Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

The economy lost more jobs than expected in December -- 85,000 when 8,000 was anticipated -- while the unemployment rate held steady at 10 percent, as a sluggish economic recovery has yet to revive hiring among the nation's employers.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

cookfish

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Simply Stimulating. Heckuva job, O,Brownie.

10%. get real. we are in a depression. not a "recession"

www.shadowstats.com<>

Sarvis, Macy's wants the damn santa suit back, or they're taking legal action.

I'll bet President Shovel Ready Jobs pisses away another $1T to slow it down.

WASHINGTON The economy lost more jobs than expected in December while the unemployment rate held steady at 10 percent, as a sluggish economic recovery has yet to revive hiring among the nation's employers.

The Labor Department said Friday that employers cut 85,000 jobs last month, worse than the 8,000 drop analysts expected.

A sharp drop in the labor force, a sign more of the jobless are giving up on their search for work, kept the unemployment rate at the same rate as in November. Once people stop looking for jobs, they are no longer counted among the unemployed.

When discouraged workers and part-time workers who would prefer full-time jobs are included, the so-called "underemployment" rate in December rose to 17.3 percent, from 17.2 percent in October. That's just below a revised figure of 17.4 percent in October, the highest on records dating from 1994.
------------------------------ --------
Obama and the Democrats controlling Congress believe in a Public Sector recovery, so don't expect the unemployment rate to come down any time soon.

"The Labor Department said November payrolls were revised to show the economy actually added 4,000 jobs in that month rather than losing 11,000 as initially reported. With revisions to October, however, the economy lost 1,000 more jobs than previously estimated over the two months.

The unemployment rate was unchanged at 10 percent in December.

Analysts polled by Reuters had expected nonfarm payrolls to be unchanged last month and the unemployment rate to edge up to 10.1 percent.

High unemployment is one of the toughest domestic challenges facing Obama. The administration's success in getting people back to work will shape prospects for Obama's own political future.

Unemployment remains the Achilles heel of the economic recovery that started in the third quarter of 2009 following the worst recession in 70 years. Creating jobs is critical to sustaining the economic recovery when government stimulus fades.

For the whole of 2009, the economy shed 4.2 million jobs, the department said.

Still the job market continued to show broad improvements last month, with a number of sectors showing gains.

Professional and business services added 50,000 positions, while education and health services increased payrolls by 35,000. Temporary help employment rose by 47,000.

Manufacturing payrolls fell 27,000 after dropping 35,000 in November. The construction sector lost 53,000 jobs, while the service-providing sector shed only 4,000 workers.

The average workweek was unchanged at 33.2 hours, while average hourly earnings increased by $18.80 from $18.77 in November."

Meanwhile back here on planet earth....


"

Obama just promised to show all his job creation conferences on C-Span.


Obama just promised to show all his job creation conferences on C-Span.

#7 | Posted by cookfish

Is he sending it to them on an ipod?

I'm sure Hilda Solis will be on every fucking talk show Sunday claiming the Sysem worked.

"By 2007, 5.7 Million Jobs Had Been Created Under Bush. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)"

"2.8 MILLION Jobs Lost Since Obama's Signed His $787 Billion Stimulus In February 2009. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 12/10/09)"

www.gop.com


"A pop quiz on Barack Obama's first year"
dailymail.com

HopenChange!

It started under Bush, but Obama's inability to control a Democratic Congress spending on anything is a sign he is becoming very weak. He will be the one voters blame if things don't turn around soon.

"In First Year, Obama Presides Over 4.1 Million Jobs Lost, Most Since 1940"

"But don't expect journalists to label President Barack Obama the worst jobs president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-1945). The media spent 2009 trying to shield Obama from the troubling numbers.

ABC's Charles Gibson called the loss of 539,000 jobs in April a "marked improvement" May 8, 2009

CBS's own economic "grim reaper," Anthony Mason said the "economy's showed signs of improving."

While NBC also found "positive trends"

newsbusters.org

http://americandigest.org/ sidelines/missmeyetbush.jpg


WELL BOYS AND GIRLS

obama promised us CHANGE and he has KEPT HIS promise.

just look at this thread alone.......and others...
and you will see a HUGE change right here in our little community..

for you young punks too little to have been here..oh say..around 2004 and before...look at the NUMBER of anti obama comments and look at how severe some of them are...


nicely done....

NEXT TARGET...huffington post.

"By 2007, 5.7 Million Jobs Had Been Created Under Bush. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)"
"2.8 MILLION Jobs Lost Since Obama's Signed His $787 Billion Stimulus In February 2009. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 12/10/09)"

If you're touting jobs created in what was clearly a massive bubble economy, you're just as much of a stupid partisan hack as the rest of the Obama cheerleaders.

Trickle down economics is sure paying off well. President Obama has not raised taxes one penny on the richest Americans who made billions during the last ten years so where are all the jobs that letting them keep more of their own money was supposed to create????

Lets see Shrub lost 16 million in eight years and Obama lost almost 3 million in one year. Shrub is better? CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN?

No, Danni. It's "Where are all the "shovel-ready" jobs that Obama's Stimulus was supposed to create?" Remember that? Remember who's in charge NOW, AND HAS BEEN FOR THE LAST YEAR? Your Bush deflections now make you sound like a retard.

