United States Heading towards a Depression?

Some 32 billion is printed daily in the US. Mostly to replace old money...

 

By that standard, Massachusetts LOST jobs under Romney. What the Republicans don't understand is that your opponent will use your own claim against you. Romney only added jobs to Massachusetts if you count the jobs added during his term and ignore the jobs lost during his term, which is what he's doing for his own figures.

The Democratrs are merely applying ROMNEY'S math to Obama.

If Romney wants to count net jobs, he has to count net jobs during his term as governor also - and that would make him look a lot worse than Obama does.

Innumerate people shouldn't play with numbers - they might blow up in your hand.

 

I am okay with replacing worn out old money if they burn the old bills. Have you seen this →

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CURRENCY?cid=25


Or this:

 

This present thread _ LINK_ was started on Dec 27th 2007, 11:28 pm. The Vice President stated today:

LINK



Case closed. The question has finally been answered.

 

Looks like a post Weimar style exchange of 1 Trillion old to 1 new would be in order soon ...

 

Sounds good enough for me.

 

Unemployment for June 2012 is umoved at 8.2%, a recession-level figure.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/06/june-jobs-report-unemployment-rate_n_1653579.html

Real unemployment is still around 14%.

 

I've heard more than a few economists saying unemployment is at it's new norm. 8%. It reflects the more stable European style socialist economies where 8%-10% unemployment has been completely normal for the last quarter century.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...&ifdim=country_group&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

Basically, the message being put out is, if you have been jobless for the last 18 months, your joblessness is structural (permanent). To reenter the workforce you will either need to accept a lower wage for menial work (what used to be the domain of well paying small business), or reeducate to work in a growth field(neither realistic or probable for most people over 30).

If you are in tight with big business or big labor, you should be alright, but otherwise, you are probably screwed. Your job/business will either be driven out of business by unrestrained and government sponsored monopolies (Citibank, Chase, BofA) or legislated out of business by their proxies in the government, perhaps with the glowing endorsement of big labor.

http://www.lvrj.com/business/roll-your-own-cigarette-operations-to-be-snuffed-out-161539845.html

Welcome to the land of opportunity.

 

If I did not know any better, I'd say Jimmy Carter was still President.

Hell, if I had been in a coma through much of 1980 until now, I'd say that Jimmy Carter was still President, just a lot more tan.

 

That number is the "norm" in Europe, because a good portion of the population chooses NOT to work.

It's called anti-austerity.

 

Great news... Obama style.

 

How do you know about Europe when you have never been out of the zip code that you were born in? The problem of Europe is the new American style of capitalism, read greed, corruption and plain theft which has left their economies paralyzed.

 

I know about Europe and I've been to Germany, Italy, France - to name a few.

The unemployment system in Europe is crippling. If a business lays off someone, the business has to pay that person ~80% of their salary for 18 months (percent and length vary). This makes companies frightened to hire workers because they can't fire bad done without making their bottom line worse. Companies hire from the already employed that have a track record of staying with a company for a long time. so the unemployed don't get hired. So that socialist system keeps unemployment high.

 

Obviously you don´t know anything about the rules in Europe. Unemployment benefit is paid by government and not the business, the same situation as USA. For most part is very limited in time and the amount is so low that in practice people have to sleep in street and go hungry to survive on that money. If a business fires a person then they have to pay 1 month salary for each year they have worked which means for your example to be true, the person must have worked there in 18 years.
The problem in Europe (specially Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal,..) is not that people don´t want to work or the employer cost is too high, it is the problem that people in government and banks are trying to steal anything and everything that is not nailed to the ground. The bad banks loans were made with a sole purpose of stealing the money and even a blind person can see that those loans were never intended to be paid back. Even today, the banking section in Spain has no interest in dealing with problems or doing any business, they are just sitting and waiting to get the first 100 billion bail out, steal it and ask for more in couple of months.

 

Off Topic:

I think you would like this: Bountiful Baskets Food Co-op

It's run completely by volunteers, and is now in about 20 states. The focus is on high quality food, at a cost about 1/3rd of what you would pay at the grocery store.

p.s. Also, thought this particular thread was a good place to post that link for anyone in the US looking to stretch their food budget. I'm going to volunteer for them...And, take advantage of the food co-op as well.

 

Why not? Anything that can help even a little bit is good but this type of action doesn´t solve the structural problem that exists. It is like putting a plaster on a gunshot wound. People are becoming desperate and already in some areas of Athens, Madrid,... police doesn´t dare to go to some neighborhoods.

 

Obviously you've never worked in Europe. This isn't what I was told when I worked in Italy. But I believe you are partially correct, the (former) employer pays into a government fund for that particular individual for the specified time period and then the government disperses the fund to the individual. This avoids companies deciding not to pay individuals who would be forced to go to the courts to get their payment - instead the individual gets a guaranteed payout - and if the company doesn't pay the government, the company's in big trouble.

It was a constant that I heard "if we lay someone off, we have to pay them X% of their salary for T time period". Whether it was directly or indirectly paid to that individual, the impact on the bottom line is the same. And I'm leaving out the corruption inherent in the system.

My experience working in continental Europe was that in every country the government systems were very socialistic.

 

I think just some of Europe will go into depression.
US also get the impact, but not too bad.

Success for you all!

 

LOL. You remind me of your friend mia, never admit to your ignorance. The business pays every month to the the government and the employee pays part of the salary to the the government. This is a social security payment which works in the same way in US ( 2012 employee 4.2% and employer 6.2%). If they fire someone then they have to pay based on the years that they have worked which is again the same in Canada and US (some states have severance pay).
I always get a kick when neo-con republicans pretend to actually know something about economy or running a business.

 

I always get a kick out of someone telling someone else how it is, and calling them an idiot for getting it wrong, while at the same time getting it wrong themselves.

Educate yourself

Social Security
http://taxes.about.com/od/payroll/a/Reduced-Social-Security-Withholding-For-2011.htm


Unemployment Insurance
http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/uitaxtopic.asp


Two different taxes, two different payments, and yes, the state definitely penalizes you for people who file on your unemployment insurance. It definitely impacts the amount you pay.