Jobs rose by only 18000 ... here comes double dip.

[JB3]

Sure the whole thing was decades in the making, but Bush merely made it worse. I love how people want to dodge blame from their personal heroes. The Bush administration was a total economic disaster for this country... he made a potentially terrible situation terrible. His economic policy is indeed to blame for much of what happened to this country.

There is no reason of denying reality here. Bush's tax cuts compounded with his idiotic foreign policy made the economic crisis more severe. Why go around this? Denial much?

Who's going around it? Of course Bush made it worse. But anyone that claims that it was his fault alone is out of touch with reality.

Look at it like this: since Carter, the nation has been inching closer and closer to the edge of the cliff, occasionally taking leaps forward during recessions etc. What Bush's economic policy did was nudge us over the edge. He didn't cause it, but he certainly didn't do anything to stop it.

 

[T-Rexx]

The transfer of wealth didn't cause the collapse and a transfer of wealth back isn't going to fix it. The middle class doesn't create jobs, and no amount of wealth that they have is going to cause that to change. You can go on thinking that, but I hate to break it to you pal, the jobs aren't ever coming back. They're gone for good.

*Gasp!* About 73% of the US economy comes from consumer spending.

Who are these consumers? The middle class, of course. The middle class, not the wealthy, has long been the engine of the American economy. Without the middle class, America would have no automobile industry, no appliance industry, no electronics industry, no entertainment industry, no airline industry, no travel and tourism. The middle class is by far the primary creator of jobs.

If consumers don't have jobs, they don't spend. If they don't spend, the consumer-driven economy cannot recover. That is why many people are talking about "the end of the consumer-driven economy" in the USA - and the beginning of permanent depression/recession. Those jobs may, indeed, be permanently lost. But only if we fail to act.

The transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy caused both the Great Depression and the Bush Depression. A depression is not a situation in which there has been a change in the money supply. The number of dollars in circulation remains the same. But, those dollars become concentrated in the hands of a very few. Because that very few does not spend it, the effect is the same as less money in circulation. The economy stagnates.

Until wealth is returned to the middle class, the USA can expect years of unemployment, slow growth, and misery. Even with a concerted effort (such as that exerted during the 30s and 40s in America), such a transfer of wealth would take many years. But, right now, we're not even trying to fix the problem. Because half of our politicians think depression is a pretty good thing.

 

[Kulindahr]

The middle class doesn't create jobs....

Utterly false.

The great generator of jobs in the US has always been small business. And small business owners are middle class.

And some people start middle class....

Henry Ford was middle class.
Bill Gates was middle class.
Stephen Jobs was middle class.

The transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy caused both the Great Depression and the Bush Depression. A depression is not a situation in which there has been a change in the money supply. The number of dollars in circulation remains the same. But, those dollars become concentrated in the hands of a very few. Because that very few does not spend it, the effect is the same as less money in circulation. The economy stagnates.

Until wealth is returned to the middle class, the USA can expect years of unemployment, slow growth, and misery. Even with a concerted effort (such as that exerted during the 30s and 40s in America), such a transfer of wealth would take many years. But, right now, we're not even trying to fix the problem. Because half of our politicians think depression is a pretty good thing.

Yes. It has to do with what's called "the velocity of money", i.e. how far and fast a dollar moves. What it comes down to is that a dollar in the hands of the middle class or lower undergoes more movement than a dollar in the hands of the wealthy, who don't need to spend them.

As the money slows down, the economy slows down.

 

[JB3]

Utterly false.

The great generator of jobs in the US has always been small business. And small business owners are middle class.

And some people start middle class....

Henry Ford was middle class.
Bill Gates was middle class.
Stephen Jobs was middle class.

Small businesses are a generator of jobs. They are not the largest creator, however. I'll say it again: the middle class does not create jobs. They may contribute to an atmosphere that does, but they themselves do not. (and they're certainly not responsible to the level you or T-Rexx are attempting to claim)

For any recovery to truly happen, job creation MUST come from the largest corporations first. That will get people employed and making money, and allowing what you describe below to happen. Until those big companies start spending their cash hoards, the economy isn't going anywhere. I know in a perfect world the job creation would come from the bottom up, but the credit isn't there to support those small (or even medium sized) businesses.

