Sequester = Improved Economy

Sequester = Improved Economy

Posted in the Coopersburg Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Jersey Duke

Quakertown, PA

#1 May 6, 2013
Anybody notice what happened after the sequester went into effect? Unemployment went down to it's lowest number in years, 7.5% and the number of jobs increased. You won't hear this from the lamestream media!!
Local

Hatfield, PA

#2 May 6, 2013
Jersey Duke wrote:
Anybody notice what happened after the sequester went into effect? Unemployment went down to it's lowest number in years, 7.5% and the number of jobs increased. You won't hear this from the lamestream media!!
Unemployment numbers have been coming down and jobs have increased since way before the sequester.
Simon

Quakertown, PA

#3 May 6, 2013
Local wrote:
<quoted text>Unemployment numbers have been coming down and jobs have increased since way before the sequester.
The jobs that are being created are minimum wage and part time, for the most part. Also, the unemployment figures are not accurate as they do not include all the people who are no long on unemployment, or who have just given up looking for suitable work. It's all a bunch of Bama BS.
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

#4 May 6, 2013
Simon wrote:
<quoted text>The jobs that are being created are minimum wage and part time, for the most part. Also, the unemployment figures are not accurate as they do not include all the people who are no long on unemployment, or who have just given up looking for suitable work. It's all a bunch of Bama BS.
It's a case of lowering expectations for Obama. If a Republican administration were putting up these numbers, it would be declared an unmitigated disaster.
Jersey Duke

Quakertown, PA

#5 May 7, 2013
The point of the post was to show how the cutting of federal spending is a boost to the economy. Obama is out there now campaigning for more spending, more of the wrong thing. Cut spending and regulation and the country will prosper. Libtards can't seem to grasp that concept.
Agree

Quakertown, PA

#6 May 7, 2013
Jersey Duke wrote:
The point of the post was to show how the cutting of federal spending is a boost to the economy. Obama is out there now campaigning for more spending, more of the wrong thing. Cut spending and regulation and the country will prosper. Libtards can't seem to grasp that concept.
Couldn't have said it any better!
Local

Hatfield, PA

#7 May 7, 2013
Jersey Duke wrote:
The point of the post was to show how the cutting of federal spending is a boost to the economy. Obama is out there now campaigning for more spending, more of the wrong thing. Cut spending and regulation and the country will prosper. Libtards can't seem to grasp that concept.
It's interesting that you included "regulation", because Bush cut all kinds of regulation and the country went down the drain.
Agree

Quakertown, PA

#8 May 7, 2013
Local wrote:
<quoted text>It's interesting that you included "regulation", because Bush cut all kinds of regulation and the country went down the drain.
Oh, the housing crash brought on Chris Dudd and Bonnie Fwank?

Dumbocrats were in control of Congress during the mess of 2008, in case you forgot.

I'm going to have an Impeachment Party! Wanna come over???
Local

Hatfield, PA

#9 May 7, 2013
Agree wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, the housing crash brought on Chris Dudd and Bonnie Fwank?
Dumbocrats were in control of Congress during the mess of 2008, in case you forgot.
I'm going to have an Impeachment Party! Wanna come over???
The housing crash was caused by the deregulation of the banking industry, who then gave loans to thousands and thousands of buyers who couldn't afford to pay their mortgage.

It's too late for an impeachment party, Bush has already left office.
Joe

Hollywood, FL

#10 May 7, 2013
Decreased federal spending through the sequester has nothing to do with lower unemployment numbers. The new numbers don't reflect the real story behind our economic recovery for the rich. The new jobs opening up pay poverty wages in retail, fast food and home health aides. You can't build a sustainable economy on Poverty wage jobs. And with the sesquedter, many middle-income and low-income Americans, some employed, some unemployed, are losing federal benefits like unemployment and food stamps.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#11 May 7, 2013
Agree wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, the housing crash brought on Chris Dudd and Bonnie Fwank?
Dumbocrats were in control of Congress during the mess of 2008, in case you forgot.
I'm going to have an Impeachment Party! Wanna come over???
try

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/ta...

