PDA

View Full Version : Are we talking ourselves into a Double-Dip Recession?


bronclvr
06-17-2011, 11:24 AM
With recovery limping along, pessimism could begin weighing on growth

This month marks the second anniversary of an economic expansion that began at the end of what is now being called the Great Recession. But for millions of small businesses and households, the economic recovery has yet to arrive.

Frank Goodnight, owner of Diversified Graphics, a Salisbury, N.C., printing company with 12 employees, is among them. In 37 years, he has survived some tough economic times. But never like this.

"This recession is equal to the other four doubled,” he said. “Business has just been so bad for so long that right now we’re just hunkered down trying to survive.”

Consumer sentiment worsened more than expected in June on renewed concerns about the outlook for the economy, a survey released Friday showed . It was just the latest in a series of surveys that have pointed to a marked downward shift in the outlook for jobs, housing and the stock market.

Economists say the lingering effects of the Great Recession help explain why so many businesses, investors and consumers remain so gloomy about the outlook for the U.S. economy. The mood appears to be worsening, leading to a concern among economists and others of a self-fulfilling prophecy -- that worried consumers will slow spending, further hampering the recovery, and perhaps raising the risk of a double-dip recession or at least yielding years of sluggish growth.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43432796/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/

What do you think?

TerrElway
06-17-2011, 11:34 AM
I think it feeds on itself. There was talk of this in 2008 when it all went to hell that it was so bad because extreme circumstances met investors beaten over the head by all the doom and gloom media.

I would like to see the media (I'm allowed to bash, I'm a member) suddenly decide to focus on things with an optimistic bent rather than rushing so fast to show what a toilet life on this planet is and see if it made a difference.

We are bombarded with negative every day. I firmly believe it effects our thinking. That's not to say we live in a la-la land where everything is fine but what it we were presented things in a "glass half full" way instead of the other?

schaaf
06-17-2011, 11:37 AM
It's all Bush's fault.... Hahaha:thanku:

Agamemnon
06-17-2011, 11:38 AM
Or it could just be that the "economic recovery" was a big fat lie. People making less money and having fewer jobs doesn't generally generate optimism no matter how much the government keeps trying to tell us it's getting better.

enjolras
06-17-2011, 11:42 AM
I'm not a member and I can most definitely bash the media as well.

The media in the U.S., for whatever reason, is an absolute joke. They feed on insecurity and fear to push ratings. That's it. The media, at least from outward appearances, are intellectually lazy. As someone who has at least studied science, and tries to stay up with scientific literature (particularly in physics) its appalling how bad the quality of reporting is.

The economy has long been a favorite place for scare tactics, and it's only gotten worse. "Business reporters" are finding "bubbles" all over the place. Everything is apparently a giant bubble just waiting to pop and take down you and your family!!! Technology is apparently in a giant bubble, funded solely by private investors with the amount of money involved so microscopically small (by market standards) that it has zero chance of having any real effect on the economy.

I hate the media. I hate the news. I'm just so sick and tired of it...and yes, we're in real danger of undoing this recovery on the backs of our national pessimism.

enjolras
06-17-2011, 11:44 AM
Or it could just be that the "economic recovery" was a big fat lie. People making less money and having fewer jobs doesn't generally generate optimism no matter how much the government keeps trying to tell us it's getting better.

Except that there are far more jobs in 2011 than in say 2009. The employment situation is hugely improved, even if its not anywhere close to pre-recession levels.

mkporter
06-17-2011, 11:52 AM
We need to remember that this was a doozy of a recession. Most of us have never seen anything like this in our lifetimes. The recovery is not going to look like the recovery from our smaller recessions of the past 20 years. The recovery is going to be slower than normal, but we will recover. The biggest issue going forward will be the problem of the long term unemployed. Once you are unemployed for long enough, it becomes very hard to get a job, because people assume there is something wrong with you because you've been out of work so long.

I don't think we are looking at a double dip though. The economy is still growing, companies are still hiring, just not as fast as we'd like yet.

alkemical
06-17-2011, 11:53 AM
Are most of those jobs...Mcjobs though?

bronco militia
06-17-2011, 11:54 AM
I don't know about you guys, but I can't spend money I don't have unless I want to go into debt again. Is that the American Dream?

alkemical
06-17-2011, 11:57 AM
I don't know about you guys, but I can't spend money I don't have unless I want to go into debt again. Is that the American Dream?

Yes!!!!

Agamemnon
06-17-2011, 11:59 AM
Except that there are far more jobs in 2011 than in say 2009. The employment situation is hugely improved, even if its not anywhere close to pre-recession levels.

Hugely improved?

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

Going from 10% to 9% isn't all that huge, especially when you consider the overall quality, or lack thereof, of the new jobs.

Agamemnon
06-17-2011, 12:01 PM
I don't know about you guys, but I can't spend money I don't have unless I want to go into debt again. Is that the American Dream?

Our economy is predicated on you and everyone else doing just that. If you aren't then you are part of the problem...

alkemical
06-17-2011, 12:02 PM
Hugely improved?

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

Going from 10% to 9% isn't all that huge, especially when you consider the overall quality, or lack thereof, of the new jobs.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=97714&highlight=IKEA

http://www.disinfo.com/2011/04/united-states-becomes-swedens-third-world-outsourcing-destination/

When a large multinational corporation is looking to cut costs, what does it do? Send jobs overseas to a less modernized country — one where salaries are a fraction of those at home and the law provides few rights or protections for workers — and watch the profits roll in. We are speaking, of course, of Sweden’s IKEA, and Virginia, USA. Is this our economic future? Current reports:

Here we are, folks. Sweden’s third-world sweatshop. IKEA takes advantage of the destruction to our economy caused by outsourcing jobs by outsourcing their own jobs to the U.S.–and paying less than the workers in Sweden get ($8 in the U.S., $19 + better benefits in Sweden, for making the same products), about 50% of what the median income is in Danville (the town where IKEA’s sweatshop is located), with much stricter and abusive practices in the Danville facility, and with many less rights.

They even use the same reason for the poor pay that American corporations use for their poor pay of their own third-world sweatshops in India:

(quoting from the article): ” …She acknowledged the pay gap between factories in Europe and the U.S. ‘That is related to the standard of living and general conditions in the different countries,’ Steen said.”

