Obama on Jobs Numbers: ‘We’re Headed in The Right Direction’

The full quote, “Make no mistake, we’re headed in the right direction,” is further persuasive evidence that a mistake was made in November 2008.
Couple that with Speaker Pelosi’s recent comments that unemployment checks are great “stimuluses” and you have the makings of a great comedy team.
“Say goodnight, Gracie.”

hmmmm… see “Right-wing media freak out over Pelosi’s accurate unemployment benefits comment”. Note also what several economists and financial types including Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf and McCain economic advisor Mark Zandi, have said about increases in unemployment benefits being among the most effective form of economic stimulus.

Obama has thrown this great nation into a Depression…
David | Jul 2, 2010 11:11:39 AM
Could you please state your personal and unique definition of what a Depression is? Is it your personal sadness at seeing a man you hate in the Whitehouse? That’s about the only one that I can see making sense based on the actual economic indicators.

He says what he has to say when he has to say it! Doesn’t mean it’s true, doesn’t mean he believes it…….but really, what else is he going to say?
There is no other data to point to that supports the assertion of recovery. There is no new economic engine (like the semiconductor industry in the 80-90′s) waiting to be started. We have a hallow shell of the “service economy” so there is really no engine to start and we are in debt up to our ears. So without any facts or data to offer up as hope, what else is he going to say? All he can do is state that “we are headed in the right direction” and hope people believe him. Our economic salvation is based on hope and a prayer…..there is certainly nothing else to base it on!

so the census jobs distort the numbers when they are counted in unemployment but not when they are counted in jobs created? Typical Obama supporter spin!

Massive coverup and stonewalling continue as Whistleblower accuses justice department of LYING under oath on New Black Panther Case of voter intimidation
cased dropped on RACE
Obama VS America

“Sickening” is the only adjective to describe Barack HUSSEIN Obama…..time for him to get out….can you say “IMPEACH!”

America is angry now….Mr. Obama does not care, it seems. Down here on the Lousiana gulf coast, it took 70 days for him to allow tankers here to vacuum up the oil…what kind of leader makes his country “suffer” because of his arrogance? Obama, who is NOT a leader, but a “teleprompter” reader did this. Louisianians are MAD at Obama. And, this morning, it seems the Independents have now turned AGAINST Obama and the Democrats. Obama has destroyed this GREAT nation! Its going to be up to “We the People” at the voting booths to get the Democrats and Obama out of office in order to get our country BACK!

Is he really that stupid?Not ignorant,just plain stupid.This report is devastating and contradicts the nonsense put out by Obama,Biden and MSM types who have been claiming that we are in a recovery.These numbers are the consequence of direct action taken by the Obama administration to sabotage the natural economic forces that would have ended the recession by now. Their actions have almost certainly caused a double-dip recession, perhaps a real depression.The lights are going out all over the American economy and we may not see them relighted in our lifetime.
Posted by: Nephron | Jul 2, 2010 12:18:56 PM
***********************************
EXCELLENT POST! I couldn’t agree MORE wth you!

If this is heading in the right direction we can only hope based on his ridiculous spin we start heading in the wrong direction!

President Obama said that the nation is “headed in the right direction,” but added that “were’ not headed there fast enough.”
This guy has to be kidding right!?!?
We don’t need an accelerator.
What we need are Breaks, Big Hydraulic Ones, with a Huge Foot stamping down on the pedal as hard as it can.
Stop Mr. President, turn the bus around! But no, he keeps pressing on using his disasters to push the wrong agenda. NoBo keeps following a flawed progressive map driving the GM built Bus off the cliff while his passengers, the American People scream STOP YOU FOOL!
The man is deaf and dumb I tell you.

Obama, Biden, Pelosi…
It’s a frightening thought but I believe Biden is the most rational of the three. I base that on the fact that Obama and Pelosi are the ones making the stupidest comments. Things that Americans in their gut, know is a huge lie.
Things are not going in the right direction. And unemployment checks will not create jobs. Who are they fooling?
I think Obama chose Biden for one reason. Obama knew America would eventually discover that he was a total incompetent fraud, bent on ruining our country…in spite of all that Obama bet that most Americans would rather have him as president rather than Biden.
Biden makes Obama impeachment proof.
If I had to chose one it would be Biden.
Obama and Pelosi are out of touch with reality.

I guess it is the right direction if your agenda is to ruin the USA. Remember what the 4th of July really means and take it to heart. We must turn this out of control vehicla around. God Bless America and God Bless and Protect our mean and women serving in harms’s way.

PARDON THE SPELLING IN THE PRECIOUS EMAIL

“Obama on Jobs Numbers: ‘We’re Headed in The Right Direction’ ”
“Captain Smith after the Titanic hit the iceberg: ‘The Titanic is not sinking’”

If you agree with Obama and his advisors that the cliff is the right direction, then yep, we’re headed in the right direction.

Let me see if I understand the President. We lost 125,000 jobs last month and we are on the right path to economic recovery? I’m sorry, but this sounds too much like Alice in Wonderlandish to me.

Hilarious. Except for the growing number of unemployed and homeless, of course.
Keynesian economic policies are imploding in the faces of progressives and yet the Obama administration insists they’re working despite all the evidence to the contrary. We just haven’t spent enough! Talk about being stuck on stupid.
Oh, BTW, the oil is still gushing in the Gulf. You know, the largest environmental disaster in our history? The media seems to have moved on to other things. Can’t make Obama look bad, after all. They’re back to attacking Arizona citizens for insisting that federal laws on the books for decades actually be enforced.

Obama is a LIAR…. What he means is, him and his comrade parasites, and corporation execs, are living the life of ease, racking in the dough at our expense. Please help these meglomaniacs by paying more in taxes. Remember to vote these terrorist’s back in power come November. As for me, come the fourth, i will see the parade and “boo” these un-American parasites.

“At the rate of 125,000 new unemployed per month, in one year an additional 1.5 Million Americans will be out of work.”
You are forgetting that Obama is saving 250,000 jobs per month. That’s twice the number losing their jobs for a net gain of 125,000 or 1.5 million in one year.

“You are forgetting that Obama is saving 250,000 jobs per month. That’s twice the number losing their jobs for a net gain of 125,000 or 1.5 million in one year” or, to put it more clearly: Obama has not figured out how to get these jobs overseas yet, but he’s working on that, and that’s the progress he promises.

“I’m here to tell you some time in the next couple of months we’re going to be creating between 250,000 jobs a month and 500,000 jobs a month. Because I’m telling you something, folks. We caught a lot of bad breaks on the way down. We’re going to catch a few good breaks because of good planning on the way up.” – VP Joe Biden, April 23, 2010

oBama the Whiner in Chief complains about the mess he inherited. He voted for the mess called TARP… right? So he helped contribute to it. He now complains about the deficit he inherited from President Bush, but all he did at the time was complain that Bush was not spending enough money. These watchdog DEMOCRATS never said a word about Bush “taking us to the Brink of Financial Disaster”. But, they are now the best Monday morning quarterbacks in the business.