"This whole notion that the financial crisis was caused by government attempts to create an "ownership society" and make mortgages more available to low-income (and particularly minority) borrowers has been pushed for some time by dingbats like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, who often point to laws like the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act as signature events in the crash drama.

But Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are at least dumb enough that it is theoretically possible that they actually believe the crash was caused by the CRA, Barney Frank, and Fannie and Freddie.

On the other hand, nobody who actually understands anything about banking, or has spent more than ten minutes inside a Wall Street office, believes any of that crap. In the financial world, the fairy tales about the CRA causing the crash inspire a sort of chuckling bemusement, as though they were tribal bugaboos explaining bad rainfall or an outbreak of hoof-and-mouth, ghost stories and legends good for scaring the masses."

"In order for this vision of history to be true, one would have to imagine that all of these banks were dragged, kicking and screaming, to the altar of home lending, forced against their will to create huge volumes of home loans for unqualified borrowers.

In fact, just the opposite was true. This was an orgiastic stampede of lending, undertaken with something very like bloodlust. Far from being dragged into poor neighborhoods and forced to give out home loans to jobless black folk, companies like Countrywide and New Century charged into suburbs and exurbs from coast to coast with the enthusiasm of Rwandan machete mobs, looking to create as many loans as they could.

They lent to anyone with a pulse and they didnít need Barney Frank to give them a push. This was not social policy. This was greed. They created those loans not because they had to, but because it was profitable. Enormously, gigantically profitable -- profitable enough to create huge fortunes out of thin air, with a speed never seen before in Wall Street's history."
Info

Quakertown, PA

#12 May 7, 2013
Joe wrote:
Decreased federal spending through the sequester has nothing to do with lower unemployment numbers. The new numbers don't reflect the real story behind our economic recovery for the rich. The new jobs opening up pay poverty wages in retail, fast food and home health aides. You can't build a sustainable economy on Poverty wage jobs. And with the sesquedter, many middle-income and low-income Americans, some employed, some unemployed, are losing federal benefits like unemployment and food stamps.
Here we go with your "poverty wage" BS again. Retail and fast food jobs have never been any more than 2nd jobs or entry level positions for high school kids and housewives looking for pocket money. Home health aides actually pay fairly well.

http://homehealthaidesalary.com/PA/Allentown/...

In the Allentown area, the average salary is $28,000, hardly "poverty wages" at $14/hour average, but as high as $33k, or $16.50/hour.

Now, if you go to school and become a nursing home nurse, the average salary in our area (Allentown) is $95k. That pays better than most teaching jobs and you don't have to take your work home with you at night!!

http://homehealthaidesalary.com/PA/Allentown/...

Mr Kline, do you ever have an original thought, or are they all just pulled from a list of Democratic talking points?
Info

Quakertown, PA

#13 May 7, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
try
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/ta...
"This whole notion that the financial crisis was caused by government attempts to create an "ownership society" and make mortgages more available to low-income (and particularly minority) borrowers has been pushed for some time by dingbats like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, who often point to laws like the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act as signature events in the crash drama.
But Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are at least dumb enough that it is theoretically possible that they actually believe the crash was caused by the CRA, Barney Frank, and Fannie and Freddie.
On the other hand, nobody who actually understands anything about banking, or has spent more than ten minutes inside a Wall Street office, believes any of that crap. In the financial world, the fairy tales about the CRA causing the crash inspire a sort of chuckling bemusement, as though they were tribal bugaboos explaining bad rainfall or an outbreak of hoof-and-mouth, ghost stories and legends good for scaring the masses."
"In order for this vision of history to be true, one would have to imagine that all of these banks were dragged, kicking and screaming, to the altar of home lending, forced against their will to create huge volumes of home loans for unqualified borrowers.
In fact, just the opposite was true. This was an orgiastic stampede of lending, undertaken with something very like bloodlust. Far from being dragged into poor neighborhoods and forced to give out home loans to jobless black folk, companies like Countrywide and New Century charged into suburbs and exurbs from coast to coast with the enthusiasm of Rwandan machete mobs, looking to create as many loans as they could.
They lent to anyone with a pulse and they didnít need Barney Frank to give them a push. This was not social policy. This was greed. They created those loans not because they had to, but because it was profitable. Enormously, gigantically profitable -- profitable enough to create huge fortunes out of thin air, with a speed never seen before in Wall Street's history."
Rolling Stone, really?

