Predict jobs in a double dip recession...or worse Forum

[mec30]

Regardless of the politics, tight spending in Europe and the risk of a potential Chinese bubble are serious obstacles to recovery. We are not seeing the usual V shaped recovery.

And if we are seeing a recovery, it's limited to the financial sector. Unemployment is still hovering at par (we're not gaining or losing jobs), which is weird considering the massive amount of artificial spending the US has done. Wages at the top seem to be inching up. Despite all that spending, we are still seeing deflation. The next 6 months will dictate the speed of the recovery. I doubt we’ll see a double dip.

[Merr]

Well with interest rates low and inflation low despite lots of government spending (though the latter is showing signs of recovery) I have to say I don't have the slightest clue what will happen. If I had to guess and status quo continued I could see a double dip recession potentially happening ala 1990s Japan (only we are working with other people's savings so that could be very off). If not then maybe were out of the woods...only time will tell.

[Hey-O]

Well with interest rates low and inflation low despite lots of government spending (though the latter is showing signs of recovery) I have to say I don't have the slightest clue what will happen. If I had to guess and status quo continued I could see a double dip recession potentially happening ala 1990s Japan. If not then maybe were out of the woods...only time will tell.

I think this is smart. No one really knows. Bankers don't know. Economists don't know. Governmental officials don't know. There are a lot of things that need to be overcome for a recovery to happy: mostly China needs to continue to grow and Europe needs to not fall apart.

The really good news for the United States is that these are external problems. We have internal problems, but a lot of those have been smoothed over. We just need time to recover and grow again.

[daesonesb]

Krugman's economics game is pretty on point. Dude helped revolutionize theories of intra industry trade. He literally wrote the book on International Economics http://wps.aw.com/aw_krgmnobstf_interecon_7/

That text is used more than any other for the topic, and is a great intro to the subject for just about anyone.

[rx3r]

Here are some articles on the "ITE-OMG" topic.

Short and sweet: http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/10/united ... ubini.html

Funny but tremendously depressing: http://www.scribd.com/doc/33685130/Hoe- ... 2010-06-27

[rx3r]

the sector where you're working for the federal govt.

Not necessarily true. Take a look at what is happening to California. Lots of government layoffs in the face of tremendous debt. Even federal government jobs are not recession proof.

[bilbobaggins]

I'll take the Nobel Prize in Economics winner over Gordon Gecko any day.

BUT HE'S A LEFTIST.

In all seriousness, though, a leftist is Fidel Castro. Krugman is a centrist liberal.

His prize was awarded for his work in international trade. His view on macroeconomics is decidedly outside the mainstream.

Also, he self-identfies as a progressive, which is hardly a label indicative of centrist views.

"Progressive" is the new "liberal." He's a liberal centrist unless you're coming at things from the far right.

[mec30]

the sector where you're working for the federal govt.

Not necessarily true. Take a look at what is happening to California. Lots of government layoffs in the face of tremendous debt. Even federal government jobs are not recession proof.

The states are unique in that the can't actually run a debt. They can issue bonds for projects, but those projects usually need to be backed with some form of collateral -- usually. I've never heard of salaries being paid with bond money. But the sentiment is right. If the state has obligations it needs to pay, it will take it from workers salaries (furloughs, holidays, ect.).

The federal government has way more methods to finance it’s activities.

[ravens9111]

What type of law can overcome a recession or depression? BANKRUPTCY!!!!!

[Leeroy Jenkins]

.

[Mr. Matlock]

You're all fucked unless you're doing Bankruptcy or Patents. Well, you're still fucked either way, but if I had to choose between taking a fatty in the mouth or a barbed staff in the ass without lube...

[Posner]

Krugman is indeed a leftist hack outside economics (just look at his columns during the waning months of the Bush admin.). But, within economics he is really good. And no one can deny that his calling of the housing bubble a long time before anyone else is a feather in his cap and one of the reasons for his nobel. He has been right about the size of the recession all along, while the white house radically underestimated it. He called for a bigger stimulus in order to avoid depression back in November of 08, and he was right--just look around.

