Unemployment lowest since 2008 (3 Viewers)

[Fensalk]

Here is a typical example of inflation. Argentina suffered from a massive spike a few years ago in this chart. It is the green line. There was no time to prepare. By the time you saw the first signs, it had wiped out the savings of many people.

http://i55.tinypic.com/in6fyx.jpg

What an economist would expect to happen is Obama runs up supermassive deficits and we don't feel the effects via inflation. At least not right away. Then come 2018 all of sudden it hits like a tsumani, and by the end of 2019, everyone's life savings is wiped out. And then we will wonder where it came from. Well, it came from those deficits Obama ran up for years. And there will be no way to control it. It will be sudden, swift, and shocking.

 

[MasterofOrion]

Here is a typical example of inflation. Argentina suffered from a massive spike a few years ago in this chart. It is the green line. There was no time to prepare. By the time you saw the first signs, it had wiped out the savings of many people.

http://i55.tinypic.com/in6fyx.jpg

I know. Many South American countries just changed their currency by moving the decimal point back on their bills. For example, a $ 100 bill became a $ 10 bill. Brazil did this several times. So if started with $ 1,000,000 and this happened twice you would have $ 10,000. This illustrates the wealth destruction that inflation causes.

 

[MasterofOrion]

SD, those articles basically just say that the Fed has already done what Japan should have. I agree that it helped slow the fall, but it certainly hasn't put us back on track. We're already doing huge amounts of QE, and it's not having the demand effect they talk about. IIRC, most economists agree that QE gets less effective each time you have to use it.

The part I disagree with is "do whatever is necessary to hit that target". There are negative impacts of many of these policy decisions as well- we can't totally ignore those.

I agree there are many fiscal things we can do, but I have very little faith that we will do them. We blew it with the stimulus, so I don't blame people for being against another one, even though it seems necessary.

I think the key difference between QE and their recommendations is the open-ended nature of the commitments they advocate. Having a limited value on these purchases makes it much harder to shape expectations and does not insure the proper liquidity is provided if it beyond the number. Additionally, it still keeps the too low implicit core inflation rate ceiling of 2% the Fed has which will stall the economy every time it starts to get moving.QE's intent has been to prevent outright deflation and on that measure it has been a success. They have not been trying to return nominal spending to trend so I don't think that is the metric to judge the program on. Frankly, they make it quite clear that they will not accept the inflation needed to do that. That strikes me as exactly the same mistake that happened in those two prior situations. I do agree that each time it will be less effective mainly because the political pressure will force it to come later and in smaller amounts than it is needed.

Of course there are downside risks to doing whatever it takes to hit the goal. Over aggressive policy could cause a price-wage spiral that is difficult to contain. However, I think it is very wrong to be concerned about then when inflation is currently so low and has been so low signifying that money is now too tight. I am not a fan of making the problems we have worse while worrying about problems that there is no evidence are close to occurring. Wages are stagnant and market inflation expectations are as low as they have ever been. The Fed has a ton of credibility with the market as an inflation fighter and I am confident that they would rein inflation in before it got out of control. Hell, they are so concerned about inflation that they are constantly sabotaging any effort to escape the largest deflationary bust this country has seen in 80 years. That some credibility!

What happened during Carters administration?

 

[Slapdash]

Seven steps to help improve our economy.

1. Immediately halt all regulatory rule-making processes at the federal level. We have enough regulations now to get the job done.

2. Eliminate capital gains taxes. Eliminating these taxes would allow a free flow of investment capital that would enable countless new businesses.

3. Make every state a right-to-work state. Completely outlaw compulsory unionism. Nobody should ever have to join a union in order to work.

4. Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley. It's another jobs killer and inhibits corporate growth and profitability.

5. Institute loser pays at the federal level and urge states to do the same. This means that if you file a lawsuit against someone and you win, good for you. If you lose, you pay the other side's legal fees. Too many lawyers look at lawsuits like a lottery ticket, potential for windfall profits without much downside.

6. Eliminate most business and professional licensing requirements. Why should you need the state's permission to braid hair or to match pillows with drapes?

7. Revamp the tax code- set a date certain for the expiration of our current tax code. That will force congress to come up with a better plan.

I don't know where you cut and pasted this from since you never provide links (which you should do), but this would not do anything to help anyone except those at the top.

Actually, I really like #3 and #7. I'm not a fan of forced "unionism", although I also wouldn't be a fan of the feds telling the states they have to do this. I would like it if each state did it on their own. #7 is a really interesting idea, in that it would force Congress to start from scratch on the tax code, something I think everyone knows should be done but doesn't know how to get there from here.The others are full of pros and cons, and I think the cons outweigh the pros for such blanket statements. For example, "eliminate most licensing requirements" is a bit too broad for my liking, even though I'm certain that some of those requirements aren't necessary.

I have a degree and 35 years of practice. Why should I need a license?

I don't know what you do, so I have no idea whether you "should" need a license or not. I could argue, however, that depending on the activity, N years of practice shouldn't automatically preclude the need for licensing. For example, I think driver's licenses should need to be renewed every so often, including retaking both the written and driving portions of the test. The fact that one has been driving for 70 years doesn't mean that one is still be a capable driver.

We're not talking about driver's licenses here. Most professional licenses are renewed without having to take a test. In fact several professional licenses do not require a test, only pay a fee.

No doubt. Like I said above, I'm certain that some existing licensing requirements aren't necessary, but "eliminate most licensing requirements" is a bit too broad for me. I can think of a number of professions where licensing requirements are sound policy (doctor and lawyer to name a couple). As far as your particular license, I can't make my own judgment call on whether you "should" need one because I don't know what you and do and what your license covers.

I think licensing for doctors is one of the best examples of licensing overreach in the country. We have significantly less primary care physicians per capita than comparable countries. It is one of the big reasons our health care is more expensive and weighs down the quality. Chronic conditions build up and are more expensive to treat.

 

[Slapdash]

SD, those articles basically just say that the Fed has already done what Japan should have. I agree that it helped slow the fall, but it certainly hasn't put us back on track. We're already doing huge amounts of QE, and it's not having the demand effect they talk about. IIRC, most economists agree that QE gets less effective each time you have to use it.

The part I disagree with is "do whatever is necessary to hit that target". There are negative impacts of many of these policy decisions as well- we can't totally ignore those.

I agree there are many fiscal things we can do, but I have very little faith that we will do them. We blew it with the stimulus, so I don't blame people for being against another one, even though it seems necessary.

