Had your fill of reading about who stormed out on whom, and who called whom “childish,” in the umpteenth round of D.C.’s debt ceiling talks? For a different look at the economic picture, head over to Yahoo!’s “The Lookout” blog, where former CJR staffer Zach Roth has a haunting post drawing on about 6,000 personal accounts from readers who have been out of work for six months or more.
Even after nearly three years of unrelentingly dismal macroeconomic news, the comments—in Roth’s post, and on a separate Tumblr page that features fuller versions of 50 reader replies—are heart-rending. In some cases, the punch comes from the sense of steadily lowered expectations: one correspondent writes about how his family gave up its car, along with “some of the other luxuries.”
In others, an almost Depression-era sense of bleakness, and resourcefulness, comes through. “My family is eating stir-fried dandelions out of yards to keep from starving,” writes one reader. Another declares, “I am Native so I have been able to deal with the loss of my home, etc and am living in an army tent in the woods and getting food from the woods and gardening.”
And still other comments capture the arbitrariness of a job market in which applicants vastly outnumber job openings:
“I applied at one place that literally handed out raffle tickets and the winning 100 tickets were the only ones that got to apply,” wrote M.O. “Of course my number wasn’t one of them.”
While each story is different, read alongside each other, they offer a collage-style view of the way the economic crisis has rippled through workers’ lives. The construction bust, the collapse of aggregate demand, subtle and not-so-subtle discrimination against older workers and the long-term unemployed, the terrible prospects for recent graduates, the struggles of underwater homeowners, the specific burdens on people with health problems or military families, the connection between unemployment and suicide—if you’ve read about an issue facing the economy and the labor market over the last few years, it’s represented here.
Beyond the decision to present this material in this format—see my colleague Alysia Santo for more on that—what’s striking here is the volume of responses Yahoo! got after asking readers for their stories. According to Roth’s post, the outlet hired extra staff to help sort through the emails that came flooding in.
And Yahoo!’s is not the only unemployment-related feature that has generated a lot of reader response recently. After her article on how the unemployed “became invisible” appeared last weekend in The New York Times, Catherine Rampell has been posting and responding to emails from readers at the NYT’s “Economix” blog this week. (The Times, in its infiniteTimes-iness, did not open comments on the original story.) This email from an out-of-work reader, posted by Rampell Wednesday, suggested how deep the desire to be seen—by journalists, by policy-makers, by anyone in a position of power—is:
I don’t want to be one of fourteen-plus million anymore. I want to be thought of by columnists and law makers as me. And I believe that there are fourteen-plus million more just like me. Because of that, we - you - need to think about unemployment one person at a time. Me, Mike, Bruce, Pam, Audrey, Arlene, Bob, and the others. And then I need a job and so do they.
Right now, of course, much more media attention is being paid to who stormed out on whom, and who called whom “childish,” than on telling that reader’s story. And that’s not wrong, exactly. If the negotiations in Washington fall apart and the debt ceiling isn’t raised, bad things will happen. If it is raised and the federal government simultaneously embarks on a near-term austerity program, bad things will probably happen then, too. In either case, there’s a good chance those ranks of fourteen-plus million will grow.
- 1
- 2
Well hell Greg, why cant these unemployed people just take a page from Obama’s playbook and spend their way back to financial security
#1 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 15 Jul 2011 at 12:24 PM
Mike H, what a miserable human being you must be.
#2 Posted by Sarah, CJR on Fri 15 Jul 2011 at 01:46 PM
Because the unemployed don't run banks and hedge funds, silly.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 15 Jul 2011 at 01:49 PM
My link vanished. :(
Oh good, I found it again:
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2011/07/save-banksters-save-world.html
:)
You see Mike H's problem is that he's fascinated by big numbers. He says "Golly gee, look at that deficit! Hey big spender!"
Problem is that Obama isn't a big spender. He put forth an undersized stimulus that was tax cut heavy and contained a lot of aid for the states.
There just wasn't that much new federal spending.
So where's that big ol' deficit coming from? Slow economies produce lower incomes, lower payrolls, lower tax receipts. The people living in slow economies tend to use existing social services more just as the revenues to pay for them are depleted. Combine that with Obama's and Bush's tax cuts and you get a deficit.
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=1996_2010&view=1&expand=&units=b&log=linear&fy=fy12&chart=F1-fed&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s
So thanks Mike H for giving us the opportunity to explain that, once again, Obama is not a big fat liberal and that, if anything, he's to the right of most voters.