HERE IS A MAN with a job,...

is THERE NO end to the corruption of the democrat party????????


www.foxnews.com

OH YEAH

notice he is a economic EXPERT...probably one of those eggeheads who have 'formed' opinions of danni and others....

"Your Bush deflections now make you sound like a retard."

That was no Bush deflection, I hold Obama responsible for no major change in our economic policy. It's time to DITCH REAGANOMICS, raise taxes on the rich and put people back to work either in private industry paid for by reinvestments back into companies to avoid high taxes or in government financed jobs paid for by high taxes on rich people.
It's how we did it before, it's time we did it again. What are we waiting for??

$787 Billion = 10% unemployment = 'Good job, O'Bammy'? LOL.

Eventually we'll have 0% unemployment...when everyone out of work quits looking for work.

At least, that's the power plan as I read it from the Dems and the press.

What are we waiting for??

Ask the Democrat president with a Democrat majority in both houses, who's obsessed on healthcare while our economy tanks. Seek not the Bush, unless you're talkin' about a date or something.

"Where are all the "shovel-ready" jobs that Obama's Stimulus was supposed to create?"

As Joe would say, "It's all about three letters, J-O-B-S"... By the way, didn't they send Joe out a few months ago touting the new jobs their stimulus created? Something about painting barracks and fixing potholes? I think each job was $150,000 of the stimulus?

Can't wait to hear how many millions of jobs were saved, as opposed to the number lost.

and this thread highlites ANOTHER broken promise from obama...

this fool is going to make bush 41's MISTAKE,...read my lips...disappear...

You Spend 1 Trillion Dollars, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the Congressional whores.

In November the B.O. administration was touting their "saved or created" bullshit while "creating" only government jobs or phantom jobs in non-existent districts. Never once did they refer to the pre-holiday ramp up of temp jobs in retail that would go away in January leading to the 10% plus that we see now.

When will B.O. and the loony left take responsibility for their multi-trillion dollar spending spree? When will the Idiot-in-Chief stand up and admit that he doesn't know what the fuck he is doing?

Lying empty suit indeed...

I was SOOOOOOOO happy to get laid off before thanksgiving, didnt have to work and collected unemployment. It so nice being a trust fund baby!

Oh lookHere's another thread where Cookfish expresses his happiness over anything he perceives as bad news about the opposition.

Same ol'.

owe my soul to the Congressional whores.

#26 | Posted by wisgod at 2010-


go to backpage and read about how ONE whore from lousianna is in trouble.

Oh look, here's Whatsleftofhisbrain with nothing to add, and nothing to contradict my contention that his hero is a big fat liar. Not suprprised.

I was born one mornin' when the sun didn't shine
I picked up my shovel and I walked to the mine
I loaded sixteen tons of number nine coal
And the straw boss said "sorry son, your fired; but you can go on the dole"


Oh lookHere's another thread where Cookfish expresses his happiness over anything he perceives as bad news about the opposition.


Same ol'.

#29 | Posted by Whatsleft


ONE MORE TIME A MESSAGE TO THE LEFT


"dissent is the purest form of patriotism"

hillary clinton on campaign stop


"the job of the opposition is to oppose"

"...worse than the 8,000 drop analysts expected."

Have you noticed that the administration's 'experts' are always 'surprised'. Maybe it's about time they get a new crop of 'experts' are the current ones are seem to never get it right.

I hold Obama responsible for no major change in our economic policy. It's time to DITCH REAGANOMICS, raise taxes on the rich and put people back to work either in private industry paid for by reinvestments back into companies to avoid high taxes or in government financed jobs paid for by high taxes on rich people.
It's how we did it before, it's time we did it again. What are we waiting for??

The "investors" of which you speak quit investing at the end of the Bush administration when it became apparent that they were going to be investing in Obama & Co. Quite simply, they took him and Congress at their word when they promised to tax the hell out of them for everything from healthcare to cap and trade. Right now, there is a tremendous amount of cash parked on the sidelines waiting it out. And it will likely stay there until some guarantees are put in place that the socialization of America will, at the very least, be limited. The only investing they are doing now is on how to get the same job done with fewer empployees. The name of the game for large companies is how to cut payroll and long term liabilities associated with employees. The one guaranteed way to do so is not to hire them in the first place.

"dissent is the purest form of patriotism"

hillary clinton on campaign stop

"the job of the opposition is to oppose"

#33 | Posted by afkabl2

So are you saying you agree with Hillary?

I don't think that's always true. I can see where a partisan like you would might think so, but it must be hard for you to reconcile that against an opposition to Hillary.

I'd imagine if a Dem said the sky was blue, Cookfish would say it's liberal, and connect it to some perceived failure of the Dems.

One of the biggest errors Obama made (IMO) was his promise to stop earmarks and pork and then right after he entered the WH he allowed Pelosi and Reid to do their thing with the stimulus plan which was not targetted and full of earmarks--if he had vetoed this thing and had a concerted package that gave incentives to small business, focussed on infrastructure, and a broad energy plan he would have started out in a positive direction and would have shown he was serious about his promises and his word---when he did what he did, I knew we were screwed and he lost me right then.


I hold Obama responsible for no major change in our economic policy. It's time to DITCH REAGANOMICS, raise taxes on the rich and put people back to work either in private industry paid for by reinvestments back into companies to avoid high taxes or in government financed jobs paid for by high taxes on rich people.
It's how we did it before, it's time we did it again. What are we waiting for??