I think the key difference between QE and their recommendations is the open-ended nature of the commitments they advocate. Having a limited value on these purchases makes it much harder to shape expectations and does not insure the proper liquidity is provided if it beyond the number. Additionally, it still keeps the too low implicit core inflation rate ceiling of 2% the Fed has which will stall the economy every time it starts to get moving.QE's intent has been to prevent outright deflation and on that measure it has been a success. They have not been trying to return nominal spending to trend so I don't think that is the metric to judge the program on. Frankly, they make it quite clear that they will not accept the inflation needed to do that. That strikes me as exactly the same mistake that happened in those two prior situations. I do agree that each time it will be less effective mainly because the political pressure will force it to come later and in smaller amounts than it is needed.

Of course there are downside risks to doing whatever it takes to hit the goal. Over aggressive policy could cause a price-wage spiral that is difficult to contain. However, I think it is very wrong to be concerned about then when inflation is currently so low and has been so low signifying that money is now too tight. I am not a fan of making the problems we have worse while worrying about problems that there is no evidence are close to occurring. Wages are stagnant and market inflation expectations are as low as they have ever been. The Fed has a ton of credibility with the market as an inflation fighter and I am confident that they would rein inflation in before it got out of control. Hell, they are so concerned about inflation that they are constantly sabotaging any effort to escape the largest deflationary bust this country has seen in 80 years. That some credibility!

What happened during Carters administration?

An inflationary burst that was later treated by Volcker. In the 30 years since, the Fed has moved to stamp out inflation any time it began to show up in wages. Doing this has gained them this credibility I speak of. Any look at long term bond rates or inflation rates will make clear that a massive shift in policy occurred since then. .

 

[Slapdash]

Of course there are downside risks to doing whatever it takes to hit the goal. Over aggressive policy could cause a price-wage spiral that is difficult to contain. However, I think it is very wrong to be concerned about then when inflation is currently so low and has been so low signifying that money is now too tight. I am not a fan of making the problems we have worse while worrying about problems that there is no evidence are close to occurring. Wages are stagnant and market inflation expectations are as low as they have ever been. The Fed has a ton of credibility with the market as an inflation fighter and I am confident that they would rein inflation in before it got out of control. Hell, they are so concerned about inflation that they are constantly sabotaging any effort to escape the largest deflationary bust this country has seen in 80 years. That some credibility!

The bolded is very misguided. Inflation is not something that builds up gradually over the course of several years. History clearly shows that inflation is a spiky phenomenon. By the time you start to see inflation building up, its too late. There are valid cases to be made for not worrying about inflation right now, but to say we should not be concerned about inflation because there are no current signs of it at the moment is very wrong.

My argument is not as much that there are no signs of inflation but that all the signs currently point to deflation. Worrying about inflation at these times is counter-productive. I don't think history shows what you say about the spikiness of inflation in this country, there were clear warnings in both main indicators I mentioned above far before inflation became a crisis in the US.

 

[MasterofOrion]

Elaine Chao on Deflation on FNC



If you want to get out of this anemic slow grown, then get the private sector to work. There is tons of cash not being spent because we don't have any confidence in the administration policies.

 

[jamny]

Job growth grinds to a halt

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Employment growth ground to a halt in August as sagging consumer confidence discouraged already skittish U.S. businesses from hiring, keeping pressure on the Federal Reserve to provide more monetary stimulus to aid the economy.

Nonfarm payrolls were unchanged, the Labor Department said on Friday, the weakest reading since September. Nonfarm employment for June and July was revised to show 58,000 fewer jobs.

Despite the lack of employment growth, the jobless rate held steady at 9.1 percent. The unemployment rate is derived from a separate survey of households, which showed an increase in employment and a tick up in the labor force participation rate.

While the report underscored the frail state of the economy, the hiring slowdown probably will not be seen as a recession signal as layoffs are not rising that much.

A strike by about 45,000 Verizon Communications workers helped push employment in the information services down by 48,000.

"August was a pretty rough month for the economy," said Ryan Sweet, a senior economist at Moody's Analytics in West Chester, Pennsylvania. "We saw financial markets tighten. I think businesses sort of responded by putting hiring on the back burner," he said before the release of the report.

An acrimonious political fight over U.S. debt, which culminated in the downgrade of the country's AAA credit rating from Standard & Poor's, and a worsening debt crisis in Europe ignited a massive stock market sell-off last month and sent business and consumer confidence tumbling.

With the unemployment rate stuck above 9 percent and confidence collapsing, President Barack Obama is under pressure to come up with ways to spur job creation. The health of the labor market could determine whether he wins a second term in next year's elections.

Obama will lay out a new jobs plan in a speech to the nation on Thursday.

The weak employment data could strengthen the hand of officials at the U.S. central bank who were ready at their August meeting to do more to help the sputtering economy.

The Fed cut overnight interest rates to near zero in December 2008 and it has bought $2.3 trillion in securities. Many analysts say its arsenal is now largely depleted, although they expect it to do more to try to prop up growth.

DODGING RECESSION

Although hiring cooled, there is little sign companies responded to the darkening outlook by laying off workers. First-time applications for state unemployment benefits have hovered around 400,000 for weeks.

The steady jobless claims, relatively strong consumer spending, continued demand for manufactured goods and increases in industrial production suggest the economy will steer clear of recession.

"We do not expect the economy to slump, but rather to slouch and stagger," said Patrick O'Keefe, head of economic research at accounting firm J.H. Cohn in Roseland, New Jersey.

Still, analysts warn the economy is so weak, any fresh shock could send it tumbling. In the first half of the year, the economy expanded at less than a 1 percent annual rate, bad news for the estimated 14 million unemployed Americans.

If job growth does not accelerate, it could take more than four years to return to the pre-recession employment level.

Private payrolls increased only 17,000 after rising 156,000 in July. Government employment fell 17,000, contracting for a 10th straight month. The decline in government payrolls was tempered by the return of 23,000 state workers in Minnesota after a partial government shutdown in July.

Details of the employment report were weak, with manufacturing payrolls falling 3,000, reflecting the slump in business confidence. Factories added 36,000 new workers in July as disruptions to motor vehicle production caused by a shortage of parts from Japan eased.

The average work week dropped to 34.2 hours, the fewest since January, from 34.3 hours. Average hourly earnings fell three cents.

 

[Slapdash]

Job growth grinds to a halt

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Employment growth ground to a halt in August as sagging consumer confidence discouraged already skittish U.S. businesses from hiring, keeping pressure on the Federal Reserve to provide more monetary stimulus to aid the economy.

Nonfarm payrolls were unchanged, the Labor Department said on Friday, the weakest reading since September. Nonfarm employment for June and July was revised to show 58,000 fewer jobs.

Despite the lack of employment growth, the jobless rate held steady at 9.1 percent. The unemployment rate is derived from a separate survey of households, which showed an increase in employment and a tick up in the labor force participation rate.

