In wingnuttia, accurately describing this reality is called "fear mongering" and as with every other problem, the solution is tax cuts.
it needs to be adjusted for population growth but the real telling number is the u-6 number. that thing blew up. http://www.minnpost.com/steveperry/2009/02/04/6415/u6_the_unemployment_rate_and_the_misery_index U6 is defined as "total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers."
I really think there should be an investigation on the reporting of these job numbers and GDP. I find it quite dubious that that now we are dating this recession back to Dec 2007, for an entire eight months of a campaign year we were being given inaccurate info.
And by middle of the road calculations, the changes made to the Stimulus Bill will end up costing about 600,000 jobs.
We still have single-digit unemployment levels, which means that this downturn has not yet even come close to rivaling the Great Depression, or even several economic climates since then... Of course to hear our hope-filled President describe it, it's the worst economy of all time. What a joke that guy is. The only finance/economics he's ever been exposed to is what he memorized for applause lines at the debates...
Can we ban the word wingnut from the board? Its use does more to kill the spirit of debate than all of basso's silly thread titles put together. For example, if we are to take gifford's characterization, the Congressional Budget Office is in the middle of wingnuttia, since they say that the stimulus bill will do more damage than good in the long run. And yes, when President Obama says, "A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe," he's fearmongering.
No, but I would if its use were anywhere near as pervasive as wingnut. I haven't seen where it has been. They released another report on Friday that says that the Senate spending bill has slightly better short-term effects, but just as bad long-term effects as the House bill. I think that the CBO's estimates are incredibly optimistic.
I don't really want to defend it, but I do use the term. I'm sorry, in my view some of the things being said about our three week old administration border line on nuttiness, including posting that he may have spoken with al queda before the election.
Wait, but I thought Barry told us in the Presidential race that he was going to replace the old politics of fear with HOPE? Oops. Looks like we were sold a false bill of goods, don't it?
That is totally not what they say. That is the wingnut version of what they say. False claims about the CBO have been a staple of Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/search_results?qstring=cbo
With all the people with reduced hours and this number I bet the real unemployment number is closer to 15%. Going from 6 figures to 0 really sucks, but I don't even know if I want to look for a job.
This made me curious. I did a quick search on this forum for "wingnut" and "libpig". libpig = 94 occurances in threads wingnut = 131 occurances in threads Considering the ratio of liberal to conservative posters here (didn't we determine it's somewhere between 3 to 1 or 4 to 1?), it looks like, proportionally speaking, libpig gets thrown around more often.
1. Give me a break weslinder. You've stated multiple times that you're a fan of tj's schtick, and would hate to see him go. No one, and I mean NO ONE, does more to "kill the spirit of debate" here than him. Using the term wingnut and all its variations pales in comparison. 2. We're just going to have to agree to disagree about the fear mongering. I think there is more than enough evidence to justify saying- "A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe."
7.6% today compared to 25% during the great depression. S&P 500 companies have huge amounts of cash on their balance sheets but their scared to use it and are hoarding it as their concern is liquidity and credit to them in the future. Stabilize housing so banks can feel comfortable lending, which will have companies bring back workers.
Most economists agree that the measures aren't directly comparable due to changes in how the workforce is structured. There was a study last week that estimated that on an apples-to-apples basis, the equivalent unemployment measure today is closer to 12-14% or so.