#35 | Posted by bogey1355

The higher taxes are coming not only on the rich but the middle class as well (it'll be another broken promise)---it's unavoidable---the deficit this past year and coming year will demand it

" The only investing they are doing now is on how to get the same job done with fewer empployees."

Actually there is lots of money pouring into the stock market. Raise capital gains tax and give them ample deductions for direct investment into job producing industries along with trade protections to make sure they can profit. We need to create an environment where the smartest thing to do is invest in industry that creates jobs. There is no free trade commandment from God.

"The higher taxes are coming not only on the rich but the middle class as well"

One thing I respected George Bush 1 for was that when it was necessary he broke his promise about no new taxes.

The worse part of the jobs picture is not the loss of jobs for December but the household survey which showed over 500,000 people quit looking for work--you also have to remember there was some increased hiring seasonally and that should concern you about the January report which comes out next month.

One thing I respected George Bush 1 for was that when it was necessary he broke his promise about no new taxes.

#40 | Posted by danni

Nobody running for president should make a committment on taxes---if running I would tell the American people economies are dynamic and fluctuate quickly and therefore, making a committment in that area is tantamount to taking advantage of the American people---one thing you can commit to is financial integrity and to strive for a balanced budget and maintaining a deficit that is a small % of GDP.

The current jobs picture shows layoffs have slowed but no new jobs are being created.

Has Obama crapped out yet, or are there still hold outs out there still just blaming Bush? Fortunately Obama will try to create 17,000 new green jobs. That should maybe take care of what's lost next week. Yeah!

We manufacture virtually nothing meaningful. Our steel plants are closed. Our glass plants are closed. Our plastics plants are closed. Our rubber plants are closed. Our paper mills are closed. Our printing plants are closed. And on and on and on.

The promise that everyone would be better for any of this is nothing but a huge lie.

A nation of consumers is in short time consumed. In our case about 5 or 6 decades.

It is impossible to create true and lasting wealth through production of only intangibles while occupying a tangible world.

Not everyone wants to be a computer geek, a social worker, a grade school teacher, a fireman, a policeman, a doctor, a nurse, a scientist, etc. etc. etc..... And even if everyone did it isn't possible without an economy rooted in the production of tangible goods.

Danni asks......so where are all the jobs that letting them keep more of their own money was supposed to create????

#15 | Posted by danni at 2010-01-08 02:45 PM


Unions, enviornmentalists and sluggards that believed unions, along with politicians that don't have a clue whether they're being kissed or fucked have allowed people willing to produce tangible products have them.

Do you want them back?

The jobs, that is?

or in government financed jobs paid for by high taxes on rich people.
It's how we did it before, it's time we did it again. What are we waiting for??

#20 | Posted by danni at 2010-01-08 02:54 PM |


Ridiculous Danni. Communism has never, will never, work. And that is what you're proposing.

When choice is removed free markets cease to exist and people stop trying. Your idea that people exist to serve you in the manner you think that they should is pathetic.

The reality is that you and I and everyone should exist to serve people and only choice can provide our ability to do that. Anything less is slavery.

When reward is removed ambition ceases to exist and when ambition ceases to exist everyone is subjected to miserable existence.

You live in a dark world and don't even know it.

But the average workweek for production and nonsupervisory workers was unchanged at 33.2 hours after increasing in November. An increase in the average workweek would suggest that employers are adding hours for existing workers, something common before companies hire new workers.

-Ian Swanson, The Hill


No new jobs, no new hours -- For the first time in my adult lifetime...

#35 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2010-01-08 03:44 PM | Reply | Flag: ACCURATE!

#35 | Posted by bogey1355

The "investors" of which you speak quit investing at the end of the Bush administration when it became apparent that they were going to be investing in Obama & Co. Quite simply, they took him and Congress at their word when they promised to tax the hell out of them for everything from healthcare to cap and trade. Right now, there is a tremendous amount of cash parked on the sidelines waiting it out. And it will likely stay there until some guarantees are put in place that the socialization of America will, at the very least, be limited. The only investing they are doing now is on how to get the same job done with fewer empployees. The name of the game for large companies is how to cut payroll and long term liabilities associated with employees. The one guaranteed way to do so is not to hire them in the first place.
-------------------
I think you'r spot on, but I will add some more.

There was A CEO conference in Washington a couple of months back, and they pretty much uttered the same sentiment.

The Public Sector is part of every Private Sector business plan, and when that is in flux (it might get more expensive) businesses sit on the fence in terms of employment until they know what the cost will be.

As long as Obama wants Public Sector funded recovery the unemployment rate will stay at around 10%.

I'll bet President Shovel Ready Jobs pisses away another $1T to slow it down.

#4 | POSTED BY WISGOD

so bitch.. whats your grand idea to save us from the proliferate spending and supply side economics your brilliant fucking retards implemented? Remember this whole bag of shit was a result of the rescinding of the Glass-Stegall act en.wikipedia.org by your Repuke buddies Phil "fucking" Gramm R-Texas and Jim "eat shit america" Leach R-Iowa

I've noticed a rise in liberal rage lately. What's the matter? No public option?

Not good. I guess the only way to get jobs is a race to the bottom. Make our wages competitive to the 3rd world. Our workers can live in rambled shacks by the river.

Thank God for high unemployment.