The right direction? Small businesses are afraid to hire. They are afraid of the Obama WH which has using Pelosi and Reid bypassed representative government.
Ed Taylor | Jul 2, 2010 1:06:42 PM
Really? Well then, why were small businesses MORE afraid to hire – actively firing people in droves – under the Bush administration in 2007?
This is basic critical thinking here. If you want to blame the current administration you have to show some change of state linked to it. And the REALITY is that hiring by small business has INCREASED since the change in administration. Small businesses are hiring more since this administration came into power. It doesn’t matter how much you hate Obama and how eagerly you’re lapping up the GOP’s stated strategy of personal vilification over actual policy discussion, the facts simply do not support you.

The politicians in Washington are becoming insane with power. They think they are entitled and above the law.
Maybe having taxpayer’s money to spend as they like has something to do with it, with no accountability.
I don’t remember Pelosi being so fruity when she first became speaker.
And it didn’t take Obama long to lose his marbles. He’s just a chatterbox that loves to preen and prance in front of the cameras. One minute that goofy grin, the next that fake stern look on his face. It’s as if he’s playing a role instead of actually being POTUS.
I don’t know if politicians change when they get to DC or if they just had no integrity to begin with. It’s not pretty.

14 million unemployed is great news to Jimmy Obama Carter.
Count the number of golf games he plays this weekend.
Sad. Sad. Sad.
We should have listened to Hillary and not the pep rallies and pretty teleprompter speeches. He was and is not ready to be President.

I’m always happy when he doesn’t wax on his faux see the promised land speak.

He can’t exactly put on a scuba suit and go open the blow out valve on the private employment gusher.

Going in the right direction.
Sort of like saying all economist agree that the stimulus has worked.
A fabrication that Obama hopes people will believe with the help of the MSM.
Someone tell Obama and Nancy that only 29% of voters believe the stimulus has helped the economy.

In June 2009, the unemployment rate was 9.5 percent, just as it was in June 2010.
However, a year ago, the civilian labor force was 154,759,000, and now it is 153,741,000.
In other words, 1,018,000 people have dropped out of the labor force, and stopped looking for work .
The good news is that the country will be back to a relatively normal jobless rate of 6 percent once another 5,390,000 of the unemployed stop looking for work.
Naturally, President Obama cites the report as another sign “we’re headed in the right direction.”

No matter how you parse the numbers or measure the impact of stimulus.. the news is not good. He doesn’t bother to say that this is good news. The economy and jobs won’t improve based upon government action or inaction.. either the Great Recession will die a natural death or we will have a depression. I don’t think anyone has ruled out the possibility of a worse financial crisis in the next few years.

‘Not headed there fast enough”…. Because after nov 2…there will be no more of your mahem barry. adios. We’re giving your minions the boot and you have no power without them.

On Thursday, July 1, 2010, a U.S. federal judge granted Mexico’s request to be allowed to file a legal brief supporting the challenge of Arizona’s law. That means the judge will consider the brief Mexico submitted previously. Mexico says it wants to defend its citizens’ rights and that the law would lead to racial profiling and hinder trade and tourism. It also says the law would hinder work against drug trafficking and related violence. SINCE WHEN DO FOREIGN LEADERS DECIDE WHAT WE DO IN AMERICA??? CITIZENS OF MEXICO HAVE NO ‘RIGHTS’ HERE!!! THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS THE MOST CORRUPT IN AMERICAN HISTORY. HE IS DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY. HE WANTS THE HISPANIC VOTE! BUILD THE DAMN FENCE! PROTECT AMERICANS!

mama,what the hell does Europe have to do with today’s jobs report? What does it have to do with Obama’s obviously clueless remarks today?

Meanwhile, in other news…
Last night, as part of a procedural vote on the emergency war supplemental bill, House Democrats attached a document that “deemed as passed” a non-existent $1.12 trillion budget. The execution of the “deeming” document allows Democrats to start spending money for Fiscal Year 2011 without the pesky constraints of a budget.
The procedural vote passed 215-210 with no Republicans voting in favor and 38 Democrats crossing the aisle to vote against deeming the faux budget resolution passed.
Never before — since the creation of the Congressional budget process — has the House failed to pass a budget, failed to propose a budget then deemed the non-existent budget as passed as a means to avoid a direct, recorded vote on a budget, but still allow Congress to spend taxpayer money.
House Budget Committee Ranking Member Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) warned this was the green light for Democrats to continue their out-of-control spending virtually unchecked.
“Facing a record deficit and a tidal wave of debt, House Democrats decided it was politically inconvenient to put forward a budget and account for their fiscal recklessness. With no priorities and no restraints, the spending, taxing, and borrowing will continue unchecked for the coming fiscal year,” Ryan said. “The so-called ‘budget enforcement resolution’ enforces no budget, but instead provides a green light for the Appropriators to continue spending, exacerbating our looming fiscal crisis.”
———————
Hope and Change! Brought to you by the “most transparent administration (and Congress) in history”!

What makes Leonhardt an expert-he is nothing but a reporter with a B.A. in mathematics( which I will admit is a lot more rigorous than most reporters educational history) who has covered economics.The same for Klein-a poly-sci major with no academic economics backround.Using them as authorities is a joke.

tjp612 | Jul 2, 2010 6:00:41 PM
We just lived through a decade of the most laissez-fair economy since the Gilded Age and that unfettered market that was supposed to achieve balance on its own. The result? The Great Recession in 2007 along with the worst job creation record ever, a pathetic 3 million jobs in 8 years. There was no job creation engine in place when Obama took office – in fact the economy was shrinking at an annual rate of 6.4%.
I know you and my friend Mary do not agree with the Keynesian style shot in the arm spending, but historically, governments halt financial crises through massive bailouts; supply-sider Bush had already signed the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program when he left office. We may not be happy with how TARP funded banker’s bonuses, but most economists agree it prevented the economy from tipping over a cliff.
Obama’s first focus was to recapitalize banks and return the economy to growth. Done. Last week the Treasury said that taxpayers would realize a $24 billion profit on TARP money lent to banks. And, the mix of the direct assistance to automakers + other incentives to spur demand in the market was a lifeline to industry survival and millions of jobs (according to the financial firm Deloitte). So if that’s not the right direction, what is?
And what do conservatives believe is “back to normal”? The Disneyland bubble economy from the past decade? Not happening. Is “normal” going back to an economy that only created 3 Million jobs in 8 years? Not with 15 Million unemployed.
Some say government stimulus programs alone did not end Great Depression. Was it massive war spending for ~ 7 years of WWII(1939-1945), or was it the rebuilding of Europe and Asia that restored “effective demand”? Either way it took a long time and a huge amount of demand to break such a deep Depression.
Today we aren’t in such dire straits, but this Recession is certainly worse than earlier ones. History indicates emerging from such deep job loss will take longer than 2 years. So we “supporters/drones” do in fact think we are on the right track – that stimulus spending works within a self-reinforcing cycle, with more paychecks leading to more consumer spending, and eventually on to more demand for labor.
Have a Happy 4th!

