99 Weeks: When Unemployment Benefits Run Out

This was on "60 Minutes" here in the USA tonight. It's a bit of a long read but it's full of interesting testimony from people who were "wealthy" who still can't find work. My comments will follow the article.

99 Weeks: When Unemployment Benefits Run Out

CBS News
Oct. 24, 2010

The economic jam we're in has topped even the Great Depression in one respect: never have we had a recession this deep with a recovery this flat. Unemployment has been at nine and a half percent or above for 14 months.

Congress did something that it has never done before - it extended unemployment benefits to 99 weeks. That cost more than $100 billion, a huge expense for a government in debt.

But now, for many Americans 99 weeks have passed and there's still no job in sight. Some have taken to calling themselves the "99ers."

"60 Minutes" and correspondent Scott Pelley went to several communities in search of the 99ers, but we didn't expect to find such a crisis in Silicon Valley, the high tech capital that many people hoped would be creating jobs.

If you want to understand why the economy is stalled, come to San Jose, Calif., and talk with 99ers like Marianne Rose. "I remember it coming close to like six months. I was saying, 'I can't believe I'm out of work this long.' Then the year mark hit. And I just started just panicking seriously. Now that it's over two years I can't believe it. I just, I can't believe it," she told Pelley.

Rose was a financial analyst at a real estate firm. Age 54, she's single with a grown daughter. After being laid off with about 100 co-workers, she spent her savings, lost her home and finally found herself sitting in a truck with her dog and all of her possessions.

She made a desperate call to a friend and found refuge upstairs in the home of strangers, her friend's brother and sister-in-law.

"How long did you think you would be in here?" Pelley asked.

"Two weeks really. That's all I thought," she replied.

But she told Pelley it has been six month. "And not really an end in sight, yet."

"What sort of things would you be willing to do at this point?" Pelley asked.

"Well, I can say that probably the lowest level position for me has been now to apply for a clerk, a county clerk and I just realized the competition is pretty stiff out there," she replied.

Asked what she meant by stiff competition, Rose explained, "There's a lot of people, speaking of the county. I had applied to those clerk positions. There's actually four positions that were open. I found there were over 2,000 people that applied for those four positions."

Rose is one of at least a million and a half Americans who've exhausted their unemployment checks.

Now, Silicon Valley, the capital of American innovation has a new creation: revival meetings for the unemployed. On weekends, they come by the hundreds.

"60 Minutes" joined a gathering called "Job Connections," held inside a local church.

It's part how-to-find-a-job workshop, part networking opportunity with the feel of a 12-step program.

The people in the group are the faces of unemployment in Silicon Valley, people in their 40s, 50s and 60s who thought they had done everything right: earned a degree, stayed with their company, saved for retirement.

"I'm curious. How many PhDs in this room?" Pelley asked. "One, two, three, four… several. Now leave your hands up. How many master's degrees? Oh boy. And how many of you went to college. Everybody keep your hands up if you have a college degree, a master's degree or a PhD."

Many in the room had their hands up.

"How many of you expected to retire from the company where you were working?" he then asked.

"More than half the room," he noted.

"How many of you have cashed out your 401ks? IRAs? Savings accounts?" Pelley asked.

Again, many hands went up.

A lot of them are too young to retire and, maybe, too old to rehire. The longer they're out, the tougher it gets.

Judy Thompson was marking the time before she loses her home. "Three months maybe, and I've been in that house since 1982. I don't want to move," she said.

Asked where she is going to go, Thompson told Pelley, "I don't know. I'm trying' not to think that far ahead. But anyway, didn't mean to get emotional. Sorry."

Sara Huber may lose her family business of 23 years. "Everything's gone and we can't survive 'cause these people can't survive," she explained.

"Because these people don't have jobs, they're not coming to your business?" Pelley asked.

"The equity lines are frozen, Right. People don't have credit. There's nothing there," she replied.

When asked how long her business can go on, Huber said, "We're going month to month, literally. I'm praying for more work."

Jim Wild has been applying for jobs two years. "I've gone through the tier one companies. I've gone through the tier two companies and now I'm down to Target. I just got a job offer from Target to work a part-time job at 9.50 or 9.25 an hour," he explained.

The Target job is floor sales; previously, Wild was a fiber optics engineering manager.

He's taking the job at Target and he's glad to get it.

