Deseret News | Growing jobless rate

Reader comments
Readers' forum: Growing jobless rate

john | 4:26 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

Funny how different standards apply. When we were attacked on 9/11, the Republican President had not been in office long enough to be blamed for what happened and yet when a Democrat is in office it is all his fault(even if it started before his term).
President Reagan had high levels of unemployment at the start of his term too. It took awhile and this President deserves the same allowance-he has to deal with an inheirited bigger mess to fix than President Reagan.

Anonymous | 5:21 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

The Obama depression is coming our way. Impeach the fool before he destroys this country.

Would be worse | 5:37 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

I just finished reading the latest Fortune that has an excerpt of a book about the car bailout. Bush was so scared that Detroit would go under during his watch that it was he who tossed the first bailout money at GM and Chrysler. When Obama came in, his administration considered allowing Chrysler to go under, and their calculations was that if Chyrsler was allowed to fail and liquidated, it would have meant another 300,000 jobs -- and the entire Midwest economy would have been devistated.

Many right-wingers say that they should have let GM and Chrysler fail in the "free market," but with the financial sector in chaos, there would have not been enough resources in the economy to "allow" that without even more devistation to families and industry across the nation.

Economists generally agree that the stimulus has turned the economy away from the brink from earlier this year, and jobs are always the last indicator to turn after a recession. With less than half the stimulus spent thus far, we need to get the money flowing to create the jobs.

Comments continue below

tenx | 6:52 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

I have a solution. Since small businesses provide most of the jobs in the USA, give them a real tax incentive (not new taxes) to employ/hire workers. No spending required! Put people back to work, and with a paycheck they will spend and stimulate the economy. Simple, but have not heard this from the gurus in Wash DC.

Anonymous | 6:57 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

The consensus for a government stimulus was supported by almost everyone. But I agree that the debt from the stimulus and the debt from the potential healthcare bill is frightening most taxpaying citizens. I know I am saving money to pay a potential huge tax bill. In a way that is hurting the economy because of the apprehension.

Roland Kayser | 7:11 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

The highest unemployment rate of Carter's presidency was 7.8%.

sure | 7:32 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

And of course the unemployment rate had nothing to do with a near total collapse of your ubercapitalism last fall? It's all the immediate result of money spent to prop up the fall and actions that may happen in the future. Good thinking Gary..by the way the billions spent on the stimulus as a percentage of GDP are just about the same as Ronald Regan spent and of course in your opinion he destroyed the country right?

Anonymous | 7:38 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

We should have impeached Bush... then we wouldn't be in this mess, having to listen to people who care more about their party than anything else, complaining about the President who is trying to clean it up.

Dave | 8:12 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

The economy was doing great before the Dems took control in 2006. It has all been downhill since.

Impeachment | 8:19 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

We should have impeached Bush, FDR, Eisenhower, Truman, the whole gang. Impeachment is a very underused tool of protection against tyranny. Trouble is we would have to impeach the majority in Congress too. "The whole head is sick and the whole heart faint".

Channel 13 news this morning put the real unemployment / underemployment rate at 17.5 percent, since the ten percent figure only counts those receiving unemployment benefit. There are those whose benefits have run out, whose benefits were never claimed, and who are only part-time employees.

Even the 17 and a half percent figure is artificially low though. I am sure that there are a few millions who retired prematurely because they couldn't find work and who are receiving a much reduced SS payment in consequence.

All in all there can be no less than one in four or five who are unemployed or underemployed. What has Congress, led and egged on by Obama, done? Passed unprecedented spending bills and otherwise interfered in the economy, obstructing its recovery.

SKB | 8:24 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

I have to assume that Mr. Petersen believes we should have let the "free market" work and allowed the major financial institutions fail. The irony in that logic is if the government had allowed Wall Street to utterly fail and had not managed GM's and Chryslers bankruptcy, he is right that we wouldn't be looking at 10% unemployment. We would be looking at 25% unemployment, and I am sure that Mr. Petersen would have been writing in to scream that the "Do Nothing" government is letting us all starve to death, right after he went through the government bread line to get his daily loaf.

It is easy and fun to criticize those whose politics you disagree with. It is much harder to come up with real solutions to difficult problems.

To: Roland Kayser | 8:32 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

Please stay off the mushrooms. Try 13%

RedShirt | 8:39 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

TO "john | 4:26 a.m." and where was Obama for the 2 years prior to being President?

Let me tell you, he was in the Senate VOTING FOR the very policies that got us where we are. He has been part of the problem for 3 years now.

Anonymous | 8:57 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

Clearly the writer and supporter do not understand the economy. The lag effect is enormous. Double digit unemployment was predicted in 2008 to happen. Plus this is selective use of numbers to support a pre-determined conclusion. The numbers indicate that the economy is starting to recover. In 2010 or 2011, will you give the President credit? I doubt it. Shows a lack of intellectual honesty.

I still blame Bush | 9:08 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

That man invented wars, not jobs.

Hypocrisy | 9:45 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

Send them to wars!

