Just think where we would be without those crazy job creating tax cuts!!! Continuing Jobless Claims at 20-Year High Thursday July 10, 9:02 AM EDT By Tim Ahmann WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of jobless Americans receiving benefits hit its highest point in over 20 years last month, and new claims for jobless aid unexpectedly rose again last week, the government said on Thursday. Initial claims for unemployment insurance rose by 5,000 to a seasonally adjusted 439,000 last week from a revised 434,000 the prior week, the Labor Department said. Economists on Wall Street had expected claims to edge down a bit to 425,000 from the 430,000 originally reported for the week ending June 28. The department also said the number of unemployed workers who remained on the benefit rolls after filing an initial claim jumped by 87,000 to 3.82 million in the June 28 week, the highest level since February 1983. Economists cautioned that the July 4 Independence Day holiday and auto plant shutdowns made it more difficult to draw conclusions from the claims report. Nonetheless, they said it showed persistent labor-market weakness. "It was a holiday week so we don't take it too seriously. But there's not good news for economy with the rise in the number of people making insured employment claims," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's Rating Service in New York. "It's a continued jobless recovery," he said. Jay Bryson, global economist at Wachovia Securities in Charlotte, North Carolina, agreed. "This would be a sign that the job market in general remains pretty sluggish, and we wouldn't expect that to improve until growth starts to pick up," he said. Market reaction to the data, and a separate report showing a 0.8 percent rise in import prices in June, was muted. A Labor Department aide cautioned against relying too heavily on the latest initial claims figure in gauging the jobs market, noting the auto plant shutdowns for annual retooling could be affecting the figures. "I really think we're in a period now when any one week should be interpreted cautiously," he said, adding the four-week moving average of claims would provide a better labor-market barometer. Still, he noted the department's seasonal adjustment process had anticipated the plant shutdowns. The four-week average of initial claims, which smoothes weekly volatility, rose by a slight 1,000 to 426,750. It was the second consecutive weekly gain in initial claims, which reached their highest level in five weeks. It was also the 21st consecutive week that claims have been over the 400,000 level, which economists say separates jobs' growth from loss. The department said it was the longest string of weeks with claims over the 400,000 level since a jobs market downturn that ended in July 1992. While most economists expect the economy to pick up over the remainder of the year after a spiritless start, they warn that labor market conditions may be slower to improve. ©2003 Reuters Limited.
You're right...instead, we should raise taxes. I'm sure that would give people like me an incentive to go out and hire people.
Don't worry, your tax raises will happen soon enough when our creditors put a lien on 1600 Pennsylvania and the IMF puts us on probation!
Don't hold it too long, then you'll be dead and we need you to help pitch in to pay the bills : Source: CBO, June 2002 (pre tax cut, as % of GDP)
great graph...so i'm supposed to believe that tax revenues will flatline from around 2020 until 2075? they've been erratic, as shown in the graph, since 1950...but they'll never go up again. interesting. we can't predict whether or not this storm will hit us with any certainty next week...but the "experts" are already telling us what tax revenues will be in 2075. brilliant. way too many assumptions in that kind of "data."
Huhh, sigh, yeah, right, Max, the CBO is lying to you. Actually, it's my fault, I should have clarified. Those numbers are as a percentage of GDP ; the CBO does most of its projections that way. So assuming that tax rates stay the same, those numbers will indeed stay the exact same, or flatline.
This year's "stimulus" package will save us, just like the 2001 package did. (kicks back and waits for rising tide)
1. when have tax rates ever stayed the same? 2. i understand what you're saying...but it assumes way too much...wouldn't you agree? i mean if the number is jumping up and down for years...and then all of a sudden it goes on a 50 year flatline...wouldn't you agree that we're using some assumptions there that make the point of the graph largely irrelevant. I mean if the point is, "assuming all things equal...and assuming nothing ever changes ever again...we're on a bobsled to hell." ...if that's the point of the graph, great. but it's ultimately irrelevant...because the only thing we know for sure is that things will change.
Yes, change, and change for the worse. Maybe revenues will increase to pay for the increased outlays, which means higher taxes (remember, those numbers are as a % of GDP. Unless th economy undergoes staggering, 1990's like growth over 40 of the next 50 years, those lines will remain divergent.) So who cares if revenues oscillate between 17 and 23% of GDP historically and the CBO didn't guess ont hat? Even if you change the flat line to a bumpy line, it still doesn't match the outlays. This means higher taxes, or the goverment will become insolvent, or social security and medicare will be eliminated completely. A lose-lose-lose situation.
no..you don't necessarily have to have higher tax rates to get you higher tax revenues. that's just not true.
Sam, I know we've talked about this issue before, but you are right on the money. Besides national security, this is the biggest issue we are facing. The 90's, and perhaps the 80's, were an aberration, caused by an economic bubble. We are now paying for it. If you guys dont think it's a big deal, then why did Bush propose privatization?
i don't know that anyone is saying it isn't a big deal. i'm certainly not. but there are other reasons for privatization...including the primary goal of increasing the quality of the service through the introduction of competition.
i'm not arguing for privatization, RR...not in this thread. it's a sidebar issue entirely in this thread. the point is, that's the idea behind it. we could debate whether or not it's a good idea or not...but that's not the point of my post at all.
MM, pivatization as pushed by the Bush Admin sole aim was to deep six social security asap, along with accelerating the financial train wreck that his tax cuts will cause. Moving monies that is currently counting against the yearly debt into private accounts increases the yearly debt and accelerates the federal deficit. Since private accounts will be managed by individuals we can easily expect some people to "day trade" their social security retirement dollars away and lose their safety net. These are two fundamental shifts in SS (how it is accounted and that it is no longer a safety net). Has Bush ever mentioned either of these points? That would be a big fat NO.
you know what?? you're absolutely right. i read privatization and thought of other programs like schools, etc. it's likely Mr. Clutch meant social security only. my bad.
