Unemployment Up Again

[Run To State]

Honestly, as partisan as everyone in society is now, and the propensity of politicians to play up that partisanship, I really don't see anyone on the radar that can 'work with both sides'. As to understanding business, what sort of business do they need to understand? Big-Corporate business or small business. Because from where I'm sitting big-corporate business rules the roost now, and has for quite a long time.

We need someone that understands both, preferably.

 

I think there's someone that can work with both sides, they just have to be willing to not allow themselves to fall into the usual trappings. I don't know if we've seen that person out there yet, but America badly needs them.

 

This might be a P&R first, RM. For once, I'm more optimistic about something in politics than you are. :lol:

[Hatz]

I'm not saying I disagree with you, BUT. As I recall Obama CONSTANTLY pointed the finger at Bush for the economy. Now that he's in charge, he get's the finger pointed at him. That's the way it works. It's lonely at the top and the American people are very fickle.

 

RTS, I couldn't agree more in many ways with your post.

 

However, I thought the thread was about the unemployment of America.

 

My challenge isn't about "who is responsible," but "what are the solutions." :popcorn:

[Hatz]

I think replacing him with the right man/woman could go a very long way to getting things right. One that can work with both sides and one that understands business. We don't have that now.

 

Is it really as simple as "the right guy?" The banks (who understand all about business I would think) began to fail under the watch and 8 year administration of George Bush.

 

I don't think it's an answer as simple as which party is in charge. I wonder if it goes beyond party and might be systemic. :idunno:

[jericho]

One problem is there are too many people in the US getting free stuff and the rich are still getting richer while the middle class is paying for everything.

 

Tax the oil comps and get a little back.

[rockmom]

One problem is there are too many people in the US getting free stuff and the rich are still getting richer while the middle class is paying for everything.

 

Tax the oil comps and get a little back.

 

I don't understand how any of the above are related to unemployment?

[cammando]

Sure there are solutions! But the be all and end all isn't rolling back policies Obama has put in place, nor is it to replace Obama. Everyone disagrees on what the solutions are, but that should be a continuing discussion. do you really feel that either or both of the above is going to resolve the issue?

Why not roll back Obamas policies... Everyone sees that they are not working and all the indicators prove they are not working...

[PurplePride92]

Why not roll back Obamas policies... Everyone sees that they are not working and all the indicators prove they are not working...

 

Roll them back to what? Isn't it the previous policies that got us in this mess in the first place?

[PurplePride92]

If unemployment was 8.5% when Obama took over in January 2009 and is at 9.1% now and had been trending down until this recent .4% rise does that not indicate that his policies are slowing working?

[swamprat]

If unemployment was 8.5% when Obama took over in January 2009 and is at 9.1% now and had been trending down until this recent .4% rise does that not indicate that his policies are slowing working?

 

Temporarily working would be more accurate.

 

I've believe what we've been experiencing is the lull before the storm. Trying to spend your way out of a recession has never worked. You get this push then go over the waterfall.

 

Roosevelt tried to spend us out of the Great Depression and that caused an upsurge in 1937, but by the middle of 38 the tide had already started south and in November, the bottom fell out of his recovery. Things were worse than before.

[acemona]

It seemed the policies worked with Chrysler.

[cammando]

It seemed the policies worked with Chrysler.

If you call propping up union workers on the backs of U.S. tax payers "working"..:lol:

[Hatz]

Why not roll back Obamas policies... Everyone sees that they are not working and all the indicators prove they are not working...

 

I'm with Purple on this one. That's a fine strategy but what do we roll them back to?

 

To George Bush? The housing market and bank bust was at the end of those 8 years.

 

To Bill Clinton? Even his economy was slipping as the dot-com went down.

 

To pre-NAFTA? That might employ more workers but the prices will probably soar and once the genie is out of the bottle how do you go back?

 

I'm still wondering if anyone has specifics to change rather than "roll back Obama" or "not George's policies."

 

I don't know the answer either but I'm not seeing any specifics in this thread.

[cammando]

The housing market bust had nothing to do with Bush policies... Unless you call stepping across the aisle to appease the Dems "policy"... It was the Dems, specifically the Black Democrat Caucus, that started all the housing mess... ALL indicators point to Obamas policies that are handcuffing our free market economic system..

[acemona]

If you call propping up union workers on the backs of U.S. tax payers "working"..:lol:

 

 

You do know that all of that money has been returned, jobs were saved, perhaps whole communities because the ancillary jobs were saved. It was a good plan, Chrysler, GM and Ford are all turning profits now. Seems like that is exactly what we wished happened in other industries.

[cammando]

All the money has NOT been returned... Where did you get that idea at?? Thousands of jobs were still lost. The bail out and government ownership did not save these companies. Obama should get credit for finally forcing the two into bankruptcy in early 2009. Unfortunately, however, it was accompanied by a massive inflow of taxpayer cash, government ownership of the two firms, and a manipulation of the bankruptcy process to advantage politically favored interests (notably the unions) at the expense of shareholders.

 

Going forward, the danger is that this intervention will become a precedent, legitimizing bailouts as a standard tool of economic policy. Such a result would be disastrous not just to taxpayers’ wallets but to the economy as a whole as firms (and investors) evade the consequences of their own decisions.