Misery Index: The Obama Depression - "Private sector doing just Fine"

[Soul Crusher]

Jobless Claims Stuck Above 400,000, Productivity Falls.Article Comments (9)
MarketBeat
by Mark Gongloff


Stock futures are rallying for some strange reason, though the morning’s plate of economic data was sort of ugly.

Jobless claims came in at 409,000, just a little higher than the 407,000 economists expected. The prior week’s claims were revised up, as they always are, to 421,000 from 417,000. This level of claims is really too high and indicates the job market isn’t healthy, even if it’s not quite on its deathbed.

Second quarter productivity was revised down to a decline of 0.7%, the biggest drop since the fourth quarter of 2008, from a first reading of -0.3%. It has fallen for three quarters in a row, for the first time since 1979.

Some might say that falling productivity could be good if it means businesses are going to hire more people, but falling productivity is really hard to spin as great news. It’s bad for living standards, raises inflation risks and hurts corporate profits.

Stock futures haven’t moved much. Dow futures are down 12 points, S&P futures are down about 2.

The 10-year Treasury note’s yield is at 2.21%, down a bit from yesterday.

Update: The market has opened a little higher, perhaps in the hope that the Fed will rush in with more stimulus. Here’s why such hopes are hypocritical.

[Soul Crusher]

Sam Stein
 stein@huffingtonpost.com
 
White House Report: Unemployment Rate Above 6 Percent Until 2016
 

First Posted: 9/1/11 01:46 PM ET Updated: 9/1/11 02:01 PM ET



WASHINGTON -- A series of sharp spending battles and a wave of new tax receipts have improved the nation's long-term fiscal outlook, a new report by the Obama administration concludes. But the jobs crisis remains a major problem for lawmakers, as the White House projects the unemployment rate to remain above nine percent in 2012 and not fall below six percent until 2016.

The Office of Management and Budget released its Mid-Session Review (MSR) on Thursday, updating the forecasts that it completed last November and released last February when it put together its 2012 budget outline. The findings are a bit rosier, but are largely consistent with other economic analyses. On the jobs-front, the news remains largely grim.

The administration projections, which were based off of data up through June, have the unemployment rate at an average of 8.8 percent in 2011, 8.3 percent in 2012 and 7.7 percent in 2013. Those numbers are a touch better than projections made by the Congressional Budget Office, which pegged unemployment to be at 8.9 percent in 2011 and 8.7 percent in 2012-2013. In an effort to take into consideration changes in the economic climate that have occurred since June, however, OMB offers an "alternative economic forecast" along with the Mid-Session Review. Under that model, the unemployment rate takes even longer to decline, going from 9.0 percent in 2012, to 8.5 percent in 2013 to 7.8 percent in 2014. In 2016 it hits 6.1 percent.

The slow uptick in aggregate hiring -- both in the MSR and the alternative forecast -- is owed to a less-than-ideal uptick in the nation's growth domestic product (economic growth is expected to average 2.5 percent in the long run) as well as "discouraged workers" rejoining the labor force as labor market conditions improve.

While the jobs crisis has proved tough to turn, lawmakers have managed to chip away at the deficit. As a result of both higher-than-expected tax receipts and legislation to avert a government shutdown and a Treasury default, the nation's fiscal outlook has improved from earlier projections. According to the OMB, the 2011 deficit is now estimated to be $1.316 trillion, a 20 percent reduction from the $1.645 trillion estimate made this past winter. As a percentage of gross domestic product, the authors write, "the deficit is now projected to equal 8.8 percent, down from 10.9 percent projected in February."

The long-term outlook has also improved. Owing to $2 trillion in expected savings from the winding down of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as an expected $1.5 trillion in savings set to be recommended by a congressional super committee, the deficit as a percentage of GDP will be brought down to approximately 2.2 percent in ten years, the OMB concludes.



That number still means that the nation's debt will rise, just at a slower pace. For 2012, debt held by the public -- as in debt not held for foreign sovereignties -- is projected to increase to $11.307 trillion, or 72.1 percent of GDP. That number will rise to 73.5 percent of GDP in 2013. By the end of the 10-year budget window, the OMB projects that it will be reduced to 70.5 percent of GDP.

Beneath the macro numbers, the MSR provides some specific insights into how the nation's economy has stalled for workers during the past two years. In particular, the report shows that while corporate profits have grown at a fast rate over the past three years, labor compensation has fallen below the long-run average.


In 2009, domestic corporate profits were $906 billion. By 2011, that number had risen to $1.322 trillion -- an increase of roughly 46 percent. During that same time period, employee compensation went from $7.812 trillion to $8.264 trillion -- an increase of just 5.7 percent.

Unemployment compensation, however, is on the decline when compared to projections that were made in February. The OMB calculates that the government will spend $11 billion less on unemployment benefits in 2011 and $17 billion less on unemployment benefits in 2012 than it initially planned. That reduction is "driven by a lower-than-expected insured unemployment rate as well as a decline in the average weekly unemployment benefit," the study notes.