The Obama administration, in part, underestimated the recession on purpose so they could downplay the looming deficit (quicker recovery means higher projected tax revenue for upcoming years). By downplaying the severity, Obama's increases in spending (health care, stimulus bill, etc.) were more palatable. Obama's projections at the beginning of the recession were downright laughable. Many (if not most) economists disagreed with his projections (both left and right).

The fact that Krugman called for a larger stimulus package and the recession was indeed worse than Obama projected means nothing. There is no way to substantiate his claim that a larger stimulus would have meant a less severe depression. None at all. It's too soon to accurately evaluate the efficacy of the stimulus, and even with time it will be difficult to separate the natural recovery from recovery spurred by government. Krugman likes big government, that's why he wanted a larger stimulus package.

Sorry to stir the pot, but I really hate Krugman.

[Hey-O]

Krugman is indeed a leftist hack outside economics (just look at his columns during the waning months of the Bush admin.). But, within economics he is really good. And no one can deny that his calling of the housing bubble a long time before anyone else is a feather in his cap and one of the reasons for his nobel. He has been right about the size of the recession all along, while the white house radically underestimated it. He called for a bigger stimulus in order to avoid depression back in November of 08, and he was right--just look around.

The Obama administration, in part, underestimated the recession on purpose so they could downplay the looming deficit (quicker recovery means higher projected tax revenue for upcoming years). By downplaying the severity, Obama's increases in spending (health care, stimulus bill, etc.) were more palatable. Obama's projections at the beginning of the recession were downright laughable. Many (if not most) economists disagreed with his projections (both left and right).

The fact that Krugman called for a larger stimulus package and the recession was indeed worse than Obama projected means nothing. There is no way to substantiate his claim that a larger stimulus would have meant a less severe depression. None at all. It's too soon to accurately evaluate the efficacy of the stimulus, and even with time it will be difficult to separate the natural recovery from recovery spurred by government. Krugman likes big government, that's why he wanted a larger stimulus package.

Sorry to stir the pot, but I really hate Krugman.

I disagree that the projections were purposely misleading. They were produced by government offices and it would be huge scandal if they were deliberately tinkered with for political advantage. I also don't see how a failing stimulus program would be political effective long term.

I think the Obama administration did what was politically possible. Criticism came from the left and right because the stimulus was a moderate compromise.

[ravens9111]

Stick with talking about law, not economics. Most of you have no clue what's really going on, or has been going for quite some time for that matter. The fact is that unemployment is really 17%. The stimulus package, if you want to call it that, has not been effective. It is a proven fact that government spending is inefficient and wasteful. If you take out government spending, GDP growth is still negative. The stimulus package was opposed by the majority of economists because the money to be spent did not have a multiplier effect for the private sector. Obama promised if the $787 BILLION stimulus was passed, unemployment would not go over 8%. Well, guess what? It is still 9.7% for U3 unemployment. U6 is the real unemployment rate. Welfare and food stamps are going at the fastest pace EVER.

Obama is spending this country into bankruptcy. The only difference between us and Europe is that they are a few steps ahead of us. Think about what our unfunded liabilities are. When you take into account for social security and pensions, the real debt our country faces is over $100 TRILLION. How is that ever going to be repaid? It won't. The sad truth is that spending is NOT the answer. We have to cut spending, raise the retirement age for social security (or cut it completely), repeal the Healthcare Bill, and stop giving away pensions for government workers. That would be a good first step, but surely, Obama will not do it. Instead, he will keep spending and raise everyone's taxes. The worst is not behind us folks. Just look at the stock market today and compare it to the Great Depression of the 1930's. Both had an initial crash and then a short lived recovery before falling further into the abyss. When Treasuries fall, that is a signal that all is NOT well. The 10 Year Note is now under 3%. Some financial analysts are even predicting the 10 Year will fall under 2%. What do you think that means for the stock market? I am not a financial genius by any means, but investors will sell stocks and buy Treasuries for that measly guaranteed return from the Treasury. We could very well see the stock market test the lows from April of '09 of 6,500.

