The messages you are viewing are archived/old. To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu
NM
Michelle and Barack Obama's association with Trinity Unity church dates back to around 1988 (Obama, age 27) when they were civil right attorneys in Chicago and engaged in voter registration drives in South Chicago. Being young, biracial and a recent graduate from Harvard Law School with international heritage and early life experiences, he was searching for the meaning of black identity in America. It seems like a black church would be a reasonable place for a Christian to take that search. Trinity Unity Church in South Chicago engages in the following ministry programs of common interest to both himself and his wife, who were active in that community at that time.
1. Seniors activities.
2. Adopt-a-student.
3. Economic development and health education in Africa.
4. Sports, career development.
5. Caribbean cultural education.
6. Social justice advocacy.
7. Bible study.
8. Individual, family, group and grief crisis counseling.
9. Children, youth, men and women modern dance, ballet and interpretive dance, including African roots of dance in worship.
10. Domestic violence support services.
11. Drama.
12. Drill teams.
13. Drug and alcohol recovery.
14. Fine arts and literary guild.
15. Food share.
16. Girl Scouts.
17. Health advisory for the prevention of physical and mental illnesses.
18. High school counseling.
19. HIV/AIDs education.
20. Housing seminars, including tax sales, avoiding foreclosure, purchase of HUD homes, finance mortgages.
21. Christian, cultural and social focus groups on "coming into womanhood."
22. Information technology, self determination for the physically, mentally and/or emotionally handicapped.
23. Legal counseling.
24. Marriage counseling.
25. Math tutoring.
26. Instruction in audio, visual, print, photography and telecommunications.
27. Men's groups and fellowship.
28. Development of spiritual, economic, social and political viability of the African American community.
29. Partnership programs across ministries.
30. Messengers of Faith high school choir.
31. Little Warriors for Christ choir for ages 6 years to 8th grade.
32. Men's Chorus.
33. Sanctuary choir for adult men and women.
34. Women's Chorus.
35. Walaika Choir for 3 to 5 year olds.
36. Newness of Life guidance for life's spiritual journey.
37. Prison ministry weekly visits to prisons to provide support for prison families and engage inmates in rap sessions and training programs.
38. Christian role models and mentors for boys and girls of elementary school age.
39. Reading/literacy program.
40. Sign language- Bible studies and other programs for the hearing impaired.
41. Singles groups for never married, divorced, widowed, single parents and same gender.
42. Women's groups.
43. New member orientation and financial aid for members enrolled in seminaries.
44. Tangeni adult dance rehearsals, seminars and retreats.
45. Taped worship services/visitation for members and extended family, who are hospitalized, shut-ins or in extended care facilities.
46. Computer classes.
47. Church usher program, all ages.
48. Women's guild volunteers for nursing home resident visitation.
49. Yoga physical, mental and spiritual fitness.
50. Young adults/teenage groups.
51. Christian character development of cultural and spiritual awareness.
52. Youth Christian education, music, prayers and crafts activities groups.
Is Barack Obama a U.S. citizen?" Of course he is, dummy.. "But how do you know?" Well for starters, he posted his birth certificate on his website. Not to mention, the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii released a statement saying he was born in Hawaii . Also, factcheck.org (a non-partisan and highly credible political fact checking website) investigated it heavily and validated, beyond doubt, that the birth certificate he posted was real. Did I mention that if there were an actual conspiracy surrounding this...it would have to be 47 years in the making? That's right, read it and weep: his birth announcement was posted in a Hawaii newspaper way back in 1961! But if you're really not sure, just remember there have been court cases challenging his citizenship, and every one of them was laughed off the docket. "That's all pretty compelling. But I got this email that said...." The email you got is just a crazy, internet-born rumor. It's nothing but a desperate attempt to discredit him. Trust me. "Yeah, I'm sure you're right...." Sound familiar? I've personally had a similar conversation several times, but mine ends differently. "Well for starters, he posted his birth certificate on his website." Really? Well humor me, because I think this is important enough for us to get our facts straight. So let's explore that. Hawaii doesn't issue "birth certificates". The state offers "Certificates of Live Birth" and "Certifications of Live Birth." What Barack Obama has posted on his website is a "Certification of Live Birth." So let's talk about the difference between the two documents. As you probably know, the document we commonly refer to as a "birth certificate" (more formally called a Certificate of Live Birth) is packed with detail. Detail like the hospital you were born in, the doctor who delivered you along with his/her signature, etc. It looks like a tax form with all the boxes and everything. The Certification of Live Birth is really just a snapshot of that. So which one is more credible? Which one does the state of Hawaii give the "last word" to? Based on information that existed long before this issue came up, let's take a look at one example of what the state of Hawaii has to say on it: "In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL." ( http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl ). So if the state of Hawaii itself doesn't accept "Certifications of Live Birth" as a last leg of verification, it's safe to say there's a pretty solid distinction we too can make when comparing a Certificate to a Certification. What Barack Obama posted, was a Certification. What people want to see, is the Certificate. When you say he "posted his birth certificate" on his website, the truth (painful