New Jobless numbers and more BLAME

[O Really]

... informed....

There's yer problem!

[Colonel Taylor]

You don't think it has anything to do with the Obamacare or a economy do ya? !

No, I haven't seen anything to show that might be the case. No numbers showing a slowing economy. And nothing about Obamacare changed from November 1 to November 15.

The ultimate denial if ever there was one, so Nov. 6th didn't fall between these dates and you don't think business will shed jobs to keep up with paying for Obamacare?


But if you've got an article or some credible reference that links the employment issues in your article with slowing economy or Obamacare, I'll be happy to read it.

[O Really]

The ultimate denial if ever there was one, so Nov. 6th didn't fall between these dates and you don't think business will shed jobs to keep up with paying for Obamacare?

The election was between those dates. Nothing changed in the "Obamacare" law that would have affected the unemployed in your article.

No, I don't think "business will shed jobs to keep up with paying for Obamacare." Again, if you've got evidence to that affect, bring it out.

Business (collectively) has a long habit of crying wolf over everything that comes down the pike. The screaming that occurred after first passage of the FLSA makes Obamacare screaming look really tame. They screamed about CRA64, and got over it. They screamed over ERISA, and got over it. They screamed over OSHA, and got over it. They scream about going out of business every time the minimum wage goes up, but they always get over it. They screamed about ADA and ADEA, and got over it. They screamed about FMLA, and got over it. Yes, I'm pretty sure they'll get over "Obamacare," too.

[O Really]

If anyone is interested in real data instead of propaganda, the 2012 Kaiser report is here... http://www.kff.org/insurance/upload/7670-03.pdf

BRW, Colonel, the average employer who now has an employee health care plan pays about 13% of payroll for that plan. An employer without a plan who implements the minimum requirement under Obamacare would be significantly less. No, I don't anybody is going to close an otherwise profitable business because of medical insurance requirements.

[Colonel Taylor]

If Obamacare allows the poor and middle class to spend more, reduces medical bankruptcies, improves family stability, improves employee health or any combination of these, business might be better off. Not that Colonel Taylor, who has never had an original thought, will ever stop believing the self-serving Chicken Littles predicting otherwise. Heck, he'll even still believe them if they happen to be proven wrong in a couple of years.

There are a group of folks/families who will never pay medical bills or get insurance. I offered it for my employees and their families got a discount over the reg. price and many just didn't want it. Both my attorney and ins. agent made them sign a few different papers stating they refused. A few gave us a hard time because they wanted me to have them sign such a paper. I still today know a few who do not have health insurance and can well afford it.

[O Really]

If Obamacare allows the poor and middle class to spend more, reduces medical bankruptcies, improves family stability, improves employee health or any combination of these, business might be better off. Not that Colonel Taylor, who has never had an original thought, will ever stop believing the self-serving Chicken Littles predicting otherwise. Heck, he'll even still believe them if they happen to be proven wrong in a couple of years.

There are a group of folks/families who will never pay medical bills or get insurance. I offered it for my employees and their families got a discount over the reg. price and many just didn't want it. Both my attorney and ins. agent made them sign a few different papers stating they refused. A few gave us a hard time because they wanted me to have them sign such a paper. I still today know a few who do not have health insurance and can well afford it.

No doubt that occurred. But just because you had some who declined, and there might be others, is that a good reason to drop the attempt to get as close to universal coverage as possible?

[Colonel Taylor]

If Obamacare allows the poor and middle class to spend more, reduces medical bankruptcies, improves family stability, improves employee health or any combination of these, business might be better off. Not that Colonel Taylor, who has never had an original thought, will ever stop believing the self-serving Chicken Littles predicting otherwise. Heck, he'll even still believe them if they happen to be proven wrong in a couple of years.

There are a group of folks/families who will never pay medical bills or get insurance. I offered it for my employees and their families got a discount over the reg. price and many just didn't want it. Both my attorney and ins. agent made them sign a few different papers stating they refused. A few gave us a hard time because they wanted me to have them sign such a paper. I still today know a few who do not have health insurance and can well afford it.

No doubt that occurred. But just because you had some who declined, and there might be others, is that a good reason to drop the attempt to get as close to universal coverage as possible?

I feel the same way as I do about foreclosures and repossessions. If you buy it and can't pay for it there should be a lean against you for life. Not like a foreclosure where you screw a bank then buy another home the next day. It's BS.

[O Really]

Well, the Colonel has a point. We could bring back debtor's prison, or send the union thugs to break the non-payer's knees. Or just let them die if they didn't buy insurance. Eventually everyone left walking and alive would be covered.

[Colonel Taylor]

You're partially right anyway! So you don't think folks played the banks, there's two just on my hill.

[Bungalow Bill]

As usual Col. Thorny could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he had just carefully read the
article he linked.:


Super storm Sandy drove the number of people seeking unemployment benefits up to a seasonally adjusted 439,000 last week, the highest level in 18 months.