“The overall picture isn’t so much of a double-dip recession as it is of a badly wounded economy recovering at a slow pace…. If the Senate and the Federal Reserve were waiting for more information to decide whether the economy needed more help, they just got it.”
9.5% unemployment in June 2009
9.5% unemployment in June 2010
Is this how liberals/progressives would define “recovering at a slow pace”? No surprise, they’re not so good with them numbers…

Posted by: tjp612 | Jul 2, 2010 7:14:34 PM
Is unemployment the only measure used when economists look at economic recovery, recession and so on?
Do you even know?
Why not list out all the factors that matter and chart them out in six month increments for the past 3 years?

pg:”What help? Hmmmm… the help another commenter is blasting Pelosi for accurately depicting as stimulative:unemployment benefits.”
Please do yourself a favor. Put down the liberal rags and read Milton Friedman.

If by next year, the unemployment goes down to 9.2%, Mr. Obama can use the same speech he used today, “in the right direction”.

Enjoy the Summer of Recovery!!!
Posted by: tjp612 | Jul 2, 2010 7:42:14 PM
thanks. as others have noted, for some of us who saw the writing on the wall, didn’t trust the housing bubble and were being squeezed during Bush’s 2nd term, things are better now. I’m among them.

Now we are grasping at straws…
———-
And yet, you didn’t note the trends, overall. hmmm….
I wonder what you think of the 17 GOP senators with unemployment in double digits in their states who repeatedly voted to filibuster unemployment benefits. Wise, in your opinion? On the mark, in your opinion?
How about Paul Krugman’s op-ed on the “myths of austerity”?
Or the he 83,000 jobs added by the private sector, which was a better performance than in May?

“than they are in taking the needed measures to truly improve the economic outlook of the country”
Meanwhile what were the alternatives as suggested by Republicans? Let the banking system crash, layoff huge numbers of essential servicepeople like police firefighters and teachers, and how can we forget the omni-traditional cut taxes and remove regulations on big business. Is that what you’re suggesting as “needed measures” too?

Meanwhile what were the alternatives as suggested by Republicans? Let the banking system crash, layoff huge numbers of essential servicepeople like police firefighters and teachers, and how can we forget the omni-traditional cut taxes and remove regulations on big business. Is that what you’re suggesting as “needed measures” too?
Posted by: Skip | Jul 2, 2010 8:15:19 PM
Exactly. Voting Republican isn’t simply a rejection of Dem efforts, but rather, its exchanging effort and solutions– albiet solutions that have been watered down to some extent— for a mindless approach that has already failed us miserably, with the results everywhere. Every. where.

“We’re heading in the right direction.”
Nine Six Eight Six Dot Four Eight
Maybe President What-Me-Worry should give a speech.
Oh. Wait. He already did that.

Paul Krugman: Print more money!
Genius.

for some of us who saw the writing on the wall, didn’t trust the housing bubble
Posted by: progressive mama | Jul 2, 2010 7:54:23 PM
Wow! Did you warn anybody? Did you blog about it? Were you on any Sunday political talk shows?

Another day, another speech from Obama.
Obama’s speech writers are the most vital part of his team. Do they ever get a break?
Flowery words that can still hoodwink a lot of people, but in reality accomplish jack squat.

Did you warn anybody?
————
Absolutely. While I don’t blog, I absolutely told people to read Dean Baker, Nouriel Roubini,Michael Hudson (specifically The Road to Serfdom: An Illustrated Guide to the Coming Real Estate Collapse’, April 2006 Harper’s Magazine), and “The Richebächer Letter”– and you know the dear husband sent lots of money to Ron Paul, right, and that I voted for him in 1988 because I couldn’t stand either Dukakis or Bush after their campaign– so my husband would chat up Schiff and Paul.
Just sayin’
I definitely knew the GOP was full of it when they said the fundamentals were strong– as early as 2007.

Sooooo jobs? Should be coming along any time now, right pmama?
Posted by: MM | Jul 2, 2010 10:15:11 PM
Nope. The stimulus wasn’t large enough or focused enough, and even under the best circumstances, we were a couple years out on decent jobs numbers, let alone the robust numbers we need.
The real point is that the GOP has a very dismal history on job creation. They are NOT the ones to turn to for ideas, ideology or solutions pertaining to job creation. Heck, they don’t even undertstand the stimulutive nature of extending unemployment benefits.
Not the brightest bulbs in the room.
Contrary to the GOP and other deficit poser-peacocks we need a jobs bill. Not just yesterday, last year.

See also Pelosi was right: Economists say unemployment insurance stimulates the economy
Posted by: progressive mama | Jul 2, 2010 10:28:47 PM
Well, far be it from me – the dim bulb – to disagree, but I was just unemployed for 5 months and at 25% of my normal income my UI went to: uh, let’s see now food, gas, utilities, and well that’s about it. Gosh, things I would have bought anyway. I didn’t stimulate anything. I’m sure I was the exception. LOL
Experts don’t live in the real world, honey. I know you do but you spend too much time reading people who never make it out of their own bubble. Your mind is being frizzled.

Your mind is being frizzled.
Posted by: MM | Jul 2, 2010 11:12:14 PM
And yet I didn’t end up unemployed for five months… hmmm… and I understand that while you may have had the money to pay for the things you would have paid for anyway, others do not.
Forehead slap.
you probably shouldn’t have taken those benefits, right? they were such a disincentive and everything, right?

Factory orders down.New home sales down more than 30%.Consumer confidence down.The employment numbers are only one component of a dismal economy that is not getting better.

And yet I didn’t end up unemployed for five months… hmmm… and I understand that while you may have had the money to pay for the things you would have paid for anyway, others do not.
Forehead slap.
you probably shouldn’t have taken those benefits, right? they were such a disincentive and everything, right?
Posted by: progressive mama | Jul 2, 2010 11:18:12 PM
I see, so in your world those who did not have the money through UI bought nothing, I had UI and bought staples, and somehow this stimulates the economy and creates jobs. Wow. That’s Pelosi logic if I ever heard it.
I used UI the way it should be used. As a temp stop gap until I could find another job, which I did in 5 months. I have done it twice in my 40 working years. I don’t begrudge people using UI like that. There are other areas of entitlements that I do not like – disability when people are just gaming the system for example.

What would the Republicans do instead IF they were running things besides offering up those same old worn out recipes?
Posted by: Skip | Jul 2, 2010 11:25:19 PM
Why do you care? Your guys and gals are in charge. Complete majorities to make things right. What’s the holdup? heal the country for us. We’re all waiting.
Instead we have the Pelosi UI job creation plan and Obama spending a half million dollars for a ten minute speech. Where is the Hope? Where is the Change? Where is the most ethical Congress ever?

Posted by: progressive mama | Jul 2, 2010 11:19:27 PM
There is a great tidal wave of public debt cresting, obscuring the sun, about to crash down on the American economy…
No one will escape the consequences, not one, not me, not you… not even progressive mama..
This week a United Nations commission recommended that the Dollar no longer be considered a safe store of value… hence the sudden down tick on the world’s exchange…
Fortunately United Nations proclamations carry little weight… the good/bad news is that the rest of the major currencies are in no better shape.
The Dollar is fiat currency… that means it has no real value, only the value conferred to it by the belief that the US Government can and will tax the America people in sufficient measure to pay the Governments debts…
As the debt grows beyond any believable amount that can be repaid, the belief in the Dollar diminises, snd so does it’s value…
Simply stated, the Government is writing checks the American people cannot cash…
In short, we are up the proverbial tributary without a proper means of propulsion…
The Congress has shown no appreciation of the problem, nor inclination to take corrective action… so we must replace it… hurry November!

