Jobless rate hits 6.5 pct as job cuts grow

Excellant problem ofr the CHANGE ADMINISTRATION-

Republicans are the party of business no more. They were just as inept managing the economy than Katrina. They didn't govern but just power grabbed and pushed cash into big oil.

GOP Congratulations - you lost.

They can add me to October's numbers but since I got a severance package I won't be able to file for unemployment until December. Hoping to have a job by then but unemployment is worse than reported. I know so many people who are experiencing job cuts.

The economy will no doubt be Obama's first task. But naming treasury secretary comes before everything else. Must name someone to calm the markets.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

We see the fault of minimal regulations. Regulations are designed to keep honest people honest. Trust God, but lock your car. .........

http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/11/07/trust-god-but-lock-your-car/

Lets see who was President 13 years ago? Oh thats right Bill Clinton had he inherited the high unemployment from Regans huge tax cuts that also DID NOT create more jobs. This whole tax cut job growth ideology just doesnt work guys so maybe if you give up that platform your party will do better next time!

This cannot be blamed on President-Elect Obama since this happened before Tuesday, November 4th. This falls squarely into the lap of Bush & the Republic Party.

George Bush: the gift that keeps giving.

Actually, Reganomics works. 90s boom is clear evidence. Economic policy today won't take effect for years. Then Bill Clinton (yes, that's right) decided to implement NAFTA (which, globalization does work, though it brings everyone in line) and had the grand idea to do away with Glass-Steigel and regulation of the brokerage and banking industry. He felt that this would promote home ownership by EVERYONE. The late 90s deregulation is what just imploded on us. It had nothing to do with Bush (however inept he was). But keep drinking the Kool-Aid. Gotta love the front-page stories on what dog the Obama's should get. Definitely more important than the economy.

Love Rahm Emanuel too. The Democrat versus of Karl Rove. But same personality and ruthlessness. Change we can believe in.

* * * * *
Posted by: Gus | November 7, 2008 9:43 AM
.
The GOP did not "manage" the economy because no government "manages" the economy. In particular, and contrary to Democrat mythology:
.
1. We do not have a command economy. Thus, government does not have all the levers of control in this regard. Government, at best, can only influence the direction of the economy, and it really has precious little power to do so aside from the tax code, spending policies and trade regulations;
.
2. The government cannot make business decisions for the private sector. In particular, the government cannot tell business when to hire or fire people, or when or how to expand business operations. Thus, the government can never legitimately take credit for creating non-government jobs. Government officials who claim to create private sector job are liars. Make a note of it; - and,
.
3. The government cannot "stimulate" the economy simply by throwing money at it. This is shown by the miserable flop the stimulus package turned out to be. Another example of this is the "trickle down" economic policies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. These efforts at economy stimulation don't work because the government cannot tell people to spend, or hire or fire, or expand businesses with monetary incentives - as opposed to simply pocketing the cash. The situation changes only when the government hires businesses to produce specific goods - i.e. when it interacts with them in the framework of their own business models. FDR did this on a mass scale after we entered World War II, and it is the reason we recovered from the Great Depression. But don't count on the current administration, or the next one, to pick up on this hint.
.
The whole business of the government's interaction with the economy is buried under a mountain of myths perpetrated by Keynesian economists and the Democratic Party. It is better to educate one's self than to rely on government people to tell us how they can move the economy in a particular direction. The latter simply do not know what they are talking about.

Tax cuts don't create jobs? Tax increases create jobs? Have I left Obama-World and entered into Bizzaro-World? Wow, this website surely is educational.

Trey,
90s boom was the result of the elder Bush going back on his promise to not raise taxes. He raised taxes and the economy exploded. Go figure! Buh bye.

Janet won't be teaching economics at Columbia any time soon.

So which labradoodle do we get?

Think the Demorcrat Controlled Congress is to blame-

* * * * *
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | November 7, 2008 11:50 AM
.
Scot:
.
Bill Clinton entered the White House following the administration of George Herbert Walker Bush, and not that of Ronald Reagan. George Bush Sr. had long before repudiated Reaganomics, calling it "voodoo economics." In addition, contrary to his campaign promises, he actually capitulated to Democrat congressional leaders and signed off on bills to raise taxes and increase spending. (It was one of the reasons he didn't get re-elected; that, and having Vice-President Rain Man a heartbeat away from the Presidency.) In fact, even Ronald Reagan had dispensed with "trickle down" economics and raised taxes more than anyone else within the last half century. Thus, the economic model against which you rail - and for which you blame Ronald Reagan - had been quite non existent for some time before Bill Clinton took office.
.
In the second place, Scot, the economy has a mind of its own regardless of whatever its would-be handlers try to do. You, being in business, should know this better than most. The various phases of business' cycles and the millions of individual economic choices are going to determine the state of the economy a lot more than any single governmental policy or even a group of such policies. The policies of Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush were about as responsible for the recession of the early '90s about as much as Bill Clinton's were responsible for the recession we had eight years ago.

Unemployment back to 14 year high - that would be 1994 when the democrats were last in charge of Congress (and the Presidency).

