I think one of the main flaws in our system is the fact that, when the economy is bad, companies feel the need to contract. By that I mean cut costs, lay off employees, close down locations, decrease shipping, anything they can do to even out the losses and make a profit.

The problem is that it's counterproductive. If the economy is bad what we really need is more jobs where people will make more money, which they will spend in the economy. Instead we have companies severing their own limbs to make it appear that they lost weight.

Just because companies are reporting profits doesn't mean the economy is getting better. Lets say a company makes a product and ships it all around the country to multiple locations. Lets say the economy gets bad so they fire 90% of their workers, close down all but one manufacturing plant and ship only to one location. The company may have just cut it's spending enough to seem like it's making a profit but in all reality the company is in big trouble.

I agree that we should have let these "too large to fall" companies fall. Our system was designed for upward mobility and in order for that to happen you have to let the dead die so the younger, more virile companies can take their place.

The reason why the economy is so bad right now is because of the lack of jobs and the lack of money going back into the economy. The lack of money isn't a lack of spending, it's not that people aren't shopping as much as they used to, it's that they're not bringing home as much money as they once did and they are afraid that their job is next.

During the Great Depression public works projects were started with the main intent of getting people jobs. They was because America understood that money should start at the bottom and go up. It shouldn't be given to those at the top and then expected to trickle down to us common citizens.

The powers that be seem to think this can be fixed with good feelings and social engineering but you can't make even a brainwashed populace spend money they don't have. When Bush told us all to go shopping to support the country, we did, but now we're broke.

I just wonder how many people like me are out there...

I lost my job in May of '08, went on unemployment for 9 mos. when it ran out. Went back to work in May of '09 working under the table for less than half of my normal wage at a seasonal job that ended last month. I am again out of work.
Fortunately, I have zero debt. I have had to move out of my rented home and am grateful to have a large RV to live in.

These unemployment figures are only counting new unemployment claims, which people like me don't qualify for. How many people are out there that are out of work AND out of UEI benefits?

Why did the original post from Freeze get kicked to the curb.

Not a 1 liner.

The problem is BIG GOVERNMENT AND MASSIVE DEBT.

I've been saying since the Bush bailout that Wall Street will be fine but unemployment will rise.

After Bush we got Obama and Obama wants a big government, big union based economy. Obama is worried about his ideology not jobs. All of these social programs will just add to the debt.

We are in a global economy with cheap labor, so you can't have a massive government and massive debt. This is because the people will not be able to create the kind of jobs or enough jobs to sustain the Behemoth in Washington.

When you have a massive government and massive debt, you cut the middle and lower class off from the global economy because they are burdened by this massive government. Wall Strret still has access to the global economy and this why the stock market is up even with this news.

We have a 14 trillion dollar GDP and almost 12 trillion dollars in debt and people want the government to waste and spend trillions on social programs.

This is why Clinton reduced the debt. In a global economy with cheap labor you can't have this massive debt because the middle and lower class will be cut off from the global economy.

Obama is just like Bush when it comes to the economy. They borrow and spend to feed their ideology. We don't need universal healthcare and a 2,000 page Pelosi behemoth right now. We have close to 12 trillion dollars in debt and now double digit unemployment.

We need to reduce the debt and that will open up job creation. We don't need Obama's liberal agenda when we are 12 trillion in the hole.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by Matrix Rising]

Originally posted by MegaCurious
If he isn't the right man for the job, then by all means, please enlighten us with who is.

As far as I know, there is only one other choice you could possibly make... And if that's your idea of the "right man for the job", then let us backtrack so that you get your way and we suffer a worse fate.

The only reason the lesser of the two evils won the "election", is because you couldn't stomach the alternative.. you're not "man" enough.

I Love your ASSumptions Are you referring to John McCain? Because I wasn't! Clearly there was only one man who made the attempt to hold the office who was both qualified and trustworthy. His name is Ron Paul. BUT... as long as we have people like you walking around worrying about "The lesser of two evils", believing that there are only two choices... well, we're f**ked!!! When you elect "The lesser of two evils", what do you get? EVIL!

This is why Clinton reduced the debt. In a global economy with cheap labor you can't have this massive debt because the middle and lower class will be cut off from the global economy

---

The Congress controlls the purse strings. The Republican lead Congress of 94'lowered spending, Clinton signed it.

Calm down everyone. Obama recently announced that his Stimulus Package has saved or created 663,000 jobs! Thats huge!

Of course, one of the recipients of the Stimulus Money was a roofing contractor for a public housing project. He received about 27,000 dollars. When he reported the creation of 6 new jobs, the government employee collecting the data said "that cant be right", and listed him as having created 150 jobs. Woot.

The Moral to the Story: We can create illusory jobs out of thin air, just as easily as we can print illusory money. Aint that grand!

Originally posted by Pinktip
This is why Clinton reduced the debt. In a global economy with cheap labor you can't have this massive debt because the middle and lower class will be cut off from the global economy

---

The Congress controlls the purse strings. The Republican lead Congress of 94'lowered spending, Clinton signed it.

I say Clinton and the Congress. Clinton did a lot of things that were in the center. This is why the left couldn't stand the DNC.

Clinton was about to tackle social security with Newt Gingrich but Monica Lewinsky happened and Newt had to go hard right and Clinton went to the left.

Obama is very far left and people should have known that before he got elected. People need to vote Republican in 2010. Not because the republicans are any better but we have to have a split government so Obama will be forced to moderate and we can take leadership from Pelosi and Reid. We have to have a split government. Either party with too much power is not good. When Bush had the Senate and the House, the Republicans borrowed and spent like crazy. We need split government until a strong independent movement can take hold.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by Matrix Rising]

There is a fair amount of stimulus money being tossed around, and it really is creating jobs, from what I can see. Aside from the city projects, the company I work for has received a whole slew of new contracts due to clients having stimulus money to spend. So it's not like it's doing nothing at all.

Also, what does it matter if unemployement is at 9 or 10 or 15%? Lots of people are out of work, bottom line. Who cares if they are not precisely calculating it like you are. It's a recession, that's what happens during them. I still don't get the point of trying to "prove" that unemployement is x% higher than people think.

One word:

NAFTA.

Free trade my ass.

Where is a leader who is screaming against NAFTA? WHERE IS HE? WHo in the hell stands up for american workers?

Anyone???? Anyone out there at all????

We need to demand a reform or a repeal of NAFTA now!!!

The September unemployment rate climbed to 9.8%, an increase of .1%.
This was a supposed loss of 213,000 jobs. October had a loss of 190,000 jobs, with an increase of .4%. Something is wrong with my calculator, I keep coming up with 842,000.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by inbound]

So where in the unemployment numbers is the figure accounting for new graduates of college and high school entering the workforce for the first time?

I could easily be wrong about this number, but awhile back I recall reading that the economy needed to generate ~160,000 new jobs a month to account for population growth. I've never seen these people accounted for in the unemployment figures.

So if they've been ignored, then the real unemployment figures go up by something like 3 million more people unemployed since the economy started shedding jobs.

The only thing I'm ABSOLUTELY of is that pretty much ALL the official numbers are squirrelly as hell, and can't be used as anything more than a very rough estimate, and a low-balled one at that.

The real unemployment number is far more likely to be in the 19-24% range now.