Economic stimulus naysaysers!

OK, Got your attention. Guess what folks?

News just hit Wall street this morning that the unemployment rate report showed a drop from 9.5 to 9.4%!


AIG just reported their first profit since 2007! Stock indexes are up about 50% since March 9th, and have made several new highs for the year the past week.

Starting to look like we really have hit the bottom, and things are starting to turn around.

I wanna say thank god, but for some reason that just does not seem suffecient.

What does this have to do with the massive expansion of government that was passed under the rubric of "stimulus"? Less than 10% of it was spent...

What this really proves is that leftards had always hoped to just take credit for the natural recovery that would have occurred even if we had not added another $1 trillion to the national debt in the form of handouts to politically favored causes and organizations

Please illustrate how the Stimulus package was responsible for things turning around.

All that proves is that our economy is resilient... it is not a ringing endorsement of the stimulus package. Even most progressives agree it was a pathetic boondoggle with massive amounts of pork. Yet it is true that when you throw that much money at the economy there will be some benefit. I hope it lasts.

A trillion dollar enema is bound to have some sort of effect, hope it lasts. All the people who liquidated and moved their cash off shore (when it became obvious Obama was going to win and tax them them until they bleed), may start reinvesting or may buy precious metals and bury it somewhere else. No telling what is going to happen if Obama gets the Swiss to open there books and manages to tax it anyway.
I'd buy gold.
The Saudis and others are gonna want to recoup there loses, the price of gas will probably rise right along with the expansion of the economy. Saudis are going to have to play a fine line, between making more lucky bucks and causing the economy to stagnate again or worse. They have a history of shooting themselves in the foot.
The only real answer to the dilemma (at least in the short term, say ten years) is to invade a source of energy and secure it. Hey wait a minute, didn't G.W. already try that, gee he was sure stupid and short sighted.
Germans reacted just about the way I thought they would, a period of gloating that America got taken down a notch or two, then Oh fawk a rather large portion of our export market just dried up.

It's not over yet.

And that unemployment rate is just what's reported. Not everyone unemployed is still collecting unemployment. Don't be fooled.

Peoples unemployment just ran out... now that .1 % are really XXXXed

The unemployment rate has nothing to do with the number of people collecting benefits.

The unemployment rate is based on the number of people who are actively looking for a job and cannot find one, as measured by a random household sampling. When people stop actively looking, the rate goes down. The desired implication is that people stopped looking because they found a job, but it can also go down because they have given up, gone back to school, become a stay-at-home parent, and numerous other things.

The benefits are managed by the states and reflect the number of people who are currently eligible. It's a completely different number. You can be collecting benefits without actively looking for a new job and therefore would not be counted in the rate.

Even CNN is saying that the unemployment numbers only went down because about 400k people ran out of unemployment coverage this last month.

Oh, and from everything I've read we're due for a few hundred thousand more foreclosures in the next 4-5 months - we're not out of the woods yet and won't be for some time. If you want to buy a house*, now is a great time and so is the next few months.

* houses come with garages sometimes. Garages are great places to work on Jeeps!

Personally I'm going to invest in a Bee hive so I can up the yield of my garden (I've noticed waaaay more flowers than fruit) and have enough to eat next year. Spot some likely locations to poach some deer. Maybe buy some chickens. Kind of a mix of cultivating renewable resources and larceny. Beat the heck out of the guy living behind me (he's been warned) who is in love with Roundup. And make sure the bicycles are in good repair.

8Mud said:

Personally I'm going to invest in a Bee hive so I can up the yield of my garden (I've noticed waaaay more flowers than fruit) and have enough to eat next year. Spot some likely locations to poach some deer. Maybe buy some chickens. Kind of a mix of cultivating renewable resources and larceny. Beat the heck out of the guy living behind me who is in love with Roundup. And make sure the bicycles are in good repair.

Click to expand...

If it got that bad independence would not be the way to go. It's going to be all about militia's. Who is going to protect your family while your out hunting. Home invasions are going to be a constant battle. Wanna be thugs can't hunt but they can rob a house with a pistol.

