly all budgets by the CBO, the Obama administration and the Republican opposition calculates their budgets on a participation rate of around 66 %.
People still use their welfare services whether they work or not, but with an increasingly smaller workforce, the tax base shrinks and the deficit explodes.
So the only way to avoid that is by getting that participation rate up substantially, which would mean that the real unemployment is over 10 % (not counting the retiring baby boomers).
Think about that. Over 10 % almost 5 years after the recession hit.
And you need to factor into account about 100,000 people entering the workforce every month(or at least entering the workforce by the fact of their age and residence status).
The jobs gap calculated by both the Brookings institution and the Economic Policy Institute is between 10.5 to 11.4 million, depending how you count. With this pace, it would take to about 2020 until you get full employment.
And who wants to bet we get 8 straight years without recession with as strong job growth as we have now?
Oh, come on! Those numbers were just for giggles. Remember Ms. Romero and her “you should see the information I’ve got.” Nevermind those grand ideas, did you know it was worse than anyone thought, too.
As “Rosebud” is to Orson, “Bush did it” will be for Barack.
It’s little wonder by worried politicians (read big-government D’s) cling to U3 rather than U6 measure. It paints a less-than honest picture of the weak labor market.
Funny, you never complained about the different ways for measuring unemployment during the Bush years? Also, wasn’t the way unemployment is measured changed during the Reagan years?
Response FAIL.
because they weren’t playing with the numbers like Obama is …
Palooza – just imagine how the Main Stream Media would’ve reacted if Bush and Chaney declared “In addition to keeping the unemployment numbers below 5% majority of their tenure, they also SAVED millions of countless JOBS!” – I bet you’ll ridicule them as absurd! I guess you’ve determined to vote for 4 more years of redistribution of other people’s wealth!
There is no relevance to creating an alternative universe of “what-would-happen-ifs.” This does not move our dialogue to the next level. But, just for argument, there would be no reason for Bush or CHENEY to say this, as they did not contend with a major recession like this in which jobs needed “saving” from further layoffs.
Also, please tell us in tangible, substantive ways how “other people’s wealth” is actually being redistributed. I hear this conservative rallying cry often, but fail to hear any support as to how this is actually happening.
SA12,
I agree Bush faced a different set of circumstances… there was a recession that peaked in the 3rd quarter of 2001 which began in summer of 2000… Then there was 9/11 … wealth redistribution?
how about our progressive tax system… 47% of American pay no Federal Income Tax… and of the remaining 53% …the top 5% pay 47% of all federal taxes… Now one could say the reason is that the top wage earners have all the money … true ..they have more money but the bottom 47% get money back..
where does this unearned rebate come from?… the 53% that pays…
Now now Laka, spreading truth will only get you in trouble around here. Work on improving your doubletalk and newsspeak if you want to make an impact. I am personally overjoyed with the results of my Imperial Overlords. I am also self employed and slightly demented but thats beside the point. Jobs are for the Weak. Real men and women take real risks and invest every dime in self employment ventures. And if and when those fail, they turn to contracting with governments for sustainable cash flows with no end in sight.Assumning they voted correctly that is.
Pethokoukis and Kudlow and the other GOP flaks are miserable because the economy is improving. Their worst nightmare.
Either way you look at it, we have many years to go before we see improvement. The big unknown is what will the baby boomer’s do with the money they have. Without consumption we will stagnate and with Bernanke we are inflating.
Sigh. . . .
I THINK the point is that “the economy is improving” is a canard, a smokescreen, a lie. It’s NOT improving, which is what your “flaks” and other sensible people have surmised. Hard to grasp when you take Guvmint “information” at face value, I realize.
Inflation is over 10% Unemployment about 18%I have been out of work 3 yrs 4 Months Not eligible for U/E nor Food stamps but illegal Immigrants are.. Go Figure… President Obama is a Person not to be TRUSTED
As James proves above, the economy and unemployment are NOT getting better. The worst nightmare is the thought of another four years of fecklessness in the White House. Romney’s near the bottom of my list of preferences, but I’d vote three times for him, and given the choice between voting for Obama or putting a gun to my head, I’m checking out of the hotel life.