While the report underscored the frail state of the economy, the hiring slowdown probably will not be seen as a recession signal as layoffs are not rising that much.

A strike by about 45,000 Verizon Communications workers helped push employment in the information services down by 48,000.

"August was a pretty rough month for the economy," said Ryan Sweet, a senior economist at Moody's Analytics in West Chester, Pennsylvania. "We saw financial markets tighten. I think businesses sort of responded by putting hiring on the back burner," he said before the release of the report.

An acrimonious political fight over U.S. debt, which culminated in the downgrade of the country's AAA credit rating from Standard & Poor's, and a worsening debt crisis in Europe ignited a massive stock market sell-off last month and sent business and consumer confidence tumbling.

With the unemployment rate stuck above 9 percent and confidence collapsing, President Barack Obama is under pressure to come up with ways to spur job creation. The health of the labor market could determine whether he wins a second term in next year's elections.

Obama will lay out a new jobs plan in a speech to the nation on Thursday.

The weak employment data could strengthen the hand of officials at the U.S. central bank who were ready at their August meeting to do more to help the sputtering economy.

The Fed cut overnight interest rates to near zero in December 2008 and it has bought $2.3 trillion in securities. Many analysts say its arsenal is now largely depleted, although they expect it to do more to try to prop up growth.

DODGING RECESSION

Although hiring cooled, there is little sign companies responded to the darkening outlook by laying off workers. First-time applications for state unemployment benefits have hovered around 400,000 for weeks.

The steady jobless claims, relatively strong consumer spending, continued demand for manufactured goods and increases in industrial production suggest the economy will steer clear of recession.

"We do not expect the economy to slump, but rather to slouch and stagger," said Patrick O'Keefe, head of economic research at accounting firm J.H. Cohn in Roseland, New Jersey.

Still, analysts warn the economy is so weak, any fresh shock could send it tumbling. In the first half of the year, the economy expanded at less than a 1 percent annual rate, bad news for the estimated 14 million unemployed Americans.

If job growth does not accelerate, it could take more than four years to return to the pre-recession employment level.

Private payrolls increased only 17,000 after rising 156,000 in July. Government employment fell 17,000, contracting for a 10th straight month. The decline in government payrolls was tempered by the return of 23,000 state workers in Minnesota after a partial government shutdown in July.

Details of the employment report were weak, with manufacturing payrolls falling 3,000, reflecting the slump in business confidence. Factories added 36,000 new workers in July as disruptions to motor vehicle production caused by a shortage of parts from Japan eased.

The average work week dropped to 34.2 hours, the fewest since January, from 34.3 hours. Average hourly earnings fell three cents.

That brings us to over 600k government cuts since the end of the recession. I'm sure that can't be making this recovery weaker or anything. Where is the private sector explosion that we have been told will come along with this?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Private payrolls increased only 17,000 after rising 156,000 in July. Government employment fell 17,000, contracting for a 10th straight month. The decline in government payrolls was tempered by the return of 23,000 state workers in Minnesota after a partial government shutdown in July.

That brings us to over 600k government cuts since the end of the recession. I'm sure that can't be making this recovery weaker or anything. Where is the private sector explosion that we have been told will come along with this?

Just think of how bad it would be if we hadn't cut those jobs? See? We can play that game too. Further, why don't we, even in good times, have full employment by simply hiring everyone into government that's left over when the private sector is full up? That'd really get things cooking, wouldn't it?

 

[Go DC Yourself]

Brian Beutler | January 24, 2011, 10:46AM

Citing a Dow Jones story reporting that U.S. companies plan to increase hiring, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's press shop fired off a morning roundup including this sub headline: "THERE ARE THE JOBS: Republicans Prevent Massive Tax Increase, Economy Begins to Improve."The Dow Jones story does not credit Republicans for the recovery.In recent weeks, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and David Dreier (R-CA) have separately claimed credit for different economic metrics. Kyl claimed that the GOP's November victory and the resulting tax cut compromise caused 2010's annual corporate profits to skyrocket. Dreier claimed that recent jobs numbers wouldn't be as promising as they have been if the GOP hadn't swept back into power.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/again-republicans-claim-credit-for-coming-economic-recovery.php

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Brian Beutler | January 24, 2011, 10:46AM

Citing a Dow Jones story reporting that U.S. companies plan to increase hiring, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's press shop fired off a morning roundup including this sub headline: "THERE ARE THE JOBS: Republicans Prevent Massive Tax Increase, Economy Begins to Improve."

The Dow Jones story does not credit Republicans for the recovery.

In recent weeks, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and David Dreier (R-CA) have separately claimed credit for different economic metrics. Kyl claimed that the GOP's November victory and the resulting tax cut compromise caused 2010's annual corporate profits to skyrocket. Dreier claimed that recent jobs numbers wouldn't be as promising as they have been if the GOP hadn't swept back into power.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/again-republicans-claim-credit-for-coming-economic-recovery.php

Well I think that should be obvious.

 

[Slapdash]

Private payrolls increased only 17,000 after rising 156,000 in July. Government employment fell 17,000, contracting for a 10th straight month. The decline in government payrolls was tempered by the return of 23,000 state workers in Minnesota after a partial government shutdown in July.

That brings us to over 600k government cuts since the end of the recession. I'm sure that can't be making this recovery weaker or anything. Where is the private sector explosion that we have been told will come along with this?

Just think of how bad it would be if we hadn't cut those jobs? See? We can play that game too.

Sure, if you could point to some evidence that cutting government jobs makes growth in output and private employment accelerate. Looking at employment data since the stimulus does not show that, it shows the opposite.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Just think of how bad it would be if we hadn't cut those jobs? See? We can play that game too.

Sure, if you could point to some evidence that cutting government jobs makes growth in output and private employment accelerate. Looking at employment data since the stimulus does not show that, it shows the opposite.

It was a joke. Be that as it may, I don't know if you're equating cutting of government spending with cutting of government jobs (I suppose that connection could be made), but I don't think anyone has said that by cutting government jobs we'll see a corresponding rise in private sector employment. Not in so many words anyway.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Slapdash doing the Lord's work in here.

 

[guderian]

Private payrolls increased only 17,000 after rising 156,000 in July. Government employment fell 17,000, contracting for a 10th straight month. The decline in government payrolls was tempered by the return of 23,000 state workers in Minnesota after a partial government shutdown in July.

That brings us to over 600k government cuts since the end of the recession. I'm sure that can't be making this recovery weaker or anything. Where is the private sector explosion that we have been told will come along with this?

Just think of how bad it would be if we hadn't cut those jobs? See? We can play that game too.