Did anyone really think the stock market rally of 50% from the low really a recovery? How is that sustainable? What has really gotten better? A "jobless recovery" is really happening after we have spent $787 BILLION to create jobs? Really? And they want more stimulus spending? It all has to stop. You want to know the real reason why jobs aren't coming back? The government is putting in place policies that force businesses not to hire. Higher taxes, more regulation, healthcare mandates, etc. force businesses to realize how much this costs them to hire a new worker. If the cost to bring in a new work is greater than their productivity, they won't hire.

Oh, and let's not forget that the Unions are playing their part in this too. The government can't fire workers because of their contracts. Even if the local, state, and federal government can't afford to pay their workers, they can't just fire them to cut costs. The whole system is a joke. Things are not getting any better. It is getting much worse. Spending your way out of a recession/depression will prove disastrous as our national debt to GDP will approach 90% in a few short years. That is when the shit will really hit the fan. If you don't believe me, look it up.

[NYAssociate]

.

[yinz]

Stick with talking about law...look it up.

Why so Anonymous?

[ScaredWorkedBored]

Well with interest rates low and inflation low despite lots of government spending (though the latter is showing signs of recovery) I have to say I don't have the slightest clue what will happen. If I had to guess and status quo continued I could see a double dip recession potentially happening ala 1990s Japan (only we are working with other people's savings so that could be very off). If not then maybe were out of the woods...only time will tell.

This is called deflation. It sucks unless you are landed aristocracy with enormous amounts of money that increases in value. All other assets become bad. It's what you expect with a credit contraction - less money, so money is more valuable is the short version - but the falling wages/falling prices spiral is supremely destructive.

Since most of the US and the world do not actually have significant amounts of money (and do have large amounts of debt), deflation is potentially pretty disastrous. Deflation also screws up every core tax and finance assumption there is.

Again, this is no fun unless you have very large amounts of net worth. Otherwise, you want to hope that countries aren't so stupid as to enact dis-inflation policies (austerity) when the real issue is deflation.

The federal government has way more methods to finance it’s activities.

And this is credited. States cannot run deficits, whereas the US government has currently pretty much unlimited capacity to run deficits. They can borrow for nothing (low T-bill interest), which means that there is plenty of demand for T-bills.

States have a much, much tougher row to hoe. Ask any of your public interest inclined classmates what a "hiring freeze" is.

[mec30]

Stick with talking about law, not economics. Most of you have no clue what's really going on, or has been going for quite some time for that matter. The fact is that unemployment is really 17%. The stimulus package, if you want to call it that, has not been effective. It is a proven fact that government spending is inefficient and wasteful. If you take out government spending, GDP growth is still negative. The stimulus package was opposed by the majority of economists because the money to be spent did not have a multiplier effect for the private sector. Obama promised if the $787 BILLION stimulus was passed, unemployment would not go over 8%. Well, guess what? It is still 9.7% for U3 unemployment. U6 is the real unemployment rate. Welfare and food stamps are going at the fastest pace EVER.

Obama is spending this country into bankruptcy. The only difference between us and Europe is that they are a few steps ahead of us. Think about what our unfunded liabilities are. When you take into account for social security and pensions, the real debt our country faces is over $100 TRILLION. How is that ever going to be repaid? It won't. The sad truth is that spending is NOT the answer. We have to cut spending, raise the retirement age for social security (or cut it completely), repeal the Healthcare Bill, and stop giving away pensions for government workers. That would be a good first step, but surely, Obama will not do it. Instead, he will keep spending and raise everyone's taxes. The worst is not behind us folks. Just look at the stock market today and compare it to the Great Depression of the 1930's. Both had an initial crash and then a short lived recovery before falling further into the abyss. When Treasuries fall, that is a signal that all is NOT well. The 10 Year Note is now under 3%. Some financial analysts are even predicting the 10 Year will fall under 2%. What do you think that means for the stock market? I am not a financial genius by any means, but investors will sell stocks and buy Treasuries for that measly guaranteed return from the Treasury. We could very well see the stock market test the lows from April of '09 of 6,500.

