U.S. Unemployment Rate Jumps to 8.1 Percent

[toomuchtime_]

The nation's unemployment rate topped 8 percent last month and the economy shed 651,000 jobs, according to government data released this morning, further evidence of the deepening recession that has devastated the stock market and home prices and triggered the largest government recovery effort since the Great Depression.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics said the jobless rate rose from 7.6 percent in January to 8.1 percent in February, the highest rate in more than 25 years. An estimated 12.5 million Americans were unemployed in February, the data show, an increase of 851,000 since January.

The government also revised sharply upward the number of jobs the economy lost in December and January to show a total of nearly 2 million jobs disappearing in the last three months. December saw the most job losses, according to the revised figures, with 681,000, significantly more than the previous estimate of 524,000. The number of jobs lost in January rose to 655,000, up from a prior estimate of 598,000.

An additional 651,000 jobs disappeared last month, the government said, illustrating the profound challenges of launching an economic recovery as employers continue to slash payrolls in a desperate effort to control costs.

Each of the last three months now shows more jobs lost than in any single month since October 1949, when the country was just pulling out of a painful recession, the government data shows. Economists say direct comparisons are difficult, however, because the labor force has grown significantly since the post-World War II period.

U.S. Unemployment Rate Jumps to 8.1 Percent - washingtonpost.com

 

[sealybobo]

So much for Michigan being in a one state recession, huh Mitt Romney?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Barack Obama's Economic Policies Could Prolong the Recession - WSJ.com

Economist John Cogan of the Hoover Institution has looked at the numbers, and you can see the trends in the nearby chart showing job losses over the months of recession.

So far at least, the current downturn, which officially began in December 2007, isn't much more severe than the average of all recessions since 1970. This month the downturn turns 15 months old, which is one month less than the recession of 1981-82, though job loss hasn't yet been as severe. (Today's jobs report for February could change that.) The recession of 1973-75 lasted 16 months and job loss was also worse. Many Americans may have forgotten those nasty recessions because the last two -- in 1990-91 and 2001 -- were only eight months long and shallow. But even in the worst modern downturns, after 15 months the sources of recovery were forming and the end was in sight

.

 

[sealybobo]

Barack Obama's Economic Policies Could Prolong the Recession - WSJ.com

Economist John Cogan of the Hoover Institution has looked at the numbers, and you can see the trends in the nearby chart showing job losses over the months of recession.

So far at least, the current downturn, which officially began in December 2007, isn't much more severe than the average of all recessions since 1970. This month the downturn turns 15 months old, which is one month less than the recession of 1981-82, though job loss hasn't yet been as severe. (Today's jobs report for February could change that.) The recession of 1973-75 lasted 16 months and job loss was also worse. Many Americans may have forgotten those nasty recessions because the last two -- in 1990-91 and 2001 -- were only eight months long and shallow. But even in the worst modern downturns, after 15 months the sources of recovery were forming and the end was in sight

.

Maybe US Corporations that went overseas should bring those manufacturing jobs back home, before things get even worse.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Barack Obama's Economic Policies Could Prolong the Recession - WSJ.com

Economist John Cogan of the Hoover Institution has looked at the numbers, and you can see the trends in the nearby chart showing job losses over the months of recession.

So far at least, the current downturn, which officially began in December 2007, isn't much more severe than the average of all recessions since 1970. This month the downturn turns 15 months old, which is one month less than the recession of 1981-82, though job loss hasn't yet been as severe. (Today's jobs report for February could change that.) The recession of 1973-75 lasted 16 months and job loss was also worse. Many Americans may have forgotten those nasty recessions because the last two -- in 1990-91 and 2001 -- were only eight months long and shallow. But even in the worst modern downturns, after 15 months the sources of recovery were forming and the end was in sight

.

Maybe US Corporations that went overseas should bring those manufacturing jobs back home, before things get even worse.

Another myth. You think that by taxing US companies for foreign income is a good thing and that taxation will force companies to "bring jobs back" and you are wrong once again.

Michael Boskin Says Barack Obama Is Moving Us Toward a European-Style Social Welfare State and Long-Run Economic Stagnation - WSJ.com

Our competitors have lower corporate tax rates and tax only domestic earnings, yet the budget seeks to restrict deferral of taxes on overseas earnings, arguing it drives jobs overseas. But the academic research (most notably by Mihir Desai, C. Fritz Foley and James Hines Jr.) reveals the opposite: American firms' overseas investments strengthen their domestic operations and employee compensation.