Sure, if you could point to some evidence that cutting government jobs makes growth in output and private employment accelerate. Looking at employment data since the stimulus does not show that, it shows the opposite.

The data going into the recession also showed that a huge increase in government spending didn't prevent the economy from collapsing, yet some thought that increasing government spending would get us out of it. As far as employment growth, ask Obama who was talking up his 'summer of recovery' last year or Geithner who was writing letters to the editors boasting of economic expansion. Just yesterday, the white house revised down their economic forecasts showing 9% unemployment through 2012. Glad they finally realized what everyone else already has--that their policies are a complete failure.

 

[Slapdash]

Private payrolls increased only 17,000 after rising 156,000 in July. Government employment fell 17,000, contracting for a 10th straight month. The decline in government payrolls was tempered by the return of 23,000 state workers in Minnesota after a partial government shutdown in July.

That brings us to over 600k government cuts since the end of the recession. I'm sure that can't be making this recovery weaker or anything. Where is the private sector explosion that we have been told will come along with this?

Just think of how bad it would be if we hadn't cut those jobs? See? We can play that game too.

Sure, if you could point to some evidence that cutting government jobs makes growth in output and private employment accelerate. Looking at employment data since the stimulus does not show that, it shows the opposite.

The data going into the recession also showed that a huge increase in government spending didn't prevent the economy from collapsing, yet some thought that increasing government spending would get us out of it. As far as employment growth, ask Obama who was talking up his 'summer of recovery' last year or Geithner who was writing letters to the editors boasting of economic expansion. Just yesterday, the white house revised down their economic forecasts showing 9% unemployment through 2012. Glad they finally realized what everyone else already has--that their policies are a complete failure.

We were losing 800k jobs a month before the stimulus was passed and peaked at gaining 400k a month during early 2010 when stimulus spending peaked. Lucky coincidence I guess.

I agree the administration's pivot to deficit reduction in early 2010 has been an abject failure and not inspired the recovery they thought it would. I also agree the obsession of Obama to focus on the politics of every part of his economic plans and patently ignore the recommendations of his econ advisors has been a massive failure. It resulted in a stimulus that was very inefficiently structured; a mixture of tax cuts that were saved and pet projects for the Dems. I will still maintain that it is better than doing nothing or cutting spending, which I'm sure we won't agree on.

I still give them a little leeway, because the data has become quite clear that we were staring into the abyss in early 2009 and I think the stimulus and Fed actions reversed course sharply. But the timidity of our leaders to face reality that more drastic actions(short term stimulus and long run structural budget changes) are needed since then is mind-blowing.

 

[Slapdash]

Just think of how bad it would be if we hadn't cut those jobs? See? We can play that game too.

Sure, if you could point to some evidence that cutting government jobs makes growth in output and private employment accelerate. Looking at employment data since the stimulus does not show that, it shows the opposite.

It was a joke. Be that as it may, I don't know if you're equating cutting of government spending with cutting of government jobs (I suppose that connection could be made), but I don't think anyone has said that by cutting government jobs we'll see a corresponding rise in private sector employment. Not in so many words anyway.

Yeah, my sarcasm meter sucks so I like to err on the side of a serious response. I do think that this is what the "tightening our belt" or "job-killing spending" is all about. When I hear Obama say the former or Boehner say the latter I take that as equivalent to saying that cutting these government jobs and spending are going to spur private spending and jobs. My rational for that connection is this: Reducing the spending will end up as cutting jobs when it is focused on non-defense discretionary or is at the state level, as it has been consistently for the last year and a half. Even if mandatory programs were included, these areas are still going to bear the brunt of the cuts. Most of these spending cuts will trickle to the local levels, so you see the massive decreases in education and public safety jobs. If we were talking about entitlement or defense spending I think they would be less interchangeable with jobs.I think it is consistent with Austrian theories, particularly more modern ones like Arnold Kling’s PSST, that cutting education and infrastructure is going to hurt the economy and the short and long run. I think we all agree that solving the entitlements, defense, and revenue structure for the long run would help things though we may disagree on how that should be implemented. It is shame that we are seeing the opposite of both occur despite this agreement, but the results shouldn’t be unexpected.

 

[ScottNorwood]

Americans just need to get used to not having great jobs anymore. The value of a college education is not as high as it used to be. The population is going to continue to grow faster than good jobs are created. Some people might have to deal with being bus boys or shoe salesmen even though they are overqualified for those positions.

There are jobs out there, just not the jobs that people want to do. Regardless of who's in office this is going to continue to get worse. Americans need a wake up call.

 

[guderian]

Private payrolls increased only 17,000 after rising 156,000 in July. Government employment fell 17,000, contracting for a 10th straight month. The decline in government payrolls was tempered by the return of 23,000 state workers in Minnesota after a partial government shutdown in July.

That brings us to over 600k government cuts since the end of the recession. I'm sure that can't be making this recovery weaker or anything. Where is the private sector explosion that we have been told will come along with this?

Just think of how bad it would be if we hadn't cut those jobs? See? We can play that game too.

Sure, if you could point to some evidence that cutting government jobs makes growth in output and private employment accelerate. Looking at employment data since the stimulus does not show that, it shows the opposite.

The data going into the recession also showed that a huge increase in government spending didn't prevent the economy from collapsing, yet some thought that increasing government spending would get us out of it. As far as employment growth, ask Obama who was talking up his 'summer of recovery' last year or Geithner who was writing letters to the editors boasting of economic expansion. Just yesterday, the white house revised down their economic forecasts showing 9% unemployment through 2012. Glad they finally realized what everyone else already has--that their policies are a complete failure.

We were losing 800k jobs a month before the stimulus was passed and peaked at gaining 400k a month during early 2010 when stimulus spending peaked. Lucky coincidence I guess.

I agree the administration's pivot to deficit reduction in early 2010 has been an abject failure and not inspired the recovery they thought it would. I also agree the obsession of Obama to focus on the politics of every part of his economic plans and patently ignore the recommendations of his econ advisors has been a massive failure. It resulted in a stimulus that was very inefficiently structured; a mixture of tax cuts that were saved and pet projects for the Dems. I will still maintain that it is better than doing nothing or cutting spending, which I'm sure we won't agree on.

I still give them a little leeway, because the data has become quite clear that we were staring into the abyss in early 2009 and I think the stimulus and Fed actions reversed course sharply. But the timidity of our leaders to face reality that more drastic actions(short term stimulus and long run structural budget changes) are needed since then is mind-blowing.