________________________ ________________________ __

LMFAO!   


and the Stim Bill was going to keep UE under 8% too. 

[Soul Crusher]

 

[Fury]

How bad are tomorrow's jobs numbers going to be? Even Goldman is only predicting a NFP of +25k so it'll probably print at -100k given their ability to not predict anything correctly. 

[Soul Crusher]

Poll: 81% say Obama economic policies not working
Washington Examiner ^ | September 6, 2011 | Byron York


There's a lot of terrible news for President Obama in new polls by the Washington Post-ABC News and the Wall Street Journal-NBC News.  The number of Americans who say the country is on the wrong track has risen to its highest level since just before Obama took office -- into what one commentator calls the "incumbent death zone." His job approval rating is down.  The number of people who disapprove of his handling of the economy is rocketing upward.  And then there is this question, asked by the Post-ABC:

Do you think Obama's economic program is making the economy better, making it worse, or having no real effect?

Just 17 percent say the president's program is making the economy better, while 34 percent say Obama's program is making the economy worse and 47 percent say it is having no real effect.  Combine those last two numbers, and 81 percent say the Obama economic program is not working -- a devastating number in a country in which economic concerns top all other issues in voters' minds.


As far as the traditional right-track/wrong-track question is concerned, 77 percent of those surveyed by the Post-ABC say the country is on the wrong track, while just 20 percent say it is on the right track.  The last time that number was so high in the Post-ABC poll was January 16, 2009, on the eve of Obama's inauguration, when 78 percent of those surveyed said the country was on the wrong track.  If Obama does not reverse the trend in the wrong-track number, it could approach the levels it reached in the last months of the George W. Bush administration, when it topped 80 percent.

As for opinion on how Obama is handling the economy, 62 percent disapprove of his job performance on economic issues in the new Post-ABC poll, while just 36 percent approve.  In the Journal-NBC poll, those numbers are 59 percent disapproval versus 37 percent approval.  Finally, on the question of general job approval, Obama is down to 43 percent approval in the Post-ABC poll and 44 percent in the Journal-NBC poll.  His disapproval ratings are 53 percent and 51 percent, respectively.

All that adds up to a president in major trouble as he faces re-election next year.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Soul Crusher]

More restaurants are targeting customers who use food stamps
USA Today | 9/05/2011 | Jonathan Ellis and Megan Luther



Gannett paper. Link only:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/story/2011-09-05/More-restaurants-are-targeting-customers-who-use-food-stamps/50267864/1

[Deicide]

More restaurants are targeting customers who use food stamps
USA Today | 9/05/2011 | Jonathan Ellis and Megan Luther



Gannett paper. Link only:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/story/2011-09-05/More-restaurants-are-targeting-customers-who-use-food-stamps/50267864/1

[Soul Crusher]

September 6, 2011
An Economics Lesson Even a Liberal Can Grasp
By Herbert E. Meyer


The more President Obama calls for a second stimulus spending spree to create those jobs the first spending spree failed to create, the more he sounds like the grocer in that old joke about the lady who wants her money back because the dietetic ice cream the grocer talked her into buying hasn't helped her lose weight.  The grocer thinks for a moment and says, "Eat more of it."

Since the president and his advisers haven't got a clue about how our economy works -- which isn't surprising, since these people have less practical business experience than any kid with a lemonade stand -- here's an economics lesson so short and simple even a liberal can grasp it:

The key point to understand is that an economy is a kind of operating system.  This means that if you want the economy to "do" something -- such as create more jobs -- you have to go about it the way the operating system is designed to work.  Otherwise you cannot possibly succeed.

Think of it this way: our cell phones have operating systems built into them.  There's no Republican way to make a phone call with your iPhone, and no Democratic way to do it.  There's no conservative approach to checking your email with a BlackBerry or an Android, and no liberal approach to doing it.  You just do it the way your cell phone's operating system requires.

It's the same with an economy.  Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of economic operating systems: a free-market economy and a command economy.  In a free-market economy, the government sets the rules and enforces them, but otherwise stays out of the way and allows individuals and businesses to call the shots.  In a command economy, the government's role is so large that it not only sets and enforces the rules, but also calls the shots.

Because each country -- unlike each cell phone owner -- designs its own economic operating system, no two economies are precisely the same.  So our country's free market is somewhat different from Canada's, which itself isn't quite the same as Germany's, Poland's, France's, Australia's, and so forth.  Still, in all free-market economies, the government makes and enforces the rules, and then gets out of the way.  Likewise with command economies: left-wing communist economies differ somewhat from right-wing fascist economies, but once again, the similarities are more important than the differences.  In all command economies, you do what the government tells you to do, or you get your brains kicked in.