So it’s just fine to chose between, “the lesser of two evils”? That’s probably one of the biggest issues involving America today and why things are the way they are. So I guess it’s just fine to get screwed a bit over a lot… Wow…
I wasn’t ever a man who prayed, but considering the consequences, I admit, I do now…
Wheres the stock market at? Just curious?
No its because the BLS unemployment number is not the economy. Only the ignorant think it is.
NotAnIdiot The market is UP because they have cut every bit of fat they can and profits are up. They have fired less productive workers and kept the more productive ones. Except where there are unions –Then they kept the ones with seniority regardless of how productive they were. *G* Now they could hire all those unemployed people –BUT — IF they did their profits would tank and so would companies and the unemployment would skyrocket.
Anything else you want to know?
Remember those “created or saved” jobs? I’m pretty sure if you add in those “saved” jobs, sprinkle a little pixie dust, the measured employment rate will have hit that target long ago.
So we are now Japan of the 90s and can look forward to a lost decade. The question is when did the decade start for the US.
What about all the people on parole and in prisons? Unlike most other countries, the US has a very high number of people in prison per capita compared to other countries. What percentage of US prisoners are in prison because they didn’t have a full time job to make money? I don’t believe people on parole are counted as being unemployed (even if they are)
So how much higher would the unemployment rate be if the US had prison rates similar to other countries (Canada, EU, Japan ect….)
yes, it is unacceptable and it’s all because of your buddy bush. you ought to know that recoveries following financial-ed recessions/depressions are deep & slow. o has done a solid job of reversing the horror of bush’s wrong-headed policies, which led to the hemorrhaging of millions of jobs. O is doing just fine. your hack attack is just empty-headed and wrong
The scary thing is that this mediocre performance is built on the Fed keeping interest rates near zero and the USG still running a fiscal deficit of about 8-9% of GDP. Yes, we can stay awake a while longer by popping more pills, but eventually we’re gonna crash. We’re just sowing the seeds of the big one.
Does Obama think that we really believe that things are getting better because he says they are? You can fool some of the people all the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time but, you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. That was a quote from Abraham Lincoln.
The route to zero % unemployment is to lay off 100% of the workers for more than the duration of unemployment benefits. By the standard government, unemployment would be zero because no one would be applying for unemployment benefits after they were expired. Is that a brilliant solution to our unemployment problem, or what!
Another nonsense comment. Whether someone is collecting unemployment benefits or not is irrelevant to the unemployment rate. To be counted as unemployed, one cannot have a job and must have actively looked for work in the preceding month.
That’s no nonsense, Donny’s right. Look up how unemployment rate is calculated: the number of those who are currently receiving unemployment benefits ONLY (one of the “brilliant” Clinton’s inventions). Those who ran out of 99 weeks are not counted, as well as those who never received the benefits because their businesses didn’t carry unemployment insurance: I know plenty of people in both categories. In fact there is a massive expiration of the 99 UI weeks going on now: that’s why the unemployment rate is falling. If you’d take an honest inventory of all unemployed, the rate is 20%-25%.
Actually it was a Lyndon Johnson creation.
In the 1830s after a decade of republican control and an orgy of banking deregulation and pandering, our employment rate was 25%.
Johns changed the calculation where as the unemployed were not counted after a year which they were considered not part of the working force.
This had the effect of dropping the unemployment rate from roughly 16.5% to 6.7 percent.
President Jimmy Carter (77 to 81) had an unemployment rate of 7.6%
President Obama (08 to 12) is estimated to have an unemployment rate of 8.5%. Why isn’t this being debated?
Year Inflation Unemployment (1)
——————————-
1961 1.0% 6.7%
1962 1.0 5.6
1963 1.3 5.6
1964 1.3 5.2
1965 1.6 4.5 < Vietnam war spending increases
1966 2.9 3.8
1967 3.1 3.8
1968 4.2 3.5
1969 5.5 3.5
1970 5.7 5.0
1971 4.4 6.0
1972 3.2 5.6
1973 6.2 4.9
1974 11.0 5.6 < First oil crisis
1975 9.1 8.5
1976 5.8 7.7
1977 6.5 7.1
1978 7.6 6.1
1979 11.3 5.9 < Second oil crisis
1980 13.5 7.2
1981 10.3 7.6
1982 6.2 9.7
1983 3.2 9.6
1984 4.3 7.5
"Helicopter down" was the cry during Mr. Carter's last year in office. Mr. Obama has made a conscious effort to not have this, or any other event occur during this re-election bid, by ceasing all "active" overseas military operations in any War Zone so as to not have a repeat of Mr. Carter's final year in office.
