PDA

View Full Version : Economics The "Official" Economy and Jobs thread.


Pages : 1 [2]

patteeu
05-07-2010, 05:27 PM
From my POV this wasn't about Obama it was about being happy that people are starting to go back to work I could care less who the POTUS was. There are people on this board that are starting to go back to work, I have friends that have been unemployed for over a year that just got jobs, and I really really hope pete gets a job soon. It is being happy that we might be turning a corner and going in a positive direction. I just don't get why people can't be a little positive about this. But whatever.

As you probably know the Labor Numbers are released the first of each month and then they are adjusted later on. The guy that does the graph BRC's used goes back each month and edits and uses the adjusted number. For the most part I took the reported number unless I had the adjusted number.

Oh and just on a personal note my gf\fiancee graduates this June from College and I really want her to get a job so she can support me. :D

You're engaged to a schoolgirl? Cradle robber. :p

Chief Henry
05-08-2010, 01:09 AM
Another 4 banks were taken over by the FDIC on Friday, totals are now 68 for the year.
Last year by May 1st we had 32 banks taken over by the FDIC. At this rate we'll
double the amount from last year, which was 140. Its not getting any better out there nomater what Obama tries to tell you.

Becareful with you money people.

Chiefspants
05-08-2010, 01:14 AM
And what was I wrong about? Using your numbers (which don't match either your graph or BRC's, BTW), and ignoring Obama's first couple of weeks in office (which would only make the picture worse for him), I still see 3.7 million lost jobs before the gains of the last couple months.

I do not understand your belief that a president can halt unemployment with the correct policy. In fact, I remember reading about how unemployment shot up to 11 percent during Reagan's first two years in office.

It seems to me that you're holding Barry to different standards than your knight in shining armor.

mlyonsd
05-08-2010, 10:10 AM
I do not understand your belief that a president can halt unemployment with the correct policy. In fact, I remember reading about how unemployment shot up to 11 percent during Reagan's first two years in office.

It seems to me that you're holding Barry to different standards than your knight in shining armor.

Since the democrats decided a second stimulus of almost a trillion dollars should be printed and thrown into the economy just because of the recession and unemployment, yeah, I think holding their feet to the fire is justified.

go bowe
05-08-2010, 10:42 AM
Since the democrats decided a second stimulus of almost a trillion dollars should be printed and thrown into the economy just because of the recession and unemployment, yeah, I think holding their feet to the fire is justified.i wish somebody would hold my feet to the fire, it's downright chilly today in kc...

go bowe
05-08-2010, 10:46 AM
Since the democrats decided a second stimulus of almost a trillion dollars should be printed and thrown into the economy just because of the recession and unemployment, yeah, I think holding their feet to the fire is justified.just because of the recession and unemployment??

those aren't reasons enough?

what was the alternative to another stimulus?

were the bailed out companies really to big to fail or was that just a democratic smoke screen?

if they were to big to fail then why hasn't congress (controlled by the democrats) voted to break them up, using amendments to the anti-trust laws?

wow, five question marks...

that doesn't look like a go bo post at all... :shake: :shake: :shake:

The Mad Crapper
05-08-2010, 10:51 AM
Since the democrats decided a second stimulus of almost a trillion dollars should be printed and thrown into the economy just because of the recession and unemployment, yeah, I think holding their feet to the fire is justified.

10% unemployment. It's all good.

mlyonsd
05-08-2010, 10:52 AM
just because of the recession and unemployment??

those aren't reasons enough?

what was the alternative to another stimulus?

were the bailed out companies really to big to fail or was that just a democratic smoke screen?

if they were to big to fail then why hasn't congress (controlled by the democrats) voted to break them up, using amendments to the anti-trust laws?

wow, five question marks...

that doesn't look like a go bo post at all... :shake: :shake: :shake:

Yes, I know it's a miracle we're still here. Obama gets all the credit.

We've argued all those points to death, now it's time to see the proof it was worth it.

mlyonsd
05-08-2010, 10:54 AM
10% unemployment. It's all good.

So I've heard. Spend a trillion dollars and lower the bar. I wish I could get away with that at work.

go bowe
05-08-2010, 11:05 AM
Yes, I know it's a miracle we're still here. Obama gets all the credit.

We've argued all those points to death, now it's time to see the proof it was worth it.i don't know...

if all it did was prevent a meltdown of our struggling economy there won't be much of a proof since it's hard to point to the results from something not happening...

personally, i am in favor of conditioning taxpayer money to the too big to fail companies on breaking up into smaller entities along the lines of anti-trust laws...

but it would be nice to see something tangible and helpful come out of our trillion dollar investments...

but even then, obama does not get all the credit, it's the american taxpayer that is footing the stimulus bill...

The Mad Crapper
05-08-2010, 11:05 AM
B.O.'s "stimulus" is a political scam. Here's why:

As soon as the obamanation took office he said it's an emergency to ram this through congress.

To date he's spent less than a 1/3 of the loot. If it was such an emergency why not spend it all?

FACT: Porkulus funds have contributed ZERO to GDP.

Yet, B.O. continues to lie that his stimulus has made contributions to the positive GDP in the last two quarters.

Is the recession over? I can't get a straight answer. Not from the CBO, Not for the BLS, not from pundits, not from the Fed, not from moonbats...

Why all of the obfuscation and ambivilance?

Now you watch when B.O. starts spending the rest of the Porkulus slush fund--- November 2010 and November 2012.

The economic policies of this administration have been a complete fraud and disaster.

go bowe
05-08-2010, 11:06 AM
So I've heard. Spend a trillion dollars and lower the bar. I wish I could get away with that at work.when you figure it out, let me know...
'
i'd like to get a percentage of that action...

The Mad Crapper
05-08-2010, 11:48 AM
http://www.iaza.com/work/100509C/macys7331749735-iaza.jpg

patteeu
05-08-2010, 12:53 PM
I do not understand your belief that a president can halt unemployment with the correct policy. In fact, I remember reading about how unemployment shot up to 11 percent during Reagan's first two years in office.

It seems to me that you're holding Barry to different standards than your knight in shining armor.

That's not the case at all. First, I'm holding Obama to the standard that his administration set when they said that unemployment would peak at 8% if the porkulus bill was passed. They've already failed that benchmark by a mile.

Second, I'm holding him to the standard to which Reagan was ultimately held which is that success means making things better after 4 years than they were at the beginning of his term. By that standard, an economy that's gained 300k jobs after first losing 4 million jobs means it's not looking too good for him on that count either right now.

Chiefspants
05-08-2010, 02:12 PM
That's not the case at all. First, I'm holding Obama to the standard that his administration set when they said that unemployment would peak at 8% if the porkulus bill was passed. They've already failed that benchmark by a mile.

Second, I'm holding him to the standard to which Reagan was ultimately held which is that success means making things better after 4 years than they were at the beginning of his term. By that standard, an economy that's gained 300k jobs after first losing 4 million jobs means it's not looking too good for him on that count either right now.

I will admit that Obama was foolish with his promise of keeping unemployment under eight percent.

However, you go on to argue that you're holding Reagan to the same standard as Obama by looking Reagan's progress after four years in office. However, at this exact point in Reagan's first term, unemployment had boomed to over 11 percent. This means that either Reagan should deserve the same treatment as Obama, or people should wait and see if the economy is looking any better at the end of Obama's four year term, instead of condemning him in every moment that they receive.

The Mad Crapper
05-08-2010, 03:02 PM
I will admit that Obama was foolish with his promise of keeping unemployment under eight percent.

However, you go on to argue that you're holding Reagan to the same standard as Obama by looking Reagan's progress after four years in office. However, at this exact point in Reagan's first term, unemployment had boomed to over 11 percent. This means that either Reagan should deserve the same treatment as Obama, or people should wait and see if the economy is looking any better at the end of Obama's four year term, instead of condemning him in every moment that they receive.

The problem is, Reagan listened to pragmatic economic advice. B.O. is a left wing ideologue with blinders on. B.O. is implementing the European model that right now, is causing a meltdown in Greece.

B.O. also pissed away almost a trillion dollars on nothing; Reagan's deficit spending, though alot of money at the time, bankrupted the Soviet Union, and was less than 500 million dollars.

Chiefspants
05-08-2010, 04:15 PM
The problem is, Reagan listened to pragmatic economic advice. B.O. is a left wing ideologue with blinders on. B.O. is implementing the European model that right now, is causing a meltdown in Greece.

B.O. also pissed away almost a trillion dollars on nothing; Reagan's deficit spending, though alot of money at the time, bankrupted the Soviet Union, and was less than 500 million dollars.

When you say pragmatic economic evidence, are you referring to supply side economics? Because I'm pretty sure that was a failure in the 1980's, and has only ever been successful once in American History, (It seemed to work with Kennedy's policies, though the taxes on the upper class were much higher than they were when Reagan entered office.)

And before we say that Barry peed away one trillion dollars, let's wait and see how his policies look when the 2012 elections roll around.

The Mad Crapper
05-08-2010, 04:33 PM
When you say pragmatic economic evidence, are you referring to supply side economics? Because I'm pretty sure that was a failure in the 1980's, and has only ever been successful once in American History, (It seemed to work with Kennedy's policies, though the taxes on the upper class were much higher than they were when Reagan entered office.

No, supply side economics has always been successful. Indeed, Bill Clinton is given alot of credit for the good economy during the 90's, but it was tax laws that Newt Gingrich and the Republican majority passed and Clinton signed that were responsible for that good economy.



And before we say that Barry peed away one trillion dollars, let's wait and see how his policies look when the 2012 elections roll around

Sure we can wait, we have no choice really. My prediction is the money was pissed away and the ultimate damaging result will be massive inflation.

Chiefspants
05-08-2010, 04:41 PM
No, supply side economics has always been successful. Indeed, Bill Clinton is given alot of credit for the good economy during the 90's, but it was tax laws that Newt Gingrich and the Republican majority passed and Clinton signed that were responsible for that good economy.



And before we say that Barry peed away one trillion dollars, let's wait and see how his policies look when the 2012 elections roll around

Sure we can wait, we have no choice really. My prediction is the money was pissed away and the ultimate damaging result will be massive inflation.


Bill Clinton also raised taxes for the upper class, a decision that many pointed to as another reason for the strong economy during that time.

Meh, I'm hopeful that the ground that the republicans will inevitably gain in congress this November will force Obama to ease his spending over the next two years.

The Mad Crapper
05-08-2010, 06:02 PM
Bill Clinton also raised taxes for the upper class, a decision that many pointed to as another reason for the strong economy during that time.


At the margin, and tax revenue shrunk.

Meh, I'm hopeful that the ground that the republicans will inevitably gain in congress this November will force Obama to ease his spending over the next two years

I think the damage that B.O. is doing will never get undone. We'll have to wait and see--- and hope.

patteeu
05-08-2010, 07:44 PM
I will admit that Obama was foolish with his promise of keeping unemployment under eight percent.

However, you go on to argue that you're holding Reagan to the same standard as Obama by looking Reagan's progress after four years in office. However, at this exact point in Reagan's first term, unemployment had boomed to over 11 percent. This means that either Reagan should deserve the same treatment as Obama, or people should wait and see if the economy is looking any better at the end of Obama's four year term, instead of condemning him in every moment that they receive.

I think that if you investigate my re-entry into this thread yesterday, you'll find that I was responding to dirk digler's rhetorical question "what's not to like?" with respect to the job numbers that just came out.

I responded that what's not to like about them is that they follow the loss of 4 million jobs so they're at best a glimmer of brightness in an otherwise gloomy picture. I'm skeptical about Obama's ability to turn the economy around by 2012 the way that Reagan turned things around in the early 80's, but I'm not saying he's failed on that count yet. Your simplistic comparison of Reagan to Obama is weak to begin with, but it doesn't really apply to me in any event. We already know that Reagan's economy worked out pretty well. We can only guess how Obama's will play out and given that his economic philosophy is pretty much the opposite of Reagan's, I don't see any reason to give him the benefit of the doubt at this point.

patteeu
05-08-2010, 07:53 PM
When you say pragmatic economic evidence, are you referring to supply side economics? Because I'm pretty sure that was a failure in the 1980's, and has only ever been successful once in American History, (It seemed to work with Kennedy's policies, though the taxes on the upper class were much higher than they were when Reagan entered office.)

And before we say that Barry peed away one trillion dollars, let's wait and see how his policies look when the 2012 elections roll around.

I don't know how you can call it a failure in the 1980s. :spock:

The Mad Crapper
05-09-2010, 10:34 AM
The standard Moonbat narrative is as follows: life was wonderful under President Clinton, then George W. Bush screwed it all up with his reckless spending and unnecessary wars, and now poor President Obama has to deal with the mess he inherited from George Bush.

Chiefspants
05-09-2010, 11:47 AM
I don't know how you can call it a failure in the 1980s. :spock:

I think the reagan recession and the wall street crash are solid indicators of the failure of reaganomics. Also, the entire point of "Reaganomics" was for the upper class to invest their money into the creation of jobs, causing the wealth to trickle down to everyone. The failure of Reaganomics is that this idea did not occur, the wealthy chose to use their money to eliminate competition from smaller companies. This widened the gap between the rich and the poor, ensuring the opposite of a trickle down effect.

So yes, upon further examination, I would still say that supply side economics was a failure during the 1980's.

The Mad Crapper
05-09-2010, 11:56 AM
I think the reagan recession and the wall street crash are solid indicators of the failure of reaganomics. Also, the entire point of "Reaganomics" was for the upper class to invest their money into the creation of jobs, causing the wealth to trickle down to everyone. The failure of Reaganomics is that this idea did not occur, the wealthy chose to use their money to eliminate competition from smaller companies. This widened the gap between the rich and the poor, ensuring the opposite of a trickle down effect.