Entrepreneurs Create Jobs

In a free-market economy like ours, it's the entrepreneurs who create jobs.  They do this by starting new businesses, and by expanding businesses that are already up and running.  If you want to create more jobs, you create an environment in which entrepreneurs will thrive.  They'll take it from there, because creating jobs by starting and expanding businesses is what thriving entrepreneurs do.

Think of it this way: if you want more milk, create an environment in which cows will thrive.  And just as it makes no sense to say you want more milk but oppose cows because they're smelly, dirty, and leave their droppings all over the place -- it makes no sense to say you want more jobs but oppose entrepreneurs because when they succeed they often wind up with more money than the rest of us.  You cannot have it both ways.

Entrepreneurs thrive when they are confident about the future.  Every time an entrepreneur makes a decision to start a new business, or to expand his business by launching a new product or service, he or she is putting his own money -- and his employees' futures -- on the line.  So an entrepreneur wants to know what taxes he's going to pay in the years ahead.  He wants to know what his costs will be for high-priced expenses such as his employees' health care.  He wants some certainty that the regulations in place when he launches that new product or service won't change six months later and destroy his investment overnight.  And an entrepreneur wants some confidence that the overall economy will be sufficiently robust to provide customers who'll buy that new product or service and by doing so enable the entrepreneur to earn back his investment and make some profit besides.

Why did the world's largest and most powerful economy create zero jobs in August?  It's because our country's entrepreneurs lack confidence in the future.  They cannot calculate what taxes they'll pay, they cannot calculate their costs for health care, they have no idea what new regulations may suddenly appear that will cripple their investments, and they don't believe the customers they'll need to buy their products and services will be there.

Most of all -- and this is anecdotal rather than statistical -- many of our country's entrepreneurs have come to believe that the president and his liberal allies in Congress are out to get them -- that their ultimate objective is to turn our free-market economy into a command economy.

Our CEOs Have Had Enough

Let me give you one example to illustrate this point: in the course of my lecture business I meet a great many owners of small- and medium-sized companies -- precisely the men and women we depend upon to create jobs for all the rest of us.  One evening, when my lecture to a group of these entrepreneurs had ended and we were all having a drink in the hotel bar, the CEO of a rock-solid manufacturing company said something that stopped the conversation cold: "I'll be damned before I start hiring people now, just in time to send the unemployment rate plunging so it re-elects the president next year.  In a second term, this guy'll kill my business."  There was a dead silence, and then every other business owner at the table nodded in agreement.

The point isn't whether these CEOs are right or wrong.  The point is that this is what they've come to believe, and their actions will be based upon their perceptions.  For all of us who depend on our country's entrepreneurs to create jobs -- which is to say, for all of us without safe government jobs -- this is more than depressing.  It's terrifying.

Let's go back to the observation that an economy, like a cell phone, has an operating system built into it.  Imagine that you have a new cell phone, and you ask me how to make a call.  I tell you to punch in a phone number, then rub the phone against your leg and fling it against the wall.  Did your call go through?  No?  Okay, I say, now try it again -- but this time fling your phone harder.  Your call still didn't go through?  Would you like to try it a third time?  Or have you finally figured out that I have no idea what I'm talking about; that if you keep listening to me you're going to break your phone; that it's time to settle down, read the operator's manual, and do it the way your cell phone's operating system is designed to work?

The good news is that our economy is more resilient than our cell phones.  It can take a lot of abuse and still be made to work if only we start doing things the right way.  The bad news is that if we keep doing things to create jobs that make absolutely no sense and cannot possibly work, at some point even the world's most powerful and dynamic economy will be broken beyond repair.

And that's a lesson in economics even a liberal can understand.

Herbert E. Meyer served during the Reagan administration as special assistant to the director of Central Intelligence and vice chairman of the CIA's National Intelligence Council.  He is the author of two eBooks, How to Analyze Information and The Cure for Poverty.


Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/09/an_economics_lesson_even_a_liberal_can_grasp.html at September 06, 2011 - 09:48:13 AM CDT

[Soul Crusher]

Why the markets are giving up hope
By CHARLES GASPARINO
Last Updated: 12:17 AM, September 7, 2011




There was once a time when trouble in foreign markets, whether in Asia or as now in Europe, would be good for US stocks.

Sure, our markets can get hammered when news like the 1997 Asian currency crisis hits. But we often make a comeback as investors digest the news and come to the conclusion that the best place to bet for future growth is on the companies at the heart of the US economy.

No longer.

And it’s not just the zero-percent job growth and 9.1 percent unemployment we’ve got now.

The mainstream business media will tell you that the problem lies in the “dysfunction of Washington.” In other words, the economic slump and all the market turbulence, including yesterday’s 100-point drop in the Dow, stem from a bipartisan cause -- lawmakers and President Obama can’t manage to craft a sensible plan to grow the economy.

