Pundits Plussed, Workers Gruntled By Precedented Jobless Claims


The Summer of Recovery is really starting to cook now, with another increase in unemployment claims.

Like all the previous "unexpected" increases in jobless numbers, the new report from the Labor Department is being treated as a big surprise.

More green shoots:

* Institute for Supply Management notes a new slowdown from May to June.

* U.S. Census Bureau [pdf] reports a 0.2 percent decrease in construction spending from April to May.

* Mortgage applications and existing home sales are both heading south.

Load your guns! Everything's heading south.

How does President Obama fit into this, with his high sentence about the Summer of Recovery? "He's a human destroyer," says investment banking consultant Howard Davidowitz, who adds the president is "surrounded by a bunch of complete incompetents, led by himself."

Nor is this simply free-market cant. Paul Krugman, the Doctor, says the United States is in the early stages of a third Great Depression. That's the 21st century equivalent of the stock tip from Joe Kennedy's shoeshine boy. If even he's got the news, it's time stock up on guns and nonperishables.

I refuse to talk about the "return" of the recession or the "second dip" of the recession for the same reason I refuse to refer to Mickey Rourke's "comeback": You say he's back; I say he never went away.

NEXT: Is Eating Fruits and Vegetables an Economic Activity? Does It Matter?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. that last sentence… wow… perfect analogy.

  2. Awesome, another “words that aren’t used, or make sense, without their prefixes, or suffixes” contest!*


    *tortured sentence contest winner- 1998

    1. I had a very long conversation in a bar one night trying to explain to someone that there is no “ligion” to repeat in order to create “re-ligion.”

      1. Origin:
        1150?1200; ME religioun (< OF religion ) < L religi?n- (s. of religi? ) conscientiousness, piety, equiv. to relig ( ?re ) to tie, fasten ( re- re- + lig?re to bind, tie; cf. ligament) + -i?n- -ion; cf. rely

        1. Shit, meant to hit preview.

          Anyways, it seems to say that the meaning is: to tie(bind) again. Or maybe I’m wrong and that isn’t what it says at all.

          1. Religio is Latin for “reverence for the gods.” And religare is “to bind.” Both might be the root word, but neither implies that something is being redone, I think. (I will gladly receive schooling on Latin from one of our autodidacts.)

            1. Autodidact…second time I have seen this on H&R today…nice.

              The word ligament has a common root which by my source is ligare.

              c.1400, from L. ligamentum “band, tie, ligature,” from ligare “to bind, tie,” from PIE *leig- “to bind” (cf. Alb. lith “I bind,” M.L.G. lik “band,” M.H.G. geleich “joint, limb”).

              Going to look a little more into this, because your argument seems more likely, but I am getting conflicting information.

              1. More conflicting information from an etymology dictionary

                c.1200, “state of life bound by monastic vows,” also “conduct indicating a belief in a divine power,” from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion “religious community,” from L. religionem (nom. religio) “respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods,” in L.L. “monastic life” (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegare “go through again, read again,” from re- “again” + legere “read” (see lecture). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare “to bind fast” (see rely), via notion of “place an obligation on,” or “bond between humans and gods.” Another possible origin is religiens “careful,” opposite of negligens. Meaning “particular system of faith” is recorded from c.1300.

            2. The OED (a pretty good source for etymologies) states that it might derive (in Latin) from re- ‘again’ and ‘legere’ ‘read’, or perhaps ligere ‘tie’. But they’re skeptical, and is even more skeptical.
              But, of course, the etymology is not the meaning in any case, or we would think ‘villains’ are people who live in big houses and ‘computers’ are people who do arithmetic.

              1. The italicized passage cited above is from OED.

              2. But, of course, the etymology is not the meaning in any case, or we would think ‘villains’ are people who live in big houses and ‘computers’ are people who do arithmetic.

                Scorching a Craig with a flame thrower would not smell half as bad as that room full of Japs who were twittering away at their abacuses like I did.

            3. Because we are of god, when we bind with god, we are effectively re-binding.

    2. cap l, you are full of both feck and gorm.

      1. Why thank you, Dagny, my shift friend.

  3. Your alt-text assumes that I ever unloaded my guns.

  4. Here we go, another thread where whiny libertarians say that if Obama only cut more taxes, all our problems would disappear. Then, they will blame the health care bill, cap and trade, the stimulus and the bailouts for our woes, because none of our problems happened before those passed.

    Can’t wait to hear it.


    1. Then spend the next few hours fucking yourself into a irreversible coma, you lackwit.

    2. Feel free to leave. Really.

      1. You will not call me lackwit, you will call me Sir Chad, as I am your intellectual better.

        In a few years, you will be saying “Sir Chad, may I be excused, because I have finished this meals’ required serving of vegetables?” Get ready for it.

    3. “It’s a giant fucking bonfire. The only solution,” he paused, his jaw firm with resolve, “is to dump as much gasoline as possible on it. That MUST do the trick.” Everyone nodded sagely. The Chief had spoken.

    4. If it’s excitement you seek, just wait until all of your fellow Obama-lickers show up and “explain” how all will be set right by the magic of Keynesianism. Fairy tales are always exciting.

      1. Fairy tales are always exciting.

        Very true! Especially Friedman’s magic market fairy tales.

