Obama Recovery Underway?

[/dev/null]

"Dead Dave, they're all dead."

 

Smeghead

[ExiledInIllinois]

The triple dip recession is on!

 

Good... Bring on deflation!

 

[....lybob]

Bumps might be up or down but the long term trend is down at least in relative terms. 2.5 trillion dollar deficit in infrastructure and that doesn't even include what we have to do to get ready for a future of much more expensive water and energy. Remember this equation (energy usage x efficiency of use = Standard of living).

[IDBillzFan]

Happy days are here again...

 

We all hope for that, right?

 

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Stocks-rise-sharply-on-signs-apf-3761778494.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

 

So much for the big lie Obama's policies were holding anything back

You gotta feel pretty stupid this morning.

 

Maybe not all of you. But at least 9.8% of you.

[Chef Jim]

 

So much for the big lie Obama's policies were holding anything back

 

So is it safe to say that with your logic Obama's policies caused the uptick in unemployment?

[Magox]

This Jobs report I have to admit, baffles me. It defies the points of data that have recently been filtering through. Another disconcerting detail out of the jobs report is the hourly workweek remained stagnant at 34.3 hours a week, which means that incomes didn't rise, and when you couple this with rising real inflation, this isn't a good thing.

 

It is my hope that there may have been some seasonal factors that distorted the numbers, but definitely not an encouraging report. This will bolster the FED's maximum money printing policies, and the "need" for the extension of all the Bush Tax cuts along with the extension of unemployment benefits. Also, I would imagine that there will soon be talks from both parties regarding a payroll tax holiday sort of deal.

[Chef Jim]

I heard Sec Holis on CNBC this morning say that we need to extend unemployment benes because studies show that for every $1 spent in UI creates $2 in spending. If that's the case why don't we pay everyone not to work. Think of all the spending that would create.

[Gary M]

I heard Sec Holis on CNBC this morning say that we need to extend unemployment benes because studies show that for every $1 spent in UI creates $2 in spending. If that's the case why don't we pay everyone not to work. Think of all the spending that would create.

 

Yeah, it's not like it's real money or anything.

 

[Keukasmallies]

It appears that there are so many people out of work and claiming unemployment benefits, that it is becoming a cottage industry in itself. If the eligibility limits begin to loom large on the horizon, those claiming benefits lobby a bit harder and, due to the size of the group, their ship comes in again...loaded with another fifty-plus weeks of payments. I hope someone is studying the implications of long-term unemployment, e.g., will there be a retirement plan for those who spend their career on unemployment? (OK, other than Social Security!) Will there be benefits for those "retirees?" (Oops, other than Obamacare.) Maybe there will be an organized group to represent the unemployed retirees, AARP (Arguably Always Reaping Payments). Will there be....forget the whole thing, just keep sending your taxes in on time.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Keukasmallies

[Magox]

Actually, unemployment benefits believe it or not are more TANGIBLY stimulative than tax breaks for upper income earners. People who receive unemployment benefits are generally speaking in a much worse economic position, meaning that the funds they recieve from the benefits are much more likely to filter it's way back into the economy than an upper income earner who gets extra savings from a tax break.

 

 

HOWEVER, there is a huge moral hazard that comes with unemployment benefits. We can safely say that there is a percentage of the population that is receiving these benefits that aren't actively looking for jobs either at all or not aggressively. So this does help encourage a segment of the population to continue to receive these benefits until they run out, therefore contributing to the erosion of jobs skills to those who are unemployed for an extended period of time. It's also in my view contributing to the high unemployment rate, and if we continue these policies, it will heighten government dependence for these checks, much like what we saw out of Europe. The question is what percentage of these recipients fall in this category of people who aren't actively looking for jobs? It's hard to tell, but I would calculate somewhere between 10-20%.

 

Another area that is hard to calculate is the psychology of the small business owners that fall in the "wealthy" category of the Bush Tax cuts. Psychology is a funny thing, there very well may be some small business owners that may decide to expand their business simply because they believe that the tax code makes them feel more comfortable in doing so. Some may believe that because of the tax code, they don't feel comfortable enough to expand. Of course we could add in all sorts of other uncertainties that didn't have to come about such as the regulatory structure of the Dodd Frank Bill, Health Insurance Bill and the new mandates from the EPA.

 

I don't have a problem with extending the unemployment benefits, but there should be a hard cap. There has to be a visual target that everyone knows. It is insane to keep on with the same lame moral argument that "We need to do it or else people will starve". Simply because you could always make this argument, you could make this argument at a 5% unemployment rate, what about those 5% who don't have jobs? Aren't they people who could benefit from these unemployment checks? So, there has to be a hard visual cap.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Magox