But talk to enough investors, and they’ll tell you this isn’t really a bipartisan problem. Rather, it largely remains at the top, meaning with Obama and his economic advisers -- who, when they aren’t threatening to raise the taxes of “millionaires and billionaires” who make just $200,000 a year, are offering up the leftovers of previously failed economic policies, such as this “infrastructure bank” gimmick that the president plans to unveil in what’s being billed as a major economic speech later in the week.

The stock market bounced back after the 1997 Asian crisis because investors had much to look forward to as the Clinton administration, prodded by a Republican-led Congress, embraced a pro-growth agenda of tax cuts and welfare reform.

Contrast that to what we have now: an administration looking to purge high unemployment and slow growth with an “infrastructure bank” -- which might put a few construction workers back to work, but can’t come close to reversing the Great Recession.

Put aside the fact that such government-mandated “infrastructure spending” often leads to fraud and waste; the history of such plans actually creating enough new jobs to spur significant economic growth is pretty dismal.

Whether it was FDR’s Works Projects Administration in the 1930s, the stimulus offered by President George W. Bush just before the financial crisis went into high gear, or Obama’s nearly $1 trillion spending spree in his first year, government mandated growth plans fail to deliver and often make a bad situation even worse. The spending has to be paid for -- and whether that means higher taxes or new debt, it’s not worth the price.

The markets -- that is, investors who are paid to bet on the future of US prosperity -- know this history all too well. They also know we now have $14 trillion in debt that Obama’s “infrastructure” gimmick will only add to. And they know that this president is either too economically naá¯ve or too ideologically rigid to reverse course from his failed policies.

Then there’s the other “big idea” expected in his upcoming speech -- extending the “payroll tax cut.” First off, the cut that’s already in place hasn’t worked any miracles so far. Plus, everyone knows it’s only temporary -- and he’s looking to raise income taxes on a permanent basis.

And that’s why investors are increasingly tuning him out.

“Markets tend to be smart,” says David Ader, a strategist at CRT Capital Group, “or [at least] capable of learning. Thus if we constantly hear the same optimistic plans from politicians and they keep failing, eventually we’ll learn not to pay too much attention.”

We can only hope investors tune out the president’s speech on Thursday. The last time they listened to what he was saying about the economy, when he addressed the country after the S&P downgrade, the Dow dropped more than 600 points.

Charles Gasparino is a Fox Business Network senior correspondent.



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/why_the_markets_are_giving_up_hope_q2D53DMfhkalgghCpp3WOK#ixzz1XGZCfhKc

[Soul Crusher]

New jobless claims rise, July trade gap narrows

A man and woman enter a job fair at the Phoenix Workforce Connection in Phoenix, Arizona August 30,

2011. REUTERS/Joshua Lott

On Thursday September 8, 2011, 9:14 am

By Pedro Nicolaci da Costa


WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The number of Americans filing new claims for jobless benefits rose unexpectedly last week, further evidence of a weak labor market just hours before President Barack Obama unveils a plan on job creation in a major address to Congress.

A separate report showed a considerably narrower trade deficit for July, a positive signal for growth in the third quarter after a sluggish first half of the year.

Applications for unemployment benefits rose to 414,000 in the week ending September 3 from an upwardly revised 412,000 the prior week, the Labor Department said on Thursday. Wall Street analysts had been looking for a dip to 405,000.

"Jobless claims numbers have been stabilizing in recent weeks. We're probably seeing an economy that's just growing slowly," said Gary Thayer, chief macro strategist at Wells Fargo Advisors in St. Louis.

U.S. stock index futures extended losses after the data, while Treasury debt prices held gains.

Excluding one week in early August, claims have held above 400,000 since early April. The Labor Department said there was no discernible effect from recent hurricanes and storms on the national figures this week.

The four-week moving average of claims, which smooths out volatility, rose to 414,750 from 411,000 the prior week.

Continuing claims eased to 3.72 million from 3.75 million in the week ended August 27, the latest available data. The number of total recipients on benefit rolls was 7.17 million in the August 20 week.

TRADE HELPS

U.S. employment growth ground to a halt in August, with zero net job creation raising fears of a new recession and putting pressure on the Federal Reserve to ease monetary policy further at its meeting later this month.

But in a respite from the negative news, the trade gap shrank to $44.8 billion in July, Commerce Department data showed, down sharply from June's $53.1 billion deficit and much lower than forecasts around $51 billion.

The 13.1 percent decline was the biggest month-to-month percentage drop in the deficit since February 2009.

"The trade numbers are probably sufficiently better than expected to cause some upward revision in the GDP forecast," said Pierre Ellis, senior economist at Decision Economics in New York.

U.S. exports rose 3.6 percent to a record $178.0 billion, driven by record shipments to countries in South and Central America and higher demand from China and major oil producers. Records were also set for two large categories, goods and services, as well as for capital goods and autos.

