Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
Yes the economic world of the 1950's and 1960's is the pinnacle era of U.S. power. That is what this country should have been maintianing. The problem I have with what you're saying is good strategy is to become more equal to other countries. NO. I want the U.S. to outhink, out-work, out-produce and otherwise dominate the economic world. I'm tired of the resources of those in this country who do know how to create wealth, to be taken and given as bailouts to those who are lazy, stupid, unethical and/or criminal in their work.
I'm not happy when our leaders reward failure! :mad: And don't think that this doesn't have any real effect, as things do NOT always come back to the equilibrium you are used to. History is littered with failed empires, and I'd prefer that we stop doing things that speed that fate for the U.S.
international investors now can buy any US asset or investment at a 20% discount - this stimulates (!) investments here inside the US as opposed to our traditional foreign competitors ( Toyota is a prime example ).
How nice of you to want others to buy our assets.
Our government should get our cable-watching, QVC shopping, obese population off their collective government hand-outs of all sorts, and replace it with some reality to learn and work hard. Our government instead is interested in growing, becoming more powerful and pandering to people to get reelected.
US workers gain more work because of it; international workers lose work because of it;
US citizens with assets and investments in US$ neither lose nor gain anything; international investors have taken a 20% bath in the last 24 months
Your closed loop economic model looks good on paper, but weak currencies and disportionate defecits lead to erosion of buying power which eventually weakens an economy. Just look at Venezuela right now (and they've got oil).
The weak dollar has helped exports, but industry and government are both frustrated that the gains in sales and profitablity haven't been proportionate to the amount of dollar weakening. This may be because globalization has become a much greater influence on markets than even a decade ago. While overseas revenues gain from a weak currency, there are some offsetting losses such as increases in cost for foereign parts and components, commodities and energy. Shipping costs have run up due to fuel. When a firm just sells parts or specialty items they can partner and piggyback with a foreign company to sell their goods. However, as they get larger they become competitors, so they must set up overseas offices, distribution, advertsing, etc., all of which costs more because of the weak dollar. Weak currencies usually also lead to higher interest costs down the road hurting cost of capital. Foreign countries can retaliate against weak foreign currencies through tariffs and taxes.
As for our worker gains, then why is our unemployment rate one of the higher ones in the industrialized nations?
Our currency did get overpriced at one time and small defecits can actually be good in a growing economy, but over the past decade we've gone too far.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/19/news/economy/debt_ceiling/index.htm?hpt=Sbin
This is not going to be good for the lobbyists who will push to throw more and more billions into the domestic auto sinkholes of GM and Chryser. Let the corporations die already, and put the good parts and workers back to work, under some new owners.
Please take the wailing about every bad thing that you can think of to some dark corner where you and your friends can commiserate together under a dark cloud. If you don't like it change it, don't whine. I in fact like things just the way they are, in a state of constant flux where quick thinking and quick actions make money and create wealth. If you want to return to the 50's then go right ahead. Don't get trampled by your fellow citizens stampeding past you.
Everything was better in the 50's forum ===============================>
There's a place to retire if you long for the old days.
I cannot imagine how to respond to that statement.
Some would say that the Consitution was created to protect the most important minority in the world which is the individual.
You seem to be a fine example of Post Modern Philosophy.
Hubris before the fall Kd.
Some have said that there is virtue in humility.
Cash 4 clunkers is simply another example of failed central planning. Central planning turned many of the world's countries into economic basket cases in the 20th century.
A friend of mine moved to Panama City a few years ago and it is a single man's paradise.
I met some older gents who have a plethora of lady friends in their 20's.
Panama City is very cosmopolitan and the night life starts at around 12:00 AM. The cost of living is inexpensive now but that all depends on the fate of the dollar for us. They are prepared to dump our currency and use the Balboa.
A large percentage of the population lives in poverty and much of the country still has a third world feel.
The northern part of Panama near the Volcano is very attractive for retired couples who want a quiet lifestyle. Cant remember the name of the town. Maybe Boquette.
Many people that I met moved to Panama from Costa Rica because of increasing crime.
Sorry about the digression from C4C but I thought you would be interested.
The writers of the Constitution realized that they had to knit all 13 states into one fabric with a strong Federal power which in many cases had control over the 13 states, especially in commercial matters and in all international matters. Read the document!!