Unemployment high? Employ them in the US military and our unemployment woes are solved!

It's the GOP way!

wallofvoodoo | 9:58 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

If we didn't have to spend a mint on health insurance where I work, we could probably hire more people.

@Would be worse | 11:05 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

Would have been, could have been, should have been, you are using one of the classic fallacious arguments. When policies don't work, the cry is always, it would have been worse. The dim fall for these arguments. Government spending, raising taxes are always loser economic policies.

Brother Chuck Schroeder | 11:37 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

You bet it did Gray, our national jobless rate climbed to 10.2 percent in October, and is growing much larger as well. The next great depression is coming our way faster then normal to. I do NOT see the GOP rushing to our aid with either, they all hope Obamanation fails, and, everything falls on its face, to point the finger of blame again toward the Democrats, and, try to get re-elected again in 2010. THe Demo's sit back and talk a good storm, yet twiddle their thumbs and do nothing, in fear of doing the wrong thing, and, net getting re-elected in 2010 also. It's much eaiser for them to keep giving extentions to State's and money. They love a BIG PROBLEM, that was created, so the bureaucrat's can jump in, fill their deep pockets, with a shortcut cure that might work. The GOP's economic policies for unemployment are "TO BAD" suffer, you should of hoarded, worked 10 jobs (JOB = Just Over Broke), saved, stashed away, until this all is over with, and bought plenty of guns and amo, for when the riots break-out and the looting starts. TRUTH?.

Bro Chuck's Rant's n Rave's | 11:56 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

Why the growing jobeless rate?, because they say the dollar is now worthless.

Like much of the rhetoric from policymakers, it sounds good. But it never translates into meaningful action. Maybe Mr. Bernanke is trying to distance himself from the dollar’s ongoing problems and put the blame on Congress and the President by highlighting that they are failing to maintain a “sustainable fiscal” policy. But like Alan Greenspan who is now trying to re-write history and put the blame for the housing bubble on anyone but himself, the reality is that Mr. Bernanke cannot totally blame politicians.

He could do what Paul Volcker did, and raise dollar interest rates to send a message to the market that he will not allow the dollar to be destroyed. But that is not likely to happen. There has been no indication that Mr. Bernanke will raise interest rates anytime soon, much less raise them to the level needed to convince the market that he intends to preserve the purchasing power of the dollar.

Sadly, the dollar is no longer as good as gold. It is now only as good as the empty rhetoric of politicians and central bankers

Anonymous | 1:06 p.m. Nov. 9, 2009

I'm sure that, in about 8 years or so, we'll finally hear the liberals admit that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are to blame for current problems (or lack of solutons) in this country - but I'm not getting my hopes up.

unemployment not important | 1:32 p.m. Nov. 9, 2009

Obviously Obama cares more about getting his big government programs in place than getting unemployment down. Shamefully, Obama and Pelosi are joined at the hip and have focused 100% of their attention to getting Obama-care rammed down the throats of American's and all at the expense of increasing unemployment. New taxes for businesses and individuals are coming to support Obama-care which will further erode the employment picture in America but who cares about employment? Right???? I could easily see unemployment rising to 11% by the 2010 elections and hopefully that will be enough to get rid of enough democrats in congress to reclaim our country from the clutches of the Obama radicals.

Roland Kayser | 5:15 p.m. Nov. 9, 2009

To the person who responded to me at 8:32:
Try doing a little research before you insult me. The unemployment rate was 7.8% in July of 1980, the highest rate for any month of the Carter presidency. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. What was your source for that 13% figure?

Re Roland Kayser | 8:34 p.m. Nov. 9, 2009

Yes Unemployment officially only hit 7.8% under Carter with Inflation of 12.8%.....Carter is credited with reagans 1982 unemployment and recession as he created it.....The difference between 1982 and now is that Ronald Reagan knew that lower tax rates and less government was the path out of that recession. History proved him right. He didn't rely on more government intervention, higher taxes, cap and trade, and a bogus Stimulus Plan that was nothing more than pork to get us out, because he knew that it would not. This administration, and the congressmen who go along with him on both sides of the eisle don't get it, or have their own agenda. 10.2% is not the ceiling....economists are now predicting 11% by mid 2010.....Blame it on Obamanomics!

Yep. BO made history and made the change. Instead of collecting income we collect unemployment.. Great CHANGE isn't it?
Can not blame The Bush Administration for this one!
THIS IS OBAMA's RESPONSIBILITY!!!

Roland Kayser | 10:17 p.m. Nov. 9, 2009

To Re Roland Kayser 8:34:
Today's recession is fundamentally different from the 81-82 recession. After Jimmy Carter appointed Paul Volker as Fed chairman, he raised interest rates to all-time highs, puropsefully inducing a recession to break the great inflation of the seventies. When Volker thought that inflation was under control, he lowered rates and the economy came back rapidly.
Today's recession was caused by a collapse of the finacial system and will be far harder to remedy.
Also, it is a myth that Reagan reduced government. The only postwar president to reduce the government as a share of GDP was Bill Clinton.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.