So, are We The People to accept this President as unstoppable, having had:1) major failures in domestic and foreign affairs, 2)a rate of unemployment far exceeding Jimmy Carter's (another failed Presidency) and 3)racial divides never seen in the USA as encouraged by a sitting President?
Yes, this President is beatable, is weak and a vacuous failure. God Bless America. Amen!
The reason Obama is not in any danger of defeat in the upcoming election is not a testiment to any successes on his part but to the utter failure of the Republican party to present a sane alternative, let alone an effective one. It takes a Republican to out-fail a Democrat. I’m voting for Rocky Anderson, he won’t win the election, but no matter which side of the duopoly wins the people lose every election anyway.
sane! none of you all are sane! follow john galt!
Given the Federal Governments habit of lying to the American people, the U.S. Government is now the same as, for example, the Russian Government.
We have truly become a people of the government, by the government, and for the government.
The totality of the Russian Bureaucratic system of governing it’s citizens always and forever acts in harmony to collude against the citizens using deceit and subterfuge. For whatever reason.
The totality of the US Bureaucratic system of governing it’s citizens always and forever acts in harmony to collude against the citizens using deceit and subterfuge. Again, for whatever reason.
Therefore, the US equals Russia.
F*cking. Brilliant.
You would not know what Marxism was if it crawled up Rush Limbaugh’s ass and but you on the head.
I haven’t lived in the US since before O’bama ascended to the throne, but I’m still feeling the hurt of his policies. For the record, I’d prefer that the Labor Dept not know about me.
YOU’RE JOB AT 711 WILL SUPPORT YOU, SO YOU MUST SUPPORT OUR GREAT LEADER!!! TREMENDOUS SUCCESS!! 4 MORE YEARS!!! =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =)
ignore this statistical nonsense with “seasonally adjusted data” just look at the raw data …
employed Jan 2009 – 131,555,000
employed Jan 2012 – 130,313,000
employed Feb 2009 – 131,314,000
employed Feb 2012 – 131,164,000
no net job creation over Obama’s 3 years …
What did you expect? The entire housing market collapsed!
And what’s wrong with using statistics? It seems to be ok for science, medicine, and every single facet of business operations. It is not sorcery…
Since you used figures starting from the month that Obama was inaugurated, you apparently are blaming him for not immediately turning around the Bush economy that was hemorrhaging 750,000 jobs per month. So, while there is technically no net job creation over Obama’s three years, there have been 3.45M new jobs created over the past two years, since Obama has finally managed to turn around the Bush recession.
That’s not a “turn around”, that’s a stabilization. A patient who has gone from rapid growth of tumors to *3 years* of life support with no end in sight is not in recovery. A team of doctors who allowed a patient to remain in such a pathetic state for 3 years going while using statistical smoke and mirrors to make the dubious claim of a “slow recovery” without any actual improvement in the patient’s health would be in danger of a malpractice suit.
Only when the growth of the tumors in this economy is reversed, the tumors being stagnant wages, hemorrhaging of industrial capacity, out of control public as well as private household debt that began with Reagan, was further accelerated by Greenspan/Summers/Clinton, reached a critical threshold under Greenspan/Bernanke/Bush, and continues via the toothless inaction of Bernanke/Geitner/Summers/Obama, can any well reasoning non-partisan person claim that we are in a recovery. Everything else is just defensive political posturing and justification for failure, as every apologist for this failed administration in a long parade of failed administrations knows deep in their heart of hearts.
4.5m temporary jobs and the BOUSH recession? he was far from perfect but better than obama, he is just “a blister on americas but” neal boortz .
I dont really care for Obama personally, but to deny the fact that the GOP driven deregulation of the banks and the Bush tax cuts to the gluttonously rich did not case this shit is pure stupidity.