Yes. It has to do with what's called "the velocity of money", i.e. how far and fast a dollar moves. What it comes down to is that a dollar in the hands of the middle class or lower undergoes more movement than a dollar in the hands of the wealthy, who don't need to spend them.

As the money slows down, the economy slows down.

Then we have a problem. There is no way to simply 'return' money to the middle class. Its not going to happen. If they don't have money, they can't spend. And if they can't spend, than the supposedly massive influence they have on the economy will not occur.

That is why this President's attitude towards large corporations is confounding. On the one hand he is attempting to get the nation into recovery mode, but on the other he attacks the very people and businesses that must contribute the most to said recovery. His attitude and his stance needs to be adjusted if he ever wants the jobs situation to get better.

 

[NineOfClubs]

Rubbish. Those large businesses drove this country into this crisis. There needs to be an emphasis on small and medium business to get this country back on its fact.

Then tell me just what this President and this administration is doing to put money in the hands of small and medium businesses to get the economy rolling again.

 

[NineOfClubs]

I'm sorry but don't the Dem's have/control the Senate and the Presidency?

If they can't find a way to work with a Republican House, then the fault falls on them.

 

[NineOfClubs]

Then point out a Democrat jobs bill the Republicans have held up.

Actually, Mr. Kucinich, a Dem, introduced a great bill that would encourage people to take early retirement and reduce the workforce by about a million and open up that number of new jobs, but even the Dem's ignored it. I think they wish for the majority to be "on the dole".

 

[NineOfClubs]

OK, since you're too uninformed to know about this, or just too lazy, here's the details...

http://www.iplanretirement.com/retirementblog/kucinich-retirement-plan/

 

[rareboy]

I almost feel bad posting it. Except that I note it is also driven by part time workforce increases.

But seriously US free market conservatives....

I mean c'mon.

If you allow all your manufacturing to be done off-shore, let the multi-national corporations ship all their profits out of the country and drive down the living wages of the population, where the fuck are all these jobs supposed to come from?

What new products and technologies are US companies spearheading these days?

What new wonderful services have American entrepreneurs thought up to sell to one another in order to keep the wheels of an economy going?

The fact is, the tech boom fueled the real estate boom and the Bush wars fueled the faltering military boom.

We're out of boom. At least for the time being. I thought that fuel efficient transport and alternative fuels might have created new wealth...but no.

Purely and simply it is now just a numbers game until something drives the next generation of invention and manufacturing.

What could we do with 3D porn?

So I've had someone send me a comment that I am being a defeatist.

This is the problem with the American public right now.

There is a huge disconnect and a whole lot of ignorance about what drives an economy.

The right wing seems to think this is some kind of war that you can win....the problem is, it isn't.

It is about demand, supply and money. That is, the availability of it. Real money.

I'd like someone to make me a list of the industries that will grow because of demand from American consumers over the next five years. Oh. And not grow by shifting all their jobs to the slums of India or China.

C'mon. It shouldn't be hard.

Tell me. And here's a hint. Manufacturing, construction, infrastructure and services are all inter-connected.

And for all those who have been brain washed into thinking that eliminating taxes spurs the creation of jobs, be specific as to which industries will create jobs because they don't have to pay taxes in the US.

 

[T-Rexx]

There is no way to simply 'return' money to the middle class.

Of course there is! You return it in precisely the same way it was taken - through tax policy. You fix the problem in the same way it was fixed in the past.

We've been through this before. We know how to fix it. Only difficulty is that this time, half of our legislators don't want to fix it. Depressions are very good for rich people.

That is why this President's attitude towards large corporations is confounding. On the one hand he is attempting to get the nation into recovery mode, but on the other he attacks the very people and businesses that must contribute the most to said recovery. His attitude and his stance needs to be adjusted if he ever wants the jobs situation to get better.

I agree that the president's focus on preserving the profits of large corporations and keeping taxes low for rich people is confounding. I appreciate the the entire wall street banking system could not be allowed to collapse, and that saving General Motors and Chrysler was important to preserving an awful lot of middle class jobs. But, the president has yet to do much to address the root cause of this crisis, which is the massive inequality we have created between rich and poor. The gap between rich and poor in the USA is far greater than that present in any other developed country. We have the economic profile of a third world nation.

That is frustrating beyond belief. Until the president stops trying to rescue the fabulously wealthy - and focuses on helping the middle class - we're not going to have a fix to this crisis.