Article 1 sets out how the Legislative Branch is to be determined and the powers given thereby:
...sections 8, 9 and 10 are all about business issues.
Article 2 sets out how the Executive Branch is to be determined and the powers given thereby.
Article 3 sets out how the Judicial Branch is to be determined and the powers given thereby.
Article 4 again is about business and legal issues relating to business.
Article 5 lays out how the document should be Ammended
Article 6 states that the Constitution of the new FEDERAL government is supreme to all other laws of the land. States cannot create their own laws contravening the US Constitution. This puts the Federal Government in charge.
Article 7 lays out how the Consitution will be ratified.
That's it.
It was about business. My original statement stands as correct.
YOU on the other hand have the Declaration of Independence mixed up with the Constitution. The Constitution as it was written set out the form of a strong Federal Government to control disputes amongst the states and protect the business interests of the new nation. In fact it said very little about individual rights.
In fact in the way the writers created our government they absolutely had little use for the common citizen. The common citizen was intentionally excluded from having any direct say in the government; no women, no blacks, no Indians and no direct say in the making of the laws. Now if you want to discuss the Bill of Rights, yes, that is more individually-oriented. But these were an afterthought when the writers and ratifiers realized that they hadn't sufficiently addressed individual rights in the writing of the Constitution.
YOU have a lot of wordy representations but YOU also show a lack of understanding or YOU simply made a mistake in forgetting the the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are two different documents.
To return to the subject at hand, C4C was a raging success because it did exactly what it was supposed to do on all levels. Nothing more nothing less. The fact that you and others don't like it doesn't matter one whit. Again your knowledge of this issue is like your knowledge of the Constitution, limited and erroneous.
C4C, many of your examples here, and your recollection of your former job dealing with contracts and currency rates in fact do not result in a net increase of wealth. They are examples of TRANSFER of wealth, not creation. So while you and your company might have profited making money and gaining wealth, someone else lost an equal amount. :P Societal wealth is the result of actually creating something; C4C did not do this as it simply pulled forward sales that would have occurred over the next few years.
C$C waste: In actuality C4C probably decreased the wealth of the nation by destroying and tying up resources in non-productive ways:
1) the remaining life of the used vehicles that were crushed was a waste and loss.
2) the time people spent filling out the C4C forms - waste
3) the time the government spent processing the forms and checks - waste
As for stimulus: these sales would have occurred anyway in the near future, with all their encompassing factory work and surrounding economic activity. Short-term gain, long-term loss. Exactly what's happening in the overall U.S. business and political culture.
BTW: A simple analogy of what's going on for you. The U.S. is like a person in a fight that is getting beat-up pretty bad. The U.S. is focussing first and foremost on how to heal our wounds, all the while receiving a continuing pummeling. The U.S. needs to focus on reversing the fight situation first! And then fix its wounds. We are not going to be able to maintain a lifestyle better than the rest of the world, until we get back significant technological, educational, work-motivated population, and manufacturing advantages over the rest of the world. We are using our reserve wealth that was built over many decades, to patch the beatings we continue to receive everyday economically. The debt and budget deficit, are indicators that in a short decade or 2, that there will be no more reserves.
I just read it and there are bits about regulating commerce between the states & foreign countries. Most of it deals with preventing states from charging tariffs on goods etc. Banking is controlled by the Federal government. Most of the 7 Articles deal with the Powers given to the 3 branches of government. I see nothing about lending money to businesses to avoid collapse. I don't see any power given to stimulate one portion of the economy by stealing money from another. My take is this executive branch & Congress added powers not given in the Constitution. I am waiting to see a complete list of expenditures of our $787 Billion & the TARP funds, that is guaranteed by Article 1 section 9:
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
That would include every penny spent on C4C. That being my Constitutional right.
As we witnessed yesterday in Massachusetts. There is no small minority that are unhappy with the way this Congress and President are handling their jobs. It appears you are in the minority.
No it hasn't. Job losses are still continuing, despite vast expenditure of tax $ to make the numbers look better. The reason there are job losses in the first place - government pushing money and legislation into the banking system to make risky loans.
How about the trade-balance. That's not looking too good either. Despite the devaluation of the $ and the slowdown of imports due to the recession, we still run a fairly large negative balance. each month we are bleeding wealth to others.