The Labor Department said Thursday that weekly applications increased by 78,000 mostly because a large number of applications were filed in states damaged by the storm. People can claim unemployment benefits if their workplaces close and they don't get paid.

The storm has affected the claims data for the past two weeks and may distort reports for another two weeks, the department has said.

The four-week average of applications, a less volatile number, increased to 383,750.

Sandy hit the East Coast on Oct. 29 and disrupted businesses from North Carolina to Maine. The storm also cut power to roughly 8 million homes and businesses. Some are still without power.

Before the storm distorted the figures, weekly applications had fluctuated between 360,000 and 390,000 since January. At the same time, employers have added an average of nearly 157,000 jobs a month. That's barely enough to lower the unemployment rate, which was 7.9 percent in October.

[Colonel Taylor]

Not as much as the banks encouraged it, and then played the entire nation and world.

As usual Vred BLAMES the BANKS instead of the deadbeats. Have to love liberals. I have yet to hear one story where the banks put a gun to anyone's head and MADE them get a Loan, wonder why?

[Supsalemgr]

Not as much as the banks encouraged it, and then played the entire nation and world.

As usual Vred BLAMES the BANKS instead of the deadbeats. Have to love liberals. I have yet to hear one story where the banks put a gun to anyone's head and MADE them get a Loan, wonder why?

Let us not forget the influence of Chris Dodd and Barney Frank that "encouraged" these banks to make knowingly bad loans. No worry, we will buy them and Fannie and fredie takes the hit.

[Colonel Taylor]

As usual Col. Thorny could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he had just carefully read the
article he linked.:


Super storm Sandy drove the number of people seeking unemployment benefits up to a seasonally adjusted 439,000 last week, the highest level in 18 months.




The Labor Department said Thursday that weekly applications increased by 78,000 mostly because a large number of applications were filed in states damaged by the storm. People can claim unemployment benefits if their workplaces close and they don't get paid.

This is not the case! NY,NJ and Conn only seen a rise of 6500 application. NY seen a decrease because of the folks not being able to file. Which means it's actually worse then being forecast.

The storm has affected the claims data for the past two weeks and may distort reports for another two weeks, the department has said.

The four-week average of applications, a less volatile number, increased to 383,750.

Sandy hit the East Coast on Oct. 29 and disrupted businesses from North Carolina to Maine. The storm also cut power to roughly 8 million homes and businesses. Some are still without power.

Before the storm distorted the figures, weekly applications had fluctuated between 360,000 and 390,000 since January. At the same time, employers have added an average of nearly 157,000 jobs a month. That's barely enough to lower the unemployment rate, which was 7.9 percent in October.

[rstrong]

Let us not forget the influence of Chris Dodd and Barney Frank that "encouraged" these banks to make knowingly bad loans. No worry, we will buy them and Fannie and fredie takes the hit.

That's an old Republicon myth *1 related to the Community Reinvestment Act.

And make no mistake, it was indeed a myth.

Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans.
[...]
And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA — or any federal regulator. Law didn’t make them lend. The profit motive did.

*1 - also known as an outright lie.

[Colonel Taylor]

Let us not forget the influence of Chris Dodd and Barney Frank that "encouraged" these banks to make knowingly bad loans. No worry, we will buy them and Fannie and fredie takes the hit.

That's an old Republicon myth *1 related to the Community Reinvestment Act.

And make no mistake, it was indeed a myth.

Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans.
[...]
And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA — or any federal regulator. Law didn’t make them lend. The profit motive did.

*1 - also known as an outright lie.

Just quote the most left leaning liberal magazine in NY, it's OK w believe them.

[Colonel Taylor]

Not as much as the banks encouraged it, and then played the entire nation and world.

As usual Vred BLAMES the BANKS instead of the deadbeats. Have to love liberals. I have yet to hear one story where the banks put a gun to anyone's head and MADE them get a Loan, wonder why?

Let us not forget the influence of Chris Dodd and Barney Frank that "encouraged" these banks to make knowingly bad loans. No worry, we will buy them and Fannie and fredie takes the hit.

What you have heard and refuse to understand or admit is that the banks and brokers were far more knowledgeable than the borrowers, that they didn't care because they were bundling the loans and re-selling the securities at a huge profit, that these mortgage backed securities were always an unsustainable invention, that the banks and brokers knew it was a house of cards while the borrowers did not, that the Dodd-Frank contribution is an exaggerated lie as rstrong proves, and that even if it were true, the GOP had 6 years of absolute control to fix anything they did and instead chose not to.

As usual, Supsalemgr and Colonel Taylor ignore the facts, invent new ones, BLAME the weakest, least informed, least culpable players rather than holding the true perps responsible and admitting their own gullibility and electoral contribution.

You quoted a left leaning magazine nothing more. Also if you are to stupid to know you have to pay back a loan you shouldn't be getting one. Show me one case where a banker put a gun to anyone's head to take a loan?

[rstrong]

Not as much as the banks encouraged it, and then played the entire nation and world.