So yes, upon further examination, I would still say that supply side economics was a failure during the 1980's.

Do you have empiral data for the reagan recession and the wall street crash are solid indicators of the failure of reaganomics.

As for your second point, I believe that the gap between "rich" and "poor" was the result of NAFTA, among other things.

The rapid advancement of technology is also a significant factor contributing to the demise of the American middle class.

Just to name two reasons.

I'm not sure I see how Reaganomics is a factor, never mind being the primary cause.

patteeu
05-09-2010, 12:02 PM
I think the reagan recession and the wall street crash are solid indicators of the failure of reaganomics. Also, the entire point of "Reaganomics" was for the upper class to invest their money into the creation of jobs, causing the wealth to trickle down to everyone. The failure of Reaganomics is that this idea did not occur, the wealthy chose to use their money to eliminate competition from smaller companies. This widened the gap between the rich and the poor, ensuring the opposite of a trickle down effect.

So yes, upon further examination, I would still say that supply side economics was a failure during the 1980's.

You'd better keep studying, I guess.

By "reagan recession", I assume you mean the recession that Reagan's supply side policies pulled us out of as they launched a prolonged era of economic prosperity.

The point of supply side policies (aka Reaganomics) was economic growth. His policies were dramatically successful and enduring. Without that growth, the poor would have been quite a bit worse off than they were under Reagan as the Carter malaise would have lingered far longer than it did. Given the chance, Obama is going to show you what I mean by worse off. It's a complete misunderstanding to believe that Reaganomics was aimed at narrowing the gap between rich and poor.

Chiefspants
05-09-2010, 12:05 PM
Do you have empiral data for the reagan recession and the wall street crash are solid indicators of the failure of reaganomics.

As for your second point, I believe that the gap between "rich" and "poor" was the result of NAFTA, among other things.

The rapid advancement of technology is also a significant factor contributing to the demise of the American middle class.

Just to name two reasons.

I'm not sure I see how Reaganomics is a factor, never mind being the primary cause.


I want to go on the record and say that it is my belief that NAFTA was Clinton's biggest mistake as president, however, I want to primarily focus on how the gap between the the rich and the poor widened in the late 1980's. Many economists point to the late 1980's as the beginning for the gap which continues to widen to this day. This illustrates that it could not have been NAFTA or the technology boom which began the growing gap between the rich and the poor, but only the policies that were enacted earlier in that decade.

The Mad Crapper
05-09-2010, 12:10 PM
You'd better keep studying, I guess.

By "reagan recession", I assume you mean the recession that Reagan's supply side policies pulled us out of as they launched a prolonged era of economic prosperity.

The point of supply side policies (aka Reaganomics) was economic growth. His policies were dramatically successful and enduring. Without that growth, the poor would have been quite a bit worse off than they were under Reagan as the Carter malaise would have lingered far longer than it did. Given the chance, Obama is going to show you what I mean by worse off. It's a complete misunderstanding to believe that Reaganomics was aimed at narrowing the gap between rich and poor.

Pat, I'm sure you recall as well as I do, the daily barage by the MSM of homelessness during the Reagan administration. Then the issue was dropped like a hot potato during the 8 years Clinton was in charge, and as soon as a Republican was back in (Bush), it was right back on the table. :rolleyes:

The sad fact of the matter though is right now in America--- Obama's America--- homelessness is at an all time high.

But Tent cities emerging all across the fruited plain in the past 12 months is of little concern for the liberals.

When liberals can't exhaust any political mileage out of the "sick", "poor", and "elderly", they drop them like a hot potato.

Right now the big wedge issue that they can use to forward their pathological agenda are millions of illegal Mexicans that they are using and manipulation and antagonizing for political expediency. They could care less about the damaging consequences to the nation that they are doing---

All that matters to the Leftist pigs is power, and the ends justify the means.

patteeu
05-09-2010, 12:10 PM
I want to go on the record and say that it is my belief that NAFTA was Clinton's biggest mistake as president, however, I want to primarily focus on how the gap between the the rich and the poor widened in the late 1980's. Many economists point to the late 1980's as the beginning for the gap which continues to widen to this day. This illustrates that it could not have been NAFTA or the technology boom which began the growing gap between the rich and the poor, but only the policies that were enacted earlier in that decade.

If you put yourself in a poor person's shoes, which would be more important to you, the gap between the rich and the poor or the level of the lifestyle you're able to lead? IOW, would you rather be dirt poor scratching out a subsistence lifestyle knowing that the rich weren't much better off than you or would you rather live a comfortable lifestyle knowing that there were some mega-rich people out there who are wealthy beyond your ability to imagine? Personally, I'll take the latter.

The Mad Crapper
05-09-2010, 12:14 PM
I want to go on the record and say that it is my belief that NAFTA was Clinton's biggest mistake as president, however, I want to primarily focus on how the gap between the the rich and the poor widened in the late 1980's. Many economists point to the late 1980's as the beginning for the gap which continues to widen to this day. This illustrates that it could not have been NAFTA or the technology boom which began the growing gap between the rich and the poor, but only the policies that were enacted earlier in that decade.

The rich got richer during the 80's and 90's, but this isn't a zero sum game---

You cannot show an empirical correlation between the rich getting rich and the poor getting poorer, or the middle class shrinking.

Economics certainly isn't anywhere near as simple as you are trying to make it (and again you havent shown any data that back up your assertions.)

patteeu
05-09-2010, 12:17 PM
Pat, I'm sure you recall as well as I do, the daily barage by the MSM of homelessness during the Reagan administration. Then the issue was dropped like a hot potato during the 8 years Clinton was in charge, and as soon as a Republican was back in (Bush), it was right back on the table. :rolleyes:

The sad fact of the matter though is right now in America--- Obama's America--- homelessness is at an all time high.

But Tent cities emerging all across the fruited plain in the past 12 months is of little concern for the liberals.

When liberals can't exhaust any political mileage out of the "sick", "poor", and "elderly", they drop them like a hot potato.

Right now the big wedge issue that they can use to forward their pathological agenda are millions of illegal Mexicans that they are using and manipulation and antagonizing for political expediency. They could care less about the damaging consequences to the nation that they are doing---

All that matters to the Leftist pigs is power, and the ends justify the means.

Preach on, brother.

patteeu
05-09-2010, 12:20 PM
The rich got richer during the 80's and 90's, but this isn't a zero sum game---

You cannot show an empirical correlation between the rich getting rich and the poor getting poorer, or the middle class shrinking.

Economics certainly isn't anywhere near as simple as you are trying to make it (and again you havent shown any data that back up your assertions.)

As a college kid eating hamburger helper and mac&cheese during Reagan's years, I would have shown up on the statistics as among the most poor at the time, but if the gap between myself and the rich has grown since then, I couldn't care less. I'm just glad I was able to ride the wave of our growing economy to improve my own lifestyle and that of my loved ones during that time period. I hope Obama doesn't do too much damage to the opportunities my kids have to do the same.

Chiefspants
05-09-2010, 12:38 PM
You'd better keep studying, I guess.

By "reagan recession", I assume you mean the recession that Reagan's supply side policies pulled us out of as they launched a prolonged era of economic prosperity.

The point of supply side policies (aka Reaganomics) was economic growth. His policies were dramatically successful and enduring. Without that growth, the poor would have been quite a bit worse off than they were under Reagan as the Carter malaise would have lingered far longer than it did. Given the chance, Obama is going to show you what I mean by worse off. It's a complete misunderstanding to believe that Reaganomics was aimed at narrowing the gap between rich and poor.

The recession was worsened because of Reagan's recent deregulation of the economy, these actions increased speculative lending and caused bank failures throughout the country. Also, the federal deficit was exacerbated during this recession because of Reagan's tax cuts a year before. Reagan actually enacted a corporate tax increase to counteract the rising deficit, the largest increase seen since WW2. (This was also in response to his 35% approval rating, a rating caused by the belief that Reagan was apathetic towards the common person.)

The Mad Crapper
05-09-2010, 12:46 PM
The recession was worsened because of Reagan's recent deregulation of the economy, these actions increased speculative lending and caused bank failures throughout the country. Also, the federal deficit was exacerbated during this recession because of Reagan's tax cuts a year before. Reagan actually enacted a corporate tax increase to counteract the rising deficit, the largest increase seen since WW2. (This was also in response to his 35% approval rating, a rating caused by the belief that Reagan was apathetic towards the common person.)

Are you talking about the S&L scandal?

patteeu
05-10-2010, 06:49 AM
The recession was worsened because of Reagan's recent deregulation of the economy, these actions increased speculative lending and caused bank failures throughout the country. Also, the federal deficit was exacerbated during this recession because of Reagan's tax cuts a year before. Reagan actually enacted a corporate tax increase to counteract the rising deficit, the largest increase seen since WW2. (This was also in response to his 35% approval rating, a rating caused by the belief that Reagan was apathetic towards the common person.)

What recession are you talking about? The serious one that Reagan pulled us out of ('81-'82) or the far more mild one that took place years after he left office and after the lengthy peacetime economic expansion his policies created ('90-'91)?

The deficit was exacerbated by a failure to get Congress to restrain domestic spending and intentional increases in defense spending, not by Reagan's tax rate cuts. Revenue grew every year of Reagan's term and while I'm sure revenues could have been even larger if he'd have kept taxe rates higher on the lower end of the income scale, cutting those tax rates was the political price he had to pay to reduce top end rates where the supply side effect is found.

BigRedChief
05-11-2010, 10:49 AM
Since the democrats decided a second stimulus of almost a trillion dollars should be printed and thrown into the economy just because of the recession and unemployment, yeah, I think holding their feet to the fire is justified.And I think thats perfectly acceptable but I also can look at a graph and see that its heading in the right direction since Obama took office. New chart with April's numbers.
http://www.thebasispoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/JobsGainedLostApril2010.jpg

Amnorix
05-11-2010, 11:02 AM
No commentary here about how Volcker squelched inflation which helped kill Carter and pave the way for the 80s economic expansion?

Mr. Kotter
05-11-2010, 11:59 AM
No commentary here about how Volcker squelched inflation which helped kill Carter and pave the way for the 80s economic expansion?

Pardoning the draft dodgers, giving away the Panama Canal, ineptitude and incompetence in his administration, weak international "leadership" and the Iranian hostage crisis had much more to do with Carter's demise than anything Volker did....otherwise, Watergate would have carried him to "re-election" despite continuing malaise in the economy. That's real "talent" there.

Mr. Kotter
05-11-2010, 09:51 PM
Pardoning the draft dodgers, giving away the Panama Canal, ineptitude and incompetence in his administration, weak international "leadership" and the Iranian hostage crisis had much more to do with Carter's demise than anything Volker did....otherwise, Watergate would have carried him to "re-election" despite continuing malaise in the economy. That's real "talent" there.

Uh-huh. THAT'S what I thought.... :harumph:

The Mad Crapper
05-13-2010, 12:36 AM
This economy is awesome.

BigRedChief
05-13-2010, 08:43 AM
Jobless claims drop for 4th straight week
Encouraged by recovery, employers are starting to hire again, but slowly
The Associated Press
updated 7:48 a.m. CT, Thurs., May 13, 2010
<SCRIPT language=javascript> function UpdateTimeStamp(pdt) { var n = document.getElementById("udtD"); if(pdt != '' && n && window.DateTime) { var dt = new DateTime(); pdt = dt.T2D(pdt); if(dt.GetTZ(pdt)) {n.innerHTML = dt.D2S(pdt,(('false'.toLowerCase()=='false')?false:true));} } } UpdateTimeStamp('634093517061230000');</SCRIPT>
WASHINGTON - New claims for unemployment benefits dipped for the fourth straight week, a sign the job market is improving at a glacial pace.
Employers, encouraged by a recovering economy, are starting to hire again. But so far the pace hasn't been fast enough to reduce the jobless rate.

The Labor Department said Thursday that initial claims dropped last week by 4,000 to a seasonally adjusted 444,000. That's slightly above analysts' estimates, according to Thomson Reuters. The previous week's total was revised up to 448,000.

The four-week average, which smooths out volatility, registered a steeper decline. It fell by 9,000 to 450,500 — close to the average's lowest level this year reached in late March.

After dropping steadily last year from a peak of 651,000, first-time claims have fluctuated at around 450,000 since January.
Many economists believe claims need to fall below 425,000 to signal sustained job creation.

Other recent indicators have shown improvement in the job market. Employers added 290,000 jobs in April, the most in four years. That's a positive sign that companies are confident enough in the economic recovery to step up hiring.

But much more hiring is needed to make up for the loss of more than 8 million jobs in the recession. The unemployment rate rose last month to 9.9 percent as the new jobs weren't enough to offset the more than 800,000 people that started or resumed job searches.

The economy expanded at a 3.2 percent pace in the January-to-March quarter, the third straight quarter of growth. That followed four quarters of decline as the economy struggled through the worst downturn since the 1930s.

The number of people continuing to receive benefits, meanwhile, rose by 12,000 to 4.6 million. The data on continuing unemployment claims lags initial claims by one week.

But that doesn't include the 5.4 million people receiving extended benefits paid for by the federal government in the week ending April 24, the latest data available. That total is down by about 200,000 from the previous week.

