Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since 2008.

When was it the Dems got control of Congress again?

 

what laws did they pass in 07 or 08 that created a housing bubble?

 

The lack of regulation from 2000 started the housing bubble. It is called mortgage backed securities and derivities that were allowed by the Financing committee. Check what B Frank, Dod, and Somers did, along with Poulson and Bernake. That with banks running amuc knowing that insurance will pay off the failed mortages.

Banks win 2x, Here's how:

Banks pony up the cash, allow the buyer to fail.

AIG, ING and other insurance investors pays for the loan.

Now the bank has a paid off mortgage via the insurance, and the own the property. All free.

You see, the banks win twice. free house.



And the taxpayer pays for the broke AIG. Hows that for a great economic policy.

And it gets better: the banks sit on their free forclosed property untill the cost of homes go up. And they sell it for over 100% profit, and they loan money on it so they will make 200% on their free houses.

So you see in the long run they win 3X. for zero cost investment.

 

Please tell us what Frank and Dodd and Sommers did from 2000 that you contend caused the housing bubble.

 

Uncle Ferd says dey need to add back in...

... the ones dat unemployment benefits run out...

... an' dey still ain't found a job.

 

Uncle Ferd ought to feel right at home with the rest of the uniformed crew that pop up on threads like these.

 

Really! I couldn't bring myself to even trying to stomach pages 2, 3, and 4. Bunch of dried up acorns rolling around thinking that they are mighty oaks.

To correct one elementary error noted, what is derived from the CPS data each month are the numbers of people who are employed and unemployed. The summation of those two numbers is what yields the labor force, and dividing that total by the 16-and-over, non-institutionalized civilian population gives you the labor force participation rate (LFPR).

The LFPR is principally driven by big-picture demographic factors. It had been rising for instance from the late 60's through the late 90's as women joined the labor force in larger and larger numbers. LFPR was expected to start dropping in the late 90's as the girl-factor had peaked, and declining birth rates from the mid-60's onward were leaving fewer younger workers to enter the labor force just as increasing numbers of older workers were getting ready to retire. LFPR can be affected at the margin by cyclical factors -- the strong economy under Clinton prolonged the rise by a bit for instance, and the Great Bush Recession has accelerated the decline by a bit -- but the general developments observed in the LFPR over the past 10-15 years are exactly what was expected and have nothing to do with politics at all.

Oh, and as always, the number of people who are or are not receiving unemployment insurance benefits has nothing whatsoever to do with the current unemployment rate. That number simply doesn't enter into the calculation anywhere but in the imaginations of know-nothings.

 

And when did this recession start again????

 

So what? They both are numbers of interest when discussing the unemployment situation. You think number of new initial claims is not indicative of the current unemployment and employment situation?

 

Empty rhetoric as usual. Among the excrutiatingly dumb things that have been said in this thread are that people whose UI benefits run out are not counted as unemployed. That's indeed an example of an excrutiatingly dumb thing to say.

 

So you had nothing of substance to say I see. Oh well.

And the fact is that some people whose benefits have run aren't counted anymore, they are considered not looking so they aren't counted. The fact is if you aren't looking you CAN'T collect. Saying they all are counted is fallacious.

 

the only time people who stopped looking should not be counted is from 2001-2008

 

What is the basis for your assertion if their benefits have run out (which have been extended) their are considered not looking so they aren't counted? Who says that?

Sean and Rush must be saying that.

 

Go back and read more slowly. Note the word "some". And keep in mind that if you aren't looking you can't collect unemployment, so no one who is not counted can be collecting.

 

so if you left your job to go back to school republicans want you counted as unemployed?

 

If they are not looking for a job it doesn't matter whether they UI has run out or not.

 

Its rather interesting that in a time when ANY good news about the unemployment levels should be heralded by all...some tea-tottlers will come up with any thin excuse they can find to trash the news.

Yet I suspect that they really are just playing the "If it happened under Obama, I'm agin' it!" card.

You know...the retired people who want entitlements trashed because those who collect them are lazy free-loaders...the hawks who are preparin' t' git t' Iran and kick more Arab butt...The Pro-Lifers and Bible-Thumpers who insist Obama is Muslim or at least a bad Christian, as if it matters somehow...the fine people who think universal healthcare is somehow the devil's creation that will send Mommy to a DEATH CAMP!...The BIRTHERS and the T-BAGGERS!

THIS...rational citizens of the USA...is the sort of reactionary thinking and methodology that is gonna scare the crap outta main stream America, and make voting Republican...repulsive.

Keep egging them on.
The more they talk...the deeper the hole gets.

 

Yes it does, if they are not looking they can't collect even if their benefits have not run out.

Do you have a point here? You misread what I said and you are now just trying to get out of it.

 

The baby boomers I know are afraid to retire. It's the uncertainty of what the socialists are bringing that frightens them.

 

the ones I know all retired because their investments have doubled the last 3 years, and they are afraid if they dont republiacns will steal their medicare and SS

 

So what.

Sure. My point is that your statement "if their benefits have run out (which have been extended) their are considered not looking" is flat out wrong.

The fact that their benefits have run out, or not, in no way means they are considered "not looking"

 

Oh give us a friggin' break...

If you know someone who's financially prepared to retire, its because they've been planning this for a while.

But if you know people who are NOT financially prepared for retirement, then this "socialist" thing is a load o KAKA! THEY DIDN'T PREPARE for the cost of 20-some-odd years of retirement...did they...

Fact is, more of the ol' evil SOCIALISM would financially ENHANCE their retirement...and I have to believe you know that already...which makes you...what?

 

Fabricating again I see. Those are YOUR words not mine and they do NOT reflect what I stated.

"And the fact is that some people whose benefits have run aren't counted anymore"

Don't put your phony words in my mouth.

 

Yep the so-called unemployable can make those skewed numbers look better than they really are.

 

You are fortunate that we are taking prisoners today.

They are considered not looking for work if they report that they are in fact not looking for work, and that they have in fact not looked for work at any point at all over the past four weeks. These same standards apply to everyone -- to those who received UI benefits for 99 weeks and to those who never received a dime of UI benefits at all.

No one said that. You either made it up or once again became totally confused. What was quite correctly stated was that whether or not one is receiving UI benefits is not taken into account in any way in determining the current unemployment rate.