Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Treasury: Bailed-out firms to slash pay in Nov.

Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:27 PM EDT
business, politics, us, obama, pay, treasury-department, executive-pay
Martin Crutsinger, AP Economics Writer
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 2 photos
<p>FILE - In this Aug. 15, 2007 file photo, Kenneth R. Feinberg, now the special master at the Treasury Department appointed by President Obama to handle compensation issues, speaks at his office in Washington. The Obama administration plans to order companies that received huge government bailouts last year to sharply cut the compensation of their highest paid executives, according to a person familiar with the decision. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)</p>

FILE - In this Aug. 15, 2007 file photo, Kenneth R. Feinberg, now the special master at the Treasury Department appointed by President Obama to handle compensation issues, speaks at his office in Washington. The Obama administration plans to order companies that received huge government bailouts last year to sharply cut the compensation of their highest paid executives, according to a person familiar with the decision. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department on Thursday ordered seven companies that received billions of dollars in government bailouts to halve total compensation for their top executives. But the big reductions will not apply to pay earned before November.

Kenneth Feinberg, the Treasury official leading the pay review, told reporters that average salaries for the top 25 executives are being cut 90 percent starting next month.

The action will apply to the top executives at Bank of America Corp., American International Group Inc., Citigroup Inc., General Motors, GMAC, Chrysler and Chrysler Financial.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve unveiled a proposal Thursday that for the first time would police banks' pay policies to ensure they don't encourage employees to take reckless gambles like those that contributed to the financial crisis.

Unlike the Treasury plan, the Fed proposal would cover thousands of banks, including many that never received a bailout. But the central bank would not actually set compensation. Instead, the Fed would review — and could veto — pay policies that could cause too much risk-taking by executives, traders or loan officers.

The government did not want to make executives return compensation already received this year, but the reduced pay levels will be the base for making decisions on salary in 2010, Feinberg said.

The executives will still be subject to compensation limits as long as their companies are receiving support from the government's $700 billion bailout fund. Their total compensation was being cut in half, on average.

Cash salaries will be limited to $500,000 for more than 90 percent of affected employees. Personal expenses for such perks as company autos and corporate jets will be capped at $25,000 without approval from Feinberg's office for higher payments.

Feinberg got the job as pay czar earlier this year when Congress, responding to outrage about huge bonuses being paid to AIG, amended the bailout law to require that executive compensation at companies getting exceptional assistance be curbed.

"I am extremely sensitive to the public outrage," Feinberg told reporters, adding that his decisions were made without any input from the Obama administration.

Feinberg began reviewing the companies' compensation packages in August and described his discussions with them as "intense." Under the law, the companies' only avenue of appeal is to request that Feinberg review his own decisions.

Bank of America complained that the pay restrictions would hurt its ability to retain top employees.

"Competitors not subject to the pay restrictions already are exploiting this situation by identifying our top performers and using pay concerns to recruit them away," said Bank of America spokesman Scott Silvestri.

Citigroup said it was pleased the decision had been issued and that it will "work to comply with the plan's requirements."

Speaking earlier at the White House, President Barack Obama welcomed Treasury's decision and said Americans' values are offended by excessive paychecks for executives whose companies were bailed out by taxpayers. He urged Congress to pass legislation to give shareholders a voice in executive pay packages.

"It does offend our values when executives of big financial firms that are struggling pay themselves huge bonuses even as they rely on extraordinary assistance to stay afloat," Obama said.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner also praised the outcome of Feinberg's deliberations.

"We gave him the difficult task of cutting excessive pay, striking a balance between compensation and risk taking and keeping strong management teams in place to help the companies recover — all in the public interest," Geithner said in a statement.

Smaller companies and those that have repaid the bailout money, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., are not affected by the plan.

Feinberg restructured the pay packages for top executives to provide a base salary and a portion described as "stock salary." The employees will be required to hold the stock for two years and then can only sell one-third of the stock payment each year for three years.