These folks aren't that unusual: today, nearly 20 percent of the unemployed in America have college degrees.

Silicon Valley lost its jobs in construction, manufacturing and in high-tech engineering that went overseas. San Jose looks the same, but it shrank by 75,000 jobs. Many buildings there stand empty.

The national unemployment rate of about nine and a half percent sounds incredibly high and of course it is. But it doesn't nearly capture the depth of the trouble. It doesn't count the people who've seen their hours cut to part time. It doesn't count the people who have quit looking for work.

If you add all of that together, the unemployed and the underemployed, it's not nine and a half percent, it's 17 percent; and in California it's 22 percent.

And what makes it so much worse is that, nationwide, one third of the unemployed have been out of work more than a year. That hasn't happened since the Depression.

"60 Minutes" stopped by the soup kitchen in San Jose. Many folks used to think that they could see all the way to retirement. But now long-term unemployment is wrecking years of saving and planning by people like Lisa and Doug Francone.

Doug was a $200,000-a-year personnel executive.

"You must have thought that you'd get another job pretty quickly," Pelley remarked.

"Yeah. It really didn't cross my mind that I wouldn't find something. The question was trying to take the time to find the right job," he replied.

"You'd have a job in six months, a job that you liked in six months, and how long has it been?" Pelley asked Lisa Francone.

"Two years and three months," she replied.

They had saved for retirement and college for their son and daughter. But most of that is gone. "The unemployment checks were tiny, I can't remember what they were but…," Francone said.

"$475," his wife said.

"Lisa, what were you doing with $475 a week?" Pelley asked.

"Well, by the time we paid benefits, we had enough to pay a bill or two but certainly not meet the mortgage or property taxes or groceries," she replied.

Now their son is going to the military instead of college; selling the house will be next.

Doug Francone took matters into his own hands: he created jobs for him and his son, buying a franchise that cleans air ducts. He spent his 401(k) on this. But, there hasn't been enough business to make money.

"I don't wanna come off like 'Oh you know, woe is us.' There's other people struggling a lot worse than we are. But it's certainly very different for us," he told Pelley.

"You're surprised to be in this place?" Pelley asked.

"Oh, absolutely. Yeah. Shocked really," Francone replied.

Like the Francones, four and a half million Americans have taken hardship withdrawals from their 401(k)s. With savings gone, unemployment checks exhausted, many are coming to charities including the CALL Primrose Center, a pantry of free food.

Mary Watts has run CALL Primrose for 11 years.

"Before the Great Recession began, you were sending out how many bags of groceries in a year? Pelley asked.

"When I started in '99 it was 4,000 bags a year," she replied. "It's going to be 32, to 35,000 bags this year."

"You know these people coming into the pantry now, they must look like professionals," Pelley remarked.

"Oh absolutely, yes, absolutely professionals. Career professionals, people that never, ever would have thought they would be coming in our door other than perhaps as a donor," Watts said.

We met Claudia Bruce at the center. She was an office manager making $70,000 a year when she was laid off. Now her 99 weeks of unemployment checks are running out. She never imagined she'd need free food. But then, she never imagined she would be picking out trash to sell to the recycler.

"You do what you have to do. I'm not delighted, but I'm happy to have the money that it provides," she told Pelley.

"The day before you were laid off, what was your lifestyle?" Pelley asked.

"I was a shop-a-holic. Yeah. I was trying to reform myself, but there's nothing like losing your job for a long period of time to completely reform a shop-a-holic," she replied.

Her car has turned into a garbage truck, filled with recyclables.

She's learned a lot. Glass pays more than cans, and she has to be quick to beat the neighborhood homeless guy to the good stuff.

She estimated her haul would bring in $28; instead, she got $33.81.

"Personal record," she told Pelley.

"Did you ever think that $33 would mean so much?" he asked.

"No. But then, I never thought $5 would mean so much either," Bruce replied.

She has applied for hundreds of jobs, from office manager to clerical work. She's had four interviews in two years. She has kept a small apartment with help to pay the rent.

"I do get some help from my mom," Bruce said.

Her mother is 83.

"And so, she's helping you out even now," Pelley remarked.

"Yeah, I'm her baby still, you know," Bruce said.

"You didn't expect to be her baby at this point in your life?" Pelley asked.

"Absolutely not. I thought I'd be helping her now, that she wouldn't be helping me," she replied.