"Obama: Unemployment Rates Are Pointing in the Right Direction (Video)"
gatewaypundit.firstthings.com

result of the rescinding of the Glass-Stegall act en.wikipedia.org by your Repuke buddies Phil "fucking" Gramm R-Texas and Jim "eat shit america" Leach R-Iowa

#52 | Posted by Legio

Signed into law by Bill Clinton although if he vetoed it, his veto probably would have been over-ridden--With his relation with Summers and Rubin, I'm sure "slick Willie" probably didn't have a problem with it.

Good news! - The plan for a utopic future in which there is no toil is underway....soon enough Humans will have robots and animals performing all toil.

First the elimination of the 40 hour work week and OT....

out


Can you imagine what the unemployment numbers would have been if the Cheerleader-In-Chief was still at the helm. OMG! Do they make charts that go that high?


Not good. I guess the only way to get jobs is a race to the bottom. Make our wages competitive to the 3rd world. Our workers can live in rambled shacks by the river.

#54 | Posted by jackass

What do you think is happening==we're in the process.

Not good. I guess the only way to get jobs is a race to the bottom. Make our wages competitive to the 3rd world. Our workers can live in rambled shacks by the river.
#54 | POSTED BY JACKASS

It's been a race to the bottom as an inevitable consequence of government criminality. A government that steals FOR you, steals FROM you. Third World is exactly where this country is heading. Then we'll be competitive. Jerkass can't make the connection.

I hate to let the cat out of the bag, but if Congress and Omama would just let us know what they are going to do exactly, the economy would improve. This is recession is due to a lack of confidence. Confidence in Bush and a Republican Congress, worse with Bush and a Democrat Congress and much worse under Omama and a Democrat Congress. We'd be stupid to make major decisions without enough information and right now we can't predict the future.

Number of States won by Obama: 19, McCain: 29
Square miles of land by Obama: 580,000, McCain: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by Obama: 13.2, McCain: 2.1

Obama and his densely populated supporters were duped into thinking the Messiah could and would provide very comfortably for them.

But nothing is free. Not education, housing, food, or health care. And this selfish, unsympathetic, misplaced compassion gov't can not stimulate a society entitled to something for nothing.

You reap what you sow. Enjoy!


This is recession is due to a lack of confidence.

Wrong. This Depression is due to a breakdown in history's largest Pyramid Scheme, the Federal Reserve system. Lack of confidence is a secondary reaction.

#64 | Posted by Ray

A lack of confidence is what brings down most Pyramid Scams. If people believe in it, they work. If they stop, it collapses. Then people move on.

"Number of States won by Obama: 19, McCain: 29"

Well, that's a huge lie:
elections.nytimes.com

"Square miles of land by Obama: 580,000, McCain: 2,427,000"

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. As if the 600,000 people in Wyoming should count more than the 19,000,000 in New York.

A lack of confidence is what brings down most Pyramid Scams. If people believe in it, they work. If they stop, it collapses. Then people move on.
#65 | POSTED BY STIRSUMUP

You don't know what your're talking about. Pyramid Schemes are mathematically impossible to continue indefinitely. You should familiarize yourself with the exponential function.

Equally, it is impossible to devalue the dollar indefinitely. The dollar has already lost 98% of its value since the Federal Reserve opened for business.

Subsequently, there is no capital for new investments; it's all going towards maintaining debt.


This is recession is due to a lack of confidence.


Wrong. This Depression is due to a breakdown in history's largest Pyramid Scheme, the Federal Reserve system. Lack of confidence is a secondary reaction.

#64 | Posted by RAY

Let's use Bernie Madoff as an analogy. Bernie is the Federal Reserve and we as tax payers are the investors. Bernie had accomplices in the scheme either wittingly or unwittingly: congress (barney flank, chuck schumers, chris dodd, etal), investment bankers (government sachs, lehman, etc.), rating agencies, insurance companies (aig), GSEs (fannie and freddie), mortgage brokers and finally unscrupulous &/or ignorant borrowers. Just as housing prices peaked in the mid 2006's and the values then started to decline Bernie's scheme peaked and needed more and more money to keep it going and when he couldn't any longer find ever increasing capital the lack of value was unmasked just as the lack of real value in housing was unmasked ---that's when confidence was shattered in both schemes. In both schemes the investor and tax payer lose out and are left holding the bag---and then Bernanke makes the galling statement that low interest rates by the fed did not create the problem---he may be right that it was not the only thing and it was a confluence of factors (see above) but the Fed has and is ultimately the Bernie Madoff by the virtual unlimited printing of money.

"Bernie had accomplices in the scheme either wittingly or unwittingly: congress (barney flank, chuck schumers, chris dodd, etal"

Gee...All Dems, no mention of the Republican majority for the majority of the time, and a complete avoidance of the Bush-appointed SEC who "investigated" Madoff and -- wait for it -- took Bernie's word regarding paperwork that wasn't there.

"Subsequently, there is no capital for new investments; it's all going towards maintaining debt."

Ray, you probably meant to say "unencumbered capital", most of the businesses I'm envolved in right now are running on borrowed capital. A large (if not all) portion of this "borrowed capital" is going toward interest payments. That's like using one credit card to make the payment on another

Gee...All Dems, no mention of the Republican majority for the majority of the time, and a complete avoidance of the Bush-appointed SEC who "investigated" Madoff and -- wait for it -- took Bernie's word regarding paperwork that wasn't there.
#69 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-01-09 10:16 AM

Notice a little trend where Madoff's money went? Not saying Bush appointed SEC isn't culpable, but it sure looks like Madoff lined the right pockets and most happened to be dems.


MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D) $-25,000
primary 03/18/09
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D) $-25,000
primary 03/18/09
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D) $-25,000
primary 03/18/09
Madoff, Bernard L. Mr.
New York, NY 10021
SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $-10,000
primary 02/27/09
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L. MADOFF INVEST.-SEC./CHAI
DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D) $25,000
primary 09/12/08
BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENT CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM (D)
Senate - NY
FRIENDS OF HILLARY $2,300
primary 08/28/08
Madoff, Bernard L. Mr.
New York, NY 10021
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securi
SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $5,000
primary 08/20/08
Madoff, Peter B. Mr.
New York, NY 10022
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securi
SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $5,000
primary 07/11/08
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10022
SELF EMPLOYED/INVESTOR MERKLEY, JEFFREY ALAN (D)
Senate - OR
JEFF MERKLEY FOR OREGON $2,300
primary 04/24/08
Madoff, Peter B
New York, NY 10022
Bernard L Madoff Investment/Sr Mana CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM (D)
President
HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT $2,300
general 11/06/07
Madoff, Peter B
New York, NY 10022
Bernard L Madoff Investment/Sr Mana CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM (D)
President
HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT $2,300
primary 11/06/07
Madoff, Bernard L
New York, NY 10021
Bernard Madoff Investment/Chairman LAUTENBERG, FRANK R (D)
Senate - NJ
LAUTENBERG NJ VICTORY COMMITTEE $2,300
primary 07/20/07
Madoff, Bernard L
New York, NY 10021
Bernard Madoff Investment/Chairman LAUTENBERG, FRANK R (D)
Senate - NJ
LAUTENBERG NJ VICTORY COMMITTEE $300
primary 07/20/07
Madoff, Bernard L
New York, NY 10021
Bernard Madoff Investment/Chairman LAUTENBERG, FRANK R (D)
Senate - NJ
LAUTENBERG NJ VICTORY COMMITTEE $5,000
primary 07/20/07
Madoff, Bernard L.
New York, NY 10021
Bernard L. Madoff Investment/Chairm SAUL, ANDREW MARSHALL (R)
House (NY 19)
SAUL FOR CONGRESS INC $2,300
primary 07/1
Madoff, Bernard L Mr.
New York, NY 10021
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securi
SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $5,000
primary 05/24/07
Madoff, Peter B Mr.
New York, NY 10022
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securi
SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $5,000
primary 05/24/07
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L. MADOFF INVEST.-SEC./CHAI
DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D) $25,000
primary 05/04
www.newsmeat.com

"Not saying Bush appointed SEC isn't culpable, but it sure looks like Madoff lined the right pockets and most happened to be dems."

WTF does that have to do with the Republicans investigating him not doing their job?

I want to know how we keep loosing jobs every month yet the 10% never gets larger. We have lost over 6 million jobs in 2009 yet the rate went from 8% to 10%. Do the math, that is a work force of 100 million

WTF does that have to do with the Republicans investigating him not doing their job?

About as much as the majority party not doing theirs since taking over ALL the comittees since Jan. 2007. I just pointed out where Madoff's money went to the same majority party in charge.

"About as much as the majority party not doing theirs since taking over ALL the comittees since Jan. 2007."

Again, what does that have to do with Madoff and the SEC? The SEC was still all Bush-appointed. Why did they take Bernie's word about $50 billion, when the IRS won't take your "word" about 50 bucks?

#75...
The SEC said Madoff should have been stopped 16 years ago. Why didn't the Clinton appointed SEC look into him up until 2000? It is obvious Madoff was able to dupe the SEC and prove both parties were incompetent. Or he simple paid off the right people.

#67 | Posted by Ray

For those who feel, life is a tragedy. For the who think, life is a comedy. Whatever the case, just be ready.

"The SEC said Madoff should have been stopped 16 years ago."

"The result was a missed opportunity to uncover Madoff's Ponzi scheme 16 years before Madoff confessed. The SEC had sufficient information to inquire further and investigate Madoff for a Ponzi scheme back in 1992."
www.sec.gov

1992. That would be under GHWB's watch. And the SEC did investigate Madoff, under Dubya's watch, and let him talk his way out.

"The result was a missed opportunity to uncover Madoff's Ponzi scheme 16 years before Madoff confessed.

That would be slick willie.

Let's not lose sight that Bernanke is now in charge of running history's biggest Ponzi Scheme. Both parties are culpable as well as voters who see government as an unlimited source of entitlements. In 2010, the Depression is on schedule to get much uglier. There are so many hot spots on the verge of erupting, there is no predicting which will go first.

abcnews.go.com

I apologize for not linking the story I referenced. It was dated Sept. 2009. I assumed that was when the SEC apologized and meant the 16 years ago would have been 1993.

#80 | Posted by Ray

Agreed!

Danforth is conveniently skipping past 8 years of Clinton. Bill must of just looked the other way

"That would be slick willie."

Sorry, dumbass, Madoff confessed in 2008, and Clinton didn't start until 1993. The report I linked to specifically stated 1992.

" I assumed that was when the SEC apologized and meant the 16 years ago would have been 1993."

My link, from the official report, stated "16 years before Madoff confessed", which occurred in 2008.