as it may be to hear) is that he posted a much different document that if accurately described, would be a "birth certification" - which is far less credible and far easier to alter. "That's pretty lean. It's not really a big deal to me because I know it's just a rumor. But still, if you're going to insist there's a question here, I have to tell you....the state of Hawaii released a statement saying he was born in Hawaii . They have the 'Certificate' you're talking about, and they proved it was authentic. Are you saying they're in on this crazy conspiracy?" I'm not saying they're involved in a conspiracy, or even that one exists. But I'm not sure you can honestly say you actually read that statement. Here, take a look: Director of Health for the State of Hawaii , Chiyome Fukino: "There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama's official birth certificate. State law (Hawai'i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai'i." Now you tell me, where in that statement does it say anything about where he was born? Public officials are very careful when they release these statements. They carve their words out precisely and check and double check to make sure what they release is accurate and viable. I have to be honest, it wasn't until this statement came out that I became more concerned by the citizenship question. If you actually read it, it's plain to see that as it relates to his birth, the statement really only "proves" 3 things: 1) Barack Obama was born, 2) proof of that birth exists on paper, and 3) their office is in receipt of that paper. An official statement with a lot of affirmatives about requirements and procedures means nothing if they can't find the words, "originating from Hawaii " or "was born in Honolulu " or "as documented in the Certification he has already released". Now maybe it was an accident that Dr. Fukino was able to authenticate virtually every scrap of it's existence - except the part everyone is asking about. However, pressed on this, there has been ample opportunity for her to revise or expand her statement, and she still to this day has not done so. "Wait a minute, Hank. Didn't factcheck.org already investigate this whole thing. You're just grasping at straws. What do you know, that they don't?!" I guess the first thing I'd tell you is that, on this particular subject, factcheck has already missed a lot of "facts", and even created a few of their own. You know that statement we just read from Hawaii 's Director of Health? Well this is what factcheck had to say about it: "Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu " ( http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html ). Did you see that in the statement? I didn't. If this site's only claim is to report facts in a non-partisan manner, how much credibility can we really give them when they start making up their own, very partisan and very inaccurate facts? They also failed to make the distinction between the Certificate and the Certification. And to be fair, factcheck.org is a product of the Annenberg Foundation. You may remember, Barack Obama worked for Annenberg as a spoke in their umbrella. If you look at the actual facts, this is a slight conflict of interest on factcheck.org's part - which might help to explain their not having met their own obligation of getting the facts right. An accident on their part? Maybe. But they too have had plenty of time to correct it, but chose instead to close the book on this one...fabricated facts and all. "Look....if there was any truth to this, it would have meant that Barack's parents and a Hawaiian newspaper were in on it too. And they were in on it 47 years ago! There's a birth announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper for crying out loud." Okay now this is one of my favorites. So now rather than authenticating citizenship by way of formal, long-form, vault copies of actual Certificates of Live Birth - we are relying on birth announcements in newspapers? Let me ask you something: If you and your wife live in Ohio , but you gave birth while visiting Florida , is there a legal or logical premise that says you're bound to put that birth announcement in a Floridian newspaper? Or, would you likely send news of the birth back home, to your town-of-residence, where more friends and family would see the good news? If Barack Obama was born outside of the U.S. , there doesn't have to be a "conspiracy" for his family to have sent word of that birth back to their hometown newspaper. "Hmm. Okay. Well newsflash Hank. This has already been challenged in court and the judges dismissed it as frivolous and ridiculous." Actually, this has been heard in a handful of courts. The judges by-in-large dismissed the cases, you're right. But the majorative reason was not merit, but rather standing. "Standing", as an act of dismissal in the courts, is a technicality. The judges said that individual citizens did not have standing to ask that the Constitution be upheld. This raises a pretty clear question: If "We The People" don't have standing to ask that the contract we hold with our government be upheld (ie the Constitution), who does? There are several other cases still pending; at least 12 confirmed. One of those is actually active on the Supreme Court's docket, as we speak. Another has been brought in California by 2008 candidate for the Presidency, Alan Keyes...and several of California 's electors (members of the electoral college who will officially vote our President in on December 15, 2008). I don't think too many grounded people could say, "I know the answer." For instance, I am not saying Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen. I'm not saying he was born in Kenya . I'm not saying he renounced his U.S. citizenship when he moved to Indonesia and attended school there (a right reserved only to Indonesian citizens - in a country that didn't recognize any dual citizenship.) I'm not saying that due to his father's citizenship at a time when Kenya was still part of the British empire , Barack, as a son, was automatically and exclusively afforded British citizenship. I'm not saying the video footage of his Kenyan