courtesy of the\at republican boy George w Bush who took a good economy and a govt surplus and turned it into the almost second great repub depression

Remember how the wall street bankers - mostly repub -stole the tarp money for bonuses?

Atrocious

Judging by the comments your were voted down. You do believe in democracy don't you?

scary thing is what we get after him may be worse.

In other words take my money and give it to you. I don't think so. Go earn it. I'm tired of paying for teenaged girls having numerous children and using WIC checks to subsidize their families with no father. I'm talking about white females that I see in the Giant store all the time.

They actually joke about it.

Why don't you turn the situation around and pay more taxes because as per Steve I am disabled and should collect SSI.

I'll pay up and so will you. Don't be a cheapskate. Pat the babies on the head. Thank the Lord that you're not the father or the grandfather.

Beeker, You are the one sucking on the Gubmint's teat every month.

Keep cashing those checks and wailing about everyone else's that's doing the same..

Wait...Buzz...I tend to skip your comments, so apologies if I'm mistaken, but aren't you the guy who spent his life as a public employee and is now retired, collecting a public pension, Social Security, Medicare, etc.? I don't begrudge you any of that, but if so, you've likely sucked at the public teat more than all of us COMBINED (not to mention waaaaaaaay more than anyone getting the negligible WIC support you're whining about).

Oh, yeah, think of the potential for fixing traffic tickets or emptying the jails of vagrants!

Brian I was being facetious in my comment based on the statements at the time.

And O'Taxey is about to propose another increase in the sales tax, in part, to fund liabilities incurred to union members. Insulated by dependency on the federal government, O'Taxey has little or no concern for private business.

your hatred of imigrants/latinos cost a mormon bishop named romney the election. BTW he made his money eg 20 mil a year by shpping jobs to red china etc.

worth btw about 250 mil total and that doesnt include whats hidden in the cayman Islands.

AS quote from your link: "The report’s authors acknowledge that “it is difficult to know precisely how much these families pay in taxes, because the spending and income behavior of these families is not as well documented as is the case for U.S. citizens.” The study’s release was timed to coincide with Monday’s deadline to file state and federal income taxes."

and another: "The Immigration Policy Center supported a proposal in Congress known as the DREAM Act ..."

You think they have an agenda? Now do the math and figure it cost each child of $13,000 to be educated in this state and tell me based on the wage earnings of illegals they are putting in more than they are taking out, like the billions in tax credits for children who live in Mexico.

How much pay to illegals is under the table (and thereby not taxed) and how much is spent on illegals for government services, including food, housing, schools, transportation, etc?

From the link "according to a study released Monday by a Washington group that advocates for immigrants."

Wow! Imagine that! A study show positive effects of illegal aliens by a group that fights FOR and SUPPORTS illegal aliens! That is a study with no bias or agenda if I ever saw one!

FYI -- Aliens who don't qualify for an SSN because they are not here legally can apply for a taxpayer identification number in order to file a tax return and pay taxes. http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/General-ITIN-Information

Not everyone is destined to become an engineer or attorney. Not everyone is cut out for a college education.

The problem is that wages for unskilled labor and some skilled labor is kept artificially low by the never ending supply of cheap labor provided by illegals. It's the age old supply and demand problem.

With yet another extension of the unemployment benefits, there is no incentive for some to take these lower paying jobs. It is simply unacceptable to be employing illegals during a period of record unemployment (or any other time). The quickest way to a "living wage" in tthis country is to boot out all the illegals. Wages for unskilled worker would rise.

So what you are saying is the law means nothing and just open the gates like we did in 9/11.

As to the job issue when is the last time you checked on the unemployment figures.

The problem is you define the term illegals with the word Hispanic when it fact the words include all races. It's a matter of law not race.

First, you did not invent the phrase, "It is unacceptable that..." but writing in the passive voice obliterates the first person: "I do not accept." It may wilt your salad a bit, but let us be straight. You don't like it.