The extended federal benefits have added as many as 73 weeks of unemployment on top of the 26 customarily provided by the states. But jobs have been scarce for so long that many of those out of work will soon run out of those extended benefits.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
<SCRIPT>var url=location.href;var i=url.indexOf('/did/') + 1;if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('/print/1/') + 1;}if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('&print=1');}if(i>0){url = url.substring(0,i);document.write('URL: '+url+' (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/'+url+')
');if (typeof FDCPUrl == 'function'){FDCPUrl();}else if(window.print){window.print()}else{alert('To print his page press Ctrl-P on your keyboard \nor choose print from your browser or device after clicking OK');}}</SCRIPT>URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37127078/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37127078/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/)

Chief Henry
05-13-2010, 10:12 AM
We just had an $82 Billion deficit in April 2010 which was 4 times higher than the 20 billion dollar deficit from April 2009 !!!

We just gave Greece 50 Billion of US money that we didn't have !!!

We had 140 bank failures in 2009, another 68 so far this year !!!

So far Obama's doing a stellar job of making us become just like Greece.

Since 2006 when the Dems took over the House and Senate we've seen our economy flourish ???

The Mad Crapper
05-13-2010, 03:19 PM
Jobless claims drop for 4th straight week

The unemployment rate rose last month to 9.9 percent as the new jobs weren't enough to offset the more than 800,000 people that started or resumed job searches.

The economy expanded at a 3.2 percent pace in the January-to-March quarter, the third straight quarter of growth. That followed four quarters of decline as the economy struggled through the worst downturn since the 1930s.

The number of people continuing to receive benefits, meanwhile, rose by 12,000 to 4.6 million. The data on continuing unemployment claims lags initial claims by one week.

But that doesn't include the 5.4 million people receiving extended benefits paid for by the federal government in the week ending April 24, the latest data available. That total is down by about 200,000 from the previous week.

The extended federal benefits have added as many as 73 weeks of unemployment on top of the 26 customarily provided by the states. But jobs have been scarce for so long that many of those out of work will soon run out of those extended benefits.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press.

In other news, the crack reporters at the AP have learned that when the red line in the thermometer goes way, way up, it is a signal that it is hot outside.

http://l.yimg.com/a/p/us/news/editorial/c/ad/cad8ff7601de0fd031cbda7b8b3d0148.jpeg

The Mad Crapper
05-13-2010, 04:38 PM
Shocking:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/97635-higher-unemployment-on-horizon

The increase in unemployment is a sign of a stronger job market-Big Brother

BigRedChief
05-14-2010, 08:21 AM
Car buying gives retail sales a boost
Retail sales have now increased for seven straight months
Reuters
updated 8:11 a.m. CT, Fri., May 14, 2010

<SCRIPT language=javascript> function UpdateTimeStamp(pdt) { var n = document.getElementById("udtD"); if(pdt != '' && n && window.DateTime) { var dt = new DateTime(); pdt = dt.T2D(pdt); if(dt.GetTZ(pdt)) {n.innerHTML = dt.D2S(pdt,(('false'.toLowerCase()=='false')?false:true));} } } UpdateTimeStamp('634094395015000000');</SCRIPT>
WASHINGTON - Sales at U.S. retailers rose more than expected in April, raising cautious optimism that a recent bounce in consumer spending can be sustained.
Total retail sales rose 0.4 percent following an upwardly revised 2.1 percent surge in March, the Commerce Department said on Friday. Sales in March were previously reported to have increased 1.9 percent.

Retail sales have now increased for seven straight months and in April were lifted by a surprise gain in motor vehicle receipts.

Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast retail sales rising 0.2 percent last month. Compared to April last year, sales were 8.8 percent higher.

"This adds to a string of data we have received indicating that consumer spending is improving," said James Cox, managing partner at Harris Financial Group in Colonial Heights, Virginia.

U.S. stock futures trimmed losses on the report, while Treasury debt prices pared gains. The U.S. dollar trimmed losses against the yen.

Motor vehicle and parts purchases unexpectedly rose 0.5 percent after increasing 6.7 percent in March. Analysts had expected the government's dollar measure of auto sales to fall in April, after automakers reported a decline in unit sales.

Excluding autos, sales rose 0.4 percent last month after rising 1.2 percent in March. April's rise was in line with market expectations.

Households are now participating in the economy's recovery, encouraged by an improving labor market. Economic growth resumed in the second half of 2009 following the worst recession since the Great Depression and continued into the first quarter of this year.

Growth initially had been largely driven by businesses replenishing inventories, but consumer spending grew in the first quarter at its fastest pace in three years.
There were some areas of weakness in retail sales last month.

Core retail sales, which exclude autos, gasoline and building materials, fell 0.2 percent after increasing 0.7 percent in March. Core sales correspond most closely with the consumer spending component of the government's gross domestic product report.


Clothing and clothing accessories sales fell 1.0 percent, after surging the prior month because of an early Easter holiday and warm weather.

Sales at electronics and appliance stores slipped 0.4 percent, defying market expectations for a rise. Receipts at sporting goods, hobby and book stores fell 1.9 percent in April.

Building materials and garden equipment receipts, however, climbed 6.9 percent, while receipts at gasoline stations rose 0.5 percent.

Copyright 2010 Reuters. Click for restrictions.
<SCRIPT>var url=location.href;var i=url.indexOf('/did/') + 1;if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('/print/1/') + 1;}if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('&print=1');}if(i>0){url = url.substring(0,i);document.write('URL: '+url+' (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/'+url+')
');if (typeof FDCPUrl == 'function'){FDCPUrl();}else if(window.print){window.print()}else{alert('To print his page press Ctrl-P on your keyboard \nor choose print from your browser or device after clicking OK');}}</SCRIPT>URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37147090/ns/business-retail/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37147090/ns/business-retail/)

The Mad Crapper
05-14-2010, 09:20 AM
The increase in unemployment is a sign of a stronger job market-Big Brother

Chief Henry
05-14-2010, 12:44 PM
Becareful with your money people...very careful. Will China be able to keep purchasing our treasuires in the future?

go bowe
05-14-2010, 12:55 PM
In other news, the crack reporters at the AP have learned that when the red line in the thermometer goes way, way up, it is a signal that it is hot outside.

http://l.yimg.com/a/p/us/news/editorial/c/ad/cad8ff7601de0fd031cbda7b8b3d0148.jpegLMAO LMAO LMAO

go bowe
05-14-2010, 12:58 PM
Becareful with your money people...very careful. Will China be able to keep purchasing our treasuires in the future?probably...

and, btw, in response to your sig, there are 57 states...

i saw on cp just the other day that alaska could be broken into 7 or 8 states and still be cold...

BigRedChief
05-14-2010, 01:10 PM
Becareful with your money people...very careful. Will China be able to keep purchasing our treasuires in the future?Actually China has been selling off its stake slowly and deliberatly under the radar. Japan now holds the highest % of our debt.

The Mad Crapper
05-14-2010, 01:21 PM
Actually China has been selling off its stake slowly and deliberatly under the radar. Japan now holds the highest % of our debt.

Non-domestic debt; the Fed holds the highest %.

Chief Henry
05-14-2010, 01:31 PM
Actually China has been selling off its stake slowly and deliberatly under the radar. Japan now holds the highest % of our debt.

Exactly

googlegoogle
05-14-2010, 02:53 PM
I think the reagan recession and the wall street crash are solid indicators of the failure of reaganomics. Also, the entire point of "Reaganomics" was for the upper class to invest their money into the creation of jobs, causing the wealth to trickle down to everyone. The failure of Reaganomics is that this idea did not occur, the wealthy chose to use their money to eliminate competition from smaller companies. This widened the gap between the rich and the poor, ensuring the opposite of a trickle down effect.

So yes, upon further examination, I would still say that supply side economics was a failure during the 1980's.

:LOL:

Anyone want to take a guess how old chefpants is?

googlegoogle
05-14-2010, 02:56 PM
No commentary here about how Volcker squelched inflation which helped kill Carter and pave the way for the 80s economic expansion?

Carter killed himself. Tax cuts grow economies. No country has taxed itself to prosperity.

The Mad Crapper
05-18-2010, 09:35 AM
America's Underclass: The Growing Gap Between the Rich and Poor
Posted May 18, 2010 09:00am EDT by Peter Gorenstein in Recession
Related: dltr, xhb, tlt, ^dji, ^gspc, kbh, xrt

Macro economic data suggest the great recession is over. But the gap between the haves and the have-nots is growing, thanks, in large part, to a jobless recovery. Wall Street Cheat Sheet’s Damien Hoffman says the growing underclass now accounts for about 10% of the U.S. population.

In this clip, he and his brother Derek, point to several signs America is turning into a two-class society:

-- The foreclosure problem. 2.8 million homes were foreclosed in 2009. RealyTrac expects that number to increase to 3-3.5 million in 2010. Damien Hoffman thinks it could be even higher if "strategic foreclosures" become a more accepted practice.

-- Unemployment. The official rate is 9.9% but the wider measure of under employed and those who have given up on their job search is more like 17%. That's more than 24 million Americans out of work.

-- The Agriculture Department said a record 40 million Americans, or 1 in 8 Americans, may not be able to eat without government assistance. “This is the ultimate sign of an under class,” the Hoffman Brothers say.

If that's not enough, take a look at Dollar Tree Stores. The discounter's stock is near an all-time high while revenues are up 12.5% this year. In other words, more Americans are chasing cheaper goods.


http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/america's-underclass-the-growing-gap-between-the-rich-and-poor-487302.html?tickers=dltr,xhb,tlt,%5Edji,%5Egspc,kbh,xrt&sec=topStories&pos=8&asset=&ccode=

BigRedChief
05-19-2010, 12:40 PM
I saw a piece on 60 mintues a couple of weeks ago that showed people who could pay their mortgage just choose to quit paying their mortgage. They are underwater and it makes more financial sense to just walk away than keep paying a mortgage thats 50% more than the house is worth. Wonder if that is playing a part in this?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mortgage delinquencies surge to a record
Shows a long path to recovery for the U.S. housing market
By Alan Zibel
The Associated Press
updated 12:30 p.m. CT, Wed., May 19, 2010
<SCRIPT language=javascript> function UpdateTimeStamp(pdt) { var n = document.getElementById("udtD"); if(pdt != '' && n && window.DateTime) { var dt = new DateTime(); pdt = dt.T2D(pdt); if(dt.GetTZ(pdt)) {n.innerHTML = dt.D2S(pdt,(('false'.toLowerCase()=='false')?false:true));} } } UpdateTimeStamp('634098870006900000');</SCRIPT>
WASHINGTON - The mortgage crisis is dragging on the economic recovery as more homeowners fall behind on their payments.
Analysts expect improvement soon, but the number of homeowners in default or at risk of foreclosure will have a lingering effect on the broader economy.

More than 10 percent of homeowners had missed at least one mortgage payment in the January-March period, the Mortgage Bankers Association said Wednesday. That's a record high and up from 9.5 percent in the fourth quarter of last year and 9.1 percent a year earlier.

Around 4.3 million homeowners, or about 8 percent of all Americans with a mortgage, are at risk of losing their homes. They have either missed at least three months of payments or are in foreclosure, the trade group's top economist said Wednesday.

Should loan modification programs fail to help, their homes will go up for sale either as a foreclosure or short sale — when the bank agrees to sell the property for less than the original mortgage amount.

Deep discounts
Many analysts have been forecasting home prices will dip again as more of these homes go up for sale at deeply discounted prices.

"It's certainly a weight on the economy," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, who predicts home prices will fall about 5 percent and hit the bottom next spring. "Nothing works all that well in the economy when house prices are falling."

Federal tax credits boosted home sales this spring but they expired last month. As a result, mortgage applications to purchase homes fell to the lowest level in 13 years this week, the Mortgage Bankers Association said in a separate report Wednesday.

The latest foreclosure figures from the trade group are adjusted for seasonal factors. For example, heating bills and holiday expenses tend to push mortgage delinquencies up near the end of the year. Many of those borrowers become current on their loans again by spring.

Without adjusting for seasonal factors, the delinquency numbers dropped, as they normally do from the winter to spring.

More than 4.6 percent of homeowners were in foreclosure, also a record. But that number, which is not adjusted for seasonal factors, was up only slightly from the end of last year.

Stocks slid Wednesday as investors remain concerned with the European debt crisis. The rising number of mortgages also drew some attention. The Dow Jones industrial average fell more than 100 points in midday trading.
Jay Brinkmann, the trade group's chief economist, said the foreclosure crisis appears to have stabilized. Seasonal adjustments may be exaggerating the change from the previous quarter, he added.

Still bad
"I don't see signs now that it's getting worse, but it's going to take a while," he said. "A bad situation that's not getting worse is still bad."
The Obama administration's $75 billion foreclosure prevention program has barely dented the problem. More than 299,000 homeowners had received permanent loan modifications as of last month. That's about 25 percent of the 1.2 million who started the program since its March 2009 launch.
About 277,000 homeowners, or 23 percent of those enrolled, have dropped out during a trial phase that lasts at least three months.

Economic woes, such as unemployment or reduced income, are the main catalysts for foreclosures this year. Initially, lax lending standards were the culprit. But homeowners with good credit who took out conventional, fixed-rate loans are now the fastest growing group of foreclosures.

Those borrowers made up nearly 37 percent of new foreclosures in the first quarter of the year, up from 29 percent a year earlier.

The risky subprime adjustable-rate loans that kicked off the foreclosure crisis are making up a smaller share of new foreclosures. They made up 14 percent of new foreclosures in the January-March period, down from 27 percent a year earlier.

© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
<SCRIPT>var url=location.href;var i=url.indexOf('/did/') + 1;if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('/print/1/') + 1;}if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('&print=1');}if(i>0){url = url.substring(0,i);document.write('URL: '+url+' (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/'+url+')
');if (typeof FDCPUrl == 'function'){FDCPUrl();}else if(window.print){window.print()}else{alert('To print his page press Ctrl-P on your keyboard \nor choose print from your browser or device after clicking OK');}}</SCRIPT>URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37232151/ns/business-real_estate/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37232151/ns/business-real_estate/)

The Mad Crapper
05-19-2010, 03:25 PM
Another day, another hickey on B.O.'s ass

FYP

Count Alex's Losses
05-19-2010, 07:07 PM
Is this graphic correct?

http://i.imgur.com/u0JIY.jpg (https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1174)

patteeu
05-19-2010, 07:16 PM
Is this graphic correct?

http://i.imgur.com/u0JIY.jpg (https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1174)

Yes. Even after tons of jobs were lost at the end of Bush's 2nd term, the Obamaconomy continued to shed the type of deep cut jobs that companies only cut as a last desperate resort. Now, 2.5 years after the recession started, we're still millions of jobs in the hole and at the pathetic job creation rate we've seen in the past couple of months it will take a long time to get back to where we were. It's virtually impossible for Obama to fulfill his promise to create 3 million new jobs before his term is over.

The graphic is deceptive in that it makes it seem like Obama has gotten us back to where we were, but that's only because the graph is showing monthly rates of change instead of cumulative total job losses. We're a shitload below water level right now and Obama's policies show no signs of getting us back to the surface, much less making any real job creation progress.

KC native
05-19-2010, 09:48 PM
Yes. Even after tons of jobs were lost at the end of Bush's 2nd term, the Obamaconomy continued to shed the type of deep cut jobs that companies only cut as a last desperate resort. Now, 2.5 years after the recession started, we're still millions of jobs in the hole and at the pathetic job creation rate we've seen in the past couple of months it will take a long time to get back to where we were. It's virtually impossible for Obama to fulfill his promise to create 3 million new jobs before his term is over.

The graphic is deceptive in that it makes it seem like Obama has gotten us back to where we were, but that's only because the graph is showing monthly rates of change instead of cumulative total job losses. We're a shitload below water level right now and Obama's policies show no signs of getting us back to the surface, much less making any real job creation progress.

Yea, let's just ignore the strong trending nature of unemployment data. :rolleyes:

petegz28
05-19-2010, 09:57 PM
Yea, let's just ignore the strong trending nature of unemployment data. :rolleyes:

You and I both know that the Fed Gov's unemployment #'s are tremendously skewed. Thus the unemployment rate going up last report even though they printed gains in jobs. I don't like the ADP reports but they at least do not count government jobs.

And we both know that here in a couple months all those people who got census jobs and helped fluff the numbers will be back in the unemployment lines.

KC native
05-19-2010, 09:59 PM
You and I both know that the Fed Gov's unemployment #'s are tremendously skewed. Thus the unemployment rate going up last report even though they printed gains in jobs. I don't like the ADP reports but they at least do not count government jobs.

And we both know that here in a couple months all those people who got census jobs and helped fluff the numbers will be back in the unemployment lines.

I was referring more to the bright line that Patteeu was trying to draw. Also, the government numbers aren't skewed. They publish different measures and they tell you what's included. It's not the government's fault that the business media only reports U1.

petegz28
05-19-2010, 10:19 PM
I was referring more to the bright line that Patteeu was trying to draw. Also, the government numbers aren't skewed. They publish different measures and they tell you what's included. It's not the government's fault that the business media only reports U1.

And what do politicans tout?

BigRedChief
05-19-2010, 11:04 PM
Is this graphic correct?

http://i.imgur.com/u0JIY.jpg (https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1174) Looks like we need to turn the clock back huh?LMAO

petegz28
05-19-2010, 11:05 PM
Looks like we need to turn the clock back huh?LMAO

Yeah, that's really fair to use what, 1-2 years of Bush's term. :huh:

petegz28
05-19-2010, 11:07 PM
Little more context...

<iframe width="400" height="325" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" src="http://www.google.com/publicdata/embed?ds=usunemployment&amp;ctype=l&amp;strail=false&amp;nselm=h&amp;met_y=unemployment_rate&amp;scale_y=lin&amp;ind_y=false &amp;rdim=state&amp;tdim=true&amp;tstart=631152000000&amp;tunit=M&amp;tlen=243&amp;hl=en&amp;dl=en"></iframe>

BucEyedPea
05-19-2010, 11:13 PM
Looks like we need to turn the clock back huh?LMAO

Yeah right, govt jobs are outpacing private sector ones. ( some of them only temporary) Those have to be paid by taking more money from the private sector which is the real engine of the economy. Think about that ! Public sector jobs outpacing private sectors jobs is a deceptive statistic and is lying with them. The graph doesn't show that breakdown.

petegz28
05-19-2010, 11:13 PM
Yeah right, govt jobs are outpacing private sector ones. ( some of them only temporary) Those have to be paid by taking more money from the private sector which is the real engine of the economy. Think about that ! Public sector jobs outpacing private sectors jobs is a deceptive statistic and is lying with them. The graph doesn't show that breakdown.

I'd turn back the clock to the sub 5% unemployment rate we had under Bush.

patteeu
05-19-2010, 11:41 PM
I'd turn back the clock to the sub 5% unemployment rate we had under Bush.

Sounds like a winner to me. We're gonna need a different chief executive though.

petegz28
05-19-2010, 11:43 PM
Sounds like a winner to me. We're gonna need a different chief executive though.

In all fairness, however, the unemployment rate typically has little to do with the President.

Bowser
05-19-2010, 11:45 PM
I'd turn back the clock to the sub 5% unemployment rate we had under Bush.

Can you pull that off without actually putting Bush back in the White House? If so, I'd be all for it, too.

The Mad Crapper
05-20-2010, 05:54 AM
Can you pull that off with B.O. in the White House? If so, I'd be all for it, too.

FYP.

And the answer is no.

The Mad Crapper
05-20-2010, 05:55 AM
In all fairness, however, the unemployment rate typically has little to do with the President.

In all fairness, B.O. should stop talking so much about 'creating jobs'.

The Mad Crapper
05-20-2010, 09:56 AM
Looks like we need to turn the clock back huh?LMAO

I know, unemployment is a big joke.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=%5EDJI

BigRedChief
05-20-2010, 10:30 AM
New jobless claims rise unexpectedly
The largest rise in three months shows precarious labor market
The Associated Press
updated 8:35 a.m. CT, Thurs., May 20, 2010

<SCRIPT language=javascript> function UpdateTimeStamp(pdt) { var n = document.getElementById("udtD"); if(pdt != '' && n && window.DateTime) { var dt = new DateTime(); pdt = dt.T2D(pdt); if(dt.GetTZ(pdt)) {n.innerHTML = dt.D2S(pdt,(('false'.toLowerCase()=='false')?false:true));} } } UpdateTimeStamp('634099593542770000');</SCRIPT>
WASHINGTON - The number of people filing new claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week by the largest amount in three months. The surge is evidence of how volatile the job market remains, even as the economy grows.

Applications for unemployment benefits rose to 471,000 last week, up by 25,000 from the previous week, the Labor Department said Thursday. It was the first increase in five weeks and the biggest jump since a gain of 40,000 in February.

The forecast had been for claims to fall by around 4,000 from the previous week.
"Although no one expects this volatile series to go in one direction every single week, this is clearly a disappointment," said Jennifer Lee, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets.

The total was the highest since new claims stood at 480,000 on April 10. It also pushed the average for the last four weeks to 453,500.
Employers are hiring again, but not at levels needed to make a dent in the unemployment rate, which increased in April to 9.9 percent. An improving economy has lured those who had given up looking for work back into the labor market. The jump in the unemployment rate came even though payrolls rose last month by 290,000 jobs, the biggest gain in four years.
Analysts could trim their forecasts for job growth in May based on the sudden rise in new claims. The increase occurred in the week that the government conducts its survey for the monthly unemployment report.
The number of people receiving jobless benefits fell by 40,000 to 4.63 million for the week ending May 8.

However, that figure does not include unemployed workers who have exhausted their regular 26 weeks of benefits. An additional 5.3 million workers are receiving extended benefits paid for by the federal government for the week ending May 1.

The extended benefits have added as many as 73 weeks of unemployment on top of the 26 weeks customarily provided by the states. But jobs have been scarce for so long that many of those out of work will soon run out of the extended benefits.


For the week ending May 8, 35 states and territories saw increases in applications for new jobless benefits and 18 saw declines.
The largest increase came in California, up 8,351 because of layoffs in service industries and manufacturing. It was followed by Michigan, up by 3,175 because of layoffs in the auto industry.

The states with the largest declines in jobless application were: New York, down by 3,144, because of fewer layoffs in transportation, services and manufacturing; and Kentucky, with a drop of 2,193.


Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
<SCRIPT>var url=location.href;var i=url.indexOf('/did/') + 1;if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('/print/1/') + 1;}if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('&print=1');}if(i>0){url = url.substring(0,i);document.write('URL: '+url+' (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/'+url+')
');if (typeof FDCPUrl == 'function'){FDCPUrl();}else if(window.print){window.print()}else{alert('To print his page press Ctrl-P on your keyboard \nor choose print from your browser or device after clicking OK');}}</SCRIPT>URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37250523/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37250523/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/)

The Mad Crapper
05-20-2010, 10:36 AM
New jobless claims rise unexpectedly


unexpectedly by whom? Reuters? AP?

patteeu
05-20-2010, 12:44 PM
Looks like we need to turn the clock back huh?LMAO

There are something like 8 million more jobs in the country on the "back" end of that graphic than on the "forward" end. Pretty funny, huh?

BigRedChief
05-20-2010, 12:52 PM
There are something like 8 million more jobs in the country on the "back" end of that graphic than on the "forward" end. Pretty funny, huh?It's a graphic that depicts the facts from when the job losses starting occuring to present day. Just the facts.

patteeu
05-20-2010, 12:56 PM
It's a graphic that depicts the facts from when the job losses starting occuring to present day. Just the facts.

I stated a fact too. The fact is that more people had jobs when George W. Bush was president.* A lot more people.


________________
* even moreso when Bush had a Republican Congress than when he left office after the economy had experienced shared government for 2 years.

mlyonsd
05-20-2010, 01:00 PM
When did democrats take over both houses of congress again?

BigRedChief
05-20-2010, 01:03 PM
I stated a fact too. The fact is that more people had jobs when George W. Bush was president.* A lot more people.


________________
* even moreso when Bush had a Republican Congress than when he left office after the economy had experienced shared government for 2 years.
Times change. I could say taxes were at 90% when Eisenhower was president. That makes Obama better, right? Thats your argument?

As I've said, we will never see unemployment below 7% ever again.

patteeu
05-20-2010, 01:09 PM
Times change. I could say taxes were at 90% when Eisenhower was president. That makes Obama better, right? Thats your argument?

As I've said, we will never see unemployment below 7% ever again.

I don't know why you keep saying that. I can't tell whether you're really that much of a pessimist or if you just want to set the bar low for Obama.

mlyonsd
05-20-2010, 01:17 PM
I don't know why you keep saying that. I can't tell whether you're really that much of a pessimist or if you just want to set the bar low for Obama.

Especially if you pull $862 billion out of thin air to throw at the problem. Too funny.

mikey23545
05-20-2010, 01:17 PM
As I've said, we will never see unemployment below 7% ever again.

Why has this become such a leftist mantra?

It sounds like a willing admission that Obama and his band of communists have done so much permanent damage to the country that there is no hope for the future.

KC native
05-20-2010, 01:23 PM
Why has this become such a leftist mantra?

It sounds like a willing admission that Obama and his band of communists have done so much permanent damage to the country that there is no hope for the future.

No, it's called embracing reality and noticing that we will probably have a lower growth rate going forward and probably higher fricitional unemployment.

mlyonsd
05-20-2010, 01:26 PM
Why has this become such a leftist mantra?

It sounds like a willing admission that Obama and his band of communists have done so much permanent damage to the country that there is no hope for the future.

They've been programmed with their marching orders.

Haven't you heard? The ecomonmy is turning the corner.

BigRedChief
05-20-2010, 01:47 PM
I don't know why you keep saying that. I can't tell whether you're really that much of a pessimist or if you just want to set the bar low for Obama.I've told you why. We don't make chit, we don't export like we did and its never coming back. We can't pay an American $50K for a job that someone else in the world will do for $5K and still make the same profit. Just not going to happen. The math is stacked against us. And no future right wing Reganite is going to be able to fix it either.

Brock
05-20-2010, 01:56 PM
As I've said, we will never see unemployment below 7% ever again.

What a load of tripe. LMAO

KC Dan
05-20-2010, 02:07 PM
I've told you why. We don't make chit, we don't export like we did and its never coming back. We can't pay an American $50K for a job that someone else in the world will do for $5K and still make the same profit. Just not going to happen. The math is stacked against us. And no future right wing Reganite is going to be able to fix it either.Well then, let's get every business in the U.S. unionized so we can lose even more jobs and make that salary gap even bigger. That'll fix it all.... Salaries are too high in this country as it is and much of it is due to unionized labor. If you want to understand why "we don't export like we did", start with manufacturing unions.

"And no future right wing Reganite is going to be able to fix it either"

You are correct here as the Cartertonians and Obamaminions will never allow them to.

Brock
05-20-2010, 02:10 PM
Sure, it's not like the executives of these companies are robbing them blind.

patteeu
05-20-2010, 02:45 PM
No, it's called embracing reality and noticing that we will probably have a lower growth rate going forward and probably higher fricitional unemployment.