And we all know that the national debt and budget deficit are very, very bad.
This is all due to spending and consuming more than we produce year after year.
So in my analogy, I don't see how you the "bleeding has been staunched" Every second, every minute, and every day we are becoming economically weaker. The government's actions of increasing spending are accelerating the bleeding.
The U.S. economy and consumer have been consuming based on artificial wealth created by government policies. They created false wealth thru housing-policies in conjunction with the banks and the cheap credit policies of the Fed. The real equilibrium for the state of the economy is that we don't have that wealth that we thought we did. We went on a spending spree based on what we thought was gold but turned out to be fool's-gold. The wealth people thought they had to go get a home-equity loan to buy a new car, was false; false because the government's policies of pumping extra money into the economy was not based in actual wealth being there behind the money printed. So we have overspent as a nation, and now we're going to have a difficult time paying that bill off, or we continue to spend hoping that we don't reach our credit limit.
If this spending by our government continues, I suggest to everyone here to consider putting most of their money into natural resource funds, silver, and gold.
The various stimuli packages began to staunch the hemmorhaging but the basic wounds are still there there's no denying that. Did you expect some miracle cure? It was 15 yrs of lax and/or non-existant oversight on the part of everyone in power and nearly every major financial institution in the world that pushed us to the brink of death. Thus far nothing systemic has changed.
But I can see from your comments and many others of your opinion that you would have done nothing taken the risk back at the end of Bush II and the early months of Obama that hopefully things would change. Let the chips fall where they will ... damn the consequences. Amiright?
Simply put that's running away from a problem.
As for Obama, I think he has turned out to share George W's lack of leadership skills. Instead of focusing on Abraham Lincoln, Obama should look to another Illinoisan, Ronald Reagan on how to reach out to the people directly, lead and force Congress to get things done together. The best legislation gets done when the parties work together and try to give the citizens a balanced package. We haven't seen much of that in over a decade unfortunately.
IMO we should be far more upset about the $10+ billion ($25 billion in 2005) that every year goes to corporate farms v. the one-time $3 billion for C4C.
Coakley was obviously out of her skill level or in her own arrogance she thought that with a 20 pt lead in Dec that she was a shoo-in. She probably never woke up to the fact that she was behind until this week. She also ran a stupid campaign.
But while Scott ran against healthcare it was with a purely Massachusettes twist. 'By law we have full health coverage here for every citizen in MA. We don't need to be sending money to CA or NE or TX to fund their health insurance programs along with our own.'
Not really! The economy didn't suddenly cave-in. It only became apparent then. Just as the Soviet Union decayed for years, before the problems they were hiding became apparent in 1989. As you and I noted we've been taking a beating for years. The government has been hiding the problem for years, by artificially pumping money it does not have into the economy, and lowering interst rates to keep growth going. They were masking problems, and by doing so making them worse!
Let the chips fall where they will ... damn the consequences. Amiright?
Yes that part of the economy that made bad decisions for years should have been left to fail. The Congress and president had many options in which they could spur U.S. citizens to put down the remote, stop waiting for the government to tell you what to do or for the check to be put in the mailbox. They don't because they care more about their own money and careers, then doing what's right but difficult. But should I expect less from our Nobel president and career Congressmen?
And arrogance is not uncommon to Mass. Dems., as I know from having lived there for years, it made no difference in the fact that they were reelected the vast majority of the time. You could have just gotten out of prison, or have had Whitey Bulger (FBI Top 10 wanted) as your brother, and they'd elect you as the Dem.
Exactly right. The little blip in the jobs market created by C4Cs is long gone. The cars are all crushed, and the car dealers are back to playing tiddly winks. I know the ones I stopped by are looking mighty lonely. You cannot create meaningful long term jobs in the government sector and have it sustainable. It has to be in the private sector where something of value is created. The only bright side is the unemployment is not as bad as it was in the early 1980s following Carter.
C4C is a small example of the government interference in economic choices that distorts the markets. Whether the government is encouraging extra home ownership, building and risky mortgages that put the buyers of mortgages at risk all in a bubble supported by the Fed and the existence of Fannie/Freddie Mac, or the Bush stimulus checks, or the $750B Obama stimulus, and TARP stimulus, it is all artificial. Artificial!