All that you have to ask yourself to reach an epiphany ( who has the money)
Its really as simple as that.
This is so bogus. A lot happened between a three year period. Jobs were lost, and then jobs were recovered. It is entirely completely dishonest to use the starting point and ending point of a graph for data and disregard 36 months of data in between.
In So California, they are closing inner city schools because many families that have been in the country illegally are moving back to Mexico.
Hey, that can be Obama’s reelection theme, “There are more opportunities in Mexico!” or “Obama is stupider than Felipe Calderon!”
The chart is even more damning than it appears because what is almost never, ever discussed is that when the Democrats took control of both houses of congress in 2006 unemployment was was under 5% and falling to 4.4%. Six months later, the unemployment began to rise and Barney Frank and company vilified the Republicans for trying to bring accountability to F&F thereby locking out any hope of forstalling the inevitable collapse.
This, my friends, is the true tale of the graph. It started in 2006. When Obama took over the executive branch there was not one left to stop the juggernaught of spending that quickly ensued.
Cheers,
Michael
Nice try to deflect blame for causing the Great Recession from Bush and the GOP, but America knows better.
Okay, hot shot…if you’re so smart, do the ONE thing people on the Left never seem to be able to do. You blame Bush for the economic collapse. Then, try and specifically explain WHAT he did to cause it! (crickets chirping). My brother in law works for Fannie Mae and nearly 20 years ago he was predicting what was going to happen, and exactly how it DID happen. Bush tried to reign in the lending practices and Dodd and Frank stopped the measures all six times in committee. You Neo-lib-tards just love to fling blame around, but holding your feet to the fire to explain yourselves; you can’t do it. You’ll have lie and distort to make something up, but I dare you; for those of us who work in the financial sector know exactly what happened.
Right Larr,
Bush, and probably even global warming both caused this current unemployment mess.
My only question is, is there anything Barack Obama and his Democrat sycophants ever accept responsibility for? Anything?
If you haven’t noticed Obama only takes responsiblity for positive things. And then he does so constantly and to the point of trying to make himself appear godly. Two great examples are the automotive bailout and killing Bin Laden both of which Bush was partially responsible for. It was a classis when Biden went on the news shows and said that killing Bin Laden was “the boldest decision any president has undertaken on a single event in modern history”. God like…and gods don’t make mistakes.
FYI, when President Obama announced OBL’s death, he did give credit to the previous administration for its efforts, and Bush was one of the first (if not the first) person the President called with the news.
It is disappointing that to this day no Obama supporters can accept the fact that they elected a highly under-qualified candidate purely based on race. Now that you have seen the damage he can cause you still blame bush. Obama and his supporters need to accept his faults. He has put some of the most damning legislature to american freedoms and everyone still refuses to accept that he is a terrible leader. So to everyone who called me racist for voting based on facts. Who’s the racist now dummies you wanted to be part of the first black president bullshit so much you forgot to check his qualifications.
Are these knowing Americans the same ones who believe that humans co-existed with dinosaurs or the ones that believe Obama was born n Kenya?
Dont argue with Rush Limbaugh morons.
The simple fact of the matter is that th GOP pushed legislation(s) tax brakes for the mega wealthy have cause the largest gap in wealth since the 20s
If they are too stupid and or brainwashed to understand that the middle class drives any economy then there is nothing that you or I can do to change their warped perspective.
You can argue about tiny details of this, or that, but in the end the fact remains that the right is simply wrong regarding all things economic.
The fact of the matter is that when few have all the money, most of that money get sat on. When the massive has that money it get turned over in out economy at a rate of almost 100%.
Just remember you are trying to argue with people that are attempting to blame Obama for skyrocketing unemployment thats trend started before he even took office and LONG before his administration even had the slightest impact on our economy. However the previous presidents policies were will under way.
How can anyone be so stupid as to not see this… Its mind blowing.
But remember, these are the same people seem to think that Ronald Reagan had anything what so ever to do with the demise of the Soviet union.
Hey Larry, I would like for you to check out a guy by the name Thomas Sowell. He has a few books on Google books, where you can actually read about the entire crisis. It will help you understand the markets and enable you to come to a sound conclussion. Here’s a link. Please check it out.
