A 'Jobless' And 'Wageless' Recovery?

[Beacool]

Nouriel Roubini, 08.13.09

Parsing the 247,000 payroll losses

After severe job losses in early 2009, the pace of job losses slowed starting in April, and the July numbers have brought more respite. Non-farm payroll job losses were 247,000 in July. However, the private sector lost 254,000 jobs. This is considerably better than analysts expected (around 325,000) but not good enough to claim that we are in the middle of a strong and sustainable recovery.

Looking at the recessions of the post-war period, average monthly job losses ranged between 150,000 and 260,000. Average monthly losses in this recession are still at 350,000. For the first four months of the year, the average was at 648,000. The improvement with respect to the first part of the year is clear. The improvement with respect to what we are used to seeing in recessionary periods is much less clear cut. The latest numbers are not exactly what you'd call good news, at least not in absolute terms. In relative terms, however--after skirting a near-depression--markets seem to consider 247,000 payroll losses a breath of fresh air.

The increase in average weekly labor hours in July is certainly a positive sign. But it also shows that, when economic conditions begin improving, companies will increase labor hours and temporary workers and move workers from part time to full time. Only after that do they begin hiring new workers. So hiring is still a long way ahead. The decline in the unemployment rate from 9.5% in June to 9.4% in July was not due to an improvement in the employment situation but is explained by the large decline in the labor force (-422,000). Workers facing hiring freezes, fewer full-time jobs and jobs at lower wages are leaving the labor force.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/12/payroll-losses-jobless-recession-consumer-opinions-columnists-nouriel-roubini.html

Long article, but informative.

[FrenchieCat]

1. I repeat, Jobs are a lacking indicator, and will be the last thing that improves....

Nothing new here on that.

As Roubini himself states..."The latest numbers are not exactly what you'd call good news, at least not in absolute terms. In relative terms, however--after skirting a near-depression--markets seem to consider 247,000 payroll losses a breath of fresh air."

In otherwords, we were able to avoid a bullet to the head, but took one to our leg. Could have been much worse, and it will now only get better.

But thanks for the gloom and doom. Wouldn't know what we would do without it. I mean, it is a good thing to continue to talk any recovery down, because that helps the case for Democrats and Health Care Reform.....NOT.

[Beacool]

3. Why do you always see things as some attack on the president?

This an evaluation of the economic state of the nation at the moment. Neither the author nor I are blaming Obama for our current situation.

I guess that pretending all is well is better than facing reality?

Geez.........

:eyes:

[Dawgs]

6. Uh, maybe because of your history and the fact you posted this in GD:Presidential.

And, the "recovery" just started. It's like complaining about the lack of hits in a baseball game when you're only in the first inning.

[damonm]

12. Now please show me, EXACTLY...

Where Frenchie accused you of attacking the President - may be difficult, since she didn't.
"Methinks he doth protest too much"...

But, Econ 101 - jobs ALWAYS are the last part of a recovery to happen.

What this data shows is that the stimulus has worked to avert catastrophe. Now we gotta get healthcare passed, and an energy bill going to start creating those green jobs.

[debbierlus]

24. It is surreal that trillions to big banks, refusal to even DISCUSS single payer, &

the continuation and expansion of Bush era unconstitutional policies are defended on a liberal board....

All because they won't hear a word against Obama

They give the bushbots a real run for their money

[vaberella]

50. Your history is pretty infamous in lambasting the Pres. n/t

[Prism]

13. Did you read the article?

From the article:

In a severe, consumer-led recession like this one, the labor market is a leading (rather than lagging) indicator of economic recovery, and the consumer still drives the U.S. economy (private consumption still makes up over 70% of GDP). A slowdown in the pace of job losses from 650,000 to 250,000 is welcome, but in no way offers comfort about a prompt comeback of the U.S. consumer. This raises concerns about the strength and sustainability of any economic recovery that most people are expecting in the second half of 2009, and beyond.