 

[evanrick]

So the unemployment rate is now 9.2%, rising 0.1% in just one month. Obama previously said unemployment wouldn't go over 8%.

The nearly TRILLION dollar stimulus has failed miserably.

He's toast come next year.

$1000 says he gets re-elected. do we have a deal?

 

[evanrick]

Well then.

Our civilized discussion comes to an end.....

whats civilized about kicking granny off of medicare or ending unemployment for the family with 3 kids? huh huh?
i guess those kids will have to live in a car and eat what restaurants throw out. waa waa.

typical republican snobbery and their "class-warfare" propaganda.

i guess your only considered civilized if you outsource your workforce and demand a bailout when your business fails.

[Linked Image: Removed by Moderator]

 

[JB3]

Of course there is! You return it in precisely the same way it was taken - through tax policy. You fix the problem in the same way it was fixed in the past.

We've been through this before. We know how to fix it. Only difficulty is that this time, half of our legislators don't want to fix it. Depressions are very good for rich people.

The american public will not tolerate it. They're smart enough to recognize ill-gotten gains, and they certainly won't be a party to it even if results in more money in their pocket.

I agree that the president's focus on preserving the profits of large corporations and keeping taxes low for rich people is confounding. I appreciate the the entire wall street banking system could not be allowed to collapse, and that saving General Motors and Chrysler was important to preserving an awful lot of middle class jobs. But, the president has yet to do much to address the root cause of this crisis, which is the massive inequality we have created between rich and poor. The gap between rich and poor in the USA is far greater than that present in any other developed country. We have the economic profile of a third world nation.

That is frustrating beyond belief. Until the president stops trying to rescue the fabulously wealthy - and focuses on helping the middle class - we're not going to have a fix to this crisis.

You have it completely wrong. The attitude I was speaking of is his adversarial relationship with the largest employers in the US. Getting all pissy and attacking them is a good way for them to continue to ship jobs overseas, and its clear from the jobs situation that they do not believe that Obama's policies and attitude is creating a positive atmosphere for job creation.

That being said, it IS possible to have an adversarial relationship while still creating an atmosphere that will allow for job creation. Obama doesn't seem to want to create that sort of relationship though. Business does not feel that any attempts to create jobs will be recognized by the administration, and they do not feel that the administration really cares enough about the fact that they have to WORK with those business in order for the situation to improve.

 

[JB3]

Oh yes don't blame the republicans... blame Obama. That's what the republican party is about... "If the economy is in bad shape, blame the black guy!". Or "Slavery is an excellent thing maybe we should go back to the good old days!". That's the republican line of thought.

Obama isn't to blame for this mess. He's merely trying to fix it. And the republicans have the audacity to open their fat nasty mouths. Obama is definitely trying to do his best at job creation... but since when was the President in charge of job creation? We don't live in the USSR now.

The administration cares a great deal... certainly more than delusional right wingers and conservatives.

If he was doing his best for job creation, he would keep his mouth shut and stop pissing off the companies that the economy is depending on for all the new jobs. The climate right now is such that the companies feel no obligation whatsoever to create jobs because they're going to be attacked by the administration no matter what they do.

 

[T-Rexx]

The american public will not tolerate it. They're smart enough to recognize ill-gotten gains, and they certainly won't be a party to it even if results in more money in their pocket.

If the public is smart enough to recognize ill-gotten gains, then they will certainly demand that the ill-gotten gains of the wealthy over the past 30 years be corrected.

 

[JayHawk]

Aw is that so? Do you always take things off topic when you're discussing topics? Bush pushed us so far off the edge into the toilet bowl. Stop trying to be an apologist and minimizing his impact. You sound like a politician. I speak only on real terms.

How exactly is responding to someone falsely claiming that Bush is the root of all problems in a conversation about Jobs and loss of economic horsepower... how is that leaving the topic ... Sounds more laike for lack of a point your simply blaming the poster.

The middle class is, well at least was, the driving force of the economy. It's a consumer driven economy and they are doing most of the spending. But America is trending towards an elitist based, 5% economy, Carlos Slim style...

The largest corporations cannot be relied on to create jobs, as they are busy stealing and outsourcing. There needs to be more restrictions on large corporations to prevent this fleecing, and more power to the people.



