8.1%

From


Jobs Data Point to Sluggishness


By JEFFREY SPARSHOOT And JOSH MITCHELL

WASHINGTON—U.S. job growth slowed again in April, a fresh sign that the economy could be settling into a sluggish spring.

Nonfarm payrolls grew by 115,000 last month, the Labor Department said Friday. The unemployment rate, obtained by a separate survey of U.S. households, ticked down a tenth of percentage point to 8.1%.

Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires expected a gain of 168,000 in payrolls and for the jobless rate to remain at 8.2% in April.

On a positive note, March payrolls grew by an upwardly revised 154,000 from an initially reported 120,000, and February payrolls posted a gain of 259,000, compared with an earlier estimate of 240,000.

And:


Why Did the Unemployment Rate Drop?


By Phil Izzo

The U.S. unemployment rate dropped to 8.1% in April but a broader measure was unchanged at 14.5% and a separate survey noted that the economy added a paltry 115,000. Why the drop?

This month, the decline in the jobless rate wasn’t a positive sign, as it primarily came from people dropping out of the labor force. The unemployment rate is calculated based on people who are without jobs, who are available to work and who have actively sought work in the prior four weeks. The “actively looking for work” definition is fairly broad, including people who contacted an employer, employment agency, job center or friends; sent out resumes or filled out applications; or answered or placed ads, among other things. The rate is calculated by dividing that number by the total number of people in the labor force. When the unemployed no longer count as part of the labor force, both numbers decline and the unemployment rate falls.

In April, the number of unemployed dropped by 173,000, but so did the number of people employed — by 169,000. That indicates that those people didn’t necessarily find new jobs, since the overall labor force declined by 342,000.

When people leave the labor force it could be due to discouragement of the long-term unemployed or by choice over retirement or child care. The labor force has dropped dramatically over the course of recession and recovery, and concerns have been raised it was due to discouraged workers.

In both cases, more at the links.

48 Comments

  1. Meanwhile at the BLS, this month’s Labor Statistics are Calculated:

    And so you need not worry, October’s Unemployment rate WILL BE 7.8% or 7.9% to get it under 8%. Reality is around 12+%

  2. One of you guys did predict that by hook or by crook the administration would have the “official” unemployment rate down in the 7% area by election day. Wish I had your Magic 8-Ball. It’s uncanny how they throw numbers out with such fanfare then two weeks later quietly “revise” them and do it all over again the next month.

    I ask: Can we even trust the numbers advertised by and created by these guys any more? I’ll tell you one thing. If I had to constantly revise my P&L numbers I would be very suspicious of the source. If at the end of month after month my accountant came and said I made $2000 and a week later said, sorry it’s only $800, I’d fire the fool.

  3. There’s something else afoot that neither the government numbers nor economists in general either admit or disclose: The Underground Employment Market. That is people who work, but only accept cash or tips and don’t report it.

    I’ve noticed this especially amoung young folks. Thes kids will only work jobs wherein they recieve cash and pay zero taxes. Plus, they freely admit they collect as many government programs as they can qualify for. They also “Nest”. That is they pool their cash and rent an apartment, share the expenses and pay their rent in cash (unreported by the landlord), their utilities by money order and other expenses all in cash. They are, for all purposes “off the grid”. They usually work in service industries such as wait staff, bartenders and pizza delivery people allowing them to eat free and in some cases even drink for free.

    But as my bartender friends say “they’re really good tippers”. Of course they are, they’re feeding the monster.

  4. I have come to believe that in spite of the political risks of having high unemployment numbers–a risk that can be minimized as both Yorkshire and Hoagie have pointed out through manipulation of the actual numbers–that Barack Obama and his government-control cohorts want to maximize the number of people who depend on government handouts (entitlements). When people are dependent on the government for their basic sustenance, they are far easier to control (to quote Valerie Jarret, to “rule”) the populace.

    All anyone had to do was to listen to the voices of Obama’s Class Warfare Army–the Occupiers–to know that those fools who have been beguiled by promises from the Left are in quest of not freedom, but free food, free housing, free clothing, free higher education, free transportation and free healthcare. Taking a cue from his counterparts, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Fidel Castro in Cuba, Obama’s promises them that he will be their benevolent provider in exchange for their blind support of his policies.

    It’s all about control.

  5. I agree Gretchen. As I mentioned above there are a lot of people “off the grid”. Aside from the Nesters” there are also those kids ( I use the term loosely since many are in their 30′s ) who live with Mommy and Daddy. Again, off the grid. Oh, they may occasionally have to mow a lawn or take out the garbage, but in general they live free off someone elses dime, work a little for caqsh, then go out six nights a week and party. I see it all the time.

