Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 96

Thread: Jobs Report - Ouch

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    20,135
    Thanks
    325
    Thanked 4,725 Times in 2,959 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 333 Times in 317 Posts

    Default Jobs Report - Ouch

    Posted without comment:

    NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The economy shed 533,000 jobs in November, according to a government report Friday - bringing the year's total job losses to 1.9 million.

    November had the largest monthly job loss total since December 1974.

    According to the Labor Department's monthly jobs report, the unemployment rate rose to 6.7% from 6.5% in October. Though lower than economists' forecast of 6.8%, it was the highest unemployment rate since October 1993.

    Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast a loss of 325,000 jobs in the month. November's monthly job loss total was greater than October's revised loss of 320,000. Payroll cuts in September were revised up to 403,000, which means two-thirds of this year's job losses have occurred in the last three months.
    And a bonus Barney Frank quote just to piss of Chappy:

    "At a time of great crisis with mortgage foreclosures and autos, [Obama] says we only have one president at a time," Frank said. "I'm afraid that overstates the number of presidents we have. He's got to remedy that situation."

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    6,269
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Q: Senator Obama, would you take the same pledge? No tax increases on people under $250,000?

    OBAMA: I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes, I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes.

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    20,135
    Thanks
    325
    Thanked 4,725 Times in 2,959 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 333 Times in 317 Posts

    Default

    Oh, and bailing out the auto industry during times like this is pretty much a no-brainer. Even if you think they'll eventually go under, keeping them afloat for a just few years isn't such a bad thing.

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    20,135
    Thanks
    325
    Thanked 4,725 Times in 2,959 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 333 Times in 317 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chapdog View Post

    The real trouble is that we are at the beginning of what looks to be a really nasty upward trend, not peaking.

  5. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    6,269
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    another famous Barny frank quote:
    "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

    Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco

    By Jeff Jacoby , Globe Columnist * September 28, 2008

    'THE PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it."

    That's Barney Frank's story, and he's sticking to it. As the Massachusetts Democrat has explained it in recent days, the current financial crisis is the spawn of the free market run amok, with the political class guilty only of failing to rein the capitalists in. The Wall Street meltdown was caused by "bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector," Frank said; the country is in dire straits today "thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best." And that philosophy goes "back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, 'Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.' "

    In fact, that isn't what Reagan said. His actual words were: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing.

    Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be -- they weren't the ones who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else.

    The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

    The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

    All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

    As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?"

    Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

    Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.

    Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com.
    Q: Senator Obama, would you take the same pledge? No tax increases on people under $250,000?

    OBAMA: I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes, I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes.

  6. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    20,135
    Thanks
    325
    Thanked 4,725 Times in 2,959 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 333 Times in 317 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chapdog View Post
    another famous Barny frank quote:
    "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

    Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco

    By Jeff Jacoby , Globe Columnist * September 28, 2008

    'THE PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it."

    That's Barney Frank's story, and he's sticking to it. As the Massachusetts Democrat has explained it in recent days, the current financial crisis is the spawn of the free market run amok, with the political class guilty only of failing to rein the capitalists in. The Wall Street meltdown was caused by "bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector," Frank said; the country is in dire straits today "thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best." And that philosophy goes "back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, 'Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.' "

    In fact, that isn't what Reagan said. His actual words were: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing.

    Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be -- they weren't the ones who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else.

    The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

    The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

    All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

    As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?"

    Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

    Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.

    Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com.

    I can't stand Jeff Jacoby. And most of the tripe in the article above, is belied by the facts, but that's never stopped Jacoby before. I'm not inclined to debate this again (It seems that a lot of people continue to rehash the same old shit with me over and over again ad nauseum). I just direct you here:

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html

  7. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    6,269
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dungheap View Post
    The real trouble is that we are at the beginning of what looks to be a really nasty upward trend, not peaking.
    yah that's a nasty looking chart. I do think a lot is worry that this slowdown will last thru 2009. Companies are laying off in anticipation. It could be an overshoot especially if gas goes to a buck and obama infuses 700B into ready to go state infrastructure jobs. That could pull us right out of this recession.
    Q: Senator Obama, would you take the same pledge? No tax increases on people under $250,000?

    OBAMA: I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes, I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes.

  8. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    21,441
    Thanks
    73
    Thanked 1,982 Times in 1,405 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 287 Times in 274 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dungheap View Post
    Oh, and bailing out the auto industry during times like this is pretty much a no-brainer. Even if you think they'll eventually go under, keeping them afloat for a just few years isn't such a bad thing.
    You said it. After this morning, I absolutely cannot imagine no bailout. If Congress decides against it, they're completely incompetent.

  9. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    20,135
    Thanks
    325
    Thanked 4,725 Times in 2,959 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 333 Times in 317 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Onceler View Post
    You said it. After this morning, I absolutely cannot imagine no bailout. If Congress decides against it, they're completely incompetent.

    I don't think it would be an act of incompetence, it'd be a pernicious and premeditated act of sabotage on the economy by the Republicans. And I really mean that. They need Obama and the Democrats to fail if they ever want to make electoral gains and I have no doubt that they'll do their best to make sure of it even if it means suffering among the middle and lower classes.

  10. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Convington, La
    Posts
    22,763
    Thanks
    2,261
    Thanked 543 Times in 432 Posts
    Groans
    1,642
    Groaned 623 Times in 562 Posts

    Default

    they will bailout because of dem's power.
    NO WAY, there's 3,000,000 job loss on bankrupcy.
    Shit airlines do it annually and they stay in business.
    FEAR tactics from the left.
    The stone that the builder refused
    Will always be the head corner stone

  11. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    49,801
    Thanks
    1,830
    Thanked 7,353 Times in 5,599 Posts
    Groans
    238
    Groaned 801 Times in 749 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Topspin View Post
    they will bailout because of dem's power.
    NO WAY, there's 3,000,000 job loss on bankrupcy.
    Shit airlines do it annually and they stay in business.
    FEAR tactics from the left.
    While I agree the bailout will likely occur and agree that at this time it probably should (though they should be bringing in new managment across the board if they are going to proceed)... bankruptcy does not mean complete loss of jobs for the sector.