If the conomy didn't receive these "shots", the economy would do what it naturally should do. Yes housing and the general economy would have been lower, and the general lifestyle of U.S. citizens would have been lower, but it would have been steady, without the bubbles. Instead our government (or system) decided that we needed higher growth, higher rate of home ownership ... despite the fact that the underlying wealth creation of the U.S. economy did not warrant that level of consumption. Well if you look back over the last few years you see the "stimulus shots" to the economy have gotten bigger and bigger, yet the economy has worsened, following the short-term benefit seen.
The government's solution to years of overspending and consumer overconsumption is - more overspending.
Forester Value made 18% last year, lagging the index as it typically does in rising markets. But as a result of losing less than the average, the portfolio's returns are in the top 1% of its category for three years,
Forester believes that the next housing decline will start in the second quarter of the year. He said several factors, including expiring government support programs and falling demand, will lead to the drop.
One of the causes will be the government's Home Affordable Modification Program, which allowed trial modifications of loans that would keep homes out of foreclosure. But, said Forester, very few of the modifications have been made permanent -- about 7% according to latest figures -- and that means there'll be many homes facing foreclosure this year.
He highlighted another factor that could mean trouble in the housing the market -- the Federal Reserve's plan to end its programs of buying mortgage-backed securities and debt from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The programs are set to end by April 1, and Forester thinks it could mean mortgage rates rise by roughly 0.75%-1%.
"And if rates are at 6%, it becomes harder to buy a home or refinance a mortgage," he said -- further depressing the housing market.
The real problem with this scenario, said Forester, is the impact it will have on banks.
"Banks are still valuing homes too highly on their balance sheets so they are vulnerable to a downturn in home prices again," he wrote in a quarterly update earlier this month, and this vulnerability could set off a similar downward spiral in the financial markets that was seen in late 2008.
"I think the TARP repayments were a bad idea," said Forester, because they could leave banks short of funds if a second housing crash does hit.
Or he might have added "the government needs to let the banks keep the TARP $ ad infinitum, because the government has so screwed up the economy - by using borrowed $ for years, to support a societal lifestyle that it can not afford, trying to hide the underlying economic decline."
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fund-manager-sees-another-crash-in-home-prices-- - - 2010-01-19
It sounds to me like things are fine, until you have to put the credit card away!
For a second there I thought this had veered into a Subaru thread.
Heaven forbid we talk about cars. :P
Yes, which is why I made a direct comparison of C4C to other subsidies.
I'm not a fan of subsidies or other governmental interference in general; if a business or sector cannot manage itself profitably then IMO it deserves to fail. Sans interference another entity or product group will step in to fill the void. For instance, when United Airlines was tanking I saw no reason for any assistance; them going under would not have changed the demand for passenger flights one iota; the other carriers would have bought UAL's assets & routes and hired the bulk of their staff to fill the void. There would have been a 2-3 month period when the system was upset & consumers were grumpy but then it would have righted itself.
As far as government stimulus plans go, C4C was not that bad. It replaced nearly 700K vehicles with more efficient ones, reducing the export of our dollars to the middle east a small bit. It helped keep dealers and by extension automakers in business for a short while. Side industries like metal recyclers got a boost. Insurance companies got a small boost as the clunkers no doubt had liability only while the new cars will carry comprehensive. Some of the money came back to the fed right away in the form of income tax withholding. Other funds went to desperately empty state coffers via sales tax & BMV fees. The consumers who took advantage were typically in a position to act and had financial resources so few if any marginal credit risks were taken.
All that for the equivalent price of what, 9 days of war(s) or just over 2 years of farm subsidies that didn't go to farmers. As far as government spending goes it's a bargain.
By comparison I cannot see C4C as bad. When viewed on its own one could see it as bad but that really denies context. In the context of government spending as a whole and subsidies specifically, C4C was but a drop in a large bucket and the only harm was the increase in the deficit, which both Dems & Reps don't seem to mind anymore.
BTW, personally I was in the market this past summer when C4C was implemented. My car did not qualify as a clunker so I could not participate. As much as people harp on C4C for pulling sales forward, that was balanced by people like me who stood back & waited for the furor to die down. I didn't buy until December. Just in time to take advantage of that other car-related program, the deduction of state sales tax on the federal form. Which, at almost $2400, would have been about the same difference as my old car's value subtracted from the C4C credit.