The ghost of Jimmy Carter strikes again. You keep this up and we’ll get an idiot like Romney! Oh brother!

Adding on, as Mark Zandi has written, “The slump in consumer confidence in late 1991, after the 1990-91 recession, may very well have been due in part to the first Bush administration’s initial opposition to extending UI benefits for hundreds of thousands of workers. The administration ultimately acceded and benefits were extended, but only after confidence had waned. The fledgling recovery sputtered and the political damage extended through the 1992 presidential election”

“We’re all waiting”
No, at least not patiently you’re not; you’re complaining that the Democrats haven’t fixed the gigantic mess Republicans left them already while not being able to offer even any alternative suggestions about how to do it faster. In fact the exact opposite is true: Republicans have staged a record number of filibusters and otherwise obstructed everything they possibly can.

Posted by: progressive mama | Jul 2, 2010 11:53:30 PM
Taking money from the pubic sector, running it through an extremely inefficient government bureaucracy to put it back into the public sector hoping to promote growth in the public sector is… well, just crazy…
Long term unemployment payments promote… unemployment.

You said you would have bought those things anyway, indicating you didn’t need the UI money to buy staples, you could have paid for the staples without the UI benefits, yes?
Posted by: progressive mama | Jul 2, 2010 11:53:30 PM
No Nancy, I’m saying if I was working or if was on UI, or if I was not on UI I would have bought food, gas, utilities. Being on unemployment had nothing to do with where the money came from. All UI does – at best – is keep a few more people (who produce these staples) working. It does not create anything. You should stick with jobs saved. It’s easier to fudge those numbers.

Do you always answer a question with a question?
Posted by: Skip | Jul 2, 2010 11:57:56 PM
I asked you first.

It’s easier to fudge those numbers.
Posted by: MM | Jul 3, 2010 12:07:10 AM
You demonstrate no understanding of the numbers. According to economists, a $1 increase in UI benefits generates an estimated $1.64 in near-term GDP; increasing food stamp payments by $1 boosts GDP by $1.73
As for being on unemployment having nothing to do with how you paid for staples, that indicates you didn’t need the money as much as others, yes? You could have survived without the money you collected.
Others could not. Others the Republicans are willing to throw under the bus completely.

“long before that the reckoning for profligate Democrat spending will occur..”
That’s Democrat AND Republican spending…don’t try and weasel your guys out of it again.

“I asked you first”
No you didn’t! As clearly documented by my post= Posted by: Skip | Jul 3, 2010 12:00:31 AM my question was first at 8:15
Now come on -quit playing around. Tell us all about some of those ingenious ideas the Republicans will be sure to employ if they win back the House later this year. I’m dying to hear them.

Europe has figured that out and is taking action through austerity measures before the economies of member countries collapse. Our leaders are taking us in the opposite direction.
Posted by: Mary | Jul 3, 2010 12:12:57 AM
Thank God and Godspeed on the latter. For those interested in truly understanding the full picture and both sides of the argument, read with an open mind and do further research: NYT, In Ireland, a picture of the cost of austerity, Paul Krugman, the Myths of Austerity and the Third Depression, Spain’s Austerity Called an Error and E.J. Dionne Jr.: It’s too soon for fiscal austerity.

Posted by: progressive mama | Jul 3, 2010 12:25:33 AM
Austerity may be, well, austere… but the alternative is hell…

The Left-Wingers/Obama Apologists are lashing out like cornered, wounded animals…They are becoming desperate…much like their Messiah himself…
BTW – Where are the jobs? When will Gitmo be shutting down? When will employment of lobbyists be banned? When will we stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons? When will be plug the damn hole?
And most importantly: When’s the next tee time?

progressive mama: “According to economists, a $1 increase in UI benefits generates an estimated $1.64 in near-term GDP; increasing food stamp payments by $1 boosts GDP by $1.73.”
Well then, if that’s the way to economic prosperity then what we should do is take this to its logical conclusion and put everyone on welfare and have the government send trillions of dollars to them to spend. Problem solved. We’ll have record GDP growth in no time.
Of course, this is nonsensical. GDP is driven by the production of goods and services and wealth creation, not welfare spending. Welfare isn’t wealth.
The multiplier effect is, in fact, less than 1 for the scenarios you presented. There is no magic money tree. Welfare has a cost. That cost is debt that must be repaid by taxpayers. That growing burden is the enemy of GDP growth, and it nullifies any multiplier effect caused by the spending of welfare checks.

Skip: “No, quite a bit of valuable services are produced in the public sector. They are typically things like fire departments whose services are difficult allocate in salable quantities and therefore hard to price but are nonetheless valuable.”
While the services may indeed be valuable, they are not creating wealth. Only the private sector can do that. Public services are a cost to taxpayers, period.

“While the services may indeed be valuable, they are not creating wealth”
They most certainly do. A neighborhood well protected by a good fire department is much more valuable than one which is not. Where does that value come from?

then what we should do is take this to its logical conclusion
————–
If you call that the logical conclusion, you’re as clueless as the “conservative” pundits and blowhards who didn’t read the actual text from Pelosi’s news conference and just started mocking the stimulative effect of unemployment and food stamps in the short term. Perhaps, you don’t understand the point of stimulus or didn’t read Pelosi’s full comment either. Or perhaps, you’re proud of yourself for throwing up a strawman to debunk.
You can look up the numbers and multipliers via googling Mark Zandi’s reports on the subject.
Meanwhile, I’m taking it you and likeminded commenters fully support the GOP senators from states with double digit unemployment who have repeatedly who are perfectly content –even proud of their willingness– to leave their constituents without a safety net? It has nothing at all to do with class warfare and will fix things right up for us all/sarc. Maybe you even agree with Sharon Angle that perhaps Republicans in the Senate agree with Sharron Angle that unemployed people are simply “spoiled” and “afraid to get a job”.

progressive mama: “Thank God and Godspeed on the latter [deficit spending].”
Um, we’ve already been going in that direction for the past 18 months.
Let’s recap where we are today…
Record debt.
Record chronic unemployment.
Record poverty.
Record homelessness.
Record citizens on food stamps.
Record foreclosures.
Record bankruptcies.
Record bank failures.
Collapsing state budgets.
Since progressives are blaming these results on too LITTLE stimulus spending, maybe we should spend $1 QUADRILLION. Heck, since debt doesn’t matter, let’s just send every US household $10 MILLION. We’ll have the greatest utopia on the planet. Right?

