13 cities post unemployment above 15%

[LeannaM]

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/03/news/economy/metropolitan_area_unemployment/index.htm?postversion=2009060316

Nine are in California.

[rajdet]

When are we going to start using the word depression to describe our economy?

[East Detroit]

What would that accomplish?

[exdetroiter]

This is horrific. For most it is the second Great Depression and for the minority its a recession.

[Flanders]

When are we going to start using the word depression to describe our economy?

When the 11/04/10 elections are about 6 months away, or about a year from now.

[lilpup]

Here's the entire list, low to high - note that it's for metro areas and isn't seasonally adjusted. A seasonal adjustment might affect California's numbers quite a bit since they have so much agriculture.

http://www.bls.gov/web/laummtrk.htm

[Danny]

You can all thank Bush for his rediculous foriegn trade policies.Manfacturing jobs have went oversees and to Mexico in a flash.

[ccbatson]

Bush? Obama's proposed tax penality for off shore profits has prompted the CEO of Microsoft to inform the press that when that happens, more outsourcing (maybe the whole ball of wax) will be going on at Microsoft. Say bye bye to 55000 jobs from one (of many) companies that behave based on logic. Thanks Obama.

[Bigb23]

Yeah, Thanks Cc, for the legacy that was left. G.W. was and is clueless. At least we have a president that can mop up the mess left from the previous administration. Or we can have Dick Cheney again. Take your pick.

[biggus]

The best thing that we can do to return jobs to the US is to eliminate the domestic business tax, It would be replaced with a national sales tax that would be revenue neutral. Of course the global corporations would howl, but they have a choice not to sell their imported products in the US.

[ccbatson]

You are not paying attention BigB...This is a new Obama proposal (along with quadrupling the debt, expanding government by 50%, socializing industries at break neck speed, and stealing individual liberty) that will do grave harm to all US citizens. GWB had nothing whatever to do with it.

[ccbatson]

Biggus...welcome, as always, we need members with at least a modicum of common sense and not thoroughly brainwashed as they march themselves (and the rest of us) to the gallows.

[Detroit Stylin]

You are not paying attention BigB...This is a new Obama proposal (along with quadrupling the debt, expanding government by 50%, socializing industries at break neck speed, and stealing individual liberty) that will do grave harm to all US citizens. GWB had nothing whatever to do with it.



Karl? You still exist?

[Bigb23]

Wow - one thought and one thought only Cc, don't you ponder anything at all ? :confused:

[gibran]

You are not paying attention BigB...This is a new Obama proposal (along with quadrupling the debt, expanding government by 50%, socializing industries at break neck speed, and stealing individual liberty) that will do grave harm to all US citizens. GWB had nothing whatever to do with it.

what part of temporary oversight didn't you hear...how would you guys of handled GM etal..oh yes free market adjustments that how..;)

[Bigb23]

The free market has run rampant for the past 20 years. So what do we have left ? 15 % unemployment, and CEO's that laugh all the way to the Swiss bank. Way to go.

[Detroitej72]

Screw free trade. Go back to the system of tariffs, and manufacturing will come back to our shores. That is one thing I agree with Pat Buchanan on, the U.S. need to get back to a protectionist mentality.

[Kevgoblu]

The best thing that we can do to return jobs to the US is to eliminate the domestic business tax, It would be replaced with a national sales tax that would be revenue neutral. Of course the global corporations would howl, but they have a choice not to sell their imported products in the US.

In an attempt to remain open minded, can you explain to me how this would work?

So we effectively eliminate business taxes. This would result in an immediate increase in business "profits", thus increasing CEO bonues across the board. (Good for the few) I'm sure government isn't willing to reduce itself by a corresponding amount, so in order to remain revenue nuetral, this tax liability is placed upon the indivual consumer. (Bad for the many)
Based upon what we've seen with the financial bailout how will this help our economy? We pumped billions into financial institutions, who in turn continued to restrict credit to the indivual.

If the indivual's ability to spend is hampered, how will the economy rebound?
And Cc, why are you supportive of such a plan, which would serve to further reduce individual liberties?

[ccbatson]

You hit the nail on the head there (but don't know it). Tax cuts and DECREASING GOVERNMENT SIZE must occur together....and we, the individualist, the voters that put people in office, must demand it.

[Kevgoblu]

I didn't miss anything. Biggus mentioned neither decreasing government size nor tax cuts. The plan was merely shifting the existing tax burden from corportations to individuals.

[Sstashmoo]

quote: "This would result in an immediate increase in business "profits", thus increasing CEO bonues across the board. "

Totally defeatist attitude.

