Jay Bookman

By GodHatesTrash

February 5, 2009 10:57 AM | Link to this

Let’s face it, Bookman’s RightWingnuts. People without jobs can’t buy your McMansion at any price, since nobody is doing liar loans anymore.

You’re screwed. And that $100 buried in your backyard ain’t gonna get you much.

By DB, Gwinnettian

February 5, 2009 10:58 AM | Link to this

And Atrios wins with the under, yet again. Damn.

By Davo

February 5, 2009 10:58 AM | Link to this

In other words…now is not the time to tell your boss what you really think of them.

By TW

February 5, 2009 11:13 AM | Link to this

Certainly, no one collecting this ‘unemployment’ is a self-respecting republican, right? I mean, it’s just another word for WELFARE, right?

You got your tax cuts - quit yer whining…

Wassamatter? Don’t care for ‘publican world?

Let the ignorant tail of the GOP (99% of its base) starve - call it Darwinism making this world a better place.

By Taxpayer

February 5, 2009 11:16 AM | Link to this

Ah, but when you combine the $100 in the backyard with the $100 under the mattress — now, there’s some big bucks. Toga, toga, toga. Support your local economy. Spend it all on Redneck Convert’s beer.

By AJC/DNC Management

February 5, 2009 11:24 AM | Link to this

That’s probably how many women that got fired because of the “Lilly Ledbetter” idiocy.

Question- When an illegal immigrant that voted for baraKKK Oblahma goes back to Mexico for a job, does his yard boy position here in the US count in the unemployment numbers?

By Mr. Snarky

February 5, 2009 11:27 AM | Link to this

Question - If you just lost your job, how does a tax cut for a millionaire who’s going to stick that money in an off-shore account in Krugerrands benefit you?

By Geezer

February 5, 2009 11:30 AM | Link to this

Goodbye recession, hello depression.

By GreenJeans

February 5, 2009 11:38 AM | Link to this

Good Morning, all:

“…though the work force is now much larger.”

Thank you for that point, Jay. How DO the unemployment numbers compare statistically to the workforce size then and now?

I keep waiting for the TV heads to dig into that one, but they never do.

If you (or any other research-friendly bloggers) might know that answer to that one, I sure would appreciate it.

Thanks and have a great day.

BTW, that headline over to the right, “Salmonella ruined me, former Buford man says” just cracks me up. Bless his heart, it reads like “Salmonella” was the name of his ex-wife.

By ByteMe

February 5, 2009 11:39 AM | Link to this

The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 676,590 in the week ending Jan. 31, an increase of 56,478 from the previous week. There were 380,138 initial claims in the comparable week in 2008.

The headline number is rarely as interesting as the details.

By Swami Dave

February 5, 2009 11:52 AM | Link to this

Maybe this is another reason why pushing policy in direct opposition to economic / financial growth would be a pretty stupid idea.

-“card check” unionization that will increase the thuggery and intimidation activities of organizers and subsequent to their successful organization force employers into contract arbitrations will do nothing to increase employment opportunities for American workers. It will simply increase the justifications for companies to move overseas.

-government mandates and bureaucracy forcing measures to fight “global warming” will further extend the cottage industry of junk scientists getting paid based on the level of “crisis” that they can create and further hinder profitablity for existing (and future) businesses that will shoulder this additional burden placed upon them by shadow taxes and regulation. Again, another on-the-way impediment to strengthening our economy and financial situations for American citizens.

If one objectively looks at the current direction that our country is in: -Democrats pushing a “stimulus” package that isn’t. -Democrats pushing creating a “carbon” bureaucracy that will largely just serve as another form of income / wealth redistribution. -Democrats promising to pass “employee choice” that is in no way (it eliminates free, secret choice) and is actually simply an organizing tactic and fundraiser for their union supporters.

For all of the ballyhoo, there is little to nothing about the liberal agenda promoting strength of America’s economy. It is pretty much growing the influence and power of government and their bureaucracy along with some goody-bag payoffs to campaign supporters.