Did anyone really think the stock market rally of 50% from the low really a recovery? How is that sustainable? What has really gotten better? A "jobless recovery" is really happening after we have spent $787 BILLION to create jobs? Really? And they want more stimulus spending? It all has to stop. You want to know the real reason why jobs aren't coming back? The government is putting in place policies that force businesses not to hire. Higher taxes, more regulation, healthcare mandates, etc. force businesses to realize how much this costs them to hire a new worker. If the cost to bring in a new work is greater than their productivity, they won't hire.

Oh, and let's not forget that the Unions are playing their part in this too. The government can't fire workers because of their contracts. Even if the local, state, and federal government can't afford to pay their workers, they can't just fire them to cut costs. The whole system is a joke. Things are not getting any better. It is getting much worse. Spending your way out of a recession/depression will prove disastrous as our national debt to GDP will approach 90% in a few short years. That is when the shit will really hit the fan. If you don't believe me, look it up.

I'm gonna come back to this after my run but a lot of it is just plain factually wrong or completely disingenuous.

[Merr]

Well with interest rates low and inflation low despite lots of government spending (though the latter is showing signs of recovery) I have to say I don't have the slightest clue what will happen. If I had to guess and status quo continued I could see a double dip recession potentially happening ala 1990s Japan (only we are working with other people's savings so that could be very off). If not then maybe were out of the woods...only time will tell.

This is called deflation. It sucks unless you are landed aristocracy with enormous amounts of money that increases in value. All other assets become bad. It's what you expect with a credit contraction - less money, so money is more valuable is the short version - but the falling wages/falling prices spiral is supremely destructive.

Since most of the US and the world do not actually have significant amounts of money (and do have large amounts of debt), deflation is potentially pretty disastrous. Deflation also screws up every core tax and finance assumption there is.

Again, this is no fun unless you have very large amounts of net worth. Otherwise, you want to hope that countries aren't so stupid as to enact dis-inflation policies (austerity) when the real issue is deflation.

First, let me say I agree with you about austerity measures, and am surprised at just how many hyper inflation chicken littles are running around these days. My confusion is more in regards to why we are experiencing deflation, or close to it, at the same time as the government is spending so much money relative to what it has spent in the past. That is the paradox that makes this so hard to predict from my perspective.

[Posner]

Krugman is indeed a leftist hack outside economics (just look at his columns during the waning months of the Bush admin.). But, within economics he is really good. And no one can deny that his calling of the housing bubble a long time before anyone else is a feather in his cap and one of the reasons for his nobel. He has been right about the size of the recession all along, while the white house radically underestimated it. He called for a bigger stimulus in order to avoid depression back in November of 08, and he was right--just look around.

The Obama administration, in part, underestimated the recession on purpose so they could downplay the looming deficit (quicker recovery means higher projected tax revenue for upcoming years). By downplaying the severity, Obama's increases in spending (health care, stimulus bill, etc.) were more palatable. Obama's projections at the beginning of the recession were downright laughable. Many (if not most) economists disagreed with his projections (both left and right).

The fact that Krugman called for a larger stimulus package and the recession was indeed worse than Obama projected means nothing. There is no way to substantiate his claim that a larger stimulus would have meant a less severe depression. None at all. It's too soon to accurately evaluate the efficacy of the stimulus, and even with time it will be difficult to separate the natural recovery from recovery spurred by government. Krugman likes big government, that's why he wanted a larger stimulus package.

Sorry to stir the pot, but I really hate Krugman.

I disagree that the projections were purposely misleading. They were produced by government offices and it would be huge scandal if they were deliberately tinkered with for political advantage. I also don't see how a failing stimulus program would be political effective long term.

I think the Obama administration did what was politically possible. Criticism came from the left and right because the stimulus was a moderate compromise.

Data can be skewed. Obama's administration did not skew the numbers to a point of absurdity (where there might be a scandal), but they chose projections that were unrealistic. Look back at CBO projections: --LinkRemoved--. If you do not think that political parties skew data to their advantage then you are extremely naive.