U.S. imports slipped 0.2 percent in July to $222.8 billion, as the average price for imported oil declined for a second consecutive month to $104.27 per barrel and the volume of crude oil imports also fell. Imports from China, however, rose 2.1 percent.

(Additional reporting by Doug Palmer in Washington and Ellen Freilich in New York; Editing by Andrea Ricci)

[Soul Crusher]

IBD Editorials Sponsored by:
. Obama's Recovery A Flop Of Historical Proportions
By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
Posted 09/06/2011 05:18 PM ET
www.investors.com



As President Obama prepares to deliver yet another speech about stimulating the economy — this one to a joint-session of Congress (with or without the NFL game on the monitors) — it's worth reviewing the results of his efforts to date.

It has now been a little over two years — and eight full economic quarters — since the end of the recession Obama inherited. It's time to ask: How does his record of economic growth in the wake of a recession stack up against the records of other presidents?

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) defines a recession as "a period between a peak and a trough" during which "a significant decline in economic activity spreads across the economy and can last from a few months to more than a year."

By consensus, the most recent recession ended in June 2009, less than six months after Obama took office.

According to the NBER, in the 60 years prior to Obama's tenure, we had 10 recessions.  In the two years following those respective recessions, average real (inflation-adjusted) quarterly GDP growth was 5%, according to federal government figures. In the two years of Obama's "recovery," average real quarterly GDP growth has been just 2.4%, less than half of the historical norm coming out of a recession.

What's the difference (in more practical terms) between 2.4% and 5% growth over two years?  According to Obama's own budget, this year's GDP will be about $15 trillion.  (It's running neck and neck with the national debt.)  A 2.6% shortfall, therefore, equals about $780 billion over two years.

If you divide that evenly among the U.S. population of 312 million people, that works out to a shortfall of $2,500 per person — or $10,000 for the average family of four. Call it the Obama penalty.

Some might argue that the anemic post-recession growth rate under Obama has resulted from his having inherited a worse recession than most. There's little doubt that he inherited a particularly long (18-month) and significant recession. But the historical record suggests that, pre-Obama, the general rule was: the worse the recession (or depression), the better the recovery.

In other words, one would have expected such a severe downturn to be followed by a particularly strong stretch of economic growth. That, of course, hasn't happened.

But it has historically. If we look only at the six postwar recessions that lasted at least half as long (that is, at least nine months) as the recession Obama inherited, we find the following:

Average real quarterly GDP growth in the two years coming out of those recessions was 6.2%.  The 2.4% figure under Obama has been a mere 39% of that — which, come to think of it, roughly matches Obama's current approval rating.

And strikingly, among those six prior long recessions in the postwar era, even the lowest rate of GDP growth in the two years to follow was 4.7%. That's almost double the tally under Obama.

The worst economy that any American president has inherited, of course, was when Franklin D. Roosevelt took office during the Great Depression. According to the NBER, the Depression actually involved two separate downturns (or "contractions").

The first was from August 1929 to March 1933. The federal government doesn't publish quarterly GDP growth figures from that far back, but average annual real GDP growth for 1934 and 1935 was 9.9% — more than quadruple Obama's 2.4.

After FDR's landslide (and unsurprising) reelection in 1936, the economy plunged into the second deep trough of the Great Depression, from May 1937 to June 1938.  Coming out of that, average annual real GDP growth for 1939 and 1940 was 8.5% (leading to FDR's subsequent reelection).

In truth, one might say that Barack Obama was elected at a very enviable time. He came into office when the economy was down but poised to start recovering within the next several months. All he had to do was be within the ballpark of the historical rate of 5% real growth coming out of recessions (or 6.2% coming out of longer recessions), not do anything horribly unpopular — like spearheading the passage of ObamaCare — and he could have ridden to an easy victory in 2012.

Now he'll have to get the American people to validate both ObamaCare and a growth rate that's less than half of what his predecessors generally achieved under similar circumstances.

• Anderson is a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute.

[Soul Crusher]

Source: Street


EO Brian Moynihan has plans to split the company's banking operations into consumer and commercial units, which will include up to 600 branch closings, according to Charlotte, N.C.-based WCNC News Channel 36.



Read more: http://www.thestreet.com/story/11242484/1/bank-of-ameri...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not that this is unexpected but its definitely shows you were the economy is heading for sure

http://www.dailyjobcuts.com
 

[Soul Crusher]

Kroger Hosts Job Fair for Shnucks Employees (1200 Jobs could be lost)
WREG TV Memphis ^ | 9/7/11 | Daniel Hight



(Memphis 09-07-11) - Patrick Ferguson has worked at the Collierville Schnucks for the last seven years. "[I've been] the face of the meat department and helping out all of the customers," said Ferguson.


He and nearly 1200 other Schnucks employees will soon be out of work. That is, unless, Kroger grocery stores offers them a job.