Scotty,

Bill Clinton inherited the unemployment from the Reagan administration that ended in 1988? Clinton inherited an economy that was 18 months out of a recession and left his successor an economy that was 40 days from going into a recession - plus he punted on the war on terror.

Let's look at the economy between 1981-88 - lower interest rates, lower inflation, and lower unemployment while defeating the Soviets in the cold war w/o firing a shot.

Ohg,

A main cause of the sub-prime mess is the regulators poking their nose into the lending process by "encouraging" banks to make loans to folks that couldn't afford them. See the Community Reinvestment Act and Clinton's justice department use of that law on the banking industry. But as barney Frank said - let's just roll the dice on Freddie and Frannie (of which Obama's cheif of staff was on the Board)

The true unemployment rate is much higher than 6.5. As I recall, Bill Clinton changed the definition of 'unemployed' when he said the term only included those individuals getting unemployment benefits. When one is totally screwed--no job--no benefits--you cease to be a human contributing to the unemployed statistic. Our "leaders" first ship all the jobs out of the country, then they take away your humanness--and your labled a loser.

more economic historical rewrites from the partisan knuckle-dragging losers. good riddance ten percenters.

Thanks, Georgie and Dickie, it's too bad we got to know you !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

That's a very laughable picture: The regulators encouraging the greedy Bankers to take people's money under phony pretenses !! Come on, gals and gals of the Reeling Republicans, come up with a better fabrication than that, for Corporate greed !! I know if you put all of your little heads together, you can probably do so !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Fitz,

take some time to get some education - this is long, so I know your lips will get tired from reading this:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv17n4/vmck4-94.pdf

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo125.html

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09292008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/os_dangerous_pals_131216.htm?page=0

Now why would I want to read, whatever sorry sources, which back your lame argument ?? Common sense tells you that greedy people don't need regulators to tell them to be greedy. But of course," that is my story and I am sticking to it " !! I wish some of these McCain-Palin-Rove Republicans would raise their reading standards and quit relying on the Rejected Republican's propaganda machines !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALiVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Fitzy,

"why would I want to read, whatever sorry sources, which back your lame argument ??"

Maybe because your CPS education would allow you to comprehend the material? Try broadening your horizons and read something that you disagree with.

I'll get right to the store and buy Mad Magazine, that seems to be the Rabid Republicans' major source !!
Take it easy, boys and girls, of the Rejected Right, now you can go back to your districts and confer with your real constituencies, not your Corporate buddies !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Fitzy,

be glad you have a city of Chicago ghost payroller job, because you couldn't make it in the real world.

Terry: your sources are bogus. The "Cato Institute" is a right-wing 'think' tank. Your Lew Rockwell site seems to be a religion / free market / Ron Paul support group site. And your NY Post link? OPINION... it says so right in the URL. Try using FACTS and actual DATA if you want to prove a point. Cite some sources that are credible to Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike. And blaming Clinton for the September 11th attacks and the economic recession that followed them? That's low, even by Republican standards. You need a better understanding of cause and effect. Clinton did not "cause" the attack on the World Trade Center. The economic recession was an "effect" of this attack, and had absolutely nothing to do with Clinton, or Bush either for that matter.

John W.: well spoken. Or should I direct this compliment to "Gus"? Anyway, whoever wrote this little bit seems to have a pretty solid understanding of the situation and knows the only realistic government solution to the problem.

Inky, and others who blame the Democratic Congress for the poor economy: cite some specific examples of how the Democrat-controlled Congress somehow directly (or even indirectly) contributed to the recession. You can't, can you? I didn't think so. STFU if you don't know what you're talking about.

Trey: actually, no, Reaganomics does NOT work. The boom of the '90's was due to a combination of the dot com boom, new advances in technology, low unemployment, budget surplus, etc., lots of reasons to make investors feel confident in where the market was going. NAFTA and deregulation were actually horrible ideas. Free trade is NOT good for the American economy, and deregulation is NOT good for business. But don't make the mistake that many conservatives make in assuming that the economic collapse was caused by "poor people who couldn't afford their mortgage payments". On the contrary, it was due to house flippers, investors, and gamblers who took their chances with risky loans. The housing bubble finally burst, as it was destined to do eventually, and anyone who was in the real estate market suddenly found themselves losing money on their "investments". Many of these homes were purchased with adjustable rate mortgages, with the intentions of being resold at a higher value before the higher interest rates kicked in. At the same time, the institutions making these high-risk loans were also re-selling these mortgages or investing in insurance to cover their assets, so to speak. The whole deal was a sucker's bet, really... a whole lot of people took a gamble and lost, and now the rest of us have to suffer as a result. Rising gas prices, short selling of stocks, and escalating unemployment only exaggerated the problem. Now we're in a downward spiral because of it, with no immediate end in sight. The more people who get laid off, the fewer people will be spending money... the fewer people spending money, the more people will be laid off. See where I'm going with this? It's a viscious cycle. The ONLY solution is to put people back to work, NOW. And the private sector is not going to willingly employ people that they do not need and cannot afford simply to help get the market back on track. This is something that only the government can do, and it will only work if it is done RIGHT.