Cito Pelon
06-17-2011, 12:05 PM
With recovery limping along, pessimism could begin weighing on growth


What do you think?

I think the best thing is to suspend Federal taxes on incomes between $70k/yr and $200k/yr for 2011.

That would boost consumer spending greatly, families would be able to buy the big ticket items they've been wanting, but have been scared to spend on.

That would inject massive $$$$ into manufacturing to the tune of $5k-$20k per household in that income range. That's the jumpstart we need, a way to actually inject lifeblood into the economy and see if it can start up again instead of this stagnation.

It's only a one-year hit if it doesn't work out, it's worth the gamble. And this is nothing new, many economists have advocated this. Just a one-time hit to jumpstart the economy.

Chris
06-17-2011, 12:07 PM
I agree with enjolras that the media is a big part of the problem. They're pushing fear and it's killling America's greatest asset - OPTIMISM.

In my opinion there are a lot of problems in the US manifested by the fact that this place is capitalism unhinged. One of the biggest issues is the media. If I contrast American media to the media in the UK there is something gained culturally and in the collective psyche by having content that is not explicitly created in pursuit of ratings. The news is by far the biggest victim of this. No one in America seems to want to watch PBS and it's in danger of losing all of its funding (both parties are okay with this because they're rather have MSNBCs or FOXs pushing their bull****).

alkemical
06-17-2011, 12:08 PM
I think the best thing is to suspend Federal taxes on incomes between $70k/yr and $200k/yr for 2011.

That would boost consumer spending greatly, families would be able to buy the big ticket items they've been wanting, but have been scared to spend on.

That would inject massive $$$$ into manufacturing to the tune of $5k-$20k per household in that income range. That's the jumpstart we need, a way to actually inject lifeblood into the economy and see if it can start up again instead of this stagnation.

It's only a one-year hit if it doesn't work out, it's worth the gamble. And this is nothing new, many economists have advocated this. Just a one-time hit to jumpstart the economy.

Two problems:

What's really "made" here in the USA that would "jump start jobs".

Two, why not just do it across the board for everyone? What's the avg. yearly income for "economists"? 70k-200k? ;)

Agamemnon
06-17-2011, 12:14 PM
I think the best thing is to suspend Federal taxes on incomes between $70k/yr and $200k/yr for 2011.

That would boost consumer spending greatly, families would be able to buy the big ticket items they've been wanting, but have been scared to spend on.

That would inject massive $$$$ into manufacturing to the tune of $5k-$20k per household in that income range. That's the jumpstart we need, a way to actually inject lifeblood into the economy and see if it can start up again instead of this stagnation.

It's only a one-year hit if it doesn't work out, it's worth the gamble. And this is nothing new, many economists have advocated this. Just a one-time hit to jumpstart the economy.

That would really sit well with all the people making less than $70k a year.

By the way, how does our government offset the reduction in available funds? Borrow more money from China?

alkemical
06-17-2011, 12:16 PM
That would really sit well with all the people making less than $70k a year.

By the way, how does our government offset the reduction in available funds? Borrow more money from China?

LOL, i just thought of something. You know congress' pay scale is in that range.

That One Guy
06-17-2011, 12:17 PM
I think the best thing is to suspend Federal taxes on incomes between $70k/yr and $200k/yr for 2011.

That would boost consumer spending greatly, families would be able to buy the big ticket items they've been wanting, but have been scared to spend on.

That would inject massive $$$$ into manufacturing to the tune of $5k-$20k per household in that income range. That's the jumpstart we need, a way to actually inject lifeblood into the economy and see if it can start up again instead of this stagnation.

It's only a one-year hit if it doesn't work out, it's worth the gamble. And this is nothing new, many economists have advocated this. Just a one-time hit to jumpstart the economy.

As the others have said, it'll stimulate China while our gov't borrows money to make up for lost revenues.

Why not face the problem - American industrial work and, generally, all jobs are being undermined by foreign labor being cheaper. Make jobs export-proof and get the people back to work.

Agamemnon
06-17-2011, 12:24 PM
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=97714&highlight=IKEA

Wait isn't Sweden socialist (social democrat I mean, though most Americans don't know the difference)? I thought that kind of thing destroyed economies and lowered standards of living...

alkemical
06-17-2011, 12:28 PM
Wait isn't Sweden socialist (social democrat I mean, though most Americans don't know the difference)? I thought that kind of thing destroyed economies and lowered standards of living...


Weird, huh?

TailgateNut
06-17-2011, 12:31 PM
With recovery limping along, pessimism could begin weighing on growth

This month marks the second anniversary of an economic expansion that began at the end of what is now being called the Great Recession. But for millions of small businesses and households, the economic recovery has yet to arrive.

Frank Goodnight, owner of Diversified Graphics, a Salisbury, N.C., printing company with 12 employees, is among them. In 37 years, he has survived some tough economic times. But never like this.

"This recession is equal to the other four doubled,” he said. “Business has just been so bad for so long that right now we’re just hunkered down trying to survive.”

Consumer sentiment worsened more than expected in June on renewed concerns about the outlook for the economy, a survey released Friday showed . It was just the latest in a series of surveys that have pointed to a marked downward shift in the outlook for jobs, housing and the stock market.

Economists say the lingering effects of the Great Recession help explain why so many businesses, investors and consumers remain so gloomy about the outlook for the U.S. economy. The mood appears to be worsening, leading to a concern among economists and others of a self-fulfilling prophecy -- that worried consumers will slow spending, further hampering the recovery, and perhaps raising the risk of a double-dip recession or at least yielding years of sluggish growth.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43432796/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/

What do you think?


I'm hunkered down just like everyone else. Just keeping afloat and working not for profit, but just to keep the doors open. It sucks giant hairy balls!

I'm keeping my money in the good ol USA, and when possible in Colorado. **** everyone else!

The long term forecast is for improvement, but that's only because it really can't get much worse!

TailgateNut
06-17-2011, 12:31 PM
It's all Bush's fault.... Hahaha:thanku:

The first time you've ever made sense!

Archer81
06-17-2011, 12:32 PM
The long term forecast is for improvement, but that's only because it really can't get much worse!


Of course it can.


:Broncos:

TailgateNut
06-17-2011, 12:42 PM
I think the best thing is to suspend Federal taxes on incomes between $70k/yr and $200k/yr for 2011.