Congratulations to Jay - at least he got the jobless numbers right and didn’t wax insane like Pelosi did. Here’s to hoping that she is one person who experiences a “job loss” in the mid-terms!

-Swami Dave

By RealityKing

February 5, 2009 11:56 AM | Link to this

You can’t really save something that isn’t there anymore now can you.., so much for Obama’s ability to “save jobs”.

By CommunistAJC

February 5, 2009 12:00 PM | Link to this

Bookman, you are wrong. Nancy Pelosi, just yesterday, said that 500 million American workers are being laid off each month. SO, by that number I guess that would have to be 1.5 million per week.

By CommunistAJC

February 5, 2009 12:04 PM | Link to this

HELLO COMRADES!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuwgHNtyD54

By GodHatesTrash

February 5, 2009 12:06 PM | Link to this

Why democracies fail…

Too many wasillabillies vote.

By CommunistAJC

February 5, 2009 12:11 PM | Link to this

What’s Missing From the Economic Discussion: GROWTH!

By Carl J. Schramm

In the debate over what to do about America’s fiscal crisis and ailing economy, one word is conspicuously absent: growth.

One’s gut reaction might be to ask: What does growth have to do with the banking crisis? How could growth have made sense of complex new instruments such as CDOs and CDSs?

Well, for one thing, sustained high growth might have produced sufficient gains in personal income to keep more people from defaulting on their mortgages.

But that is not really the true value of growth. Over the long term, we can’t count on growth to make bad loans good or risky investments safe. People will always need to live within their means, and investors should always be prudent.

However, over the long term, growth is the solution to what ails the US economy today, and the solution to many of the challenges we face down the road. Growth - and only growth - can produce the wealth that will enable us to further reduce poverty, create greater access to health care, and begin to tackle looming problems such as climate change and entitlements.

The stakes are high. The US economy grew at nearly 4% per year in the 25 years following World War II, but fell below 3% in the stagflation of the 1970’s, only to return to 4% in the last decade.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/whatsmissingfromtheeconomi.html

By CommunistAJC

February 5, 2009 12:11 PM | Link to this

By GodHatesTrash February 5, 2009 10:57 AM | Link to this (Let’s face it, Bookman’s RightWingnuts. People without jobs can’t buy your McMansion at any price, since nobody is doing liar loans anymore.)

So should all of us evil rich people move in with you in your mom’s basement?

By pj

February 5, 2009 12:14 PM | Link to this

The current crisis is due to the greed of the rich who wanted to get richer. I can’t believe that even now the Republicans still want to do tax cuts when what the government needs is revenue to pay for the stimulus. No one is calling for tax increases but to cut taxes is to cut the legs out from under any chance of recovery. Cities and states (including our own) are suffering under the burden of too little income so services are cut to balance budgets. This leaves us unsafe in too many ways when our localities can’t serve it’s people.

Congress needs to stop hemming and hawing over the stimulus packages and get it passed. Almost every economist agrees that this is what is needed, not tax cuts. Every business knows you must spend money to make money. With so many out of work our tax base is steadily shrinking and with no end in sight this one to two year recession will turn into a depression. California is already paying with IOU’s. We can’t afford to wait until we go completely under before we decide to to anything.

By WW5

February 5, 2009 12:17 PM | Link to this

my favorite thing about these blog sites is the people that ask and answer their own questions!!

By getalife

February 5, 2009 12:21 PM | Link to this

We lost 500 thousand jobs a month.

It’s financial terrorism and we have been hit hard. Bankers are obl and government is the taliban.

Still no accountability and our obl still walk free and still making millions.

We are screwed.