“I asked you first”
No you didn’t! As clearly documented by my post= Posted by: Skip | Jul 3, 2010 12:00:31 AM my question was first at 8:15
Posted by: Skip | Jul 3, 2010 12:22:30 AM
Well, Skip this is ten minutes of my life I’ll never get back. Had to scroll all the way back to discover your discussion with tjp612. Maybe you should try documenting others’ quotes when you cut-n-paste so you can keep your non-answers and straw men straight. This is the quote you challenged.
“Obama and Democrats apparently are more interested in gathering more drones for relocation to the government plantation than they are in taking the needed measures to truly improve the economic outlook of the country.
Posted by: tjp612 | Jul 2, 2010 7:30:52 PM
_____________________________________
And here’s where I jumped in:
_____________________________________
Meanwhile what were the alternatives as suggested by Republicans?
Posted by: Skip | Jul 2, 2010 8:15:19 PM
Republicans? Are the Republicans driving the economy? Must have missed that. Last time I checked there was a Democrat in the WH, Democratic majority in the Senate, Democratic majority in the House.
When WILL you allow to let the Democrats take the responsibility of running this country, Skip? Can I get at least a ballpark target date?
Posted by: MM | Jul 2, 2010 10:22:51 PM
_____________________________________
So when WILL you answer my question?

progressive mama: “Perhaps, you don’t understand the point of stimulus or didn’t read Pelosi’s full comment either.”
Pelosi can repeat it over and over again, but it doesn’t make it true. Welfare is NOT STIMULUS.
Ever been to downtown Detroit? I have. It’s awash in welfare recipients. There isn’t much prosperity there in terms of jobs or wealth–for them, or anyone else in their neighborhoods–I assure you.
Sure I could Google the ramblings of liberal economists who never saw this crisis coming and continue to be “surprised” by the poor economic results they were sure progressive policies would correct. And I don’t need to be lectured about people who are struggling. I actually work in the trenches, helping middle class families straighten out their financial lives. And I see a lot of misery these days, much more than a year ago. I see bankruptcies, foreclosures, divorces, you name it. My experiences have more meaning to me than contemplating the rantings of pseudo-intellectuals who engage in groupthink and blog about their visions of a Marxist utopia from plush apartments in the Upper East Side of Manhattan.

Google the ramblings of liberal economists who never saw this crisis coming
———
And yet Dean Baker was one of the first (he’s a liberal) and Krugman and DeLong were with him well before the pack.
Just sayin’
Epistemic closure… its a right wing thing.

progressive mama: “Well, never mind my question about how you think this all started, what you attribute it to, and how long the slide has been occurring. It appears you have no idea.”
I’ve answered this question before. It started with PROGRESSIVES in BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES over many, many years. You continuously confuse Republicans and fiscal conservatives. If there were large numbers of fiscal conservatives in power during Bush’s eight years (REPUBLICANS and DEMOCRATS!), we wouldn’t be in the sad shape we’re in today. Fiscal conservatives railed against subprime lending but were outnumbered by progressives who called them racists. So how’d that subprime lending thing work out, eh? I see the fallout every work day.

Posted by: MM | Jul 3, 2010 1:49:55 A
Um, the Republicans throwing their constituents under the bus are doing it in 2010. (See 17 senators from states with double-digit jobless rates repeatedly vote to filibuster unemployment benefits., or GOP, Brown block unemployment extension, or The GOP’s Vendetta Against the Jobless)
And are you somehow saying this old quote in regards to Bush is indicative of “ingenious ideas the Republicans will be sure to employ if they win back the House later this year”? Or do you not really have a point?

It injects demand into the economy, and is job creating. It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name because, again, it is money that is needed for families to survive, and it is spent. So it has a double benefit. It helps those who have lost their jobs, but it also is a job creator.” (Pelosi, 7/1 news conference)
Posted by: progressive mama | Jul 3, 2010 2:02:41 AM
My point is completely relevant. You have been trying to change the subject to something about if I needed my benefits or not, or some garbage. Pelosi is saying the money I spent from my UI created jobs. It’s right there in her quote: “It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name” It may grow near-term GDP but I have seen no data showing that jobs are created from that growth.
Do you have data? Other than a couple of guys you talked to, including your husband, that is. I’m supposed to draw conclusions based on that? Maybe the money went to increased hours that were cut previously. Or raises. Or taxes. Or debts. Maybe it went into the owner’s pockets.
The truth is you don’t know but you won’t admit it. Stop being so condescending and dismissive and argue the facts.

Of course, the biggest proof that Pelosi and those defending her statement is bunk is the weak job growth. If UI is creating so many jobs, wherebare they?
“A brief look at the recent jobs report for June tells this story. After spending more than $1 trillion through so-called government stimulus, we are at best experiencing a grinding and anemic jobs recovery. Private payrolls are growing slowly. The workweek is again shrinking. And average hourly earnings have declined. The unemployment rate dropped to 9.5 percent, but that’s because 650,000 people left the labor force.” NRO

“I think that as long as the economy is struggling, the economy is going to be a decisive issue,” White House senior adviser David Axelrod said. “The question is whether people believe at the end of the day [that] turning backward to the policies that got us into the disaster is really the answer. That’s a debate we’re going to have.”
Wow, where have I heard that before? Wait a minute… Right here on this thread! Pmama, you must have got the memo then. “Turning backward to the policies that got us into the disaster” is what I’ve been reading all throught.
Good to see the ‘know everythings’ are all on the same page. “Analysts say.”

My point is completely relevant. You have been trying to change the subject to something about if I needed my benefits or not
———
Actually, MM, to my first post on this topic. I added this just for you:
oh, shoot. I forgot to add /sarc. at the end of the last two lines there for the slow on the uptake types.
Posted by: progressive mama | Jul 2, 2010 11:19:27 PM
—-
and yet those lines are what you grabbed onto, decided to chest thump about.
You missed the point… and you’re still yammering about it.
Its you who distorts. You may know what YOU’RE talking about, but you should just stick to that, and not try the whole back and forth thing as you rarely seem to understand anything beyond what you’re repeating from conservative rags.

Posted by: progressive mama | Jul 3, 2010 2:02:41 AM
“Most folks who collect unemployment actually need that money to buy staples and spend it quickly– don’t save it as they tend to save tax cuts.”
Do UI recipients receive “tax cuts”?
“And actually, people spending their unemployment on food does create jobs. My husband hired two people this summer.Plus one in the spring. He owns a deli.”
Wow…the drip of liberal/progressive elitism is clearly evident in these statements.
First, the vast overwhelming majority of those receiving govt. assistance (outside of the liberal enclaves such as SF, NYC, etc.) do not shop at delis. Poor people do not shop at delis. Your husband (congrats to him) is able to add more workers because apparently he is able to attract more customers or entice existing customers to buy more product (or both). Govt. “stimulus” has little/nothing to do with uptick in your husband’s deli.
“When I bought granite for my new kitchen in the addition I’m adding to my house, the granite guy mentioned that grocers and family-style restaurant owners are keeping him busy, as they (grocers and family-style restaurant owners) are doing well (as are larger businesses like Wal Mart and McDonalds and new businesses like Groupon) in this economy– and still building, rehabbing, etc.”
I wonder if you have ever been to a Walmart…One of the primary reasons Walmart’s revenues have grown during the Obama Economy is not because those who receive govt. benefits are spending more, it is because “middle class” consumers have migrated their spending away from higher-end retailers towards “value” retailers such as Walmart. Uptick at McDonald’s for similar reasons. Groupon has found a niche because retailers, eateries, etc. are struggling to find ways to attract a shrinking consumer pool. In healthier economic times, Groupon and its coupons would be less successful due to fewer price-sensitive consumers.
While things appear great in your liberal enclave (Chicago area, I believe – which undoubtedly shapes your perspectives – and your blind defense of The One), the economic reality and outlook is much, much more dire.