    There is a demographic shift wherein many people see no need to better themselves, they just drift aimlessly. When we were kids we couldn’t wait to get out on our own. Not so much any more. Now it may well be just the spoiled suburban kids around where I live but usually, in economics, when you see a trend you can bet it ain’t just an isolated incident.

    We have grow a generation of dependants who want to remain dependant! Wow. That’s f’in sad!

  6. Hoagie says:
    May 4, 2012 at 10:40

    One of you guys did predict that by hook or by crook the administration would have the “official” unemployment rate down in the 7% area by election day. Wish I had your Magic 8-Ball. It’s uncanny how they throw numbers out with such fanfare then two weeks later quietly “revise” them and do it all over again the next month.

    What part of this regime doesn’t lie? It’s like the old adage: Figures Lie, and Liars Figure. B(L)S will come up with a new statistic method and work from there.

  7. And that’s just it Yorkshire. Over time statistics themselves, the method of deriving those stats and the reliability of the people presenting them has become a real question. Why do you think I don’t trust all the man made global warming models? Because the models themselves have become subject to the prejudices, desires and agendas of the people making them. And when some A-hole tells me something is “settled science”, then I know he’s full of it. Nothing’s setteled. Reminds me of the idiot who suggested we close down the Patent Office at the turn of the 20th century noting ” since everything that can be invented already has been”. What a baffoon.

    Thirty years ago it was setteled science we were entering an ice age. It was also settled by Malthus the world would be overpopulated with mass starvation by the 1980′s.

    And to go along with your Figures Lie, and Liars Figure adage my dad used to say: “There’s lies, damn lies and then there’s statistics”. He also used to say: “80% of all statistics are false, including this one!”

  8. “And when some A-hole tells me something is “settled science”, then I know he’s full of it. “

    Well here, we have another “A-hole” about to disagree with you.

    Your opinion is political, not scientific, Hoagie.

    Whether you like it or not, there is a scientific consensus that we do have global warming occuring, if for no other reason than the temperature of the earth (Arctic ice melting, etc) is increasing faster than in the near past, coincident with the beginning of the industrial revolution, when the burning of coal increased dramatically, giving evidence that carbon dioxide is involved. This is changing our climate, relatively rapidly. What is not quite as settled are the models being used to project into the future.

    Time to face up to the facts, Hoagie!

  9. Let’s be clear about this. You righties want to blame Obama for everything, but are totally unwilling to take responsibility for the near Great Depression II you caused. But it is really very obvious: the increase in jobs is the result of President Obama’s wise policies, something for which he got no help from the do-nothing Republicans. The increase in the number of people who have quit looking for jobs is the fault of Bush and the republicans destroying the economy and their hope, something President Obama is addressing but hasn’t finished yet because the radical Republicans, led by the dead-enders and reinforced by five absolutist Catholic SCOTUS justices who should never have been put on the Supreme Court in the first place, and the Koch Brothers have sabotaged.

  10. “Your opinion is political, not scientific, Hoagie.”

    Wrong again WW. It is your opinion which is political, not mine. It is your politics of hating America, her success, and her productivity which drives your blind desire to follow a bunch of liars, cheats and frauds off a cliff. See, your politics, the politics of hate for free markets and hate for capitalism which causes you to embrace a “scientific” model of mans technology and production destroying the earth.

    “Whether you like it or not, there is a scientific consensus…”

    As there was for an Ice Age, a flat earth and a million other things too long to list. Till they were proved wrong. And BTW, a “consensus” is in no way setteled science.

  11. “Wrong again WW. It is your opinion which is political, not mine. It is your politics of hating America, her success, and her productivity which drives your blind desire to follow a bunch of liars, cheats and frauds off a cliff. See, your politics, the politics of hate for free markets and hate for capitalism which causes you to embrace a “scientific” model of mans technology and production destroying the earth.”

    Man, Hoagie, have you gone off the deep end, as you continue to attack and lie.

    And regarding global warming, I gave you my understanding plus a citation. You exhibit no understanding, and no citation. Not only not convincing, Hoagie, hardly worth a conversation.

    Instead, you are exhibiting your ignorance on this subject.

    Was today your turn, Hoagie? Personal attack – Editor please review Ys

  12. Hoagie says:
    As there was for an Ice Age, a flat earth and a million other things too long to list. Till they were proved wrong. And BTW, a “consensus” is in no way setteled science.