By scrappy

February 5, 2009 12:28 PM | Link to this

Jay - I liked your article about Transportation, and the lack of improvements or development. But it was too wordy for the voting base to understand, it needs to only read: Currently transportaton jobs are handed out to the family of those on the board, taking all of our tax dollars with them. Currenty republicans in Congress and the Gov Seat DO NOT CARE about the average taxpayers transportation problems and will never try to fix it. If you care about actually fixing the traffic mess vote for someone else and do not let them make one more board out there that continues to give money to their friends.

By Nomad

February 5, 2009 12:29 PM | Link to this

I can’t believe that even now the Republicans still want to do tax cuts when what the government needs is revenue to pay for the stimulus - pj

It has been proven that when taxes are cut, government revenue increases.

NOMAD

By AJC/DNC Management

February 5, 2009 12:42 PM | Link to this

Uh, we won-

{{{{Rep. Tom Price of Georgia and chairman of the Republican Study Committee released open letter to conservatives in which he called on elected conservative leaders to “act immediately in order to facilitate the rebuilding of the Republican Party and reconnect it to the conservative movement.”-Human Events}}}}

That^^ is a direct result of the fallout from the baraKKK Oblahma attackkk on Rush Limbaugh.

These Repugs got blasted by Conservatives for even thinking of silencing Limbaugh.

They now know where the real power is at.

And it ain’t from those “reaching across the aisle,” ew.

By Disgusted

February 5, 2009 12:45 PM | Link to this

“It has been proven that when taxes are cut, government revenue increases.”

Tell you what, Nomad, I’ll make a deal with you—one that mirrors the Bush tax cuts.

You give me $100. I’ll give you $16. Your revenue will thus increase by $16. Deal?

By Earl

February 5, 2009 12:53 PM | Link to this

AJC, I say hire Swami Dave.

By RealityKing

February 5, 2009 12:58 PM | Link to this

No more tax cuts, no more government growth, and most certainly, no more deficit spending. What happened to that pay as you go election promise? Who among us has suceeded otherwise??

By Taxpayer

February 5, 2009 12:59 PM | Link to this

I’d like to see, for once, the proof of all the things that Republicans claim have been proven. Something more substantial than “I said so, therefore it is so.” That’s just so absurd.

By Mrs. Godzilla

February 5, 2009 1:00 PM | Link to this

NOMAD

Actually, somebody whispered a little lie in your ear.

Don’t feel bad about it, lotsa folks got suckered one way or another….WMD, greeted as liberators, Iraqi oil will pay for it, brownie did a heck of a job, the economy is fundamentally strong….you, Nomad, can break out of the oppressive bondage of un-truth by just doing a bit of reading.

Because Tax Cuts Don’t Boost Revenues

By Swami Dave

February 5, 2009 1:00 PM | Link to this

PJ:

*”Almost every economist agrees that this (the economic stumulus( is what is needed, not tax cuts.”

Actually, not only is “almost every” not close to accurate, but a claim that “half” agree would be a patently false claim. Almost every economist would agree that tax cuts spur economic growth - even if some would argue that it is not the best course of action.

“Every business knows you must spend money to make money.”

Yes, and every business knows that they cannot spend money (to hire more people and grow their business) when it has been confiscated for taxation. Since “making money” is a basic goal of business (not government), that is where money should be getting spent for economic growth.

“We can’t afford to wait until we go completely under before we decide to to anything.”

With the challenges we face, what we cannot afford to do is hurry through passage of legislation that is likely not going to address the underlying problems (economic / financial stability of our markets) or meet its stated objectives (growth of our economy). In this situation, passage of the wrong package would certainly be worse than doing nothing at all. We may not know how bad things could get without action, but we do know the results of the actions currently planned under this package - for reference see: 1970s stagflation.

You stated that you “couldn’t believe that Republicans were still pushing tax cuts”. Personally, I find it sad that, by that logic, you believe that your money (and mine) is better off directed to politicians and bureaucrats for control than it is being spent as you (or I) see fit. For me, I believe in freedom - whatever you choose to do with it.

-Swami Dave

By Swami Dave

February 5, 2009 1:14 PM | Link to this

Earl:

Thanks for the support. -smile-

-SD

By Paul

February 5, 2009 1:20 PM | Link to this

Hi Mrs. Godzilla

That was an interesting article you linked to earlier – the one “Obama Draws Line on Stimulus Compromise.” The lead paragraph was “President Obama is willing to change elements of his economic stimulus plan to meet objections in Congress, but he won’t agree to increase its cost significantly or weaken its impact, his top economic adviser said Tuesday.”

Try this for a perspective shift: According to the New York Times, President Obama wanted a stimulus package of $675 billion to $775 billion over two years, about 40 percent tax cuts of $300 billion.

What the Democratic House passed was over target ($819 billion) and short of the President’s target of tax cuts (34 percent of total). The initial Senate Democratic proposal had even more spending – about a hundred billion more.

So what Republicans are attempting to do with their tax cut and reduction of items that are neither timely, targeted, nor temporary is to get the numbers more closely to what President Obama proposed.

Republicans: closer to the President’s targets than the Democrats.

Irony. I love it.

By Taxpayer

February 5, 2009 1:37 PM | Link to this

Mrs. G,

Some of them will always believe the lie that tax cuts increase revenues. The poor things.

By Mrs. Godzilla

February 5, 2009 1:40 PM | Link to this

Paul

You’re right about the irony.

It may yet get more ironic. Obama’s numbers were based on the hope of getting some bi-partisan support. Since that appears to be falling by the wayside we may see a much different stimulus/jobs bill than we see on the table now.

By RealityKing

February 5, 2009 1:40 PM | Link to this

Pay cuts for congress! And a new salary cap!! Until they prove themselves worthy..

By williebkind

February 5, 2009 1:44 PM | Link to this

By Mrs Gozilla: “Actually, somebody whispered a little lie in your ear.”

Well Mrs G. the liberals did not whisper in my ear rather they and biased media shoved it down my throat. Lies like:

Tax breaks do not raise revenue Illegal immigrants are not illegal—give them benefits. Ilegal immigrants want only the jobs we will not work. Only the republicans approved of the war The big three media reports it fair and balanced Government can make jobs and improve the economy Democrats are not criminals Democrats wants a bi-partisan stimulus package Stimulus package? And the best is: President Obama is for change

These are just a few off the top of my head…help me out conservatives. What lies were whispered or shouted to you by the liberal socialists?

As for as unemployment and economic growth, I blame the liberals for starving a oil based economy from getting oil, distributing others people’s money for their pet projects, creating fear of climate change by humans, and not reporting the news but rather shaping it for their own design. Hey I may be wrong but I am a product of public schools.

By Mrs. Godzilla

February 5, 2009 1:46 PM | Link to this

Taxpayer

I know dude.

I’d love to have just a check off box to put an X in that automatically posts the appropriate debunkification….imagine the time we’d save!

Tax cuts create revenue X

government never created X

we do not torture X

nobody expected the leevees to fail X

we don’t politically prosecute X

it’s cold out, global warming is a hoax X

the economy is fundamentally sound X

By Mrs. Godzilla

February 5, 2009 1:52 PM | Link to this

willie

you a ranting diva dude!

hope that felt good!

By Copyleft

February 5, 2009 2:02 PM | Link to this

Tax cuts do not stimulate growth NEARLY as much as federal spending on infrastructure, mortgage rates, jobs programs, and other tried-and-true methods of government “meddling” in a stalled economy.

Tax cuts remain the mantra of a lunatic fringe of the far right, who attribute almost magical power to them in every type of situation. “Tax cuts will fix everything!” they chant, oblivious to the reality, shown time and time again, that they DON’T.

By fed up

February 5, 2009 2:02 PM | Link to this

T** for tat willieb, good one!

By vince neil

February 5, 2009 2:23 PM | Link to this

The permanent democrat majority is just like global warmism…..both are only cycles in the ebb and flow of nature….try being a little nice. We will be in charge again!