This Federal Reserve graph depicts total government debt. It's a classic case of compound interest going to infinity. To keep it going, the federal government have to spend faster and the Federal Reserve has to create money faster. I wouldn't bet against these idiots.

1.bp.blogspot.com

Gee...All Dems, no mention of the Republican majority for the majority of the time, and a complete avoidance of the Bush-appointed SEC who "investigated" Madoff and -- wait for it -- took Bernie's word regarding paperwork that wasn't there.

#69 | Posted by Danforth

Danforth, wasn't meant to be partisan---yes, the SEC fell flat on its face and Christopher Cox (Bush appointee) was a disaster in my eyes. However, the bureaucrats in the SEC missed this and they have been there for years and can't be linked to one party or another.

"the bureaucrats in the SEC missed this and they have been there for years and can't be linked to one party or another."

Both parties deserve blame, but when someone is investigated and nothing is done just before another administration comes in, that new group is hesitant to start the process again for fear of (rightfully) being accused of harassment.

But investigating him and taking his word for missing documentation?!? That takes some serious incompetence.


I want to know how we keep loosing jobs every month yet the 10% never gets larger. We have lost over 6 million jobs in 2009 yet the rate went from 8% to 10%. Do the math, that is a work force of 100 million

#73 | Posted by Sniper

After awhile they don't count the discouraged, those that aren't looking for jobs any longer, and those no longer on the unemployment rolls--how they look at unemployment changed years ago and if we would use the old methodology, the rate would be closer to 17%.

#85...

You are correct that the investigation officially ended in 2008. Although the OIG found that between June of 1992 to December 2008... That would about five months of HW's watch.

The OIG found that between June 1992 and December 2008 when...

"That would about five months of HW's watch."

No, that would be about seven months. Plenty of time to investigate.

The following chart shows the change in Civilian Employment from one year ago. Still nearly 6 million have lost their jobs in the past year.
4.bp.blogspot.com

The total number of counted unemployed has risen to over 15 million:
4.bp.blogspot.com

Guess where the job market is growing.
4.bp.blogspot.com

I apologize for not linking the story I referenced....

Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-01-09


Prepare to be flogged.


"That would about five months of HW's watch."


No, that would be about seven months. Plenty of time to investigate.
#91 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-01-09 11:53 AM


I see. How does that make Clinton look? Seeing as he had seven years?

"How does that make Clinton look?"

See #88

"Seeing as he had seven years?"

Have you borrowed Vernon's calculator? Clinton had 8 years.

"Have you borrowed Vernon's calculator? Clinton had 8 years."
#95 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-01-09 11:58 AM

Of course. Jan 1993 to November 2000 is eight years.

The reason we still have high unemployment, and will continue to have it, is the far left agenda of the Obozo regime is doing everything it can to kill "the golden goose"--aka the business enterprises and entrepreneurs that make our economy work. Government does not create shit, it can only provide a system that encourages economy growth and this administration IS NOT doing this because liberals just do not understand this!

"The reason we still have high unemployment, and will continue to have it, is the far left agenda of the Obozo regime is doing everything it can to kill "the golden goose"--aka the business enterprises and entrepreneurs that make our economy work. Government does not create shit, it can only provide a system that encourages economy growth and this administration IS NOT doing this because liberals just do not understand this!


THIS democrat understood it.


"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased not a reduced flow of revenues to the federal government."


John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964


"In today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues."


John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President"


"It is no contradiction the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today's economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates."


John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President"


"Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."


John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.


"A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues."


John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill


"I have asked the secretary of the treasury to report by April 1 on whether present tax laws may be stimulating in undue amounts the flow of American capital to the industrial countries abroad through special preferential treatment."


John F. Kennedy, Feb. 6, 1961, message to Congress on gold and the balalnce of payments deficit


"In those countries where income taxes are lower than in the United States, the ability to defer the payment of U.S. tax by retaining income in the subsidiary companies provides a tax advantage for companies operating through overseas subsidiaries that is not available to companies operating solely in the United States. Many American investors properly made use of this deferral in the conduct of their foreign investment."


John F. Kennedy, April 20, 1961, message to Congress on taxation


"Our present tax system ... exerts too heavy a drag on growth ... It reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking ... The present tax load ... distorts economic judgments and channels an undue amount of energy into efforts to avoid tax liabilities."


John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, press conference

Are there ANY democrats like this guy around any more?

"The present tax codes ... inhibit the mobility and formation of capital, add complexities and inequities which undermine the morale of the taxpayer, and make tax avoidance rather than market factors a prime consideration in too many economic decisions."

John F. Kennedy, Jan. 23, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform

"In short, it is a paradoxical truth that ... the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, news conference

"The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive."

John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform

"Expansion and modernization of the nation's productive plant is essential to accelerate economic growth and to improve the international competitive position of American industry ... An early stimulus to business investment will promote recovery and increase employment."

John F. Kennedy, Feb. 2, 1961, message on economic recovery

"We must start now to provide additional stimulus to the modernization of American industrial plants ... I shall propose to the Congress a new tax incentive for businesses to expand their normal investment in plant and equipment."

John F. Kennedy, Feb. 13, 1961, National Industrial Conference Board

"A bill will be presented to the Congress for action next year. It will include an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in both corporate and personal income taxes. It will include long-needed tax reform that logic and equity demand ... The billions of dollars this bill will place in the hands of the consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits to our economy. Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy."