    In my basement, on a set of shelves, I believe I still have a TIME Magazine declaring the Coming Ice Age. For me to go there, I’m like a little kid who sits and bounces to each step. I refuse to kill myself using TWO Crutches and one leg. 8-)

    And if it is still there, it will be scanned and POSTED. Glowball Warming Settled – HA! Bovine Feces is settled.

  13. “Hoagie have pointed out through manipulation of the actual numbers–that Barack Obama and his government-control cohorts want to maximize the number of people who depend on government handouts (entitlements).”

    Gretchen, where is your evidence for this allegation? I believe your are making this stuff up!

    “All anyone had to do was to listen to the voices of Obama’s Class Warfare Army–the Occupiers–to know that those fools who have been beguiled by promises from the Left are in quest of not freedom, but free food, free housing, free clothing, free higher education, free transportation and free healthcare. Taking a cue from his counterparts, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Fidel Castro in Cuba, Obama’s promises them that he will be their benevolent provider in exchange for their blind support of his policies.”

    President Obama has nothing to do with OWS, Gretchen. It is a spontaneous occurrence happening the world over. And please show me the President Obama quote which demonstrates your allegation about being the “benevolent provider”.

    I would not have believed that Republicans and Conservatives could move yet further to the Right extreme, but you people have me beginning to wonder with all your unsubstantiated statements attempting to picture our President in this manner. You are behaving like you are desperate. Is this true, Gretchen?

  14. “In my basement, on a set of shelves, I believe I still have a TIME Magazine declaring the Coming Ice Age. “

    Don’t bother, Yorkshire. I have looked into this. The periodicity of ice ages is every 90K to 100K years, so the changes occur very gradually over time, nothing like the increase in global temperatures we have experienced over the last 150 years. Thus, we are now going into the beginnings of an ice age, that is true, but again, the temperature changes will be so gradual that over a hundred years time the changes will be practically imperceptible.

  15. “Was today your turn, Hoagie? Personal attack – Editor please review Ys”

    What? You are kidding, aren’t you Yorkshire?

    And I will note how many personal attacks by your side were overlooked by you!

    There was no personal attack here, none whatsoever. Only a fantasy in your mind, Yorkshire!

  16. Two responses to Wagonwheel here:

    WW: President Obama has nothing to do with OWS, Gretchen.

    From an October 2011 ABC Nightline interview with Jake Tapper:

    “Obama said the most important thing he can do as president is express solidarity with the protesters and redouble his commitment to achieving what he described as a more egalitarian society.”

    WW: And please show me the President Obama quote which demonstrates your allegation about being the “benevolent provider.”

    May I direct you to the latest Obama/Biden campaign ad which emphasizes the patronizing benevolence of The Leader?

    http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia/

  17. Wagonwheel’s sockpuppet says:
    May 4, 2012 at 15:57

    Let’s be clear about this. You righties want to blame Obama for everything, but are totally unwilling to take responsibility for the near Great Depression II you caused. But it is really very obvious: the increase in jobs is the result of President Obama’s wise policies, something for which he got no help from the do-nothing Republicans. The increase in the number of people who have quit looking for jobs is the fault of Bush and the republicans destroying the economy and their hope, something President Obama is addressing but hasn’t finished yet because the radical Republicans, led by the dead-enders and reinforced by five absolutist Catholic SCOTUS justices who should never have been put on the Supreme Court in the first place, and the Koch Brothers have sabotaged.”

    Good first effort. A better effect might in future be achieved by salting exclamation points throughout, along with what are obviously disingenuous professions of amazement that anyone could be so stupid, bigoted, or obtuse as to advance such views as you may feel the urge to criticize.

    Admonishing others to refrain from engaging in personal attacks while pointing out how their failure to do so exemplifies their very serious character and intellectual deficits, would be another nice touch.

    Finally, recall that it’s never necessary to defend value statements, because (as we change mood and voice here) I must admit that you are all hypocrites, including I again admit, you; and that if you all just adopted the “Golden Rule” which states “Do unto others as they command you to do for them” the world could be operated as a more efficient and just system, and your life efforts could be more effectively harnessed for the betterment of the more deserving portions of mankind. Which might go some way toward paying for your crimes of selfishness, and your lack of appreciation for those who are through their directive efforts merely trying to imbue your meaningless life with some measure of social utility.

    Thank you, and Gaia bless.

  18. Wagonwheel says:
    May 4, 2012 at 17:03

    “Was today your turn, Hoagie? Personal attack – Editor please review Ys”

    So you didn’t think it was a snarky attack? Hmmm If you left it off, I wouldn’t see it in the rest of it. But it was that last little twist.