By Lutz

February 5, 2009 2:55 PM | Link to this

It seems like all those well learned scholars haven’t a clue on the economy. You hear the greedy and republicans run at the mouth about not giving the working middle class a chance. Like when that wacked republican from Alabama stated no he’s not bailing out automotive. Go ahead layoff millions in the automotive sector. Let what we have left in US manufacturing go. How auntie American was that. We are all Americans and all deserve to keep our homes, cars and assets. Not to be thrown out on the streets by greed and stupidity in our government.

By Hillbilly Deluxe

February 5, 2009 3:00 PM | Link to this

My quibble with unemployment statistics is the “seasonly adjusted” stuff. We all know that unemployment is high and bound to go higher. Don’t play semantic games. The Labor Department should just tell us “X” number of people are out of work. Of course, that might put some Labor Department statisticians on the rolls.

By jim

February 5, 2009 3:14 PM | Link to this

The last time we had this problem our prez declared government was the problem, he cut taxes and the economy took of.

This time the anointed one says government is the solution, not free enterprise, and that for 1,600,000,000,000(original 700b tarp plus the 900b stimuli bill) we can create 3,700,000 million new jobs.

Hey, that’s a cost of $432,432 per job.

Now that’s gov’t at work!!

By Mrs. Godzilla

February 5, 2009 3:36 PM | Link to this

Jim

You talkin Reagan?

If so you are mistaken.

“the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen” Paul Krugman

By Copyleft

February 5, 2009 3:49 PM | Link to this

And if you’re talking about Bush’s tax cuts, that didn’t work either. We had a net job LOSS after his tax-cuts-for-the-rich routine, followed by disproportionate swelling in a few sectors of the market (predictable) and a massive, damaging bust when they collapsed (equally predictable).

Tax cuts are one tool in the economic toolbox… but they’re needle-nosed pliers. Big jobs require something a little more effective.

By GaNative

February 5, 2009 4:27 PM | Link to this

Wake up everyone. This jobless situation has nothing to do with the rich, the poor, the middle class, Tax Cuts or Stimulus. It has to do with the American Citizens being sent home on unemployment while our corporations hire people who are not American Citizens here on work visas that our government promotes. As long as the American workers are sitting at home, there isn’t a dayum thing any kind of plan the folks in Washington can do that will solve this problem. The economy will continue to erode because it doesn’t matter how cheap our corporations can make their products or sell their services with cheap labor, we’re not buying if we’re unemployed.

I for one am fed up with seeing Americans being sent home while they keep someone who can barely speak english. I’m in the IT Industry and it amazes me with the stuff they get away with and how they fool those in charge into thinking things are getting done. Quality products are a joke because in the testing and quality assurance department they go into the data base and plug the info in as if the test actually produced it. And no one seems to give a rats azz.

By ButtHead

February 5, 2009 4:27 PM | Link to this

Pj, Are you dense? “The current crisis is due to the greed of the rich who wanted to get richer. I can’t believe that even now the Republicans still want to do tax cuts when what the government needs is revenue to pay for the stimulus” The “Stimulus Package” does NOT create any jobs; as a matter of fact less than 20% goes for job creation. The “Pay off my rich friend’s package” is only going to help the rich people who have proved that they do not know how to handle money. Higher taxation only causes the loss of jobs, not the creation of them.