No, but seriously, no one can form coherent policy if they do not first acknowledge the reality of the situation we're in, rather than skimming through reality and air-lifting out of context bits and pieces in order to support a politician.

It's bad economics, and that leads to really bad policy.

The markets are reacting to relatively good news - relative to the god awful news. But even relatively good news is still pretty bad news. It's only in comparison to what's come before that it seems good. The market is a notoriously skittish creature that rises and falls on hair-trigger emotion-driven news based on expectations games. It is unwise to proclaim the omniscience of a market that has been so horrifyingly wrong so often over the last decade or so.

Roubini's trying to lay out the truth as he sees it. Bending, distorting, or cherry-picking sentences to misrepresent what the man is actually saying in order to fit the view of the economy you would like to be true is worse than dishonest - it's damaging propaganda that does far more harm to the President than good.

Honestly, what is the use of saying "Everything's going to be fine! The President has saved us all! Woo hoo!" when we're still at very real, if not probable, risk of severe economic hardship in the foreseeable future? All it does is place more unrealistic and irrational expectations on the President, and isn't that something we want to avoid rather than perpetuate?

[Hutzpa]

14. So, whats your point exactly

because you seemed to be all over the place.

[Prism]

28. The points are simple

But I can do bullet form:

- Unemployment is a leading indicator, not a lagging one as the poster posited in the subject line

- The stock market's reaction does not mean things are going well, it means they're unexpectedly going slightly better than awful.

- Painting a rosier picture of the economy than warranted puts the President at risk by creating unrealistic expectations. If/when the economic damage continues people will feel he's been dishonest and/or responsible because they had been led to believe things were on track to being better than they actually are. So this dishonest categorization of Roubini and others' work is highly counterproductive.

- Propagandistic assertions and attitudes towards the economy do no one any good whatsoever. Not the workers, not investors, not the President.

[ProSense]

40. "Unemployment is a leading indicator, not a lagging" Why would Roubini make this nonsensical claim?

Lagging Indicators

LAGGING INDICATORS

[Prism]

49. Because media lazily parrot inoperative conventional wisdom

In previous recessions, particularly 2001's, unemployment was a lagging indicator. In this particular recession, in this form, in the industries that are hardest hit, in the areas of the economy that need stimulation most in order to spur a true recovery, those unemployment numbers are a much, much bigger deal.

In a recession this deep, the unemployment numbers shift from being a symptom to being a large part of the problem. Especially numbers this high.

This fact has been stated over and over and over again by economists who have been studying what makes this recession different and deeper than others in recent history. Roubini is stating it again here.

Once again economic illiteracy allows the propogation of ignorant propaganda. Typically, the lagging indicator categorization of unemployment had to do with the length of the unemployment numbers, not the depth. The sheer depth of the negative numbers in the current labor market are creating massive pressures on a largely service-based, consumer-driven economy. The recent sales numbers and jobless claims bear this out.

So, despite the power of the google (Really, you used Matt Yglesias to rebut Roubini on economic matters?), the fact remains that those who keep parroting this "lagging indicator" nonsense are lazy and wrong and uninterested in actual policy and more in spinning anything and everything to prop up the politics of the numbers.

Well, hooray. But that's kind of, you know, evil. And what Republicans usually do when they're busily fucking over the worker while shouting "Just look at that economy. Wow. America is awesome."

Why must Democrats now get into the act? I mean, paid party shills, that I get. But on a message board with just folks? What's the point?

[ProSense]

52. What a crock

It has become one because Roubini said so:

The labor market is considered a lagging indicator and this time too we will see a sluggish recovery in job creation - firms will first move workers from part-time to full-time and overtime employment, increase labor hours and hire temporary workers before hiring new workers. But in a credit and consumer driven recession, the labor market has well become a leading indicator so that job losses have to come down significantly to see a recovery in consumption and the economy in general.

[Prism]

58. Who says it's a crock?

You?