Opinion, not fact.

And please, find a better source than this sophomoric author using words like "dingbats" and "crap" as an authoritative source.
Joe

Hollywood, FL

#14 May 7, 2013
1 out of every 13 jobs in the US is a fast food job. The people who have these jobs are not just teenagers or spouses looking for extra income. In fact, for the majority these jobs provide the main income (poverty wage) for the person(s).

If the private sector refuses to create good-paying jobs, then the federal government must create jobs. Anyone who wants a full-time job should be given a full-time job. 4.4 million people have been unemployed for longer than 27 weeks. Millions more are underemployed, not utilizing skills and education leaned in college and consequently taking low-skill jobs away from high school graduates and dropouts.
Jersey Duke

Quakertown, PA

#15 May 7, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
try
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/ta...
"This whole notion that the financial crisis was caused by government attempts to create an "ownership society" and make mortgages more available to low-income (and particularly minority) borrowers has been pushed for some time by dingbats like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, who often point to laws like the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act as signature events in the crash drama.
But Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are at least dumb enough that it is theoretically possible that they actually believe the crash was caused by the CRA, Barney Frank, and Fannie and Freddie.
On the other hand, nobody who actually understands anything about banking, or has spent more than ten minutes inside a Wall Street office, believes any of that crap. In the financial world, the fairy tales about the CRA causing the crash inspire a sort of chuckling bemusement, as though they were tribal bugaboos explaining bad rainfall or an outbreak of hoof-and-mouth, ghost stories and legends good for scaring the masses."
"In order for this vision of history to be true, one would have to imagine that all of these banks were dragged, kicking and screaming, to the altar of home lending, forced against their will to create huge volumes of home loans for unqualified borrowers.
In fact, just the opposite was true. This was an orgiastic stampede of lending, undertaken with something very like bloodlust. Far from being dragged into poor neighborhoods and forced to give out home loans to jobless black folk, companies like Countrywide and New Century charged into suburbs and exurbs from coast to coast with the enthusiasm of Rwandan machete mobs, looking to create as many loans as they could.
They lent to anyone with a pulse and they didnít need Barney Frank to give them a push. This was not social policy. This was greed. They created those loans not because they had to, but because it was profitable. Enormously, gigantically profitable -- profitable enough to create huge fortunes out of thin air, with a speed never seen before in Wall Street's history."
I can't' believe you are stupid enough to post this. The CRA and the fact that Fanny and Freddy would buy the bad paper was like putting a pile of cash in front of a bank robber. Of course the bankers took advantage of the opportunity, there was NO downside.
Info

Quakertown, PA

#16 May 7, 2013
Joe wrote:
1 out of every 13 jobs in the US is a fast food job. The people who have these jobs are not just teenagers or spouses looking for extra income. In fact, for the majority these jobs provide the main income (poverty wage) for the person(s).
If the private sector refuses to create good-paying jobs, then the federal government must create jobs. Anyone who wants a full-time job should be given a full-time job. 4.4 million people have been unemployed for longer than 27 weeks. Millions more are underemployed, not utilizing skills and education leaned in college and consequently taking low-skill jobs away from high school graduates and dropouts.
Minimum wage for low skilled jobs like fast food.

The reason so many jobs are in the fast food industry is simple; look at Quakertown and the number of fast food joints we have. People want cheap, fast food.

The private sector isn't creating jobs BECAUSE of the uncertainty of taxation and increased regulation from government! Every job created by the government uses tax dollars, which takes away from the private sector.