Posted by: progressive mama | Jul 3, 2010 10:13:19 AM
Anytime you start with a sentence with as “Well, first, you can google Mark Zandi’s testimony…” or “I agree with Ezra Klein’s assertion…” I tune out. Not due to intellectual lack of curiosity, but because I know what is coming: an unabashed Progressive perspective of how the world works from those who have actually have very little or no “real-world” experience (or who are either loons, usually flat-out wrong or, in some cases both – see Krugman).
Not that you’ll take my suggestion, but you might want to lay off the sanctimonious suggestions to “google (this)” or “I suggest you read (that)”. Overall, it provides impression of intellectual laziness and/or blind partisanship (which I’m sure is not your intent, right?).

One of the primary reasons Walmart’s revenues have grown during the Obama Economy is not because those who receive govt. benefits are spending more
———
I didn’t say they were spending more. The point is that they tend to spend the money– they continue to buy needed goods , rather than slipping into poverty. Unemployment benefits shore up consumer confidence, at least for the basics, until a job is found. Whereas, tax cuts to consumers tend to be saved in times like these. Its pretty basic.
And yes, the businesses I’m mentioning tend to do well in recessions. But the point is that absolutely keeping those businesses going is pumping money into the economy and can create jobs. Does create jobs. Are you claiming they’re not hiring, which was the topic?
As for the rest, No, I’ve never been to a WalMart,less affluent people and those on unemployment benefits do shop at delis with good deals (high value for the cost) and while the customer base is largely middle class, uh, members of the middle class are actually unemployed at the moment.
I’m not in a liberal enclave, and while I have lived in Chicago (as well as South Dakota, Montana, Iowa, Wisconsin, northern Illinois and Florida), I don’t at the moment. I do live in Illinois.

” I’ve never been to a Walmart”-well,that explains a lot.
Posted by: Nephron | Jul 3, 2010 10:53:23 AM
I’m not sure what it explains, as I’ve always said I’m pro small and independent business,and will shop small business, independent business, fair trade, local farmer’s market and so on, before giving patronage to big businesses that have put small businesses out of business, wreak havoc on the environment, refuse to pay living wages, and so on.

What it explains is that you are out of touch,you don’t see what is going on in the real world.Many people in this never-ending recession can’t afford to shop based on political principles-they need to get the best deals,the most for their money.Apparently you don’t-you don’t see the consequences of the disaster that is the Obama administration.

“It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name Posted by: progressive mama | Jul 3, 2010 2:02:41 AM”So by your and Pelosis reasoning, if everyone is unemployed and receives money from the government then the economy will be just fine. Plus don’t forget to vote democrat in November.

I didn’t say they were spending more. The point is that they tend to spend the money
Posted by: progressive mama | Jul 3, 2010 10:37:54 AM
Ok, I’m back. I’m still being insulted as some uninformed idiot I see.
The point really is – as I said before – you have no hard data to back up Pelosi’s assertion that UI is one of the biggest job creators. You can only talk in generalities about people you’ve talked to and Walmart, etc. growing. I like tjp612′s reasoning. Notice the fast food chains have all come out with Starbucks type coffee drinks. Gosh. I wonder why that is?
And if your citations are so relevant why is it that teenagers can’t find jobs? Could it be that deperate adults are taking the few jobs available? So does Pelosi include the 120,000 workers coming of age and into the workforce in her little job creation dream? Doubt it.

Where is the fine line between unemployment benefits that never expire and welfare?
What the Obama/Pelosi School of Economics acolytes fail to realize is that by continuing the expansion of unemployment benefits (and, for that matter, welfare benefits), workers are given a crutch to avoid resetting of expectations. As a result, the unemployed either turn down job offers for “non-ideal” positions or delay coming to the acknowledgement that their skillsets are outdated or no longer needed within their locale. In the end, there is a very rational argument that could be made that extension of unemployment benefits actually HURT the unemployed more than they help (not to mention the long-term unemployed receive more scrutiny by employers than those who have been unemployed for shorter periods of time).
But the Liberals/Progressives are either incompetent or simply don’t care (preferring to grow the ranks of the govt. plantation instead). Either is plausible – I honestly don’t know which is accurate.

Actually, MM, to my first post on this topic. I added this just for you:
oh, shoot. I forgot to add /sarc. at the end of the last two lines there for the slow on the uptake types.
Posted by: progressive mama | Jul 2, 2010 11:19:27 PM
—-
and yet those lines are what you grabbed onto, decided to chest thump about.
You missed the point… and you’re still yammering about it. 
Posted by: progressive mama | Jul 3, 2010 9:53:48 AM
Posted by: Nephron | Jul 2, 2010 11:20:21 PM
 
oh, shoot. I forgot to add /sarc. at the end of the last two lines there for the slow on the uptake types.
 
Posted by: progressive mama | Jul 2, 2010 11:19:27 PM
I’m yammering about this?
“you probably shouldn’t have taken those benefits, right? they were such a disincentive and everything, right?” 
Posted by: progressive mama | Jul 2, 2010 11:18:12 PM
Whatever.

Posted by: Mary | Jul 3, 2010 12:12:57 AM “This is absolute nonsense. Whenever I hear statements like this, I know I’m dealing with someone who has never run a business.”
I too own and help run a small business – software. Have for roughly 20 years. We have few problems with Federal “regulatory burden” – lots of development offset and we are nimble.
When I speak of “laissez-fair”, I mean the pillars of Supply Side economics: reduced regulation and tax cuts. Two terms of under-funding to strangle oversight such as the SEC. Wall Street and financial institutions left without the controls of Glass-Steagall providing us with the likes of Enron and “dark market” gambling. A decade that took down barriers to competition between traditional banks, investment banks, and insurance companies and built “too big to fail” megabanks such as CitiGroup. And another reason “so many blue collar jobs are going overseas” – tax incentives to build manufacturing outside the US.
I’m an entrepreneur. From the perspective of working in Silicon Valley, I know what job growth can do to an economy and I am not convinced the last decade of tax cuts and deregulation helped small businesses.
Today, according to the IMF, Obama’s spending isn’t nearly as large a contribution to the increase in federal debt as reduced revenue. What the US needs are family wage jobs. You and I agree there is a tipping point where the private sector can no longer grow at the necessary pace to fund spending. However, there are times when spending to prime the pump is required. Returning to the failed job growth policies of the past 8 years isn’t a viable way to increase revenues and bring down the debt.

The clock began ticking on Jan.20,2009.” Are you better off now than 18 months ago?” More importantly:is the country better off now than 18 months ago?

“Returning to the failed job growth policies of the past 8 years isn’t a viable way to increase revenues and bring down the debt.”
I can agree with this statement with the following modification:
Returning to the failed job growth policies of the past FOUR years (2006-2010) isn’t a viable way to increase revenues and bring down the debt.