In terms of writing a bad stimulus package: Obama's administration did not write the stimulus bill, Congress did. He showed little leadership which resulted in a piecemeal bill. Rather than focusing upon the economy, the stimulus bill was used, in part, to push the agenda of the left. Additionally, politically it can't be labeled a failure when it's held to amorphous standards (read: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/02/ ... -save.html).

[D Brooks]

Stick with talking about law, not economics. Most of you have no clue what's really going on, or has been going for quite some time for that matter. The fact is that unemployment is really 17%. The stimulus package, if you want to call it that, has not been effective. It is a proven fact that government spending is inefficient and wasteful. If you take out government spending, GDP growth is still negative. The stimulus package was opposed by the majority of economists because the money to be spent did not have a multiplier effect for the private sector. Obama promised if the $787 BILLION stimulus was passed, unemployment would not go over 8%. Well, guess what? It is still 9.7% for U3 unemployment. U6 is the real unemployment rate. Welfare and food stamps are going at the fastest pace EVER.

Obama is spending this country into bankruptcy. The only difference between us and Europe is that they are a few steps ahead of us. Think about what our unfunded liabilities are. When you take into account for social security and pensions, the real debt our country faces is over $100 TRILLION. How is that ever going to be repaid? It won't. The sad truth is that spending is NOT the answer. We have to cut spending, raise the retirement age for social security (or cut it completely), repeal the Healthcare Bill, and stop giving away pensions for government workers. That would be a good first step, but surely, Obama will not do it. Instead, he will keep spending and raise everyone's taxes. The worst is not behind us folks. Just look at the stock market today and compare it to the Great Depression of the 1930's. Both had an initial crash and then a short lived recovery before falling further into the abyss. When Treasuries fall, that is a signal that all is NOT well. The 10 Year Note is now under 3%. Some financial analysts are even predicting the 10 Year will fall under 2%. What do you think that means for the stock market? I am not a financial genius by any means, but investors will sell stocks and buy Treasuries for that measly guaranteed return from the Treasury. We could very well see the stock market test the lows from April of '09 of 6,500.

Did anyone really think the stock market rally of 50% from the low really a recovery? How is that sustainable? What has really gotten better? A "jobless recovery" is really happening after we have spent $787 BILLION to create jobs? Really? And they want more stimulus spending? It all has to stop. You want to know the real reason why jobs aren't coming back? The government is putting in place policies that force businesses not to hire. Higher taxes, more regulation, healthcare mandates, etc. force businesses to realize how much this costs them to hire a new worker. If the cost to bring in a new work is greater than their productivity, they won't hire.

Oh, and let's not forget that the Unions are playing their part in this too. The government can't fire workers because of their contracts. Even if the local, state, and federal government can't afford to pay their workers, they can't just fire them to cut costs. The whole system is a joke. Things are not getting any better. It is getting much worse. Spending your way out of a recession/depression will prove disastrous as our national debt to GDP will approach 90% in a few short years. That is when the shit will really hit the fan. If you don't believe me, look it up.

LOL WUT?

I looooove when people run in and say things like, "Most of you have no clue what's really going on" then go on some crazy ass diatribe. You sound a lot like Ron Paul when he rants about his unhealthy obsession with the money supply.

[ravens9111]

Well with interest rates low and inflation low despite lots of government spending (though the latter is showing signs of recovery) I have to say I don't have the slightest clue what will happen. If I had to guess and status quo continued I could see a double dip recession potentially happening ala 1990s Japan (only we are working with other people's savings so that could be very off). If not then maybe were out of the woods...only time will tell.

This is called deflation. It sucks unless you are landed aristocracy with enormous amounts of money that increases in value. All other assets become bad. It's what you expect with a credit contraction - less money, so money is more valuable is the short version - but the falling wages/falling prices spiral is supremely destructive.

Since most of the US and the world do not actually have significant amounts of money (and do have large amounts of debt), deflation is potentially pretty disastrous. Deflation also screws up every core tax and finance assumption there is.

Again, this is no fun unless you have very large amounts of net worth. Otherwise, you want to hope that countries aren't so stupid as to enact dis-inflation policies (austerity) when the real issue is deflation.