Her benefits will end when she hits 99 weeks soon. No one is expecting Congress to vote another extension of unemployment checks given our historic budget deficits.

As government benefits run out, a lot of people are depending on kindness to take their place.

Marianne Rose lived with her friend's brother for seven months, insisting on cooking and cleaning to earn her keep. In recent days she found a job in a public school. It'll pay about one third what she used to make. It's the best thing to happen in two years, but it's little and late.

"Do you imagine getting your lifestyle back?" Pelley asked.

"No," Rose replied. "Not to the same point now because now I would have to worry about, you know, my old age, in my old age you know its rebuild a nest egg, pay off my debts that I have. That has to happen so now, my lifestyle will not be the same ever, ever again."

First off, I have to hand to 60 Minutes and CBS for even putting this out 9 days before mid-terms.

I've been out of work for 19 months now myself. I have a part time job but that's it. The competition out there is very fierce. Then there's those people who say that the unemployment extensions are keeping people from finding full time work. Bullshit. It's keeping people from living in their pickup truck. I've never been without work in all my life since I was 16. I've continuously had a job in the 31 years that i've been able to work.

This problem was created by government and aided by Wall Street and the housing industry. Aided, meaning that the gov't created this perfect storm for these two industries to push us to what we have now.

Do I blame Obama for this? No. But I blame him and congressional Democrats for fucking around with a health care bill for most of last year. They didn't start getting real serious about the economy till July. It was then that the writing was on the wall that they were going to get creamed in November.

Am I pissed? You bet I am.

I had been unemployed for nearly 2 years before I got a very part time job. Like you Tex, I haven't been unemployed, well, hell... I've not been unemployed since I was a kid in high school.

Unlike you, I believe this problem was created by the government, and the government alone. Were there unscrupulous persons in the private sector that took advantage of the opportunities created by government interference in the housing market? You bet! I'd love to see any of those that violated the law prosecuted to the severest extent allowed by the law. But it was the federal government and their incessant meddling in the housing and banking markets - forcing banks and mortgage companies to loan money to people who should have NEVER been considered for a home loan - that was the genesis of this entire mess.

But, what we have today is so much more than a result of that mess, as bad as it was/is. No, we have something far worse than that, we have a President and a Congress who have taken and incredibly aggressive and hostile stance against the private sector, and who are intent on raising their taxes, have passed a massive "health care" bill and "financial reform" bill that makes it impossible for businesses to assess or fix labor costs for the next few years, and are threatening to pass a "cap-and-trade" bill and a "card check" bill that will make it impossible for businesses to predict costs. It is this all out assault on the private sector that is keeping unemployment at a chronically high level! What sane business large or small would even think of trying to expand or hire in this environment? They have no way of even estimating what the cost of an employee or capital investment will be a month, a year or 2 or more years down the line. Hell, the "health care" bill alone is going to take years to roll out, with hidden and unknown costs just waiting to bite the private sector employers in the ass.

So yes, I DO blame Obama and the Democrats for this. There is much they could actually do to ease the fears of the private sector, but it seems that every day they take another swipe at them as if there were evil incarnate.

Unemployment will not turn around until the private sector sees some hope that this unprecedented war against capitalism and the private sector will be dealt with.

And I am pissed beyond words.

dblboggie wrote:Unlike you, I believe this problem was created by the government, and the government alone. Were there unscrupulous persons in the private sector that took advantage of the opportunities created by government interference in the housing market? You bet! I'd love to see any of those that violated the law prosecuted to the severest extent allowed by the law.

I guess i should've been more clear. I don't blame Obama for the mess he inherited. I do blame him for fostering the environment that has led to consistent unemployment.

As far as blaming gov't and the market.... the gov't created the opportunity for these people in the private sector to do what they did. There is the unintended consequences. I don't believe for a minute that they intended for this recession to happen. But how dumb could they be to do what they did with the CRA? Plenty. Bush warned them pretty good back in his last year. No mention of that by the media. Oh no.

dblboggie wrote:But it was the federal government and their incessant meddling in the housing and banking markets - forcing banks and mortgage companies to loan money to people who should have NEVER been considered for a home loan - that was the genesis of this entire mess.

Yep, this is what any economics professor could've told those so-called politicians.

dblboggie wrote:So yes, I DO blame Obama and the Democrats for this. There is much they could actually do to ease the fears of the private sector, but it seems that every day they take another swipe at them as if there were evil incarnate.