        1. I agree, especially my fairy tale about how an authoritarian government will bring about a green utopia.

    5. Here we go, another thread where whiny Chad says that if Obama would only spend more, all our problems would disappear. Then, he will blame the libertarians, degregulation, and the Bush tax cuts for our woes, because none of our problems happened before those passed.

      Can’t wait to hear it.


      1. +1

    6. Chad, your girlfriend Sally was on a previous thread, and I must say, my sides still hurt from her inanities. Well trained, sir!

  5. Bwahaha. Trolls, please come and tell me how we’re in the midst of a recovery again.

    1. Don’t you know the drill by now? It would have been worse if it hadn’t been for them saving us. No economic news now matter how bad, hasn’t been made better by their policies.

      1. And you should be thanking me for it.

  6. Jobs are for ratfuckers.

    with his high sentence

    Oh my racist!

  7. CNBC’s Senior Fed Apologist was interviewing Greenspan this morning; he ended his little piece with a reference to Greenspan’s awesome analytical abilities. Or, umm, something.

    I was trying not to listen, but the remote was on the other side of the room.

  8. Ever heard of the contradictions of capitalism, Cavanaugh, you stupid ratfucker.

    1. Yelled as Edward runs up and furiously licks the front window of the Reason offices.

        1. LOL. That would be Edward. We need to stop picking on him. He really seems to be barking mad.

      1. It tastes like schnozberries!

  9. Anyone watch Jon Stewart interviewfellate David Axelrod a couple nights ago? daily show died a little.

    1. It’d be nice to see Stewart pounce on his liberal guests (especially the ones with, you know, POWER) more often, but I’m probably expecting too much from the court jester of the DNC.


    Read this at your own risk. It will make you weep or throw a chair or both.

    1. John, I would be more angry if I were surprised by his sort of thing…but, alas, I am not.

      I think that being a libertarian all these years has burned out the rage part of my brain, leaving a smoldering ash of cynicism.

      Or…it could be the drugs.

      1. The guy is a terrible parent. He beat his kids and burned one of them with a cigarette. Yet, he could still get his kids back if he is willing to play nice with the social workers. His sin is not beating his kids, it is not being polite enough to his betters. Just awful. –

        1. That is one of the reasons that I am at odds with a politically correct society.

          A lot of ugliness can hide behind the facade of euphemisms, coerced civility, and political double-speak.

          What I mean is, that if this guy just played the game and acted the part he could have his kids back…free to abuse them at will. Sickening.

          1. “A lot of ugliness can hide behind the facade of euphemisms, coerced civility, and political double-speak.”

            No shit.

            1. + amen

        2. Very astute commentary, John. You should post here more often.

        3. My brother worked for Florida DHS for about a year and a half. 15 of those 16 months were spent trying to find a different job away from the utter crap he had to work with.

      2. !!! YEA !!!

  11. If these numbers were any surprise, Congress wouldn’t have extended the home buyer tax credit and would have extended unemployment benefits because the problem would be getting smaller.

    “He’s a human destroyer.” Damn, Davidowitz missed a perfect opportunity to accuse Obama, Geithner and Summers of Economic Holocaust.

  12. Tim, I gave up caring about the state of this country/world years ago.

    So long as you keep writing about it, I’ll be content.

  13. “He is surrounded by a bunch of complete incompetents, led by himself. “

    1. pretty good line.

    2. How is he part of the bunch that’s surrounding him?

      1. probably in the same way that a quarterback is part of the team that huddles around him?

  14. But, as we all *know*, it would have been worse if the government hadn’t stepped up to the plate and slapped it through the uprights as the buzzer sounded.

    Buckle down, Winsocki.

    1. Yeah, unemployment might be over 8% right now.

  15. Per this line of argument from the Dems and libtards, is there ever anything that doesn’t prove the wisdom of their policies? Case in point : Chicago banned guns completely in 82, murders and crime went through the roof, yet not one liberal says that this is proof the gun control does NOT work. Is there any time that empirical evidence leads to the conclusion that liberal statist policies are irrefutably wrong, or can they ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS spin it so that it goes back to Republicans and Bush?

  16. He’s a human destroyer

    Does that mean he destroys humans, or is some sort of human analogue of a naval vessel? In the latter case, I smell the plot for Michael Bay’s next movie…

  17. It’s hard for the economy to recover with all the right-wing media overemphasizing any bad economic news that comes out, scaring the sheeple into hoarding their money instead of spending it and helping the economy. If it weren’t for you partisan economic ghouls, unemployment would probably be below 6% by now.

    Do you guys tell cancer patients that they’re probably going to die every day?

    1. Thank you for illustrating my point EXACTLY….

    2. Do you guys tell cancer patients that they’re probably going to die every day?

      Just as often as they tell people they’ll die from not having health insurance.
      In other words, no.

    3. “If it weren’t for you partisan economic ghouls”

      telling us that if the stimulus doesn’t we’re in the shitter…

    4. And the war in Iraq would have been easier if we’d been a big, happy family. So what? We’re in the real world, and in the real world, people will disagree with you.

      Your statement is applicable to virtually anything influenced by consensus. But don’t let that stop you!

  18. The shoeshine boy story is generally attributed to Bernard Baruch, not Joe Kennedy.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.