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 15 Jul 2011 at 08:30 PM
Further reading:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3036
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06/09/business/economy/20090610-leonhardt-graphic.html?gwh=B6F1C9E913ED0F824046C083586D9C81
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 15 Jul 2011 at 08:34 PM
So when the crap is about to hit the Big Government fan and it's time to rail against Republicans and "austerity", CJR goes into full panic mode and trots out the uncorroborated sob stories from some blog, presents them as gospel truth, and stirs up the masses with these fairy tales of grass-eating and tent-living...
I'm sure CJR would have no trouble similarly accepting and propounding the truth of anti-government comments on a conservative blog, right? Or criticism of government health care. Or unions. Or public schools. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Well, it's time to toll the Reality Bell.
The biggest health problems facing the American "poor" are obesity and substance abuse, a clear sign that being "poor" in America doesn't mean the same thing as being truly poor.
Let's deal with some of those "fact-thingies" instead of anonymous blog comments, shall we?
1. According to the Dept of Labor, the exhaustion rate for unemployment benefits is more than 50%! Got that? More than fifty percent of the unemployed soak up every bit of government money they can get before they get off their lazy butts and actually get a damned job.
2. The average duration of unemployment benefits is 18.6 weeks! Four and half months of sitting around soaking up government money instead of working!
http://ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/content/data_stats/datasum11/DataSum_2011_1.pdf
What to take from this? Obviously the average maximum benefit duration is very much smaller than the 99 week theoretical maximum. But more importantly, people will, given the choice, sit on their butts and cash government checks instead of working.. Whoda thunk it?
Well, even the NYT has to address the Stark Reality that such an outcome is utterly predictable and acknowledge by the academics:
Additionally, many economists believe that the many extensions of unemployment insurance benefits have prolonged the number of weeks that people are officially categorized as unemployed.
That’s for two reasons: First, the cushion of jobless benefits allows workers to go longer without starting a new job. With some pocket money still coming in, maybe they’re not looking as intensively for work; maybe they’ve put off starting at a new job they’ve already accepted; or maybe they’ve turned down a job offer they’re not crazy about because unemployment benefits afford them the flexibility to wait and find something better...
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/average-length-of-unemployment-reaches-high-of-37-1-weeks/
You think? Maybe? You mean paying people to sit on their asses instead of working results in more people sitting on their asses instead of working?
There's a Nobel in this for somebody!
#6 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 15 Jul 2011 at 09:31 PM
@ padikiller:
I'd love to see a source for the "biggest health problems facing the American poor", but let's look at those, since you mentioned them.
Poor people are often obese simply because healthy food costs more than junk food, and one reason for that is agricultural subsidies that artificially lower the price of ingredients that make up junk food. And people may not realize that a box of Cheap Protein Helper isn't nutritious. To the poor, it's a meal that will feed their family; it's not potato chips or chocolate, so it must be healthy. Advertising also has people thinking that you need expensive equipment, DVDs, game systems, games, "nutrition" diet plans and health club memberships to exercise.
Substance "abuse" isn't always "abuse". For many, it's self-medicating their problems, because they can't afford health insurance, therapy or prescription medications, and aren't poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. Compared to prescription drugs, street drugs are fairly cheap and work for a variety of conditions. People who use street drugs are also often willing to share [more with some than others] or barter, so it may not cost them anything other than some effort.
Your assumption that people are simply waiting out their benefits is in error. Unemployment benefits just don't pay that well; the average maximum weekly payment is limited to $400, and to get that amount, people usually need to have made double to triple that amount [varies largely by state]. If you made minimum wage and worked full time, you might end up with around $100-$150 per week, which probably isn't going to cover the bills. Your own source states that the average weekly payment was $298.62. They aren't getting rich, nor are most sitting comfortably. They also need to ensure that potential jobs will pay more than unemployment, especially parents who will need to factor in daycare costs when they go back to work. And then there's the lack of available jobs, and the competition to fill those jobs. Those with higher degrees are often rejected for entry-level jobs for being "overqualified". People may also be more cautious about taking a job "for now" while they seek another, as job-hopping doesn't work in one's favor, either. It's an employer's job market at the moment.
Considering all the variables, and based on your sources, I don't see how you came to the conclusion that people are intentionally waiting it out. Do you also believe that if the tax fairy cuts corporate rates, all our economic problems will be solved?
#7 Posted by concernedcitizen, CJR on Sat 16 Jul 2011 at 09:59 AM
There might be a Nobel for padikiller as well, if they have one for vacuity.
#8 Posted by Paul, CJR on Sat 16 Jul 2011 at 10:20 AM
@concernedcitizen: People are obese because they cram more food into their gullets than they burn up doing work. PERIOD. It isn't complicated, and it isn't "Wall Street's" fault that the projects and trailer parks of America are brimming with fat unwed mothers raising fat dependent children. It's the government's fault and it's our fault for letting fifty plus years of commie/liberal nonsense evolve into a public policy that has created an ignorant, shiftless, lazy underclass of porkers, drunks and drug addicts.