And tell me, if you can, why would a company bring an operation, any operation, back to the US when they know that the current administrations tax happy agenda, most notably the very insidious and egregious cap and trade climate tax, would reduce not increase profitability?

 

[sealybobo]

Barack Obama's Economic Policies Could Prolong the Recession - WSJ.com

.

Maybe US Corporations that went overseas should bring those manufacturing jobs back home, before things get even worse.

Another myth. You think that by taxing US companies for foreign income is a good thing and that taxation will force companies to "bring jobs back" and you are wrong once again.

Michael Boskin Says Barack Obama Is Moving Us Toward a European-Style Social Welfare State and Long-Run Economic Stagnation - WSJ.com

Our competitors have lower corporate tax rates and tax only domestic earnings, yet the budget seeks to restrict deferral of taxes on overseas earnings, arguing it drives jobs overseas. But the academic research (most notably by Mihir Desai, C. Fritz Foley and James Hines Jr.) reveals the opposite: American firms' overseas investments strengthen their domestic operations and employee compensation.

And tell me, if you can, why would a company bring an operation, any operation, back to the US when they know that the current administrations tax happy agenda, most notably the very insidious and egregious cap and trade climate tax, would reduce not increase profitability?

I didn't say tax them. I said bring the jobs back home.

And why would they come home? Because we will tariff their imports if they don't. And we will let them keep the tax breaks they get now if they do come home.

When gas was $4 a gallon, a lot of companies thought about coming home on their own, so it isn't out of the question that they can come back home skull.

And for some strange reason, you and Bush like them leaving the US and taking the jobs with them.

Or, how about Obama should give loans and tax breaks to companies that want to take over the work that these traitors took overseas? A little competition never hurt anyone, right? It'll lower prices too Skull and we know you right wingers are all about that.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I didn't say tax them. I said bring the jobs back home.

By bringing jobs back home as you say, they will automatically be taxed. So are you proposing NOT taxing those evil corporations if it means "bringing jobs back home"?

You multiple personality disorder is showing again.

And why would they come home? Because we will tariff their imports if they don't. And we will let them keep the tax breaks they get now if they do come home.

You better change the terms of all of our WTO agreements then. And good luck with that.

When gas was $4 a gallon, a lot of companies thought about coming home on their own, so it isn't out of the question that they can come back home skull.

And when the cap and trade tax drives the price of gas up even higher than the evil oil companies ever did, all in the name of revenue, wouldn't it be better to pay $4 a gallon in another country?

And for some strange reason, you and Bush like them leaving the US and taking the jobs with them.

Can you make one post without mentioning Bush? I think you have a homo crush on him.

Or, how about Obama should give loans and tax breaks to companies that want to take over the work that these traitors took overseas? A little competition never hurt anyone, right? It'll lower prices too Skull and we know you right wingers are all about that.

Since when are you in favor of competition? Competition isn't fair remember?

And nothing Obama does will lower prices on anything except your stock portfolio. the one thing you can count on is your expenses rising. So again why would a company come back?

And seriously, why on earth would a company take a "loan" from the government when those loans are just an in for the government to buy a controlling interest in your company and tell you what you can and can't pay yourself.

Again I submit that it will be less expensive for companies to leave the country and take even more jobs overseas than it will be to stay.

 

[Vel]

Barack Obama's Economic Policies Could Prolong the Recession - WSJ.com

Economist John Cogan of the Hoover Institution has looked at the numbers, and you can see the trends in the nearby chart showing job losses over the months of recession.

So far at least, the current downturn, which officially began in December 2007, isn't much more severe than the average of all recessions since 1970. This month the downturn turns 15 months old, which is one month less than the recession of 1981-82, though job loss hasn't yet been as severe. (Today's jobs report for February could change that.) The recession of 1973-75 lasted 16 months and job loss was also worse. Many Americans may have forgotten those nasty recessions because the last two -- in 1990-91 and 2001 -- were only eight months long and shallow. But even in the worst modern downturns, after 15 months the sources of recovery were forming and the end was in sight

.

Maybe US Corporations that went overseas should bring those manufacturing jobs back home, before things get even worse.

Let's put this in very simple terms so that even Obama voters understand. We'll call the U.S. government the "owner" and U.S. Business the "dog". If the owner stands on the front porch and hollers "Here doggy, doggy." and then beats the crap out of the dog when it comes up on the porch, the next time the owner hollers "Here doggy, doggy", that dog is going to hike a leg in the owner's direction and take off.

 

[sealybobo]

Barack Obama's Economic Policies Could Prolong the Recession - WSJ.com

.