Ideologue (M/W): (1) an impractical idealist; theorist (2) an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology
———
What is the particular ideology I adhere to? Specifically.
lol.
And where’s the acknowledgement that the veiled thing was just smoke?
lol.
As for the data, I gave you resources.I can’t copy and paste the chart here, but its real easy to get to (see Bush’s Role In The Deficit, Chart Of The Day, 24 May 2010 at Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish blog (the chart actually comes from cbpp). Anybody can do it, and take a look and understand it– as long as they have an open mind and don’t shut out information without processing it. Frankly, I’ve had long posts scrubbed before so I don’t feel like wasting my time on copying and pasting data for someone who is actually an idealogue and doesn’t consider numbers outside their worldview. We’ve gone through this all before, you and I. Doing it again is boring, though I know right wingers use repetition in place of application of facts, and thoughtful consideration of long term trends. See Bruce Bartlett on the misplaced GOP rage, or Supply side economics, RIP– or his latest book, and again, see cbpp on the deficit and the effect of Bush’s policies. Lots of numbers and charts.
Based on your data, it appears you like taking snapshots as if policies don’t have effects that last beyond the years the party that enacted them remain in control. That is not the case, and it doesn’t take a high brow economist to understand that.

though I know right wingers use repetition in place of application of facts, pmama
Enter tierra, well known publisher of duplicate information and accusations, and a definite right-wing idealogue.
/sarc for the dim bulbs
/sarc again

Two terms of under-funding to strangle oversight such as the SEC. Wall Street and financial institutions left without the controls of Glass-Steagall providing us with the likes of Enron and “dark market” gambling. A decade that took down barriers to competition between traditional banks, investment banks, and insurance companies and built “too big to fail” megabanks such as CitiGroup. And another reason “so many blue collar jobs are going overseas” – tax incentives to build manufacturing outside the US.
…I am not convinced the last decade of tax cuts and deregulation helped small businesses.
Today, according to the IMF, Obama’s spending isn’t nearly as large a contribution to the increase in federal debt as reduced revenue. What the US needs are family wage jobs. You and I agree there is a tipping point where the private sector can no longer grow at the necessary pace to fund spending. However, there are times when spending to prime the pump is required. Returning to the failed job growth policies of the past 8 years isn’t a viable way to increase revenues and bring down the debt.
Posted by: green.goddess | Jul 3, 2010 12:23:57 PM
Excellent, articulate post.

What it explains is that you are out of touch,you don’t see what is going on in the real world.Many people in this never-ending recession can’t afford to shop based on political principles-they need to get the best deals,the most for their money.Apparently you don’t-you don’t see the consequences of the disaster that is the Obama administration.
Posted by: Nephron | Jul 3, 2010 11:11:13 AM
And yet, almost every Sunday am I do the flea market thing, including my own stand, and I see all kinds of value shoppers there– and support others by buying their wares.
You can always afford your principles– and you can probably find even better bargains at flea markets if you’re good at the open market thing.
Just sayin’

“Well– surprise, surprise– we do agree on something. There is a fine line, but my view is that we need a jobs bill, not just yesterday, but eons ago, and that the humane thing to do right now is extend unemployment benefits.”
But I thought the ARRA (aka “stimulus”) bill WAS a “jobs bill”? Are we not in the “Summer of Recovery” due to this efficient and well-thought-out piece of masterful legislation? If it is a “jobs bill”, where are the jobs? If not, what was purpose of ARRA? (queue “jobs saved/created” spin)
“My view is also that the Republican party has no solutions and their failed ideology isn’t going to get us out of the mess we’re in.”
Hmmm…the data I “cherry-picked” and included in prior post would indicate otherwise.
Democrats are very good at demonizing, criticizing, and ostracizing…The have proven over the past four years they are not good at governing (as they have proven for years in liberal bastions such as NY, CA, IL, NJ, etc.). The electorate is better off with Democrats on the sidelines playing their more suited role.

“And yet, almost every Sunday am I do the flea market thing, including my own stand, and I see all kinds of value shoppers there– and support others by buying their wares.”
Hmm…for some reason why do I think your “flea market” is different from those found in Anderson, SC…or Janesville, WI…or El Centro, CA…and other rural locales where the “unwashed” gather…

Nephron | Jul 3, 2010 2:25:56 PM “Where do you live that a “flea market” is more economically important than a Walmart?!”
I live in a farm community with a population of less than 10,000. The nearest Walmart is a half hour drive away, but the locally owned grocery and hardware stores and a Saturday flea market are all within walking distance. Supporting these local merchants instead of a Big Box Store isn’t somehow elitist.
Where I live, the local farmers and business owners give time, product and often their money to support our little community. You know, stuff like the cub scouts, the fund-raising car wash and the Food Bank. It’s my policy to support them.
A number of economic studies have found that locally owned businesses generate more than 3 times the economic impact of chain retailers on equal sales. For every $100 spent at a national retailer only $13 remains in the local economy. When that same $100 is spent at a locally owned business, more than $45 stays in the local economy.
I really recommend the book “Big-Box Swindle: The True Cost of Mega-Retailers and the Fight for America’s Independent Businesses” by Stacy Mitchell .
Speaking of which, I’m off to the local grocery. Have a great weekend.

It figures the little cogs in the producer-consumer wheel would deride perfectly legitimate small markets like flea-markets where still useful previously owned products are recycled instead of sending our wealth to China and loading up landfills by buying total junk from Walmart.

Get out and see the real world-obviously you have the time as you post more than anybody else on this blog.
Posted by: Nephron | Jul 3, 2010 2:25:56 PM
How do you know I’m not out and about right now — in the real world and everything — as I post this?
Oh, that’s right … you don’t. Though, actually, I’m usually at work– letting the minions do their thing (gasp! how elitist, but its either that or fire rhem, and I wouldn’t want to do that.)
You’re take on flea markets is pretty hilarious. I’m thinking I’m not the one who is so very out of touch.
As for posting more than anyone… maybe, maybe not. I do post only under one screen name so it may appear that way to some.

A number of economic studies have found that locally owned businesses generate more than 3 times the economic impact of chain retailers on equal sales. For every $100 spent at a national retailer only $13 remains in the local economy. When that same $100 is spent at a locally owned business, more than $45 stays in the local economy.
I really recommend the book “Big-Box Swindle: The True Cost of Mega-Retailers and the Fight for America’s Independent Businesses” by Stacy Mitchell .
——
Another good post, and a good read rec.
Have a good holiday.

It figures the little cogs in the producer-consumer wheel would deride perfectly legitimate small markets like flea-markets where still useful previously owned products are recycled instead of sending our wealth to China and loading up landfills by buying total junk from Walmart.
Posted by: Skip | Jul 3, 2010 3:45:45 PM
Word.
The cluelessness never ceases to amaze me — and this is coming from someone that views certain tribes as pretty darned clueless.

“Another good post, and a good read rec.”
Posted by: progressive mama | Jul 3, 2010 5:28:11 PM
Well, p-mama, since you are always providing recommended reading, I thought I would return the favor. Here’s one from today’s NYT that pertains to yet another state (run by Democrats/liberals/progressives for decades) that is facing significant financial problems:
“Illinois facing ‘outright disaster’ amid budget crisis”
Given that you live in Illinois this shouldn’t be a surprise. Yet, you still cling to the belief that the policies of liberals/progressives are the way to go. You are either very stubborn or just simply unwilling to acknowledge the painfully obvious.