If the liberals were honestly concerned about obesity among the American "poor", there would be a call to limit food stamp purchases to low-calorie, healthy foods (just as there is a call to do so for school lunches). But you note, there is no such a movement... Why? Because the liberals need to keep the Gravy Train going, and nothing would derail it faster than telling Mama Foodstamp that she can no longer buy Ho Ho's for her brood with taxpayer money.
Dude... More than HALF all the people who suck up government unemployment benefits exhaust as much money as they can. PERIOD. This is just the R E A L I T Y. Deal with it. Or don't. Whatever. It isn't going anywhere.
The simple, undeniable Truth is that paying people to sit on their asses instead of working results in more people sitting on their asses instead of working. It isn't rocket science.
You want more people working? STOP PAYING THEM NOT TO WORK!
Problem solved.
#9 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 16 Jul 2011 at 11:43 AM
concernedcitizen wrote: If you made minimum wage and worked full time, you might end up with around $100-$150 per week, which probably isn't going to cover the bills. Your own source states that the average weekly payment was $298.62
padikiller responds: Well you have your facts wrong, but nonetheless you're making my point for me.
Why on Earth would anyone actually get of off his or her ass and do work when the gubment pays you twice as much to do nothing?
As for your numbers, a full-time minimum wage job pays $290 a week (unless you live in a liberal zone with a higher "living wage"). The worker earning $7.25 an hour ends up with more than this at the end of the year though because of the Earned Income Credit - a commie/liberal, wealth redistribution program that results in low-income workers pulling more money out of Uncle Sam than they pay in taxes, courtesy of the "rich" taxpayers.
The cure for unemployment? STOP PAYING PEOPLE TO BE UNEMPLOYED!
#10 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 16 Jul 2011 at 11:54 AM
Be careful around this bridge guys. Trolls be lurking here.
Anyways, I'm going to engage in stupid arguments with "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?" caricatures like padi.
Fact : consumer demand is down. Layoffs are common. Many employers try to reduce the number of layoffs by reducing the number of hours per employee. You cannot assume that minimum wage * 40 hours is the rule in this economy. People are making less, unless they are finding two jobs and making not much more.
Fact: The United States produced less jobs this month than Canada, who has a tenth of the population. Sorry, did I say Canada? I meant Alberta.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/gains+Alberta+numbers+entire/5077426/story.html
What's the difference between Canada and America? Regulated banks that didn't take big risks and didn't submerge themselves and millions of Canadian families in underwater debt.
America has a debt hangover. Due to this, there aren't that many jobs out there, which comes as news to pampered ass caricature lawyers who find the time to post on "socishalist journalism sites" all day.
Fact: You have a situation where people who are entering the job market and people who are soon to be leaving are both getting their asses kicked.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/us/13age.html
The young because they lack experience, the old because they have an excess of it. The young because they are disposable, the old because they are expensive (in both salary, pension, and healthcare costs). Both of these groups are being screened at the door. It has nothing to do with government programs and everything to do with businesses becoming less risk friendly (bad for young workers with no experience) and more austere (bad for older workers with decreased productivity and increased medical problems).
If a safety net doesn't catch people when they're falling off the employment cliff, what good is it?
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 16 Jul 2011 at 12:41 PM
more notes here
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/01/too_young_not_to_work_too_old.html
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 16 Jul 2011 at 12:48 PM
This constant ridiculing of the paradox of thrift, an economic principle known since Rome, written about 1714, is the equivalent of mocking the government for no longer claiming the world is flat. Theologian John Wesley pointed out: The impressions of things that man receives do not correspond to their truth." This is very true in the field of macroeconomics, where normal activities produce counter-intuitive results--results proven again and again by models, data, and real experience.
In addition to the paradox of thrift, there is also the paradox of debt, and the liquidity trap. Each of these key concepts can be understood by searching them, and reading their explanations and examples.
We use of the internet and public sites to grow knowledge if our economy is to grow. In the meantime, Atlanta has a fabulously successful program, Hire One, whose goal is to create 150,000 jobs and paychecks. Already, the program has created more than 100K jobs from 1,100 employers.
Our stories about unemployment must also focus on what works, why, and how others can copy best practices.
--Walter Rhett
twitter.com/walterrhett
#13 Posted by walterrhett, CJR on Sat 16 Jul 2011 at 12:55 PM
FACT: If you pay people to sit on their asses instead of working... They will sit on their asses instead of working.