  19. Hoagie wrote:

    One of you guys did predict that by hook or by crook the administration would have the “official” unemployment rate down in the 7% area by election day. Wish I had your Magic 8-Ball. It’s uncanny how they throw numbers out with such fanfare then two weeks later quietly “revise” them and do it all over again the next month.

    I don’t remember who made such a prediction — it could have been me — but it’s along the lines of predicting that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

  20. Hoagie wrote:

    There’s something else afoot that neither the government numbers nor economists in general either admit or disclose: The Underground Employment Market. That is people who work, but only accept cash or tips and don’t report it.

    I’ve noticed this especially amoung young folks. Thes kids will only work jobs wherein they recieve cash and pay zero taxes. Plus, they freely admit they collect as many government programs as they can qualify for. They also “Nest”. That is they pool their cash and rent an apartment, share the expenses and pay their rent in cash (unreported by the landlord), their utilities by money order and other expenses all in cash. They are, for all purposes “off the grid”. They usually work in service industries such as wait staff, bartenders and pizza delivery people allowing them to eat free and in some cases even drink for free.

    But as my bartender friends say “they’re really good tippers”. Of course they are, they’re feeding the monster.

    They aren’t all in “service industries such as wait staff, bartenders and pizza delivery people.” There are plenty of established businesses which have a special “discount” for cash. They maintain enough of their business above board, to look legitimate, but run some cash jobs, to make extra money.

    Let’s say you are a roofer, and Joe Schmuckatella needs to have a new roof put on his house. It’s a 2,000 ft² roof, so the roofer needs 20 squares of shingles. A square of Owens Corning Oakridge Estate Gray AR Laminate Shingles costs $33.40 at Lowe’s right now, and you would need twenty squares, totaling $668, plus 6% sales tax, making it $708.08. The roofer buys his shingles “on the grid,” and thus has a receipt for the shingles. He then does the roof for cash, which he does not report as income. Thus, he not only has additional income which is not reported, but he has the shingles, and the receipt for them, and he can deduct the shingles as a business expense. Thus, he is not only not taxed on the cash he made on doing the roof, but he lowers his reported profits, by having additional building materials to deduct as a business expense.

    He pays his workers, for that job, in cash, which they don’t report, so they don’t pay taxes, and he doesn’t have to pay the Social Security and Medicare matching portions.

    The example was greatly simplified — there’s more to roofing a house than just the shingles — but it illustrates how easy it is. The roofer could do one job out of every ten in cash, and still run enough money “on the grid” to make everything look legitimate. Concrete contractors, electricians, vinyl siding installers, mechanics, landscapers, home repair services, you name it, anyone could run his business this way . . . and many do. And when you have a “progressive” tax structure, which makes some hard-working businessmen believe that they are being treated unfairly, there’s even more temptation, even more reason, to “lower” your tax rates to something you think to be more fair.

  21. Since the discussion is getting a bit off-topic with the global warming climate change topic. your Editor has set up a specific open thread for discussing the subject, here. Your Editor requests taking those comments to that thread.

  22. Editor says:
    May 4, 2012 at 19:16
    Hoagie wrote:

    One of you guys did predict that by hook or by crook the administration would have the “official” unemployment rate down in the 7% area by election day. Wish I had your Magic 8-Ball. It’s uncanny how they throw numbers out with such fanfare then two weeks later quietly “revise” them and do it all over again the next month.

    I don’t remember who made such a prediction — it could have been me — but it’s along the lines of predicting that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

    It was Moi!

  23. Wagonwheel’s sockpuppet says:

    Let’s be clear about this. You righties want to blame Obama for everything, but are totally unwilling to take responsibility for the near Great Depression II you caused.

    I assume you are talking about the recession we are currently in. If that is the case, then I beg to differ with you as to its cause. The housing market was what started the crash and it was brought on by the policies of the liberal Democrats. Those policies were put into place to make sure more people had the opportunity to own their own home. Never mind that they couldn’t pay the loan back, by George, they were buying a house, so everything was all better.

    This crash was the direct result of those policies. Admittedly, George W. Bush did little to help the situation, but he was the victim of a perfect storm and there was little he could do to stop the crash. By then, it was too late.

  24. LDJ:
    This crash was the direct result of those policies. Admittedly, George W. Bush did little to help the situation, but he was the victim of a perfect storm and there was little he could do to stop the crash. By then, it was too late.