John F. Kennedy, Aug. 13, 1962, radio and television report on the state of the national economy

"This administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes ... Next year's tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes, for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital ... I am confident that the enactment of the right bill next year will in due course increase our gross national product by several times the amount of taxes actually cut."

John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, news conference


"Are there ANY democrats like this guy around any more?"

No, instead we have a leading presidential contender saying raising the tax rate from 35-38 is only a three percent increase.


Of course, it was 75 percent when Kennedy was President.....

but that was before the wealthy could count on dividing Americans over culture war issues to make them vote against their own self-interests.

"That new group is hesitant to start the process again for fear of (rightfully) being accused of harassment."
#88 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-01-09 11:49 AM

Which is why I used the cutoff of June to November 1992 for HW(five months)and Jan 1993 to November 2000 for Clinton(seven years) But of course you still insisted on correcting me twice?

"Sorry, dumbass, Madoff confessed in 2008, and Clinton didn't start until 1993. The report I linked to specifically stated 1992"

So Dan, your saying that report was out a year before Clinton took office? and, then Madoff quit the scheme during the Clinton years, or Bill looked the other way until "W" came along

keep drinkin' that kool aid

"But of course you still insisted on correcting me twice? "

Only because you were wrong twice.

Sorry, dumbass, Madoff confessed in 2008, and Clinton didn't start until 1993. The report I linked to specifically stated 1992.

#84 | Posted by Danforth

So I guess you are skipping all 8 years of slick willie's waltz through the ladies. I guess he was too bussy thinking about blue dresses than Madoff all the time.

After awhile they don't count the discouraged, those that aren't looking for jobs any longer, and those no longer on the unemployment rolls--how they look at unemployment changed years ago and if we would use the old methodology, the rate would be closer to 17%.

#89 | Posted by matsop

So........ if they get discouraged they are counted as employed? WTF?

I guess soon we will be pushing 20% with the true number.

"Seeing as he had seven years?"

Have you borrowed Vernon's calculator? Clinton had 8 years.

#95 | Posted by Danforth

I guess that would take all blame off slick willie. Damn, he got another pass.

"Of course. Jan 1993 to November 2000 is eight years."

Are you some kind of moron using two different standards?

Why take Inauguration Day to Election Day? If you start January 1993, you end January 2001. Eight years, Einstein.

"I guess that would take all blame off slick willie."

No, it doesn't, as I said in #88. As I also suggested in that post, when the prior administration has investigated months before the new one takes office, sometimes the new administration (foolishly) believes the prior. And NOTHING exonerates the Bush SEC, who investigated Madoff only to take his word on missing documentation.

But far be it from the so-called "Party of Responsibility" to take any responsibility.

Are you some kind of moron using two different standards?


Why take Inauguration Day to Election Day? If you start January 1993, you end January 2001. Eight years, Einstein.
#108 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-01-09 02:46 PM

Good old danforth, whining like a little bitch about three months. As though that has anything to do with the posts. It was obvious I used November when a new administration was elected. But as usual you play the wilful ignorance card and can't make that connection, which everyone else understood. Somehow you think an outgoing administration is going to start an investigation "after" losing the WH? Too fucking funny.


"Of course. Jan 1993 to November 2000 is eight years."


Are you some kind of moron using two different standards?


Why take Inauguration Day to Election Day? If you start January 1993, you end January 2001. Eight years, Einstein.
#108 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-01-09 02:46 PM

Seems to me I explained the standard I used. For some reason it wasn't acceptable to you. Hence you whining about a few months out of eight fucking years. But thanks for helping out and telling me that 1993-2001 is eight years.

Seems odd all those smarts think the seven months Bush had, was equal to Clinton's eight years. But then again you are the self imposed Wile E Coyote Super Genius of Drudge.

"Seems to me I explained the standard I used. "

Yeah. Arbitrary.

And incorrect.

"thanks for helping out and telling me that 1993-2001 is eight years."

You obviously needed help, especially after you suggested terms are from Inauguration Day to Election Day.

"Seems odd all those smarts think the seven months Bush had, was equal to Clinton's eight years."

I never said it was. I was correcting your bullshit that June until leaving office is 5 months. I also pointed out that Daddy Bush's SEC had just investigated Madoff when the new guy got in. And that nothing excuses Dubya's SEC from taking Bernie's word in lieu in investigating.

"But then again you are the self imposed Wile E Coyote Super Genius of Drudge."

Still smarting, huh?

"whining like a little bitch about three months"

60% more time than your claim? Gee, better give Vernon his calculator back.

"Somehow you think an outgoing administration is going to start an investigation "after" losing the WH?"

No. Merely that an investigation isn't going to stop on the second Tuesday in November.


Obama sets his mind to something and it gets done. He wanted healthcare done it's getting done. He wanted the recession to end. It ended. His powers are almost magical.

#120 | Posted by jackass at 2010-01-07 08:10 PM

Based on the new numbers, it looks like the boy needs to put his mind to it a little harder. Jackass, I don't know how you can believe that the recession is over...outside of the fact you are a democrat and are therefore willing to believe whatever the DNC tells you.

And for the Bush blamers here...I want you to know hating George Bush has not employed a single unemployed worker....It has resulted in the spending of a trillion dollars for nothing, the loss of private control of 1/6th of our economy with no increase in coverage, and an increase of 10% in the unemployment rate...but it has not put one person back to work.