I don't doubt that $1 trillion will temporarily buy a lot of jobs, but the purpose of the stimulus was that it would "stimulate" permanent demand--and it hasn't. We're over 8 million jobs short of what we were promised and we were told we'd be running along at 4%+ GDP growth by now. If they 'pivoted' to deficit reduction in early 2010, I don't see where that's paid off either. The deficit in 2010 was $1.5 trillion and it's projected to be $1.3 trillion this year--and the main reason it's declined is TARP recoveries. So, if their alleged 'pivot' to deficit reduction didn't inspire a recovery, it was because there has been no meaningful deficit reduction. Failed again.

 

[DrJ]

Americans just need to get used to not having great jobs anymore. The value of a college education is not as high as it used to be. The population is going to continue to grow faster than good jobs are created. Some people might have to deal with being bus boys or shoe salesmen even though they are overqualified for those positions.There are jobs out there, just not the jobs that people want to do. Regardless of who's in office this is going to continue to get worse. Americans need a wake up call.

Disagree - the highest unemployment is among those competing with illegals for the bus boy jobs. Those with a college degree are faring much better.

 

[DrJ]

Here's the current charts:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/demographics.htm#education

Less than HS diploma is sitting at 14.9% and grew .3% this year

HS Grad no college is sitting at 10.3% and grew .6% this year

Some college no degree is at 9.2% and grew .6% this year

Associate degree is at 7.0% and grew .2% this year.

Bachelor's and higher is at 4.7% and grew .1% this year.

It's the guys who are out of jobs due to an eroding manufacturing base, with no remaining opportunities due to illegals, that are suffering the worst here. BY FAR.

It's also notable that it's even worse than these numbers portray, because the lower groups also have far lower labor force participation rates. 46.3% amongst the less than HS diploma compared to 73.1% for the Bachelor's degree and higher demographic.

 

[Slapdash]

Private payrolls increased only 17,000 after rising 156,000 in July. Government employment fell 17,000, contracting for a 10th straight month. The decline in government payrolls was tempered by the return of 23,000 state workers in Minnesota after a partial government shutdown in July.

That brings us to over 600k government cuts since the end of the recession. I'm sure that can't be making this recovery weaker or anything. Where is the private sector explosion that we have been told will come along with this?

Just think of how bad it would be if we hadn't cut those jobs? See? We can play that game too.

Sure, if you could point to some evidence that cutting government jobs makes growth in output and private employment accelerate. Looking at employment data since the stimulus does not show that, it shows the opposite.

The data going into the recession also showed that a huge increase in government spending didn't prevent the economy from collapsing, yet some thought that increasing government spending would get us out of it. As far as employment growth, ask Obama who was talking up his 'summer of recovery' last year or Geithner who was writing letters to the editors boasting of economic expansion. Just yesterday, the white house revised down their economic forecasts showing 9% unemployment through 2012. Glad they finally realized what everyone else already has--that their policies are a complete failure.

We were losing 800k jobs a month before the stimulus was passed and peaked at gaining 400k a month during early 2010 when stimulus spending peaked. Lucky coincidence I guess.

I agree the administration's pivot to deficit reduction in early 2010 has been an abject failure and not inspired the recovery they thought it would. I also agree the obsession of Obama to focus on the politics of every part of his economic plans and patently ignore the recommendations of his econ advisors has been a massive failure. It resulted in a stimulus that was very inefficiently structured; a mixture of tax cuts that were saved and pet projects for the Dems. I will still maintain that it is better than doing nothing or cutting spending, which I'm sure we won't agree on.

I still give them a little leeway, because the data has become quite clear that we were staring into the abyss in early 2009 and I think the stimulus and Fed actions reversed course sharply. But the timidity of our leaders to face reality that more drastic actions(short term stimulus and long run structural budget changes) are needed since then is mind-blowing.

I don't doubt that $1 trillion will temporarily buy a lot of jobs, but the purpose of the stimulus was that it would "stimulate" permanent demand--and it hasn't. We're over 8 million jobs short of what we were promised and we were told we'd be running along at 4%+ GDP growth by now. If they 'pivoted' to deficit reduction in early 2010, I don't see where that's paid off either. The deficit in 2010 was $1.5 trillion and it's projected to be $1.3 trillion this year--and the main reason it's declined is TARP recoveries. So, if their alleged 'pivot' to deficit reduction didn't inspire a recovery, it was because there has been no meaningful deficit reduction. Failed again.

I was more speaking to that they switched the "bully pulpit" from being focused on the best way to stimulate growth to the best way to cut the deficit. They sent the harmful message that the recovery was on its own now and the pace of growth was sufficient. But yeah, they have failed to even accomplish deficit reduction too.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Anyone that thinks we are on the right path or have been on the right path the last 2-3 years is a snake oil salesman. Obama met with Fortune 500 CEOs last year and they said point blank that they were uncomfortable with the policies in place and they were not optimistic that things would get better without some assurances that better rules would be in place. Obama is stubborn...he continues to do what he wants and that's fine but his arrogance is going to be his demise.

CEOs told him they wanted a more stable environment, Obama did not follow through and now we are here. I'm not blaming Obama for the crisis, he inherited a mess, but that can't be the 1st talking point every time. Every President inherits whatever is left behind. You can't blame Obama for the creation of the mess but you can judge him on what he has done since then and for a lot of people it doesn't sit well but the folks that are going to vote for him in the next election are spinning the current recession like Obama is making headway and he isn't.

 

[LHUCKS]

I have no sympathy for those voting for fiscal liberals.

You get what you deserve.

You want jobs, start understanding basic economic principles and vote accordingly.

Until then, no sympathy.

Vote for Obama again, I dare you.

 

[Chadstroma]

White House Downshifts on Jobs, Growth

By JOHN D. MCKINNON

The Obama administration now says U.S. unemployment could persist at its current stubbornly high level around 9% well into 2012.

A new economic forecast released Thursday suggests the White House is bracing for a weak economy in the coming election year, while bolstering President Barack Obama's calls for more government action to boost hiring and economic growth.

Mr. Obama is scheduled to address a joint session of Congress next Thursday to outline his latest economic proposals. His ideas could include "a mix of tax cuts to create jobs and provide economic security to the middle class, [and] innovative infrastructure ideas to put people back to work," as well as measures aimed at the long-term unemployed, the report said. White House press secretary Jay Carney suggested the measures could push the unemployment rate below 9%, but he also sought to avoid making predictions.

Republicans attacked the report released by the Office of Management and Budget as the latest evidence that the administration's policies aren't working either to create jobs or reduce federal budget deficits. "By its own admission, the Obama Administration's record on job creation and fiscal responsibility is abysmal," said Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), the chairman of the House Budget Committee.

Based on the economy's performance through late June, White House forecasters said they had been expecting that the overall jobless rate, now 9.1%, would run about 8.3% next year and continue to decline before settling around 5.2% later in the decade.