(Excerpt) Read more at wreg.com ...

[Soul Crusher]

Source: The Washington Post


Nearly one in three Americans who grew up middle-class has slipped down the income ladder as an adult, according to a new report by the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Downward mobility is most common among middle-class people who are divorced or separated from their spouses, did not attend college, scored poorly on standardized tests, or used hard drugs, the report says.

“A middle-class upbringing does not guarantee the same status over the course of a lifetime,” the report says.

The study focused on people who were middle-class teenagers in 1979 and who were between 39 and 44 years old in 2004 and 2006. It defines people as middle-class if they fall between the 30th and 70th percentiles in income distribution, which for a family of four is between $32,900 and $64,000 a year in 2010 dollars.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/many-in-...

[Soul Crusher]

Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

BofA discussing about 40,000 job cuts - WSJ
REUTERS ^ | Sep 9, 2011
Posted on September 9, 2011 5:37:12 AM EDT by markomalley

Bank of America Corp officials have discussed slashing roughly 40,000 jobs during the first wave of a restructuring, the Wall Street Journal said, citing people familiar with the plans.

The number of job cuts are not final and could change. The restructuring aims to reduce the bank's workforce over a period of years, the Journal said.

The newspaper said BofA executives met Thursday in Charlotte and will gather again Friday to make final decisions on the reductions, putting the finishing touches on five months of work.

(Excerpt) Read more at in.reuters.com ...

[Soul Crusher]

Medical device tax could kill 11 percent of U.S. med-tech jobs, AdvaMed says
 MassDevice ^ | September 7, 2011 | Emily Greenhalgh



An excise tax on medical devices, set to go into effect in 2013, could mean a nearly 11 percent cut for the U.S. medical technology sector and add $2.67 billion to the industry's annual tax bill, according to a study funded by the Advanced Medical Technology Assn.

Medical device industry lobby AdvaMed says that the new 2.3 percent excise tax, slated to go into effect in 2013, will be "the last straw on the camel's back" for medical device companies trying to thrive in the struggling American economy.

The tax puts more than 43,000 U.S. jobs at risk by all but forcing medical device companies to move production offshore to avoid higher taxes, according to the study.

"The medical device industry is a leader in innovation and in well-paying jobs," lead author and Manhattan Institute senior fellow Diana Furchtgott-Roth said on a conference call. She argued that the government should make the US a more "job-friendly environment" instead of imposing taxes that could push companies outside its borders.


(Excerpt) Read more at massdevice.com ...

[Soul Crusher]

Census bureau: U.S. poverty rises to 15.1%, highest since 1983
Comments 9 By Douglas Stanglin, USA TODAY Updated 4m ago


The U.S. poverty rate has risen to 15.1%, the highest since 1983, the U.S. Census Bureau reports.


Trudi Renwick, the bureau's chief of the Poverty Statistics Branch, says "the single most important factor" in the increase in poverty might be the increase in the number of people who did not work at all last year.

Renwick says the number of people over 16 who did not work at least one week increased from 83.3 million in 2009 to 86.7 million last year.


The bureau says that if Social Security payments were excluded from income, the number of people 65 and over in poverty would be 14 million higher in 2010.















TRICKLE UP POVERTY

[Soul Crusher]

Summary of Key Findings


The U.S. Census Bureau announced today that in 2010, median household income declined, the poverty rate increased and the percentage without health insurance coverage was not statistically different from the previous year.

Real median household income in the United States in 2010 was $49,445, a 2.3 percent decline from the 2009 median.

The nation's official poverty rate in 2010 was 15.1 percent, up from 14.3 percent in 2009 ? the third consecutive annual increase in the poverty rate. There were 46.2 million people in poverty in 2010, up from 43.6 million in 2009 ? the fourth consecutive annual increase and the largest number in the 52 years for which poverty estimates have been published.

The number of people without health insurance coverage rose from 49.0 million in 2009 to 49.9 million in 2010, while the percentage without coverage ?16.3 percent - was not statistically different from the rate in 2009.

This information covers the first full calendar year after the December 2007-June 2009 recession. See section on the historical impact of recessions.

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income...

[Soul Crusher]

Census: US poverty rate swells to nearly 1 in 6
Yahoo ^ | 9/13/11 | Hope Yen - ap



WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Census Bureau reports the number of Americans in poverty jumped to 15.1 percent in 2010, a 27-year high.

About 46.2 million people, or nearly 1 in 6, were in poverty. That is up from 43.6 million, or 14.3 percent, in 2009. It was the highest level since 1983.




(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...

[Soul Crusher]

Student Loan Defaults Reach Highest Level In More Than A Decade
First Posted: 9/12/11 06:01 PM ET Updated: 9/12/11 06:01 PM ET
www.huffingtonpost.com



Students at for-profit colleges are more than twice as likely to default on federal loans as their peers at public institutions, according to new data released Monday by the Department of Education that also shows the highest percentage of students defaulting on loans in more than a decade.

