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

First-time jobless claims rise unexpectedly

Thu Feb 4, 2010 8:35 AM EST
business, politics, us, claims, jobless
Christopher S. Rugaber, AP Economics Writer

Mahesh Sahni, of Worcester, Mass., left, holds his resume while speaking with Laura Erickson, of Boston, right, a recruiter for Prudential at the BostonHires job fair at a hotel in Boston, Tuesday, Feb. 2, 2010. The number of newly laid-off workers filing initial claims for jobless benefits rose unexpectedly last week, evidence that layoffs are continuing and jobs remain scarce.(AP Photo/Steven Senne)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — The number of newly laid-off workers filing initial claims for jobless benefits rose unexpectedly last week, evidence that layoffs are continuing and jobs remain scarce.

The rise is the fourth in the past five weeks. Most economists hoped that claims would resume a downward trend that was evident in the fall and early winter.

The Labor Department said Thursday that new claims for unemployment insurance rose by 8,000 to a seasonally adjusted 480,000. Wall Street economists had expected a drop to 460,000, according to Thomson Reuters.

The four-week average, which smooths fluctuations, rose for the third straight week to 468,750.

The figure is the highest in the past two months. Initial claims dropped sharply in late December, raising hopes among economists that layoffs were nearing an end and the economy would soon start generating net gains in jobs.

The figures come a day before the Labor Department is scheduled to report the January employment figures, which are expected to show a tiny gain in jobs. The unemployment rate is forecast to rise to 10.1 percent.

The number of people continuing to claim benefits was unchanged at 4.6 million. That data lags initial claims by a week.

But the so-called continuing claims do not include millions of people who have used up the regular 26 weeks of benefits typically provided by states, and are receiving extended benefits for up to 73 additional weeks, paid for by the federal government.

More than 5.8 million people were receiving extended benefits in the week ended Jan. 16, the latest data available, up from about 5.6 million the previous week. The extended benefit data isn't seasonally adjusted and is volatile from week to week.

Still, the increasing number of people claiming extended unemployment insurance indicates hiring hasn't picked up. That leaves people out of work for longer and longer periods of time.

Some employers are continuing to cut jobs. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said Wednesday that it will eliminate 300 administrative jobs at its headquarters. The company has cut almost 14,000 jobs in the past 13 months, including 11,200 positions at its Sam's Club stores.

Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc., a unit of Japan's Sony Corp., said Tuesday it is laying off 450 people and eliminating 100 open positions.

Among the states, Oregon reported the largest increase in claims, with 4,336. Puerto Rico and Hawaii also reported increases. The state data lags initial claims by one week.

California reported the largest drop in claims, a decline of 22,674. Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia and Missouri also reported decreases.

© 2010 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:

  • Christopher S. Rugaber's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (133)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2
Plain Sick O taxes

Without the extended benefits given 5.8 million people , we can only imagine the amount of damage that is being done since this administration reared it's ugly head last January. They will spin all this newest news of Unemployment and the new applicants for claims until you won't recognize the truth if it bites you in the leg , or a little higher up the anatomy . The blind voters who followed the Illinois Pied Piper have been surprised at his failing in everything he undertakes, as well as his not keeping his promises . It little behoves those of us who saw through the facade to say, " I told you so ". The only thing that keeps scratching the boil with us, is the unwillingness of those Obama followers to admit their mistake , and to recognize his. Right from the start when he said he was going to transform America, i saw a dictator in the making. The age-old promise to take from the rich and give to the poor didn't help him in my estimation either. We've been through that fallacy as far back as Robin Hood. And Obama surely isn't Robin, and America isn't Sherwood Forest . He's surrounded himself, as he promised , with a bunch of crooks, tax cheats, and failures . Then, on top of the crooks he chose , he has inherited,the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Shumer and Fwank . These are a recipe for the Decline of Democracy in America. Instead of blaming Bush for leaving him a mess, he should take a look at what was left him in San Francisco, Massachussets , Conneticut, and Nevada . Bush walked into 9/11 , Obama walked into those mentioned above. Couple this with Obama's lying to us from the beginning, his fakery and connection with Wright, Ayers, ACORN and the PANTHERS , and the deals made with the UAW, AIG, and the Teachers Union , and how will he convince any of the rest of us, of any good intentions. . His speeches remind me of a quote from Andrew Long. " He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts for support , rather than illumination." He's a self-made man and worships his creator " Bright "

  • 14 votes
#1 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 9:09 AM EST
charnello

You forgot to mention Obama's secret plan to destroy the American way of life.

  • 8 votes
#1.1 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 9:51 AM EST
deccles02

The only people who think this is unexpected are the idiot corporate schills who write this garbage.

  • 6 votes
#1.2 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 10:21 AM EST
rick-673281

Have no fear BO's job stimulus is here!!! We should make all of them unemployed permanently and soon. Cant wait for the Gibbs spin on all the bad news and yet we are in a recovery things are looking better the light at the end is near.

  • 5 votes
#1.3 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 10:27 AM EST
confused????-03743

The only people who think this is unexpected are the idiot corporate schills who write this garbage.

thats funny

i guess turning down more people isnt working to get the rate down in the long run

  • 3 votes
#1.4 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 10:36 AM EST
Rickeroo

Agree Puckster.

Keep taking from the private sector, Obama.

The rise of the libertarians is at hand.

  • 4 votes
#1.5 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 10:39 AM EST
The Observer

You forgot to mention Obama's secret plan to destroy the American way of life.

It's no secret.

  • 10 votes
#1.6 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 10:48 AM EST
redsfan

Too bad Bush got there first...