[oladub]

In post # 6, lilput has a link to over three hundred metropolitan districts listed according to their respective percentages of unemployment. Compare a sample of the top ten or twenty metropolitan districts with the bottom ten or twenty metropolitan districts. Those with the least unemployment tend to be located in more conservative interior farming states with a less diverse population. During the Great Depression, the Prarie states were some of the hardest hit. This time around, they are faring above average.

[ghettopalmetto]

In post # 6, lilput has a link to over three hundred metropolitan districts listed according to their respective percentages of unemployment. Compare a sample of the top ten or twenty metropolitan districts with the bottom ten or twenty metropolitan districts. Those with the least unemployment tend to be located in more conservative interior farming states with a less diverse population. During the Great Depression, the Prarie states were some of the hardest hit. This time around, they are faring above average.

Maybe that's because those states rely on farming (i.e. production of a REAL product) vis-a-vis manufacturing, banking, and real-estate speculation for their economic growth?

No, of course not. It has to do entirely with homogeneity and so-called "conservative" politics. Because you said so.

[oladub]

ghettopal;mettos says, "It has to do entirely with homogeneity and so-called conservative" politics ". Because you said so. "

Where did I say that it " has to do entirely with homogeneity and so-called conservative" politics ""? What I wrote was "Those with the least unemployment tend to be located in more conservative interior farming states with a less diverse population. During the Great Depression, the Prarie states were some of the hardest hit. This time around, they are fa(i)ring above average." Maybe the only important factor, as you mentioned, is producing REAL products like food but California is already the number one agricultural production state - not even including its marijuana crop. However, there is also a correlation between state spending and debt per capita and unemployment. The metropolitan districts with the lowest unemployment rates were in states with lesser abounts of spending and debt prior to the recession. States going into a depression already burdened by extra cost and debt are at a disadvantage. California takes this a step further by harboring 6-8 million illegal aliens who often have little education and are the first to be laid off.

[lilpup]

I think it's because those aren't "fashionable" places to move to or live in - that whole "young professionals" & lifestyle thinking. Half of New York City's children probably haven't even seen a cow outside of a petting zoo or off a Broadway stage.

[edgewood]

You can all thank Bush for his rediculous foriegn trade policies.Manfacturing jobs have went oversees and to Mexico in a flash.


NAFTA was from President Clinton.

[ccbatson]

Free trade is a positive move. The problem is that the forces and incentives inherent in that system (also positive) are stymied by domestic bureaucracy (organized labor, corporate taxation, and big government).

[rb336]

NAFTA was from President Clinton.

NAFTA was signed by Reagan-lite (Clinton) but it started under Ronnie and B41

[ccbatson]

I suppose next to Obama, the radical socialist, Clinton is relatively conservative.

Good point Rb (whether you intended it that way, or not).

[Papasito]

The current unemployment numbers are higher than the projected numbers we were given had the Stimulus not been passed. The White House was trying to scare us when they were ramming the Stimulus down our throats. They got it passed and the numbers are worse then the projections had they done nothing at all.

Does anyone take accountability for White House failures anymore?

[oladub]

The current unemployment numbers are higher than the projected numbers we were given had the Stimulus not been passed. The White House was trying to scare us when they were ramming the Stimulus down our throats. They got it passed and the numbers are worse then the projections had they done nothing at all.

Of course. It just keeps getting worse with the exception of the Obama stock market which has reclaimed 50% of the lost ground it has experienced since October 1. Besides having poured money on bank executives, one year CD rates pay only about 2% interest. This doesn't help retirees with limited savings but its great for bank profit. Now, as I understand it, Congress is making it much more difficult to sell one's home with a land contract. This will increase home sale money that goes through the bankers hands. Its like a step by step program of stimulating economic fascism for bankers.
H.R. 1728: The Death of Creative Financing (http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2009/06/now-the-banks-want-to-stop-you-from-selling-your-own-home-without-them/)



Does anyone take accountability for White House failures anymore?


Naw. By definition, failures are still something that happened in or was caused by the last administration. Roosevelt was considered a success for only having only 17% unemployment after eight years in the White House. It was still Hoover's fault.

[jiminnm]

When are we going to start using the word depression to describe our economy?

When unemployment hits 25% nationally, the net of social programs no longer exists and I see Apple Annie down on the corner. The economic situation right now is as far from a depression as it is from total prosperity. As I've said before, if you think this is a depression please go and discuss a real depression with someone who actually experienced it first hand.

Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator, and many economists consider it the last or near last indicator to improve after a recession.

[Haikoont]

Maybe that's because those states rely on farming (i.e. production of a REAL product) vis-a-vis manufacturing, banking, and real-estate speculation for their economic growth?

No, of course not. It has to do entirely with homogeneity and so-called "conservative" politics. Because you said so.

Dan, like farming, doesn't manufacturing produce a real product?

[ccbatson]

Duration and severity mark a depression...this could turn out to be a depression, but we can't define it as such until later.