The overall student loan default rate increased from 7 percent last year to 8.8 percent -- the highest rate since the government released similar data in 1999. An outsized share of that increase came from the for-profit college sector, which had both the highest percentage of defaults and the greatest increase in defaults, compared to public universities and private nonprofit schools.

Defaults at for-profit schools jumped from 11.6 percent to 15 percent this year, as opposed to an increase of 6 percent to 7.2 percent at public institutions and 4 percent to 4.6 percent at private nonprofit schools, raising questions about the degree to which for-profit schools are preparing students for careers that will allow them to pay off debts.

Because the government must track loan repayment over two years, Monday's data represents the first full assessment of students' ability to repay college loans in the Great Recession. And the numbers were bleak: the overall student loan default rate increased at the highest rate in two decades.


"We do think the economy is a big factor in the growth of these student loan default rates," said James Kvaal, a deputy undersecretary of education. "Another trend worth highlighting is the growth in for-profit colleges. Many of those colleges offer excellent, innovative programs, but we do also see disproportionate default rates among students who are enrolled in those programs."

For-profit colleges have been conspicuous beneficiaries of the economic downturn, as many of the publicly traded corporations that own such institutions expanded enrollments rapidly as legions of unemployed Americans looked to college as a way to improve their fortunes.

The high number of student loan defaults at for-profit institutions has prompted heightened government scrutiny in recent years, amid evidence that some schools aggressively market their programs to students but fail to deliver on the promise of careers. For-profit schools typically cost nearly twice as much as public colleges and universities, and students on average graduate with much higher student loan debt.


Because of the high costs, students at for-profit colleges borrow at much higher rates than those who attend public or private nonprofit schools. According to an analysis of federal education data by The Institute for College Access and Success, 92 percent of students at for-profit colleges took out student loans in the 2007-'08 school year, compared to 27 percent of students at public colleges and 60 percent at private nonprofit colleges.

For-profit colleges have also aggressively targeted minority students. Black and Hispanic students make up 28 percent of undergraduate students nationwide, but they represent nearly half of all students in the for-profit college sector.

"When you see 15 percent of borrowers at for-profit colleges are defaulting, its important to remember that almost all students at those colleges are borrowing, so that shows a much more significant problem in that one sector," said Debbie Cochrane, program director at the Institute of College Access and Success.

Nearly half of all student loan defaults measured by the Department of Education could be attributed to students at for-profit colleges, even though students at such schools represent less than 28 percent of all borrowers.

The federal government measures student loan default rates as a way to gauge student success, and to determine whether certain schools should be eligible to receive federal student aid dollars.

Student loan debt is among the most difficult to discharge, persisting beyond even bankruptcy. Borrowers in default on student loans can be subject to wage garnishment as well as deductions from federal income tax refunds, and they are ineligible to receive federal student aid in the future.

"What is really sad about this is that most of these people are done -- this is their last chance, because they have now defaulted," said Anthony Carnevale, director of Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce. "That will follow them to their grave. You can default on your house, but you can’t default on a student loan."

The Department of Education data released Monday is a snapshot of students over two years: the government tracked those who began repaying loans between October 2008 and September 2009, and measured whether they defaulted on those loans before October 2010. A loan is considered in default if no payment has been made after 360 days.

In a statement, Brian Moran, the head of the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, which represents for-profit colleges, said he was "disappointed" to see the data but noted, "we believe that the default rates will go down when the economy improves and the unemployment rate drops."

"Despite today's disappointing news, we should remain focused on the overarching missions, which is to help individuals rise as high as their talent, ability and ambition will take them," Moran’s statement read.

Under current regulations, schools that have student loan default rates in excess of 25 percent for three consecutive years can face sanctions or lose access to federal student lending programs. Five schools were subject to sanctions this year, four of which were for-profit schools.

Beginning in 2014, the Department of Education will start to analyze student loan default rates over three years, as opposed to the current two-year window. Data from the Department of Education shows that many more students default in the third year after entering loan repayment. And some schools have actively managed their default rates by putting students into loan deferment or forbearance plans that prevent defaulting within the two-year window, but do little beyond that timeframe.

"That’s a good thing if that helps those students manage their student loan responsibilities, but in some cases it may serve just to delay the default and increase the amount of the loan," said Kvaal, the deputy undersecretary of education.












________________________ _________



HOPE & CHANGE BITCHES - YOU FOOLS VOTED FOR THIS.   

[Soul Crusher]

College grads increasingly among ranks of bankrupt
Washington Post ^ | Sept. 13, 2011 | Ylan Q. Mui



College graduates are the fastest-growing group of consumers who have filed for bankruptcy protection in the past five years, according to a new study by a financial nonprofit group, which underscores the broad reach of the Great Recession.