    Actually Bush tried a lot of things to close this stupidity by Fannie and Freddie. Unfortunately between Dodd and Frank this was constantly bottled up in Congress. Bush wanted it stopped Dodd and Frank blocked him at every try. So, then, the inevitible took place and Dudd and Fwank just walked away.

  25. From the old Blob

    The Democrats will try to make political hay over the problems of Fannie Mae, but here’s what they did, on tape, in their own words
    Posted by Dana Pico on 28 September 2008, 6:26 pm

    As our friends on the left try to whine and moan and complain that all of the financial problems are the fault of George Bush, the following video from C-SPAN has emerged, concerning a hearing held by the Government Sponsored Enterprises Subcommittee, in which the Republicans, including the then-chairman, are concerned about the health of the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) (NYSE symbol: FNM), commonly known as Fannie Mae, while the Democrats spend their time defending CEO Franklin Raines — who later had to resign due to financial misstatements — and the health of Fannie Mae and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) (NYSE symbol: FRE), commonly known as Freddie Mac in general. The tape is from late 2004.

    Hat tip to Cheryl for the reference, and to NakedEmperorNews for the YouTube.

    Filed under 2008 Election, 2008 Financial Bailout, Economics, Politics
    Comments are closed | Permalink

    2 Comments

    Dana Pico says:
    28 September 2008 at 18:43

    Just a disturbing aside: I just cleared a bunch of spam, and about half of it was mortgage related. Three of them got past the spam filter and made it into the published comments.

    I have a fairly large spam filter, and, regrettably, one of the spam trigger words is “insurance.” I really ought to add the word mortgage to that list, but there’s too much discussion of the problems created by bad mortgages for me to do that now.

    Yorkshire says:
    28 September 2008 at 19:11

    As much as BO wants to make this a Republican and Bush problem, facts do not support it. Repeal CRA Now!

    [Comment edited to add reference link, and format; no changes made to text. -- Editor]

  26. “As much as BO wants to make this a Republican and Bush problem, facts do not support it. Repeal CRA Now!”

    Yorkshire, again, the basic problem was with the banks and mortgage companies who wrote bad mortgages with insufficient qualifications for the loan, and then with the investment banks, who bundled these toxic loans into credit default swaps of questionable value, then marketed same, while simultaneously betting against these securities by selling short.

    I am simply amazed that these offending institutions have not been charged and brought to court.

    Fannie Mae is certainly to blame as well, for providing funding to a toxic mortgage operation.

    All this malfeasance created a housing bubble which burst, which was one of the main contributors to our Great Recession, happening on Republican watch, from which we have not yet recovered in terms of jobs and a robust economy and a viable housing market. The Republican party was punished in 2008, but the rest of the perps go free, while Americans continue to suffer. This is not right!

  27. “So you didn’t think it was a snarky attack? Hmmm If you left it off, I wouldn’t see it in the rest of it. But it was that last little twist.”

    No, I don’t Yorkshire. I had good reason to voice that “twist”, and should have done so long ago, to suggest that there may be a degree of coordination of personal attacks on here. Is there?

  28. “Let’s be clear about this. You righties want to blame Obama for everything, but are totally unwilling to take responsibility for the near Great Depression II you caused. But it is really very obvious: the increase in jobs is the result of President Obama’s wise policies, something for which he got no help from the do-nothing Republicans. The increase in the number of people who have quit looking for jobs is the fault of Bush and the republicans destroying the economy and their hope, something President Obama is addressing but hasn’t finished yet because the radical Republicans, led by the dead-enders and reinforced by five absolutist Catholic SCOTUS justices who should never have been put on the Supreme Court in the first place, and the Koch Brothers have sabotaged.”

    Hey, that’s pretty good! But you did leave out my sprinkling of exclamation points!!!

  29. Yorkshire:

    Actually Bush tried a lot of things to close this stupidity by Fannie and Freddie. Unfortunately between Dodd and Frank this was constantly bottled up in Congress. Bush wanted it stopped Dodd and Frank blocked him at every try. So, then, the inevitible took place and Dudd and Fwank just walked away.

    Your point is taken. I really didn’t mean to sound like I was blaming Bush. What he did try to do was thwarted by the Democrats at every turn. At the time, he had been so villianized in the media, that he had very little political capital left.

    The real point that I wanted to make is that it had been the policies of the liberal Democrats that started this debacle and it was those same policies that brought it to a head and put us into the tailspin we are still in.

  30. Yorkshire wrote:

    LDJ:
    This crash was the direct result of those policies. Admittedly, George W. Bush did little to help the situation, but he was the victim of a perfect storm and there was little he could do to stop the crash. By then, it was too late.