A third category, called "long-term restricted stock," is not guaranteed. This category can only be paid to an employee once a company has repaid its bailout money. Feinberg said his goal was to tie compensation more closely to the long-term performance of the company.

In one pay plan approved by Feinberg, the three highest earners at Citigroup will receive a base salary of $475,000. Each executive also will be paid between $5.6 million and $5.8 million in company stock to be redeemed beginning in 2011. The third category of long-term restricted stock will equal $3 million for each executive.

GM said in a statement that it will adopt the compensation changes outlined by Feinberg by shifting its pay packages toward non-cash compensation that is tied to company performance.

"Along with restoring GM to profitability, a key priority is responsible stewardship of the public investment in our company and rapid repayment of that investment," the automaker said.

Chrysler Group LLC CEO Sergio Marchionne and other Fiat executives who work for both Chrysler and Fiat were exempted from the pay cuts as part of the agreement with the U.S. government for Fiat to take over management control of Chrysler and get a 20 percent stake in the company.

Executives who work solely for Chrysler could be affected, but many of the top earners under Chrysler's former owner have left the company including former CEO Robert Nardelli and former Vice Chairman Tom LaSorda. Deputy CEO Jim Press also is about to leave the company.

Under the Fed proposal, the 28 biggest banks would develop their own plans to make sure compensation doesn't spur undue risk taking. If the Fed approves, the plan would be adopted and bank supervisors would monitor compliance.

At smaller banks — where compensation is typically less — Fed supervisors will conduct reviews. Those banks don't have to submit plans.

The Fed refused to identify the 28 banks that will have to submit plans. But Citigroup, Bank of America and Wells Fargo & Co. are usually included on such lists. Nearly 6,000 banks regulated by the Fed would be covered.

"The Federal Reserve is working to ensure that compensation packages appropriately tie rewards to longer-term performance and do not create undue risk for the firm or the financial system," said Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.

In the AIG trading division, the arm of the company whose risky trades caused its downfall, no top executive will receive more than $200,000 in total compensation for 2009. However, the issue of $198 million in bonuses that are to be paid to employees of the trading unit in 2010 still must be determined. The government has said it will push to see those bonuses reduced.

The giant insurance company has received taxpayer assistance valued at more than $180 billion. An AIG spokesman declined to comment Thursday.

The pay restrictions for all seven companies will require any executive seeking more than $25,000 in special benefits — things such as country club memberships, private planes and company cars — to get permission for those perks from the government.

Feinberg's decisions come days after administration officials voiced sharp criticism of plans by some firms, particularly those on Wall Street, to pay huge bonuses even as the country continues to struggle with rising unemployment and the effects of the recession.

Goldman Sachs, which has paid back its bailout money, has said it earmarked $16.7 billion for compensation so far this year, more than $500,000 per employee. Citigroup is paying $5.3 billion in bonuses to its employees and Bank of America $3.3 billion.

Elsewhere, Freddie Mac is giving its chief financial officer compensation worth as much as $5.5 million, including a $2 million signing bonus. The government-controlled mortgage finance company doesn't have to follow the executive compensation rules because it is being paid outside the TARP.

____

Associated Press Writers Daniel Wagner, Jeannine Aversa, Ken Thomas, Jim Kuhnhenn and Marcy Gordon in Washington, Stevenson Jacobs in New York, Ieva M. Augstums in Charlotte, N.C., and Tom Krisher in Detroit contributed to this report.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Martin Crutsinger's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: Democrat Watch, Levinites, Outraged Americans For Justice, Reagan Conservatives, The Tea Party
  • Regions: United States , Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (63)
Bob Jones-1211422

Yes and Fox news is saying these bank executives are victims of laws that are unconstitutional. According to Fox news these executives are entitled to as much as they can get. My thinking is if you cannot get a good executive for 500 grand then you have a problem. No executive is worth millions.