grandmother claiming to have been in the delivery room, in Kenya , when he was born, is necessarily "evidence." I'm also not saying he was born in Hawaii . What I'm saying is, none of us have these answers. I'm saying, there is an outstanding question here - that only Barack Obama can answer. And rather than answer it, having promised a new sense of transparency throughout his campaign, his course of action has been to spend time, money and the resources of at least 3 separate law firms....fighting to keep any and all documentation off the discovery table and out of the courtroom. It is a well known legal fact that if you have documentation/evidence that will help you - you are quick to produce it. If that documentation will hurt you, however, you fight to keep it out of court. Let's be fair. He was quick and happy to give documentation he claimed validated and authenticated his citizenship to a website - but is fighting to keep that same documentation out of the courts. If that document really does authenticate and validate everything, why not just hand it over? Why fight? "Alright Hank. Well MY question is, if there was any validity to this, why isn't the media covering it?" I have no idea. As an Independent and initial Barack Obama supporter, I can safely say that contrary to what many think, asking these questions is not an attempt by Republicans to win a technicality-laden seat in the White House. Republicans lost. They were due the loss. Most know that. The seat will ultimately go to a Democrat. But if there is truth to Barack Obama not being able to formally prove his a) natural born, and/or b) properly maintained citizenship statuses - we as Americans must not gloss past it. If there is truth to it, this will represent the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people and our most coveted process of democracy. If there is truth to it, this will demonstrate a wanton and relentless pursuit for power which left President-Elect Obama trapsing all over our Constitution - in pursuit of a position that ironically and foremost swears him to uphold and protect that same document. There is much unanswered here. I know it is very embarassing for the Democratic party to have allowed what might be such an incredibly elementary oversight to occur - but nothing good that Barack Obama might do in the next 4-8 years, will be able to repair the damage done by setting a precedent that affords anyone in our Country the room and right to trample the contract "We The People" hold with our government, let alone a person who is asking to be our next President. "Everyone will riot if they kick him out." We can't be intimidated by that. The people of our country elected a black man for the Presidency. Nothing can change that. If it turns out his entire campaign and effort were based on fraud, that reality is still 100% independent of the color-blind lenses our nation took to the polls. So if we bow down to the potential for race riots - recognizing that we did in fact (perhaps ignorantly relating to his eligibility) initially vote for him, we are only fostering a new evolution of racism that is nurtured by intimidation and complicit with failing to incite accountability over a man, people and process - simply based on color. Very few people know any of this is even occurring. Those who do are greatly divided. Some are sure Barack Obama has acted fraudulently, some are sure he hasn't. Neither group can be sure of anything though, until Barack Obama himself answers the question for us. We all show our "birth certificates" (Certificates of Live Birth) several times over the course of our lives. Why should someone running for the Presidency be an exeption to that expectation, or even a more fiercely vetted recipient of it? More questionably, how can we as a government, media and nation - allow someone running for the Presidency to be an exception to that expectation? The behavior, mostly (to my personal dismay) for his part, has only fueled speculation. Why factcheck.org? Why not a governing body like the Federal Election Commission, Board of Elections or even the DNC? When a governing body did finally inject itself in to this matter, why were they only able to do so vaguely...leaving the real question entirely untouched and unanswered? Why spend more than $800K fighting this in court, at a time when our nation is in economic crisis and that money could be better spent in far more charitable ways; when it could ultimately and universally be resolved for the small $12.00 fee required by Hawaii for a copy of the actual Certificate of Live Birth? In the spirit of transparency, why refuse to release this basic document for inspection? In the spirit of unity, why leave so many Americans alienated and debating the matter - when all most of them want is affirmation so that people on both sides of the debate can move to more healthy and productive lines of communication? It was opinionated that he had left this door open prior to the election, so that those who opposed him would be led down a blind and pointless alley. The general election is over though. And still, he offers nothing to end the speculation. By the time I am done with the conversation I outlined above, those I am speaking with inevitably return to what I have typically found to be their first and last refutation.... "He must have been properly vetted. Right....?" I don't know. And without support for that contention coming directly from the Federal Election Commission, the Board of Elections or (ideally) Barack Obama himself, neither does anyone else. "This is ridiculous" doesn't count as a refutation. Simply, answer the question with the simple documentation that is being asked of you in double digit numbers of court rooms across the country, including the Supreme Court. It may go away. It may be dismissed again based on standing. But President-Elect Obama's refusal to quell what have become very real questions about this, will only serve to leave many good Americans who hope to vigorously support their President...with far too much doubt to be able to do so. Production of a Certificate of Live Birth is a very small price to pay for unity.