Yet another failed Bush policy...he deliberately encouraged outsourcing jobs to other countries. Check out this 2004 Fox News article explaining the Bush/Cheney administration's policy on outsourcing jobs.

The Jobs for America Act (search) was introduced in response to President Bush's annual economic report, released Monday, in which he highlighted the benefits of sending jobs to other countries.

The administration's argument is that by outsourcing low-skilled jobs to cheap destinations, companies will have the resources to train American workers in high-skilled fields. Mankiw, who first caught lawmakers' notice when he and two other White House officials gave congressional testimony on Tuesday, added that outsourcing is of long-term economic benefit for the country.

Bush White House Under Fire for Outsourcing Proposal

By the way, isn't it cute how the Bush Administration named their policies and bills with titles that implied they were exactly the opposite of what they really did? Thus the "Jobs for America Act" really outsourced jobs to other countries.

  • 7 votes
#1.7 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 10:56 AM EST
The Observer

redsfan,

At what point will you hold Obama accountable for his policy failures? Never?

  • 11 votes
#1.8 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 10:57 AM EST
confused????-03743

redsfan,

At what point will you hold Obama accountable for his policy failures? Never?

he'll blame obama after we get our next president

  • 8 votes
#1.9 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:00 AM EST
Pete520

At what point will you hold Obama accountable for his policy failures? Never?

Will you hold President Reagan accountable for rising unemployment during the first two-and-a-half years of his presidency?

The unemployment rate in January 1981 was about 7.5%. The Summer following his inauguration it went to somewhere between 9.5% and 10.5%...and it plateaued there for two years...it didn't start dropping until the Summer of 1983.

So...if you're going to blame Carter for those numbers, why can't we blame Bush? Unemployment is a lagging indicator, after all, and even after an economy recovers, jobs are the last thing to return to normal levels.

So here's the deal...if you think Reagan was great on the economy - and I know you do - you need to concede that there is not much of a difference between his numbers and Obama's numbers - thus, it would be the failed policies of the prior administration that led to the current state.

But if you think this is all Obama's fault, then I need to hear you concede that Reagan and his policies had the same levels of effectiveness on his economy.

Unless you want to play on both sides of the fence...

    #1.10 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 12:32 PM EST
    The Observer

    Compare and contrast the Fed's monetary policy during Reagan's first year with Obama's first year.

    Provide examples for full credit.

    • 5 votes
    #1.11 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 12:43 PM EST
    Pete520

    Why don't you posit your own argument...for full credit?

    My point is that I've heard many on the right bashing Obama's policies for the unemployment numbers while at the same time bashing Carter's policies for unemployment numbers during the same timeframe in Reagan's presidency.

      #1.12 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 2:03 PM EST
      The Observer

      Discount rate - 1981- 13 percent

      Discount rate 2009- 0.5 percent.

      • 3 votes
      #1.13 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 2:11 PM EST
      eriq samson

      And yet the rabid right rambles on

      Denying Bush caused this, caused the recession, spent us deep deep into debt after inheriting an economy running a surplus for the first time on decades is the staple of the rabid right

      They think that you can turn the titanic in 6 feet of water when it suits their insane politics

      LOOK, fools; BUSH left is with Medicare Part D - UNPAID FOR; that is a structural deficit; it keeps on being a deficit until you raise taxes to pay for it

      BUSH left us with two wars - kept off the budget but paid for none the less, so this becomes a part of the structural deficit; that goes on earning more interest until we raise taxes to pay for it

      BUSH left us with tax cuts for the rich, which were never paid for so again more structural debt that you have to raise taxes to pay for

      BUSH so destroyed the economy that we had TWO recessions under him (the first he blamed at various times on Clinton, The dot com bubble, or 9 / 11 when it was really his tax cuts that caused it; contracted economic activity

      Yet once again the rabid ritght wingnuts come out attacking Obama as if he came in with a clean slate - kind of like if the captain of the titanic dies after hitting the iceberg so you blame the first officer as he is now in charge

      There AREN'T any Obama policy failures; this is all delusion from the rabid right: the worse thing he has done so far is believing republicans would support republican policies when proposed by a democrat

      There is another article here from Time magazine that points out that Obama tried to have a deficit commission that had been sponsored by republicans who all voted against their own bill; that republicans have been for a health care reform much like what Obama proposed in 1993; but voted against this HCR

      Hypocrites is putting it lightly

      • 1 vote
      #1.14 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 2:27 PM EST
      Pete520

      Okay, so the reasons for the two recessions are obviously different...and the discount rate reflects that difference.

      Following a period of stagflation from the 70s, the discount rate was high to curb/lower inflation. I would argue that the discount rate should have been raised much earlier to curb the housing bubble, but that wasn't Obama's doing.

      Are you proposing that Bernanke and the Fed should have raised the discount rate last year?

        #1.15 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 2:36 PM EST
        The Observer

        I would argue that the discount rate should have been raised much earlier to curb the housing bubble

        That's reasonable, but I would have banned 40 year mortgages, interest only mortgages, and made the minimum down payment for a mortgage 5 percent.


        • 2 votes
        #1.16 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 2:49 PM EST
        Pete520

        I don't disagree with you, Observer...

        • 1 vote
        #1.17 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 3:05 PM EST
        Reply
        beeeaaazerDeleted
        mumiaDeleted
        Shirley Draeger

        Have you noticed that everything is "unexpected" to this administration? Not to worry. They put their heads together and have decided on yet another way to count or calculate "jobs created or saved" due to the bogus stimulus. Honestly, only in government. And the Watchdogs (that continue to see their readership/viewers plummet) are complicit in all this BS. Trillions are being P----d away while they preach to us peons and tell us what we should save for or spend our money on. We at least work for our money! This government continues to take our money and pass it out to those THEY think should have it. Good God, is it 2012 yet????

        • 7 votes
        Reply#4 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 9:50 AM EST
        confused????-03743

        Have you noticed that everything is "unexpected" to this administration?

        and just in from the reporter on the steet , the sun rose this morning unexpectedly and caught the obama team off guard , but dont worry they are forming a committee and will decide on who to tax to fix this unexpected problem

        • 6 votes
        #4.1 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 10:42 AM EST
        The Good Fight Is On!

        Don't forget about "Unprecedented", that seems to be a favorite of theirs as well

        • 4 votes
        #4.2 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 12:42 PM EST
        Mike in AZ-1141523

        Shirley,

        You were right on target. His B.S. is getting old even to his supporters. He also likes to use the phrase "it was worse than we expected" when blaming Bush. I guess he must have some real brilliant people in his economic team.

        • 4 votes
        #4.3 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 1:43 PM EST
        Reply
        dirtyharriet1010

        It is not unexpected if you think about it. Workers hired in retail for the holidays are now claiming benefits. Also the fiscal year in retail ends January 31 when inventory is done and companies look at the bottom line.
        You don't have to be a genius or have a degree in economics to figure this out.

        • 8 votes
        Reply#5 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 9:52 AM EST
        Was a Democrat-651386

        Oregon reported the largest increase in claims, with 4,336.

        Gee, Oregon passes more taxes on businesses and suddenly they have the largest increase in claims. When are people going to realize that if you keep increasing taxes you lose jobs.

        • 4 votes
        Reply#6 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 9:59 AM EST
        Bummer of Oregon

        Did you even read 66 and 67?

        • 2 votes
        #6.1 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 10:14 AM EST
        Spikegary

        66 and 67?

        • 5 votes
        #6.2 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 10:22 AM EST
        Bummer of Oregon

        They are the measures that Oregon recently passed.

        • 1 vote
        #6.3 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:01 AM EST
        Reply
        Billie-631456

        Exactly thanks

        • 2 votes
        Reply#7 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 9:59 AM EST
        Nicey-1026620

        This is interesting, because four out of five weeks jobless claims seem to rise unexpectedly. With Obama's economic policies I expect they will continue to rise unexpectedly and be reported as such by sources like AP. The media spin continues.

        It is unexpected because the MA (moving average) prior to 4 weeks ago had dropped for 17 straight weeks and 34 weeks of the previous 41 weeks it had dropped.

        And the expectation is from:

        Wall Street economists had expected a drop to 460,000, according to Thomson Reuters

        Not from the AP. You think the AP comes up with economic projections?

        Please read more.

        • 3 votes
        Reply#8 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 10:03 AM EST
        Pete520

        Thanks for saying it for me, Nicey...

          #8.1 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 12:36 PM EST
          mumiaDeleted
          Reply
          Patriotic Dissenter

          Jeez if BO and his corrput administration would have put as much energy into job craetion then they did ramming HCR through maybe we would actually see jobless rates decline by now? Hmmm. No wonder BO and his doofuses (doofi?) always get blind sided and seem shocked when things go bad. They have no idea whatsoever on how to lead us out of this depression with positive job growth.

          • 5 votes
          Reply#9 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 10:04 AM EST
          Pete520

          Maybe if HCR went through, there would be more jobs. Think about it. The bill had an individual mandate, which would have caused about 20-30 million people to purchase insurance from PRIVATE - not government run - insurance companies.

          Those insurance companies would need to support those additional customers, wouldn't they? So it would stand to reason that they would add to staff.

          The medical field would also want to be able to support an additional 20-30 million customers, would they not? Unless there are robots to perform check ups, etc. they'd probably need to hire more nurses to take temps, give shots, etc. Big pharma would probably need to hire more people to ship more medicine. Hospitals might need to expand, so construction jobs could come up as well.

          Yeah, that health care reform bill - which according to the CBO was going to decrease the deficit - would really be a drain on jobs, huh?

            #9.1 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 12:55 PM EST
            Patriotic Dissenter

            Maybe if HCR went through, there would be more jobs.

            And if pink unicorns roamed the earth .... Perhaps this was lost on you but the punative nature of mandatory coverage would have hurt small business, the nation's largest source for jobs, and put many out of business with IRS fines, tax hikes and the like. Pretty hard to put people to work when HCR forced small businesses to close doesn't it?

            • 3 votes
            #9.2 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 3:35 PM EST
            Reply
            greg-709692

            Love the word "Unexpectedly".

            Let's you know the administration doesn't have their eye on the ball, as it bounces right past them every-time.

            It's a soccer teams biggest hope!

            Bad goalie, bad goalie!

            • 3 votes
            Reply#10 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 10:08 AM EST
            Spikegary

            Too busy insulting Las Vegas and chastising the public about their spending habits to notice little stuff like this.

            • 5 votes
            #10.1 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 10:26 AM EST
            greg-709692

            chastising the public about their spending habits

            Another Chucky Schumer moment. We "Chatter" they "Spend"

            • 3 votes
            #10.2 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 10:39 AM EST
            Reply
            Rixar13

            — The number of newly laid-off workers filing initial claims for jobless benefits rose unexpectedly last week, evidence that layoffs are continuing and jobs remain scarce.

            Nothing unexpected about this except the Headline.

            The number of people continuing to claim benefits was unchanged at 4.6 million. That data lags initial claims by a week.

            It's Dick Cheney's fault, George was on Vacation.

            • 3 votes
            Reply#11 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 10:08 AM EST
            Robert-546685

            I wonder how many of those jobes were from the ones he just saved.

            • 4 votes
            Reply#12 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 10:25 AM EST
            raymond-392453

            I Totally Agree with the posters here ---- Obama made a Mistake putting the Cart(Health Care Reform) Before the Horse(Job Creation) --- If people have NO Jobs/Income, Where is the money going to come from to finance anything else ???!!!

            • 8 votes
            Reply#13 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 10:30 AM EST
            Beckyal

            For all those that believe that any government number is accurate just doesn't understand collecting information in the federal government. Not only are some within the federal government above their capabilities to do the job, but any where within the collection stream the same problem occurs. Also it is next to impossible to get everything reported on time and believe or not there are some people and not just managers to fudge numbers to make one side or the other look good or bad. Those are some reasons that so many corrections are made to government numbers.

            • 2 votes
            Reply#14 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 10:34 AM EST
            mtherof3

            If my accountant couldn't tell me EXACTLY how much money I paid out last month, his xxx would be HISTORY!

            And this is OUR money. 'nuff said.

            • 2 votes
            #14.1 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 12:47 PM EST
            Reply
            ghsdfhdDeleted
            nospin1234

            Uunexpected?

            America needs a leader who surrounds himself with intelligent people who lare able to get "expected results" The continuing "unexpected" comment is an insult to those who are supposed to be our public servants.

            The kiddy game is down the street Obama and you may end up playing there if you are unwilling or unable to change to start getting EXPECTED results

            • 3 votes
            Reply#16 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 10:44 AM EST
            ingenjon

            Once again, the experts were wrong, while common sense told most of us otherwise. Ugghh

            • 5 votes
            Reply#17 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 10:47 AM EST
            ObamaTheLoser2012

            Most economists last November 2009 predicted that there would be over 2 million job losses going into 2010. They all knew this was going to happen!

            • 2 votes
            #17.1 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:01 AM EST
            ingenjon

            Hmmm. Not long after McCain said the economy was fundamentally sound right? They also said the recession has bottomed out several times since then. If what you say is correct, then your name (ObamaTheLoser2012) wouldnt be very fitting would it?

              #17.2 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:06 AM EST
              ObamaTheLoser2012

              McShame was wrong! But this LOSER of a President Obama is the most "anti-business" president since Herbert Hoover!

              • 1 vote
              #17.3 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:24 AM EST
              Bubba-939441

              "McCain said the economy was fundamentally sound right?"

              At that time it was sound. It caved in after Obama took office.

              • 2 votes
              #17.4 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:51 AM EST
              ingenjon

              I'd like to think he's more anti business as usual. If wanting to do something about corporate greed, big bonuses for failure after being bailed out, moving manufacturing to China, and hiring illegal aliens is anti business, sign me up.

              • 1 vote
              #17.5 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:53 AM EST
              Pete520

              Bubba:

              At that time it was sound. It caved in after Obama took office.

              Do you not remember that the economic meltdown started in the fall of 2007, Lehman failed a year later (fall 2008), and the rest of Wall Street had to be bailed out during the fall of 2008?

                #17.6 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 1:01 PM EST
                Bubba-939441

                Pete, Obama knew it was bad and promised to fix it and that unemployment would not get above 8%. He also promised 1.5 million green jobs. Now he is giving tax money to AIG for bonuses when the rest of us are unemployed. Admit it, he is not delivering. He also promised cap and trade, another job killer.

                • 1 vote
                #17.7 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 2:17 PM EST
                Pete520

                Well, you can't lose on this one.

                Although I disagree with the AIG execs getting their $100 million, it is in their contracts to receive enumeration for their "work."

                So you get the chance to say he's catering to the insurance industry - which is ironic, don't you think?

                But what would you be saying if Obama attempted to block the bonuses.

                You'd then get the chance to say that he wants to take over companies, determine executive compensation...he's a fascist, socialist, communist, etc.

                It must be nice to have a talking point on both sides of this one...so let me ask you...

                What should be done about payment to AIG management? Remember, if you say pay them, you're catering to the industry; and if you say don't pay them, you're all those things listed above.

                  #17.8 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 2:44 PM EST
                  Bubba-939441

                  "What should be done about payment to AIG management?"

                  You are correct the bonuses are under contract, but Mr Obama knew that when they bailed them out. Then when questioned later, denied knowing anything. The damage is done. Government should never interfere with the private sector. None of these firms should have been bailed out. Believe me, they're competitors in the finance and banking sectors that would step right in and buy out these firms in a heartbeart. Let em fail. The same for GM, let em fail. Another firm is just waiting to take over those assets at bargain basement prices. Capitlaism works. Our government has wasted $800 billion. I don't blame AIG for taking the money. I blame the stupidity of the government for giving them my tax money.

                  • 2 votes
                  #17.9 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 3:13 PM EST
                  Pete520

                  AIG's bailout was before and separate from TARP, which was for banks. AIG got its first $85 billion in September 2008, two months before Obama was even elected.

                    #17.10 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 4:08 PM EST
                    Bubba-939441

                    And the bonuses were paid out later during the Obama administration when he claimed no knowledge of them, but yes, the previous administration is to blame as well. Government should NEVER interfere with free enterprise.

                    • 1 vote
                    #17.11 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 4:49 PM EST
                    Bubba-939441

                    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/16/AR2009031600640.html

                    • 1 vote
                    #17.12 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 4:54 PM EST
                    ingenjon

                    Maybe everyone needs to understand that it wasnt the left or the right that ran our country into the ground. It was the left and the right. I'd lump Bush, Cheney, Dodd, and Frank, to name a few, in the same boat and send them out to sea for the damage theyve all done. Obama hasnt come close to being as damaging to the U S as they have... Yet...

                    • 1 vote
                    #17.13 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 5:38 PM EST
                    Reply
                    disilusioned american

                    sad,depressing defeating,demoralizing,hope killing, spirit damaging,community ruining Wow

                    • 2 votes
                    Reply#18 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 10:48 AM EST
                    ObamaTheLoser2012

                    This is sad news for thoses who have been unemployed over the last year....no HOPE for any Job Growth in 2010?

                    • 2 votes
                    #18.1 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:02 AM EST
                    Reply
                    ObamaTheLoser2012

                    Isn't Obamanomics GREAT!

                    Hgher Unemployment for all!

                    Millions of homes in foreclosures!

                    Ballooning federal deficit!

                    It's WONDERFUL ain't it?

                    • 3 votes
                    Reply#19 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 10:50 AM EST
                    ingenjon

                    It's WONDERFUL ain't it?

                    Of course you like it. Its more of the same crap that no doubt your Republicans have weened you on.

                    • 2 votes
                    #19.1 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:01 AM EST
                    ObamaTheLoser2012

                    You mean Independent voter don't you, I don't like either party!

                    • 3 votes
                    #19.2 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:03 AM EST
                    ingenjon

                    Ok, I stand corrected. I'm not used to dealing with people like me in newsvine. I still dont think Obama stood a chance of repairing the damage done in the 00's.

                    • 1 vote
                    #19.3 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:09 AM EST
                    ObamaTheLoser2012

                    GW's economy was weak, but if you look after 2007, when the Democrats took control of Congress, we started losing jobs?

                    • 2 votes
                    #19.4 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:14 AM EST
                    ingenjon

                    I saw it happening when we looked the other way whilecorporations were hiring illegals, and giving tax incentives to ship jobs overseas. For that, I hold both partys accountable. However, only GW was brilliant enough to forgive all that Indian debt, so they could buy more American made goods... remember?

                    • 1 vote
                    #19.5 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:59 AM EST
                    Pete520

                    OTL2012...

                    GW's economy was weak, but if you look after 2007, when the Democrats took control of Congress, we started losing jobs?

                    In order for that argument to hold water, I would like an example of one fiscal policy put forth by the democratic congress during 2007-08 that led to the economic downturn...just one.

                    Otherwise, it's just a talking point.

                      #19.6 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 1:04 PM EST
                      Reply
                      The Observer

                      Very bad news for Obama. For the sake of the mid-term elections, he needs to make a dent in the unemployment rate by September.

                      He won't.

                      • 3 votes
                      Reply#20 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 10:51 AM EST
                      ObamaTheLoser2012

                      Yes, Obama can't, he is the most "anti-business" president since Herbert Hoover. Obama doesn't understand what the "free-market, capitalistic" system is or how it works?

                      • 3 votes
                      #20.1 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 10:57 AM EST
                      Reply
                      Nicey-1026620

                      Wow. I can't believe the morons here.

                      Wall Street Economists and Analysts make these predictions weekly. It has nothing to do with what the current Admin, the AP (Associated Press) expect.

                      The free market wall street economists are the ones who were surprised by the increase.

                      Now. Those results could be judged as a performance of the administration. To be sure. But the "unexpected" is not coming from the admin. Jeeeeeeeeeeeezus.

                      It says it right in the article.

                      Wall Street economists had expected a drop to 460,000, according to Thomson Reuters.
                      The four-week average, which smooths fluctuations, rose for the third straight week to 468,750.

                      The figure is the highest in the past two months. Initial claims dropped sharply in late December, raising hopes among economists that layoffs were nearing an end and the economy would soon start generating net gains in jobs.

                      Where do you see White House Adminstration in that statement? Oh, that's right, no where.

                      • 3 votes
                      Reply#21 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 10:55 AM EST
                      ObamaTheLoser2012

                      These numbers are right out of the administration's Labor Department appointed by this President!

                      • 2 votes
                      #21.1 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 10:59 AM EST
                      greg-709692

                      Where do you see White House Adminstration in that statement?

                      I see them between the lines on their rhetoric.

                      We have saved or created jobs! Apparently they don't look very hard at the projections!

                      • 2 votes
                      #21.2 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:00 AM EST
                      Nicey-1026620

                      These numbers are right out of the administration's Labor Department appointed by this President!

                      • Read. The *prediction* is not from the Labor Department. The expected amount is predicted by economists everyweek before the report on Thursday. It's the average of all their predictions.
                      • You might also want to read what the DOLs goal is. It's to help give working Americans a voice in government.
                      • They follow Federal Law, not administrative policy.

                      Just like the Post Office, BLS, FBI, etc. They do a job regardless of what administration is in office.

                      The weekly claims report has been given for decades. And it follows the same statistics that it's been based on since it's inception.

                      Or do you imagine the POTUS breaks into their software and secretly changes the counting methods?

                      More correctly...you can't *fake* initial unemployment claims. Claims are made physically and counted every week. If they could fake them, don't you think they'd make them a lot lower.

                      And even more correctly. The POTUS appoints the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Labor decides who runs the Department of Labor which is only one of the organizations the Secretary of Labor oversees.

                      • 2 votes
                      #21.3 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:17 AM EST
                      ObamaTheLoser2012

                      So, all these Unemployment Offices around the country need to stop saying they are part of the Labor Department (Federal)....give me a break, unemployment benefits come from both the state and federal payments!

                      • 1 vote
                      #21.4 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:27 AM EST
                      Nicey-1026620

                      So, all these Unemployment Offices around the country need to stop saying they are part of the Labor Department (Federal)....give me a break, unemployment benefits come from both the state and federal payments!

                      Well, the State Labor Departments are appointed within their states. The POTUS certainly doesn't appoint them. But you also have to consider unemployment in large is paid with Federal Money, not state.

                      Because unemployment funds are filled from your paycheck in taxes, which are mostly federal. You pay into unemployment as you work. That program is a Federal program.

                      Moving along...

                        #21.5 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:33 AM EST
                        nospin1234

                        nicey #21 - Obama has been blaming Wall Street for the countries economic woes.

                        So shy are you saying Obama goes along with what Wall Street analysts and economists predict.

                        • 1 vote
                        #21.6 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 12:42 PM EST
                        Nicey-1026620

                        So shy are you saying Obama goes along with what Wall Street analysts and economists predict

                        In what way?

                        The president wasn't surprised by these figures. The figures were surprising to economists because they expected a lower number.

                        That's what I'm saying. This article is a report that happens every Thursday. The reaction of "unexpected" has nothing to do with the adiministration at all.

                          #21.7 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 3:14 PM EST
                          nospin1234

                          Then what does the admin expect?

                          • 1 vote
                          #21.8 - Fri Feb 5, 2010 1:02 PM EST
                          Reply
                          GOP Rules

                          "First-time jobless claims rise unexpectedly"

                          Yes it is a true shocker...

                          ROFL, give me a break. I could have just copied my comments from any number of other "unexpected jobless claims" articles and saved time.

                          It is not unexpected, it is fully expected.

                          • 2 votes
                          Reply#22 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:01 AM EST
                          ObamaTheLoser2012

                          Yeah, and see how the Stock Market is reacting...Dow down over 183 points!

                          • 3 votes
                          #22.1 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:05 AM EST
                          GOP Rules

                          ObamaTheLoser2012 - "Yeah, and see how the Stock Market is reacting...Dow down over 183 points! "

                          Ouch, that hurts... Yep, and I bet we get a "Dow drops unexpectedly" article now...

                          • 2 votes
                          #22.2 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:21 AM EST
                          Nicey-1026620

                          ROFL, give me a break. I could have just copied my comments from any number of other "unexpected jobless claims" articles and saved time.

                          http://www.briefing.com/Investor/Public/Calendars/EconomicReleases/claims.htm

                          So, your posts from about the beginning of April to the beginning of December when the claims were dropping, and often more than expected, would suffice for them going up as well?

                          Please. Show me a post from say November...

                          Learn to have some context. It's apparent that we seem to have hit a wall of sorts on the level of claims. We'd like to see it drop to about 350k which would bring it back to a normal range, it's at 470k, which is anemic but not devastating.

                          • 2 votes
                          #22.3 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:22 AM EST
                          GOP Rules

                          Nicey - November

                          Jobless rates were STILL large, STILL not surprising. As long as we are losing jobs, who cares if it slows down for a week or two? Do you think the 1/2 million that lost jobs in November think Obama did a wonderful job?

                          So if airplanes crash once a week and one week we have a few more survivors, is it time to celebrate or time to stop the crashes all together?

                          • 2 votes
                          #22.4 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:48 AM EST
                          Nicey-1026620

                          Jobless rates were STILL large, STILL not surprising. As long as we are losing jobs, who cares if it slows down for a week or two? Do you think the 1/2 million that lost jobs in November think Obama did a wonderful job?

                          So if airplanes crash once a week and one week we have a few more survivors, is it time to celebrate or time to stop the crashes all together?

                          Understand "initial claims" is not the same as "jobless rate"

                          *What surprised economists this week was there were more initial claims than expected.

                          So, from April to January, when claims were surprising to the downside (less than what was expected) that shouldn't have been surprising?

                          Do you think the 1/2 million that lost jobs in November think Obama did a wonderful job?

                          Initial claims is not the same as jobs lost.

                          http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_12042009.pdf

                          And then you have to distinguish between *net jobs* and just jobs lost. Net, there was -11,000 in November 2009.

                          In order to get jobs lost and jobs created go to page 22 and start adding them up.

                          270,000 or so jobs were lost in November, 260,000 or so were created for a Net Loss of 11,000.

                          You also need to understand having 300,000-350,000 initial unemployment claims is normal. People get fired, downsized, quit in economic expansions as well. And normally it's 300-350 given the size of our labor force.

                            #22.5 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 3:11 PM EST
                            GOP Rules

                            Nicey - The jobs created is a BS number. If you need evidence of that, look around. I bet you can't find any jobs created. There certainly are none around here. While where I live is just a small chunk of the big picture, I've yet to see anybody in their right minds say the situation is good right now, or in November.

                            • 1 vote
                            #22.6 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 3:45 PM EST
                            Nicey-1026620

                            Nicey - The jobs created is a BS number. If you need evidence of that, look around. I bet you can't find any jobs created. There certainly are none around here. While where I live is just a small chunk of the big picture, I've yet to see anybody in their right minds say the situation is good right now, or in November.

                            I'm not saying the situation is spectacular. I'm giving you easily verifiable math.

                            Jobs are created and lost every month of every year. Right now, those lost outpace those created, resulting in a net job loss.

                              #22.7 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 4:47 PM EST
                              GOP Rules

                              Nicey - I can tell you are an optimist. That is something I admire. I used to be but it's been so long since I've heard anything good I have to admit my optimism has faded away temporarily.

                              Good talking to you.

                                #22.8 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 5:29 PM EST
                                Reply
                                DCS-318822

                                Well, I guess that stimulus money we rushed into effect so that unemployment would stay below 8% has really helped. And with the way congress is spending money, we're soon to be furhter crushed by Weimar Republic-like hyper-inflation.

                                Congratulations, kiddies. Aren't you glad you elected "Hope and Change" to office, along with a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in both houses, so they could tax-and-spend us into oblivion?

                                • 4 votes
                                Reply#23 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:04 AM EST
                                ObamaTheLoser2012

                                Tomorrow's report on job losses will show another 20,000 job losses....but last year this administration hid an extra 824,000 job losses that Bloomberg.com reported on yesterday. Those added numbers put the unemployment over 10.8%!

                                http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aNSc0oQ0vb4M&pos=10

                                • 1 vote
                                #23.1 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:09 AM EST
                                Nicey-1026620

                                So when did the recession start...

                                December 2007. Learn to read. They are revising the total numbers of jobs lost during the whole recession. Which started over a year before the current admin even came into office.

                                But I don't know why I'm even telling you this, since it's impossible for your to show any objectivity.

                                BTW, They make a revision every February to the Job Market. It's not something new. You might also note:

                                http://www.bloomberg.com/insight/birth-death-model.html

                                This model has been in use for a long time.

                                See that chart that shows the model being used in 2000...sooooooo.....what was Bushey hiding numbers now?

                                No. It has nothing to do with any of that. Grow up. How they calculate this is based on math. It's based on the assumption of the formation of new businesses that replace old jobs. Only during this recession new businesses are not being created.

                                You might also note that 660,000 of the jobs erased occurred under the Bush Admin, from April 2008 to January 2009) not including the previous revised months from December 2007 to March 2008...

                                December 2007 coincides with the breakdown of the "birth-death" model.

                                • 1 vote
                                #23.2 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:30 AM EST
                                GOP Rules

                                Nicey - "So when did the recession start... "

                                Who friggin' cares? Does that actually make a difference? We need a leader who can get us out of the recession, not just point fingers. Don't you get it, Nicey? Obama is making it worse... You are so quick to judge Bush and so fast to defend Obama. I truly don't believe you've ever stepped back and looked at the full picture. They both suck, Obama is proving to be even worse. So, again I ask who cares who started the recession if we have a leader now who is making decisions that cause the recession to go on longer and go into depression? Who cares? I'm being serious when I ask this: Wouldn't you rather put the accountability on somebody who can actually do something about it rather than somebody who is powerless to help?

                                • 2 votes
                                #23.3 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 3:54 PM EST
                                Nicey-1026620

                                Nicey - "So when did the recession start... "

                                Who friggin' cares?

                                I was responding to this statement:

                                but last year this administration hid an extra 824,000 job losses that Bloomberg.com reported on yesterday.

                                Of those 824,000...660,000 of them occured from April 2008 to January 2009...when whose administration was in the white house?

                                I'm just pointing out that line of reasoning is stupid. It's also stupid because it has nothing to do with administrations.

                                It's about the counting method. As shown http://www.bloomberg.com/insight/birth-death-model.html in the birth-death model. Which has been used for a long time but didn't hold true in this recession.

                                Does that actually make a difference? We need a leader who can get us out of the recession, not just point fingers.

                                I wasn't even taking a position. Read what I was responding to. If someone is going to blame a certain administration, they might as well get the dates right.

                                Don't you get it, Nicey? Obama is making it worse... You are so quick to judge Bush and so fast to defend Obama.

                                Again. No. REEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDDD.

                                See that chart that shows the model being used in 2000...sooooooo.....what was Bushey hiding numbers now?

                                No. It has nothing to do with any of that. Grow up.

                                The part where I say...so are you going to blame the Bush administration for the extra job losses that happened when he was in office?

                                Then I say NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. You wouldn't blame him because no one was hiding job losses. No administration formulates statistical methods for the various agencies...CDC, BLS, DOL, etc. That's asinine.

                                I truly don't believe you've ever stepped back and looked at the full picture. They both suck, Obama is proving to be even worse.

                                While I have serious questions for the current admin, and serious expectations which aren't being met.

                                Bush is one of the worst presidents of all time. Period.

                                I'm being serious when I ask this: Wouldn't you rather put the accountability on somebody who can actually do something about it rather than somebody who is powerless to help?

                                In order to really accomplish that we need laws that force seperation of corporations from government and force lawmakers to have no financial incentives. We must make all financial incentive for senators, congressmen, judges, everybody from federal to state illegal.

                                  #23.4 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 4:56 PM EST
                                  GOP Rules

                                  Nicey - "We must make all financial incentive for senators, congressmen, judges, everybody from federal to state illegal. "

                                  I don't think you'll find anybody not in power that does not agree with that statement 100%. With the money being passed out is it any wonder at all that we end up with scum at the top leading us?

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #23.5 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 5:36 PM EST
                                  Nicey-1026620

                                  I don't think you'll find anybody not in power that does not agree with that statement 100%.

                                  And that's a problem. Almost everyone who reaches the goal of becoming a senator, a CEO, POTUS, whatever, don't want the system to change. It's good for them to shaft everyone else.

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #23.6 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 5:53 PM EST
                                  GOP Rules

                                  Nicey - "And that's a problem. Almost everyone who reaches the goal of becoming a senator, a CEO, POTUS, whatever, don't want the system to change. It's good for them to shaft everyone else. "

                                  Sad but true.

                                    #23.7 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 8:13 PM EST
                                    Reply
                                    bestquest

                                    Suspect this lack of economic bounceback is directly related to lack of credit available to American small and medium size businesses. This is only tied to Democrats by Ben's recent approval in Senate for another four years. Executive branch is small piece of economic pie.

                                    Credit died here November 15, 2008 and is not restored yet. Retrospect: saving AIG was error. saving big banks was error. Backing over rated mortgage bonds to save international financial system was and is over rated. Land and buildings have value which cover over 90% of bonds face value.

                                    I have not read of any successful effort by fed to get credit available. After patiently waiting for one year, it is NOT gonna happen here as long as there is a higher interest rate paid by everyone everywhere else. Our banks are acquiring dollars for nil, loaning out overseas and profiting beyond measure. So, fed can raise rate now.

                                    This economic disease WILL continue for another 7 years with Ben's meager efforts. There is nothing made public that provides an inkling of turnaround. The idea that cars would soon wear out and sales return is bogus. Cars no longer wear out until they are 12 years old - and they can be re-powered at lower cost than a new car.

                                    If we had any ounces of wisdom, we would come home from Afghanistan sooner than west point wants, avoid the upcoming third war in the middle east, update curriculum or add a year or semester to degree programs to be sure we have current skills. Goes for high schools too.

                                    • 2 votes
                                    Reply#24 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:22 AM EST
                                    ObamaTheLoser2012

                                    If you are stating that there is "no lending" by the banks you are correct. They are NOT going to loan any money and then get slapped down by this Administration for making a "bad" loan?

                                    • 2 votes
                                    #24.1 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:30 AM EST
                                    confused????-03743

                                    and most business loans are a risk in a good economy

                                    • 1 vote
                                    #24.2 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:32 AM EST
                                    bestquest

                                    Executive branch may be able to set a good example by speeding up SBA loans from six months to six weeks or less. Reduce the redundant paperwork, allow micro-loans, go ahead and take the risk for start ups for new patented products that do have solid sales potential - and not copycat, small revisions to an earlier patent.

                                    We are all dismayed at job losses, family stresses, unemployment ran out and all the years of work, results are gone. East coast greed got us here and they are in no hurry to get the wheels turning again. They are siphoners, not producers.

                                      #24.3 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 2:34 PM EST
                                      confused????-03743

                                      East coast greed got us here

                                      think you could narrow your brush stroke a little ? i live on the east coast and its not my fault

                                        #24.4 - Sat Feb 6, 2010 12:02 AM EST
                                        Reply
                                        Just_Another_SheepDeleted
                                        hvymtl83

                                        Wow, what a bunch of confused losers on this seed. No wonder y'all have no money.

                                          Reply#26 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:37 AM EST
                                          ObamaTheLoser2012

                                          Yeah, the only rich people are the Libs?

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #26.1 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:42 AM EST
                                          Just_Another_SheepDeleted
                                          The Observer

                                          Wow, what a bunch of confused losers on this seed. No wonder y'all have no money.

                                          I got money! I put OEX puts two days ago!

                                          • 3 votes
                                          #26.3 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 12:17 PM EST
                                          Mike in AZ-1141523

                                          Observer,

                                          You are talking over too many of their heads. They don't know what a put is. Too many of them are used to having the governemnt support them. Isn't that the Dems mantra? Why work hard and start a business when the government can take care of you.

                                          • 3 votes
                                          #26.4 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 1:47 PM EST
                                          The Observer

                                          I'm having a great day!

                                          Self suficiency is wonderful!

                                          OEX 475 puts exp. Feb 20, 2010

                                            #26.5 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 1:54 PM EST
                                            hvymtl83

                                            Observer,

                                            Interesting trade. I sold upside calls and bought downside puts against my FCX position a few weeks ago. Closed out the trade when FCX broke for a nice little profit.

                                            Right now you gotta love a lot of the accidentally hi yielders again. BP, BMY, LLY, etc are starting to look really attractive. PGF looks nice too. Might wait for a little more bank bashing on that one tho.

                                              #26.6 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 2:00 PM EST
                                              Reply
                                              Not a Sheep anymore

                                              What is so unexpected about that? Did the writer just arrive here from another planet, or what?

                                              • 3 votes
                                              Reply#27 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:41 AM EST
                                              ObamaTheLoser2012

                                              It's always "UNEXPECTED" to this administration and his economic advisers!

                                              • 2 votes
                                              #27.1 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:48 AM EST
                                              Reply
                                              Bubba-939441

                                              There is no more money for unemployment. It all went to AIG for executive bonuses.

                                              • 1 vote
                                              Reply#28 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:46 AM EST
                                              ObamaTheLoser2012

                                              To the tune of $120 billion in TARP funding and when will it be paid back?

                                              • 1 vote
                                              #28.1 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:47 AM EST
                                              Bubba-939441

                                              "when will it be paid back?"

                                              They gotta give out the bonuses at AIG first.

                                              • 1 vote
                                              #28.2 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:54 AM EST
                                              Reply
                                              ObamaTheLoser2012

                                              This Administration from the top, starting with this LOSER of a President Obama and all his economic advisers have stated over the past few months that we are in a "recovery" and job losses will turn into job growth? Who is LYING?

                                              • 1 vote
                                              Reply#29 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:46 AM EST
                                              John-614398

                                              Well who would have thought that this bunch of creeps would lie to us?

                                                #29.1 - Thu Feb 4, 2010 7:16 PM EST
                                                Reply
                                                Jump to discussion page: 1 2
                                                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