Because it seems perfectly logical and provable to me. In a consumer, service based economy, high unemployment numbers mean less spending, they mean less demand for services and consumer products, and they lead to more job losses and more pressure across the board.

The economy isn't doing as it will with the unemployment numbers tagging just behind as an afterthought. The unemployment numbers are so large that they are now exerting direct pressure themselves on the economy in a significant, measurable way.

That is the very definition of a leading indicator.

[Hutzpa]

75. I don't think anyone

expect jobs to just reappear, knowing that as an economist and still write a projection
that there are no jobs, so the economy cannot be doing as well as some are saying, is a
misrepresentation at best and a calculated move at worse to create hysteria.

Thats an attack on the journalist from me.....

[Prism]

77. The economist is making a forecast

He is also one of the only prominent economists who saw the current financial implosion coming. He was one of the lone voices pointing to the horizon saying "Watch out" when most major economists, including the fed chair, were telling everyone that we'd be just fine.

So Roubini has more credibility right now than many others out there. His intent isn't "hysteria", but to give a sober, measured forecast of what he thinks is likely to come. He may be right, he may be wrong, but he has a good track record.

It'd probably be a thought to meditate on what he's laying out rather than to default to attacking the messenger.

[debbierlus]

25. FANTASTIC point.

[Hutzpa]

26. Why is that a fanstatic point

please explain...:shrug:

[Teaser]

2. jobs lag

nouriel knows this too. and so do you.

[Beacool]

5. Did you read the whole article?

A Jobless Recovery Ahead

Continued pressure on sales, uncertain demand recovery, weakened balance sheets and tight credit access, especially for smaller firms, imply that firms will continue to shed jobs through 2009. The unemployment rate, even after peaking in late 2010 or early 2011, will remain elevated for some time. It may take several quarters or years to recover the jobs lost during this recession. Several jobs in housing and related activities, finance, autos and consumer-oriented services will be lost permanently. Wage-bargaining power will also weaken, implying another "jobless" and "wageless" recovery.

About 53% of the unemployed have been jobless for over three months and around 34% of them for over six months, which is the highest on record. Over 50% of the unemployed have lost their jobs permanently, again the highest on record. Underutilization of workers will lead to an erosion of human capital and a deterioration of labor productivity going forward and will negatively affect the potential growth rate of the economy. Inadequate safety nets, the dearth of labor retraining programs and tight access to student loans suggest that when workers begin looking for work during the recovery, they will face the possibility of skill mismatches. These factors might raise the structural unemployment in the economy from below 5% in 2007 to close to 7% ahead.

[Dawgs]

7. None of what you've posted here is fact - it's opinion.

Quit trying so hard. You look like a fool.

[Beacool]

9. And some of you must have blinders on.

:crazy:

[Dawgs]

19. I have blinders because I deal with facts and you don't?

:rofl:

[quiller4]

73. Many economists no longer believe that unemployment will

top 10%. Different regions are at different stages of recovery. In my area port activity has picked up after dropping every month since September 2008. Major trucking firms are hiring. The Longshore local has seen hiring pick up. Shift sizes have nearly doubled since April.

In my godson's IBEW local there were more than 300 on the out-of-work book last April. Now there are fewer than 100. He has had steady work through the local since early June and he is still young and fairly low on the seniority list.

[Beacool]

78. I sincerely hope so.

It's been a roller coaster of a year and so many people have been hurt by the downturn. I'm glad that things are picking up in your area.

Not much has changed around here (NJ), but I was pleasantly surprised that on my last visit to JC Penney there were a couple of girls filling out applications. I asked the saleslady if they were hiring and she said yes. It was comforting to hear after reading the bad retail news. Penneys even opened a new store in Manhattan, not exactly the cheapest place to open a business.

:)

[paulk]

27. it's the opinion of a respected economist -

who has been proven right in the past.

It would be foolish to dismiss such an opinion out of hand...

[Beacool]

30. Thank you for pointing it out.

This place sometimes acts as if it operates in an alternate reality.

:-(

[ProSense]

33. As Economy Turns, Washington Looks Better (Roubini praises Bernanke)

As Economy Turns, Washington Looks Better (Roubini praises Bernanke)

Still, the basic point remains: The Fed’s creative and aggressive actions have significantly reduced the risks of a near depression. For this reason alone Mr. Bernanke deserves to be reappointed so that he can manage the Fed’s exit from its most radical economic intervention since its creation in 1913.

Maybe Roubini just doesn't like Obama?

Krugman: “What we’re seeing is stabilization...the great freefall and the nosedive seems to be over"

[ProSense]

4. I love this part

A slowdown in the pace of job losses from 650,000 to 250,000 is welcome, but in no way offers comfort about a prompt comeback of the U.S. consumer. This raises concerns about the strength and sustainability of any economic recovery that most people are expecting in the second half of 2009, and beyond.

<...>

Sluggish Recovery Ahead
It is very difficult to argue that the U.S. economy is not still in a recession while the labor market is still weak. But the interesting question is not whether the U.S. economy is still technically in a recession, or whether the recession will end in Q3 2009 or Q4 2009--or later. What is interesting is understanding the implications of this severe downturn and financial crisis for the recovery.

Any sustained and strong improvement in growth has to come from a revival in private demand, and not from temporary factors like inventory adjustment and policy measures. The U.S. consumer, who, as we've noted, still accounts for close to 70% of GDP, is pulling back. Investment, which still trails consumer spending at home, will be weak. Exports will be a source of growth only in the medium term. In the short term, the rest of the world will remain dependent on the U.S. to drive demand while consumption abroad will be unable to offset the decline in U.S. consumption.

These factors suggest a sluggish economic recovery for the U.S. in the coming years until new sources of growth emerge (such as exports to emerging markets, investment, new energy and technology). Factors such as unsustainable public debt, higher structural unemployment, lower credit growth and higher taxes in the future will also constrain growth.

Even Roubini is qualifying his assessments. The economy isn't getting better, but it has stopped getting worse. Now let's see what impact more investment (spending the rest of the stimulus), energy legislation and health reform will have on recovery.

[Beacool]

8. We are far from being out of the woods

U.S. Economy: Sales Unexpectedly Decrease as Job Losses Mount

Aug. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Sales at U.S. retailers unexpectedly fell in July, raising the risk that consumers will keep cutting back as job losses mount and temper a recovery from the worst recession since the 1930s.

Purchases decreased 0.1 percent, the first drop in three months, as shrinking demand at department stores such as Macy’s Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. overshadowed a boost from the cash-for-clunkers automobile incentive program, Commerce Department figures showed today in Washington.

A separate government report today showed more Americans than forecast filed claims for unemployment insurance last week, underscoring the threat to spending from the continued deterioration in the job market. Treasury securities jumped and the dollar fell after the reports, and some economists lowered estimates for growth this quarter.

“Until we start seeing job growth, consumers are still going to be very cautious,” said Michael Gregory, a senior economist at BMO Capital Markets in Toronto, which accurately forecast the drop in purchases excluding automobiles. “It’s premature to talk about the sustainability of a recovery,” he said, until there’s “follow-through on the demand side.”

http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aqQ7lelIST9g

[Baltoman991]

10. Yeah, we're far

from being out of the woods and President Obama has said as much or did you miss that part?

Once again, the implications in everything you post here is obvious. You want to shed a bad light on all things Obama and it's not missed by many here.

Jobs are always the last thing to recover yet it doesn't stop those who continue to slam all things Obama from recognizing that little fact.

[Hutzpa]

11. You never ceases to amaze us

with your continuous criticism of the Obama administration.


:+

[Beacool]

16. Wow, I thought that this was a discussion board

When did it become a fan club?????

The reality is that we are still in deep doo-doo. Who the hell is personally blaming Obama????? Name once where I have stated on any comment of mine that I think that our present economic situation is his fault???

Please........

:eyes:

[Baltoman991]

17. LMAO!!!

You couldn't resist getting the fanclub dig in could you? Bottom line, the implications are there in this post and others from you.

[ProSense]

18. "When did it become a fan club?????" Hillary is wonderful. You go girl. I love that color on her.

How's Michelle's garden?

[Beacool]

21. Cute................

Pot meet kettle......

:eyes:

[jenmito]

37. She even laughed along with someone who asked if it's ok to say that they

liked Hillary's pearl necklace (in one of the pics posted). Could you imagine the charges of sexism, misogyny, etc. if someone else would've joked about something like that? :eyes:

[Hutzpa]

22. Yes it is

and we should be striving to keep it that way, but how can we move forward when
the very same thing we should be fighting against is what we are helping propagate,
and that is distortion of opinion.

My hope is that you genuinely believe in what you profess and there is no malice behind
your vocation with this constant contradiction of opinions. Yes we can discuss but by
God there has to be something we can all agree on 80% of the time instead of 20%.

I'm FOR agreeing to disagree, but when its continuously lopsided you begin to wonder
what are the driving forces behind this idiom, after all we should want the same thing,
and yes we can get there from different direction.....

Just saying no malice intended.....

[paulk]

32. the problem is that most of the attacks coming from you

and the others here are attacking the poster and not the article posted.

[Beacool]

38. It's easier to attack me than to read the entire article and discuss its merit

This place can get nutty on occasion.

:eyes:

[Hutzpa]

74. I'm sorry you

feel that way, would it be fair to say I probably expect a lot more from
you than to always find triangulated article after another just to get at
Obama?


The primaries have been over now for....what? a year....:hide:

[Hutzpa]

72. If your continuous posting

of distorted material becomes your MO (modus operandi) people are bound to feel
or think otherwise, Its not an attack, instead it should be seen as an enlightenment
on said topic from a different perspective.

My disagreement with the poster is, we all have been here longer and should be able
to tell the difference between an objective article and a triangulated piece.

Thats all I'm saying...

[paulk]

87. some people are bound to feel that way,

not all. Some of us appreciate a different point of view.

I don't find this material "distorted" . Roubini is a respected economist who deserves consideration.

Your constant attacks on the messenger serve neither yourself or the Obama administration that you think you are defending.

We are all on the same side here.

[nonsequitur]

79. i didn't take it that way and it never occured to me until you said it...

i don't see it

[Hutzpa]

86. Ofcourse not, why should I expect you to n/t

[mkultra]

15. the "recovery" argument is a strawman

nobody worth a damn has said we are in recovery. All that has been said is the pace of decline is slowing.

[paulk]

34. "the "recovery" argument is a strawman" is a strawman

Roubini is arguing that the recovery, when it comes, will be a jobless one.

I don't see why his concerns in this area need to be attacked, as so many on this thread have done (when they can tear themselves away from attacking the OP).

If he's correct, and time will tell, then perhaps the Obama administration needs to adjust it's policy. That's not saying that Obama's approach is 100% wrong nor is it an attack on Obama.

[mkultra]

43. im not really issuing a full broadside here

I like Roubini and consider him insightful. I just don't think anyone of credit is actually saying we are in recovery.

Oh yeah, on edit: my statement is not a strawman because he stated it directly in the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[TheKentuckian]

20. I suspect it will be a largely jobless and OF COURSE a wageless recovery

Employers will continue to do what they have all decade, wring as much as they can out of few as they can and automate where possible. The productivity numbers should be an advance warning to everyone on how things are going and it is nothing new. In fact, over time we probably can't even expect anywhere near full employment and will have to address actual fundamentals of the system.

Declining wages have been a problem for years and that will get worse as business takes advantage of the huge amount of slack in the market and people's desperation to find any work at all.

Basically, without some serious shaking up the average person is fucked. Wages are declining, jobs more sparse, and costs continue to rise.

Capitalism as we have known it is completely unsustainable and a massive poverty creation machine for the American people, the same stupid motherfuckers who fight to the last breath to protect it in a mostly vain hope that one day they will join the ranks of the rich.

[Fire1]

80. PREACH!!!! NAIL MEET HEAD!!! n/t

[HamdenRice]

23. Obama is going to have to deliver Clintonian levels of job creation just to undo the damage

It's hard to remember just how tight the labor market was under Clinton. Already, the revisionists, WSWS Trotskyites, doomers, and "let it failers," who focus exclusively on NAFTA, have altered our perception of just how effective the Clinton administration's policies were at job creation.

Clinton delivered about 250,000 new jobs per month over 8 years for a total of over 20 million new jobs and the lowest unemployment rates since the 1960s. Even that average monthly number underestimates the Clinton effect, because the first few years were the famous "jobless recovery" from Bush 1. I remember reading newspaper articles about employers going to prisons and mental institutions looking for workers to fill the unmet demand for workers. Suburban growth areas were sending buses down here to NYC to Harlem to pick up workers because there simply were not enough workers to be had.

At this point, the evaporation of jobs under Bush 2's last years and it's carry over into Obama has been catastrophic. Even if job losses even out to zero, we will be in a job deficit of millions. If Obama gets things right, and we get Clintonian job creation rates by, say, mid 2010, we will still just be digging ourselves out of the Bush 2 hole for the next several years.

[TheKentuckian]

29. I don't see the growth areas nor any scale back on productivity

I'm no doomer, I just don't see where the growth comes from right now, especially as we roll into a period of much needed re-regulation. Capitalism as we have known it at least, has run it's course as a productive force for the average citizen.

If we're going to get people to work at living wages then it will probably have to be government that does it by getting people busy on a new grid, road and bridge projects, re-doing the sewer system, and the massive support these projects would require. The country is not in a stasis and conditions are not the same as when Clinton was in office, the last 30 years is coming home to roost and you can't just put the globalization and wealth re-distribution back in the tube.
Too much or our economy is low wage service crap and that is where most of the new growth over the last 10 years has come from. Even if we can restore some of that fluff, those are still jobs that don't pay a wage that one can do more than pretend to tread water while going into debt to scrape by.

Reaganomics will continue to kill this country until we utterly abandon those failed concepts.

[Fire1]

82. Kentuckian, YOU ON A ROLL, BABY!!!! n/t

[Fire1]

81. THAT'S why I will ALWAYS love W. J. Clinton!!!

The only problem I have with Clinton was signing the Graham/Bliley Act.

[jenmito]

31. If only HILLARY had been president-we'd have 20 million jobs by now!

And we'd be out of Iraq and Afghanistan, we'd have peace between Israel and Palestine, we'd have closed Gitmo with no worries about where to put/what to do with all the detainees, and on and on. x(

[zalinda]

35. Well at least Hillary

seems to have bigger balls than Obama. I don't see him fighting for ANYTHING.

zalinda

[jenmito]

39. Right...

and she'd probably have been way to the right of Obama, too, with her hawkish self.

[Baltoman991]

42. Not surprising that

you don't see him fighting for anything. Clinton supporters never see anything but that which the want to see.

The man has done more then you or the other haters want to give him credit for.

Meanwhile, you let Congress skate free. Same old same old. The haters on this board amuse me any more.

[ProSense]

47. "Well at least Hillary seems to have bigger balls than Obama." Wow! n/t

[vaberella]

51. Really....wow. Just wow. n/t

[firedupdem]

55. Well you are completely Blind. n/t

[DevonRex]

60. Good grief. The hatred for Obama is palpable in here. nt

[TheKentuckian]

41. Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way blaming Obama

This nightmare has been in progress or 30+ years, including under Clinton.

[jenmito]

44. I was talking to the poster who wrote the OP. n/t

[Beacool]

45. Oh, look who's here.........

Fancy seeing you on attack mode. Do you have something to contribute about the article or are you just here to make snide remarks?

:eyes:

[jenmito]

48. "Attack mode"? I wrote what you may have been thinking going by all the articles you post.

[Beacool]

53. Next time I need someone reading my mind I'll be sure to give you a call.

:crazy:

[jenmito]

54. I'm reading your posts-not your mind. Remember when you called Obama an arugula-eating

phony who wouldn't REALLY drink Bud Light? That was just a few weeks ago. I SEE your "thoughts" in your posts. :eyes:

[DevonRex]

57. Dear lord. She said that?

:eyes:

[jenmito]

59. Yup. She accused him of being a yuppie and besides saying he wouldn't drink Bud Light she

repeated her claim of him being a yuppie and her proof was "arugula, organic tea, personal trainer, etc." :eyes:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8564734#8564982

[DevonRex]

62. How did I miss all that? Geez. I've been back for over a month now.

I really appreciate the information because that REALLY shines a bright light on the situation, doesn't it?

[jenmito]

66. I edited my post and

gave a link. It was during "beer-gate" or whatever.

[Beacool]

63. Honey, if you're going to quote me at least get it right.

I didn't call him a phony, I called him a yuppie.

[jenmito]

64. You're right, dear. You called him a "yuppie" and I quoted your "proof."

Shouldn't you be on a PUMA site somewhere?

[Beacool]

67. I don't know sweetheart,

Shouldn't you try using your capacity for discernment and try to read the article before going on attack mode or are there too many words for you to handle?

[jenmito]

68. You're so sexist with your demeaning terms to me.

You should go somewhere you'd fit in better-where posters constantly criticize Obama.

[Beacool]

69. I didn't start this fight.

I posted a legitimate article by a reputed economist and most of the responses are a personal attack on me and not a discussion on the merits, or lack thereof, of said article.

I too live in this country and I'm worried sick about what is happening to so many people. I haven't yet been personally affected by the economic downturn, but my heart goes out to so many people who have lost most of what they had, including a place to live. My church can barely handle the amount of people who come daily for lunch. I live in a fairly wealthy town, nonetheless, the contributions to the homeless shelter have dropped by 60%. So, not everything is about the primaries or even Obama.

OK?

;)

I apologize if I sounded dismissive.

[jenmito]

76. What fight? You start negative threads about Obama and everything he does or everything

that can be spun negatively about his admin. (except for Hillary, of course, whom you have nothing but praise for).

You personally attack Obama while accusing those of us who aren't always negative "fans." Those things are not productive for ANYTHING but perhaps making yourself feel better. I'm glad you're well off but I don't see why you attack Obama and his supporters while claiming to care about others.

You didn't sound dismissive. You sounded like you're anti-Obama and his supporters.

[Fire1]

85. Let her BE anti-Obama! It's still a free country. Cause I'm

anti-Clinton (Hillary, that is)! Hillary couldn't handle this shit and she knows it! That's why she's happy as pie right where she is as SOS. Hillary's hair would be standin on end, right about now!

[Lord Helmet]

71. .

[firedupdem]

56. This from the queen of snide............n/t

[Fire1]

83. Huh???? n/t

[uponit7771]

36. ***CONTINUING CLAIMS ARE ^NOT^ A LAGGING INDICATOR***

[mkultra]

46. sure they are.

[ieoeja]

61. Don't worry. The next president will be female.

[Beacool]

65. Oh goodie, another one who probably didn't bother to read the article,

but thinks that he's a comedian.

Pathetic..........

[Fire1]

84. OH SHIT!!! Kill me now!!! n/t

[Phx_Dem]

70. Blah blah blah. A little soon for that pronouncement, Roubini.

I thought the sky was supposed to have fallen on top of us by now because of the diasterous decisions Obama's economic team made?
Hmmmm.

Yeah, not so much.

[leftofthedial]

88. and don't forget "hopeless"

and "changeless"