Tom Toles for July 15, 2010

  1. Missing large
    rottenprat  over 13 years ago

    And remember, the 9.5 is the number claiming benefits, not the other unemployed whose benefits are exhausted. Clever accounting strikes again…

     •  Reply
  2. Missing large
    ken591  over 13 years ago

    Ken Warren has a point. Clinton with a GOP congress most of his term(s) left a roaring economy. Bush with a DEM congress ran it into the ground. So if we just vote in a GOP congress we will have the right combination again.

     •  Reply
  3. Missing large
    jaxaction  over 13 years ago

    without poverty we can not keep em in the socialist military.

     •  Reply
  4. Prr
    Loco80  over 13 years ago

    Just for some accurate information, the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics show unemployment rates by month. January, 2001 it was 4.2, January of 2009 it was 7.7, then peaked at 10.1 for last October, and is now 9.5.

     •  Reply
  5. Tigerfarts
    SpicyNacho Premium Member over 13 years ago

    Kensurg, along with that combination we will need a couple of industries to be overvalued and bloated like the housing and tech bubble and sit back and wait for the next crash. Frank and Dodd will ensure crooked banking policies if they have their way so we may be on the way to one of those.

     •  Reply
  6. Missing large
    jhouck99  over 13 years ago

    @kensurg: Bush had a Democratic Congress for less than half his term in office.

    2001-2003: After Bush was sworn in, the 50-50 Senate was led by the Republicans for six months until Jim Jeffords left the party and caucused with the Democrats. The House was led by the Republicans.

    2003-2005: Both houses led by the Republicans.

    2005-2007: Both houses led by the Republicans.

    2007-2009: Both houses led by the Democrats.

     •  Reply
  7. Missing large
    disgustedtaxpayer  over 13 years ago

    the overall 9.5% unemployment rate is based on adding all the new workers trying to enter the labor force, and not counting the formerly unemployed drawing benefits who have run out of benefits and still cannot find jobs.

    It is not a reliable number to show the true % of Americans without a regular earned income.

    some areas…Michigan….and some industries….construction….have much higher % of jobless.

    interesting article 7/15/10 at www.washingtonpost.com by Jis Lynn Yang….”Companies pile up cash but remain hesitant to add jobs”……”..Wednesday the US Chamber of Commerce held a jobs summit…” which the White House tried to “crash”….to continue the “big lie” (IMO) that stimulus $s created 3.5 million jobs….NOT. However many jobs were created by federal largess, most were temporary (census) and were GOVERNMENT JOBS, not private sector jobs.

     •  Reply
  8. Avatar201803 salty
    Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago

    $1 in Unemployment insurance = $1.63 Economic activity $1 in tax cuts = $1.02 economic activity.

    Drop the huge multi-trillion dollar deficit monster that is the Bush tax cuts and put it towards getting people to work.

    “Bush with a DEM congress ran it into the ground.”

    To be more accurate, if you’re going to make this assumption, Bush with a GOP congress which did not pay for a bleeep thing it purchased, 2 wars, Pharma subsidies, and tax cuts. It’s just that all of that “invisible spending” started catching up in the 2 years that the Democrats had Congress.
     •  Reply
  9. Missing large
    disgustedtaxpayer  over 13 years ago

    also in the article I named in my first comment, was this= “A survey last month (June) of more than 1,000 chief financial officers by Duke University and CFO magazine showed that nearly 60% of those executives don’t expect to bring their employment back to pre-recession levels until 2012 or later—-even though they’re projecting a 12% rise in earnings and a 9% boost in capital spending over the next year.”

    and this “if corporations are sitting on so much money, why aren’t they hiring more workers?….The answer to that question has become a political flash point between the White House and big business groups such as the US Chamber of Commerce…….which accused the Obama administration of dumping onerous regulations on business. That has created an environment of ‘uncertainty’ which is causing firms to hold back on hiring….” the Chamber said.”

    ps.2= Ken W is so typical liberal….he wants to spout off unendingly, but “conservatives should shut up”….Tyrants always try to gag their intended victims! Gag from free speech, and disarm from the right to own defensive weapons! Tyrant Playbook rules 1 and 2.

     •  Reply
  10. John adams1
    Motivemagus  over 13 years ago

    ^harley, quit saying that BS about libs not liking profit and capitalism. I’m a thoroughgoing capitalist, a management consulting working with top executives, many of whom ALSO think we should be doing more for the unemployed, okay? In any case, I am surprised no one has mentioned that the Fed has traditionally had a policy of maintaining a certain level of unemployment to avoid inflation – something they really shouldn’t be worried about as much as unemployment right now.

     •  Reply
  11. Avatar201803 salty
    Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago

    “YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE 1$ FROM SOMEONE THERE FOR IT BECOMES A - IN THE EQUATION IN THE LONG RUN”

    You mean like the trillions taken from us and put in the hands of the rich? Both in terms of lost government revenue (deficit) and lost wages (middle class wage stagnation) and bailouts (TARP)? I saw one statement I agree with: Liberals AND Conservatives take money from someone and give it to someone else. It’s just a matter of who they give it to. And sorry, but a CEO does not work 500 times harder than their average worker. If some genius comes up with an idea and someone else snatches it and runs with it and makes billions off of the idea, who did the work? The one who came up with it, or the one who made money? If I run a multi-billion dollar ponzi scheme, do you have any right to take the money from me? I “earned it” from capitalizing on your gullibility. Real “hard work” there.
     •  Reply
  12. Avatar201803 salty
    Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago

    P.S. I know that not everyone who is rich is a cheater. But I also know that not everyone who isn’t rich isn’t that way out of pure laziness. A person can not work and make billions, and a person can work 3 jobs and still not break the poverty line.

    Some of those super rich stock brokers went from rich to poor overnight, do they, because they are poor today, fit in that “don’t anything for the country” when just the other day they were an “economic engine?”

    If a business goes overseas and fires 1000 American workers to hire 100 Chinese workers, are those 1000 Americans lazy?

     •  Reply
  13. Blmc150922
    sofartotheleftimright  over 13 years ago

    @Jade i’m not against what you’re saying, but there was recent news that more companies are actually starting to pull from China and look for other locations and some are actually opening plants back up in the US. This is due to Chinese workers requesting higher wages.

     •  Reply
  14. Birthcontrol
    Dtroutma  over 13 years ago

    The “right” keeps claiming “libs” hate Capitalism. The fact is we too hate “rape” and want rapists convicted, even economic rapists.

    Let’s hope more companies will come back from Canada, Mexico, and China, and start producing product here in America again- that IS an important first step toward recovery.

     •  Reply
  15. Avatar201803 salty
    Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago

    “I wonder how many will support it when they know the true cost.”

    Republicans can now see the costs of Bush’s tax cuts (far larger than the cost of the Stimulus bill and health care bill they complained about) and are still in support of them, so why do you think Liberals, whom are claimed to like spending [even though, as evidenced, Conservatives love to spend them, too] will change their mind.

    Conservatives love DADT. That costs money to ferret those soldiers out, AND it costs money to replace and retrain new soldiers AND it costs money in terms of botched or insufficiently staffed operations because of the firings. Costs money, still for it.

    “How is that for “spreading the wealth around” as our Acorn Community Organizer in Chief would say.”

    You say nothing to counter my point about how the rich have siphoned money from the working middle class. You do not refute my points. Why is this? Middle class wages have stagnated because of welfare for the rich. All of the money has gone to the rich and the jobs have gone overseas. If these tax cuts spurred growth why did our economy tank with the Bush tax cuts? Do you know why the Bush rebates weren’t very successful for promoting economic drive (they did promote, but not as much as planned) ? Because people saved the money or used it to pay bills. Instead our economy has been robbed of trillions of dollars so that the rich can do … ? It’s certainly not make jobs. The stimulus bill was 50% tax cuts. Should have been all spending. We have roads that need paving, buildings that need building… bridges that need fixing, highways that need fixing. That’s surefire jobs there.

    @sofartotheleftimright - I’m all for them bring stuff back here but I bet you more often than not they’re just looking for something in the Phillipines or someplace similar.

    “You want the government to take 1$ out of the hands of someone who earns it and give it to someone who did not.”

    Government takes $$$ out of the hands of those who take or those who did not. Your figures are wrong. The $1 in tax cuts vs. $1 in unemployment benefits are the presumptions that, all things assumed normal, the government is giving you $1 that you wouldn’t normally have, whether it is because you do not generate income due to a lost job or whether it would have been taken from you in taxes. For example, if I received an extra $1 back from taxes, it would be $1 more than I would have had. Either way it is a NET LOSS to the GOVERNMENT. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves. It is lost revenue to the government. EITHER WAY you are spending that $1 to promote some sort of economic activity to spur spending so that you can tax it. The formula still stands that for every $1 the government gives up in tax cuts, it generates $1.02 in economic activity. For every $1 the government gives up to unemployment benefits, it generates $1.63 in economic activity because they are desperate people who need to pay their bills or eat food or stay in their homes. You can’t force people to spend. And if you aren’t hurting, you’re not going to go spend money just because someone asked you to.

    Now you presume that I hate the tax cuts because I have some sort of vendetta against the rich since it fits into the story. I don’t really care. I honestly don’t. What I care about is all of this griping and moaning about the budget this, the deficit that, we can’t help people hurt by crises, we can’t give people health care, we can’t educate our dumb-butted society… but hey, let’s make this multi-trillion dollar program we can’t pay for, where 46% of the benefits are gained by the top 5% of earners.

    My priorities are with equal rights and justice that this country claims to give each of its citizens. When that is actually true, then I’ll really care about money, maybe. Regardless I get affected by monetary decisions just the same. If I’m going to get taxed, I might as well have human dignity.

     •  Reply
  16. Topzdrum 1w
    Hawthorne  over 13 years ago

    Jade has a better handle on this than most. Stimulus money handed to the wealthy accomplishes nothing (except to make the rich richer), because the rich don’t need to spend. They just funnel the money into more paper, basically.

    If you give the stimulus money to the poor, they WILL spend it, and they’ll spend it locally, because the local market is the only one they can reach. They won’t be buying a villa in Spain, they’ll buy new tires, or a new refrigerator and maybe go out to dinner.

    ‘Trickle Down’ economics doesn’t just not work, it’s a lie. Trickle Down Economics is just a nifty way to redistribute much more of the income and goods from the working population to the wealthy.

    The government doesn’t ‘take $1’ from you (or anyone) and give it to someone else. In theory, it’s supposed to be taking that dollar from everyone, inclúding industry, and using it to cover the expenses of government, including whatever social programs they find useful. But the last 30 years or so, it has been taking ever less from the wealthy and more from the working population, and then subsidizing corporate industry - therefore management and wealthy stockholders - at the expense of what used to be the middle class but is now the working poor. Corporate welfare = subsidization of the wealthy. Is that they way you want your tax dollars spent? You’ve made your contempt for children explicitly clear, but why would you want to give more to those who already have the most?

    If this were not true, the (historical) figures would not support it, but they do. There has never been such a huge gap between the assets of the wealthy and the assets of the working people in this country, since its inception, (unless, of course, you could find a way to count the slaves in with the workers before the emacipation) and the gap is getting wider every day. The gap appeared shortly after Trickle Down policies were adopted, has grown steadily over the years, and continues to increase now, even as we have these little discussions which consist mostly of neo-cons shrieking about the evils of ‘redistribution of wealth’ even as they heartily approve the policies which result in that very thing. Apparently as long as no women, children, disabled or chronically ill people benefit, redistribution of wealth is fine.

    If it’s true that US industry is bringing jobs back to the US mainland, it’s because they’ve finally succeeded in impoverishing the American workering class to the point where they will work for nearly as little as workers in the third world. I suspect it’s not true yet, but it’s getting there.

     •  Reply
  17. Prr
    Loco80  over 13 years ago

    dtrout - what a terrible insensitive blow you strike against women! Rape is a violent assault, many consider worse than murder, against a woman. I consider what you say to be a sexist, vulgar statement. A “thief” is not necessarily a “rapist.”

    Bruce - look to my earlier post if you want true information. Yours is just a little off, but that is due to the link you provide. Yes, Ken is again living on his own planet, completely devoid of truth, fact, or accuracy, but he is happy in his ignorance. Let him wallow in it. It causes us no harm, as long as we ignore him. God bless him.

     •  Reply
  18. Missing large
    rottenprat  over 13 years ago

    Consider the source harley.

    @Radish - I agree. The entitlement mentality of the working class needs to be torn down. I don’t like corporations but I respect their right to get by on a skeleton crew.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Tom Toles