But several simmering economic problems worsened during the summer, leading the administration to expect the economy's output, adjusted for inflation, to grow 2.6% next year—a more bearish forecast than the 3.3% it expected based on the data through June.

The mid-year update also predicts a $1.3 trillion government budget deficit for the fiscal year that ends this month, and a $956 billion shortfall for the year that starts Oct. 1. Both those figures are somewhat better than the administration's previous predictions, though they are still among the highest since World War II.

Administration officials said they downgraded their projections for economic growth and employment largely because of recent unexpected weakness in the U.S. economy, particularly ongoing turmoil in the housing market and slackening demand for exports. The report also cited high oil prices, disruptions to global supply chains from Japan's earthquake and "uncertainty surrounding congressional action on the debt ceiling, all of which have delayed the recovery further."

The Federal Reserve, the International Monetary Fund and many private economists have recently lowered their forecasts for the next two years. J.P. Morgan Chase economists now see growth at a 1% annual rate through mid-2012, after previously expecting growth as high as 2.5% in the fourth quarter. Macroeconomic Advisers, a consulting firm, projects the unemployment rate to be above 9% most of next year.

The administration said the forecasts show the need for further steps to boost employment and growth. While lawmakers have focused on cutting spending, "Congress must appreciate that the economy is still wrestling with the after-effects of a very severe recession," the report said.

But Mr. Ryan chided the administration—which once predicted that the 2009 stimulus bill would hold unemployment under 8%—for now projecting that unemployment would remain higher than 8% for the remainder of Mr. Obama's current term.

 

[Chadstroma]

You know it is bad when the usually most optimistic forecast is downgraded to some scary numbers.

 

[Chadstroma]

Oh, and someone should go get Adonis.... Slapdash must be getting tired doing all the heavy lifting of Obama Spin Co. in here.

 

[Slapdash]

Oh, and someone should go get Adonis.... Slapdash must be getting tired doing all the heavy lifting of Obama Spin Co. in here.

Very telling that you refer to defending basic principles of modern macroeconomics accepted by those across the political spectrum and repeated in history (that cutting government jobs/spending will depress growth in the short run) as "Obama Spin". My posts today have not been supportive of Obama and, at this point, I don't even plan to vote for him. But, evidently I can't debate these concepts without partisan hacks like you seeing everything through Red vs. Blue lenses. What a truly awful poster you are.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I have no sympathy for those voting for fiscal liberals.You get what you deserve.You want jobs, start understanding basic economic principles and vote accordingly.Until then, no sympathy.Vote for Obama again, I dare you.

Please explain how massive cuts to federal and state spending will result in short term job growth. TIA.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

Anyone that thinks we are on the right path or have been on the right path the last 2-3 years is a snake oil salesman. Obama met with Fortune 500 CEOs last year and they said point blank that they were uncomfortable with the policies in place and they were not optimistic that things would get better without some assurances that better rules would be in place. Obama is stubborn...he continues to do what he wants and that's fine but his arrogance is going to be his demise. CEOs told him they wanted a more stable environment, Obama did not follow through and now we are here. I'm not blaming Obama for the crisis, he inherited a mess, but that can't be the 1st talking point every time. Every President inherits whatever is left behind. You can't blame Obama for the creation of the mess but you can judge him on what he has done since then and for a lot of people it doesn't sit well but the folks that are going to vote for him in the next election are spinning the current recession like Obama is making headway and he isn't.

No one is going to fix this mess any time soon. NO ONE. You could lower taxes to zero and companies would still be scared to hire. Make huge cuts to the budget and you'll only see less consumer demand leading to more layoffs.

 

[Daywalker]

Anyone that thinks we are on the right path or have been on the right path the last 2-3 years is a snake oil salesman. Obama met with Fortune 500 CEOs last year and they said point blank that they were uncomfortable with the policies in place and they were not optimistic that things would get better without some assurances that better rules would be in place. Obama is stubborn...he continues to do what he wants and that's fine but his arrogance is going to be his demise. CEOs told him they wanted a more stable environment, Obama did not follow through and now we are here. I'm not blaming Obama for the crisis, he inherited a mess, but that can't be the 1st talking point every time. Every President inherits whatever is left behind. You can't blame Obama for the creation of the mess but you can judge him on what he has done since then and for a lot of people it doesn't sit well but the folks that are going to vote for him in the next election are spinning the current recession like Obama is making headway and he isn't.

Why would CEO's want anything to change? Fortune 500's are making huge profits. Of course they would say anything to keep the current game in place. Best way to keep it going is to push further right.The "uncertainty" in the business community is the snake oil.

 

[LHUCKS]

I have no sympathy for those voting for fiscal liberals.You get what you deserve.You want jobs, start understanding basic economic principles and vote accordingly.Until then, no sympathy.Vote for Obama again, I dare you.

Please explain how massive cuts to federal and state spending will result in short term job growth. TIA.

In the short term, restoring confidence in the American system(by actually balancing the budget) will prevent things like US Credit downgrades and would likely result in an upgrade. Subsequently, restoring confidence in the American economy and stimulating growth in the private sector.Sustainable jobs are created by the private sector, not by the government...everybody knows this.In the long term, the govt. can use its new found tax money on creating efficiencies, particularly in the space of energy and transportation. It could invest the money in promoting education that actually stimulates growth in today's economy...math, science etc.That's a short answer.If you think it's wise to continue to build this massive deficit that will act as a weight tied to a swimmer's ankle, then you really don't understand economics and/or basic finance.The solution is easy. Cut Medicare, cut defense spending, cut all other extraneous spending and start spending your money on line items that actually invest in our future as opposed to pacemakers and aircraft carriers.Tax reform and energy independence are two other obvious areas that are in need of obvious reform. Pull your heads out and vote for candidates that are interested in fixing the nation's problems as opposed to getting re-elected.

 

[humpback]

I have no sympathy for those voting for fiscal liberals.You get what you deserve.You want jobs, start understanding basic economic principles and vote accordingly.Until then, no sympathy.Vote for Obama again, I dare you.

Please explain how massive cuts to federal and state spending will result in short term job growth. TIA.

We need to focus less on the short term and more on the medium and long term.

 

[LHUCKS]

Why would CEO's want anything to change? Fortune 500's are making huge profits. Of course they would say anything to keep the current game in place. Best way to keep it going is to push further right.The "uncertainty" in the business community is the snake oil.

Bernanke and company have actually done a decent job appeasing large corporations...profits and white collar employment numbers prove this.If there is one area that this administration hasn't catastrophically failed it's in this particular area. It wasn't rocket science though, our innovative corporations are the lifeblood of our economy...without them we lose everything.