Maybe US Corporations that went overseas should bring those manufacturing jobs back home, before things get even worse.

Let's put this in very simple terms so that even Obama voters understand. We'll call the U.S. government the "owner" and U.S. Business the "dog". If the owner stands on the front porch and hollers "Here doggy, doggy." and then beats the crap out of the dog when it comes up on the porch, the next time the owner hollers "Here doggy, doggy", that dog is going to hike a leg in the owner's direction and take off.

Let me put it so even you can understand.

The Corporations are the visiting team and the American people are the home team.

Under Bush, we were the visitors and the Corporations had the home court advantage.

Not only that, but the GOP Government were the refs the last 8 years and they were cheating for the corporations.

Now we have fair refs. They aren't going to cheat for the home or visitors, but they sure aren't going to fall for it when the Corporations flop trying to pick up cheap fouls.

Yes, the government is the referee and they set the rules of the game. If you don't like the game, then get out.

And by the way sucker, if corporations and rich people aren't paying their fair share, then the tax burden falls on your dumb ass.

What do corporations care about? Maxing profits. Correct? And they are always looking for more ways to cut costs. Correct? So they won't be happy, even if they pay zero taxes. Once they achieve that, they'll even try to get free money from the government...


Because if we don't give it to them, another country will. Are you scared yet? Or if we don't give them what they want, they'll have to lay people off. Scared still?

You are a sucker, plane and simple.

No wonder our founding fathers warned us about the rich and corporations getting too powerful.

The perfect argument against democracy is a simple 5 minute conversation with the average voter. That would be you dumbass.

 

[sealybobo]

I didn't say tax them. I said bring the jobs back home.

By bringing jobs back home as you say, they will automatically be taxed. So are you proposing NOT taxing those evil corporations if it means "bringing jobs back home"?

You multiple personality disorder is showing again.

And why would they come home? Because we will tariff their imports if they don't. And we will let them keep the tax breaks they get now if they do come home.

You better change the terms of all of our WTO agreements then. And good luck with that.



And when the cap and trade tax drives the price of gas up even higher than the evil oil companies ever did, all in the name of revenue, wouldn't it be better to pay $4 a gallon in another country?

And for some strange reason, you and Bush like them leaving the US and taking the jobs with them.

Can you make one post without mentioning Bush? I think you have a homo crush on him.

Or, how about Obama should give loans and tax breaks to companies that want to take over the work that these traitors took overseas? A little competition never hurt anyone, right? It'll lower prices too Skull and we know you right wingers are all about that.

Since when are you in favor of competition? Competition isn't fair remember?

And nothing Obama does will lower prices on anything except your stock portfolio. the one thing you can count on is your expenses rising. So again why would a company come back?

And seriously, why on earth would a company take a "loan" from the government when those loans are just an in for the government to buy a controlling interest in your company and tell you what you can and can't pay yourself.

Again I submit that it will be less expensive for companies to leave the country and take even more jobs overseas than it will be to stay.

See, stupid people like you think its a black and white thing. Yes, sometimes tax them and sometimes give them a tax break. Depends on the situation.

If a company is being taxed too much, give them a tax break. If not, don't. Who decides? Our government.

Bush decided they were paying too much, and so did Reagan. Now we are bankrupt because the rich didn't pay their fair share of taxes. Niether did Corporations.

Now if Bush didn't spend as much as he did, maybe he would have been right.

Maybe he shouldn't have invaded Iraq?

Same reason we aren't invading Sudan to rid that country of their evil dictator, is the same fucking reason we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. Too costly, and who you gonna replace the evil dictator with?

 

[Vel]

Maybe US Corporations that went overseas should bring those manufacturing jobs back home, before things get even worse.

Let's put this in very simple terms so that even Obama voters understand. We'll call the U.S. government the "owner" and U.S. Business the "dog". If the owner stands on the front porch and hollers "Here doggy, doggy." and then beats the crap out of the dog when it comes up on the porch, the next time the owner hollers "Here doggy, doggy", that dog is going to hike a leg in the owner's direction and take off.

Let me put it so even you can understand.

The Corporations are the visiting team and the American people are the home team.

Under Bush, we were the visitors and the Corporations had the home court advantage.

Not only that, but the GOP Government were the refs the last 8 years and they were cheating for the corporations.

Now we have fair refs. They aren't going to cheat for the home or visitors, but they sure aren't going to fall for it when the Corporations flop trying to pick up cheap fouls.

Yes, the government is the referee and they set the rules of the game. If you don't like the game, then get out.