Wish you would have kept your change!


"whining like a little bitch about three months"


60% more time than your claim? Gee, better give Vernon his calculator back.
#113 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-01-09 05:44 PM

God you are a pathetic little bitch. You were splitting hairs about Clinton's seven or eight years, and you bring up HW's five months. Just fucking worthless even trying to engage in someone like you danforth.

"God you are a pathetic little bitch."

Yeah...I always am when it's you who's wrong. Funny how that works, isn't it?

"and you bring up HW's five months."

No, YOU brought up HW's 5 months, dumbshit. And you were only off by 60%, so it seems you're improving.

No, YOU brought up HW's 5 months, dumbshit. And you were only off by 60%, so it seems you're improving.

#116 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-01-09 07:00 PM

Yet for the third time, you are stupid enough to think anyone believes HW's seven months to investigate Madoff is comparable to Clinton's eight years. Laughable you would continue this line of argument.

"Yet for the third time, you are stupid enough to think anyone believes HW's seven months to investigate Madoff is comparable to Clinton's eight years. "

And, for the third time, I never said that, moron.

Interesting, though, you completely ignored Dubya's SEC "investigating" Madoff and taking his word for missing documentation.

And, for the third time, I never said that, moron.


Interesting, though, you completely ignored Dubya's SEC "investigating" Madoff and taking his word for missing documentation.
#118 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-01-09 07:14 PM

Unless you can point out anywhere you criticized Clinton's eight years to HW's five months, it is obvious, right moron? You also expected HW to do something knowing he would be out of office in a couple of months? But you never said that.

What is even more interesting, is how you ignore the Dems held every committee since 2006 and yet again only criticize Bush. Fucking laughable....

"Unless you can point out anywhere you criticized Clinton's eight years"

Post #88. As I mentioned earlier. RIF.

"You also expected HW to do something knowing he would be out of office in a couple of months?"

What's your point? That 8 months before leaving office -- despite running for re-election -- Presidents can check out? You're a first-class apologist. How would Herbie know he was going to be out of office?

"yet again only criticize Bush."

RIF, Mr. Pee. RIF.

"Fucking laughable..."

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. You've ignored Dubya, I've criticized Clinton, and it's my fault because you're a moron and can comprehend English. That seems to be your MO: make a mistake, or two, or three, and blame everyone but the guy who posted the fuck-up.

Carry on, Mr. Pee.

Obama sets his mind to something and it gets done. He wanted healthcare done it's getting done. He wanted the recession to end. It ended. His powers are almost magical.


#120 | Posted by jackass


Oh reeeeallly??

lol


"Unless you can point out anywhere you criticized Clinton's eight years"

Post #88. As I mentioned earlier. RIF.

#120 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-01-09 07:37 PM

(Both parties deserve blame, but when someone is investigated and nothing is done just before another administration comes in, that new group is hesitant to start the process again for fear of (rightfully) being accused of harassment.
#88 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-01-09 11:49 AM)

By all means point out where you criticze Clinton's eight years as you did HW's five months?

"What's your point? That 8 months before leaving office -- despite running for re-election -- Presidents can check out? You're a first-class apologist. How would Herbie know he was going to be out of office?"

Danforths standard wilful ignorance approach and whining spin technique. It is just comical you can call one a HW apologist when he had maybe seven months and Clinton had eight years. The irony of the year. Oh the Mr.Pee, well I think most know only a little whining bitch would find that funny or not be embarrassed to post it. Not surprised though.




"point out where you criticze(sic) Clinton's eight year..."

You already posted it, dumbshit.

"as you did HW's five months? "

Repeating your moronic claim of 5 months? Typical.

"standard wilful ignorance approach"

Posts the idiot who believes GHWB knew in June he'd be leaving office soon.

LOL! You're funny, for a stupid bitch.

#123 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-01-09 08:04 PM

A-So you admit you lied and can't point it out.

B-Deflect to your own stupidity by bringing up five months as though it has any meaning or worth.

C-Sadly resorts to repeating your own lame assumption, which again is meaningless.


"and it's my fault because you're a moron and can comprehend"
#120 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-01-09 07:37 PM

Is there where I act like some petty little bitch like you and take the time to point out your gaffe?

(Is there)

Is this...

Trickle down economics ...Danni

It's now trickle up poverty under Obozo...

Why don't you guys have a beer and play some golf at the video golf machine??

;o)

"Is there where I act like some petty little bitch like you and take the time to point out your gaffe?"

Priceless.

A. No, you re-posted where I said both parties are to blame, you were just too dumb to realize that.
B. You were the idiot who claimed 5 months, not me. Then, after being corrected, you claimed it again.
C. You were the moron who (stupidly) claimed GHWB "knew" he'd be leaving office 5 months before the election he lost.

But, like the little whiney bitch you are, all your mistakes are somehow my fault. Typical.


Trickle down economics is sure paying off well. President Obama has not raised taxes one penny on the richest Americans who made billions during the last ten years so where are all the jobs that letting them keep more of their own money was supposed to create????

#15 | Posted by danni

What?

Are you being willfully ignorant?

Businesses are not spending money because we are not getting ANY support from Washington!

Obammy and the Dems in Congress are stroking their base which is sending business people out of the country.


Trickle up poverty...

I like that one...because that's exactly what's happening...

Post a comment
Comments are closed for this entry.
Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2010 World Readable