    Actually Bush tried a lot of things to close this stupidity by Fannie and Freddie. Unfortunately between Dodd and Frank this was constantly bottled up in Congress. Bush wanted it stopped Dodd and Frank blocked him at every try. So, then, the inevitible took place and Dudd and Fwank just walked away.

    I don’t think that President Bush tried particularly hard to do that; he was just as much into the “ownership society” concept as anyone else.

    And I absolutely agree with the concept: home ownership is a good thing, with very positive societal results. The trouble isn’t the concept, but the execution; despite the fact that home ownership is a good thing, not everybody is suited to be a homeowner.

  31. WW wrote:

    Yorkshire, again, the basic problem was with the banks and mortgage companies who wrote bad mortgages with insufficient qualifications for the loan, and then with the investment banks, who bundled these toxic loans into credit default swaps of questionable value, then marketed same, while simultaneously betting against these securities by selling short.

    I am simply amazed that these offending institutions have not been charged and brought to court.

    We’ve been through this before: to be “charged and brought to court,” there has to be evidence that an actual crime, an actual and intentional violation of the law, was committed.

    The housing bubble burst too late in the Bush Administration for his Justice Department to have done anything, and the Obama Administration has either not seen sufficient evidence of anything that is actually criminal, or is simply uninterested in trying to make criminal cases out of the collapse.

    Fannie Mae is certainly to blame as well, for providing funding to a toxic mortgage operation.

    Now, consider this. Fannie Mae exists to help marginal borrowers to get mortgages, and it was under both Democrats and Republicans that FNMA was pushing mortgages to even more marginally qualified borrowers. Both the Democrats and Republicans were pushing an Affirmative Action notion, and “borrowers of color” are, overall, poorer than borrowers of a dearth of color, and thus the people who were more likely to have credit problems or other should-have-been disqualifying problems would have been disproportionately minority borrowers. Leaving aside the question of whether any laws were actually broken, an attack on the relaxed borrowing standards would concomitantly be an attack on Affirmative Action. We all know that that’s the last thing that the Obama Administration is interested in doing.

  32. Mr. Editor I’d like to clear up two things. First off, I was not trying to do another worn out glow-ball warming thing. I was just using it as an example of faulty statistics. I just as well could have used durable goods, car buying trends or oil production. Wrongly, I picked glow-ball warming which got Wagonwheel off on a schpeel. Sorry.

    Secondly, I was using the “service industry” as an example of “off the grid” labor. I am well aware of the type of slight-of-hand you refer to with your roofing model. Just last night at the Club there was a young man telling me how his “landscape business” was doing pretty well (even in this economy). Why? because he works under the table. He dosen’t even own a lawn mower. He goes to people’s homes, uses their equipment, charges a discount rate because of it, and according to him pulls in $800 a week in cash.

    My point was to show the how’s and why’s there is such a large part of the populace who are “out of work” yet they are working to a degree. They are not fully employed in the traditional sense but they do work even though they’re off the grid. Even though they pay no federal taxes. Nor contribute to Social Security. But they do earn some money but are overlooked in the official employment numbers.

    I have other examples like the girl who cleans homes, or walks dogs and does “personal shopping” for people. The guy who picks up unwanted appliances and sells the metal off. My only point is that all these statistics are just guesstimates, not real economic fact.

    And Wagonwheel, just because someone mentions glow-ball warming does not mean you need to snap into attack mode. Cool your jets, we all know it’s just pure bull. Well, not all of us.

  33. I think the housing effort was well intentioned, since we had been in a rising housing market for many years, meaning that purchasing a home could be viewed not only as a home but also as an investment, especially from the beginning of the Clinton second term (1997) to the middle of Bush’s second term (2006), when the collapse began and the bubble burst.

    In hindsight, making mortgages available to more people was a mistake, a mistake which the financial community latched on to and worked it into their own aggrandizement by gross exploitation using questionable practices, as mentioned previously.

    I do not understand why the Justice Department has not taken action against these people.

    Could it be that corruption and lawlessness is so wide spread as to overwhelm our criminal justice system into inaction, which may very well be why the Right constantly favors smaller government? They just love to game the system, don’t they?

  34. LD Jackson says:

    “Your point is taken. I really didn’t mean to sound like I was blaming Bush. What he did try to do was thwarted by the Democrats at every turn. At the time, he had been so villianized in the media, that he had very little political capital left.”

    OK Mr Jackson, kindly spell out exactly what Bush tried to do to thwart these poorly considered mortgage loans that turned toxic, because I’ve not seen it.

    “The real point that I wanted to make is that it had been the policies of the liberal Democrats that started this debacle and it was those same policies that brought it to a head and put us into the tailspin we are still in.”

    Specifically what policies of the liberal Democrats are you talking about here? How about the lenders who did not properly scrutinize the qualifications of the borrowers and robo-signed the forms – do they deserve any of the blame, Mr Jackson?

  35. WagonWheel: On the Obama/Biden ad, (http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia/) I am curious about to what it is that you object. Personally, I think it is an excellent ad.

    Has that ad been shown in OK? I’ve not seen it here.

    The ad is an Internet ad, not a television ad. You have every right, I suppose, to hold the view that females are unable to exist without government entitlements, but I find the ad to be overtly sexist, patronizing, demeaning, and a prime example of the Obama Administration’s War on Women.

    Of course, I am a conservative woman who finds little to praise about the current POTUS, but my disgust with Obama’s “Life of Julia” ad is shared by many liberals, as well. An example of what I say can be found in the following report of the usually cheerleading-for-Obama crew on MSNBC’s Morning Joe show.

    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/msnbc-rips-obamas-julia-ad/520181

  36. You know Wagonwheel, sometimes you actually start out making sense then you come up with crazy assed stuff like: ” a mistake which the financial community latched on to and worked it into their own aggrandizement by gross exploitation using questionable practices” and then just gotta go with you usual conspiracy and righties are evil schpeel like: “Could it be that corruption and lawlessness is so wide spread as to overwhelm our criminal justice system into inaction, which may very well be why the Right constantly favors smaller government? They just love to game the system, don’t they?”

    We on the right favor smaller government for two reasons. Fist, because the smaller the government the less people can game the system. Second because we favor freedom over control. Had it not been for the policies laid out by big government there would not have been any system to “game”. They created the system, they created the “game” and then they denounced what they had created to begin with. Had the government not meddeled in the housing market to begin with there would have been no bubble because banks on their own would not lend to bad credit risks. Or don’t you get that?

  37. Wagonwheel says:
    May 5, 2012 at 09:55

    LD Jackson says:

    “Your point is taken. I really didn’t mean to sound like I was blaming Bush. What he did try to do was thwarted by the Democrats at every turn. At the time, he had been so villianized in the media, that he had very little political capital left.”

    OK Mr Jackson, kindly spell out exactly what Bush tried to do to thwart these poorly considered mortgage loans that turned toxic, because I’ve not seen it.”

    Please don’t start up your shameless troll-games with this new guy.

    You have, predictably, challenged him to reply with examples to a shifted proposition that he did not really moot.

    Jackson actually wrote: “What he did try to do was thwarted by the Democrats at every turn.”

    You’ve tried to implicitly restructure his meaning by asking Jackson to ” … kindly spell out exactly what Bush tried to do to thwart these poorly considered mortgage loans that turned toxic …” as if the Bush administration had direct intervention legal powers; whereas as you well know, by law, made by Congress, it did not.

    In fact in answer to your remark that you wish him to “spell out exactly what Bush tried to do [...] because I’ve not seen it”, the fact is that you have seen it. Repeatedly. It was discussed at length on CSPT, and links and text were provided from the days of the Bush administration’s multi year warnings to Congress of a looming crisis in the industry and requesting changes in the law to allow intervening supervision by competent authorities.

  38. Wagonwheel says:

    Specifically what policies of the liberal Democrats are you talking about here? How about the lenders who did not properly scrutinize the qualifications of the borrowers and robo-signed the forms – do they deserve any of the blame, Mr Jackson?

    As DNW has suggested, I’ll not take the bait and try to list specific things Bush tried to do. It is public knowledge that he attempted to place restrictions upon Fannie and Freddie to prevent them from doing what they ultimately did to the housing market. He was prevented from doing so by the Democrats in Congress.

    Honestly, there is plenty of blame to go around about the housing crash. The borrowers shouldn’t have applied for the loans they could never hope to pay back. The mortgage companies should have been much more careful about the loans they made.

    All in all, I still say it comes back to liberal policies, such as the Community Reinvestment Act. Also complicit are groups like ACORN, who seemed to make it their life’s mission to force banks and mortgage companies to make loans they shouldn’t make, all in the name of “fairness”.

  39. The “Life of Julia” ad is already starting to backfire, but it was doomed from the start. President Obama already had the cradle-to-grave (but never before the cradle!) take-care-of-me vote locked up. The direct welfare recipients, naturally, know who they are, and will always vote for the candidates and party which promises them more welfare; that’s no surprise.