And by the way sucker, if corporations and rich people aren't paying their fair share, then the tax burden falls on your dumb ass.

What do corporations care about? Maxing profits. Correct? And they are always looking for more ways to cut costs. Correct? So they won't be happy, even if they pay zero taxes. Once they achieve that, they'll even try to get free money from the government...


Because if we don't give it to them, another country will. Are you scared yet? Or if we don't give them what they want, they'll have to lay people off. Scared still?

You are a sucker, plane and simple.

No wonder our founding fathers warned us about the rich and corporations getting too powerful.

The perfect argument against democracy is a simple 5 minute conversation with the average voter. That would be you dumbass.

Hmmm.. And how many people does the poor man hire?

You know, there is a whole big world out there and alot of places for corporations to make money. Why continue in THIS society with a target on your back when you can help develop another part of the world that welcomes you? I'm just sayin'

 

[Skull Pilot]

See, stupid people like you think its a black and white thing. Yes, sometimes tax them and sometimes give them a tax break. Depends on the situation.

If a company is being taxed too much, give them a tax break. If not, don't. Who decides? Our government.

Well since you haven't been paying attention, Sybil, the government has decided to raise taxes on everyone.

Bush decided they were paying too much, and so did Reagan. Now we are bankrupt because the rich didn't pay their fair share of taxes. Niether did Corporations.

Again with Bush, I've seen man crushes before but you got the mother of all man crushes on GW.

And since you haven't noticed, we are not talking about GW here, we are talking about your leader of hope and stimuli and his policies.

Now if Bush didn't spend as much as he did, maybe he would have been right.

And if spending is bad, how do you reconcile Obama spending even more, increasing the national debt even more?

Maybe he shouldn't have invaded Iraq?

I was never in favor of invading Iraq, I am not in favor of escalation in Afghanistan either, why don't you criticize Obama for that?

Same reason we aren't invading Sudan to rid that country of their evil dictator, is the same fucking reason we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. Too costly, and who you gonna replace the evil dictator with?

We shouldn't be involved in any country's internal affairs period.

 

[sealybobo]

Let's put this in very simple terms so that even Obama voters understand. We'll call the U.S. government the "owner" and U.S. Business the "dog". If the owner stands on the front porch and hollers "Here doggy, doggy." and then beats the crap out of the dog when it comes up on the porch, the next time the owner hollers "Here doggy, doggy", that dog is going to hike a leg in the owner's direction and take off.

Let me put it so even you can understand.

The Corporations are the visiting team and the American people are the home team.

Under Bush, we were the visitors and the Corporations had the home court advantage.

Not only that, but the GOP Government were the refs the last 8 years and they were cheating for the corporations.

Now we have fair refs. They aren't going to cheat for the home or visitors, but they sure aren't going to fall for it when the Corporations flop trying to pick up cheap fouls.

Yes, the government is the referee and they set the rules of the game. If you don't like the game, then get out.

And by the way sucker, if corporations and rich people aren't paying their fair share, then the tax burden falls on your dumb ass.

What do corporations care about? Maxing profits. Correct? And they are always looking for more ways to cut costs. Correct? So they won't be happy, even if they pay zero taxes. Once they achieve that, they'll even try to get free money from the government...


Because if we don't give it to them, another country will. Are you scared yet? Or if we don't give them what they want, they'll have to lay people off. Scared still?

You are a sucker, plane and simple.

No wonder our founding fathers warned us about the rich and corporations getting too powerful.

The perfect argument against democracy is a simple 5 minute conversation with the average voter. That would be you dumbass.

Hmmm.. And how many people does the poor man hire?

You know, there is a whole big world out there and alot of places for corporations to make money. Why continue in THIS society with a target on your back when you can help develop another part of the world that welcomes you? I'm just sayin'

Who will they sell to? And do you think we can't replace these corporations? Plus, have you really even looked into how much companies pay in taxes? What if you looked into it and discovered that

Most Companies in US Avoid Federal Income Taxes

ABC News: Most Companies in US Avoid Federal Income Taxes

Would you feel like you were bamboozled?

Or what if you found out that the rich in this country were not paying their fair share in taxes?

The U.S. Internal Revenue Service filed a civil suit against UBS to obtain information on 52,000 accounts, after the bank admitted to assisting its U.S. clients to evade taxes by hiding assets from U.S. government.

UBS' Branson Testifies on Tax Havens - FOXBusiness.com

Here is a great op ed explaining just how many tax breaks corporations have received since Reagan. You need to stop arguing for the corporations and start arguing for yourself, before it is too late. America is a great place because of the strong middle class and because anyone can make it from rags to riches. But that isn't a guarantee. After 8 years of Bush, it is harder to make it. College grads can't find work, blue collar doesn't make good money anymore, jobs are scarce so corporations can lower wages, etc. Wake up.