If you're a fat, ignorant Baby Mama and you are presented with a choice:
A. Stay in your trailer, procreate, watch TV all day and eat pork rinds and Ho Ho's on the government's dime, or
B. Get off of your obese, lazy hindparts and actually do work to pay for your excessive caloric intake...
WHICH do you do?
It isn't rocket science, fellas...
There are jobs to be done... Flip burgers. Load tricks. Paint house. Stomp cans. Rake leaves. Mow lawns. Pick apples. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Why on earth would anyone do these jobs when they can sit on their asses and live off of the gubment?
#14 Posted by padiikiller, CJR on Sat 16 Jul 2011 at 01:03 PM
"If you pay people to sit on their asses instead of working... They will sit on their asses instead of working."
Not true, at least not of other countries:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2007-03-06-denmark-usat_N.htm
If you give people a choice between productivity and unproductivity, people will choose productivity when there is a choice..
There aren't a lot of choices right now for a lot of people. R E A L I T Y.
#15 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 16 Jul 2011 at 01:22 PM
And if the trailer parks and projects were full of educated, hard-working, non-obese Danes instead of ignorant, lazy, fat Americans, you might have a point, Thimbles.
There are plenty of jobs to be had, even in this second summer of our miserable Obama Recovery - true jobs are harder to find, lower paying and less glamorous than they were in the days of yore... But they're out there, nonetheless.
If the choice were rendered into a simple one - between working and going hungry - a whole lot more work would be happening than you see happening now.
#16 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 16 Jul 2011 at 02:22 PM
I don't mind engaging in a debate over paying people not to work and instead leech from society, versus encouraging people to actually do work and contribute to society - but the journalistic point to be hammered here is that CJR is up to its typical commie/liberal shenanigans - namely presenting the uncorroborated comments on some liberal blog as the gospel truth in one of its trademarked desperate attempts to influence the public debate and to thwart the imminent shrinking of the government that might just actually soon occur.
THIS is the plain R E A L I T Y - an undeniable "fact-thingie" - and plain journalistic malpractice that should be soundly criticized by true "professional journalists" (that is, by true professionals who honestly place journalistic integrity about partisan politics - and there a few of these amidst the crowd of impostors)
If anyone honestly thinks that CJR would give similar treatment to the uncorroborated anecdotes from a conservative blog, he or she needs some powerful medication and immediate intense therapy.
So, how about some actual journalism, guys, instead of this kind of stupidity? Some fact-checking, perhaps? A little balance, maybe? Maybe a couple of fact-thingies instead of anonymous sob stories in a liberal blog's comments? A bit of perspective a little too much to ask?
In sum.... Why don't you do your damned jobs?
#17 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 16 Jul 2011 at 02:40 PM
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=state:ST390000&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+ohio#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=seasonality:S&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=state&tdim=true&hl=en&dl=en
In December 2007 the unemployment rate was 4.9%. Now it is between 9 and 10%.
Over half of today's unemployed didn't suddenly decide to become lazy after 2007. These are circumstantial problems, not fault in moral character problems.
And again you are whining about balance? Let's find a bunch of 55 year old unemployed conservatives and liberals and see if their politics alter the stories they tell.
#18 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 16 Jul 2011 at 08:12 PM
By the by, it'd be nice if you were so upset over the fact that the government gave away the f'in store to people who should be unemployed, the bankers.
And now we're maing the environment for them and cruel for everyone else.
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/a-response-to-corey-robin-on-the-political-idea-of-monetary-policy/
"In generic terms, monetary policy balances the relationship between savers and borrowers. For political purposes, it shifts the power between creditors and debtors. Or those with money and power versus those who are in a serfdom of bad debts gone wrong. Given the concentration of wealth at the top and the indebtedness of everyone else, it’s arguable one of the most important political projects out there.
From a series of legal codes favoring creditors, a two-tier justice system that ignore abuses in foreclosures and property law, a system of surveillance dedicated to maximum observation on spending, behavior and ultimate collection of those with debt and beyond, there’s been a wide refocusing of the mechanisms of our society towards the crucial obsession of oligarchs: wealth and income defense. Control over money itself is the last component of oligarchical income defense, and it needs to be as contested as much as we contest all the other mechanisms.
If one of your primary political objectives is income defense then anything that increases, as Yglesias puts it, “the cost of hoarding cash,” is a major problem. Even if that cash is worthless debt from a credit and housing bubble that has collapsed long ago, defending it, no matter what the costs to the real economy, is priority #1. "
Subsidized stupidity.
#19 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 16 Jul 2011 at 08:24 PM
Should have read: "And now we're making the environment comfortable for them and cruel for everyone else."
Don't know how I messed that up.
#20 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 16 Jul 2011 at 08:40 PM
Man!