[Bigb23]

Back when W#2 proclaimed a national unemployment rate of 3.8 % a year ago, he knew what was coming. Now we have a national 12% and rising. In metro Detroit, It's 24% and rising. Thanks, Bush the younger, we love the mess.

[313WX]

NAFTA was from President Clinton.

Uh, no. NAFTA was from George H.W. Bush Sr. Not to mention more republicans approved it than democrats.

[oladub]

Uh, no. NAFTA was from George H.W. Bush Sr. Not to mention more republicans approved it than democrats.

Clinton pushed through NAFTA. To get this thing passed, he did receive substantial Republican support. Your second statement is correct. 132 Republican and 102 Democrat Representatives voted for NAFTA. 34 Republican and 27 Democrat Senators voted for NAFTA.

[313WX]

Clinton pushed through NAFTA. To get this thing passed, he did receive substantial Republican support. Your second statement is correct. 132 Republican and 102 Democrat Representatives voted for NAFTA. 34 Republican and 27 Democrat Senators voted for NAFTA.

Clinton did make the final/official ratification, but it was Bush who was involved in creating most of the clauses. He tried his hardest to ratify it himself, but failed. The unofficial agreement between Canada, Mexico & the US was signed a month before his term ended.

[lilpup]

While I appreciate the impact of NAFTA, the reality is that our largest trade deficit is with China (which is really surprising when you consider the fact that the majority of our oil comes from Canada).

[oladub]

Clinton did make the final/official ratification, but it was Bush who was involved in creating most of the clauses. He tried his hardest to ratify it himself, but failed. The unofficial agreement between Canada, Mexico & the US was signed a month before his term ended.

C'mon, bite the bullet and admit it. Clinton lobbied for and signed his name on the NAFTA bill. Fortunatly, Bush is gone and we now have a new President who stated on the campaign trail, "AP, 8/8/07: "I would immediately call the president of Mexico, the president of Canada, to try to amend NAFTA, because I think that we can get labor agreements in that agreement right now. And it should reflect the basic principle that our trade agreements should not just be good for Wall Street; it should also be good for Main Street." This campaign promise has so far not been implemented but he means well. Also, before someone brings it up, the administration's Government Motors plan to begin importing Chinese cars has nothing to do with NAFTA because NAFTA does not cover Chinese trade agreements.

Obama Doesn’t Plan to Reopen Nafta Talks (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/business/21nafta.html) (not so hope and changy reading)

[mjs]

Roosevelt was considered a success for only having only 17% unemployment after eight years in the White House. It was still Hoover's fault.

Thats the one I never understand. The man completely screwed up the balance of power between the states and feds for zero results before Pearl Harbor, yet liberals keep pointing to his actions as the model to get out of bad economic times. By what objective standard was this man successful before 1941? I rank him as one of the worst Presidents ever.

[mjs]

Clinton pushed through NAFTA. To get this thing passed, he did receive substantial Republican support. Your second statement is correct. 132 Republican and 102 Democrat Representatives voted for NAFTA. 34 Republican and 27 Democrat Senators voted for NAFTA.

And Bush pushed through the bank bailout. To get this thing passed, he did receive substantial Democrat support. Any legislation where the President goes against the wishes of his own party spells disaster for the little guy and a windfall for big money.

[Sstashmoo]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/business/21nafta.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1244919702-o41Ew5N3N+D5sYUqV1fMNQ

""Mr. Obama had conferred with the leaders of Mexico and Canada — the other parties to the trade agreement — and that “they are all of the mind we should look for opportunities to strengthen Nafta.”

But while he said that a formal review of the 1992 pact had yet to be completed, Mr. Kirk noted that both Mr. Obama and President Felipe Calderon of Mexico had said that “they don’t believe we have to reopen the agreement now.”

Mexico in particular, whose exports have exploded under Nafta, has little interest in such a renegotiation.

Not only Mr. Obama but also one of his rivals for the presidency, Hillary Rodham Clinton, had promised during their campaigns to renegotiate the accord — a politically popular position in some electorally important Midwestern states that have lost thousands of manufacturing jobs. ""

He isn't and has no plan of addressing our trade situation. He outright lied to us during his campaign. You folks can go ahead and defend him all you want, but you'll wake up eventually and realize you've been bamboozled by a huckster. He is just more of the same. I swear, it is like our elected officials are handed a program when they take office. They receive their marching orders and they don't include the American people. This isn't "protectionism" , this is about leveling the playing field. This is about feeding those that fuel the fires of THIS economy. This is about preserving our standard of living.

[ccbatson]

Have a nice sleep liberals? woke up to realize that Obama is lying and has a radical socialist agenda in store for all of us? Now that you are awake, what are you going to do about it at the polls in 2010 and 2012?