They could but won't. It's more important to talk shit about raising taxes during a recession. Then people wonder why things are the way they are.

dblboggie wrote:Unemployment will not turn around until the private sector sees some hope that this unprecedented war against capitalism and the private sector will be dealt with.

If the GOP grabs control of the House, maybe things will lighten up just a bit. Business will know that the Dems won't be able to ram shit thru like they have in the last 19 months. But we have this HC bill staring them in the face. Those impending taxes and regulations that have yet to arrive will stifle job creation.

Btw, my unemployment will probably run out in December. I can't wait for that day to get here.

I'm sorry Tex, being unemployed is bloody horrible, I hope something comes along for you soon.

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Unlike you, I believe this problem was created by the government, and the government alone. Were there unscrupulous persons in the private sector that took advantage of the opportunities created by government interference in the housing market? You bet! I'd love to see any of those that violated the law prosecuted to the severest extent allowed by the law.

I guess i should've been more clear. I don't blame Obama for the mess he inherited. I do blame him for fostering the environment that has led to consistent unemployment.

But why? This has been the biggest, the worst - and possibly the longest - global recession since the Great Depression. I'm not saying he's handled it perfectly, of course he hasn't, but the guy has had a baptism of fire with an impossible task.

dblboggie wrote:But it was the federal government and their incessant meddling in the housing and banking markets - forcing banks and mortgage companies to loan money to people who should have NEVER been considered for a home loan - that was the genesis of this entire mess.

Over here the opposite is true, our banks collapsed because of deregulation and Labour taking a laissez faire approach and didn't step in to stop them selling mortgages and loans to people who could barely afford it. So I'm afraid you won't get many sympathisers here for your "free market" approach to banking because New Labour tried that, and it failed.

BecMacFeegle wrote:I'm sorry Tex, being unemployed is bloody horrible, I hope something comes along for you soon.

I'm starting to think like the people in the article do.... getting a crappy paying job. My part time postal job isn't cutting it.

TexasBlue wrote:Btw, my unemployment will probably run out in December. I can't wait for that day to get here.

Good luck Tex, I'm sure something will come up soon.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:But why? This has been the biggest, the worst - and possibly the longest - global recession since the Great Depression. I'm not saying he's handled it perfectly, of course he hasn't, but the guy has had a baptism of fire with an impossible task.

Oh, he had a load that i wouldn't wish on anyone when he stepped in.

Geez, where do i start? To make a long story short, he has fostered an anti-business climate since taking office. He signed that stimulus bill into law and all that did was send money to special interest groups. It's a proven debacle; a waste of tax payer dollars. The looming tax increases aren't going to make the economy budge. He could've cut corporate taxes instead of the stimulus bill. He passed the HC bill which nobody read (in congress) and nobody knows exactly what new taxes are impending.... yet. Bits and pieces are slowly coming out. Crikey, he and them Dems spent more damn time with the HC bill than even bothering with the economy.

Of course, that was a short version of what i wanted to say because i'm heading out for an hour or two here soon.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:But it was the federal government and their incessant meddling in the housing and banking markets - forcing banks and mortgage companies to loan money to people who should have NEVER been considered for a home loan - that was the genesis of this entire mess.

Over here the opposite is true, our banks collapsed because of deregulation and Labour taking a laissez faire approach and didn't step in to stop them selling mortgages and loans to people who could barely afford it. So I'm afraid you won't get many sympathisers here for your "free market" approach to banking because New Labour tried that, and it failed.

See the Community Reinvestment Act. It was the start of our economic fall.

As for the rest, you were replying to Dbl. I'll let him have his due.

TexasBlue wrote:

BecMacFeegle wrote:I'm sorry Tex, being unemployed is bloody horrible, I hope something comes along for you soon.

I'm starting to think like the people in the article do.... getting a crappy paying job. My part time postal job isn't cutting it.

You wouldn't go back to being a lorry...sorry... truck driver?

BecMacFeegle wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:

BecMacFeegle wrote:I'm sorry Tex, being unemployed is bloody horrible, I hope something comes along for you soon.

I'm starting to think like the people in the article do.... getting a crappy paying job. My part time postal job isn't cutting it.

You wouldn't go back to being a lorry...sorry... truck driver?

I've been advised against it. My back is shot. I actually had an MRI done on it last year (June) and they found 3 discs that are shot to hell. I was told that if i went back to it, i could possibly be to the pot that i couldn't ever work again... anywhere, any job. Yeah, it's that bad.

TexasBlue wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:But why? This has been the biggest, the worst - and possibly the longest - global recession since the Great Depression. I'm not saying he's handled it perfectly, of course he hasn't, but the guy has had a baptism of fire with an impossible task.

Oh, he had a load that i wouldn't wish on anyone when he stepped in.

Geez, where do i start? To make a long story short, he has fostered an anti-business climate since taking office. He signed that stimulus bill into law and all that did was send money to special interest groups. It's a proven debacle; a waste of tax payer dollars. The looming tax increases aren't going to make the economy budge. He could've cut corporate taxes instead of the stimulus bill. He passed the HC bill which nobody read (in congress) and nobody knows exactly what new taxes are impending.... yet. Bits and pieces are slowly coming out. Crikey, he and them Dems spent more damn time with the HC bill than even bothering with the economy.

Of course, that was a short version of what i wanted to say because i'm heading out for an hour or two here soon.

I'm not defending the guy but because of the extent of the problem, I think this economic collapse was inevitable. Perhaps he did nothing to help, and undoubtedly some of his policies exacerbated the problem, but to think that he could have single handedly halted it in its tracks by deregulating the banks I find rather ludicrous. I can't help feeling though that if this had been at the beginning of Dubya's tenure your view would be a bit more lenient. I know neither of you are keen on Dubya but he was, after all, a Republican President. Just sayin'.

TexasBlue wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:But it was the federal government and their incessant meddling in the housing and banking markets - forcing banks and mortgage companies to loan money to people who should have NEVER been considered for a home loan - that was the genesis of this entire mess.

Over here the opposite is true, our banks collapsed because of deregulation and Labour taking a laissez faire approach and didn't step in to stop them selling mortgages and loans to people who could barely afford it. So I'm afraid you won't get many sympathisers here for your "free market" approach to banking because New Labour tried that, and it failed.

See the Community Reinvestment Act. It was the start of our economic fall.

As for the rest, you were replying to Dbl. I'll let him have his due.

Well he can argue all he likes, but not a single person over here things our banking problems were because of too much regulation. New Labour came to power in 1997 with the banks behind them and that led to dangerous deregulation and the consistent lowering of interest rates in order to encourage spending. Even the Bank of England, the FSA and the banking watchdog came to the same conclusion that the banks were allowed too much of a free reign and not called to account when they should have been.

I've been advised against it. My back is shot. I actually had an MRI done on it last year (June) and they found 3 discs that are shot to hell. I was told that if i went back to it, i could possibly be to the pot that i couldn't ever work again... anywhere, any job. Yeah, it's that bad.

That sucks. What did you do to your back? Sounds like you need a cushy office job, with a nice big comfy chair and back support!

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:I can't help feeling though that if this had been at the beginning of Dubya's tenure your view would be a bit more lenient. I know neither of you are keen on Dubya but he was, after all, a Republican President. Just sayin'.

Not at all. I would've been just as harsh. His neo-conism (is that new word?) was the death of his presidency. I bailed on him when it was unpopular to do so. I still blame him for what he have but I also blame the congress for aiding in it... specifically the Democrats that wouldn't allow the tighter regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Bush finally got wise to it (to his credit) and he pleaded with congress to get something done. Democrats refused. Despite the GOP having the majority in congress, they didn't have enough voters to move forward with things like Democrats did under Obama.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Well he can argue all he likes, but not a single person over here things our banking problems were because of too much regulation. New Labour came to power in 1997 with the banks behind them and that led to dangerous deregulation and the consistent lowering of interest rates in order to encourage spending. Even the Bank of England, the FSA and the banking watchdog came to the same conclusion that the banks were allowed too much of a free reign and not called to account when they should have been.

Can't argue with that. Somewhat different than what happened here but still similar all the same.

BecMacFeegle wrote:

I've been advised against it. My back is shot. I actually had an MRI done on it last year (June) and they found 3 discs that are shot to hell. I was told that if i went back to it, i could possibly be to the pot that i couldn't ever work again... anywhere, any job. Yeah, it's that bad.

That sucks. What did you do to your back? Sounds like you need a cushy office job, with a nice big comfy chair and back support!

Years of the pounding of the road is what did it. Some backs can stand up to it. Mine didn't for whatever reason. I started driving truck full time in 1986 and got away from it in 2006. But I did a little driving here and there before that also.

I prefer a job where i'm on my feet most of the day. It's better for my back.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Unlike you, I believe this problem was created by the government, and the government alone. Were there unscrupulous persons in the private sector that took advantage of the opportunities created by government interference in the housing market? You bet! I'd love to see any of those that violated the law prosecuted to the severest extent allowed by the law.

I guess i should've been more clear. I don't blame Obama for the mess he inherited. I do blame him for fostering the environment that has led to consistent unemployment.

But why? This has been the biggest, the worst - and possibly the longest - global recession since the Great Depression. I'm not saying he's handled it perfectly, of course he hasn't, but the guy has had a baptism of fire with an impossible task.

Actually, his task was not all that impossible. Yes, he did inherit shitstorm of troubles, and as a Senator, he voted for some of those things for which he is now blaming his predecessor. But that is not the point. Once he took office, the ball was in his court and the very first thing he did, AGAINST the will of a vast majority of Americans, and ALL of the Republicans in Congress, was to jam through a nearly 1 TRILLION dollar “stimulus” bill, which EVERYONE knew had nothing whatsoever to do with stimulating a damn thing but the securing of Democrat votes. It was a hodgepodge of everything Democrats had wanted to do for years but had never had the votes to get them. It was massively wasteful, did NOTHING to “stimulate” the economy (witness the chronically high unemployment rate). Obama said that the “stimulus” bill was absolutely vital to keep unemployment from going up to 8% - instead, unemployment soared to 10%, where it has stayed (and that is only if you don’t factor in those who have given up on looking for a job and are thus not counted – or the underemployed who cannot find full-time work, even though they want it). That 1 trillion dollars would have been MUCH more effective in terms of stimulating the economy and driving job creation if Obama had simply sunk that into cutting corporate tax rates (even a little bit), and promising an extension of the Bush tax cuts. THAT would have been a positive signal to the private sector that Obama was serious about stimulating the economy and would have given the private sector the predictability of costs so vital to business owners. This is what Bush did when he came into office with an inherited recession, and it worked marvelously, as it has every time it has been done. That is what Reagan did after inheriting Carter’s disastrous economy, a deep recession, double-digit unemployment (Obama only inherited single-digit unemployment), interest rates in double-digits (Obama inherited record low interest rates), stagnant economic growth with high inflation (stagflation – Obama inherited no/next-to-no inflation), and the moral of the American people at an all time low. He cut taxes massively, and turned the economy and the country around and gave it its greatest period of growth since WWII.

Obama could have done the very same thing with that trillion dollars, instead, he squandered that trillion dollars of taxpayers money in what could be called a massive goody bag for loyal Democrats to be spent on their long desired pet projects which did nothing to stimulate a damn thing and drove unemployment 10% (instead of the 8% he promised).

Now bear in mind, at this point we are only a couple of months into Obamas term in office. After promising repeatedly in his campaign that he would pass no bill without giving the American people 5 days to examine them online, he jammed the massive “stimulus” bill through the House and Senate, with no one having even read the whole thing, including the President, in the most partisan manner ever, and without ANY citizen having even laid eyes on the bill – never mind having 5 days to examine it online. Great way to start, eh? LIE to the American people, deny them the opportunity to see what was in that massive bill, and jam it through in the dark of night, denying Republicans any meaningful input, amendments or examination of the bill.

This, he followed by using the power of his office to intimidate the legal stakeholders in the Chrysler corporation, to accept hind tit in bankruptcy proceedings and transferring majority ownership not to the LEGAL recipients under extant bankruptcy laws, but to a union retiree health-care trust fund with a 55 percent ownership stake, with the rest of the company staying in the government’s hands. Just a MARVELOUS signal to send to private-sector businesses and those who underwrite them. He followed this up with the GM debacle, which gave the federal government majority ownership, followed by, yet again, the UNIONS. Obama then followed this up with the cap-and-trade bill, the single biggest increase in taxes this nation has ever seen. It is a bill that would give the federal government massive and unheard of powers over the private sector and would drive up energy costs and the costs of doing business in ways that couldn’t even be predicted. It passed the House, and got stalled in the Senate, but it yet hangs over the heads of the entire private sector as threat that could very easily become law. This was followed by the “health care reform” bill, yet another attack on the private sector, this one against health insurance providers, health care providers and those businesses who provide health insurance for their employees. This massive 2000+ page bill, also unread by anyone, also jammed through in the dark of night by means of a parliamentary procedural trick, also unseen by the citizens, contains hidden provisions only now being discovered and will drive up the costs of doing business in the private sector, and has already driven those costs up! Still in the wings, the so-called “card check” bill; this would give unions a means of using intimidation to force unionization on businesses everywhere.