How about some reality:
Obama and Bush Debt Comparison:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/07/25/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/debt%20changes%20under%20bush%20obama.jpg?uuid=qZCizrbZEeCYzBMQCYwsyQ
Private Sector Growth Under Obama:
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-19/markets/30079944_1_private-sector-public-sector-job-growth
Obama and Bush Unemployment Comparison
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-07/politics/30485008_1_unemployment-rate-obama-election-day
Who increased the debt?:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/fact-checker/StandingArt/5684032538_71d8db3038%20(1).jpg?uuid=47NXpunzEeC2MlaJCIZgPw
Nice try left winger, the above excerpts from the Washington post article, blog and in one instance a “office of the democratic leader” – yeah that’s not biased, attempts to deflect ownership of the financial challenges facing the United States from demonstrably suboptimal [public policies of the evolutionary socialist on the left that have been masquerading as democrats since the mid and late 1960s to the GOP. Let just deal with the issue of debt, the author of the article of the Washington post attempts to make the logical fallacy of correlation equates to causation by showing the debt that occurred while someone was in the white house as if sheer temporal collocation translates into a casual effect relationship between those two events. Moreover the indexes that are used between republican and democrats are not equally applied. All the while attempting to cite the beau of economic analysis and the treasury department (not specifically citing wherein said organizations said data allegedly came from) as a cited source in sophomoric attempts to legitimize the warp inference said left winger attempts via correlation equates to causation logical fallacy.
Aside from the nonsense that joe is trying to pull let us take a look at the 2008 citizens guide to the public debt, authored by the department of public debt which is a under department of the treasury department. If we go to that document on page paragraph 2 sentences 3-5 you would see that the loins share of the financial challenges facing the United States do not stem from interventionist foreign policy in iraq and or afghanistan nor the tax cuts that where implemented by former president George W Bush, rather the lion’s share of the financial challenges the United States economy is facing stem from the rise of non military public consumption defined as social security medicare and medicade (1). Indeed non military public consumption defined as social security medicare and medicade, programs that were implemented by democrats, programs that have spanned multi generations have represented the lion share of the increase in public debt during the Previous George W Bush Administration. The percentage of federal expenditure that non military public consumption represents is clearly outlined in the office of management and budget historical tables page 54 of the report page 58 of the pdf that defense outlay as a percentage of the federal budget under former president George W Bush topped out at 20.7 %. (2) Indeed such comparisons illustrate why debt soared under former president Reagan, read the evolutionary socialists that masquerade as democrats in congress tacked on all kinds of “sweeteners” read additional expenditure to military budgets as a prerequisite for the democrats to vote for the budget. In short a significant portion of the debt incurred during former President Reagan’s administration was not primarily due to former president Reagan’s military expenditure rather it was due to additional budgetary items that democrats included as conditions for compliance surrounding former President Reagan’s military budget. into budget Furthermore the overall general growth of non military public consumption is greater than the growth of military expenditure. Finally the sophomoric attempts as comparison between debt incurred between former President George W Bush and baraktard erroneously overstates that the cost of United States intervention between 2002 and 2009 is 1.47 trillion dollars (no cited source). The actual cost for the entirety of the Global War on Terrorism as outlined by the Congressional Research Service of the Congressional Budgetary Office from 2001 to September 2009 = 944 billion dollars.
Here is a idea left winger maybe just stop talking and ad hoc posting excerpts from op eds and advocacy sources (the democratic leader of 2011) because there justmight be a Neconservative that will summarily eviscerate your bovine excrement spewed out fo your facil anus that masquerades as a mouth.