    Look at the airlines and the 436 times they have filed for chapter 11. They reorganize, dump debt, screw the shareholders and come right back out and do it all over again. Yet the bulk of their employees kept their jobs throughout the process. The autos would do the same thing.
    Quote from Cypress:
    "Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.

    They use mean annual and five year means in trend analysis. Don't tell me I have to explain the difference to you. "

  12. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    21,441
    Thanks
    73
    Thanked 1,982 Times in 1,405 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 287 Times in 274 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Topspin View Post
    they will bailout because of dem's power.
    NO WAY, there's 3,000,000 job loss on bankrupcy.
    Shit airlines do it annually and they stay in business.
    FEAR tactics from the left.
    I keep hearing the airlines comparison, but it's a bad one. An airplane ticket is nothing like a car. When people buy a car, it's for the long-term, with warranties & a need for consistent service. Bankruptcy will be a nail in the coffin for ailing sales.

    There is so much tied to the car industry - people have absolutely no idea.

  13. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,857
    Thanks
    3,734
    Thanked 20,360 Times in 14,088 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dungheap View Post
    I don't think it would be an act of incompetence, it'd be a pernicious and premeditated act of sabotage on the economy by the Republicans. And I really mean that. They need Obama and the Democrats to fail if they ever want to make electoral gains and I have no doubt that they'll do their best to make sure of it even if it means suffering among the middle and lower classes.
    Do you believe the Democratics felt different when Bush and the Republican congress were in control (for the most part) 2001 - 2006?

  14. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    20,135
    Thanks
    325
    Thanked 4,725 Times in 2,959 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 333 Times in 317 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superfreak View Post
    While I agree the bailout will likely occur and agree that at this time it probably should (though they should be bringing in new managment across the board if they are going to proceed)... bankruptcy does not mean complete loss of jobs for the sector.

    Look at the airlines and the 436 times they have filed for chapter 11. They reorganize, dump debt, screw the shareholders and come right back out and do it all over again. Yet the bulk of their employees kept their jobs throughout the process. The autos would do the same thing.

    Chapter 11 and Chapter 7 are vastly different animals. In order to go through a Chapter 11 reorganization GM (which is the one of the big three that is most in trouble) would have to be able to secure substantial Debtor-in-Possession financing. With the current state of the credit markets, it would be virtually impossible for that to happen. Hence you have people like Mitt Romney, who would love love love to get rid of the UAW for good, arguing for a "managed bankruptcy" which at the very least would require the federal government to become the DIP lender.

    In short, the auto would not do the same thing absent some sort of government assistance. Absent government assistance GM goes through a Chapter 7 liquidation which would likely result is very substantial layoffs not only at GM but through it supply chain. it wouldn't be pretty.

  15. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    49,801
    Thanks
    1,830
    Thanked 7,353 Times in 5,599 Posts
    Groans
    238
    Groaned 801 Times in 749 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dungheap View Post
    I can't stand Jeff Jacoby. And most of the tripe in the article above, is belied by the facts, but that's never stopped Jacoby before. I'm not inclined to debate this again (It seems that a lot of people continue to rehash the same old shit with me over and over again ad nauseum). I just direct you here:

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html
    Your article is noting but a cop out. As Chap said, there are plenty of culprits and parties responsible.

    But those private mortgage companies would not have been issuing those loans had Congress not pushed through the CRA, the Fair lending act and the repealment of Glass Steagall.

    The only way those private companies could issue those loans was if they had a buyer for those loans. As they were not going to be able to hold those risky assets on their books. The main buyers of those loans? Fannie and Freddie. Just because Fannie and Freddie didn't originate the loans doesn't change the fact that they went under because of their massive purchases of the sub prime debt. Side note... Fannie and Freddie don't originate ANY loans. So to pretend that their not originating them means they are not to blame is kind of ignorant.

    In the 2004-2007 timeframe (as your article states) the brokerage firms began participating in earnest as well in purchasing these subprime loans. But again, it was Congress that allowed them to merge via the repealment of Glass Steagall... which in turn eliminated natural firewalls between banking and investment banking.

    Obviously Greenspan keeping rates at historic lows for two and half years didn't help matters either. A large portion of the blame can be dumped on him as well.

    The individual borrowers and lenders are ultimately repsonisble for taking and making the loans. But had the government not interfered, the majority of the problem would not have occured. Between the Fed/Congress and a couple of Presidents lies the bulk of the responisbility for creating the environment

    From your article....

    "This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families."

    "Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of redlining and other restrictive banking practices that locked the poor, and especially minorities, out of homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth creation it affords. The CRA requires federally regulated and insured financial institutions to show that they're lending and investing in their communities."
    Quote from Cypress:
    "Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.

    They use mean annual and five year means in trend analysis. Don't tell me I have to explain the difference to you. "

Similar Threads

  1. U.S.-China trade has cost 2.3 million U.S. jobs: report
    By uscitizen in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 05-07-2018, 01:18 PM
  2. OUCH!
    By uscitizen in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-23-2008, 07:47 AM
  3. Ouch...
    By Cypress in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 09-17-2007, 06:52 PM
  4. 132,000 new jobs in May
    By Topspin in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 07-08-2007, 05:51 PM
  5. Ouch, That Hurts
    By toby in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 09-20-2006, 01:39 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •