Democrats Push For New Aid Package Following Job Losses

New York Times:

The nation's employers eliminated tens of thousands of jobs for the third month in a row, the government reported Friday, and top Democrats immediately called for new measures to help suffering American workers.

The nation's employers eliminated tens of thousands of jobs for the third month in a row, the government reported Friday, and top Democrats immediately called for new measures to help suffering American workers.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[MilwaukeeDan]

We don't need aid packages after the jobs are lost, we need to keep the good jobs here(if there are any left). The government is not thinking outside the box!! Stupid.

[joebhed]

In reading the comments, there are definitely a few that I agree with, but when I look at the liberals and conservatives jockeying for a score, I must again be reminded of the following:

"The main mark of modern govenments is that we do not know who governs, de facto any more than de jure. We see the politician and not his backer; still less the backer of the backer; or, what is more important of all, the banker of the backer. Throned above all, in a manner without parallel in all the past, is the veiled prophet of finance, swaying all men living by a sort of magic." - G. K. Chesterton

And, from The American Bankers'Magazine:

"The truth is well known among our principal men now engaged in forming an imperialism of capital to govern the world. While they are doing this, the people must be kept in a condition of antagonism. By thus dividing the voters, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to lead the common herd. Thus, by discreet actions we can secure all that has been so generously planned and successfully accomplished."

So, while we're "discussing", they are "securing".
Want jobs?
"The issue which has swept down the centuries, and which will have to be fought sooner or later, is the People versus the Banks". - Lord Acton in 1875
It's your money.

[leftLibertarian]

The only thing I want to hear from Pelosi's yap is to announce the impeachment of the criminals Bush and Cheney.

[Ramirez]

On the upside, the current unemployment rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1996, during the boom years of Clinton's reelection. Of course then a 5.1 rate was considered an incredible achievement and now it is an economic disaster.

[thegreatgiginthesky]

You seem to have a hard time understanding the basic difference between lowering and increasing. Clinton came in and lowered the unemployment rate. It is now going up (increasing). Don't worry, nothing I've told you is deemed as "liberal" thought. It is the basic fact of math.

[vippy]

And who said that the 4.9% or 5.1% are the true numbers. We have been lied to for a very long
time. During Clinton's time we had to get creative to get applicants. For the past 7 years we
received applications by the barrel full.

[umen]

When I receive my "economic stimulus tax rebate" next month, I plan to donate every dollar to the most progressive candidates (national and local) that I can find, and probably to the ACLU too.
The best way to stimulate this economy is to invest in the election of Democrats who will end Bush's tax cuts for his rich pals, and will create jobs through programs to rebuild our infrastructure, improve public education, and create alternative energy industries.
Who will join me?

[Ramirez]

Good luck with that.

Me, I'm going to give half of it to the poor and then spend the rest on women and booze.

[leftLibertarian]

Sounds like a waste of money. Since the Democratic Party has not impeached the criminals Bush and Cheney, you'd only be encouraging their cowardly behavior.

[vippy]

In Germany one gets unemployment until one finds a new job. Why can't we do as in Europe.
Why are we worth less than those people over there? Why are we paying more taxes and get
much less in return. Oh yes, the war machine, which does not help the middle class at all.

[browndog2]

So you prefer Socialism over free market? It's either or.not parts of one or the other. Sure, long-term unemployment benfits sound good, until you look at your paycheck and see how much the Government takes of your hard earned money to support those who don't work.

[WorkingClass]

You are exactly wrong browndog. "parts of one or the other" is what is called a *mixed economy* which is what we had before the Republicans began dismantling the new deal. It worked very well indeed from Ike to Regan. Remember and be grateful for your preference for a "free market" when you are foraging for acorns and insects.

[maggiemae656]

And there is part of the problem. Once at the lower end of the scale...it is cost prohibitive for people to go to work. What motivation does anyone have to get up and work every day, pay baby-sitters, buy gas, buy lunch, buy work clothes, join the general rat race so that you can collect a check that, after taxes--and possibly before taxes--is less than what you can collect by doing nothing? Our system seems to be set up by a group of politicians who are doing nothing more than buying votes. Why else would you have programs set up that knowingly encourage people not to work?

[vippy]

having worked in both places I have to state this, I pay more taxes here and I get much
less in return. The only thing in Germany the healthcare premium is included in the
paycheck. Besides, they have 6 weeks of vacation, fulltime jobs, get a vacation bonus,
and get at some places 15 1/2 months salaries per year. I was extremely disappointed
when I arrived here. I only noted that you have your war machine and that costs money.
Your citizens get much less oh, and your rich pay less taxes too. Another comparable
thing is the higher education in Germany is free, here it is out of range unless you want to
get deeper in debt with college loans.

[Ramirez]

It's always better to live and not work in countries with high tax rates than to live and not work in countries with lower rates.

[joebaggadonuts]

George will veto it anyway, go ahead, make his day. The only thing you will get out of it is the potential of having McCain take a position.

[MetalCanuck]

Yes folks...just print more money and watch everything get better!! LOL They are devaluing your dollar by printing money for things they can't afford. You will end up with a worthless dollar. Your army should arrest the whole crew minus a few like Kucinich and Paul and hold new elections.

[themodernleader]

President Joe. The Government in the past 25 years has changed definitions, criteria and mathematical formulas to mask the decline in unemployment and the resulting burgeoning of the "under class" . This group has no allegiance to our country. This group leans always where there is the most leverage and advantage. This group is equivalent to the multitudes of un- and underemployed Romans in the end days of the Roman Republic. Such anchorless citizens are used by demigogues and dictators to destroy self government.
To believe that the unemployment is 5.1 percent is to believe in the truthfulness of our despicable government. The true unemployment is at least 10-13 percent. The proclivity of the government to disguise the true nature of our economic condition is leading us down the road to ignominous decisions and self delusion. The truth is too distatsteful for common citizens to accept; therefore, our leaders disguise, conceal it from our minds.
If we were told the truth, we would throw the rascals out of Office and bring in a new group of leaders dedicated to perpetuating our Republic.

[PresidentJoe]

I'm aware of the charge that the government has changed definitions, criteria and mathematical formulas in order to make the economic numbers look better. Regarding employment numbers, there's an article on that at http://www.shadowstats.com/article/54 and a graph showing other alternate measures of the unemployment rate at http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data . I'm not currently in a position to verify these charges but I do suspect that, when given a choice of two competing formulas, the one that makes the economic data looks better tends to be the one that is chosen.

For these reasons, I take the numbers with a grain of salt and try to look at as many sources of data as possible. For example, the table and graph at http://usbudget.blogspot.com/2008/03/job-growth-under-bush-and-prior.html looks at the civilian population, the labor force, and employment figures from both the household and payroll surveys as well as the unemployment rate. In addition, much of the "fudging" of formulas that are charged take place over time. Hence, looking at the change in these values over the length of a single presidential term is relatively valid.

[olephart]

In order to create jobs you need investment in productive assets. That's why Republicans are so successful in creating a vibrant economy. If taxes on investments were lowered or better yet, eliminated altogether then jobs would be produced in the private sector. This growth would be self sustaining and revenues would increase to pay for the tax cuts. As Ronald Reagan said, "Government is the problem" so scaling back regulations, particularly in the area of finance, would create more opportunities to grow the economy. So the net results are low taxes and less regulation will produce an expanding economy. Anyone agreeing with this synopsis may now signify such by sticking their right index finger up their ass and whistling tune from an authentic John Wayne western.

[ErnestineBass]

ROFALMAO!!! GAWD, I love you olephart...I haven't laughed that hard in weeks.

Now I gotta go and clean the spit off my screen!

[FreedomCorpse]

yep. Its kind of an economic riddle that the Rainman type supporters of globalization theories are trying to figure out but can't because they are like functioning autistics (no offense to real autistics) who don't know they are trying to solve a joke.

[vippy]

Do like they do in Europe, have unemployment until you find a job - get her done!

[marko77]

What is a "new aid package to help unemployed workers?" Borrowing more money from China or perhaps India? What a sick joke. Since we produce nothing to sell to ourselves or to anybody overseas, what other choice is there? Ridiculous!!!!

[PresidentJoe]

I've long wondered about the current system whereby the unemployed are given full benefits for a certain number of months but are then simply cut off. It seems a bit like teaching a child to swim by throwing them in the deep end of the pool. It might be better to have a more gradual system whereby the unemployed have to submit to more and more oversight as time goes by (to insure that they are making a full effort to find a job) rather than being simply cut off.

In any case, I recently looked at employment data at the beginning of each presidential term since Truman and noticed an interesting fact. Counting Bush's 2nd term up until now, there have been 15 presidential terms since 1949. During that period, the unemployment rate has gone down during almost every term of a Democratic president and up during almost every term of a Republican president. The only exceptions were Carter (when the unemployment rate stayed about the same) and both terms of Reagan and the second term of G.W. Bush (when the unemployment rate dropped). And with the unemployment rate rising to 5.1 percent now, nearly equal to the 5.2 percent at the start of this term, the exception of G.W. Bush's second term may not hold. You can see the job numbers and a further discussion of them at http://usbudget.blogspot.com/2008/03/job-growth-under-bush-and-prior.html .

[sandiegoconservative]

Good idea, except who is to provide the oversight? The government? See how well the system works now and how rampant welfare fraud is, then perhaps come back with an answer to my question.

[maggiemae656]

It is obvious that there is no one overseeing our country's welfare. The government has officially outlived it's usefulness.

If you look at the history of our current jobs situation, you will find that Congress has been holding hearings about this since 2004, probably longer. There is information available that show how severely we have been impacted by guest worker visa programs and illegal immigration. Here are two tools that have been available to Congress, and they have blatently refused to use them.

All we really need at this point is a crackdown on the immigrant labor being infused into our economy, illegal or otherwise. Congress should have done something about this years ago--NOW they want to try to clean up the mess they allowed to happen? They have known this to be a problem for YEARS.

The only way improvements can be made is for Congress to do their jobs and enforce the laws and regulations currently in place--why are they wasting their time and our time and money thinking up new things? They are hell-bent on not holding corporations accountable for the downfall of our economy. The words "stimulus package" are really getting old. It's time to clean house and get business properly taken care of. We don't want hand-outs...we want to work for a fair wage.

[not one of the sheep]

AMEN sister! They are more worried about whether an professional athlete is using steroids that give a crap about you and me.

[joebhed]

mags,
Another commentor mentioned the Full-employment Act of 1946.
Are you in favor of dusting off that old puppy?
Or, is this just the anti-immigration folder?
Me gusto todo la gente chicanos, hispanicos, y en todo el mundo.
Yo ellos amo.
Son compadres, y amigos.

[FreedomCorpse]

what is an aid package for workers, another free trade agreement?