Are you really ignorant of the fact it was greedy capitalist bankers who bundled together mortgages and flogged them like junk bonds and that this is the prime ingredient behind the worldwide collapse of banks and financial institutions?
The rich BENEFITED and gained from the last collapse. They made off like bandits. It is the common American who suffered, and is still suffering.
Your blaming it on “progressives” is a joke….
Posted by: Dave Ratcliffe | Jul 3, 2010 6:13:24 PM
Yes, it’s a joke– but more of a sad joke than a ha ha funny one.
Meanwhile, per the Kansas City Star, “In just one week and in just one state — last week in Missouri — more than 8,300 people fell through the unemployment insurance safety net.
Actually, their nets were removed.
The result: Those who have lost jobless benefits already are turning in greater numbers to food pantries and other emergency aid programs, both government and nonprofit.” (Dianne Stafford)

Correction:
- Democrats have had majority 27 of 40 years in Illinois State Senate
- Democrats have had majority 31 of 40 years in Illinois State HOUSE

Just a little more on Illinois, because I actually think the snapshot memes without any real background is annoying and dumbs down the electorate:
What is true about Illinois is that for decades it was pretty much a swing state, voting for the winning presidential candidate 22 of 25 times in the 20th century– including Republicans Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford. (Ronald Reagan was from Illinois, btw) From 1976 to 2002,the Democratic mayors in Chicago that were mentioned were balanced by GOP governors in Springfield. Urban Chicago was dominated by Dems, downstate was dominated by Republicans, and suburbs were centrist and moderate. Then the Republican party moved away from the center– and starting with the Bush/Gore election, and the run of George Ryan as governor, the suburbs turned more blue rather than up in the air.
Much of the state’s debt is related to pension and health care benefits for state retirees. Note what the article another commenter mentioned says about that and Blagojevich’s gamble.

Posted by: Nephron | Jul 3, 2010 2:25:56 PM
Great post, you wacky right wing neocon truther, you!

For thoae who like to post quotes about what “economists say”:
“In early 2009, when the Federal Reserve was preparing its “stress tests” of 19 big banks, economists expected the 2010 unemployment rate to average about 8.8 percent. Whoops. So far this year, it’s ranged from 9.5 to 9.9 percent, and it could crest 10 percent later this year as discouraged workers who gave up looking for work rejoin the labor force and start looking again. Every percentage point in the unemployment rate represents about 1.4 million jobs. So the forecasters missed badly when they low-balled the unemployment rate last year.” US NEWS

When this “crisis” first began the word was that the jobs report had to create 125,000 jobs a month just to break even with turnover. Some how I don’t think this measures up to that test.

progressive mama: “how do you know what the results would be if enough fiscal conservatives were put into office?”
Simple. Emprical evidence. My county and our school systems are essentially run by fiscal conservatives. Neighboring counties are not. During the boom years, our county leaders built up millions of dollars in reserves (since they knew the good times don’t last forever). When the recession hit, they had all sorts of options to keep services running without having to resort to draconian cuts. They also switched to a yearly property tax assessment, and LOWERED property taxes to compensate for the 15% drop in property values (taxes in neighboring counties went UP). They then created tax incentives for companies to locate near a brand new ramp off the major highway that runs through here. Health-related research companies are currently putting up buildings. So we’re seeing some growth during the worst recession in our history. The county north of me was run by fiscal liberals and the contrast could not be more stark. Their economy was devastated by poor fiscal planning. They raised county and city taxes. Several large companies left and relocated in southern states, taking thousands of jobs with them. However, the Democratic mayor was thrown out last year and replaced by a fiscally conservative independent. And this is in a county where 70% of the voters are Democrats. So we’ll see what happens.

Posted by: MM | Jul 3, 2010 9:13:35 PM posted: “yet there is little concern for illegal and legal immigrants sending their earned dollars back to their families in their home countries. Why is that?”
Because many illegal workers pay taxes here as well and still spend at local stores. The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act called for funding to develop a simple, reliable and secure identifier using cards or biometrics. This part of the law has never been funded. So what we have today is a thriving illegal population, several different identifiers (which the 1986 law meant to be temporary) and underground businesses engaged in creating fraudulent documents for illegal immigrants! Often to get a job, fake social security numbers are used, so illegals pay into the SS system.
According to Francine Whitman, Professor of Law, Business and Economics at Chapman University, the belief that undocumented workers are somehow stripping the US economy is demonstrably false. “Every empirical study of illegals’ economic impact demonstrates the opposite . . . : undocumenteds actually contribute more to public coffers in taxes than they cost in social services.” (She footnotes studies by Alan O. Sykes, The Welfare Economics of Immigration Law: A Theoretical Survey with an Analysis of U.S. Policy and Larry J. Obhof, An Economic Analysis of U.S. Immigration Law.)
And just this year a study by UCLA professor Raul Hinojosa indicates Comprehensive Immigration reform could provide a $1.5 trillion boost to the economy over the next decade.

One million Americans have left the work force in the last two months because they have given up on the Obama economy. Just 13,000 jobs were created last month, a dismal number when you consider that we need nearly 150,000 jobs per month just to provide jobs for those who are entering the work force for the first time.
Obama is just plain incompetent. He has demonized businesses and business owners (IE: the evil mean rich) who create jobs. He has further exacerbated the economic trouble we are in by proposing huge new spending programs that businesses correctly view as higher future taxation.
Compare Obama’s incompetent flailing to what Reagan did in a similar situation. The results tell you everything you need to know about what works and what doesn’t. Where is the next Reagan? Maybe Sarah Palin or Paul Ryan; we have plenty of proof that Obama is not the answer.

Posted by: MM | Jul 4, 2010 5:53:39 PM (from another thread) posted “How many jobs can mom & pop provide realistically?”
As you can probably tell, I am a huge advocate of small businesses. Sure the big ones are important – my little Mom and Pop company wouldn’t work without interfacing to Fortune 500 hardware.
But, the SBA shows small businesses (less than 500 employees) are 99.7% of US companies. They pay 44% of total private US payroll. And it was these little guys who generated 64% of the new jobs over the past 15 years.
So, imo, THIS is the segment where Republican-conceived tax cuts should be focused. It costs small companies a much higher % for tax compliance, environmental paperwork and other regulatory crap. Not to say regulations should be ignored – for example, pouring toxics into your watershed isn’t good for anybody.
But small businesses are where the tax cuts and government support for the expense of regulation compliance should go, not to monster subsidies for the likes of Oil Companies and Factory Farms. Jobs! Our nation needs to re-build jobs and small firms are where we should focus.

While I want to be optimistic, and I don’t blame Obama, for the mess we are in, Underemployment, is not progress. Walmart workers aren’t going to get the economy going, and their FAT CAT CEO, and his wealthy friends, can’t buy enough to make up for the under employed, or unemployed. We need the top layers to start spreading the wealth, along with putting a halt on trying to figure out how to do the job with less, nad less people, or outsourcing the work to the cheapest workers while they suck up the profits at the top. A million, or a billion just isn’t enough anymore, in the race to the end. The end of what? Figure it out!

Why does ABC even bother writing an article when they have a 3 minute 46 second propaganda speech from Obama attached to the article? Of course, naturally, they don’t permit a counter speech by one of Obama’s opponents. It’s all about promoting Obama.

Right Track? A trillion dollar spent and a loss of 2.2 million jobs since he took office I guess is acceptable for a failure!