  • 7 votes
#1 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:42 PM EDT
Obama-FriendDeleted
Eric AlbertDeleted
Andy-827327

Since you think a pay czar is such a great Idea, how about one for Obama? He said that if the porkulas was passed, unemployment wouldn't go above 8%...well it heading to 10%, so how about Obama leading by example and accepting only one dollar a year in salary until the unemployment rate drops to below 8%?

  • 1 vote
#1.3 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:36 PM EDT
Obama-FriendDeleted
Obama-FriendDeleted
Andy-827327

You seem to have no problem with the government adjusting the pay of companies in the private sector that have lost money and accepted taxpayer money from the government, last time I checked Obama's paid with taxpayer money, and for your information missing the projection by 2% is HUGE, and equates to a just few million more people not having a job than he said.

Time for the Obama apologist's to "get real" and start holding this incompetent moron accountable for his actions.

  • 2 votes
#1.6 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:54 PM EDT
Kathy's Kid

Hi Eric!

I'm back on the vine for a bit and you're one of the people I missed while away.

--Brenda Mayer

  • 1 vote
#1.7 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:28 PM EDT
Eric AlbertDeleted
Bob Jones-1211422

Wall Street has shown us over the years successful corporations are money vaults to be raided by greedy executives. If these corporations treated their employees like the human beings and offer basic benefits such as a living wage for the employees, so they can take care of their families. Wall Street has shown the world they hold the working man in contempt.

  • 2 votes
#1.9 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:41 PM EDT
JERRY COLEMAN

Bob Jones-1211422

Yes and Fox news is saying these bank executives are victims of laws that are unconstitutional. According to Fox news these executives are entitled to as much as they can get. My thinking is if you cannot get a good executive for 500 grand then you have a problem. No executive is worth millions.

I was wondering what the hell was a pay czar, instead of saying Mr Feinberg was an appointee of the Treasury department, the news people have falling right into fox hands, my thinking is that if you work for me i have the right to pay you what i think is fare, and i don't have to give bonus if i don't want to, and those companies who are using the American people money we have the right to have a say in what the people are paid and if they don't like it they can move on, i think those who put us behind the eight ball should be in jail.

  • 1 vote
#1.10 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:48 PM EDT
Eric AlbertDeleted
GeorgeinME

Amen! ( Bear with me folks. I'm trying to figure out this site.)

    #1.12 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:59 PM EDT
    OBAMA-FAN

    Andy,

    and for your information missing the projection by 2% is HUGE, and equates to a just few million more people not having a job than he said.

    I don't know if you are outright lying or you just don't know, either way you're wrong! There are 12 million unemployed americans, 2% of that is 240,000.

    • 2 votes
    #1.13 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:34 PM EDT
    Andy-827327

    OF-Going from 8% unemployment to 10% is a 25% increase in the rate, using your number of 12 million equates to an additional 3 million more people unemployed (not 240,000) since Odumbo said the rate wouldn't go above 8%.

    You can look at it another way, you don't take 2% of the 12 million unemployed, you have to take 2% of the total US workforce, so if you have a workforce of approximately 150 million people, 2% of that would be 3 million additional people out of work.

    We have over 500,000 new claims for unemployment filed every week, the total number of people out of work is over 15 million, when you take into account people who are still out of a job but can no longer collect benefits.

    • 1 vote
    #1.14 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:27 PM EDT
    Obama-FriendDeleted
    Andy-827327

    Your post is undeniable proof that you just cant fix stupid!

    • 1 vote
    #1.16 - Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:01 AM EDT
    Obama-FriendDeleted
    Andy-827327

    See what happens to the uneducated when faced with facts! They give one sentence, non-factual, personal insults!

    No OF, I just can't devote any more of my time, trying to explain simple math that a child in grade school would be able to comprehend...but is beyond your grasp.

