Obama on Jobs Numbers: Good Trends Not Good Enough

Creating more jobs must show a profit or its not going to work!!!!! The government creating jobs is like welfare and nothing good can come from that, but burden the taxpayer even further. Since RESEARCH was not the primary goal of a lot of companies, recovery will be virtually in first gear for a long time to come.

Yes a “great trend” and a “hopeful sign”.
6.8% Unemployment Rate when Obama was elected.
10.0% Unemployment Rate and a 17.2% Underemployment Rate just in time for Christmas after one year of Obamanomics.
Merry Christmas

The job summit will amount to renovating public housing on the backs of taxpayers, helping union members and creating more government jobs, again on the backs of taxpayers. “Green jobs” will also be pushed just in time for the climategate scandal to really hit the public.

Well let’s give the President some credit here. For once he is admitting what jobs have been created is only minor and not good enough.
Of course… he is setting us up for what his plans are for creating new jobs. Raising taxes will be one. Maybe a France like 35 hour work week will be another?

Just wait until the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010 for those making at least $250,000;
Just wait until individuals making at least $500,000 and couples making at least $1,000,000 are charged a 5.4% surtax to help pay for healthcare;
Just wait until the wealthy (no specific income cutoff has been announced) are charged a surtax (no specific percentage has been announced) to pay for the surge in Afghanistan;
Just wait until healthcare reform is passed and your private sector health insurance premiums skyrocket (of course then you will just switch to the public option and live happily ever after or until cap and trade is passed–see next item).
Just wait until cap and trade is passed and everyone’s energy bills skyrocket (global warming will finally be nipped in the bud and you will freeze to death–since that will open up a job for someone else that’s okay! Oh! and the polar bears will be moving into your neigborhood);
Just wait until salary caps are passed by Congress (resulting in a massive decline in tax revenues, which will force Congress to charge everyone the afore mentioned surtaxes);
THEN it will probably be easier to determine the employed numbers!

Tax cuts for the rich do not create jobs. The rich spend their money on lobbyists, political campaign funds, the stock market and various forms of derivatives. The stock market rises every time the unemployment rate rises, so the rich have no real vested interest in increasing employment. Yeah, if the rich get a tax break they may eat in fancy restaurants more frequently. But if the kitchen help is all undocumented immigrants, and the servers are paid $ 2.00 an hour, a fancy restaurant is not contributing much to the economy.
Eliminating government regulations may create jobs, but what sort of government regulations should we eliminate? Government regulations ban child labor. They keep minors from entering porno shops and prevent porno shops from locating across the street from a public school. They ban industries from dumping toxic chemicals into rivers. They prevent pharmaceutical companies from adding cocaine to cough syrup (a common practice before the FDA.) Eliminating all these regulations may produce more jobs and certainly will help certain businessmen get a profit, but the long term costs to society far outweigh the short term gains.
Helping small businesses may provide more jobs, but small businesses can provide jobs only if the public can afford to buy the goods and services that small businesses offer. Also Wal-Mart and other big box stores with cheaper prices make it difficult for a lot of small businesses to succeed. If people have to spend all their income on housing and health insurance, the less money they can spend elsewhere. The same applies to student loans. If we eliminate minimum wage laws, a pesky government regulation, then we also eliminate potential customers. So small business thrive only if the average wage-earner has more disposable income.
Roosevelt’s solution to unemployment was a vast public works program, far more extensive than Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Once Roosevelt instituted these programs, the unemployment rate decreased. When he cut the budget for these programs, the unemployment rate rose. Ultimately, World War II brought full employment and generated the post-war boom. But World War II involved massive government spending, something no one seems to recognize. I might also add that the wealthy paid a much higher tax rate than they do now.
Reagan had nothing but contempt for Roosevelt. During Reagan’s first year, the unemployment rate was higher than it is now. However Ronald Reagan followed the Roosevelt model. He insisted on a massive defense budget. This created some jobs, but wasted a lot of money. Because of the tax cuts gave to the the rich, Reaganomics left us with a massive public debt. Reagan also de-regulated the banking industry, so whatever gains Reagan made were lost when savings and loans tanked in 1987. Furthermore, Reagan’s contempt for green technology has set our country back 20 years.
Ironically, Republicans always want to increase defense spending as a way to generate jobs, but they forget defense spending is a government expenditure. If you consult a list of government expenditures published by the Moody Economic Institute, you will find that unlike investing in mass transit or education which have a positive return per dollar invested, defense spending has a negative return.
Right now, our infrastructure is in shambles. Last winter, I remember reading articles about our infrastructure, and the common consensus was that Obama’s economic stimulus was merely a down payment. We also need to invest more into green technology, and we need a smart grid.
Again the economic stimulus package was only a down payment. It is not nearly enough to build the smart grid we need.
So, the solution to our problems would be to rebuild the infrastructure at a faster pace, including expanding rail and public transportation systems, and to raise the taxes of the superrich to pay for it. We could also tax stock market transactions, since most of these merely fuel a casino economy. We could grant exemptions for rich people who actually create high quality jobs, rather than slash payrolls for profit. We could grant exemption for people who invest in the smart grid or for investments made in sound green technology (No corn-based ethanol and NO nuclear energy, both which are very inefficient forms of energy.) The superrich do not really invest in jobs any way, so taxing the super rich at a higher rate will have no effect whatsoever on the economy.
Jobs revolve on re-structuring our economy from fossil to clean, green, renewables., as well as a number other measures that you will find in both the Apollo alliance and Al Gore’s book Our Choice. Green tech is an an emerging multi-trillion dollar market. And the long-term costs of doing nothing will cost us trillions of dollars a year. We need to recognize the wave of the future and invest in that future now.