Businesses owners aren’t morons. They can read the tea leaves here. They KNOW that Obama is not a friend of the private sector. These people had already done their due diligence and knew what his voting record was when he was Senator and in the Illinois state senate, long before he became President. I am sure that they were hoping against hope that he was just going to be your typical politician, saying what ever is needed to get elected, then governing from a more moderate and pragmatic position. Obama’s first months in office made it VERY clear that he was not your typical politician and there was no way that he was going to move any where near the center. This put the private sector on notice. And the private sector has responded in an entirely predictable (and responsible) way. They are not out to commit business suicide. Every signal, every statement, every legislative measure forwarded by this Administration and Congress have been unbelievably hostile to the private sector and the private sector has gotten the message loud and clear. And this has had a very predictable impact on employment and business growth.

So sure, it was a bad scene he inherited, but he is hardly the first person to inherit problems. But every action taken by Obama has been an assault on the private sector and a boon to the public sector at the expense of our economy and our people.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:But it was the federal government and their incessant meddling in the housing and banking markets - forcing banks and mortgage companies to loan money to people who should have NEVER been considered for a home loan - that was the genesis of this entire mess.

Over here the opposite is true, our banks collapsed because of deregulation and Labour taking a laissez faire approach and didn't step in to stop them selling mortgages and loans to people who could barely afford it. So I'm afraid you won't get many sympathisers here for your "free market" approach to banking because New Labour tried that, and it failed.

In point of fact, the free market hasn’t existed here in over 100 years, and the passage of the progressive income tax was the death knell of free-market capitalism. We have erected such a MASSIVE structure of laws, regulations and taxes that interfere in markets, that it is a wonder we have any productivity at all. What our politicians have created is a complex and tangled web of controls that allows the federal government to pick the winners and losers in business. It is crony capitalism with a capital C. Our current tax code is the lynchpin of this system of crony capitalism, and it is greatly assisted by laws and regulations that make it increasingly difficult for true entrepreneurs to enter the market unless they are backed by very deep pockets to navigate the bewildering array of laws, regulations and tax laws necessary to just get off the ground.

I can’t speak for the U.K., but in America, real free-market capitalism has been dead for a century.

TexasBlue wrote:First off, I have to hand to 60 Minutes and CBS for even putting this out 9 days before mid-terms.

I've been out of work for 19 months now myself. I have a part time job but that's it. The competition out there is very fierce. Then there's those people who say that the unemployment extensions are keeping people from finding full time work. Bullshit. It's keeping people from living in their pickup truck. I've never been without work in all my life since I was 16. I've continuously had a job in the 31 years that i've been able to work.

This problem was created by government and aided by Wall Street and the housing industry. Aided, meaning that the gov't created this perfect storm for these two industries to push us to what we have now.

Do I blame Obama for this? No. But I blame him and congressional Democrats for fucking around with a health care bill for most of last year. They didn't start getting real serious about the economy till July. It was then that the writing was on the wall that they were going to get creamed in November.

Am I pissed? You bet I am.

but you do blame Obama.. on here you have blamed him for near enough every thing.. remember the reason why Obama had to fuck around with a health care bill for most of last year.. was cos your mates did every thing they could to crush it and any other attempt to help.. But you do have to give it to Obama for keeping you and the nation out of the the 1930's soup kitchen.. But don't worry your tea party mob will have the chance to change soon.

and mayhap in the time to come, while you stand in line for tin cup of weak soup and dried bread, you can think how clever you where to add to the destruction of the demarcates.

no all whimes aside.. I do not think America could be in any better situation then it is in right now.. not with the hysteria from the tea party and the republican's petty politicking and steadfast refusal to join with the democrats for the fate of the nation.

cable2 wrote:but you do blame Obama.. on here you have blamed him for near enough every thing.. remember the reason why Obama had to fuck around with a health care bill for most of last year.. was cos your mates did every thing they could to crush it and any other attempt to help..

That's pure BS. When that bill passed, the GOP (whom are not my mates) had no way to stop it from being passed. The ones who were stonewalling that bill were members of Obama's own party. The GOP were allowed NO amendments to that bill at all. Why the feck vote for something that you have no input in? I can post the names of the amendments that were shot down time and again. They're all in the congressional record for everyone to see. Look things up before you make such silly accusations.

cable2 wrote:But you do have to give it to Obama for keeping you and the nation out of the the 1930's soup kitchen..

We're almost there. Everything has gotten worse since he's been in office with NO end in sight!

cable2 wrote:But don't worry your tea party mob will have the chance to change soon.

First, the TP isn't a political party. Second, when the GOP takes back control of the House of Representatives, they will not have control of the Senate. They won't be able to force things to happen, per se. But it will force the Democrats to compromise on passage of legislation. The Dems haven't compromised on 90% of the major bills they've passed

Again, you need to read a little deeper into things instead of spouting off with silly innuendo.

cable2 wrote:and mayhap in the time to come, while you stand in line for tin cup of weak soup and dried bread, you can think how clever you where to add to the destruction of the demarcates.

This statement is pure undulated bullshit.

cable2 wrote:no all whimes aside.. I do not think America could be in any better situation then it is in right now.. not with the hysteria from the tea party and the republican's petty politicking and steadfast refusal to join with the democrats for the fate of the nation.

Then you're looking at Socialist Workers Daily's web site too much. Everything you've stated is so beyond the pale and false that it's not even worth debating. If things are so good, why aren't the Democrats running on the major legislation they've passed? None are even mentioning the HC bill. None are even mentioning the stimulus bill. The only thing they're running on is scare tactics. The Dems have finished the job Bush started in ruing this economy.

Maybe you should get off of your keester and come vsit here for a few months and then get back to me.

Tex and Cable you need to stop baiting each other and calm down.

dblboggie wrote:It was massively wasteful, did NOTHING to “stimulate” the economy (witness the chronically high unemployment rate).

I'm not defending him, I already said that he clearly made some cataclysmic mistakes. But you can't deny that the shit had already hit the fan before the election.

dblboggie wrote:I can’t speak for the U.K., but in America, real free-market capitalism has been dead for a century.

And here, but not without good reason. We were repulsed by the excesses and the exploitation of the industrial revolution that it saw the rise of both social liberalism and socialism. The free market that had given us the East India Company and the railways had left a sour taste in the mouth with workhouses and child labour and exploitation.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Tex and Cable you need to stop baiting each other and calm down.

No baiting on my part. It's disgusts me to read such asinine accusations and falsehoods. I'm not going to sit here and let that stuff slide by like a bad oyster going down my throat.

Then prove him wrong. If he steps over the line, he gets

TexasBlue wrote:

cable2 wrote:but you do blame Obama.. on here you have blamed him for near enough every thing.. remember the reason why Obama had to fuck around with a health care bill for most of last year.. was cos your mates did every thing they could to crush it and any other attempt to help..

That's pure BS. When that bill passed, the GOP (whom are not my mates) had no way to stop it from being passed. The ones who were stonewalling that bill were members of Obama's own party. The GOP were allowed NO amendments to that bill at all. Why the feck vote for something that you have no input in? I can post the names of the amendments that were shot down time and again. They're all in the congressional record for everyone to see. Look things up before you make such silly accusations.

Actually, I want to add something here Tex. When Obama was pushing the "health care reform" bill last year, the Democrats had an overwhelming majority in both the House and Senate and didn't need a SINGLE Republican vote to get it through. It was disagreements and petty squabbling within the Democratic Party that held that bill up, and if you will recall, it wasn't resolved until key Democrats were BRIBED with special deals for their states regarding the costs the bill would engender within those states by exempting them from certain provisions and costs. Only THEN did the Senate then pull together to push the thing through.

That the bill took so long to jam through was ENTIRELY on the Democrats - the Republicans had NOTHING to do with it.

But then, if one is only getting their news and talking points from the Workers World Daily, they wouldn't know this very obvious and easily verifiable fact.