    What the Life of Julia ad is designed to do is to persuade people who are not direct welfare recipients that they, too, are dependent upon the federal government, that they, too, are welfare recipients, just welfare of a different sort. If more people are persuaded that they are dependent upon the government, they they are more likely to vote for the party which promises them greater largess in providing government benefits. The party of John F Kennedy, the great President who said, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country!” is now telling the American people, “Don’t worry, we will take care of you.”

  40. “Please don’t start up your shameless troll-games with this new guy.”

    Not at all, DNW. Mine was a reasonable question, which you preempted with an unkind remark and an attempt to control the dialogue.

    In spite of you, Mr Jackson gave an informed and fair comment, essentially that there was plenty of blame to go around, which was certainly true.

    However, the Republicans have attempted to divest themselves of any responsibility, which is why I am interested in what President Bush tried to do to rein Frannie and Freddie in. Since Republicans had the power in Congress during Bush’s first term, except for a 50-50 Senate in the 107th, he had the power to act. I am unaware of Bush’s having accomplished anything in this regard. Please explain.

    And btw, I also note that in the Clinton 2nd term, the Republicans held majority power in both houses of Congress, during which time they could have taken action as the housing bubble was expanding rapidly. As far as I know, they did not.

    Again, you are right, there is plenty of blame to go around.

  41. Gretchen wrote:

    “The ad is an Internet ad, not a television ad. You have every right, I suppose, to hold the view that females are unable to exist without government entitlements, but I find the ad to be overtly sexist, patronizing, demeaning, and a prime example of the Obama Administration’s War on Women.

    Of course, I am a conservative woman who finds little to praise about the current POTUS, but my disgust with Obama’s “Life of Julia” ad is shared by many liberals, as well. An example of what I say can be found in the following report of the usually cheerleading-for-Obama crew on MSNBC’s Morning Joe show.”

    The Editor wrote:

    “What the Life of Julia ad is designed to do is to persuade people who are not direct welfare recipients that they, too, are dependent upon the federal government, that they, too, are welfare recipients, just welfare of a different sort.”

    I don’t agree. Now let’s see what the actual message says:

    * Head Start: to help disadvantaged children for kindergarten

    * Race to the Top: to raise high school education standards

    * Tax Credits and Pell Grants: to offset some funding for college

    * Health Care Reform: to provide affordable health insurance

    * Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act: equal pay for equal work for women

    * Cap Student Loan Payments and Interest: to enable transition to job

    * Affordable Care Act: to enable purchase of affordable health insurance

    * Affordable Care Act: to assure insurance coverage for women’s needs

    * Investments in Education: quality education for the next generation

    * Loans and Tax Breaks for Small Business: to encourage economic growth

    * Medicare: traditional health insurance for elderly Americans

    * Social Security: traditional safety net for elderly Americans

    With the exception of the last two items, there is no “dependency” on government here. I view this as the government having some important programs in place to help people help themselves to become independent and successful people regarding jobs and caring for their families. Regarding Medicare and Social Security, recipients have paid premiums for both throughout their lives. When you are elderly, you will be thankful to have both. Moreover, there are steps that can/should be taken to reduce the ultimate costs of both programs.

  42. With the exception of the last two items, there is no “dependency” on government here.

    The whole story is about dependency on government. You’ll note how “Detached” this fictional woman’s life is. She is shown with no parents, nor any brothers or sisters (or friends, for that matter). She (briefly) has a kid, but no husband or even a boyfriend. And everything good in her life is shown as being the product of one government program or another.

    What kind of message is this sending?

  43. “What kind of message is this sending?”

    Eric: The message is obviously aimed at women.

    The government programs, except Medicare and Social Security, are aimed at helping people to help themselves, therefore not creating long term dependencies on the government. And regarding the two entitlements, we’ve paid premiums throughout our lives, so they are earned.

  44. PS I think the Republicans missed a chance by not immediately creating their own character, and using that character’s life to show the benefits of conservative values. We could show him being born into a family with two parents who are married to each other, parents who brought him and his siblings to church on a regular basis. It could show him developing a good work ethic by working in the family business or farm, or maybe just mowing lawns for the neighbors. He could get into college on a scholarship, or perhaps enlist in the military like Dana’s kids did and pay for his colege that way. Thanks to a good work ethic he would get a well paying job, and then he in turn would (unlike Julia) get married and raise his kids to live as he had been raised.

  45. “I would hope not, considering how condescending and patronizing it is.”

    What do you mean, Eric. Give a few examples, because I am not understanding your point.

Comments are closed.