    • 1 vote
    #1.18 - Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:49 AM EDT
    Kathy's Kid

    You are both correct, sort of, depending upon which figures you use. The official unemployment rate calculated by the BLS from household surveys is based upon total labor force, as Andy stated.

    However, Obama-Friend's reasoning is also correct if you use the claims figures.

    Each method is limited and neither takes other factors into account such as the limitations of the monthly bls household survey, discouraged workers, etc.

    You two are trying to compare apples and oranges.

      #1.19 - Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:19 PM EDT
      Andy-827327

      However, Obama-Friend's reasoning is also correct if you use the claims figures.

      OF claims that an increase in the unemployment rate of 2% equates to an additional 240,000 people out of work since the porkulas passed, that number is not even remotely close to being accurate.

      • 1 vote
      #1.20 - Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:32 PM EDT
      Kathy's Kid

      Andy,

      Of course you are correct regarding the rate.

      The official unemployment rate as a percentage of the total workforce is different from unemployment comp. claims, which appears to be the figures OF is using.

        #1.21 - Fri Oct 23, 2009 3:36 PM EDT
        Reply
        flyfishva

        Too litle-too late.

        • 1 vote
        Reply#2 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:48 PM EDT
        JB-1123320

        Bob Jones-1211422

        Yes and Fox news is saying these bank executives are victims of laws that are unconstitutional.

        If that's the case, then they should feel free to pay the government back the money they borrowed plus interest immediately. If not, then the government should force them into bankruptcy immediately.

        • 2 votes
        Reply#3 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:53 PM EDT
        Bob Jones-1211422

        Yes JB Judge Napolitano just a few minutes ago said this exactly. God what has happened to News when they let outrageous things like this said as fact unchallenged. I cannot watch Glenn Beck. In fact I cannot even look at his face. He needs to talk to his AA sponsor. I am guessing the Judge is smoking something.

        • 2 votes
        #3.1 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:00 PM EDT
        Reply
        The Beev

        No athelets are worth a hundred+ million either. Neither are the "play actors" in Hollywood like Tom Hanks $100,000,000 man. How bout pop singers and rappers who spew B.S.? How about the Prez who galvants off to Oslo, has headline performers jamming on the south lawn, nice dinners and Broadway for a night out,....while the rest of us eat Spam.

        Yes, the CEO's that have purposely or by sheer stupidity run corporations into the ground should either be canned, or work for #1 a year until they fix their mess. BUT,...if they make the company money and the shareholders are along for the lucrative ride...I have no problem with making big bucks. (Maybe half as gaudy). Look, if the gub'ment penalizes the wealthy for putting out a good product they better go after Hollywood, musicians, atheletes,...everybody. I see Michael Moore got wedged into the corner the other day when talking about his new mocie about Capitalism. He was asked how he felt about making HIS millions....he just grinned a smirk and looked rather sheepish.

        • 1 vote
        Reply#4 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:01 PM EDT
        Obama-FriendDeleted
        portulaca39

        Without Michael Jordan Nike is Sketcher!

        Actually without all of the workers in third world countries making Nike's crap stock for pennies an hour and substandard working conditions; Nike is nothing.

        • 1 vote
        #4.2 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:46 PM EDT
        Reply
        Jawhawk

        NO,NO,NO,NO,NO!!!!!! This is theft! Read the freaking Constitution, people! The government has NO RIGHT to take the property of it's citizens for ANY reason. This underscores the difference between a Republic and a Democracy, and is precisely why the founders wrote our Constitution the way they did. They were steeped in the traditions and history of Western Civilization and knew that sooner or later, democracy leads to tyranny. I suggest that all of you applauding this pick up and read The Federalist Papers . Thomas Jefferson called this work the second most important document in American political thought (second only to the Declaration of Independance)

        • 1 vote
        Reply#5 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:12 PM EDT
        Obama-FriendDeleted
        portulaca39

        Then explain how they can take hard working American's dollars barely getting by to pay for these bonuses received in the form of an unprecedented bailout loan that is funded by the taxpayer?