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-156768
As an outsider, I could give you another perspective and one not nearly so dire as yours. However, I also realise that my view is slanted as I simply adore this country and Americans in general. In short, given the information at his disposal, George Bush’s decision to oust Saddam looks altogether reasonable--though, again, not necessarily right. To argue otherwise demonstrates both ignorance and bad faith. So what are we to make of the downward spiral of sectarian mayhem that is currently drawing Iraq into the abyss? The violence seems senseless to us . . . but perhaps that’s the point. Perhaps our enemies recognize that the great exploitable weakness of the American military is that, in the wake of Vietnam, the American public’s grasp of geo-politics runs only as deep as the lyrics to Bob Dylan’s “Blowing in the Wind.” This is a weakness every bit as real, and every bit as deadly, as a missile with a faulty guidance system or a tank that stalls in its tracks--and it will remain a real weakness until the American public is knocked upside the head a sufficient number of times to outgrow it. What the degeneration of the mission in Iraq indicates most profoundly is that one 9/11 was not enough to crack through the platitudes of the late 1960s--which are deeply embedded in the universities, television networks and editorial pages of major newspapers. There remains, in such circles, the delusion that the jihadists are ultimately live and let live types, that totalitarian Islam will eventually just peter out, that the principles of the European Enlightenment will simply dawn on a billion Muslims without us cramming them down their throats.This may in the end prove the deadliest error in geo-political judgment Americans have ever made. Members of the genocidally well-meaning baby-boom generation will likely go to their graves believing they “gave peace a chance,” having spared themselves the anguish of killing hundreds of thousand Muslims . . . and likely bequeathed to their children and grandchildren the anguish of killing scores of millions.
It's just a device used by the neocons to keep the attention of the stifled. They know that the repressed loonies in the county slobber over anything pertaining to sex. Just look at O'Reilly. Nearly every night he has some story about prostitutes, strip clubs, girls gone wild -- he is complaining how horrible it is, yet they always have tapes behind him of half-naked coeds grinding away. If it is so horrible, must we see the tapes over and over?
Tillman didn't talk about why he went into the service to anyone. We will have to assume that what his mother is saying is true. Has the wife spoken out? I would think if he told his deepest heart's secrets, it would be to her. She was his high school sweetheart. Here's a snippet from a Newsweek article.
He joined the service just after a honeymoon to Bora Bora with his high-school sweetheart, Marie. He and a younger brother, Kevin, slipped off to enlist in Denver, where they could avoid publicity. Kevin, who gave up a budding minor-league baseball career, remains in the Army. Pat Tillman wanted no attention, no glory, for joining the rank and file. He didn't want to be singled out from his brothers and sisters in the military, says former Cardinals coach Dave McGinnis. Tillman apparently had made a pact with his family to stay silent about his service, a promise they have kept. They have gathered to grieve inside the comfortable family home in a leafy enclave of San Jose.