Well, cash for clunkers, the idea is if you destroy a bunch of cars, people will need to buy more cars.You could have cash for cream puffs. Bring in your brand-new car you bought yesterday and blow it up, destroy it, and then you'd have demand for one more car. You can always create demand in something like cars, you know, just say half the cars in the United States have to be destroyed tomorrow morning. You'd have the biggest car deal you've ever seen.
So those kind of programs -- and we did some of that in the new deal.You do it when you force farmland to become fallow for a while.You decrease the output of crops. All kinds of ways of interfering with, you know, with changing the supply/demand situation.
But overall, I think particularly if you go back to the fall of 2008, overall, our government has warded off something that would have been very, very, very much worse. I mean, I give the government credit overall. I can knock this program or thatprogram. But overall, the government's done a good job."
The whole hour long transcript covering lots of topics is at businessinsider.com.
The vehicles killed off were among the worst offenders from the last decade. They were recycled into new cars or I-Beams or steel wire. The parts were sold off ( or will be ) presumably to current vehicles needing those parts.
The strategists who plan such things were successful in getting the US driving public to use less fuel since those 690,000 vehicles are no longer using 8 GPC (15 mpg or less). The clunkers were replaced by new vehicles now using 4 GPC ( 25 mpg or higher ). For every 100 mi driven by these 690,000 new vehicles the nation doesn't use 4 gal of petro-fuel.
If only for this I could see C4C in some modified form being repeated every year. Bring Out Your Dead!!!
BOYD 2010
That is a negative for society as a whole, and only an advantage to a million people at most. It is inefficient for a society to produce or buy more of something than is needed. There are many services and items here in the country that could have used that $ instead, if we absolutely needed to spend it. $4B would have fixed a lot of bridges for example. Or allowed for a 2nd and 3rd factory to produce flu-shots this year. I'm sure there are other good examples.
Other funds went to desperately empty state coffers via sales tax & BMV fees
Most state coffers are empty because they spend at a greater than inflation and population growth rate. I don't feel sorry for them.
By comparison I cannot see C4C as bad.
A single court case, can be a precedent for thousands of other cases to be justified similarly. So though you say that C4C is a drop-in-the-bucket, it is the principle of the matter. If you arrested without just cause and not allowed to see a lawyer, well the rest of us might just say - yeah you're only 1 person - a drop-in-the-jailcell.
And what you are and other people seem to forget is the people who took advantage of C4C, used a lot of their or other credit to buy those vehicles. THAT money could have been used by these people to buy other products then vehicles. These people who bought vehicles might have otherwise renovated the house, built-a-nest-egg, travelled, or put towards education.
And as far as stimulating junkyard work; well those cehicles scrapped would have gotten there over the next few years. So no net gain there. C4C made them really busy and then it will be slow.
BUFFETT: I DIDN'T LIKE IT. (LAUGHS.) NO, I MEAN, THE GOVERNMENT FORCED THEM TO ISSUE THE SHARES. THE GOVERNMENT'S DONE A LOT OF GOOD THINGS FOR THE ECONOMY AND NET I'M A BENEFICIARY AND BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY IS A BENEFICIARY OF THE THINGS OVERALL THEY'VE DONE. BUT THEY COST US REAL MONEY AT WELLS FARGO.
Beneficiary, beneficiary. Hmm I like programs that benefit me too! :P I'd bet 90% of the U.S. population has lost jobs or home equity, and retirement funds based on the governments actions to create and then to try and solve these economic problems. These people have lost money, while the government selects a few to protect. I don't see anything fair in this.
That is a negative for society as a whole,...
...doesn't make them accurate or true. You may wish to live in a negative world but others do not. Being in a minority you'll just have to learn to deal with it.
Let me see if I understand this correctly.
Those public servants in Washington most of which could not run a lemonade stand are masters of capital allocation.
In their infinite wisdom they know exactly what will create wealth in a market economy.
Most of you are familiar with the concept of "Creative Destruction".by Joseph Schumpter.
This proess of evolution is being completely impeded by the aforementioned group.
What comes out of Washington is capital destruction and is not even a zero sum game.
The market will provide infinite wealth if we allow it to work. Capital must flow freely to the most capable hands solving problems.