How things have changed! If you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and then come to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Miz Michele are the same as members of the national security and defense departments and the bill for these assorted lackeys is paid by John Q. Public:

1. $172,2000 - Sher, Susan (CHIEF OF STAFF)
2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND PROJECTS FOR THE FIRST LADY)
3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND WHITE HOUSE SOCIAL SECRETARY)
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE FIRST LADY)
5. Winter, Melissa E. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)
6. $90,000 - Medina, David S. (DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)
7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (DIRECTOR AND PRESS SECRETARY TO THE FIRST LADY)
8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULING AND ADVANCE FOR THE FIRST LADY)
9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND PROJECTS FOR THE FIRST LADY)
10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY SOCIAL SECRETARY)
11. Reinstein, Joseph B. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY SOCIAL SECRETARY)
12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULING AND EVENTS COORDINATOR FOR THE FIRST LADY)
13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ADVANCE AND TRIP DIRECTOR FOR THE FIRST LADY)
14. Lewis, Dana M. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT AND PERSONAL AIDE TO THE FIRST LADY)
15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY TO THE FIRST LADY)
16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR SCHEDULING AND TRAVELING AIDE TO THE FIRST LADY)
17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE FIRST LADY)
18. Tubman, Samantha (DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,SOCIAL OFFICE)
19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)
20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (STAFF ASSISTANT TO THE SOCIAL SECRETARY)
21. Bookey, Natalie (STAFF ASSISTANT)
22. Jackson, Deilia A. (DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE FIRST LADY)

Source: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652

REVROK said:

Yet it is true that when you throw that much money at the economy there will be some benefit. I hope it lasts.

Click to expand...

Since a great deal of it has not been spent as such, yet, but a lot of it has been promised, which means those who are expecting it are acting differently than they would have if there was no expected stimulus cash coming in just around the corner, the turn around is coming sooner, and should happen much faster, and in a more robust, and faster pace, than would have happened with out the stimulus.

8Mud,

Chear up guy! The sky is no longer falling, LOL!

Actually I took my entire IRA retirement out of MM cash, and started buying stocks this year, for the first time since 1987! Not everyone ran overseas with their cash. I invested in old and new energy tech, bulk shipping, biotechs that were selling for 99.9% off their highs last year (the ones I bought are up already up 300 to 500%), and other fire sales that screamed BUY ME!

Seems I am the only one here that is bullish on the stock market, and the recovery, which is fine with me. Just me tells that I am right, as it means stock prices did bottom, as they always bottom when the public is the most pessemistic about the future. I all see here (other than me) is absolute stark pessemism. If you go back and check I was talking about buying stocks for the first time since 1987, here at the beginning of the year (and very late last year). The markets are at new highs for the year, and are up nearly 50% since the crash bottom on March 9th.

I have been buying stocks since about March 15th, and have not sold anything I bought since then.

On the jobs report, for all the naysayers and pundits here, the drop in unemployment was also the result of a MAJOR drop in layoffs (like about a 65% drop from recent highs), not the other government number rigging you have referred to (which is sometimes the case, but not the entire story this time, if at all!). The point is, investors are coming back and business is turning around, which means jobs are coming back. This is just the kind of news the market needed right now.

So go ahead, keep your heads in the sand (or is it rocks and mud here, I forget?).

Kastein,

I agree there are major house bargains out there now, and great interest rates, and deals. Just make sure the garage is big enough for several jeeps!:wave1:

MpSlayer said:

If it got that bad independence would not be the way to go. It's going to be all about militia's. Who is going to protect your family while your out hunting. Home invasions are going to be a constant battle. Wanna be thugs can't hunt but they can rob a house with a pistol.

Click to expand...

I'm plugged in with the only people around here who really count, the trouble is they are mostly getting a little long in the tooth (I have four studs on call if needed, maybe two who are really dependable). The rest are complainers and play the squeaky wheel gets the grease game. The locals, mostly, learned a long time ago it is best to leave me the truck alone in most cases. And the other group who is convinced, reality is whatever they say it is. Who will without a doubt still be moving there mouths a week after they are dead.

Ecomike said:

8Mud,

Chear up guy! The sky is no longer falling, LOL!

Click to expand...

I've been out of sorts lately, Hunters moon (about as bright as it's going to get this year) pigs are in the corn, Reh deer are in rut and my back is acting up. Feel like a three legged old hound dog chained up to a tree smelling deer blood on the breeze.

ehall said:

The unemployment rate has nothing to do with the number of people collecting benefits.

The unemployment rate is based on the number of people who are actively looking for a job and cannot find one, as measured by a random household sampling. When people stop actively looking, the rate goes down. The desired implication is that people stopped looking because they found a job, but it can also go down because they have given up, gone back to school, become a stay-at-home parent, and numerous other things.

The benefits are managed by the states and reflect the number of people who are currently eligible. It's a completely different number. You can be collecting benefits without actively looking for a new job and therefore would not be counted in the rate.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure you're correct.

I've always understood from my economics classes that national unemployment was taken from the states' records on who are filing for unemployment insurance, not random household sampling.