That would boost consumer spending greatly, families would be able to buy the big ticket items they've been wanting, but have been scared to spend on.

That would inject massive $$$$ into manufacturing to the tune of $5k-$20k per household in that income range. That's the jumpstart we need, a way to actually inject lifeblood into the economy and see if it can start up again instead of this stagnation.

It's only a one-year hit if it doesn't work out, it's worth the gamble. And this is nothing new, many economists have advocated this. Just a one-time hit to jumpstart the economy.


:spit::spit::spit::spit::spit::spit:

Odysseus
06-17-2011, 12:44 PM
I'm not a member and I can most definitely bash the media as well.

The media in the U.S., for whatever reason, is an absolute joke. They feed on insecurity and fear to push ratings. That's it. The media, at least from outward appearances, are intellectually lazy. As someone who has at least studied science, and tries to stay up with scientific literature (particularly in physics) its appalling how bad the quality of reporting is.

The economy has long been a favorite place for scare tactics, and it's only gotten worse. "Business reporters" are finding "bubbles" all over the place. Everything is apparently a giant bubble just waiting to pop and take down you and your family!!! Technology is apparently in a giant bubble, funded solely by private investors with the amount of money involved so microscopically small (by market standards) that it has zero chance of having any real effect on the economy.

I hate the media. I hate the news. I'm just so sick and tired of it...and yes, we're in real danger of undoing this recovery on the backs of our national pessimism.

Fear is insidous and uncontrollable burden.

Agamemnon
06-17-2011, 12:44 PM
Of course it can.



Looking at the mind-boggling poverty throughout the world, this would seem rather apparent. This isn't even bad yet. Not even close.

broncocalijohn
06-17-2011, 12:50 PM
I am in the real estate industry and this has not recovered at all. In fact, I am struggling more to cover bills and the usual business rent, mortgage and equity line. Only good news is that a possible refinance right now is really good and putting the 6 1/2 years left on the mortgage and 21 years left of the equity line to a combined 10 year loan that will save us years and $400 a month. That is my positive outlook on 3 years plus of absolute ****!

Cito Pelon
06-17-2011, 12:57 PM
Two problems:

What's really "made" here in the USA that would "jump start jobs".

Two, why not just do it across the board for everyone? What's the avg. yearly income for "economists"? 70k-200k? ;)

Well, I'm looking at the consumer class, that's about in the $70k-200k range, yes, no? The people with families, the people that buy things for their families.

I think it's a good idea. And, whether or not it's made in the USA, sales tax is generated, there is MOVEMENT instead of stagnation.

Chris
06-17-2011, 01:01 PM
Well, I'm looking at the consumer class, that's about in the $70k-200k range, yes, no? The people with families, the people that buy things for their families.

I think it's a good idea. And, whether or not it's made in the USA, sales tax is generated, there is MOVEMENT instead of stagnation.

I'm willing to bet people of virtually ever income bracket in America are the consumer class.

Why can't this country move away from a consumer based economy? Surely there is an alternative.

alkemical
06-17-2011, 01:01 PM
Well, I'm looking at the consumer class, that's about in the $70k-200k range, yes, no? The people with families, the people that buy things for their families.

I think it's a good idea. And, whether or not it's made in the USA, sales tax is generated, there is MOVEMENT instead of stagnation.


I don't know many people right NOW making $70k+ a year (individually). I know a handful - but not enough to say that buying a car or TV will help stimulate jobs.

Cito Pelon
06-17-2011, 01:03 PM
That would really sit well with all the people making less than $70k a year.

By the way, how does our government offset the reduction in available funds? Borrow more money from China?

OK, adjust it how you please. People in incomes less than $20k yr don't pay Fed taxes anyway. If you want to make it $50k, $40k, that's fine with me, just target the consumer class.

And, it's possible to tax the rich. It's not a taboo.

Agamemnon
06-17-2011, 01:04 PM
Well, I'm looking at the consumer class, that's about in the $70k-200k range, yes, no? The people with families, the people that buy things for their families.

I think it's a good idea. And, whether or not it's made in the USA, sales tax is generated, there is MOVEMENT instead of stagnation.

So people who make under 70k a year don't have families and don't buy things for their families? Are you serious?

Cito Pelon
06-17-2011, 01:04 PM
LOL, i just thought of something. You know congress' pay scale is in that range.

Please.

alkemical
06-17-2011, 01:05 PM
OK, adjust it how you please. People in incomes less than $20k yr don't pay Fed taxes anyway. If you want to make it $50k, $40k, that's fine with me, just target the consumer class.

And, it's possible to tax the rich. It's not a taboo.

****, Make it across teh board - and forgive student loans also.

Agamemnon
06-17-2011, 01:07 PM
And, it's possible to tax the rich. It's not a taboo.

That would be news to the people in Washington.

alkemical
06-17-2011, 01:08 PM
Please.

Senate Leadership
Majority Party Leader - $193,400
Minority Party Leader - $193,400

House Leadership
Speaker of the House - $223,500
Majority Leader - $193,400
Minority Leader - $193,400

Agamemnon
06-17-2011, 01:09 PM
****, Make it across teh board - and forgive student loans also.

Student loans are never going to be forgiven. They're the only debt that's protected from bankruptcy for a reason: there's far too much profit being made off them.

Agamemnon
06-17-2011, 01:10 PM
Senate Leadership
Majority Party Leader - $193,400
Minority Party Leader - $193,400

House Leadership
Speaker of the House - $223,500
Majority Leader - $193,400
Minority Leader - $193,400

Guess it'll have to be boosted up to $250k then. :thumbsup:

epicSocialism4tw
06-17-2011, 01:14 PM
http://votersopinion.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/obama_is_a_dunce.jpg

Cito Pelon
06-17-2011, 01:17 PM
As the others have said, it'll stimulate China while our gov't borrows money to make up for lost revenues.

Why not face the problem - American industrial work and, generally, all jobs are being undermined by foreign labor being cheaper. Make jobs export-proof and get the people back to work.

Yeah? Well let's take a look at household expenses:

In the past five years I've had my house painted. The paint and the labor came from the USA. I had my furnace and water heater replaced, made in the USA and used local labor. Bought some sod, that didn't come from China. Replaced my roof, that came from the USA, and used local labor.

Not everything be all and end all comes from China. If the consumer class has some more disposable income, that actually does contribute to the US economy, especially if the consumer class gets a huge one-time bonus.