His was no simple case of patriotism; Tillman was never known as a flag-waver. His agent, Frank Bauer, told reporters he had suspected that Tillman might quit to teach or to practice law like his father, Patrick Sr., but not to join the military. Snyder, his college coach, said Tillman never used the word patriotism when he explained his plans to enlist. He just seemed to think something had to be done. When players asked why he enlisted, he didn't want to talk about it. McGinnis says there were reasons Pat said he had that he didn't want to divulge, and the coach respected his view and his right to make his own path. Tillman had always been different. When he joined the pros, he rode a bicycle to practice because he didn't own a car. He refused to buy a cell phone. A sports publicist at Arizona State once described him as a surfer dude.
It seems his mother decided the pact no longer had any merit. Personally, I see another Cindy Sheehan, disobeying her son's wishes.
Obama was VOTED in, not 'given' the job as President...You know, I cannot believe some of the things tht come from the brains and out of the miouths oif some indivuduals. This is indeed a historic moment; that I am in agreement with, and I also agree that 170M for the Inaguration was excessive but I will tell you what I find even more excessive - the lying, stealing criminal former administration who ripped of the American people (regardless of political affilation) and basically thummed their noses at us because they felt and still feel they are above the law. The former president and his administration didn't give a durn about the economy and reputation of this country do you truly believe that they cared whether you, your husbands, sons and other relatives lost their jobs and homes? Do you really think they were concerned about whether YOU have enough to retire on after dutifully putting away funds in your 401k? I don't think so. They gutted us and left us twisting in the wind; and while we worry about how we are going to pay the light bill and have enough to buy grioceries let alone our mortgage - they dine well and live like kings, their families and frineds in their inner circles do not have to concern themselves with such mundane issues...why would they? Their gods are Franklin, Harrison, Grant, et al.WE PAID FOR IT and will be for years to come.
Now that would be an improvement. This country was not founded on christianity or any other relgion. I agree that Obama was downplaying religion, but I also believe that that is exactly what he needed to do. Bush turned this whole mess into a big "us against them" mentality...."us" meaning christians. I believe Obama had to negate this idea by downplaying religion, thus deflating the whole notion that we are in a religious war (which is exactly what Bush wanted and subsequently turned it into.)
What I find really interesting is the idea that you insinuate that we MUST be identified as a nation by a specific religion. Since we are talking about this in the context of politics, exactly why is it you feel we MUST be seen by the world as a "god-fearing" nation? What would be the benefits of that?
This isn’t new (it’s from May), but it’s the first I saw it. I found it interesting but not surprising. Our Veterans deserve much better.
The source is: http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.aspx?c=klLWJcP7H&b=727693&printmode=1
VETERANSBush Breaks Nation's Promise to Veterans
Appearing yesterday at the Arlington National Cemetery to honor generations of sacrifices by American servicemen and women,
BUSH'S 2006 VA BUDGET HITS VETERANS HARD: President Bush's 2006 budget proposal included legislation that would
WAR VETERANS EXCLUDED FROM COST OF WAR ON TERROR: Conservatives in Congress rebuffed an effort to include $2 billion in emergency money for veterans' health care in the recently passed $82 billion Iraq war supplemental. The president's request increased the VA budget a mere 2.7 percent (including the increased co-pays and enrollment fees), hardly sufficient to deal with an expected influx of Afghanistan and Iraq war veterans in the coming years. Nearly 28,000 soldiers who served in Iraq and were discharged have already sought care at a VA facility. Of the nearly 245,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan already discharged from service,
BUSH WANTS TO SHUT DOWN VETERANS HOSPITAL IN HIS OWN BACKYARD: Veterans in Bush's backyard, near his ranch in Crawford, Texas, are protesting his administration's decision to
VETERANS GROUPS SLAM BUSH BUDGET: More than 300,000 veterans' claims are pending before the VA, according to the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, and the number of claims pending for more than six months rose from 47,000 in 2003 to 75,000 at the end of March 2005. The deteriorating condition of VA health care has elicited plenty of criticism. The American Legion called Bush's budget "
Unemployment rate soars to 8.1 percent Employers resort to even bigger layoffs as they scramble to survive BREAKING NEWSThe Associated Pressupdated 8:02 a.m. CT, Fri., March. 6, 2009
WASHINGTON - The nation's unemployment rate bolted to 8.1 percent in February, the highest since late 1983, as cost-cutting employers slashed 651,000 jobs.
Both figures were worse than analysts expected and the Labor Department's report shows America's workers being clobbered by a relentless wave of layoffs.
