Unemployment at 10% and where is congress? Why spending of course.
From the AP:
The Labor Department said Friday that jobless rate rose to 10.2 percent, the highest since April 1983, from 9.8 percent in September. The economy shed a net total of 190,000 jobs in October, less than the downwardly revised 219,000 lost in September, but more than economists expected.
The jump in the jobless rate reflects a sharp increase in the tally of unemployed Americans, which rose to 15.7 million from 15.1 million. The net loss of jobs occurred across most industries, from manufacturing and construction to retail and financial. That tally is based on a separate survey of businesses.
Economists say the unemployment rate could climb as high as 10.5 percent next year because employers remain reluctant to hire.
And what is the President and Congress doing about it? They are trying to ram down our throats a 1.8 trillion dollar healthcare bill that won't reduce costs, won't improve your care and still won't insure everyone. And it won't get you a job. But one thing it will do...raise your taxes.
And if you want to understand who is driving this bus, all you need to do it look at the White House Visitor's log to see who spends the most time there - Andy Stern of the SIEU(from workerfreedom.org via Americans for Tax Reform).
The White House released an incomplete list of visitors who met with President Obama and top White House officials. Predictably, Andy Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union, stopped by the White House more than any other visitor. The Wall Street Journal Reports:
“Andrew Stern visited the White House 22 times between Inauguration Day and July 31, meeting with President Barack Obama seven times and leading all visitors recorded during that period.”
You don't know who the SIEU is? They are the union that show up in purple shirts (IE the Liberal Astroturf) at every protest to outshout the regular people.
Are you getting it yet?
Labels: Democrats, federal spending, health care bill, House of Representatives, job losses, Nancy Pelosi
posted by Dennis @ 10:38 AM
12 Comments
12 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mr Furlong
Are you what passes for an academic these days? Your most intelligent response is probably your fould language.
In two short unintelligible responses you manage to say fuck twice, call me retarded and an idiot and hold me responsible for the "jobless recovery".
From your note it is clear that you equate communism, labor unions, jobs and prosperity as good things and anyone who doesn't agree with you as bad. I would suggest that you go back to your code pink friends and leave the adult responsibilities to others.
Also, it is unbelievably scary that if your website is correct, that you are teaching anyone anything especially english as a second language since the only bits of the language you seem to grasp are expletives.
This comment has been removed by the author.
http://furlongcolony1.blogspot.com/
Also, turn off the fucking word verification. Your fucking blog is not popular enough to justify it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
There has never been a correlation between labor unions and job creation. As a matter of fact, there is much research to suggest that labor unions often hold down job growth in markets where they are pervasive.
"History proves that political instability leads to revolution. You and your retarded ideology are taking us back. "
What is it that my "retarded" ideology is holding you back from? And who is "us"? What is the revolution you are promoting?
"It doesn't matter how much you attack my person, your ideology is still responsible for 35 million people not having jobs."
Actually, I employ people and have been hiring during this entire downturn. How about you?
"There has never been a correlation between labor unions and job creation."
True. But there has been a direct relationship between the number of employed in an economy overall, because unions protect jobs from the employer's need to move jobs to China and Mexico to pay slave wages. Unions also have, historically, driven up the average wage for everyone. If a unionized auto worker is making 70 bucks an hour, that means that the non-unionized auto worker must be paid a wage that is similar. This effect effects all jobs, because all workers are looking for the better job, right down to the garbage man who is making 7 bucks an hour. In a non-unionized economy, that garbage man would be making 4 dollars an hour, because there would be no high paying union jobs to drive up his wage.
"As a matter of fact, there is much research to suggest that labor unions often hold down job growth in markets where they are pervasive."
Well, considering that your ideology's point of departure is "creating jobs", but not well-paying jobs, I would say that once everyone is making shit wages, you will be surprised there is a revolution happening on the streets near your home..
"What is it that my "retarded" ideology"
You know what I am talking about.
"is holding you back from?"
You in the plural.
"And who is "us"?"
We are talking about 35 million unemployed Americans! What do you think "us" means? DIPSHIT.
"What is the revolution you are promoting?"
A revolution away from slave wages, but I am not promoting a revolution. I am just attacking your idiocy. Your fucking lame inability to learn from history.
"Actually, I employ people and have been hiring during this entire downturn. How about you?"
It doesn't matter how many low-paying employees you employ. If the ideology you espouse leads to slave wagery in and gross unemployment economy-wide, you are to blame.
What I like most about this... um... discussion is the great example it provides.
Liberals: The more you sound like this guy, the more of an idiot you look like.
Conservatives: Likewise. Also, remember the "Never wrestle with a pig" maxim.
Chris lives in Gumi, South Korea. The South Koreans live in the shadow of communism every day. I wonder how well his ideas are received there. I'm serious, too -- I'd really like to know. Unfortunately, I don't think I can trust the word of an unhinged man, so I'll just have to remain curious.
"What I like most about this... um... discussion is the great example it provides."
What I like the most about conservative rejoinders is the fact that they lack content. Instead of meeting their opponents' points head-on, they choose to talk about the person's character. This is run-of-the-mill conservative crap and should be pointed out for what it is: sophistry.
"Liberals: The more you sound like this guy, the more of an idiot you look like. "
And we have touch down! Yes, the more you sound and argue like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and Bill O'Reilly, the more of an idiot you look like. Yay! Somebody on the right gets how stupid they look!
"Conservatives: Likewise. Also, remember the "Never wrestle with a pig" maxim."
Yes, and conservatives, remember, never ever address your opponent's points! Because that might make you lose the argument!
"Chris lives in Gumi, South Korea. The South Koreans live in the shadow of communism every day."
Who said anything about communism? I was writing about trade unionism, of which the Koreans like a lot.
"I wonder how well his ideas are received there. I'm serious, too -- I'd really like to know."
By my students and friends, quite well. They fucking hate Lee Myung Bak, who has declared war on unions and demanded that college students accept low-paying jobs.
"Unfortunately, I don't think I can trust the word of an unhinged man, so I'll just have to remain curious."
Zero-content conservative sophistry here in this thread!
I also think it is cute how Jake is potential tyrant. His pointing out that "the Koreans must not like Chris' views" is a clear indication of an individual who does not cherish free speech and democracy. Instead, he cherishes the value that the strong should rule and that if you think the wrong thing, YOU SHOULD SHUT THE FUCK UP. What a fucking Anti-American wanker.
In this respect at least Ron Paul is American and rational. This Jake character is the worst kind of conservative: a liar and an anti-Republican.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home