Many economists say the same.

Cito Pelon
06-17-2011, 01:21 PM
I don't know about you guys, but I can't spend money I don't have unless I want to go into debt again. Is that the American Dream?

Ok, if you got a one year suspension of your Federal taxes, would you buy some things you need?

Fedaykin
06-17-2011, 01:25 PM
I think the best thing is to suspend Federal taxes on incomes between $70k/yr and $200k/yr for 2011.

That would boost consumer spending greatly, families would be able to buy the big ticket items they've been wanting, but have been scared to spend on.

That would inject massive $$$$ into manufacturing to the tune of $5k-$20k per household in that income range. That's the jumpstart we need, a way to actually inject lifeblood into the economy and see if it can start up again instead of this stagnation.

It's only a one-year hit if it doesn't work out, it's worth the gamble. And this is nothing new, many economists have advocated this. Just a one-time hit to jumpstart the economy.

Great Plan! Cut a substantial part of tax revenue, forcing the federal government to run a higher deficit and add more debt and encourage everyone to go buy that shiney new made in Mexico/China/Korea/Japan toy.

We don't need another bubble or "jumpstart". We need a sound foundation for sustainable future growth. We need to encourage people to buy quality goods and services made in the U.S. instead of cheap plastic disposable sh*t made in China. We need to drop the stupidity of trickle down economics and get back to sound fiscal/economic policy. Demand drives an economy, not supply. "Build it and they will come" only works for baseball movies.

Cito Pelon
06-17-2011, 01:27 PM
Senate Leadership
Majority Party Leader - $193,400
Minority Party Leader - $193,400

House Leadership
Speaker of the House - $223,500
Majority Leader - $193,400
Minority Leader - $193,400

They also get all their expenses paid from haircuts and shoe shines to housing and car allowances. The taxpayer pays for the things most families pay out of their pockets. Not to mention the meals, etc they get from lobbyists.

bronco militia
06-17-2011, 01:31 PM
Ok, if you got a one year suspension of your Federal taxes, would you buy some things you need?

I buy/have what I need. I don't think extra money in my pocket this year is going to do anygood long term for our economy.

Fedaykin
06-17-2011, 01:40 PM
Well, I'm looking at the consumer class, that's about in the $70k-200k range, yes, no? The people with families, the people that buy things for their families.

I think it's a good idea. And, whether or not it's made in the USA, sales tax is generated, there is MOVEMENT instead of stagnation.

Wow, you think $70-$200k is the bulk of the consumer class?

In 2005 (so inflation + recession has probably changed this somewhat), the median household income in the U.S. was around $45k. Some quick Googling tells me that despite inflation that's still a pretty close number -- meaning real wages have dropped significantly. If wages had matched inflation, the median should be 53k

$70k was around the 86th percentile (meaning only ~14% of households made more than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

Let me guess, you grew up in an upscale suburban neighborhood?

bronclvr
06-17-2011, 01:40 PM
We don't need another bubble or "jumpstart". We need a sound foundation for sustainable future growth. We need to encourage people to buy quality goods and services made in the U.S. instead of cheap plastic disposable sh*t made in China. We need to drop the stupidity of trickle down economics and get back to sound fiscal/economic policy. Demand drives an economy, not supply. "Build it and they will come" only works for baseball movies.


I agree with this Post, but I don't think it really addresses the problem-how do you "encourage" people to spend?

broncocalijohn
06-17-2011, 02:05 PM
I agree with this Post, but I don't think it really addresses the problem-how do you "encourage" people to spend?

You are going to have natural tendencies to "spend" when there is money in your wallet/bank account. As with trickle down, not all money will see the spending side. Some will save for years then spend or just hoard it away in a savings account. If you were to give back the taxes in full for a year, what happens the next year? If that was to happen (and I doubt it would), you would need a decline for year 2 and 3. THerefore, a scale should be in place to ease the loss of the "rebate/refund" at maybe 75%(first year)/50%/25% over three years. I know I said rebate/refund instead of "not having federal income tax".

mkporter
06-17-2011, 02:12 PM
OK, adjust it how you please. People in incomes less than $20k yr don't pay Fed taxes anyway. If you want to make it $50k, $40k, that's fine with me, just target the consumer class.

And, it's possible to tax the rich. It's not a taboo.

If you are looking for the federal government to apply more stimulus to the economy, the most effective way to do this is by direct government spending. The problem with using tax cuts to stimulate the economy, is that many people (usually the ones in good financial condition) will just put the money into savings. There is a staggering amount of money that was been hoarded by corporations and people in higher income brackets. The real goal is to figure out how to unlock that $$.

bronclvr
06-17-2011, 02:17 PM
You are going to have natural tendencies to "spend" when there is money in your wallet/bank account. As with trickle down, not all money will see the spending side. Some will save for years then spend or just hoard it away in a savings account. If you were to give back the taxes in full for a year, what happens the next year? If that was to happen (and I doubt it would), you would need a decline for year 2 and 3. THerefore, a scale should be in place to ease the loss of the "rebate/refund" at maybe 75%(first year)/50%/25% over three years. I know I said rebate/refund instead of "not having federal income tax".

You know, I can agree with this in theory too, but isnt' it a little more elemental? By that I mean, don't people need to feel that they are secure in their jobs, and for lack of a better term "the future looks so bright I gotta wear shades?"

I think about myself, and if I were to receive more Tax money back I'd probably just put it in the Bank-the future seems kinda uncertain-

Archer81
06-17-2011, 02:26 PM
http://tinyurl.com/6d692qw


:Broncos:

TailgateNut
06-17-2011, 02:40 PM
Ok, if you got a one year suspension of your Federal taxes, would you buy some things you need?


I'd put that **** under the matress for the following year when they'd raise taxes to make up for the previous years losses.:wiggle:

broncocalijohn
06-17-2011, 02:41 PM
If you are looking for the federal government to apply more stimulus to the economy, the most effective way to do this is by direct government spending. The problem with using tax cuts to stimulate the economy, is that many people (usually the ones in good financial condition) will just put the money into savings. There is a staggering amount of money that was been hoarded by corporations and people in higher income brackets. The real goal is to figure out how to unlock that $$.