That's the same thing he said. My own view is that we can reverse the damage once we get past this flirtation with euro-style socialism.

BigRedChief
05-20-2010, 03:03 PM
That's the same thing he said. My own view is that we can reverse the damage once we get past this flirtation with euro-style socialism.okay, ole wise one elighten us....How do we pay $50K to a worker and still make a profit when countries overseas are paying a worker $5K to make the same product? What Republican math makes that workable?

vailpass
05-20-2010, 03:08 PM
LOL at the obama backers who, instead of being able to trumpet all of the progress obama has achieved so far are instead stuck with lowering the bar and playing "look over there" games.
Is obama what you thought he was when you voted for him? Has his first year in office been what you thought it would be?

BigRedChief
05-20-2010, 03:12 PM
Is obama what you thought he was when you voted for him? Has his first year in office been what you thought it would be?
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=218798&page=3

vailpass
05-20-2010, 03:15 PM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=218798&page=3

Thank you for pointing out your cogent and honest response. I'm curious to hear what any other obama backers here have to say.
There are still a few that admit to being obama backers although that number seems to dwindle every time a new poll comes out.

dirk digler
05-20-2010, 03:28 PM
LOL at the obama backers who, instead of being able to trumpet all of the progress obama has achieved so far are instead stuck with lowering the bar and playing "look over there" games.
Is obama what you thought he was when you voted for him? Has his first year in office been what you thought it would be?

Hey look at all those Suns fans that thought they would beat the Lakers. Look at those losers...oh wait I only know of one. :D

But to answer your question yes it is pretty much what I expected.

patteeu
05-20-2010, 03:28 PM
I've told you why. We don't make chit, we don't export like we did and its never coming back. We can't pay an American $50K for a job that someone else in the world will do for $5K and still make the same profit. Just not going to happen. The math is stacked against us. And no future right wing Reganite is going to be able to fix it either.

We haven't had a dramatic change in that regard since the Bush days of 5% unemployment so that doesn't sound too convincing to me.

vailpass
05-20-2010, 03:30 PM
Hey look at all those Suns fans that thought they would beat the Lakers. Look at those losers...oh wait I only know of one. :D

But to answer your question yes it is pretty much what I expected.

What do you know about pro basketball son you live in goddamn Missouri:D

patteeu
05-20-2010, 03:32 PM
okay, ole wise one elighten us....How do we pay $50K to a worker and still make a profit when countries overseas are paying a worker $5K to make the same product? What Republican math makes that workable?

If you can't compete on the basis of raw labor cost, you have to do so on the basis of productivity per worker, tax burden, and quality. Those don't have to be Republican ideals, but right now it sounds like democrats prefer to champion American decline.

dirk digler
05-20-2010, 03:33 PM
What do you know about pro basketball son you live in goddamn Missouri:D

Apparently more than Suns fans in Arizona. ;)

You can bash me all you want for being an Obama supporter but at least he won when it counted. :D

dirk digler
05-20-2010, 03:35 PM
If you can't compete on the basis of raw labor cost, you have to do so on the basis of productivity per worker, tax burden, and quality. Those don't have to be Republican ideals, but right now it sounds like democrats prefer to champion American decline.

Labor costs is the #1 cost to companies and it probably isn't even close. That is why so many companies make shit overseas now.

vailpass
05-20-2010, 03:39 PM
Apparently more than Suns fans in Arizona. ;)

You can bash me all you want for being an Obama supporter but at least he won when it counted. :D

I'd rather have a team lose in the Western Conference Finals than have to admit to being an obama supporter so I guess we both get what we want.:D

dirk digler
05-20-2010, 04:02 PM
I'd rather have a team lose in the Western Conference Finals than have to admit to being an obama supporter so I guess we both get what we want.:D

I guess so LMAO

KC native
05-20-2010, 04:13 PM
That's the same thing he said. My own view is that we can reverse the damage once we get past this flirtation with euro-style socialism.

So, where's the growth going to come from? I am in the camp of PIMCO's new normal thesis.

The Mad Crapper
05-20-2010, 04:18 PM
And of course, the numbers will be projected downward on Monday, and the headline will include the word "unexpectedly".

:ZZZ:

This O-bot shit is so played out.

Just like I said, they were lying.

BigRedChief
05-20-2010, 04:35 PM
So, where's the growth going to come from? I am in the camp of PIMCO's new normal thesis.THIS!
More productive workers? How? More productivity is usually achieved by automation and elimination of jobs.

Patteau, please explain how we are going to get to 5% unemployment again?

fan4ever
05-20-2010, 04:36 PM
Apparently more than Suns fans in Arizona. ;)

You can bash me all you want for being an Obama supporter but at least he won when it counted. :D

Unlike politics, basketball games are won by which team actually produces; not by pre-game locker room talk.

The Mad Crapper
05-20-2010, 04:38 PM
Like I said, they were lying AND THEY WERE.

fan4ever
05-20-2010, 04:47 PM
THIS!
More productive workers? How? More productivity is usually achieved by automation and elimination of jobs.

Patteau, please explain how we are going to get to 5% unemployment again?

Doesn't small businesses account for something like 85% of the business in this country? Of all the small businesses I've dealt with over the past 25 years, almost all of them started out by hiring/utilizing local workers and services. I would think one important cog in getting the economy going again and increasing employment would be a real plan to stimulate small businesses and entrepreneurship.

BigRedChief
05-20-2010, 04:52 PM
Doesn't small businesses account for something like 85% of the business in this country? Of all the small businesses I've dealt with over the past 25 years, almost all of them started out by hiring/utilizing local workers and services. I would think one important cog in getting the economy going again and increasing employment would be a real plan to stimulate small businesses and entrepreneurship.and what are those small and entreprenuial bussiness's going to make? Who are they going to sell to?

The Mad Crapper
05-20-2010, 04:53 PM
and what are those small and entreprenuial bussiness's going to make? Who are they going to sell to?

What happened to those 290,000 jobs you were talking about?

fan4ever
05-20-2010, 08:05 PM
and what are those small and entreprenuial bussiness's going to make? Who are they going to sell to?

Well God only knows; that's what's great about a capitalism and a free enterprise system...the sky's the limit. Think of all of the little ideas that have made people a ton of money. I'm not saying it's the environment to start a Delorean dealership, but I expect many people who've been laid off are looking to start out on their own...if the banks would ever free up some credit.

And you create a buying public by supporting small business...who gives them jobs...which earns them money to spend...it's cyclical, right? I believe it was Henry Ford who wanted to make sure his cars were cheap enough for his factory workers to afford...so he had a built in customer.

BigRedChief
05-20-2010, 08:12 PM
Well God only knows; that's what's great about a capitalism and a free enterprise system...the sky's the limit. Think of all of the little ideas that have made people a ton of money. I'm not saying it's the environment to start a Delorean dealership, but I expect many people who've been laid off are looking to start out on their own...if the banks would ever free up some credit.

And you create a buying public by supporting small business...who gives them jobs...which earns them money to spend...it's cyclical, right? I believe it was Henry Ford who wanted to make sure his cars were cheap enough for his factory workers to afford...so he had a built in customer.Sorry but there is no magic widget out there to regain our economy to heights of our past levels. There will be some small business's that succeed but we have an economy that needs to produce 250K jobs per month just to break even. And Americans want good paying jobs, not just jobs.

Saul Good
05-20-2010, 08:12 PM
So we've gone from, "Hope", "Change", and "Yes we can!" to "unemployment will never be below 7% again" in 17 months.

BigRedChief
05-20-2010, 08:15 PM
So we've gone from, "Hope", "Change", and "Yes we can!" to "unemployment will never be below 7% again" in 17 months.Just my opinion.

KCTitus
05-20-2010, 08:18 PM
Sorry but there is no magic widget out there to regain our economy to heights of our past levels. There will be some small business's that succeed but we have an economy that needs to produce 250K jobs per month just to break even. And Americans want good paying jobs, not just jobs.

Yes, there is a 'magic widget'...it's basically the opposite of everything Obama and congress have done.

Lower tax rates on capital, eliminate over regulation of business, stop taking over businesses, let them fail and recover without buy outs. Basically get the government out of the way.

fan4ever
05-20-2010, 08:23 PM
Sorry but there is no magic widget out there to regain our economy to heights of our past levels. There will be some small business's that succeed but we have an economy that needs to produce 250K jobs per month just to break even. And Americans want good paying jobs, not just jobs.

We didn't need a "magic widget" before and I don't think we'll need another. The dynamics of the world economy are changing, but there's not better system to change with it than the free enterprise system...truly how I feel.

fan4ever
05-20-2010, 08:24 PM
QUOTE=KCTitus;6770798]Yes, there is a 'magic widget'...it's basically the opposite of everything Obama and congress have done.

Lower tax rates on capital, eliminate over regulation of business, stop taking over businesses, let them fail and recover without buy outs. Basically get the government out of the way.[/QUOTE]

:hail:

patteeu
05-20-2010, 08:25 PM
Labor costs is the #1 cost to companies and it probably isn't even close. That is why so many companies make shit overseas now.

So what? First of all, that varies from industry to industry, but beyond that it doesn't validate BRC's pessimism about America being in irrevocable economic decline.

patteeu
05-20-2010, 08:31 PM
THIS!
More productive workers? How? More productivity is usually achieved by automation and elimination of jobs.

Patteau, please explain how we are going to get to 5% unemployment again?

How can you possibly believe that an economic condition that we were achieving just a few short years ago is now permanently beyond our reach?

Warrior5
05-20-2010, 08:47 PM
Just like I said, they were lying.

Somebody's lyin'.

BigRedChief
05-20-2010, 08:48 PM
How can you possibly believe that an economic condition that we were achieving just a few short years ago is now permanently beyond our reach?It's been years in the making.

George W. era:
Because the economic condition a few years ago that you think was a prosperous time was all BS. Smoke and mirrors built on artificially inflated real estate and stock market. It blew up in our face and we are paying the piper for that era now.

Clinton era:
Tech boom era. Once the boom was over it did elevate the economy a little but again the majority of it was a boom/bust. For every Google, Amazon, Yahoo there are thousands of failed business's.

George H. era:
Nothing happened other than he did nothing to stop the decline from the Reagan era.

Regan era:
Talk about stimulus spending. Jeezzzz he spent militarily like there was tommorrow to out spend the Russians and win the cold war. He was successful but when the government funds ran out to build military things the economy went back to its non artificial state.

Carter era:
giv me a break, what a disaster.

Now we are back to Nixon and Johnson era.

As I said its been a long time coming.....

patteeu
05-20-2010, 08:53 PM
So we've gone from, "Hope", "Change", and "Yes we can!" to "unemployment will never be below 7% again" in 17 months.

It appears so. I can't wait to hear Obama's 2012 campaign slogans. "It's not so bad, get used to it!" doesn't have the same ring as "Yes we can!"

patteeu
05-20-2010, 08:59 PM
It's been years in the making.

George W. era:
Because the economic condition a few years ago that you think was a prosperous time was all BS. Smoke and mirrors built on artificially inflated real estate and stock market. It blew up in our face and we are paying the piper for that era now.

Clinton era:
Tech boom era. Once the boom was over it did elevate the economy a little but again the majority of it was a boom/bust. For every Google, Amazon, Yahoo there are thousands of failed business's.

George H. era:
Nothing happened other than he did nothing to stop the decline from the Reagan era.

Regan era:
Talk about stimulus spending. Jeezzzz he spent militarily like there was tommorrow to out spend the Russians and win the cold war. He was successful but when the government funds ran out to build military things the economy went back to its non artificial state.

Carter era:
giv me a break, what a disaster.

Now we are back to Nixon and Johnson era.

As I said its been a long time coming.....

I wish you and other O-bots would have come to that pessimistic conclusion before you elected the guy who was going to go on a crazy irresponsible spending spree that you don't believe we can possibly afford.

KC native
05-20-2010, 10:23 PM
I wish you and other O-bots would have come to that pessimistic conclusion before you elected the guy who was going to go on a crazy irresponsible spending spree that you don't believe we can possibly afford.

Um, I've always claimed there wasn't much Obama could do. It would be much worse if they hadn't taken some of the actions they have. Now, we have to start to close the spigot (which is happening as more and more Fed crisis facilities are being closed).

At this point, I believe we are looking at a GLOBAL slowdown in growth rates. China is a paper tiger. Outside of India, the rate of increase in growth rates is in serious question. As I've mentioned several times, I think PIMCO nailed it with their new normal case.

mlyonsd
05-21-2010, 07:59 AM
I wish you and other O-bots would have come to that pessimistic conclusion before you elected the guy who was going to go on a crazy irresponsible spending spree that you don't believe we can possibly afford.

Laughable isn't it?

petegz28
05-21-2010, 08:17 AM
BRC has discovered that the economy goes in cycles!!!!!

BigRedChief
05-21-2010, 08:40 AM
Yes, there is a 'magic widget'...it's basically the opposite of everything Obama and congress have done.

Lower tax rates on capital, eliminate over regulation of business, stop taking over businesses, let them fail and recover without buy outs. Basically get the government out of the way.Wasn't that exactly what happened during the Bush era?

Chief Henry
05-21-2010, 08:42 AM
Yes, there is a 'magic widget'...it's basically the opposite of everything Obama and congress have done.

Lower tax rates on capital, eliminate over regulation of business, stop taking over businesses, let them fail and recover without buy outs. Basically get the government out of the way.

this x 1000

petegz28
05-21-2010, 08:44 AM
Wasn't that exactly what happened during the Bush era?

No.

BucEyedPea
05-21-2010, 08:53 AM
Wasn't that exactly what happened during the Bush era?