The net loss of jobs in February came after even deeper payroll reductions in the prior two months, according to revised figures. The economy lost 681,000 jobs in December and another 655,000 in January.
Since the recession began in December 2007, the economy has lost 4.4 million jobs, more than half of which occurred in the past four months.
Employers are shrinking their work forces at alarming clip and are turning to other ways to slash costs — including trimming workers' hours, freezing wages or cutting pay — because the recession has eaten into their sales and profits. Customers at home and abroad are cutting back as other countries cope with their own economic problems.
With employers showing no appetite to hire, the unemployment jumped to 8.1 percent from 7.6 percent in January. That was the highest since December 1983, when the jobless rate was 8.3 percent.
All told, the number of unemployed people climbed to 12.5 million. In addition, the number of people forced to work part time for "economic reasons" rose by a sharp 787,000 to 8.6 million. That's people who would like to work full time but whose hours were cut back or were unable to find full-time work.
Meanwhile, the average work week in February stayed at 33.3 hours, matching the record low set in December.
Job losses were widespread in February.
Construction companies eliminated 104,000 jobs. Factories axed 168,000. Retailers cut nearly 40,000. Professional and business services got rid of 180,000, with 78,000 jobs lost at temporary-help agencies. Financial companies reduced payrolls by 44,000. Leisure and hospitality firms chopped 33,000 positions.
The few areas spared: education and health services, as well as government, which boosted employment last month.
A new wave of layoffs hit this week.
General Dynamics Corp. said Thursday it will lay off 1,200 workers due partly to plummeting sales of business and personal jets that forced it to cut production. Defense contractor Northrop Grumman Corp., and Tyco Electronics Ltd., which makes electronic components, undersea telecommunications systems and wireless equipment, also are trimming payrolls.
"This is basically cleaning house for a lot of firms," said John Silvia, chief economist at Wachovia. "They are using the first quarter to cut back employment and figure out what they want."
Disappearing jobs and evaporating wealth from tanking home values, 401(k)s and other investments have forced consumers to retrench, driving companies to lay off workers. It's a vicious cycle in which all the economy's negative problems feed on each other, worsening the downward spiral.
"The economy is in a tailspin. Businesses are jettisoning jobs at an unprecedented pace," said Richard Yamarone, economist at Argus Research.
The country is getting bloodied by fallout from the housing, credit and financial crises_ the worst since the 1930s. And there's no easy fix for a quick turnaround, economists said.
President Barack Obama is counting on a multipronged assault to lift the country out of recession: a $787 billion stimulus package of increased federal spending and tax cuts; a revamped, multibillion-dollar bailout program for the nation's troubled banks; and a $75 billion effort to stem home foreclosures.
Even in the best-case scenario that the relief efforts work and the recession ends later in 2009, the unemployment rate is expected to keep climbing, hitting 9 percent or higher this year. In fact, the Federal Reserve thinks the unemployment rate will stay elevated into 2011. Economists say the job market may not get back to normal — meaning a 5 percent unemployment rate — until 2013.
Businesses won't be inclined to ramp up hiring until they are sure any economic recovery has staying power.
The economy contracted at a staggering 6.2 percent in the final three months of 2008, the worst showing in a quarter-century, and it will probably continue to shrink during the first six months of this year.
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress earlier this week that recent economic barometers "show little sign of improvement" and suggest that "labor market conditions may have worsened further in recent weeks."
Consumers’ growing frugality has hammered automakers, among other industries. General Motors Corp.'s auditors on Thursday raised "substantial doubt" about the auto giant’s ability to continue operations, and the company said it might have to seek bankruptcy protection, sending its shares below $2.
Bill Hampel, chief economist for the Credit Union National Association, said his group’s members are reporting record increases in deposits. Government figures show the savings rate jumped to 5 percent in January from zero last spring. That’s the highest rate since 1995 and a much faster shift than he had expected, Hampel said.
Consumer spending makes up about 70 percent of the economy. It topped out at 71 percent in 2005, Hampel said, but will likely drop by 2 to 3 percentage points over the next few years.
Increased savings can actually lower economic growth. Economists call it the “paradox of thrift”: What’s good for each of us individually — being thrifty, limiting our spending — can worsen a recession when everyone does it all at once.
Hoffman said about half the 6.2 percent drop in economic output last quarter was attributable to lower consumer spending.
marks the location of current message within thread