Are you ready for the argument of letting government spend is better than US spending it? Oh, it is coming and examples of this last Stimulus round will be a prime example. While the works in the 30s helped our country for the future, the unemployment was still very high.
You know, I can agree with this in theory too, but isnt' it a little more elemental? By that I mean, don't people need to feel that they are secure in their jobs, and for lack of a better term "the future looks so bright I gotta wear shades?"

I think about myself, and if I were to receive more Tax money back I'd probably just put it in the Bank-the future seems kinda uncertain-

and why I mentioned it in my post. It will never be a perfect fit. You can always try out that you have to spend the money on hard goods with proof. Of course the "Fake Business Receipt Company" will flourish under those stipulations.

mkporter
06-17-2011, 03:16 PM
Are you ready for the argument of letting government spend is better than US spending it? Oh, it is coming and examples of this last Stimulus round will be a prime example. While the works in the 30s helped our country for the future, the unemployment was still very high.


and why I mentioned it in my post. It will never be a perfect fit. You can always try out that you have to spend the money on hard goods with proof. Of course the "Fake Business Receipt Company" will flourish under those stipulations.

My point was, IF you want the government to take action and stimulate the economy, then you will get more money into the economy if the government spends it directly, than if they give it to people to spend, because a lot of people won't spend it. When Bush gave me my stimulus check, it went directly into my savings account. No near term economic benefit.

I personally feel that the bigger problem right now is getting the money on the sidelines back into the game. Corporate profits look pretty good these days, and the "investor class" has lots of $$$, but that money isn't being reinvested in growth and new jobs at a brisk enough pace yet. Not sure how to push this along, but it will happen as the outlook for the economy continues to brighten.

Our other problem is the shift in skills required in the labor pool. Increases in productivity and the globalization of our economy have eliminated a lot of jobs in our manufacturing sectors. We should be eliminating any tax advantages companies get by offshoring labor/manufacturing (not protectionist policies, however), we should allow greater numbers of highly skilled immigrants through our H1-B program (These are people who create start-ups and small businesses which creates jobs, we should absolutely be stealing the worlds best talent), and we should really look at ways we can produce more scientists and engineers, and fewer lawyers and investment bankers/traders.

Tombstone RJ
06-17-2011, 03:36 PM
I agree with enjolras that the media is a big part of the problem. They're pushing fear and it's killling America's greatest asset - OPTIMISM.

In my opinion there are a lot of problems in the US manifested by the fact that this place is capitalism unhinged. One of the biggest issues is the media. If I contrast American media to the media in the UK there is something gained culturally and in the collective psyche by having content that is not explicitly created in pursuit of ratings. The news is by far the biggest victim of this. No one in America seems to want to watch PBS and it's in danger of losing all of its funding (both parties are okay with this because they're rather have MSNBCs or FOXs pushing their bull****).

I disagree. The media so wants Obama to succeed that they try hard to paint a happy picture as much as possible. You have to understand that the mainstream media (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, BBC, etc.) loves Barry and wants Barry for a second term and they are going to do everything they can to say "everything is great!!" but the fact of the matter is that the economy sucks. They can either ignore the economy or acknowledge what is happening.

You make it out like this msnbc article is anti-Obama when you and I both know that msnbc loves Barry. Fact is, the economy sucks.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
06-17-2011, 03:37 PM
You know what's funny about all of this is. They were saying the same thing when......(wait for it).... Clinton was in office. Funny how the econemy can be talked down when big "d" is in office. But when a there is a "R" is in office watch out. Or do we forget when Bush unemployment was at 4.5% and they were "McJobs". But you don't hear about last months jobs figures about where a third of the new jobs were litterally from Mcdonalds hiring blitz. Or how about the average growth ing GDP under Bush was about 3% and under big "o" is at about 1.5%.

fdf
06-17-2011, 03:43 PM
Student loans are never going to be forgiven. They're the only debt that's protected from bankruptcy for a reason: there's far too much profit being made off them.

The student loan program was taken over by the government in the "stimulus" bill. So new loans made after 2009 are made by the feds. Before the takeover, student loans were guaranteed by the feds. So it's not private profits being protected. It's the federal government's purse--both before and after the takeover.

But you are right in your conclusion even if you are incorrect about why. Simply put, he government will usually protect itself against things like bankruptcy in a way that individuals and businesses do not get protection. And this is an example of that.

Tombstone RJ
06-17-2011, 03:44 PM
My point was, IF you want the government to take action and stimulate the economy, then you will get more money into the economy if the government spends it directly, than if they give it to people to spend, because a lot of people won't spend it. When Bush gave me my stimulus check, it went directly into my savings account. No near term economic benefit.

I personally feel that the bigger problem right now is getting the money on the sidelines back into the game. Corporate profits look pretty good these days, and the "investor class" has lots of $$$, but that money isn't being reinvested in growth and new jobs at a brisk enough pace yet. Not sure how to push this along, but it will happen as the outlook for the economy continues to brighten.

Our other problem is the shift in skills required in the labor pool. Increases in productivity and the globalization of our economy have eliminated a lot of jobs in our manufacturing sectors. We should be eliminating any tax advantages companies get by offshoring labor/manufacturing (not protectionist policies, however), we should allow greater numbers of highly skilled immigrants through our H1-B program (These are people who create start-ups and small businesses which creates jobs, we should absolutely be stealing the worlds best talent), and we should really look at ways we can produce more scientists and engineers, and fewer lawyers and investment bankers/traders.

The reason these companies are not hiring is because they know the economy is weak and they aren't gonna hire people just to create jobs. The only reason a company spends money on labor is if it generates money for the bottom line. Labor is a huge expense, not to mention benefits. There's no way in the world company X is gonna start hiring if there is no profit in it. They are going to keep as much money as possible in case of the "rainy day" scenario which for all intents and purposes is right now, and perhaps a real storm is coming very shortly.

cutthemdown
06-17-2011, 03:57 PM
It's mostly fuel prices, inflation, and still a really bad housing market that are slowing the recovery. Thats what happens when you try and save too many companies with bailouts. It tends to weaken the dollar and cause inflation. Not all Obamas fault as that stuff was near the tipping point when he came in. But what did he do? cut? no he decided to spend more then any President ever spent and keep the wars going, and push healthcare. We should have concentrated on cutting spending and strengthening the dollar.

Smiling Assassin27
06-17-2011, 03:57 PM
The key to avoiding the double dip is simple--BAN ATM'S:

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LTPnzFOsM0M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Combine that with the fact that aging baby boomer talk show hosts are retiring (just ask Conan), and it's easy to see why the effective UE rate is hovering around 18%.

Bronco Yoda
06-17-2011, 03:59 PM
http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://www.averagebetty.com/images/no_double_dipping.jpg&sa=X&ei=R8f7TfWfM6rZiALAof3sBA&ved=0CAQQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNHwqGHC4q_5dazrysQTK5LQNcUZMA

cutthemdown
06-17-2011, 04:01 PM
You need a good idea to invest. What build houses? hell no they are still falling. Build office buildings? nope also still falling. How about invest in some solar in calif? nope environmental hurdles so great its not worth it. The liberals in CA make it so hard its a joke. I cant speak for rest of the states but in Calif for sure the democrats have screwed it up. Is there a chance dems are different by state? because I'm telling you all these ones are idiots over here. They start something, then see a plant the like, then put plant on endangered list and **** up the whole thing. Meanwhile we have worst air in the country in LA but somehow we are environmentalists. Hell the air is bad here and here is the dirty secret. Its not from us. 50% of our particulate matter floats over from China. I wouldn't want to be around in 100 yrs to see how America goes down. Glad I won't be.

cutthemdown
06-17-2011, 04:04 PM
People look at corps but really its small business that is hurting. Also you would be surprised at how many jobs are created by small companies. The big corp always have profits. Just saying they have profits re-invest is a joke. They are already making money in their industry, you just dont expand because you have a profit. Its called profit margin and unless they see room for more of there products why expand, you just make them worth less by making too many widgets.

cutthemdown
06-17-2011, 04:05 PM
Oh and who are the people making 250 grand to 1 million, that is the small biz sector that you want to tax more. If you want the big whigs you should be taxing the people who make 10 million a yr, not 250 grand.

Broncojef
06-17-2011, 04:06 PM
You know what's funny about all of this is. They were saying the same thing when......(wait for it).... Clinton was in office. Funny how the econemy can be talked down when big "d" is in office. But when a there is a "R" is in office watch out. Or do we forget when Bush unemployment was at 4.5% and they were "McJobs". But you don't hear about last months jobs figures about where a third of the new jobs were litterally from Mcdonalds hiring blitz. Or how about the average growth ing GDP under Bush was about 3% and under big "o" is at about 1.5%.

A far better source to look at is who has control of Congress...Clinton succeeded because he met the republicans in control and had financial success, hell even paid the debt down with a balanced budget. Everything people blame Bush for can largely be found with Pelosi, Harry, Barney Frank and the other spendaholics that took control of Congress during his term.

I hate to say it but our time is at an end. A financial crisis is about to take everything down once and for all. Everyone wants and expects handouts and people on the government dole are electing criminals who will give them more government handouts. Things aren't even close to recovery. We are about to enter the worst part of the lie we have been thrust into. Do yourself a favor and buy some gold or silver today.

mkporter
06-17-2011, 04:14 PM
The reason these companies are not hiring is because they know the economy is weak and they aren't gonna hire people just to create jobs. The only reason a company spends money on labor is if it generates money for the bottom line. Labor is a huge expense, not to mention benefits. There's no way in the world company X is gonna start hiring if there is no profit in it. They are going to keep as much money as possible in case of the "rainy day" scenario which for all intents and purposes is right now, and perhaps a real storm is coming very shortly.

From a business perspective, the rainy day has passed, and corporate profits are doing quite well. Companies have been squeezing as much as they can get out of their existing employees (as demonstrated by record productivity levels), so they are starting to increase payrolls, but not yet at a high enough rate to really dent the massive dumping of payroll that occurred in 08/09. Companies are more gun shy than usual, because this downturn was as bad as we've seen in decades, possibly since the depression.

28678
28679

Bronco Yoda
06-17-2011, 04:20 PM
Oh and who are the people making 250 grand to 1 million, that is the small biz sector that you want to tax more. If you want the big whigs you should be taxing the people who make 10 million a yr, not 250 grand.

Didn't Obama propose 1 million for the tax cap at one point and the Repubs STILL rejected the notion.

mkporter
06-17-2011, 04:43 PM
It's mostly fuel prices, inflation, and still a really bad housing market that are slowing the recovery. Thats what happens when you try and save too many companies with bailouts. It tends to weaken the dollar and cause inflation. Not all Obamas fault as that stuff was near the tipping point when he came in. But what did he do? cut? no he decided to spend more then any President ever spent and keep the wars going, and push healthcare. We should have concentrated on cutting spending and strengthening the dollar.

Why do you want a stronger Dollar? So it's easier to buy foreign goods? Harder to export? Easier to buy foreign labor? I'm not advocating aggressively trying to weaken the dollar further, but given a need for jobs, and a large trade deficit, a strong dollar doesn't seem to be that helpful.

mkporter
06-17-2011, 05:04 PM
Oh and who are the people making 250 grand to 1 million, that is the small biz sector that you want to tax more. If you want the big whigs you should be taxing the people who make 10 million a yr, not 250 grand.

If you are making $250k to $1M, you can probably afford higher taxes. If you are a small business making $250k per year, you are doing pretty f'ing well, don't you think?

If we rolled back the Bush tax cuts for those making $250k/year here's about how much additional tax they would pay:

$250k : $0
$300k : $4000
$500k : $6500
$1M: $50K

mkporter
06-17-2011, 05:11 PM
A far better source to look at is who has control of Congress...Clinton succeeded because he met the republicans in control and had financial success, hell even paid the debt down with a balanced budget. Everything people blame Bush for can largely be found with Pelosi, Harry, Barney Frank and the other spendaholics that took control of Congress during his term.

I hate to say it but our time is at an end. A financial crisis is about to take everything down once and for all. Everyone wants and expects handouts and people on the government dole are electing criminals who will give them more government handouts. Things aren't even close to recovery. We are about to enter the worst part of the lie we have been thrust into. Do yourself a favor and buy some gold or silver today.

Is there any other investment you would sell people on that has a chart that looks like this?

28680

Maybe some tech stocks in '99, or real estate in '07, or Tulips in 1637?

TonyR
06-17-2011, 06:31 PM
I disagree. The media so wants Obama to succeed that they try hard to paint a happy picture as much as possible. You have to understand that the mainstream media (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, BBC, etc.) loves Barry and wants Barry for a second term and they are going to do everything they can to say "everything is great!!" but the fact of the matter is that the economy sucks. They can either ignore the economy or acknowledge what is happening.

You make it out like this msnbc article is anti-Obama when you and I both know that msnbc loves Barry. Fact is, the economy sucks.

Oh dear lord will you please pull your head out of your ass? Stop with the media conspiracy nonsense. Are you seriously saying that the media hasn't reported on the troubles the economy has been having because they want Obama to look good? I mean, is that seriously what you think? Or is that just what the media you choose to indulge your ignorance in tells you? Because let me clue you in as succinctly as possible: it's a load of crap. Grow a pair and learn to think for yourself. Of just to think, period. Sorry to be so harsh but I really think you're capable of better than this.

Fedaykin
06-17-2011, 07:34 PM
If you are making $250k to $1M, you can probably afford higher taxes. If you are a small business making $250k per year, you are doing pretty f'ing well, don't you think?

If we rolled back the Bush tax cuts for those making $250k/year here's about how much additional tax they would pay:

$250k : $0
$300k : $4000
$500k : $6500
$1M: $50K

I you are a small business clearing 250k profit (only profit is taxed), you're doing damn fine.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
06-17-2011, 09:11 PM
Oh dear lord will you please pull your head out of your ass? Stop with the media conspiracy nonsense.
Where do you read the word "Conspiracy" in that.


Are you seriously saying that the media hasn't reported on the troubles the economy has been having because they want Obama to look good?
This is where you have blinders on.


Google search "jobs report" and the word "expected"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/03/markets-energy-nymex-idUSN0312424120110603

"Employment rose far less than expected in May to record its weakest reading since September, while the jobless rate rose to 9.1 percent as high energy prices and the effects of Japan's earthquake bogged down the economy."

"O"h wait there's more do the same for april.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/06/03/uk-markets-global-idUKTRE75165A20110603

"Economists polled by Reuters had expected payrolls to rise 150,000 and private hiring to increase 175,000. The government revised employment figures for March and April to show 39,000 fewer jobs created than previously estimated."

And there is an"o"ther month of March.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/31/markets-stocks-idUSN3126754320110331?feedType=RSS

"U.S. stocks were little
changed on Thursday, the final day of the quarter, as jobless
claims fell less than expected but didn't change optimism about
Friday's U.S. payrolls report for March."

Hmmmm, March, April, May, all have the same "less than Expected". Jeez I wonder what they are going to say next month? Maybe, "less than expected". Now I know what your going to say "What does this prove?" It means that for the other 29 days of the month they are painting this rosy picture then the report comes and they say "Oh shucks, maybe nexy month."


I mean, is that seriously what you think? Or is that just what the media you choose to indulge your ignorance in tells you? Because let me clue you in as succinctly as possible: it's a load of crap. Grow a pair and learn to think for yourself. Of just to think, period. Sorry to be so harsh but I really think you're capable of better than this.

Keep listening to Jon Stewart or whoever you got in your earhole, cause its really working out for you.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
06-17-2011, 09:52 PM
You know what's funny about all of this is. They were saying the same thing when......(wait for it).... Clinton was in office. Funny how the econemy can be talked down when big "d" is in office. But when a there is a "R" is in office watch out. Or do we forget when Bush unemployment was at 4.5% and they were "McJobs". But you don't hear about last months jobs figures about where a third of the new jobs were litterally from Mcdonalds hiring blitz. Or how about the average growth ing GDP under Bush was about 3% and under big "o" is at about 1.5%.

Year GDP - real growth rate Rank Percent Change Date of Information
2003 2.45 % 115 2002 est.
2004 3.10 % 104 26.53 % 2003 est.
2005 4.40 % 100 41.94 % 2004 est.
2006 3.20 % 138 -27.27 % 2005 est.
2007 3.20 % 152 0.00 % 2006 est.
2008 2.00 % 186 -37.50 % 2007 est.
2009 1.10 % 171 -45.00 % 2008 est.
2010 -2.60 % 159 -336.36 % 2009 est.
2011 2.70 % 133 -203.85 % 2010 est.
http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/gdp_real_growth_rate.html

In case y'all think I was making s--- up.

epicSocialism4tw
06-17-2011, 10:04 PM
Obama's policies are the worst economic policies since Carter.

cutthemdown
06-18-2011, 12:55 AM
Why do you want a stronger Dollar? So it's easier to buy foreign goods? Harder to export? Easier to buy foreign labor? I'm not advocating aggressively trying to weaken the dollar further, but given a need for jobs, and a large trade deficit, a strong dollar doesn't seem to be that helpful.

Because if we keep printing them, and it drops too far, then we get tons of inflation and other big players will soften on the American dollar, and that could hurt our credit rating.

mhgaffney
06-18-2011, 01:03 AM
Or it could just be that the "economic recovery" was a big fat lie. People making less money and having fewer jobs doesn't generally generate optimism no matter how much the government keeps trying to tell us it's getting better.

Thank you, Agamemnon.

Speaking the truth is a revolutionary act -- in a world of deception and lies.

Archer81
06-18-2011, 01:16 AM
Thank you, Agamemnon.

Speaking the truth is a revolutionary act -- in a world of deception and lies.


That you regularly add to.

Must suck to be you. I dont even care that you have me on ignore. Your posts are ignorant and deserve confrontation, even if you are too much of a sand filled vagina to face the actual truth.


:Broncos:

Cito Pelon
06-18-2011, 07:14 AM
Wow, you think $70-$200k is the bulk of the consumer class?

In 2005 (so inflation + recession has probably changed this somewhat), the median household income in the U.S. was around $45k. Some quick Googling tells me that despite inflation that's still a pretty close number -- meaning real wages have dropped significantly. If wages had matched inflation, the median should be 53k

$70k was around the 86th percentile (meaning only ~14% of households made more than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

Let me guess, you grew up in an upscale suburban neighborhood?

OK, adjust it down, my numbers were high. Let's say $30k - $50K. I think it's an idea that could help.

I didn't just dream this up out of thin air, ya know. I've heard many economists advocate this instead of tax rebates of $400 to every taxpayer, or something spread out over 10 years.

If you think it's a goofy idea that's fine with me. I think it's a workable idea for people that believe in cutting taxes (as many do).

