Who best addresses unemployment.

[d-ray657]

A look at this chart makes me wonder why people would want to put the GOP in charge to cure high unemployment. Despite their assertions that republican administrations are good for the economy, that doesn't seem to include working people.

The thing about the chart that is striking is not the absolute numbers, but the general trend during GOP administrations. Remember that Clinton's administration started in 1993 and Dub in 2001.

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

3.6% in October of 2000? And left office with a budget surplus too? Yeah, Clinton was a horrible President. Gotta make sure THAT never happens again......................

Dave

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

3.6% in October of 2000? And left office with a budget surplus too? Yeah, Clinton was a horrible President. Gotta make sure THAT never happens again......................

Dave

I'd vote for him, tomorrow.

[noonereal]

the gop is the party of the investor class

the dems is the party of the working class

[whell]

The party of the working class did not do the unemployed any favors during the 1930's. Of course this assumes that the government can have a positive impact on capital utilization and job creation, which is pretty debatable IMHO.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/recovery.htm

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

The party of the working class did not do the unemployed any favors during the 1930's. Of course this assumes that the government can have a positive impact on capital utilization and job creation, which is pretty debatable IMHO.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/recovery.htm

One might think that the decline in investment was as much related to the fortunes that were lost in the crash during the Hoover years, and the resultant doubt in the stability of the markets as a place for investing capital. The good prof. seems to be making a result-oriented assumption about the causes of investor reluctance, blaming it on the Government programs that were designed to relieve the effects of the crumbled economy, rather than the creation of the economic circumstances that lead to the crash.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

One might think that the decline in investment was as much related to the fortunes that were lost in the crash during the Hoover years, and the resultant doubt in the stability of the markets as a place for investing capital. The good prof. seems to be making a result-oriented assumption about the causes of investor reluctance, blaming it on the Government programs that were designed to relieve the effects of the crumbled economy, rather than the creation of the economic circumstances that lead to the crash.

Regards,

D-Ray

Rather, I think the question being asked is: Was the medicine worse than the disease? Frankly, I think we're seeing much the same thing today. Business owners that I speak to are as much worried about what the government might do as they are planning and executing their business plan.

Just one case in point - the lack of certainly that is being created by the lack of clarity about whether or not the "Bush tax cuts" will be allowed to expire. Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with continuing the status quo, the president's advisers are begging him to let them expire. At the same time, the President and key Democrats are sending mixed signals about whether or not they will expire, or possibly be modified in some manner. This is creating a level of paralysis in the marketplace.

Uncertainty stalls investment, which stalls forward progress in the economy. I see this nearly every day. Few of my clients are actually looking at adding to staff, and if an employee leaves, they think long and hard about replacing them. Thus, employment levels / company payrolls continue to stagnate.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

Rather, I think the question being asked is: Was the medicine worse than the disease? Frankly, I think we're seeing much the same thing today. Business owners that I speak to are as much worried about what the government might do as they are planning and executing their business plan.

Just one case in point - the lack of certainly that is being created by the lack of clarity about whether or not the "Bush tax cuts" will be allowed to expire. Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with continuing the status quo, the president's advisers are begging him to let them expire. At the same time, the President and key Democrats are sending mixed signals about whether or not they will expire, or possibly be modified in some manner. This is creating a level of paralysis in the marketplace.

.

I often hear and read things like this. All my years have taught me that as with numbers a case can be put forward to rationalize any agenda.
In other words, more hooey.

Why not just assume the law will be followed and this gift to the rich will expire as is long overdue?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by noonereal

I often hear and read things like this. All my years have taught me that as with numbers a case can be put forward to rationalize any agenda.
In other words, more hooey.

Why not just assume the law will be followed and this gift to the rich will expire as is long overdue?

As easy and gratifying as it may be, I'm not sure it's fully rational to criticize business for sitting on its hands given all the uncertainties in the marketplace and the political arena.

In a micro sense, if you had $10,000 cash under your mattress, is today the right time to put it in the American stock market? Damned if I know, but I'd be pretty nervous about doing so.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by noonereal

I often hear and read things like this. All my years have taught me that as with numbers a case can be put forward to rationalize any agenda.
In other words, more hooey.

Why not just assume the law will be followed and this gift to the rich will expire as is long overdue?

You must have heard - "Figures don't lie but liars sure can figure."

I have to wonder about those Masters of the Universe up at Wall Street. Everybody panicked because housing sales dropped, what in hell did they expect?

First the tax break moved a lot of buyers to June that might have been planning on waiting. Plus the tax break moved big ticket item sales as well, new house new appliances needed.

CEOs are sitting on a hoard of cash because they feel uncertainty, do they expect potential home buyers to act and differently? Even if you have a job, are you really sure it will be there next month, so you are supposed to rush right out and buy a home.

Whoever the colossal jackass who dreamt up quarterly reporting should have been taken back of the barn and soundly beaten.

Dumpkoffs abound.