Can you please provide I link that back up your understanding of how unemployment rates are determined? I would like to see it for myself.

Each release from the BLS contains a statement describing the methodology. This is from the current release

This news release presents statistics from two major surveys, the Current Population Survey (household survey) and the Current Employment Statistics survey (establishment survey). The household survey provides the information on the labor force, employment, and unemployment that appears in the A tables, marked HOUSEHOLD DATA. It is a sample survey of about 60,000 households conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

The establishment survey provides the information on the employment, hours, and earnings of workers on nonfarm payrolls that appears in the
B tables, marked ESTABLISHMENT DATA. This information is collected from payroll records by BLS in cooperation with state agencies. The sample includes about 160,000 businesses and government agencies covering approximately 400,000 individual worksites. The active sample includes about one-third of all nonfarm payroll workers. The sample is drawn from a sampling frame of unemployment insurance tax accounts.

Click to expand...

There is also the more general BLS FAQ

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.

The number of unemployed persons in the United States and the national unemployment rate are produced from data collected in the Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly survey of over 60,000 households. A person's unemployment status is established by responses to a series of questions on whether they have a job or are on layoff, whether they want a job and are available to work, and what they have done to look for work in the preceding 4 weeks. The unemployment rate is the number of unemployed persons as a percent of the labor force (employed and unemployed persons). See "Who is counted as unemployed?" for more information.

Statistics on persons receiving unemployment insurance benefits (sometimes called insured unemployment) in the United States are collected as a byproduct of unemployment insurance programs. Workers who lose their jobs and are covered by these programs typically file claims which serve as notice that they are beginning a period of unemployment. Claimants who qualify for benefits are counted in the insured unemployment figures. More information about the Unemployment Insurance program is available from the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration, including weekly data on UI claims.

While not related to the national unemployment rate, UI claims data do serve as inputs into the calculation of state and local area unemployment estimates. See the Local Area Unemployment Statistics program for more information.

Click to expand...

You can be collecting benefits and not looking and therefore not be counted as unemployed. When the bene's run out and you start looking you will be counted as unemployed but no longer taking benefits.

ehall said:

Each release from the BLS contains a statement describing the methodology. This is from the current release



There is also the more general BLS FAQ



You can be collecting benefits and not looking and therefore not be counted as unemployed. When the bene's run out and you start looking you will be counted as unemployed but no longer taking benefits.

Click to expand...

Very interesting. Thank you for enlightening me to this.

Nice try Mike.....btw, your inflatable Obama appears to be leaking air.......

To the layperson the unemployment rate may be one of the most misunderstood economic indices. The unemployment rate is not a measure of the percentage of people that do not have a job. It is a measure of the percentage of the labor force that doesn’t have a job but are actively looking for work.

So, if the unemployment rate is quoted as 5 percent, it does not mean that 95 out of every 100 people are working. It could mean, for example, that out of every 100 people, 60 are working, 35 are not working and don't want to be working, and 5 are not working but are actively looking for employment.

That’s the key; someone must be actively looking for work to be listed as unemployed in the index. This article explains some of the facts and myths about the unemployment rate.

Is the unemployment rate accurate? The unemployment rate cannot be completely accurate and there are plenty of reasons for that.

Take unemployment insurance for example. Unemployment insurance was set up as a safety net to provide protection for people that lose their jobs and fall on hard times. One of the conditions of receiving benefits from unemployment insurance is that you must be actively looking for a job. People may become lazy and dependant on the benefits and this may induce some people to stay unemployed but pretend that they are looking for a job. These people would, incorrectly, be included in the unemployment rate statistics, which would inflate the rate.

On the other hand, some people are unemployed, are not actively looking for work, but would accept a job would one become available. This may happen if they had been actively looking for work but were unsuccessful; this could discourage them and cause them to voluntarily withdraw from the labor force.

The unemployment rate does not measure the amount of people that are "underemployed." Let's say someone works a part time job that offers 15 hours of work per week but this person needs a full time job in order to make ends meet. Let's say he is working this part time job only because it is all that he could find. This person would be considered "employed" yet he really is "underemployed." So, the unemployment rate cannot be an exact measure of the employed work force in the economy.

To conclude, the unemployment rate will never be an exact measure but it is still a useful index.

The most useful aspect of the index is that it shows the general direction of the unemployment rate. Comparing it over months or years can show the general employment trend and can show the direction of changes in unemployment. That is what the unemployment rate should be used to show. You cannot use any single month of statistics on its own.

http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Tino_Buntic