I assume that you are placing the responsibility for rooting out these illegals on "job creators," but certainly not on Big Gov'ment and certainly not on local authorities, neither of which are willing to impose draconian house-to-house measures to achieve the goal you see as desirable.

So, you think that slackers who refuse to take the only jobs for which they are qualified--or at least the only jobs that are available--need to be smoked out of hiding? Maybe. But try to convince your neighbor that her children are not going to be white-collar supervisors making it big in the dog-eat-dog business world, even if they are sitting home smoking weed and waiting for a phone call. Who makes the call about who can and who can't, who will and who won't.

It is a world economy, Chris W., with raw materials, products and labor, too, out on the open market looking for buyers.

Are the taxes really getting you down? Hey, they are the lowest in the post-industrial western world, as if that helps.

1ke,

My point is that in days past, you could make a decent living in the trades and most people did not view the trades as beneath them. I blame the immigration policies in this country for the stagnation of wages and the coraponding poor view that many people have of blue collar work. I blame both parties who support the status quo for their own selfish reasons.

You can talk about tax rates all you want, it's just code for more class envy. I want a government that will live within its means. No more, no less. If you feel that health care is important fine, increase the taxes to pay for it fully. If you want to build more ships and planes for DOD fine, raise the taxes to pay for it. If you want to cut taxes on anyone, have the testicular fortitude to decrease spending and stand by it.

In short, require a balanced budget.

Except for extreme conditions like massive bank failure (see 1930 and 2007) and world wars, federal budgets should be more or less balanced, acknowledging that seesawing is inevitable and that central government budgets invariably run deficits.

Class envy? Please let's keep it civil here. The gap between the super-rich and the poor in America is as extreme as that within any country in the entire world. It is a danger to representative democracy and a disgrace. Class envy? I am closer to calling it class warfare and urging it at every turn. Can you imagine a hedge fund manager making billions of dollars in a year while the preponderance of wealth of a majority Black Americans resides in their automobiles-- and no, not in the trunk.

A national disgrace!

Chris W, most of my family made their livings in the trades. Comfortably as well.

Anothe fallacy of the left, that people will not perform manual labor b/c they are white. I love how people say everyone is equal, then they proceed to stereotype. Compensation will rise to the level of labor demand. Likewise, people break the law to come here illegally, then complain how they are treated when deported, as if that should be an excuse for being allowed to stay here illegally. Gotta love the logic of the left.

Frank 4:03 pm on Thursday, January 3, 2013 "Unemployment is lower than it was four years ago"

Another falsehood from Frank. It is so easy to look at the numbers why would you make such a false statement?

2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3
2012 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.9 7.8 7.8

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Put in the Bush years Frank and see the average unemployment during his 8 years. Averaged around 5%. Obama averages around 8%.

1ke,

What is with the use of the pejorative term, "gringo?"

You not-so-carefully evaded my points, TJ: legal and illegal aliens are nearly indistinguishable and together they fill the least desirable jobs in American because wiseguys like you think hard work is beneath them.

I think xenophobic one-liners piled willy-nilly on top of each other is all that you bring to the table.

Do I sound confused?

1kw you don't answer the economic question of the debt. That is what puts the nation at risk.

Take a close look at California and their deficit and debt. Your problem is that you imply that the term infers one race and therefor you cannot be objective.

The debt is the issue and tell Frank to factor seasonal (Christmas) figures into the unemployment.

This link might help.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-cliff-deal-20130102,0,784172.story

The link is to the op-ed page and another Morici opinion piece. It represents a possible outcome of current policy.

I find it odd that he does not allude to root causes of the unemployment that is supposed to vanish somehow if the policies were shrewder.

Frank - factor in those who have left the labor force (other than retirees), then you'll see the real unemployment number. The current measure is a sham. Folks need to look at U6, a more realistic number, which stayed constant at 14.4%. Now factor in the Obamacare taxes and its effect on the economy and we have the makings of a recession.

"People are turning down jobs because they are better living off the government. It is called socialism."