It wasn't as bad as this. We've been in this coming on 2 years now. I'd say more because things were declining earlier. If he had allowed bankrupties to happen we'd be over this by now.

Obama is making it worse. Nationalizing big auto, cap n trade, cash for clunkers, excessive spending, bailing out other countries. He studied FDR for this crisis and listens to an absolute crackpot economist named Krugman. This is, imo, leading to a full blown depression if things don't change.

The Mad Crapper
05-21-2010, 09:15 AM
http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Obama_Coin_ExactChange_160.gif

Hopey Change™

BigRedChief
05-21-2010, 01:36 PM
Jobless rates drop in 34 states and DC
An improvement from March when 16 reported declines
By Jeannine Aversa
The Associated Press
updated 11:09 a.m. CT, Fri., May 21, 2010

<SCRIPT language=javascript> function UpdateTimeStamp(pdt) { var n = document.getElementById("udtD"); if(pdt != '' && n && window.DateTime) { var dt = new DateTime(); pdt = dt.T2D(pdt); if(dt.GetTZ(pdt)) {n.innerHTML = dt.D2S(pdt,(('false'.toLowerCase()=='false')?false:true));} } } UpdateTimeStamp('634100549603070000');</SCRIPT>
WASHINGTON - Unemployment rates fell in a majority of states last month as improved economic conditions spurred hiring.

The Labor Department said Friday that 34 states and the District of Columbia reported lower jobless rates in April. Six states reported higher rates, while 10 saw unemployment hold steady.

That marked an improvement from March when 16 states and D.C. reported declines in unemployment, 22 states saw increases, and 12 had no change, according to revised figures.

South Carolina's rate fell to 11.6 percent in April, from 12.2 percent in March. That marked the largest monthly drop of any state.

After cutting their work forces to the bone during the recession, companies are starting to boost hiring as their sales and profits improve.
Nationwide, employers added a net 290,000 job in April, the most in four years, the department reported earlier this month. The U.S. unemployment rate, though, rose to 9.9 percent as hundreds of thousands of job hunters — feeling more confident about their prospects — resumed or started searches.

Even as the employment picture is less bleak in many states, and the nation as a whole, many economists predict it will take years for the job market to get back to normal. A normal nationwide unemployment rate typically hovers around 5.5 to 6 percent. It's going to be a long slog because economic growth isn't robust enough for companies to ramp up hiring and quickly drive down the jobless rate.

Michigan, whose manufacturing base was clobbered by the recession, once again recorded the highest unemployment rate of any state — 14 percent. The rate dipped from 14.1 percent in March.

Nevada was close behind. It's rate rose to 13.7 percent last month, the highest on records dating back to 1976. California rounded out the top three with a rate of 12.6 percent, unchanged from March. Nevada and California — states at the heart of the housing boom — have been slammed by the market's bust and have been swamped by a wave of foreclosures.

North Dakota again had the lowest jobless rate — 3.8 percent. That's down from 4 percent in March. It was followed by South Dakota, whose rate dipped to 4.7 percent in April, from 4.8 percent in March, and Nebraska at 5 percent, unchanged from the previous month.

Friday's report also said that a majority of states saw employers boost jobs in April. The top three gainers: Ohio, with saw payrolls grow by 37,300 in April, from March; Pennsylvania, with 34,000 net new jobs; and New York with 32,700.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

<SCRIPT>var url=location.href;var i=url.indexOf('/did/') + 1;if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('/print/1/') + 1;}if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('&print=1');}if(i>0){url = url.substring(0,i);document.write('URL: '+url+' (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/'+url+')
');if (typeof FDCPUrl == 'function'){FDCPUrl();}else if(window.print){window.print()}else{alert('To print his page press Ctrl-P on your keyboard \nor choose print from your browser or device after clicking OK');}}</SCRIPT>URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37274896/ns/business-economy_at_a_crossroads/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37274896/ns/business-economy_at_a_crossroads/)

The Mad Crapper
05-21-2010, 01:42 PM
Jobless rates drop in 34 states and DC
An improvement from March when 16 reported declines
By Jeannine Aversa
The Associated Press
updated 11:09 a.m. CT, Fri., May 21, 2010

<SCRIPT language=javascript> function UpdateTimeStamp(pdt) { var n = document.getElementById("udtD"); if(pdt != '' && n && window.DateTime) { var dt = new DateTime(); pdt = dt.T2D(pdt); if(dt.GetTZ(pdt)) {n.innerHTML = dt.D2S(pdt,(('false'.toLowerCase()=='false')?false:true));} } } UpdateTimeStamp('634100549603070000');</SCRIPT>
WASHINGTON - Unemployment rates fell in a majority of states last month as improved economic conditions spurred hiring.

The Labor Department said Friday that 34 states and the District of Columbia reported lower jobless rates in April. Six states reported higher rates, while 10 saw unemployment hold steady.

That marked an improvement from March when 16 states and D.C. reported declines in unemployment, 22 states saw increases, and 12 had no change, according to revised figures.

South Carolina's rate fell to 11.6 percent in April, from 12.2 percent in March. That marked the largest monthly drop of any state.

After cutting their work forces to the bone during the recession, companies are starting to boost hiring as their sales and profits improve.
Nationwide, employers added a net 290,000 job in April, the most in four years, the department reported earlier this month. The U.S. unemployment rate, though, rose to 9.9 percent as hundreds of thousands of job hunters — feeling more confident about their prospects — resumed or started searches.

Even as the employment picture is less bleak in many states, and the nation as a whole, many economists predict it will take years for the job market to get back to normal. A normal nationwide unemployment rate typically hovers around 5.5 to 6 percent. It's going to be a long slog because economic growth isn't robust enough for companies to ramp up hiring and quickly drive down the jobless rate.

Michigan, whose manufacturing base was clobbered by the recession, once again recorded the highest unemployment rate of any state — 14 percent. The rate dipped from 14.1 percent in March.

Nevada was close behind. It's rate rose to 13.7 percent last month, the highest on records dating back to 1976. California rounded out the top three with a rate of 12.6 percent, unchanged from March. Nevada and California — states at the heart of the housing boom — have been slammed by the market's bust and have been swamped by a wave of foreclosures.

North Dakota again had the lowest jobless rate — 3.8 percent. That's down from 4 percent in March. It was followed by South Dakota, whose rate dipped to 4.7 percent in April, from 4.8 percent in March, and Nebraska at 5 percent, unchanged from the previous month.

Friday's report also said that a majority of states saw employers boost jobs in April. The top three gainers: Ohio, with saw payrolls grow by 37,300 in April, from March; Pennsylvania, with 34,000 net new jobs; and New York with 32,700.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

<SCRIPT>var url=location.href;var i=url.indexOf('/did/') + 1;if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('/print/1/') + 1;}if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('&print=1');}if(i>0){url = url.substring(0,i);document.write('URL: '+url+' (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/'+url+')
');if (typeof FDCPUrl == 'function'){FDCPUrl();}else if(window.print){window.print()}else{alert('To print his page press Ctrl-P on your keyboard \nor choose print from your browser or device after clicking OK');}}</SCRIPT>URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37274896/ns/business-economy_at_a_crossroads/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37274896/ns/business-economy_at_a_crossroads/)

LMAO

BigRedChief
05-24-2010, 08:20 AM
Economists raise growth projection for year
Survey shows they see consumer and business spending accelerating
By Dave Carpenter
The Associated Press
updated 6:19 a.m. CT, Mon., May 24, 2010

<SCRIPT language=javascript> function UpdateTimeStamp(pdt) { var n = document.getElementById("udtD"); if(pdt != '' && n && window.DateTime) { var dt = new DateTime(); pdt = dt.T2D(pdt); if(dt.GetTZ(pdt)) {n.innerHTML = dt.D2S(pdt,(('false'.toLowerCase()=='false')?false:true));} } } UpdateTimeStamp('634102967764170000');</SCRIPT>
CHICAGO - Economists forecast the pace of U.S. growth to pick up in the year ahead as consumers and businesses alike accelerate spending, according to a new survey.

The assessment by leading forecasters is set to be released Monday by The National Association for Business Economics. It finds them more bullish than when last surveyed in February, with a majority expecting the economy's performance to exceed the long-term norm in 2010 and 2011.
The outlook amounts to an encouraging report card on the economy at nearly the one-year mark of the recovery, which the experts date to June 2009 when the recession hit bottom.

"Although risks involving Europe have recently escalated, the outlook in this country has improved in most respects," said Lynn Reaser, the group's president and chief economist at Point Loma Nazarene University. "Growth prospects are stronger, unemployment and inflation are lower, and worries relating to consumer retrenchment and domestic financial headwinds have diminished."

While the economy is in "reasonably good shape," she said, forecasters are extremely concerned about the impact of large federal deficits in the future.

The panel of forecasters boosted its expectations for growth in 2010 to 3.2 percent real gross domestic product, up from 3.1 percent in its February outlook. It also pegged the 2011 growth rate at 3.2 percent.
Household spending, while still lagging the overall economy, is still expected to grow significantly this year. The forecasters attribute part of that to consumers being less thrifty, with the saving rate for 2010 seen dropping to 3.4 percent from the 4.6 percent they predicted just three months ago.

Business investment also is expected to fuel the recovery. The economists expect higher operating rates and rising corporate profits boosting companies' spending on equipment and software, while retailers restock inventory.

Unemployment is forecast to decline to 9.4 percent by year's end and 8.5 percent by the end of 2011.

Forecasters have scaled back their expectations for the housing growth after setbacks to the setback earlier this year. But 65 percent of survey respondents said last year's lows in home sales and home prices will not be retested.

Inflation is expected to remain low in the near term, in line with the outlook from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues. But panelists showed increasing concern about higher inflation over the next five years.

The NABE survey of 46 professional forecasters was taken April 27 to May 7.


Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
<SCRIPT>var url=location.href;var i=url.indexOf('/did/') + 1;if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('/print/1/') + 1;}if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('&print=1');}if(i>0){url = url.substring(0,i);document.write('URL: '+url+' (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/'+url+')
');if (typeof FDCPUrl == 'function'){FDCPUrl();}else if(window.print){window.print()}else{alert('To print his page press Ctrl-P on your keyboard \nor choose print from your browser or device after clicking OK');}}</SCRIPT>URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37303255/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37303255/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/)

BigRedChief
05-24-2010, 09:14 AM
Tax credit fuels surge in April home sales
7.6 percent jump in existing-home sales is best showing in 5 months
By Alan Zibel
The Associated Press
updated 9:08 a.m. CT, Mon., May 24, 2010

<SCRIPT language=javascript> function UpdateTimeStamp(pdt) { var n = document.getElementById("udtD"); if(pdt != '' && n && window.DateTime) { var dt = new DateTime(); pdt = dt.T2D(pdt); if(dt.GetTZ(pdt)) {n.innerHTML = dt.D2S(pdt,(('false'.toLowerCase()=='false')?false:true));} } } UpdateTimeStamp('634103069146300000');</SCRIPT>
WASHINGTON - Home sales surpassed expectations for April as government incentives provided a temporary boost to the housing market.
The National Association of Realtors says sales of previously owned homes rose 7.6 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5.77 million. That was the best showing in five months and better than the 5.63 million units economists had expected.

The federal government provided a big boost to home sales this spring by offering first-time buyers a tax credit of up to $8,000. Homeowners looking to upgrade could qualify for a credit of up to $6,500.
The deadline to get a signed sales contract and still qualify for either credit was April 30. Buyers have until the end of June to complete their sales.

The tax credit's impact is likely to show up in the home sales report for several months because it measures completed sales rather than sales contracts.

But the fate of the housing market for the rest of the year is uncertain. Without the tax credit, mortgage applications to purchase homes fell to the lowest level in 13 years last week, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association.

If sales don't pick up, prices could slump as well, especially as more foreclosed homes hit the market.

Real estate agents say there is enough demand to keep the market chugging. Prices have fallen dramatically since the boom years — as much as 50 percent in some places.

"The tax credit was a nice incentive. Maybe it pushed people off the fence, but also the key driver of their thinking is affordability," said Dominick Prevete, regional vice president for the northern New Jersey market at Weichert Realtors.

The first-time buyer's credit spurred far more sales than the one for current homeowners, real estate agents say. That's partly because many homeowners have seen the value of their properties sink dramatically and are reluctant to sell.

Also, a shaky economy and uncertain job prospects are making many consumers more cautious about moving to larger homes.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
<SCRIPT>var url=location.href;var i=url.indexOf('/did/') + 1;if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('/print/1/') + 1;}if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('&print=1');}if(i>0){url = url.substring(0,i);document.write('URL: '+url+' (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/'+url+')
');if (typeof FDCPUrl == 'function'){FDCPUrl();}else if(window.print){window.print()}else{alert('To print his page press Ctrl-P on your keyboard \nor choose print from your browser or device after clicking OK');}}</SCRIPT>URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37303800/ns/business-real_estate/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37303800/ns/business-real_estate/)

The Mad Crapper
05-24-2010, 09:38 AM
Tax credit fuels surge in April home sales
7.6 percent jump in existing-home sales is best showing in 5 months
By Alan Zibel
The Associated Pressfor April as government incentives provided a temporary boost to the housing market.
The National ('URL: '+url+' (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/'+url+')
');if (typeof FDCPUrl == 'function'){FDCPUrl();}else if(window.print){window.print()}else{alert('To print his page press Ctrl-P on your keyboard \nor choose print from your browser or device after ://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37303800/ns/business-real_estate/"]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37303800/ns/business-real_estate/[/URL]

Rah rah sisboom bah! If B.O. can't do it, no on can!

petegz28
05-24-2010, 09:50 AM
And now for the bad news. Mortgage applications have dropped very significantly in the last week or two since the home buyer's credit has expired.

What this does prove is TAX CUTS are good.

The Mad Crapper
05-24-2010, 10:20 AM
And now for the bad news. Mortgage applications have dropped very significantly in the last week or two since the home buyer's credit has expired.

What this does prove is TAX CUTS are good.

Tax Credits are even better.

;)

Stewie
05-25-2010, 04:31 PM
Tax Credits are even better.

;)

Heh! Yeah, that was nothing but a gift from the gov't. I mean $8K right in your pocket (or $6.5K). A huge incentive to buy, and sellers were able to move their houses.

BTW, there's something odd going on in the FOREX market. It doesn't make sense right now. I'm emailing people smarter than me.

The Mad Crapper
05-25-2010, 05:51 PM
Heh! Yeah, that was nothing but a gift from the gov't. I mean $8K right in your pocket (or $6.5K). A huge incentive to buy, and sellers were able to move their houses.

BTW, there's something odd going on in the FOREX market. It doesn't make sense right now. I'm emailing people smarter than me.

Some very heavy shit is about to go down.

Saul Good
05-25-2010, 07:39 PM
Wow BRC. While fapping to the incredible economic boom discussed in the articles you posted, somehow you missed a few...

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-05-24-income-shifts-from-private-sector_N.htm
Private pay shrinks to historic lows as gov't payouts rise
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
Paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year, a USA TODAY analysis of government data finds.

At the same time, government-provided benefits — from Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs — rose to a record high during the first three months of 2010.

Those records reflect a long-term trend accelerated by the recession and the federal stimulus program to counteract the downturn. The result is a major shift in the source of personal income from private wages to government programs.

The trend is not sustainable, says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes. Reason: The federal government depends on private wages to generate income taxes to pay for its ever-more-expensive programs. Government-generated income is taxed at lower rates or not at all, he says. "This is really important," Grimes says.

START YOUR OWN: Older workers become entrepreneurs
SALARY WIZARD: What are you worth?
JOBS OUTLOOK: Latest data for all states, 384 metros
RECOVERY WATCH: Tracking the economy

The recession has erased 8 million private jobs. Even before the downturn, private wages were eroding because of the substitution of health and pension benefits for taxable salaries.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that individuals received income from all sources — wages, investments, food stamps, etc. — at a $12.2 trillion annual rate in the first quarter.

Key shifts in income this year:

• Private wages. A record-low 41.9% of the nation's personal income came from private wages and salaries in the first quarter, down from 44.6% when the recession began in December 2007.

•Government benefits. Individuals got 17.9% of their income from government programs in the first quarter, up from 14.2% when the recession started. Programs for the elderly, the poor and the unemployed all grew in cost and importance. An additional 9.8% of personal income was paid as wages to government employees.

The shift in income shows that the federal government's stimulus efforts have been effective, says Paul Van de Water, an economist at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

"It's the system working as it should," Van de Water says. Government is stimulating growth and helping people in need, he says. As the economy recovers, private wages will rebound, he says.

Economist Veronique de Rugy of the free-market Mercatus Center at George Mason University says the riots in Greece over cutting benefits to close a huge budget deficit are a warning about unsustainable income programs.

Economist David Henderson of the conservative Hoover Institution says a shift from private wages to government benefits saps the economy of dynamism. "People are paid for being rather than for producing," he says.

Saul Good
05-25-2010, 07:40 PM
May 25 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government’s Aaa bond rating will come under pressure in the future unless additional measures are taken to reduce projected record budget deficits, according to Moody’s Investors Service Inc.

The U.S. retains its top rating for now because of a “high degree of economic and institutional strength,” the New York- based ratings company said in a statement today that was little changed from a credit opinion released in February. The outlook is stable, the statement said.

The government’s finances have been “substantially worsened by the credit crisis, recession, and government spending to address these shocks,” Moody’s analysts lead by Steven A. Hess wrote. “The ratios of general government debt to GDP and to revenue are deteriorating sharply, and after the crisis they are likely to be higher than the ratios of other Aaa-rated countries.”

Debt to revenue has more than doubled over the past three years and is now over 400 percent, which could lead to “potential stress” on finances, the report said.

“This whole financial crisis in Europe has actually benefitted the U.S. government in its access to finance,” Hess said in a telephone interview. “The U.S. Treasury market has become once again, as it was during the recent financial crisis globally, the safe haven, and therefore lots of money flows into the U.S. Treasury market and that is a very positive.”

Treasury Market

The euro has lost 7.1 percent against the dollar this month on speculation Greece’s fiscal crisis will spread to other nations and hamper the region’s economic growth. More than $340 billion of Treasuries changed hands today, 40 percent more than the average daily volume of $241 billion over the past three months, according to ICAP PLC, the world’s largest inter-dealer broker.

The U.S.’s stable politics, fundamentals and economic prospects support a stable outlook, and risks include waning investor confidence on the government’s future access to liquidity and flexibility, as well as costly federal programs like Social Security and Medicare, the report said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=az1YD_O3PXz4

Moody’s Reiterates U.S. Spending Risks Credit Rating

Moody’s analysts, in a Dec. 8 report, said public finances in the U.S. and the U.K. are worsening in the wake of the global financial crisis and the sovereigns may “test the Aaa boundaries.” It said the U.S. and U.K. have “resilient” Aaa ratings, as opposed to the “resistant” top ratings of Canada, Germany and France. The agency said later that week that it has no current plans to lower the U.S. and U.K.’s debt ratings.

Saul Good
05-25-2010, 07:42 PM
Falling home prices stir fears of new bottom
Home prices fall 0.5 percent from February to March, raising fears of a new bottom

NEW YORK (AP) -- The housing slump isn't over.

Tax credits and historically low mortgage rates have failed to lift home prices so far this year. Prices fell 0.5 percent in March from February, according to the Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller 20-city index released Tuesday.

That marks six straight months of declines -- a sign that the housing market is going in reverse.

"It looks a little like a double-dip already," economist Robert Shiller said in an interview. "There is a very real possibility of some more decline."

The co-creator of the Case-Shiller index, who predicted in 2005 that the housing bubble would burst, says he worries that home prices rose last year only because of the federal tax credits. That fear is shared by other economists. They note that weak job growth, tight credit and millions more foreclosures ahead will weigh on the home market.

All that is discouraging for homeowners who have seen the value of their largest asset deteriorate sharply over the past three years. Falling home prices tend to curtail consumer spending. And they make it harder for struggling borrowers to refinance into an affordable home loan.

Prices in 13 of the 20 cities tracked by the index fell. Only six metro areas recorded price gains. One, Boston, came in flat.

In the first quarter of 2010, U.S. home prices fell 3.2 percent compared with the fourth quarter.

The numbers are especially disturbing because they show that improved sales due to the tax credits didn't translate into higher prices, said David M. Blitzer, Chairman of the S&P index committee.

Still, falling home prices haven't kept many consumers from maintaining their optimism about the economy.

A separate report Tuesday showed consumer confidence rose in May for the third straight month as hopes for job growth improved. The increase in the Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index was boosted by consumers' brighter outlook for the next six months.

In a healthier economy, extraordinarily low mortgage rates would pump up demand for homes. But employers aren't creating new jobs fast enough and loans are harder to come by for small businesses and individuals.

On Monday, the National Association of Realtors said sales of previously occupied homes rose 7.6 percent in April. But the sales were aided by the government incentives that have now expired. Economists don't expect the improvements to last.

New buyers were offered a credit worth up to $8,000. Current owners who bought and moved into another home could get a credit for up to $6,500. To receive them, buyers had to have a signed offer by April 30 and must close by the end of June.

Shiller and other economists worry that prices could fall below the levels of April 2009. That was the lowest point since the peak in July 2006.

IHS Global Insight economist Patrick Newport forecasts prices will fall an additional 6 percent to 8 percent and bottom out in the third quarter of next year. Newport said the glut of homes on the market is the main reason. But he's also worried about the rate of foreclosures.

"When banks foreclose, they sell the properties at deep discounts," Newport said. "Foreclosures have either peaked in the first quarter or are going to peak soon, but they will remain very high for several years."

Mortgage delinquencies reached a record high in the first quarter. More than 10 percent of homeowners with a mortgage missed at least one payment from January through March, the Mortgage Bankers Association said last week.

Since 2006, nearly 5 million homes have been lost to foreclosures or other distressed sales, according to Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics. Zandi expects 3 million more to hit the market over the next two years.

Zandi noted that 15 million homeowners still owe more than their homes are worth. And 26 million Americans are either unemployed or underemployed. The underemployed include people who have given up looking for work and part-timers who would prefer to be working full time.

"It's a lethal mix," Zandi said.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Falling-home-prices-stir-apf-2074462944.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=4&asset=&ccode=

Saul Good
05-25-2010, 07:43 PM
Dow dips below 10,000, then bounces back
Stocks plunge early, then bounce back; Dow finishes above 10,000, but debt worries persist

NEW YORK (AP) -- The Dow Jones industrials plunged below 10,000 to their lowest level of the year Tuesday before a late-day rebound that erased most of the losses if not lingering worries about Europe's debt crisis.

The Dow dropped more than 250 points after the opening bell and stayed under 10,000 most of the day, then charged back to finish down only 22 when signals from Washington suggested that banks would not be forced to sell their lucrative derivatives units as part of financial reform. The Standard & Poor's 500 index even managed a slight gain.

But more turbulent days are likely. The market worries that even austerity measures by European governments will not be enough to fix the problem and fight off a prolonged economic slump in Europe, or even another global recession.

"It seems like the Europeans are playing 'tag, you're it' -- first it was Greece, and now it's maybe Spain or Portugal," said Jonathan Corpina, a New York Stock Exchange floor trader and president of Meridian Equity Partners.

"We know someone else is next. The problem is that it seems like every plan in place isn't going to satisfy the needs," he said.

Britain's Queen Elizabeth opened Parliament with a warning of hard times, saying in a speech on behalf of Britain's new government that there would be budget cuts because "the first priority is to reduce the deficit and restore economic growth."

Other European countries are imposing budget cuts as well, trying to control their debt. Investors are concerned that these steps will stifle economic growth, and that the growth of other countries, including the U.S., will inevitably be stunted.

Besides the financial crisis in Europe, investors were reminded that political issues, such as tension between North and South Korea, can threaten economic growth. Analysts said the unresolved Gulf of Mexico oil spill also contributed to the foul mood.

It was enough to send stocks into a deep dive. In just the first half-hour of trading, the Dow sank to 9,774.48, its lowest reading this year, and for much of the day threatened to set a new closing low for the year. The average is down more than 10 percent in just the past month.

But bank stocks surged, and the rest of the market followed, after Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, suggested financial companies should not have to spin off their derivatives businesses, as a Senate provision would have them do.

Frank, D-Mass., said he believes banks should be able to use the complex financial instruments to hedge their own risks. Bank regulators and Obama administration officials also oppose the Senate provision, which was inserted by Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark.

The Dow has only closed below 10,000 once this year, in early February. Since then, it has traded below 10,000 seven times but each time managed to push above that psychological barrier by the close.

On Tuesday, the Dow finished down 22.82 at 10,043.75. The Nasdaq composite index closed down 2.60 at 2,210.95, and the S&P 500 gained 0.38 to close at 1,074.03.

Investors also fled from the euro and commodities including oil, and again sought safety in government bonds. That drove interest rates lower. The benchmark 10-year note's yield fell to its lowest level since April 2009.

The market's continuing slide, with frequent triple-digit drops in the Dow, recalls the unrelenting selling of the 2008 financial crash -- and begs the question of what can halt the plunge.

Jim Dunigan, managing executive of investments for PNC Wealth Management, said good news about jobs or corporate earnings could stabilize stocks by signaling that a U.S. recovery is intact.

The government's monthly jobs report in less than two weeks is expected to show that employers are ramping up hiring further. And companies will soon start giving hints about profits for the quarter that ends in June.

"You could derail growth in Europe and not derail growth in the United States, but people don't necessary use a lot of logic when they're headed to the exits," Dunigan said.

For now, traders are unswayed by upbeat U.S. economic news. They ignored a better-than-expected report Tuesday showing consumer confidence index rose for the third straight month.

"Market participants feel like they're walking on eggshells," said Oliver Pursche, executive vice president at Gary Goldberg Financial Services in Suffern, N.Y. "Every small piece of potentially bad news is being exaggerated and mentally being fast-forwarded to the worst-case scenario."

Meanwhile, the monthlong effort to cap the BP oil well that has spewed millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico is also rattling investors, Corpina said. Oil is coming ashore across a 150-mile swath of the Gulf Coast, endangering wildlife and livelihoods in commercial fishing and tourism.

"The worry is that the situation is getting worse and there's no real fix," he said. "First we were just talking about the oil industry being affected. Now it's the environment and fishing industries. Next we'll be talking about the hotel and leisure industries."

A disappointing report on home prices added to the downcast mood. The Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller 20-city home price index fell 0.5 percent in March from February, a sign the housing market remains weak even with mortgage rates near historic lows.

The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note, which moves opposite its price, fell to 3.17 percent from 3.20 percent late Monday. It fell as low as 3.07 percent, its lowest level since April 2009.

The yield on the 30-year bond briefly fell below 4 percent for the first time since October, before rising slightly. It is down to 4.07 percent from 4.08 percent late Monday.