        They ask for help in the form of a bailout, have the nerve to fly corporate planes to the hearing, then COMPLAIN about their 200,000 yearly salary? because i guess, mistresses and shower curtains cost a lot of money. not to mention the mortgage on the summer home in Nantucket. they have no shame, or pride.... at all. disgusting.

        • 1 vote
        #5.2 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:54 PM EDT
        OBAMA-FAN

        portulaca,

        Then explain how they can take hard working American's dollars barely getting by to pay for these bonuses received in the form of an unprecedented bailout loan that is funded by the taxpayer?

        Can we please stop acting like someone came to your house, grabbed you by the ankles and shook you upside down until all your more fell out like some cartoon! Your taxes didn't go up! You have paid nothing extra to bail any of these companies out, and you don't feel any direct effects of the taxpayer money being spent on the bailouts! If a company receive bailout money there should be no executive bonus's until the government is paid. Period.

        • 2 votes
        #5.3 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:41 PM EDT
        portulaca39

        Can we please stop acting like someone came to your house, grabbed you by the ankles and shook you upside down until all your more fell out like some cartoon! Your taxes didn't go up! You have paid nothing extra to bail any of these companies out, and you don't feel any direct effects of the taxpayer money being spent on the bailouts! If a company receive bailout money there should be no executive bonus's until the government is paid. Period.

        OF:

        reread the stipulations, they only have to pay back half of the loan and two of the companies went into bankruptcy anyway, even after all that posturing. you really should do more research on it before you try to disparage my view and talk to me like an idiot. And it was an unprecedented and unusual bailout, check any news station. oh, and i dont have a house, im unemployed!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • 1 vote
        #5.4 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:48 PM EDT
        Obama-FriendDeleted
        portulaca39

        You are making it rather difficult! Please produce credible evidence that supports you claim that these companies are only on the hook for half of what they borrowed from the Govt.!

        gladly, this is for a start, and the other article which stated they were only required to pay back half of the loans was on serendipity, i will find it and post it. there is always a choice not to be so quick to judge and make ridiculous quips. you should not automatically assume that the poster has the wrong facts.

        http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2009/08/11/Taxpayers-may-never-recoup-GM-bailout/UPI-38841250014852/

        • 1 vote
        #5.6 - Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:17 AM EDT
        Obama-FriendDeleted
        portulaca39

        I'm going to be nice. The article you posted is regarding GM only!

        Of course, those were the companies i was referring to. don't be nice on my account, it makes no difference to me.

          #5.8 - Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:42 PM EDT
          portulaca39

          I have been referring to the auto industry loans for about a year now. (SAR) I was specifically talking about them. I do not care about the schlobs on wall street, they belong there. But when you change the entire financial system to bail out companies that we all knew were going to go under anyway, (common practice is to go into chapter 11, the airlines have all done it, its nothing new) and give them huge salaries with a loan financed by the people of the United States, so their workers could continue making upwards of 50.00 an hour doing mindless jobs and having great health insurance, there is something WRONG. why the repubs and the democrats wanted this to happen but they (rep) wont back public health care options, (guess that would change the entire health care system, how is that possible?)that would be wrong to do. and impossible!(SAR) thinking that they were concerned about union money.

          this is some sort of strange selective process we have going on right now. speculating that public health care will ruin ins companies and kill old people and saying no, but speculating that the auto industry is too important to leave hanging and runs the entire world is worth taking a risk on. (kind of hypocritical) what i am saying is, why should we have funded these loans for these companies, but they will not return the favor and vote for public health ins. why shouldnt we begrude their exhorbitant salaries for doing a horrible job if they begrude all having affordable health ins. if we the people own the auto industries now, why cant we own our own health care system?

          • 1 vote
          #5.9 - Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:59 PM EDT
          Reply
          Rickeroo

          More fetid, stenching garbage from a socialist administration.