Not reported:
The number of Americans unemployed longer than 6 months increased (again) in November to the highest number in 25+ years. Some of these long-term unemployed Americans dropped off of the official unemployment figures, partially explaining how unemployment dropped to 10% from 10.2% while job losses continued in November (11,000).

Hire more speech writers, we want more than one speech a day President O’Babble.

serafina. you fail to list in what sector those jobs were created. Please specify if they were tax costing jobs for bigger government or if they were manfacturing or private industry jobs.

to claim republicans would do better’ if only’ they had a majority begs the question as to whether republicans are insane.
Posted by: YO |
Insane? Who knows. Incompetent? The Democrats don’t have a monopoly on incompetence.
Have you ever noticed that the Democrats ARE responsible for anything adverse that happens while they run the government? Got an example?

This Christmas I plan to spend next to nothing.
Last year I had the finances available to do more, but Obama has created such awful economic conditions that I can not afford to risk whatever capital I have left.

“- there must be a disease affecting Republican memory as they seem to have forgotten the majority they had pre 2007.” “…to claim republicans would do better’ if only’ they had a majority begs the question as to whether republicans are insane.”
Sen. Hatch said, “I dream some day of having the Republicans have 60 votes.” A 60-40 majority, not just a majority.
The Senate majorities 1995-2006
Jan 1995 – Dec 1996 Rep 52 Dem 48
Jan 1997 – Dec 1998 Rep 55 Dem 45
Jan 1999 – Dec 2000 Rep 55 Dem 45
Jan 2001 – May 2001 Rep 50 Dem 50
May 2001 – Dec 2002 Dem 50 Rep 49 Ind 1
Jan 2003 – Dec 2004 Rep 51 Dem 49 Ind 1
Jan 2005 – Dec 2006 Rep 55 Dem 45 Ind 1
It takes 60 votes to end a filibuster. THAT is what Sen. Hatch is referring to. Not a simple majority. Had the Republicans had the 60 votes in 2005, they would have passed the legislation that might have avoided the flexible subprime mortgage crisis that precipitated the 2008 financial crisis.

Jemma, you’re right. We can’t know that for sure.
I agree with you that most Republicans “nowadays” aren’t great legislators, especially since the Democrats have such huge majorities. But even when the Republicans held the majorities in both Houses they could have stuck to their principles (or at least the principles upon which they were elected) instead of placing their re-election bid ahead of what was best for the country.

The Democrats only wanted to give special mortgages to lower income people. Subprime mortgages for everybody must have been a Republican idea. So it sounds to me like you’re saying the Republicans needed a few more seats in 2005 to stave off a disaster of their own making. My suggestion was much simpler: No Republicans = No problem.

The CRA stipulated that mortgages were supposed to be written so lower income people COULD afford them. If anybody without jobs or an income got mortgages the total value of all of them combined would only be a tiny fraction of the housing bubble.

Foggy
- after Bush/Cheney, a republican whining about not having a chance to be the majority in congress and the white house is a little much even by their ‘who me/what me worry’ ‘standards’.

Posted by: enoughalready | Dec 6, 2009 4:22:01 AM
______________________________________
Yes, there has been a world-wide economic meltdown. Every industrialize western country has suffered large job losses, stock market crashes and bankruptcies.
And each western industrialized nation has instituted stimulus plans, tax relief and deficit funding attempting to hold together their countries economies.
There are signs of improvement, but nobody is out of the mire and the job losses are real, not a joke.
But we also don’t live in a TV world like some seem to think, where a switch can be flicked and suddenly we’re out of a serious recession. It doesn’t happen – that’s why a lot of the programs work to keep people with some kind of uninsurance income, keep people warm and off the streets, some kind of health coverage, maybe some mortage protection.
You’ll remember during the Great Depression, hundreds of thousands roamed the country looking for work, or a warm place to sleep, or some food to eat.
At the same time the Recovery and Reinvestment Plan puts in place some longer term programs to create activity by retrofitting buildings, ramping up the energy grid, putting medical systems and records into digital format, ramping up alternative industries and so on . . .
There ain’t no magic wand. There ain’t no television switch to change channels.

“Trends don’t buy the groceries,” he said. “Trends don’t pay the rent or a college tuition. Trends don’t fulfill the need within each of us to be productive, to provide for our families, to make the most of our lives, to reach for our dreams.”
Nice try goober but your not on the campaign trail now it’s put up or shut up time! America needs a leader with a backbone. And your not it !!! in the military what were seeing with your administrationd would be called a cluster f—- I guess it’s called something else at 1600 Pa. ave.

Trends aren’t made up of one month of “good” unemployment data.
Still waiting for a month where the vaunted stimulus cash (from over a half year ago) will stimulate job growth.
Obama. Loser. Tomayto, Tomahto.

What did the writing say?
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | Dec 6, 2009 2:18:02 PM
Sell high (during overinflated house values), buy low (now)

regulation is certainly something my party is working on.
Posted by: Verity |
Takes a long time to craft legislation with loopholes big enough to fit Goldman Sachs through.