As usual Vred BLAMES the BANKS instead of the deadbeats. Have to love liberals. I have yet to hear one story where the banks put a gun to anyone's head and MADE them get a Loan, wonder why?

Lay off the hallucinogens. It's only the voices in your head claiming that "the banks put a gun to anyone's head and MADE them get a Loan." You've been listening to those voices a lot lately.

As for the banks *encouraging* liar loans, yes, Vrede is quite correct.

It used to be that if the bank handed you a mortgage and you defaulted on it, it was the bank's loss. That made them careful about loaning money.

Then Clinton and later Bush II deregulated the banks, which led to a change in the mortgage industry.

Now suddenly those mortgages were bundled up and turned into investment bonds. Now it was the investors who were on the line for any losses. Now there was a complete disconnect between those handing out the mortgages, and the risk.

Which naturally led to "liar loans", where the industry as a whole urged people to lie about their finances to get a loan. Those handing out mortgages had nothing to lose and everything to gain.

But here's where things got crazy: The investment banking system created a demand for the riskiest subprime-backed bonds, because they were worth betting against.

And when there weren't enough bad mortgages the investment banks created them - a hundred times over, out of thin air, by "cloning" those risky bonds. Think of it this way: You insure your house for it's true value. But then a hundred other people ALSO insure your house for the same value. When it burns down the insurance company has to pay out a hundred times the value of your house. You can't blame the bulk of those bad mortgages on deadbeats and liberals, because they existed only on paper, created by the banks.

THAT was the main problem, and a big reason why the mortgage holders couldn't be bailed out. Too many of them existed only on paper. And it wasn't even illegal.

Of course there weren't enough investors willing to make such high-risk investments. No problem: The folks who should have warned the investors - bond rating companies like Standard & Poors - were instead in on the scam. (Just like Arthur Anderson was in on Enron's scams rather than acting as an impartial outside auditor for investors.) High-risk, doomed bonds were rated as low risk. You can't blame that on deadbeats and liberals either.

[Bungalow Bill]

So Col. Thorny knows more about the unemployment picture than the Dept. of Labor, which was
quoted in the very link he posted?



Sandy hit the East Coast on Oct. 29 and disrupted businesses from North Carolina to Maine.
The storm also cut power to roughly 8 million homes and businesses. Some are still without
power.

[Colonel Taylor]

Not as much as the banks encouraged it, and then played the entire nation and world.

As usual Vred BLAMES the BANKS instead of the deadbeats. Have to love liberals. I have yet to hear one story where the banks put a gun to anyone's head and MADE them get a Loan, wonder why?

Lay off the hallucinogens. It's only the voices in your head claiming that "the banks put a gun to anyone's head and MADE them get a Loan." You've been listening to those voices a lot lately.

As for the banks *encouraging* liar loans, yes, Vrede is quite correct.

It used to be that if the bank handed you a mortgage and you defaulted on it, it was the bank's loss. That made them careful about loaning money.

Then Clinton and later Bush II deregulated the banks, which led to a change in the mortgage industry.

Now suddenly those mortgages were bundled up and turned into investment bonds. Now it was the investors who were on the line for any losses. Now there was a complete disconnect between those handing out the mortgages, and the risk.

Which naturally led to "liar loans", where the industry as a whole urged people to lie about their finances to get a loan. Those handing out mortgages had nothing to lose and everything to gain.

But here's where things got crazy: The investment banking system created a demand for the riskiest subprime-backed bonds, because they were worth betting against.

And when there weren't enough bad mortgages the investment banks created them - a hundred times over, out of thin air, by "cloning" those risky bonds. Think of it this way: You insure your house for it's true value. But then a hundred other people ALSO insure your house for the same value. When it burns down the insurance company has to pay out a hundred times the value of your house. You can't blame the bulk of those bad mortgages on deadbeats and liberals, because they existed only on paper, created by the banks.

THAT was the main problem, and a big reason why the mortgage holders couldn't be bailed out. Too many of them existed only on paper. And it wasn't even illegal.

Of course there weren't enough investors willing to make such high-risk investments. No problem: The folks who should have warned the investors - bond rating companies like Standard & Poors - were instead in on the scam. (Just like Arthur Anderson was in on Enron's scams rather than acting as an impartial outside auditor for investors.) High-risk, doomed bonds were rated as low risk. You can't blame that on deadbeats and liberals either.

We're going to rename strong the blamer in chief. It's the fault of anyone who didn't pay back the loan they took out. As a lib you don't understand that I see.

[rstrong]

[We're going to rename strong the blamer in chief.

Says the one who absolutely insists on laying blame where he personally wants to lay it, regardless of all facts and sources, including the ones he himself posts.

It's the fault of anyone who didn't pay back the loan they took out.

Absolutely it's partially their fault for gambling that housing prices would keep going up. But the banks who encouraged them to take out liar loans for their own share of the profits, share the blame.

But that's just the mortgages that actually existed. Just who do you attribute the blame to for all those mortgages that existed only on paper, with no actual homebuyer or borrower, if not the banks?

I won't hold my breath for a rational answer.