No, it's called making sh*t up. No wonder people make fun of you so bad on here, Buzz. You're off your rocker. Show me more than .000000000000000001% of the population that likes living on welfare. Not everyone in the world can be handed complete job security and a govt. pension, Buzz. So sorry you can't wrap your mind around that.

USDA Office of Inspector General.
http://www.usda.gov/oig/rptsnewsreleases2011.htm

If I post more than 140 characters the PV's will slur me. If I post less the PV's will slur me. Only the link then they can dispute what they have not read.

A tease. Fraud.

jag, the statement "People are turning down jobs because they are better living off the government. It is called socialism." is not disputed by your comment "Show me more than .000000000000000001% of the population that likes living on welfare."

As a matter of fact, you confirm the previous statement. The first statement never made any claims of the numbers. But see my links as well.

jag - it's whether they want to live on welfare and entitlements, it's that they have become accustom to it, and therefore there's no incentive to work. This is human nature. There is a break point, at about $30k, whereby people can make as much, on average, off the government as they could if they worked. By it's very policies, the government has created generations of dependents by incentivizing such behavior. To say otherwise ignores human behavior.

Buzz Beeler:

Thank you for your service.

You assume that people would take the jobs at the wages offered. That is simplistic and just fales.

You assume that wages will remain low even when there are fewer workers. It's supply and demand. The market can work if we let it.

Frank - who created the subprime mortgage crisis? The answer is not George Bush.

Frank seems unhappy with the Bush employment record but is dead silent on Obama's average unemployment rate. Today at 7.8% and the debt is
$16,432,706,000,000.00.

We are moving backward, not Forward.

"I just talked to a lady who did. She gets Section 8 plus, food stamps free medical care and other benefits for being a single mother with children. "

How is that any different from what you get? Did you cash your Gubmint check this month?

Or s-chip. Totaled, benefits probably far exceed $30k, pretax. Food stamps, $5k, medical benes, $10k, housing $10k, so that's $25k, easily exceeding $30k pretax.

The paper released by the Congressional Budget Office is substantive. Sorry, Fox News, like the rest of televised news is crapola that sells soap and cultivates Orwellian mindlessness.

Oh... an 8-page monograph is not long enough to be boring.

Joe, you have to decide whether you are interested in hawking anecdotal garbage or valid studies. Your indecision may be why you are not always taken seriously.

Regarding the Inspector General's Office, if 21 convictions are the end result of six month's work, it needs to be shut down, refocused and reopened.

"Sorry, Fox News, like the rest of televised news is crapola that sells soap and cultivates Orwellian mindlessness."

Yes, seriousness.

So regardless of the source 1ke cannot dispute the numbers.
And since the Fox Business story link is based on the White House reports and the SSA and the CBO, Fox Business News is as good a source as any.

I don't think many people, except by those possessed by devils who scream conspiracy theories in their head, dispute the numbers surrounding the Great Recession. I accept them and stop right there. Stop on a dime. Murdoch News does not stop right there.

The discussion of policy mistakes, of political wranglings that led to collapses in the financial sector, of the appropriateness of initial responses, of the possibilities for responses as events unfolded, of thwarted efforts even today are not accurately depicted on the evening news--on any televised anything--ever. Especially, not on Murdoch News, an INTERNATIONAL media conglomerate that makes money by targeting specific audiences.

Lol... they all target specific audiences, with substantial crossover in many cases. So seriousness still isn't appropriate?

Do you believe this is the first time she misused her food stamps?

I often have an issue with the adequacy of "facts" to support sweeping generalizations or (perish the thought) policy changes.

For example, the fact that a man walked across the Niagara Falls on a two-inch cable may not warrant erecting a permanent wire much less a revolution in bridge-building technology.

Frank, what you obviously missed is that we have a system that provides welfare to people who do not need it. She must have plenty of food since she was using it to try to get an iPad.

I got that.

What part of, she does not need welfare in the first place don't you understand.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. How can you be so obtuse.

If she is tring to buy an iPad with welfare money, the obviously does not need the assistance.