Consider the vast misallocation of weath created by Washington meddling in the real estate industry?
Think of all the entrepreneurial energy that has been diverted in this industry because of massive tax incentives such as a tax free capital gain of $500,000.00 for a couple in selling their home after one year.
Many of these entrepreneurs could have created the next great American enterprise or cure for cancer but instead lets flip a house.
Another bubble create from the Fed and Washington DC.
C4C is a politically expedient scheme to reward favored interest groups and to attempt to create a false image of prosperity.
So you're denying that in the last couple of years starting with the Bush income tax-rebates, that the government stimulus and handouts to people and businesses haven't been getting bigger and bigger and the economic results have been getting worse? You have a better track record then Mr. Forester, who I posted the link of the other day. I know Mr. Greenspan and Mr. Bernanke to an extent can be difficult to understand, but go reread their recent admissions that they misunderstood what was going to happen based on their policies and the U.S. legislation regarding housing. Go read how Mr. Bernanke admits to learning on the job, while playing with Trillions of $'s! :mad: Who's more foolish the Fool or the Fools who follow them?
If you don't think I'm qualified to comment ton this go pickup the recent book Meltdown and if you don't have time to read the whole thing, just read the pages 68-73. You will see the author and other economists from the 1930's talk about how the government's actions during the Great Depression and 2008-09 are very similar, and that these sorts of actions made the Great Depression longer and more severe than it otherwise would have been.
I've shown with real numbers why this program was brilliantly conceived and why in the very near term it's revenue neutral. With your continual theoretical rants you ignore actual fact and choose to ..... complain and whine.
You complained and whined about the National Debt and I showed you with actual facts why for nearly 50% of that figure it just doesn't matter. But you continue to complain and whine about some theoretical set of fears.
I know ...
..things were wonderful in the 50's.
..the Great Depression is about to decend upon us again.
..the world is about to end, REPENT, REPENT.
Thanks for the advice and warning. I'll give it due consideration and deal with the facts.
How many economists does it take to change a light bulb?
None, the market will take care of it.
Bed Bugs be gone.
Huh that's interesting? A change of heart from when you posted in How does gas at $4 and higher impact You? Let's see in Post #310 you wrote:
"As long as Dept of Treasury has to print more funny money every month to fund Mr Bush's War ( write IOU's to China and Japan ) then the US$ can't rebound. It's essentially in freefall for the foreseeable future.
This coupled with our profligant spending over the last 10 yrs has created a situation of there being more money in circulation than should be. Most or many of us spent money on credit or based on non-existant equity far beyond our means to repay. This money shouldn't have been in circulation. Now it's in China and Europe and the MidEast."
It sure sounds like you were worried about trade deficits, increased debt, and $-devaluation, a little over a year ago; before the floodgates were opened on the Treasury! :P Must be a Dem / Rep political thing with your opinions?
Remember: This coupled with our profligant spending over the last 10 yrs has created a situation of there being more money in circulation than should be. Most or many of us spent money on credit or based on non-existant equity far beyond our means to repay
It sounds like the dealers used the wrong vehicle names to circumvent the errors in the system. Crushing trucks and giving them an exotic name. Also getting $4500 instead of the maximum $3500. Knowing the Feds were incapable of detecting the errors.
If dealers were faking it by using exotic names to cover ineligible cars, said dealers should lose their licenses. How stupid can one be?
I can't believe some people thought such cars were actually crushed.
C4C is a terrible program for everybody else.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2010-01-22-state-unemployment_N- - .htm
It seems sensible to me that a stimulus such as C4C gives a positive short-term boost to the economy, but the amount of debt, pulling capital in the wrong-direction, pulling sales forward, and other effects have a NET negative impact. It's nothing more than giving an addict a stronger drink or shot to keep them sedated, before dealing with the withdrawal from the drug/drink.
Nationally, more than 600,000 people left the labor force in December, according to government data. The large exodus from the labor force indicates that "unemployment is a lot worse than the numbers suggest," Koropeckyj said.
Congratulations to our government to discouraging so many people from looking for work, to stay home and enjoy good quality time with the family. :sick: :mad: Brilliant! Make the next stimulus bigger, I'm sure that'll work too!
bingo!
you simply cannot create wealth by spending. that's something apparently very hard for our politicians to understand.