First, let me say I agree with you about austerity measures, and am surprised at just how many hyper inflation chicken littles are running around these days. My confusion is more in regards to why we are experiencing deflation, or close to it, at the same time as the government is spending so much money relative to what it has spent in the past. That is the paradox that makes this so hard to predict from my perspective.

We are facing deflation because we have asset bubbles. Prices for all assets, particularly housing, rose to unprecedented prices. These assets are still overvalued. Commodity prices rose because of a weaker dollar from low interest rates. The government knows these assets are overvalued. But instead of allowing the free market to work, the government is only trying to re-inflate the bubble. The government is creating another bubble... Treasuries.

The real estate bubble has been temporarily stabilized because of the home buyer tax credit. Before the tax credit was enacted, real estate values were falling 20% or more per year. The credit was a government incentive so people would buy homes. The banks are still drowning. Foreclosures are at an all time high. Every government policy this administration has attempted has been a complete failure. There are over 5 million homes in "shadow inventory". These are homes that are in foreclosure, but have not been put on the market yet. The banks have limited the supply of homes on the market to keep prices from falling further. The problem is that by doing so, this will continue to delay any sustainable recovery. Many analysts are predicting that this foreclosure crisis will take between 5 to 8 years to pass. We won't have any recovery until the housing market is fixed. The housing market will not be fixed until the free market is allowed to take over. We need home values to continue falling so people can actually afford to repay.

We need to cleanse the system. Let these people who can't afford to pay foreclose or file BK. The quicker they go through the system, the better. Instead, these people are living in their homes for two years mortgage free. That extra money they are saving is also contributing to consumer spending, which accounts for roughly 70% of GDP. Housing values went up 20% plus in the majority of the states for 7 years. Many home prices doubled or tripled. House values are suppose to be correlated to inflation, which is usually around 3% per year. When house values get in line with what they should be, you will see a recovery.

The housing market is just the tip of the iceberg but it is definitely a start. Will it be painful? Sure. But it is needed to get things back on track. Banks aren't lending because they are afraid prices will keep going down. Once prices have really hit bottom, banks will start lending again. Once banks start lending again, then you will see massive inflation. Those excess reserves will have to go to work at some point.

[romothesavior]

Stick with talking about law, not economics. Most of you have no clue what's really going on, or has been going for quite some time for that matter. The fact is that unemployment is really 17%. The stimulus package, if you want to call it that, has not been effective. It is a proven fact that government spending is inefficient and wasteful. If you take out government spending, GDP growth is still negative. The stimulus package was opposed by the majority of economists because the money to be spent did not have a multiplier effect for the private sector. Obama promised if the $787 BILLION stimulus was passed, unemployment would not go over 8%. Well, guess what? It is still 9.7% for U3 unemployment. U6 is the real unemployment rate. Welfare and food stamps are going at the fastest pace EVER.

Obama is spending this country into bankruptcy. The only difference between us and Europe is that they are a few steps ahead of us. Think about what our unfunded liabilities are. When you take into account for social security and pensions, the real debt our country faces is over $100 TRILLION. How is that ever going to be repaid? It won't. The sad truth is that spending is NOT the answer. We have to cut spending, raise the retirement age for social security (or cut it completely), repeal the Healthcare Bill, and stop giving away pensions for government workers. That would be a good first step, but surely, Obama will not do it. Instead, he will keep spending and raise everyone's taxes. The worst is not behind us folks. Just look at the stock market today and compare it to the Great Depression of the 1930's. Both had an initial crash and then a short lived recovery before falling further into the abyss. When Treasuries fall, that is a signal that all is NOT well. The 10 Year Note is now under 3%. Some financial analysts are even predicting the 10 Year will fall under 2%. What do you think that means for the stock market? I am not a financial genius by any means, but investors will sell stocks and buy Treasuries for that measly guaranteed return from the Treasury. We could very well see the stock market test the lows from April of '09 of 6,500.