By Pogo

February 5, 2009 4:54 PM | Link to this

This whole situation reminds me of the phrase, “into the abyss”. That is what we are about to impart upon. There is no good side to this economic story for either the liberals or the conservatives. Either we spend trillions hoping that it will do some good while at the same time selling out those that come after us or we do nothing and sail into uncharted territory. One thing is certain; anyone, and I mean anyone in either party that believes that our government can manage and oversee the kind of money they are taking from us in these “bailouts” and these “stimulus packages” is an idiot. They cannot do it. These people are so used to throwing billions of our dollars around which they really aren’t vested in that they have become totally numb to the real scope of what they are proposing here and they are totally disconnected and sheltered from what we on the outside of Washington experience in our daily lives. So, get over your name calling and your bickering, because this is the real deal. This is not a time for political ideaology and petty arguing because right now our country cannot afford it. If you are not really concerned about the future of our country and our personal freedom right now I feel sorry for you and your family. Socialsim is a dead end. It has never worked anywhere. Where-ever it has been tried, it has failed. The only difference would be that a failure of the Socialistic doctrine in the US would have an impact so massive and severe it would impact the whole world. So, whenever you sit and you want our government to take care of you, and you are willing to give away more and more personal freedom to attain the limited comfort that socialism would afford you, think about this; nothing is free and for everything given there is a price to be paid. The thing that confuses me the most is that the liberals, by defintion, are supposed to oppose any ideaology that takes away personal freedom and thought but yet they are so willing to let Obama, Pelosi and the rest of them take them away as fast as they can. I guess its a matter of party support over common sense. Whatever it is, it is certainly pitiful.

By deegee

February 5, 2009 5:09 PM | Link to this

jim@3:14 - Newflash - We’ve never had this problem before. We have had recessions before but we have never had a situation, save the great depression, where our banks are insolvent. We had a recession in the 80s where the interest rates were so high that people couldn’t afford to borrow. People can afford to borrow now but the banks can’t afford to lend them any money. That’s why tax cuts aren’t going to work this time.

By TN Gelding

February 5, 2009 5:13 PM | Link to this

It’s total insanity for profitable companies to lay off workers. Microsoft made $4 billion in the last quarter alone, yet announced layoffs of highly skilled, dedicated employees. By the time they pay severance pay and rehire and train new employees later, they won’t save much if anything, and are only intensifying and prolonging the recession. On the bright side, many of the fired workers will be able to retire, sell some company stock and live the high life, thus stimulating the economy. A voluntary moratorium on layoffs would go a long way toward restoring consumer and investor confidence.

By GaNative

February 5, 2009 5:27 PM | Link to this

TN Gelding, it’s ironic that you mentioned Microsoft. Microsoft is a leader in hiring H-1B Visa Workers. And you can bet that those laid off were not H-1B Visa Workers. Every time I call Microsoft’s technical support line I alwasy get a Ravi, Jadeep or Kumar. I immediately tell them to let me speak to someone named Willie, John or Bob. Maybe if we all did that Microsoft would realize that they have a wasted resource and will start hiring Americans.

By deegee

February 5, 2009 5:36 PM | Link to this

What this financial fiasco has done for me is confirm my suspicion that the high-dollar people running these big companies aren’t that smart. It doesn’t take a freakin genius to look at a balance sheet and say “let’s cut expenses.” I would be more impressed if the people at the top had some creative problem solving ability. Imagine how much better off we would be if American CEOs had the vision to create a better mousetrap that would entice people to buy their products and services. Absent that, I would be more impressed if the people at the top had the leadership ability to keep the talent that they own and persuade them to work for less money and benefits while riding out the storm. But no, just layoff a quarter of your workforce and let the sorry chumps that stay on work twice as hard while the big shot accountants go flying around in their corporate jets.

By Sam

February 5, 2009 6:13 PM | Link to this

Since “the Annointed One” has decided to cap CEO pay at $500K/yr for firms getting bailout money, logic would dictate that anyone who gets/got low interest student loans (“individual education bailout”) will have their future income “capped” by the whims of General Secretary Obama and the Proletariat. Remember, once you go down that slippery slope…..

By Frederick Douglass

February 5, 2009 8:03 PM | Link to this

The freaking world’s falling down around us, and people are worried about what some CEO gets for essentially doing nothing. I’d be perfectly happy if “the Annointed One” had set the cap at zero dollars. The “Annointed One” is doing a fine job, he just needs to get tougher on republicans and so called conservatives.