WHAT was I thinking?!..
You liberals have shown me the light, brothers!
What better way to put people back to work than to give them government money for not working? Why couldn't I see it till now? I guess I was blinded by those Bachmann/Palin beguiling wiles...
And what better way to dispassionately and objectively make plain the plight of the unemployed than to republish the anonymous anecdotes from the comments posted by liberals on a lefty Yahoo blog? Could there be any more rock solid evidence of the social injustice in this country?
Thanks, liberals! Without you, I wouldn't have seen the error in my ways!..
#21 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 17 Jul 2011 at 09:22 AM
Fix this:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2073520,00.html
and this:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/average-length-of-unemployment-at-all-time-high/
and then be snarky.
#22 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 17 Jul 2011 at 10:51 AM
PS. Remember, we're going to be able to test your "Liquidate the unemployed, purge the human rot" theories to the test
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/an_askobama_takeaway_public_ha.php#comment-47887
If the economy doesn't improve an iota, and actually collapses as I predict, you'd better get out your dance shoes because you're going to have to spin spin spin.
See ya in a few months, and hopefully I can spare you some change.
#23 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 17 Jul 2011 at 10:59 AM
Egad, Thimbles!
You mean the longer one sits out on his ass, soaking up government unemployment checks that employers fund, the more likely it is that employers won't want to hire this individual instead of another individual that actually does work and doesn't sit out on his ass and collect employer-funded unemployment checks?
Really?
Stop the presses! Call the ACLU! Storm the Capitol!
But... Just to play Devil's Advocate here... How about these alternatives?
Want money? Work. Want a good job and more money? Work more. Want a good reputation as a worker? Work longer. Lose a job? Get another job fast. Can't find a job as good as the one you lost? Get a crappier job (or two, or three) Can't find any job where you live? Move. Sit out on your ass for a year and collect welfare and then run out of benefits, need a job and can't find a good job because employers don't like your decision to not work for a year? Take a crap job (or two, or three) and then do work, build up your reputation and get a better job.
Just for the sake of argument, and all....
#24 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 17 Jul 2011 at 12:08 PM
Sorry, I couldn't hear you over the giddy squeals of scumbag, bailed out bankers:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/15/elizabeth-warren-foreclosure-investigation_n_899659.html
I'd rather give money to the homeless and unemployed than the tuxedo psychopaths you support. The unemployed may be unproductive, but the people you and other conservatives support are anti-productive.
And though you support rules for what unemployed people do with their government issued food stamps, you fight every and attempts of enforcing rules on Wall Street government backed gambling.
You have all sorts of virtuous advice for the poor. Guess what. The poor ain't the problem. The rich, powerful, scumbag fraudsters are the problem. Got any advice on how they should be more ethical, manage more frugally, build value instead of tear the whole nation down so they sell off the rubble?
No? Didn't think so.
#25 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 17 Jul 2011 at 12:41 PM
Thimbles dodges: I'd rather give money to the homeless and unemployed than the tuxedo psychopaths you support.
padikiller calls BS: Baloney...
I don't support giving government money to anybody. PERIOD. And I sure as hell don't support "government backed gambling" in the financial markets. I would have let GM sufffer a bankrutpcy. Same with AIG. Same with everybody. I think Bush should have been (and Obama should be) impeached over the bailouts.
If I had my way, it would be a federal crime for anyone to write a government check to anyone except as payment for fair market value of goods or services. I would eliminate all corporate subsidies (and taxes). Same for all agricultural and mineral subsidies (except to purchase goods for strategic reserves). I would privatize Social Security and Medicare and revamp Medicaid to limit payments for treatment only to institutionalized patients. I would eliminate income taxes for a sales tax, and if I couldn't get that done, I would eliminate income tax withholding and tax credits.
So don't pin your "give money" to Wall-Street, black helicopter dodge on me, Thimbo..
At least we're finally get to the root of you anger. It isn't a "good for the economy thing" after all, as we can plainly see in your intemperate response. It's a Robin Hood thing. A commie thing. As it always is with you guys.
You want what you guys always want - somebody else's stuff. For nothing.
Well I have some news for you... Poor people don't hire anybody. Try looking to a homeless bum for a job and let us know how that works out for you.
#26 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 17 Jul 2011 at 01:09 PM
It has nothing to do with robin hoods and everything to do with plain ones in business suits. You claim "oh I would have been totally against the bail outs blah blah blah" but you haven't supported a single action that would have lead to some accountability for how they have misused the capital of taxpayers and abused the trust of their investors. You won't even acknowledge their systemic fraud. You want to pretend the WHOLE crisis was caused by Freddie and Fannie and those evil regulations from the 1970's and that bankers were the innocent pawns of government villainy.