You really have no idea how business works, only more regurgitation of talking points.
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

#17 May 7, 2013
Joe wrote:
Decreased federal spending through the sequester has nothing to do with lower unemployment numbers. The new numbers don't reflect the real story behind our economic recovery for the rich. The new jobs opening up pay poverty wages in retail, fast food and home health aides. You can't build a sustainable economy on Poverty wage jobs. And with the sesquedter, many middle-income and low-income Americans, some employed, some unemployed, are losing federal benefits like unemployment and food stamps.
More inane blather. Food stamps are not affected by sequester cuts.
Joe

Hollywood, FL

#18 May 7, 2013
Investment income is going through the roof. The DJA finished the day above 15K, yet we still millions unemployed and millions more underemployed. Something is wrong. Companies are making huge profits, yet they are not producing the good-paying jobs we need. Once again, if companies refuse to hire than the federal government create jobs. The goal should be full employment.
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

#19 May 7, 2013
Joe wrote:
1 out of every 13 jobs in the US is a fast food job. The people who have these jobs are not just teenagers or spouses looking for extra income. In fact, for the majority these jobs provide the main income (poverty wage) for the person(s).

If the private sector refuses to create good-paying jobs, then the federal government must create jobs. Anyone who wants a full-time job should be given a full-time job. 4.4 million people have been unemployed for longer than 27 weeks. Millions more are underemployed, not utilizing skills and education leaned in college and consequently taking low-skill jobs away from high school graduates and dropouts.
Do you have any idea what it costs a company to hire a full-time employee with benefits? It's just stupid to say the private sector "refuses" to create jobs. It's the economy that creates the need for jobs due to increased demand. No business wants to pay someone for sitting on their hands. Only someone with an entitlement mentality who depends on the sweat of other people would think that way.

It is true, however, that Obamacare and other govt programs and policies are disincentives to hiring.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#21 May 7, 2013
Jersey Duke wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't' believe you are stupid enough to post this. The CRA and the fact that Fanny and Freddy would buy the bad paper was like putting a pile of cash in front of a bank robber. Of course the bankers took advantage of the opportunity, there was NO downside.
"The typical money-machine cycle of subprime lending took place without any real government involvement. Bank A (letís say itís Goldman, Sachs) lends criminal enterprise B (letís say itís Countrywide) a billion dollars. Countrywide then goes out and creates a billion dollars of shoddy home loans, committing any and all kinds of fraud along the way in an effort to produce as many loans as quickly as possible, very often putting people who shouldnít have gotten homes into homes, faking their income levels, their credit scores, etc.

Goldman then buys back those loans from Countrywide, places them in an offshore trust, and chops them up into securities. Here they use fancy math to turn a billion dollars of subprime junk into different types of securities, some of them AAA-rated, some of them junk-rated, etc. They then go out on the open market and sell those securities to various big customers Ė pension funds, foreign trade unions, hedge funds, and so on.

The whole game was based on one new innovation: the derivative instruments like CDOs that allowed them to take junk-rated home loans and turn them into AAA-rated instruments. It was not Barney Frank who made it possible for Goldman, Sachs to sell the home loan of an occasionally-employed janitor in Oakland or Detroit as something just as safe as, and more profitable than, a United States Treasury Bill. This was something they cooked up entirely by themselves and developed solely with the aim of making more money."

Wall street committed fraud.
they set up a scam that turned junk loans to AAA paper.
all in the name of profit.
they knew they had bad loans on their plate and sold them anyway.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Coopersburg Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ooops! Mitch Anderson, QCSD School Board direc... 2 hr In the Know 4
Streetlights 7 hr CrimeWatch 3
Pumping Station Trees 7 hr CrimeWatch 9
Memories of Quakertown (Jan '10) 14 hr smarter_ than_ you 758
Freedom of Speech 23 hr Local 4
Local dump/landfill? Thu Raylin Sutter 5
Anyone recommend a good "local" locksmith? (Jun '11) Thu Regina Peterson 4
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Coopersburg Mortgages