Why publish it?

So why publish it?

Obama has managed to slow down growth in this country through his policies and behavior such that we are essentially stalled economically, and losing ground in terms of growth in salaries and spending power. He's been an utter disaster. Item one is the unemployment rate reported as 7.8%, a completely misleading number that tens of millions of Americans will accept without understanding the truth about the employment situation in this country.

U3 doesn't tell the story. U6 does. But even that does not entirely tell the story of how bad things are as it does not include many who have simply dropped out. Obama has been a disaster for the country and it's going to get worse, particularly given the new obamacare taxes and, if he gets his way, he'll raise taxes again in a couple of months.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

October 2009 was the only double digit unemployment number at 10% since at least 1985.

Frank, why should we believe you? You said above "Unemployment is lower than it was four years ago" which is flat out wrong and I showed you the stats. You should acknowledge that you were wrong before you are to believed again.

Sounds like a familiar equation to me.

Volcker, a Carter appointee jacked up interest rates to tame inflation, throwing the country into a recession. Then as rates were eased and taxes cut, the economy took off. Unemployment fell throughout the Reagan years as a result.

What was unemployment at the end of Reagan's second term? If you're going to blame George W. Bush for 7.8%, then give Reagan credit for the unemployment rate at the end of his second term. By the way, what cause the 2008 crash? The answer isn't George W. Bush.

It's not about bad guys, it's about guys who don't understand the economy and who make decisions without understanding the consequences of their policies. The economy was a wreck before Volcker took over.

...and it started getting that way in the 70's. Carter was merely the one who didn't have a chair when the music stopped.

Are you still another guy who believes in the Fairy Godpresident?

Tell me, perfesser, what would your next move be to resolve all of the economic woes?

I hope that I do not die before I get to see your response. One of my goals in life is to die laughing.

"The economy was fine at that time."

Wow, someone needs to go back and re-read the historical econometrics of the Carter years. There's a reason Volcker and the Fed raised interest rates.

Frank "Volcker took over the Fed in August 1979. The economy was fine at that time."

Oh my! So nice to live in a world where reality is where everyone else lives.

Ha. The economy was fine?

Mortgage interest rates were well over 10% as a result of the Carter years. Maybe you would like the 13% interest rate one of my family members had on their mortgage.

But hey, I'm sure it was some rich guys fault.

Somebody needs to read 'em and weep. http://bit.ly/VAFCnD

http://www.marylandgasprices.com/ is calling the national average $3.267

The fiscal cliff deal will add $4 trillion more. But it will likely be some where around $6 trillion. And guess who's buying the majority of U.S. Treasuries (it's not China).

That was just for you Frank! I knew you would take that bait! Like Pavlov's dog.

So explain again how fine the economy was in 1979! Were you even alive then Frank?

And who or what wrecked the economy that time, Joe?

@Sanchez:

Rating Presidents is always an emotional, subjective undertaking. Hard to compare numbers from different era's as some try to do. I would guess one the best ways to measure an Administration would be first hand experience of how it was to actually live , work, and play during their times in office. I've been around since Truman..

My top 3 worst Presidents in that time span are: (not scientific, used the "stink" meter)

1. Nixon
2. Carter
3. Obama

Jeff Hawkins, I never made a claim at all about "who or what wrecked the economy" and for sure I never made the claim that "Carter was "the worst president ever"."
that was in quotes but I never said anything like that. That is a flat out lie.

Those claims are just lies and red red herrings. I just showed with my posts that Frank is as ignorant as it gets about the economy he said was
"Volcker took over the Fed in August 1979. The economy was fine at that time."

That all I did, prove Frank to be the ignorant poster he is.

Not sure of Carter but Clinton did, Congressman Mel Reynolds.

Mr. Beeler,

It was my pleasure.

Sorry, yup, misunderstood. I do agree with your list though. Well, I have to thank Nixon for possibly saving my life when he withdrew form VN. I was dreading the numbers being called as a young man not ready to go there.