            Reply#6 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:17 PM EDT
            bleat_onDeleted
            The Beev

            Look, the worst trait in mankind is greed. Always has, always will be so. It is what it is. But let's step out of this box we're in and address the REAL evil empire. It's the Federal Reserve people. It runs the entire show, including politicians. Do some research on the Morgans, Rothchilds, and the likes who convened down off Georgia's coast on Jeykyll Island. (How appropriate). In the early 20th century they conjured up the Fed Reserve and what this institution is and does is the epitome of evil.

              Reply#8 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:38 PM EDT
              Greg Johnson-900798

              Great! If Barry can get away with this our way of life is probably over. If you are a teacher and you work for a school district that gets federal aid for a lunch program, barry can cut your pay. If you work for a construction company that built a building for the feds or a state or a city, barry can cut your pay. If you work for a defense contractor, barry can cut your pay. In fact, barry may be cutting everybody's pay except his and the Tzar's.

              Let's all hope one of the people who gets a cut has the juevos to fo through the federal court system and have this declared unconstitutional.

              • 1 vote
              Reply#9 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:52 PM EDT
              JERRY COLEMAN

              Obama-Friend

              Andy,

              Since you think a pay czar is such a great Idea, how about one for Obama? He said that if the porkulas was passed, unemployment wouldn't go above 8%...well it heading to 10%, so how about Obama leading by example and accepting only one dollar a year in salary until the unemployment rate drops to below 8%?

              This has to be one of the ridiculous comments of the day! Because unemployment went 2% above projections he should take a pay cut of almost a half million! Unreal! When the country rebounds does he get double his original salary or a bonus??? get real!

              Obama-Friend These nuts who come up with this kind of stuff is as crazy as Beck, and they don't have anything to say so they come up with something stupid.

              • 1 vote
              Reply#10 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:57 PM EDT
              OBAMA-FAN

              Jerry,

              These nuts who come up with this kind of stuff is as crazy as Beck, and they don't have anything to say so they come up with something stupid

              They learn it from FOX. LOL

              • 2 votes
              #10.1 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:43 PM EDT
              Andy-827327

              OF-Judging from the stellar math skills you displayed in post 1.13...your without question a liberal and a MSNBC viewer (one of the 263 people watching).

              And since your such a "math wiz" If we can determine that you haven't paid your taxes, you would be qualified for a high ranking position on Obama's economic team.

              • 1 vote
              #10.2 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:59 PM EDT
              Obama-FriendDeleted
              Andy-827327

              Since you obviously are incapable of performing simple math, lets check you reading skills.

              More than 2.3 million Americans have lost their jobs since the stimulus went into effect, and that's a big chunk of the 6.9 million jobs that have been lost since the recession started last year.

              http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/stimulus-status-report-high-unemployment-key-concern/story?id=8507103

              And this story is from early September, it's almost in November, more jobs have been lost since then...got it now GENIUS! You stick with and try to defend only 240,000 people losing there jobs since February...i'll stick with the facts.

              • 1 vote
              #10.4 - Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:18 AM EDT
              OBAMA-FAN

              Andy,

              The article does not prove your original assertion. You originally stated that the unemployment rate rise of 2% from 8% to 10% equates to "millions" and it doesn't prove that point!! If you and Obama-Friend take a look at how the unemployment numbers are compiled you will see that neither of you can prove your point really.

              The unemployment rate figures which are published on a monthly basis are actually derived from a monthly survey of 60,000 households in the United States known as the Current Population Survey. The survey is conducted by the Census Bureau on behalf of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

              Since the unemployment rate is predicated on the results of a survey of 60k families it's impossible to conclude what that 2% increase represents beyond all doubt.

              You stick with and try to defend only 240,000 people losing there jobs since February...i'll stick with the facts.

