September unemployment is 9.8 percent

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

There's no difference to some people.

HAHAHA...then what would you catagorize it as?

Unemployment rate IS POLITICAL people. WOW...to even suggest otherwise is well, blind.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by jsarno

HAHAHA...then what would you catagorize it as?

Unemployment rate IS POLITICAL people. WOW...to even suggest otherwise is well, blind.

Economics and politics are not one in the same. Ever take an economics course?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Economics and politics are not one in the same. Ever take an economics course?

Agreed. Someone tell our elected officials.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Agreed. Someone tell our elected officials.

I'm not convinced politics and economics don't go hand-in-hand to some extent. Of course certain folks take the relationship too far in order to advantage of our economically ignorant public.

You can't have capitalism without statism.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by jsarno

HAHAHA...then what would you catagorize it as?

Unemployment rate IS POLITICAL people. WOW...to even suggest otherwise is well, blind.

For someone who supposedly has an MBA, you have a really poor understanding of economics. The President of the US and the public policy he sets has very little impact on the unemployment rate.

Since you're a fan of analogies, Obama trying to stem the surge in unemployment is akin to building a dyke out of bricks to keep out a 90-foot tsunami.

The stimulus at most could swing unemployment by half a %, and that's IF it's fully successful. But to blame the 9.8% on Obama or the stimulus is ludicrous and reeks of failure to understand economics.

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

For someone who supposedly has an MBA, you have a really poor understanding of economics. The President of the US and the public policy he sets has very little impact on the unemployment rate.

Since you're a fan of analogies, Obama trying to stem the surge in unemployment is akin to building a dyke out of bricks to keep out a 90-foot tsunami.

The stimulus at most could swing unemployment by half a %, and that's IF it's fully successful. But to blame the 9.8% on Obama or the stimulus is ludicrous and reeks of failure to understand economics.

So $800 billion for at most a half % unemployment rate drop? That was a good way to spend that money.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by steveo395

So $800 billion for at most a half % unemployment rate drop? That was a good way to spend that money.

It looks more like the 800 billion is being used to pay off suporters more then anything else.

[70Chip]

In the end I think Obama will laregly be judged by where this number is in September/October of 2012. Everyone assumes it will come down quite a bit but there is nothing that says it has to. Look at Europe.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

For someone who supposedly has an MBA, you have a really poor understanding of economics. The President of the US and the public policy he sets has very little impact on the unemployment rate.

Since you're a fan of analogies, Obama trying to stem the surge in unemployment is akin to building a dyke out of bricks to keep out a 90-foot tsunami.

The stimulus at most could swing unemployment by half a %, and that's IF it's fully successful. But to blame the 9.8% on Obama or the stimulus is ludicrous and reeks of failure to understand economics.

I'm not disagreeing with you here. I'm just curious though- Obama said the #1 goal of the stimulus is to create 3 million new jobs in two years. I don't have any figures in front of me as to how many adult Americans are unemployed currently, but I would think that if fully successful, 3 million new jobs would swing the rate by more than .5%.

Although I guess it doesn't really matter considering we're around 8 months into those 2 years and unemployment is still rising.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I'm not disagreeing with you here. I'm just curious though- Obama said the #1 goal of the stimulus is to create 3 million new jobs in two years. I don't have any figures in front of me as to how many adult Americans are unemployed currently, but I would think that if fully successful, 3 million new jobs would swing the rate by more than .5%.

Although I guess it doesn't really matter considering we're around 8 months into those 2 years and unemployment is still rising.

Well let's do some rough math. 300 million american citizens, assume 60 million or so are seniors, another 60 million or so are 18 or under, that leaves 180 million. Then some won't be in the workforce for a number of reasons. So figure there are 150 million in the workforce.

Create 3 million jobs, that represents 2% of the workforce.

But then a lot of those jobs Obama is creating are not permanent ones. So while they create a total of 3 million, it doesn't count the ones that go away once a project is finished (infrastructure projects).

So figure a 1-2% improvement in unemployment, based on this very rough math. So now reflecting on it, if fully successful, it's a little better than I first thought.

But still, unemployment is at 9.8%, and if stimulus got a 2% improvement, that's still 7.8% unemployed. Historically very high. There's just nothing any administration could ever do to keep us at the 4-5% we're used to.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

But still, unemployment is at 9.8%, and if stimulus got a 2% improvement, that's still 7.8% unemployed. Historically very high. There's just nothing any administration could ever do to keep us at the 4-5% we're used to.

I can understand nothing can keep us at 4-5% consistently, but wouldn't lowering the corporate tax rate be fairly effective in reducing unemployment?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

I can understand nothing can keep us at 4-5% consistently, but wouldn't lowering the corporate tax rate be fairly effective in reducing unemployment?

Yes. Though that would aslo cause the federal deficit to get worse.

[budw38]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

I can understand nothing can keep us at 4-5% consistently, but wouldn't lowering the corporate tax rate be fairly effective in reducing unemployment?

This might work as well , I too would like to see us reduce the corporate tax rate Lawrence B. Lindsey: How About a Payroll Tax Stimulus? - WSJ.com . Ireland has had great success with lowering the Corp. Tax rate . Ireland 12% USA /Japan 38 / 39 % IDA Ireland Investment Promotion Agency - Tax Regime

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Well let's do some rough math. 300 million american citizens, assume 60 million or so are seniors, another 60 million or so are 18 or under, that leaves 180 million. Then some won't be in the workforce for a number of reasons. So figure there are 150 million in the workforce.

Create 3 million jobs, that represents 2% of the workforce.

But then a lot of those jobs Obama is creating are not permanent ones. So while they create a total of 3 million, it doesn't count the ones that go away once a project is finished (infrastructure projects).

So figure a 1-2% improvement in unemployment, based on this very rough math. So now reflecting on it, if fully successful, it's a little better than I first thought.

But still, unemployment is at 9.8%, and if stimulus got a 2% improvement, that's still 7.8% unemployed. Historically very high. There's just nothing any administration could ever do to keep us at the 4-5% we're used to.

I keep hearing Obama has created jobs but no one can seem to point to any of these new jobs. If this is supose to be a stimulus then why have they only used 17% of the money. Maybe its a trickle down stimulus plan. I was against the stimulus but is your going to have a stimulus then have a stimulus.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I keep hearing Obama has created jobs but no one can seem to point to any of these new jobs. If this is supose to be a stimulus then why have they only used 17% of the money. Maybe its a trickle down stimulus plan. I was against the stimulus but is your going to have a stimulus then have a stimulus.

Well it follows that if 17% of the money has been spent, then only 17% (or so) of the jobs have been created.

It will take time.