You want to enjoy a fantasy, I get it. You don't want to talk about real people, real psychos being rewarded for hurting people and real workers who cannot get into the workforce because employers don't hire based on an applicant's desire to work.
You pretend the unlucky applicants are the villains and the wall street psychos are the innocents.
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/audit_notes_gutting_blame-the-.php
Unemployed? WORK! Personal responsibility! Keep your hands from MY wallet!
Bankers? "I'd be all for blaming the lenders for the current meltdown.. If the lenders had voluntarily made bad loans to deadbeats..
But that's not what happened."
No, that's not what happened in YOUR fairy tale. In your anecdote, the evil government MADE countrywide give unregulated, predatory, sub prime loans and MADE Wall street securitize and sell Countrywide sub prime which they knew was garbage. And so you pop in your head whenever any attempt is made to point out these guys are criminals. "Give the poor bankers the benefit of the doubt. Show me fraud. Okay, two frauds. One hundred frauds, that's all I need to change my mind."
You are picking winners because, in your fairy tale, the wise and mighty kings of finance are just, it's the loathsome slacker benefit recipients who deserve punishment and withdrawal of service.
Poor people don't hire anybody. (unless you count the jobs kept by the circulation of their benefits within the economy)
Anti-productive criminals hire politicians, law enforcement, ratings agencies, lawyers, psychopaths, and conservative story tellers.
I can see why you want to avoid speaking ill of them. I can see why you feel government conditions on bailed out banks are onerous and why government conditions on food stamps would be ambitious.
PS. Nice way to dismiss ALL of the literature and reasoning on depression economics as communism. And to do it based on one little riff about some little well-to-do members of society - troll genius.
I'm attacking Wall Street, not the rich. Steve Jobs didn't crash the economy and he isn't fighting for the dismantling of entitlement benefits and for implementing austerity during a depression. It just goes to show the lengths you'll go to to defend rich lazy bankers who get way more welfare from the government
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-real-housewives-of-wall-street-look-whos-cashing-in-on-the-bailout-20110411
than the guys feeding their families with food stamps until their benefits run out.
#27 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 17 Jul 2011 at 02:24 PM
Damn Thimbles...
You're on a full-tilt dodge off to Wall Street here, aren't you?
As I wrote... You aren't going to see the poor Americans boosting private sector hiring... Good luck getting a job from a poor person!
And yes... the government is indeed responsible for the biggest part of the financial crisis.. Unquestionably (at least credibly)
Banking regulations give the imprimatur of security to the inherently volatile and risky financial markets. Government mandates pushed private institutions to make government-backed loans to low-income borrowers. Bush and Obama doled out money to failed institutions. Federally mandated insurers like FDIC and SIPC create a false sense of security. Etc. etc.. etc.
I agree that financial markets need to be regulated, but only to the extent necessary to keep them free and competitive. Regulations designed to foster social objectives ("affordable housing", "affordable eduction", "affordable health care", etc, etc, etc) cost money. PERIOD. It's not complicated. Making lenders lend money to poor people costs other people money. Teachers cost money. Medicine costs money.
You liberals take a ridiculous and inconsistent position with government regulation. You hammer away at "Wall Street" and beat us over the head with myriad examples of failed regulations and ineffective regulators (e.g. Madoff) - and yet somehow your solution to the problem is always new regulations and more regulators.
The reason Madoff was able to steal money for so long (as his many on camera statements make clear) is that he was able to convince others that the SEC had him on a short leash - when in fact the SEC has ignored plain evidence of his criminal operation going back at least to the Clinton administration.
But somehow if we get more government regulators, they will stop doing nothing? Seriously. This is what you guys claim to believe.
The dependence on the government is nearly universal now. People now expect lenders to take the risk of making loans, but demand that the gubment to take away the risk of having to repay them or the pain of default. Companies milk every loophole they can in the regulatory system to make government money, and then pull every political string they can to get more, because that's what companies are supposed to do.
Everybody looks to the government for money, because the government has placed itself in the business of business - a place it should not be.
Here's hoping we're on the road to finally reversing the commie/liberal insanity and restoring the American dream.
#28 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 17 Jul 2011 at 03:16 PM
"You're on a full-tilt dodge off to Wall Street here, aren't you?"
It isn't a dodge. Before the 2007 Wall Street crisis, the unemployment rate was less than half what it is today. It was their crisis that put them out of work and it was conservatives, like Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke, who didn't regulate and had to bail water when wall street sank. And after they generously bailed out the banks and paid their executive bonuses (which the tea party marched on behalf of) then they've advocated everyone else tighten their belts and prepare for deficit reduction.