              I don't think OF meant that only 240,000 people lost their jobs from February to the present. He took the total number of unemployed Americans and calculated 2% of that numbers, which if using 12 million is correct, but here is were the disconnect happens.

              If on average 256,000 jobs have been lost per month since February 2009, the total would be 2,048,000. If that represents 2%, and we are at 10% unemployment that would mean that there are over 20 million unemployed Americans. Since the figure put out by the Labor department hovers around 10.5 million you can see how these numbers are off as well.

              Oct. 3—Approximately 10.5 million Americans are unemployed and want to work but cannot find jobs, according to today’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report. And some 2.1 million of the unemployed have been looking for work 27 weeks or longer, a number that has risen sharply since this time last year.

              • 3 votes
              #10.5 - Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:18 AM EDT
              Andy-827327

              Andy,

              The article does not prove your original assertion. You originally stated that the unemployment rate rise of 2% from 8% to 10% equates to "millions" and it doesn't prove that point!! If you and Obama-Friend take a look at how the unemployment numbers are compiled you will see that neither of you can prove your point really

              You have a reading comprehension problem as well, "More than 2.3 million Americans have lost their jobs since the stimulus went into effect" so more than 2.3 million people, does not equate to millions? Quit while your behind!

              • 1 vote
              #10.6 - Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:10 PM EDT
              OBAMA-FAN

              Andy,

              I'm trying to help you out here! If 2.3 million people are representative of the 2% rise in the unemployment rate that would mean there are 23 million unemployed Americans which would correspond to the 10% current unemployment rate! If the highest number of unemployed Americans that I've seen posted (not by the labor department was) 15 million how could this be true??? If you are saying that the 2% represents 2.3 million, and the 10% unemployment rate represents 10.5 million unemployed Americans the numbers DO NOT ADD UP!!!

              Instead of trying to project your own deficiencies on others you might want to take a look at the facts before you go making yourself look foolish!

              • 1 vote
              #10.7 - Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:26 PM EDT
              Andy-827327

              Refer to post 1.16 OF

              • 1 vote
              #10.8 - Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:36 PM EDT
              Reply
              xwood

              First, our Constitution says nothing about what economic system we should have. I learned this from my 6th grade Civic Class. To all out there, it is not Unpatriotic to criticize the big money system. Secondly, where in the world do we allow crooks to get away with schemes that are meant to benefit the ones on top. Overall, our American System is meant to be a democracy and not a partnership between government by the rich and for the rich.

              By the way, have you ever sat and talked to these rich? You sit and listen and you wonder if a surgeon would open their bodies would they find a Heart? And come on.. Fox? They, too, are in partnerships with these guys. As for Jobs, well jobs can be created not motivated by of ridiculous profit but for a commitment for community and your patriotic fellow citizens and for average type business.

              • 1 vote
              Reply#11 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:27 PM EDT
              xwood

              Yes, I begrudge anyone that make ridiculous kind of income. However, you do not acknowledge the fact that Wall St. kind of people have set up the culture that money is the only thing that counts. We are overrun by their heartless kind of values. They dominate our value system and we follow suit.

                Reply#12 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:38 PM EDT
                xwood

                What motivates these top elite, but selfishness. They are ego-maniacs that when even tested they will dump on everyone even family in order for them to be on the very top. Sort of reminiscence to the opposite system: communism elite, which also only cared for the almighty self floating in the sea of suffering, as here.

                • 1 vote
                Reply#13 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:49 PM EDT
                Leave a Comment:
                You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                Newsvine Privacy Statement
                As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                FUN STUFF:
                • Leaderboard |
                • E-Mail Alerts |
                • Top of the Vine |
                • Newsvine Live |
                • Newsvine Archives |
                • The Greenhouse
                COMPANY STUFF:
                • Code of Honor |
                • Company Info |
                • Contact Us |
                • Jobs |
                • User Agreement |
                • Privacy Policy |
                • About our ads
                LEGAL STUFF:
                • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com