 

[LHUCKS]

I have no sympathy for those voting for fiscal liberals.You get what you deserve.You want jobs, start understanding basic economic principles and vote accordingly.Until then, no sympathy.Vote for Obama again, I dare you.

Please explain how massive cuts to federal and state spending will result in short term job growth. TIA.

We need to focus less on the short term and more on the medium and long term.

correctThe problem is that those seeking handouts only care about today...that's why they're seeking handouts in the first place.Republicans shoulder a lot of blame for defense spending so they're not totally off the hook, and of course Bush with his Medicare expansion shoulders some blame as well.STOP SPENDING

 

[greenroom]

I have no sympathy for those voting for fiscal liberals.

You get what you deserve.

You want jobs, start understanding basic economic principles and vote accordingly.

Until then, no sympathy.

Vote for Obama again, I dare you.

Please explain how massive cuts to federal and state spending will result in short term job growth. TIA.

In the short term, restoring confidence in the American system(by actually balancing the budget) will prevent things like US Credit downgrades and would likely result in an upgrade. Subsequently, restoring confidence in the American economy and stimulating growth in the private sector.Sustainable jobs are created by the private sector, not by the government...everybody knows this.

In the long term, the govt. can use its new found tax money on creating efficiencies, particularly in the space of energy and transportation. It could invest the money in promoting education that actually stimulates growth in today's economy...math, science etc.

That's a short answer.

If you think it's wise to continue to build this massive deficit that will act as a weight tied to a swimmer's ankle, then you really don't understand economics and/or basic finance.

The solution is easy. Cut Medicare, cut defense spending, cut all other extraneous spending and start spending your money on line items that actually invest in our future as opposed to pacemakers and aircraft carriers.

Tax reform and energy independence are two other obvious areas that are in need of obvious reform.

Pull your heads out and vote for candidates that are interested in fixing the nation's problems as opposed to getting re-elected.

A balance budget is not where we need to start.. We need to start with Teaparty/Rebpublicans working with the President and the Dems and vice versa. Not stopping our System as they have done and continue to threaten to do. That is why our credit is gone in the tank and why this country is such a mess. Has Obama helped no, but Congress is hurting this country more than President Obama has or ever could.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I have no sympathy for those voting for fiscal liberals.You get what you deserve.You want jobs, start understanding basic economic principles and vote accordingly.Until then, no sympathy.Vote for Obama again, I dare you.

Please explain how massive cuts to federal and state spending will result in short term job growth. TIA.

In the short term, restoring confidence in the American system(by actually balancing the budget) will prevent things like US Credit downgrades and would likely result in an upgrade. Subsequently, restoring confidence in the American economy and stimulating growth in the private sector.Sustainable jobs are created by the private sector, not by the government...everybody knows this.In the long term, the govt. can use its new found tax money on creating efficiencies, particularly in the space of energy and transportation. It could invest the money in promoting education that actually stimulates growth in today's economy...math, science etc.That's a short answer.If you think it's wise to continue to build this massive deficit that will act as a weight tied to a swimmer's ankle, then you really don't understand economics and/or basic finance.The solution is easy. Cut Medicare, cut defense spending, cut all other extraneous spending and start spending your money on line items that actually invest in our future as opposed to pacemakers and aircraft carriers.Tax reform and energy independence are two other obvious areas that are in need of obvious reform. Pull your heads out and vote for candidates that are interested in fixing the nation's problems as opposed to getting re-elected.

So Jim the tire dealer down the street isn't hiring b/c he's worried about the credibility of the US government? Bond yields must be sky high sure to the lack of confidence, right? Total horse####. Your ignorance with regard to macro-economics is surprising.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I have no sympathy for those voting for fiscal liberals.You get what you deserve.You want jobs, start understanding basic economic principles and vote accordingly.Until then, no sympathy.Vote for Obama again, I dare you.

Please explain how massive cuts to federal and state spending will result in short term job growth. TIA.

We need to focus less on the short term and more on the medium and long term.

correctThe problem is that those seeking handouts only care about today...that's why they're seeking handouts in the first place.Republicans shoulder a lot of blame for defense spending so they're not totally off the hook, and of course Bush with his Medicare expansion shoulders some blame as well.STOP SPENDING

Heres a hint - " stop spending" hurts the economy in the short run, so please, no whining from you regarding short term unemployment, okay?

 

[timschochet]

So Jim the tire dealer down the street isn't hiring b/c he's worried about the credibility of the US government? Bond yields must be sky high sure to the lack of confidence, right? Total horse####. Your ignorance with regard to macro-economics is surprising.

Yeah, to tell you the truth, tommy, I have trouble believing this one as well. I generally believe that lower taxation and lower regulation helps a business environment. That's not rocket science. But it seems awfully foolish to assume that this alone is the answer to all our problems.

 

[humpback]

I have no sympathy for those voting for fiscal liberals.You get what you deserve.You want jobs, start understanding basic economic principles and vote accordingly.Until then, no sympathy.Vote for Obama again, I dare you.

Please explain how massive cuts to federal and state spending will result in short term job growth. TIA.

We need to focus less on the short term and more on the medium and long term.

correctThe problem is that those seeking handouts only care about today...that's why they're seeking handouts in the first place.Republicans shoulder a lot of blame for defense spending so they're not totally off the hook, and of course Bush with his Medicare expansion shoulders some blame as well.STOP SPENDING

I think the bigger issue is that politicians are way too focused on the short term because getting re-elected is their main priority. It's much easier to get re-elected if things look better now, even if it hurts us longer term, as opposed to the opposite which would be better for the country.

 

[grateful zed]

grow hemp

 

[LHUCKS]

So Jim the tire dealer down the street isn't hiring b/c he's worried about the credibility of the US government? Bond yields must be sky high sure to the lack of confidence, right? Total horse####. Your ignorance with regard to macro-economics is surprising.

Jiim the tire dealer hires 10 people and does nothing for our trade balance.Microsoft employs 10s of Thousands and is the lifeblood of our economy...the revenues gaine from Mircosoft pay for Jim's tire business.The key is marketing to the world, as it always has been.Your "ignorance as it relates to macroeconomics" surprises me.

 

[Chadstroma]

Oh, and someone should go get Adonis.... Slapdash must be getting tired doing all the heavy lifting of Obama Spin Co. in here.

Very telling that you refer to defending basic principles of modern macroeconomics accepted by those across the political spectrum and repeated in history (that cutting government jobs/spending will depress growth in the short run) as "Obama Spin". My posts today have not been supportive of Obama and, at this point, I don't even plan to vote for him. But, evidently I can't debate these concepts without partisan hacks like you seeing everything through Red vs. Blue lenses. What a truly awful poster you are.