Crude oil fell $1.06 to $69.16 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, in part a reflection of expectations that weak economic growth will curtail demand for fuel.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Dow-dips-below-10000-then-apf-464459924.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=2&asset=&ccode=

BigRedChief
05-26-2010, 09:40 AM
Falling home prices stir fears of new bottom
Home prices fall 0.5 percent from February to March, raising fears of a new bottom
Sales of new homes climb for 2nd month in row
Boosted by buyers trying to sign sales contracts before tax credits expired

By Martin Crutsinger
The Associated Press
updated 9:29 a.m. CT, Wed., May 26, 2010

<SCRIPT language=javascript> function UpdateTimeStamp(pdt) { var n = document.getElementById("udtD"); if(pdt != '' && n && window.DateTime) { var dt = new DateTime(); pdt = dt.T2D(pdt); if(dt.GetTZ(pdt)) {n.innerHTML = dt.D2S(pdt,(('false'.toLowerCase()=='false')?false:true));} } } UpdateTimeStamp('634104809770370000');</SCRIPT>
WASHINGTON - Sales of new homes posted another large gain in April as buyers rushed to sign contracts before government tax credits expired.
The Commerce Department said Wednesday that sales of new single-family homes jumped 14.8 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 504,000 units. The April gain followed a 29.8 percent surge in March, the biggest monthly increase in 47 years.

Activity in both months was pushed higher by a stampede of buyers trying to sign sales contracts before tax credits expired on April 30. Historically low mortgage rates also helped fuel purchases. But sales are expected to slump in the coming months as households deal with slow job growth and tight credit.

The big jump in sales activity did not boost home values. The median sales price fell to $198,400, 9.6 percent below the March median price for a new home. The median is the midpoint where half the homes sold for more and half for less.


The two months of big sales increases pushed sales activity to the highest level since May 2008. But sales remained well below the peaks set at the height of the housing boom.

Sales showed strength in all areas of the country in April except the Northeast. Activity there showed no change last month.
Sales were up 31.6 percent in the Midwest, 21.7 percent in the West and 10.8 percent in the South.


Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
<SCRIPT>var url=location.href;var i=url.indexOf('/did/') + 1;if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('/print/1/') + 1;}if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('&print=1');}if(i>0){url = url.substring(0,i);document.write('URL: '+url+' (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/'+url+')
');if (typeof FDCPUrl == 'function'){FDCPUrl();}else if(window.print){window.print()}else{alert('To print his page press Ctrl-P on your keyboard \nor choose print from your browser or device after clicking OK');}}</SCRIPT>URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37353768/ns/business-real_estate/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37353768/ns/business-real_estate/)

dirk digler
06-01-2010, 05:50 PM
Looks like the jobs report may show over 500,000 people got jobs in the month of May.

I hope that is true and that is good news.

Saul Good
06-01-2010, 07:42 PM
Looks like the jobs report may show over 500,000 people got jobs in the month of May.

I hope that is true and that is good news.

I hope so too. The question is how many of them are public sector versus private sector.

King_Chief_Fan
06-02-2010, 01:24 PM
I hope so too. The question is how many of them are public sector versus private sector.

400k to watch dog the new Obamacare system:eek:

The Mad Crapper
06-02-2010, 02:07 PM
Get ready for the double dip!

dirk digler
06-02-2010, 09:06 PM
I hope so too. The question is how many of them are public sector versus private sector.

The predictions are around 500,000-540,000 jobs with alot of them census workers.

To me that is kind of surprising I didn't know the Census hired so many workers but apparently they do.

KC native
06-02-2010, 09:15 PM
The predictions are around 500,000-540,000 jobs with alot of them census workers.

To me that is kind of surprising I didn't know the Census hired so many workers but apparently they do.

Yea, I was casually listening to bloomberg the other day and someone was saying about half of them would be census jobs.

petegz28
06-02-2010, 10:16 PM
The predictions are around 500,000-540,000 jobs with alot of them census workers.

To me that is kind of surprising I didn't know the Census hired so many workers but apparently they do.

And they are all temporary

petegz28
06-02-2010, 10:17 PM
Yea, I was casually listening to bloomberg the other day and someone was saying about half of them would be census jobs.

If they can print 300k private sector jobs I would be slightly impressed

petegz28
06-04-2010, 07:37 AM
TERRIBLE jobs report this morning. 431,000 jobs created. 390,000 of those were Census workers. Only 41,000 private sector jobs were created.

stevieray
06-04-2010, 08:11 AM
TERRIBLE jobs report this morning. 431,000 jobs created. 390,000 of those were Census workers. Only 41,000 private sector jobs were created.

96% of mortgages
60% of jobs

:shake:

mlyonsd
06-04-2010, 08:21 AM
TERRIBLE jobs report this morning. 431,000 jobs created. 390,000 of those were Census workers. Only 41,000 private sector jobs were created.USA Today is reporting 411,000 of those jobs were census workers.

petegz28
06-04-2010, 08:23 AM
USA Today is reporting 411,000 of those jobs were census workers.

Yea, I saw that. Either way someone's math was off. The print was for 431,000 jobs. The print was for 41,000 private sector jobs. You can do the math.

dirk digler
06-04-2010, 09:10 AM
TERRIBLE jobs report this morning. 431,000 jobs created. 390,000 of those were Census workers. Only 41,000 private sector jobs were created.

Just saw that. Wow. Not good at all.

Chief Henry
06-04-2010, 11:24 AM
Looks like BRC left just in the nick of time :rolleyes:

The private sector small buisness owners are speaking loudly about
Obama and the democrats economic stimulous/recovery plan.

Obama and the :cuss: democrats health care farce and future energy plan to tax the piss out of us are preventing business owners from even wanting to hire new employees

KC native
06-04-2010, 03:54 PM
TERRIBLE jobs report this morning. 431,000 jobs created. 390,000 of those were Census workers. Only 41,000 private sector jobs were created.

Yup, looks like a double dip is increasingly possible. I just might be off on the timing.

mlyonsd
08-05-2010, 08:50 AM
Stock futures moved lower and Treasury prices rose on an unexpected increase in weekly jobless claims. The dollar weakened slightly.

Initial unemployment claims climbed by 19,000 to 479,000 in the week ended July 31, the Labor Department said in its weekly report Thursday. The last time claims were this high was the week of April 10.

The increase defied the expectations of economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires, who had predicted filings would dip by 2,000 to 455,000. The four-week moving average, which aims to smooth volatility in the data, rose by 5,250 to 458,500. New claims for the previous week, ending July 24, were revised up, to 460,000 from the originally reported 457,000.

The number of continuing claims — those drawn by workers for more than one week in the week ended July 24 — decreased by 34,000 to 4,537,000 from the preceding week’s upwardly revised level of 4,571,000. Continuing claims are reported with a one-week lag.


http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2010/08/05/increase-in-jobless-claims-weighs-on-stock-futures/

I know, let's let the Bush tax cuts expire. Maybe making false claims the rich aren't doing their part will hide the fact we don't have a F'ing clue as to what we're doing running the country. /dem leadership

The Mad Crapper
08-12-2010, 08:02 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) -- New applications for unemployment insurance rose last week to their highest level in almost six months, the latest evidence that some employers are still cutting their staffs.

First-time claims for jobless benefits edged up by 2,000 to a seasonally adjusted 484,000, the Labor Department said Thursday. Analysts had expected a drop. That's the highest total since February.

Initial claims have now risen in three of the last four weeks and are close to their high point for the year of 490,000, reached in late January. The four-week average, which smooths volatility, soared by 14,250 to 473,500, also the highest since late February.

The prospects of more layoffs added to this week's grim outlook for the economy, which began Tuesday when the Federal Reserve lowered its assessment of the recovery.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/New-claims-for-unemployment-apf-3180551258.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=&ccode=

http://www.moonbattery.com/trash.jpg

The Mad Crapper
08-13-2010, 11:42 AM
Could Wall Street be about to crash again?

This week's bone-rattlers may be making you wonder.

I don't make predictions. That's a sucker's game. And I'm certainly not doing so now.

But way too many people are way too complacent this summer. Here are 10 reasons to watch out.
More from WSJ.com:


1. The market is already expensive. Stocks are about 20 times cyclically-adjusted earnings, according to data compiled by Yale University economics professor Robert Shiller. That's well above average, which, historically, has been about 16. This ratio has been a powerful predictor of long-term returns. Valuation is by far the most important issue for investors. If you're getting paid well to take risks, they may make sense. But what if you're not?

2. The Fed is getting nervous. This week it warned that the economy had weakened, and it unveiled its latest weapon in the war against deflation: using the proceeds from the sale of mortgages to buy Treasury bonds. That should drive down long-term interest rates. Great news for mortgage borrowers. But hardly something one wants to hear when the Dow Jones Industrial Average is already north of 10000.

3. Too many people are too bullish. Active money managers are expecting the market to go higher, according to the latest survey by the National Association of Active Investment Managers. So are financial advisers, reports the weekly survey by Investors Intelligence. And that's reason to be cautious. The time to buy is when everyone else is gloomy. The reverse may also be true.

4. Deflation is already here. Consumer prices have fallen for three months in a row. And, most ominously, it's affecting wages too. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that, last quarter, workers earned 0.7% less in real terms per hour than they did a year ago. No wonder the Fed is worried. In deflation, wages, company revenues, and the value of your home and your investments may shrink in dollar terms. But your debts stay the same size. That makes deflation a vicious trap, especially if people owe way too much money.

5. People still owe way too much money. Households, corporations, states, local governments and, of course, Uncle Sam. It's the debt, stupid. According to the Federal Reserve, total U.S. debt -- even excluding the financial sector -- is basically twice what it was 10 years ago: $35 trillion compared to $18 trillion. Households have barely made a dent in their debt burden; it's fallen a mere 3% from last year's all-time peak, leaving it twice the level of a decade ago.

6. The jobs picture is much worse than they're telling you. Forget the "official" unemployment rate of 9.5%. Alternative measures? Try this: Just 61% of the adult population, age 20 or over, has any kind of job right now. That's the lowest since the early 1980s -- when many women stayed at home through choice, driving the numbers down. Among men today, it's 66.9%. Back in the '50s, incidentally, that figure was around 85%, though allowances should be made for the higher number of elderly people alive today. And many of those still working right now can only find part-time work, so just 59% of men age 20 or over currently have a full-time job. This is bullish?

(Today's bonus question: If a laid-off contractor with two kids, a mortgage and a car loan is working three night shifts a week at his local gas station, how many iPads can he buy for Christmas?)

7. Housing remains a disaster. Foreclosures rose again last month. Banks took over another 93,000 homes in July, says foreclosure specialist RealtyTrac. That's a rise of 9% from June and just shy of May's record. We're heading for 1 million foreclosures this year, RealtyTrac says. And naturally the ripple effects hurt all those homeowners not in foreclosure, by driving down prices. See deflation (No. 4) above.

8. Labor Day is approaching. Ouch. It always seems to be in September-October when the wheels come off Wall Street. Think 2008. Think 1987. Think 1929. Statistically, there actually is a "September effect." The market, on average, has done worse in that month than any other. No one really knows why. Some have even blamed the psychological effect of shortening days. But it becomes self-reinforcing: People fear it, so they sell.

9. We're looking at gridlock in Washington. Election season has already begun. And the Democrats are expected to lose seats in both houses in November. (Betting at InTrade, a bookmaker in Dublin, Ireland, gives the GOP a 62% chance of taking control of the House.) As our political dialogue seems to have collapsed beyond all possible hope of repair, let's not hope for any "bipartisan" agreements on anything of substance. Do you think this is a good thing? As Davis Rosenberg at investment firm Gluskin Sheff pointed out this week, gridlock is only a good thing for investors "when nothing needs fixing." Today, he notes, we need strong leadership. Not gonna happen.

10. All sorts of other indicators are flashing amber. The Institute for Supply Management's manufacturing index, while still positive, weakened again in July. So did ISM's new-orders indicator. The trade deficit has widened, and second-quarter GDP growth was much lower than first thought. ECRI's Weekly Leading Index has been flashing warning lights for weeks. Europe's industrial production in June turned out considerably worse than expected. Even China's steamroller economy is slowing down. Tech bellwether Cisco Systems (Nasdaq: CSCO - News) has signaled caution ahead. Individually, each of these might mean little. Collectively, they make me wonder. In this environment, I might be happy to buy shares if they were cheap. But not so much if they're expensive. See No. 1 above.

Write to Brett Arends at brett.arends@wsj.com

___


http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110335/is-a-crash-coming-10-reasons-to-be-cautious?sec=topStories&pos=8&asset=&ccode=

The Mad Crapper
01-13-2011, 08:28 AM
JANUARY 13, 2011

Prices Soar on Crop Woes

U.S. Cuts Global Grain Supply Outlook; Higher Prices Expected at Grocery Stores.

By SCOTT KILMAN And LIAM PLEVEN

Evidence of tightening global food supplies grew as the U.S. Agriculture Department cut its estimates for global harvests of key crops and raised some demand forecasts, adding to worries about rising food prices.

Prices of corn and soybeans leapt 4% Wednesday and wheat gained 1%, continuing the broad rally in commodity prices that began in June. With yesterday's gains, prices of corn futures contracts are now up 94% from their June lows; soybeans are up 51% and wheat is up 80%.

The USDA's revisions reflect the impact of dry weather in South America and floods in Australia, which have compounded supply constraints that first started to emerge in the middle of last year, when a drought in Russia ravaged that country's wheat fields. The agency also cut estimates for U.S. harvests of corn and soybeans.

At the same time, demand is increasing. The USDA said ethanol producers likely will increase their use of corn, and consumption by emerging market countries continues to be strong.


(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------