Did anyone really think the stock market rally of 50% from the low really a recovery? How is that sustainable? What has really gotten better? A "jobless recovery" is really happening after we have spent $787 BILLION to create jobs? Really? And they want more stimulus spending? It all has to stop. You want to know the real reason why jobs aren't coming back? The government is putting in place policies that force businesses not to hire. Higher taxes, more regulation, healthcare mandates, etc. force businesses to realize how much this costs them to hire a new worker. If the cost to bring in a new work is greater than their productivity, they won't hire.

Oh, and let's not forget that the Unions are playing their part in this too. The government can't fire workers because of their contracts. Even if the local, state, and federal government can't afford to pay their workers, they can't just fire them to cut costs. The whole system is a joke. Things are not getting any better. It is getting much worse. Spending your way out of a recession/depression will prove disastrous as our national debt to GDP will approach 90% in a few short years. That is when the shit will really hit the fan. If you don't believe me, look it up.

This is really poorly written and contains some questionable parts, but overall I wholeheartedly agree. We are fucking ourselves royally.

[ravens9111]

Stick with talking about law, not economics. Most of you have no clue what's really going on, or has been going for quite some time for that matter. The fact is that unemployment is really 17%. The stimulus package, if you want to call it that, has not been effective. It is a proven fact that government spending is inefficient and wasteful. If you take out government spending, GDP growth is still negative. The stimulus package was opposed by the majority of economists because the money to be spent did not have a multiplier effect for the private sector. Obama promised if the $787 BILLION stimulus was passed, unemployment would not go over 8%. Well, guess what? It is still 9.7% for U3 unemployment. U6 is the real unemployment rate. Welfare and food stamps are going at the fastest pace EVER.

Obama is spending this country into bankruptcy. The only difference between us and Europe is that they are a few steps ahead of us. Think about what our unfunded liabilities are. When you take into account for social security and pensions, the real debt our country faces is over $100 TRILLION. How is that ever going to be repaid? It won't. The sad truth is that spending is NOT the answer. We have to cut spending, raise the retirement age for social security (or cut it completely), repeal the Healthcare Bill, and stop giving away pensions for government workers. That would be a good first step, but surely, Obama will not do it. Instead, he will keep spending and raise everyone's taxes. The worst is not behind us folks. Just look at the stock market today and compare it to the Great Depression of the 1930's. Both had an initial crash and then a short lived recovery before falling further into the abyss. When Treasuries fall, that is a signal that all is NOT well. The 10 Year Note is now under 3%. Some financial analysts are even predicting the 10 Year will fall under 2%. What do you think that means for the stock market? I am not a financial genius by any means, but investors will sell stocks and buy Treasuries for that measly guaranteed return from the Treasury. We could very well see the stock market test the lows from April of '09 of 6,500.

Did anyone really think the stock market rally of 50% from the low really a recovery? How is that sustainable? What has really gotten better? A "jobless recovery" is really happening after we have spent $787 BILLION to create jobs? Really? And they want more stimulus spending? It all has to stop. You want to know the real reason why jobs aren't coming back? The government is putting in place policies that force businesses not to hire. Higher taxes, more regulation, healthcare mandates, etc. force businesses to realize how much this costs them to hire a new worker. If the cost to bring in a new work is greater than their productivity, they won't hire.

Oh, and let's not forget that the Unions are playing their part in this too. The government can't fire workers because of their contracts. Even if the local, state, and federal government can't afford to pay their workers, they can't just fire them to cut costs. The whole system is a joke. Things are not getting any better. It is getting much worse. Spending your way out of a recession/depression will prove disastrous as our national debt to GDP will approach 90% in a few short years. That is when the shit will really hit the fan. If you don't believe me, look it up.

LOL WUT?

I looooove when people run in and say things like, "Most of you have no clue what's really going on" then go on some crazy ass diatribe. You sound a lot like Ron Paul when he rants about his unhealthy obsession with the money supply.

Actually, I would probably say I sound more like Peter Schiff.

[D Brooks]

If I didn't have a 7am meeting tomorrow I would take the time dissect your post, but I think it'll have to suffice to agree with the other poster who said, it's politically motivated, fairly disingenuous, and contains a number of statements that are factual incorrect.