The unemployed don't matter to conservatives even when they are responsible for making them.
"As I wrote... You aren't going to see the poor Americans boosting private sector hiring... Good luck getting a job from a poor person!"
Actually padikakes, during 2002-03 Argentina's economy completely collapsed because of deregulation, privatization, speculative money which poured in and out again, and a peg to the dollar which wall street loved - tons of businesses collapsed as property owners took their money and fled. Unemployed people stood around while the idle assets they once worked sat in empty factories.
The economy ground to a halt.
So the unemployed workers organized themselves into workers collectives and opened the factories and businesses and ran them properly and profitably, well enough to not only survive the collapse but also to spark a recovery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers'_self-management
If the government and business won't offer jobs or benefits, the unemployed will take them. We'll see in a few months Padiwhack.
"And yes... the government is indeed responsible for the biggest part of the financial crisis.. Unquestionably (at least credibly)"
You know who disagrees with you? The Heritage Foundation.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/10/Understanding-the-Great-Global-Contagion-and-Recession
Not even that band of merry hacks buys into your pet dodge of conservative and corporate responsibility.
"You liberals take a ridiculous and inconsistent position with government regulation. You hammer away at "Wall Street" and beat us over the head with myriad examples of failed regulations and ineffective regulators (e.g. Madoff) - and yet somehow your solution to the problem is always new regulations and more regulators."
Our solution is not to let dumb conservatives write and enforce the laws because when they do, they change the laws and refuse to enforce them so that they have no power. Then they point to the ensuing anarchy and claim "See? Laws don't work!" You haven't proved regulation doesn't work, you've proved conservatives are a--holes.
"Here's hoping we're on the road to finally reversing the commie/liberal insanity and restoring the American dream."
Just like conservatives did after Clinton. "No, thimbles. It will be different this time"
Sure it will. Same people, different results.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/07/10/117293/sens-mcconnell-paul-forge-a-tentative.html
You're a sucker padi. All you tea party yahoos are.
#29 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 17 Jul 2011 at 07:47 PM
"You're on a full-tilt dodge off to Wall Street here, aren't you?"
It isn't a dodge. Before the 2007 Wall Street crisis, the unemployment rate was less than half what it is today. It was their crisis that put them out of work and it was conservatives, like Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke, who didn't regulate and had to bail water when wall street sank. And after they generously bailed out the banks and paid their executive bonuses (which the tea party marched on behalf of) then they've advocated everyone else tighten their belts and prepare for deficit reduction.
The unemployed don't matter to conservatives even when they are responsible for making them.
"As I wrote... You aren't going to see the poor Americans boosting private sector hiring... Good luck getting a job from a poor person!"
Actually padikakes, during 2002-03 Argentina's economy completely collapsed because of deregulation, privatization, speculative money which poured in and out again, and a peg to the dollar which wall street loved - tons of businesses collapsed as property owners took their money and fled. Unemployed people stood around while the idle assets they once worked sat in empty factories.
The economy ground to a halt.
So the unemployed workers organized themselves into workers collectives and opened the factories and businesses and ran them properly and profitably, well enough to not only survive the collapse but also to spark a recovery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers'_self-management
If the government and business won't offer jobs or benefits, the unemployed will take them. We'll see in a few months Padiwhack.
"And yes... the government is indeed responsible for the biggest part of the financial crisis.. Unquestionably (at least credibly)"
You know who disagrees with you? The Heritage Foundation.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/10/Understanding-the-Great-Global-Contagion-and-Recession
Not even that band of merry hacks buys into your pet dodge of conservative and corporate responsibility.
"You liberals take a ridiculous and inconsistent position with government regulation. You hammer away at "Wall Street" and beat us over the head with myriad examples of failed regulations and ineffective regulators (e.g. Madoff) - and yet somehow your solution to the problem is always new regulations and more regulators."
Our solution is not to let dumb conservatives write and enforce the laws because when they do, they change the laws and refuse to enforce them so that they have no power. Then they point to the ensuing anarchy and claim "See? Laws don't work!" You haven't proved regulation doesn't work, you've proved conservatives are a--holes.
"Here's hoping we're on the road to finally reversing the commie/liberal insanity and restoring the American dream."
Just like conservatives did after Clinton. "No, thimbles. It will be different this time"
Sure it will. Same people, different results.
You're a sucker padi. All you tea party yahoos are.
#30 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 17 Jul 2011 at 07:48 PM
Let's keep talking about the unemployed leeches so we don't have to look at these guys.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/the-new-let-them-eat-cake-20110713
"GET A JOB! STOP WHINING AND WORK! SUCK IT UP AND COPE!"
http://www.salon.com/news/david_sirota/2011/07/13/great_recession_elitism_slideshow/slideshow.html?slide=5
Lawyers and bankers have such good advice for the rest of us. You're in good company, Paddle puss.