Cito Pelon
06-18-2011, 07:19 AM
I agree with this Post, but I don't think it really addresses the problem-how do you "encourage" people to spend?

Well, that's what I was getting at - if you suspend Fed taxes for a targeted group for just one year, doesn't that encourage them to spend?

Like I replied to Fedaykin, if you think it's a goofy idea that's fine with me. I think it's a decent idea.

Kaylore
06-18-2011, 07:20 AM
So long, Obama. You were basically Herbert Hoover. You walked into a bad situation that wasn't your fault, but it is painfully obvious you have no clue what you're doing. The excessive vacations don't help how you're perceived.

And next year, when it still sucks and your campaign slogan is "it's Bush's fault" the voters will tell you to piss off.

mkporter
06-18-2011, 07:34 AM
So long, Obama. You were basically Herbert Hoover. You walked into a bad situation that wasn't your fault, but it is painfully obvious you have no clue what you're doing. The excessive vacations don't help how you're perceived.

And next year, when it still sucks and your campaign slogan is "it's Bush's fault" the voters will tell you to piss off.

You were alive before Obama was elected, right? I mean, you saw that other presidents traveled, right? That has to be the single strangest criticism you could come up with for Obama. I voted for him and I could come up with many better ones.

Kaylore
06-18-2011, 07:47 AM
You were alive before Obama was elected, right? I mean, you saw that other presidents traveled, right? That has to be the single strangest criticism you could come up with for Obama. I voted for him and I could come up with many better ones.

Yeah they traveled...for state business. Other Presidents went to their homes in their respective states. Obama goes exotic locations, far away taking his expensive security details with them. It's expensive and looks bad.

And my point of the post wasn't to pick the "best" criticism of Obama. I could give you a much better one. It was to show you how he compares to Hoover who was similarly perceived as elitist and disconnected from the everyman in the depression.

And let's be clear: this is a depression, not a recession, and there hasn't been a recovery.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
06-18-2011, 09:10 AM
Yeah they traveled...for state business. Other Presidents went to their homes in their respective states. Obama goes exotic locations, far away taking his expensive security details with them. It's expensive and looks bad.

And my point of the post wasn't to pick the "best" criticism of Obama. I could give you a much better one. It was to show you how he compares to Hoover who was similarly perceived as elitist and disconnected from the everyman in the depression.

And let's be clear: this is a depression, not a recession, and there hasn't been a recovery.

The worst of it was date night one Air Force One in New York.

Cito Pelon
06-18-2011, 10:43 AM
RE brnoclvr's OP, yes we are kind of talking ourselves into another recession.

We've actually made a decent recovery from the horrible multilayer depression of 2008-2009. There's actually reasons for optimism.

I've done ok, recovered all my losses with my IRA's, and I suspect most people have also, unless you're a total dolt.

BroncsRule
06-18-2011, 11:10 AM
The only "recovery" that has occured has been the bankster's spending the $700 billion we gave them.

That, and they managed to make some money off the 3 to 5 trillion in 0% loans that was made available to them via the fed.

Wall street has "recovered".

Main street, not so much..

BroncsRule
06-18-2011, 11:21 AM
Google search "jobs report" and the word "expected"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/03/markets-energy-nymex-idUSN0312424120110603

"Employment rose far less than expected in May to record its weakest reading since September, while the jobless rate rose to 9.1 percent as high energy prices and the effects of Japan's earthquake bogged down the economy."

"O"h wait there's more do the same for april.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/06/03/uk-markets-global-idUKTRE75165A20110603

"Economists polled by Reuters had expected payrolls to rise 150,000 and private hiring to increase 175,000. The government revised employment figures for March and April to show 39,000 fewer jobs created than previously estimated."

And there is an"o"ther month of March.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/31/markets-stocks-idUSN3126754320110331?feedType=RSS

"U.S. stocks were little
changed on Thursday, the final day of the quarter, as jobless
claims fell less than expected but didn't change optimism about
Friday's U.S. payrolls report for March."



ok - I did just that: I googled 'jobs report" and "expected", and the 3rd result was:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42928024/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/solid-april-jobs-report-shows-economy-gaining-momentum/

"Solid April jobs report shows economy gaining momentum"

Same exact government report - exact oposite spin.

There are plenty of spin meisters out there in the main stream media, plying their trade - on both sides.

Cito Pelon
06-18-2011, 11:24 AM
The only "recovery" that has occured has been the bankster's spending the $700 billion we gave them.

That, and they managed to make some money off the 3 to 5 trillion in 0% loans that was made available to them via the fed.

Wall street has "recovered".

Main street, not so much..

Well, I can see that. But, there has been some significant recovery in many areas. I can only speak to my situation, and I'm fine. My housing comps are back up to where they were in 2006, my IRA's are back up to where they were in 2006.

Considering this is the consensus "worst depression since 1933", we've rebounded quite well.

Obviously, we have to address some issues, and hopefully the Right and the Left can work together to solve the issues instead of concentrating their energies on stabbing each other in the back to get elected.

Cito Pelon
06-18-2011, 11:35 AM
ok - I did just that: I googled 'jobs report" and "expected", and the 3rd result was:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42928024/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/solid-april-jobs-report-shows-economy-gaining-momentum/

"Solid April jobs report shows economy gaining momentum"

Same exact government report - exact oposite spin.

There are plenty of spin meisters out there in the main stream media, plying their trade - on both sides.

Yup.

It's difficult to filter the crap out of the media these days.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
06-18-2011, 01:09 PM
ok - I did just that: I googled 'jobs report" and "expected", and the 3rd result was:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42928024/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/solid-april-jobs-report-shows-economy-gaining-momentum/

"Solid April jobs report shows economy gaining momentum"

Same exact government report - exact oposite spin.

There are plenty of spin meisters out there in the main stream media, plying their trade - on both sides.

Take another look at your source. Its MSNBC. I's say "Leaning", but the "Leanding Tower of Pisa" leans. MSNBC slopes left like the bad side of Everest.

Look at my source again. They all came from Rueters. A "Unbiased" source and they tilt left. Look at "Associated press" they tilt left also.

Did you know in a resent poll people in the media polled said that they are 90% Dem. Your going to tell me that with 90% tilt that there arn't a few that's willing to bury a few stories for there side? Really?