Jeffrey Damien Cappella
U.S. Hegemony Without End … Amen”
End Notes / Cited Sources
1. 2008 Citizens Guide to the Public Debt, Department of Public Debt, Under Department of the Treasury, Page 3, “If the Government is to retain the ability to manage a financial crisis such as the one today, it must eventually address the long-term fiscal imbalance resulting from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The Government’s fiscal policies for these programs as currently structured are not sustainable. Without changes, spending for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid would permanently and dramatically increase the Government’s budget deficit and debt, leading eventually to renewed financial and economic instability. See ‘Where We Are Headed’ p. 7.” http://www.gao.gov/financial/citizensguide2008.pdf
2. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist.pdf
3. The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11 by Amy Belasco
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget September 28, 2009: “With enactment of the FY2009 Supplemental (H.R. 2346/P.L. 111-32) on June 24, 2009, Congress has approved a total of about $944 billion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and other counter terror operations; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases; and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/documents/CRS_28Sept2009_CostOfIraqAfghanistanGlobalWarOnTerrorOps.pdf
Damn Jeff, you just PWNED Joe. Nicely done.
Good job with your research and facts. One thing you didn’t mention is how the Dems aka socialists stole Social Security money to pay for their “social” programs. Prior to LBJ’s term, SS was a separately funded program. It taxed workers and paid recipients from those taxes. LBJ moved the SS taxes from a separate budget to the General Ledger. He then USED that money to pay for his “Great Society” (aka welfare) programs to buy the votes of non-productive citizens. Then good ‘old Jimmy Carter decided to increase SS taxes on baby boomers beyond what was needed to pay current recipients, in effect forcing the boomers to pay for their parents’ and THEIR OWN benefits. And what was done with that extra money? Why, it was SPENT on “other programs”. Now we are told that SS is going broke. Well it isn’t SS that is broke, it is the Federal Government’s inability to repay the money it stole from the SS fund that has caused the shortfall. We have been double-taxed for SS benefits and the money was purloined to buy votes. If a bank had done this, the directors would be in jail!
SAM KINISON had the best solution re: unemployment (Apologies to SK if I murder this)
Have everyone who’s collecting a check or is applying for one show up and form a line in front of the “Govt Office” at 9am Monday morning.
When the first person in line walks up to the window to get their check, have the clerk ask them the same questions they always ask…. and they’ll reply with the expected answers.
“So are you still unemployed?”
“Yes”
“Did you look for a job this week?”
“Yes.”
“If we found you a job, would you take it?”
“Yes.”
Then the Clerk behind the counter would take out a pistol and shoot the applicant in the face – As the body is dragged away, he’d shout out”Next!”
How long do you think the line would be for that second check?
Perhaps it would be more sensible to save that round for the people who caused the unemployment crisis in the first place — banks, hedge fund managers, mortgage brokers and neo-con politicians.
The people who caused the unemployment crisis in the first place = the federal govt, mostly the democrats, their boondoggles fannie and freddie, even obama when he was out there with acorn etc about suing banks, blocking bank driveways , etc to force them to loan to losers
only govt knows how to make things worse, their solutions are always worse than the original problem
all you need to know about govt screwing our economy all the time you can learn from Thomas Sowell, or libertarian Tom Woods who wrote book meltdown, both are on youtube
The real problem is the liberal control of congress for 50 out of the last 60 years. You know, Congress, they make all the laws for the country, and they have increased the US corporate tax rate to the highest in the developed world. Businesses are leaving in droves, large corporate banks are getting bailouts, when they “fund” the liberal president. The libs have ruined the dollar buying power by printing trillions, and have caused the last, current, and next recession.
FDR started all of this with his Communist party VP Henry Wallace, and his 40 KGB agents who worked for the OSS during the war. Remind you of anyone lately, and their Czars?
It is in poor taste to compare an Unemployment check with a Welfare check. Everyone knows you have to pay into Unemployment to get a check. The concern should be that the Welfare System is in charge of holding that money until you find yourself needing it back. With the way things are going with Social Security, I wonder how long it will be before these idiots give away my money to some Welfare recipient (who could very well be from another country… check Africa and the Middle Eastener immagrants that are now getting welfare over and above the ones from Mexico, Central and South America…).
I say, have that “Government Office” windo at the the other end of a urinalysis labratory. If I gatta pee in a cup for my check, so do they. Also might want to make sure all the forms are in English…. Those two changes would make a damn big dent in that Monday morning line.
Silenus, please remove your head from where it is dark. Watch these videos and then see if it supports your contention. Please everyone pass these links on to all of your email list. Then see how they can respond with a LOGICAL FACTUAL Rebuttle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPBNBRnJeJg