The Unemployment rate

[chonese]

Do anyone think that the unemployment rate will decline drastically anytime soon?

[Shutmeup3030150]

Not drastically, unless the government steps up and DOES SOMETHING FOR ONCE!

[Shahrukhlover]

I doubt it. It'll probably get a lot worse be it gets better.  Things are just too much of a mess right now.  Hopefully, things will get a little better soon. I feel sorry for people who are getting laid off just because the company can't afford them anymore and of  course the crumbling educational system.

[Lusie]

The market is picking up in some areas but there are so many people out of work it wont help much. Especially for the areas that are based on construction. Those are the ones that will take the logest to get back on their feet. Our country is so far into debt it is ridiculous.

[Joeyramone]

Not drastically, unless the government steps up and DOES SOMETHING FOR ONCE!

Unfortunately, when the government steps in, the unemployment rate usually goes up.  If they would just back off and let people produce goods and services more freely, it would be more of a help than anything.

[jaymz462]

Not drastically, unless the government steps up and DOES SOMETHING FOR ONCE!

Unfortunately, when the government steps in, the unemployment rate usually goes up.  If they would just back off and let people produce goods and services more freely, it would be more of a help than anything.

Hmm, I don't know about that.

The Republicans have been, and will continue to do, everything in their power to make sure the unemployment rate stays high.  The higher it is, the more people are mad at Obama, the better the chances of the republicans taking the presidency in 2012.

[Joeyramone]

Not drastically, unless the government steps up and DOES SOMETHING FOR ONCE!

Unfortunately, when the government steps in, the unemployment rate usually goes up.  If they would just back off and let people produce goods and services more freely, it would be more of a help than anything.

Hmm, I don't know about that.

The Republicans have been, and will continue to do, everything in their power to make sure the unemployment rate stays high.  The higher it is, the more people are mad at Obama, the better the chances of the republicans taking the presidency in 2012.

Anything factual to back that up?  It seems kind of ridiculous since Obama and the Democrats had total power over the government for 2 full years.  No matter what the Republicans did, they had very little power at all.  They couldn't even fillibuster until Scott Brown was elected and even then needed all of their caucus to support it.  In fact, all of the opposition to Obama policies were bi-partisan, with the deciding votes being cast by a majority of a fractured Democratic caucus at odds with the majority of the American people.

[jaymz462]

There's plenty of evidence to back it up.  Do I feel like putting in the time to post it all here?  No, there's no point.  The Republicans blocked plenty of Obama initiatives even though they didn't have majorities, especially in the Senate which has conservative Democrats who are, in effect, moderate Republicans.

[Joeyramone]

There's plenty of evidence to back it up.  Do I feel like putting in the time to post it all here?  No, there's no point.  The Republicans blocked plenty of Obama initiatives even though they didn't have majorities, especially in the Senate which has conservative Democrats who are, in effect, moderate Republicans.

So even though they couldn't mathematically block anyting as they couldn't fillibuster or vote against anything in numbers to stop it, they did obstruct?  That is some highly creative thinking.  I am sure that 'evidence' you speak of is so mountainous that you couldn't possibly post it all here.  I mean, you would have to disprove basic addition and subtraction, and that would be hard.

[dwickizer]

Do anyone think that the unemployment rate will decline drastically anytime soon?

I would like to think that it will, but I actually in reality do not think so, but I could be wrong.

[jaymz462]

There's plenty of evidence to back it up.  Do I feel like putting in the time to post it all here?  No, there's no point.  The Republicans blocked plenty of Obama initiatives even though they didn't have majorities, especially in the Senate which has conservative Democrats who are, in effect, moderate Republicans.

So even though they couldn't mathematically block anyting as they couldn't fillibuster or vote against anything in numbers to stop it, they did obstruct?  That is some highly creative thinking.  I am sure that 'evidence' you speak of is so mountainous that you couldn't possibly post it all here.  I mean, you would have to disprove basic addition and subtraction, and that would be hard.

Mmhmm.  Arguing on the internet is pretty pointless.  If I thought you were interested in an actual discussion maybe I'd be inclined to indulge you, but I certainly see no reason to waste my time.  If you care to back up your assertions with facts, by all means, go ahead.

[Joeyramone]

There's plenty of evidence to back it up.  Do I feel like putting in the time to post it all here?  No, there's no point.  The Republicans blocked plenty of Obama initiatives even though they didn't have majorities, especially in the Senate which has conservative Democrats who are, in effect, moderate Republicans.

So even though they couldn't mathematically block anyting as they couldn't fillibuster or vote against anything in numbers to stop it, they did obstruct?  That is some highly creative thinking.  I am sure that 'evidence' you speak of is so mountainous that you couldn't possibly post it all here.  I mean, you would have to disprove basic addition and subtraction, and that would be hard.

Mmhmm.  Arguing on the internet is pretty pointless.  If I thought you were interested in an actual discussion maybe I'd be inclined to indulge you, but I certainly see no reason to waste my time.  If you care to back up your assertions with facts, by all means, go ahead.

I'm confused.  I gave the fact that there was no way Republicans could stop anything without Democratic support until Scott Brown was elected in Mass.  It is a simple case of mathematics.  You can't stop anything in the Senate without 40 votes and the Republicans only had 39.  They were also outnumbered in the House and couldn't stop anything as well.  Please explain how these aren't facts but your assertion, made up out of thin air, that Republicans want to maintain high unemployment to make Obama look bad is some sort of truth.  You could follow up with your threat of posting some sort of example of obstructionism and actually engage in some form of scholarly debate... or you could just give up and look the uniformed partisan you showed yourself as in your first post.

[makedoughonline]

The rate will remain high for a long time before it comes down. The economy is not improving at all with all the money the Fed prints.

[jaymz462]

Where did I say that Republicans could stop things without Democratic support?

obstructionism http://americanreviewmag.com/blogs/Republican-obstructionism
obstructionism http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/our-broken-senate
economy http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_11/026737.php

Furthermore, it's just pure political sense that if the economy is still poor come the election, the guy in the White House will get most of the blame, fair or no.

I'd like to see some factual basis for your claim of "Unfortunately, when the government steps in, the unemployment rate usually goes up.  If they would just back off and let people produce goods and services more freely, it would be more of a help than anything."

[Joeyramone]

Where did I say that Republicans could stop things without Democratic support?

obstructionism http://americanreviewmag.com/blogs/Republican-obstructionism
obstructionism http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/our-broken-senate
economy http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_11/026737.php

Furthermore, it's just pure political sense that if the economy is still poor come the election, the guy in the White House will get most of the blame, fair or no.

I'd like to see some factual basis for your claim of "Unfortunately, when the government steps in, the unemployment rate usually goes up.  If they would just back off and let people produce goods and services more freely, it would be more of a help than anything."

OP-Ed pieces from magazines don't quite qualify as proof of anything.  I would think mathematics and rules of government would be proof enough that it is impossible to obstruct anything.  The guy in the WH will get the blame and justifiably so... however accusing a political party of deliberately runing an economy is just ridiculous.

Proof that government stepping in makes unemployment worse or does not fix?

1.  The New Deal
2.  The Stimulis Package

Massive government intervention = extended periods of unemployment and economic weakness.