Ah yes, the economics professor has spoken. Thanks for the update. I certainly hope you are not as angry in real life as you are here in the FFA. That would make for such a depressing life.

 

[Chadstroma]

And for the economics PhD's teaching us poor idiots without any understanding of anything... interesting how you harp on the short term impact of government spending yet we have spent and spent in the short term with abysmal numbers to show for it. But what is much worse is how these short term policies that are suppose to save us (which have not) are also creating the conditions for long term economic malaise (at best). But hey, what would I know, I am the worse poster ever.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Anyone that thinks we are on the right path or have been on the right path the last 2-3 years is a snake oil salesman. Obama met with Fortune 500 CEOs last year and they said point blank that they were uncomfortable with the policies in place and they were not optimistic that things would get better without some assurances that better rules would be in place. Obama is stubborn...he continues to do what he wants and that's fine but his arrogance is going to be his demise.

CEOs told him they wanted a more stable environment, Obama did not follow through and now we are here. I'm not blaming Obama for the crisis, he inherited a mess, but that can't be the 1st talking point every time. Every President inherits whatever is left behind. You can't blame Obama for the creation of the mess but you can judge him on what he has done since then and for a lot of people it doesn't sit well but the folks that are going to vote for him in the next election are spinning the current recession like Obama is making headway and he isn't.

No one is going to fix this mess any time soon. NO ONE. You could lower taxes to zero and companies would still be scared to hire. Make huge cuts to the budget and you'll only see less consumer demand leading to more layoffs.

That's the American way. What if we had listened to folks that said we couldn't put a man on the moon? What if Edison threw in the towel after the 468th failure? What if we had surrendered to the English during the Revolutionary War?

I'm really tired of the Victicrats spitting out that it's OK because nothing can be done. Get out of the way then and let someone else try. Obama is a lawyer not a businessman and it shows. he runs the country about how I would expect a Law grad with no business skills whatsoever. He has zero business sense and looks really baffled by what is happening right now. he doesn't even come out and make a pep talk...half of the problem is people "BELIEVE WE ARE IN A RECESSION." he needs to talk to the country and encourage people to spend some money, those that have it, and also needs to make the folks who can hire others comfortable. it's not as hopeless as the Left would have you believe.

 

[Novice2]

Unemployment continues to get worse Forget blame; what should we do?

Give me a job.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Amazing that people continue to believe govt spending is the solution. We had a bubble. A giant bubble. (tech bubble, for those who are a bit slow) That bubble burst....and stupid govt policy led to another bubble. (real estate)

The folks who want more spending are basically saying "please, please, please....re-inflate the bubble." They don't want to pay the piper....which is an understandable emotion. But it's a stupid approach.

We should have taken our medicine back in 2000 and let the economy stabilize naturally. IF we had done that, the US wouldn't have faced a giant real estate bubble, and likely would have been back on track for more than a half-decade. Instead, we will be lucky to get through the current economic malaise by 2015.

 

[Daywalker]

Anyone that thinks we are on the right path or have been on the right path the last 2-3 years is a snake oil salesman. Obama met with Fortune 500 CEOs last year and they said point blank that they were uncomfortable with the policies in place and they were not optimistic that things would get better without some assurances that better rules would be in place. Obama is stubborn...he continues to do what he wants and that's fine but his arrogance is going to be his demise.

CEOs told him they wanted a more stable environment, Obama did not follow through and now we are here. I'm not blaming Obama for the crisis, he inherited a mess, but that can't be the 1st talking point every time. Every President inherits whatever is left behind. You can't blame Obama for the creation of the mess but you can judge him on what he has done since then and for a lot of people it doesn't sit well but the folks that are going to vote for him in the next election are spinning the current recession like Obama is making headway and he isn't.

No one is going to fix this mess any time soon. NO ONE. You could lower taxes to zero and companies would still be scared to hire. Make huge cuts to the budget and you'll only see less consumer demand leading to more layoffs.

That's the American way. What if we had listened to folks that said we couldn't put a man on the moon? What if Edison threw in the towel after the 468th failure? What if we had surrendered to the English during the Revolutionary War?

I'm really tired of the Victicrats spitting out that it's OK because nothing can be done. Get out of the way then and let someone else try. Obama is a lawyer not a businessman and it shows. he runs the country about how I would expect a Law grad with no business skills whatsoever. He has zero business sense and looks really baffled by what is happening right now. he doesn't even come out and make a pep talk...half of the problem is people "BELIEVE WE ARE IN A RECESSION." he needs to talk to the country and encourage people to spend some money, those that have it, and also needs to make the folks who can hire others comfortable. it's not as hopeless as the Left would have you believe.

Try what?Nonsense about regulations and corporate tax rates. Even though corporations don't pay those rates anyway. Regulations are not getting in the way of corporations.

What is the GOP proposing?

 

[Daywalker]

Anyone that thinks we are on the right path or have been on the right path the last 2-3 years is a snake oil salesman. Obama met with Fortune 500 CEOs last year and they said point blank that they were uncomfortable with the policies in place and they were not optimistic that things would get better without some assurances that better rules would be in place. Obama is stubborn...he continues to do what he wants and that's fine but his arrogance is going to be his demise.

CEOs told him they wanted a more stable environment, Obama did not follow through and now we are here. I'm not blaming Obama for the crisis, he inherited a mess, but that can't be the 1st talking point every time. Every President inherits whatever is left behind. You can't blame Obama for the creation of the mess but you can judge him on what he has done since then and for a lot of people it doesn't sit well but the folks that are going to vote for him in the next election are spinning the current recession like Obama is making headway and he isn't.

No one is going to fix this mess any time soon. NO ONE. You could lower taxes to zero and companies would still be scared to hire. Make huge cuts to the budget and you'll only see less consumer demand leading to more layoffs.

That's the American way. What if we had listened to folks that said we couldn't put a man on the moon? What if Edison threw in the towel after the 468th failure? What if we had surrendered to the English during the Revolutionary War?

I'm really tired of the Victicrats spitting out that it's OK because nothing can be done. Get out of the way then and let someone else try. Obama is a lawyer not a businessman and it shows. he runs the country about how I would expect a Law grad with no business skills whatsoever. He has zero business sense and looks really baffled by what is happening right now. he doesn't even come out and make a pep talk...half of the problem is people "BELIEVE WE ARE IN A RECESSION." he needs to talk to the country and encourage people to spend some money, those that have it, and also needs to make the folks who can hire others comfortable. it's not as hopeless as the Left would have you believe.

Try what?Nonsense about regulations and corporate tax rates. Even though corporations don't pay those rates anyway. Regulations are not getting in the way of corporations.

What is the GOP proposing?