#31 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 17 Jul 2011 at 11:56 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/18/opinion/18krugman.html
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/07/screwing-consumers-one-filibuster-time
Bankers... They own the place.
#32 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 18 Jul 2011 at 01:16 PM
I have been out of work for over three years and underemployed for over three years prior to that. Unemployment benefits have disappeared. The rich and powerful are high fiveing each other over their success with making record profits. These companies are flush with lots of money. Money they don't know what to do with (Apple comes to mind). Some are giving their executives huge bonuses, others dividends to their share holders, some using it to buy up competitors, others are just sitting on all that cash being niggardly.
#33 Posted by BOSucks, CJR on Thu 21 Jul 2011 at 11:10 AM
NEWSFLASH!
Nobody owes you a job, and nobody owes you a living, absent a disability requiring institutionalization.
There is no excuse for mooching for three years. Get off your lazy ass and do some damned work. Rake leaves. Flip burgers. Wash dishes. Paint houses.. Whatever.
Take some damned personal responsibility and support yourself instead of whining like a three year old in attempting to steal other peoples' stuff.
#34 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 21 Jul 2011 at 12:38 PM
There is no excuse for mooching for three years. Get off your lazy ass and do some damned work. Rake leaves. Flip burgers. Wash dishes. Paint houses.. Whatever.>>
Always the same rhetoric. Come up with something people have not heard or tried. Newsflash to you, nobody wants to hire people to "flip burgers" when you have spent the past 20 years or more in settings that have little to no resemblance to retail and food service. Just cause you "need" a job and will try anything does not mean you will so much as get an interview. When likely they are also getting hundreds of resumes and applications from other people desperate. They hire they youngest and least experienced so they can again pay them the cheapest of the cheap. If you are older-and by older I mean as young as 40 forget about it. "Stealing others stuff" of shut your whiny mouth. People get unemployment insurance only if they qualify and because their former employer paid into that fund.
If you have a job stop your own whining and complaining about what other people are not doing and be grateful for what you have lest you are next in line.
#35 Posted by denise, CJR on Thu 21 Jul 2011 at 03:18 PM
Sweet Jeebus! The commie/liberal nonsense knows no end!
Once again...
NOBODY owes you a damned job and NOBODY owes you a damned living!
FIND WORK. MAKE WORK. DO WORK.
It isn't complicated.
These whiny, lazy sacks of crap actually spend three years idly bitching about the "Man" on the internet instead of rising from their useless hindparts and engaging in economically productive behavior, and the commie/liberals are right there to defend them.
Well, I have the solution to your non-problem. Get off your lazy ass and do some damned work!
Crush cans. Give blood. Paint houses. Cur lawns. Shovel snow. Walk dogs. Move furniture. Type letters. Wait tables. Sell washing machines. WHATEVER. There are a million ways to make money. Do one of them and stop expecting someone else to pay your damned bills or hand you a damned job to your liking!
Grow up, take some damned personal responsibility and do what it takes to earn a damed living!
PERIOD!
#36 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 21 Jul 2011 at 03:34 PM
What a bunch of lazy crybabies!
Bad jobs at bad wages are better than no jobs at all, people!
GET TO WORK!
#37 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 23 Jul 2011 at 01:11 PM
People who say they're crybabies and need to get some sense of responsibility are thinking of the problem in a very incorrect way.
The reason that people are unemployed is because there is simply not enough jobs, because corrupt industries bought out politicians, who then proceeded to make laws in their name, essentially. With that, corporations can and will do anything(including completely destabilizing our economy oh wait, that already happened lol) they want in the name of profit, and any person who is working in that economy suffers as a result.
It's insane to me that people are complaining about "lazy" people, but not about the rich people who literally rule your life. Corporate sharecropping. Rate of american CEO pay to worker pay is 160:1. Highest of any country. Corporations are the richest they've ever been right now, and we're close to the poorest.
-Adam Magyar, http://thepeoplesmarketing.us
#38 Posted by Adam Magyar, CJR on Sun 16 Oct 2011 at 10:30 PM
None of you mentioned few simple facts.
How much was spent on foreign aid and war where we have nothing to gain except more deficits?
Obama government gets involved in war in Libya. Pretty soon we will have there another Taliban run country and blood enemy to our way of life and anti American in general.
How much it cost to our bleeding economy and how much we will have to spent in near future to attempt to fix this mistake?
#39 Posted by alexsts, CJR on Wed 16 Nov 2011 at 09:24 AM