The survey by the Institute for Financial Literacy, slated for release Tuesday, found that the percentage of debtors with a bachelor’s degree rose from 11.2 percent in 2006 to 13.6 percent in 2010. The group tracked similar but smaller increases in consumers with two-year associate and graduate degrees. Meanwhile, the percentage of debtors with a high school diploma or who did not finish college declined.

“We’re told that if you do go and get advanced education, you’re going to be almost guaranteed this economic success,” said Leslie Linfield, the group’s executive director. But the recession proved that “higher education was no guarantee that you weren’t going to be at risk.”


(Excerpt) Read more at bangordailynews.com ...

[Soul Crusher]

http://news.yahoo.com/census-us-poverty-rate-swells-nearly-1-6-142639972.html



HOPE & CHANGE DOUCHEBAGS.    YOU PEOPLE VOTED FOR THIS - ENJOY IT!   

[Soul Crusher]

Poverty continues to rise in U.S., now 15.1%
cbs ^ | 9/13/2011 | David Morgan




The number of people in the U.S. living in poverty in 2010 rose for the fourth year in a row, representing the largest number of Americans in poverty in the 52 years since such estimates have been published by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Median household income in the U.S. also declined.

According to a report issued Tuesday, 46.2 million Americans were living in poverty in 2010, up from 43.6 million in 2009. Data in the Census Bureau covers the first full calendar year following the December 2007-June 2009 recession.

The nation's official poverty rate increased for the third year in a row - 15.1 percent in 2010, up from 14.3 percent in 2009.

Real median household income in the United States also fell in 2010, to $49,445 (a 2.3 percent drop from 2009).


(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...

[Soul Crusher]

Household Income Falls, Poverty Rate Rises (So what does Obama wish to do?Increase taxes, of course
wsj ^ | 9/13/11 | By CONOR DOUGHERTY



The typical American household saw its income fall for the third straight year in 2010 and the poverty rate clicked up to its highest level since 1993 as the aftermath of the latest recession continued to take a toll.

The median household income—what the statistical middle earns in a year—fell 2.3% to $49,445 in 2010, adjusted for inflation, according to the Census Bureau's annual snapshot on living standards released Tuesday. This comes on the heels of a so-called lost decade for earnings: Inflation-adjusted household income is down 7.1% from its 1999 peak, and 2010 was the first time since 1997 that American households made less than a median of $50,000. The official poverty rate—defined as a family of four earning less than $22,314—was at 15.1% in 2010, up from 14.3% last year and up from 12.5% in 2007, before the recession was in full force. The official poverty rate has been criticized by economists and researchers because it doesn't take into account many of the programs the government uses to aid the poor, such as subsidized housing and the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Reflecting the lingering impact of the recession, the U.S. poverty rate from 2007-2010 has now risen faster than during any three-year period since the early 1980s, when a crippling energy crisis amid government cutbacks contributed to inflation, spiraling interest rates and unemployment.

Measured by total numbers, the 46 million now living in poverty is the largest on record dating back to when the census began tracking poverty in 1959. Based on percentages, it tied the poverty level in 1993 and was the highest since 1983.


(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Soul Crusher]

RUMORMONGER
BY JOHN COOK SEP 12, 2011 4:45 PM 29,774     206 Share

 FACEBOOK   TWITTER   NEWSLETTER

Is Barack Obama Depressed?
Wouldn't you be? Barack Obama is at the nadir of his political popularity and effectiveness. He has been maneuvered into an economic corner of 9%-plus unemployment by a relentlessly nihilistic Congress. His achievements—killing bin Laden, saving the auto industry at negligible cost—are written off as flukes. Plus all this 9/11 anniversary stuff! We hear the New York Times is looking into whether it's all starting to get to him—like, clinically.
We're told by a source inside the Times that the paper is preparing a story arguing that Obama no longer finds joy in the political back-and-forth, has seemed increasingly listless to associates, and is generally exhibiting the litany of signs that late-night cable commercials will tell you add up to depression. Or maybe Low T.

Either way, the investigation was described to us as taking seriously the notion that Obama may be suffering from a depressive episode. Of course, absent a telltale Wellbutrin prescription or testimony from the man himself, it's really impossible to achieve a reliable diagnosis. And a story like "Obama Appears to Suffer From Depression" can be easily downgraded to "Political Travails Begin to Take Personal Toll on Obama." So the story in question, if it ever comes out, may not end up supporting the depression thesis. But rest assured: There are people at the Times who, based on the paper's reporting, believe Obama is depressed—the kind of depression where, if he weren't the president of the United States, he wouldn't be getting out of bed in the morning.

As per usual, a Times spokeswoman declined to comment: "In keeping with our policy that we don't comment on stories that we may or may not be working on, we will not comment in this case."

[Image via Getty]


http://gawker.com/5839440/is-barack-obama-depressed