Nobles Need Not Pay Taxes

This is more than just a tax cut story. It's about a fundamental shift in power and wealth from average people and the governments they had formed to represent them, to the capture of those governments and economic enslavement of their people by corporate aristocracies.

In it, Europe is simply following the lead set out by the United States, starting with the Reagan/Bush administration, when, in 1983, corporate taxes revenues were slashed to a low not seen since 1929.

 

[sealybobo]

See, stupid people like you think its a black and white thing. Yes, sometimes tax them and sometimes give them a tax break. Depends on the situation.

If a company is being taxed too much, give them a tax break. If not, don't. Who decides? Our government.

Well since you haven't been paying attention, Sybil, the government has decided to raise taxes on everyone.

Bush decided they were paying too much, and so did Reagan. Now we are bankrupt because the rich didn't pay their fair share of taxes. Niether did Corporations.

Again with Bush, I've seen man crushes before but you got the mother of all man crushes on GW.

And since you haven't noticed, we are not talking about GW here, we are talking about your leader of hope and stimuli and his policies.



And if spending is bad, how do you reconcile Obama spending even more, increasing the national debt even more?

Maybe he shouldn't have invaded Iraq?

I was never in favor of invading Iraq, I am not in favor of escalation in Afghanistan either, why don't you criticize Obama for that?

.

Because I want Bin Ladin captured or killed. Don't you anymore? PUssy.

And terrorists are training in the Afgan/Pakistan mountains.

That was the real central front on terrorism. We blew it in Iraq.

 

[sealybobo]

Why do broke conservatives cheer when we show them that rich Americans avoid paying taxes in Switzerland & Caymen's?

No wonder our taxes are being raised. We're picking up the slack for the rich.

They don't think they should pay any more than the average citizen. BULLSHIT!!!

That's why I love the death tax.

How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy?

At what point does great wealth held in a few hands actually harm democracy, threatening to turn a democratic republic into an oligarchy?
It's a debate we haven't had freely and openly in this nation for nearly a century, and last week, by voting to end the Estate Tax, House Republicans tried to ensure that it wouldn't be had again in this generation.

But it's a debate that's vital to the survival of democracy in America.

In a letter to Joseph Milligan on April 6, 1816, Thomas Jefferson explicitly suggested that if individuals became so rich that their wealth could influence or challenge government, then their wealth should be decreased upon their death. He wrote, "If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree..."

In this, he was making the same argument that the Framers of Pennsylvania tried to make when writing their constitution in 1776. As Kevin Phillips notes in his masterpiece book "Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich," a Sixteenth Article to the Pennsylvania Bill of Rights (that was only "narrowly defeated") declared: "an enormous proportion of property vested in a few individuals is dangerous to the rights, and destructive of the common happiness of mankind, and, therefore, every free state hath a right by its laws to discourage the possession of such property."

 

[sealybobo]

And how come right wingers never mention that our founding fathers warned us about corporations and rich people getting too powerful?

They only tell us about their warnings of big government.

Pick and choose is what they do.

So why do right wingers blow off these warnings?

Do they want to argue with Thomas Jefferson?

 

[Skull Pilot]

See, stupid people like you think its a black and white thing. Yes, sometimes tax them and sometimes give them a tax break. Depends on the situation.

If a company is being taxed too much, give them a tax break. If not, don't. Who decides? Our government.

Well since you haven't been paying attention, Sybil, the government has decided to raise taxes on everyone.



Again with Bush, I've seen man crushes before but you got the mother of all man crushes on GW.

And since you haven't noticed, we are not talking about GW here, we are talking about your leader of hope and stimuli and his policies.



And if spending is bad, how do you reconcile Obama spending even more, increasing the national debt even more?

Maybe he shouldn't have invaded Iraq?

I was never in favor of invading Iraq, I am not in favor of escalation in Afghanistan either, why don't you criticize Obama for that?

.

Because I want Bin Ladin captured or killed. Don't you anymore? PUssy.

And terrorists are training in the Afgan/Pakistan mountains.

That was the real central front on terrorism. We blew it in Iraq.

Revenge is no reason to spend trillions to find one man. Killing Bin Laden will not bring any 9/11 victims back to their families.

We would be better served by increasing our defenses at home and ensuring that such an attack can never happen again. And if that means offending a few Muslims so be it.