Rubbish. Those large businesses drove this country into this crisis. There needs to be an emphasis on small and medium business to get this country back on its fact.



Why? His attitude is just fine. His stance is a lacking for my taste, and doesn't go far enough.

The republicans are the ones who have a very bad attitude towards the economy. They want the economy to collapse.

His stance is NON EXISTENT. Please tell me where Obama has takin a stand? Would be very curious to hear it...BTW I am for higher taxes and a Jobs program. the reason we dont have one is because NOBODY at the HELM took a STAND.

Then tell me what the GOP are doing to help get vital economic bills, such as raising the debt ceiling, rolling? Oh wait... they aren't. Obama wants something signed and done... but the Congress is obstructionist because of the idiotic GOP. Stop glossing over reality please. And stop throwing stones from a glass house.

Not a fucking thing.

Oh yes don't blame the republicans... blame Obama. That's what the republican party is about... "If the economy is in bad shape, blame the black guy!". Or "Slavery is an excellent thing maybe we should go back to the good old days!". That's the republican line of thought.

Obama isn't to blame for this mess. He's merely trying to fix it. And the republicans have the audacity to open their fat nasty mouths. Obama is definitely trying to do his best at job creation... but since when was the President in charge of job creation? We don't live in the USSR now.

The administration cares a great deal... certainly more than delusional right wingers and conservatives.

Obama is doing fuck all about job creation. The only jobs created where due to the normal cyclic return of the market caused by the stimulus enacted by GWB. So please outline where Obama has done anything to stimulate the economy? Where is the expanded Job core? The WPA program? The leaders at treasury, the Fed and the SEC are simply ciopies of the same Alan greenspan big corporation, big bank idiots that brought us here so exactly what is he doing?

Ah more make believe rhetoric. We need more restrictions on big businesses ,not less. We don't need a "pro big business" administration. Been there, done that. Obama is the best option this country has.

The rhetoric is believing something is being done to reverse the actions of the past, to build long lasting jobs in America and change the course of our economy. The republicans deserve blame to be sure but trying to create this magical thing where democrats are doing something? that is pure horseshit.

 

[JB3]

Ah more make believe rhetoric. We need more restrictions on big businesses ,not less. We don't need a "pro big business" administration. Been there, done that. Obama is the best option this country has.

As is your M.O. you're putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did I claim Obama should be pro big business. (or do you not know the meaning of the word adversarial?)

Read what I posted again please:

That being said, it IS possible to have an adversarial relationship while still creating an atmosphere that will allow for job creation. Obama doesn't seem to want to create that sort of relationship though. Business does not feel that any attempts to create jobs will be recognized by the administration, and they do not feel that the administration really cares enough about the fact that they have to WORK with those business in order for the situation to improve.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm sorry but don't the Dem's have/control the Senate and the Presidency?

If they can't find a way to work with a Republican House, then the fault falls on them.

You were doing pretty well in recent posts in this thread till that last line. The stated goal of Republicans in the House is to make Obama a one-term president. That means they won't let any legislation pass that Democrats could take any credit for. In other words, it isn't possible for the Democrats to work with the Republicans in the House, because the Republicans will keep moving the goal posts to make sure the Democrats will fail.

Then point out a Democrat jobs bill the Republicans have held up.

Actually, Mr. Kucinich, a Dem, introduced a great bill that would encourage people to take early retirement and reduce the workforce by about a million and open up that number of new jobs, but even the Dem's ignored it. I think they wish for the majority to be "on the dole".

There was supposed to be a stimulus "part two", but no Democrat is going to introduce it when no matter what's in it the Republicans will oppose it. Silly of the Democrats, but that seems to be the procedure at the moment -- personally, I think a better tactic would be to introduce bills a majority of Americans would support, and watch the Republicans writhe as they continue to make sure the Democrats can't get any credit for fixing anything.

One reason the very creative Kucinich bill didn't go anywhere was that far too many of those seniors are already unemployed, so getting them to retire wouldn't be opening up any new jobs. It would make the unemployment figures look better, certainly, but unless the majority of those retiring were in fact leaving jobs to do so, it could be a flop. Sadly, I haven't seen any analysis or projections venturing to say what proportions would be from which side.

 

[Kulindahr]

The american public will not tolerate it. They're smart enough to recognize ill-gotten gains, and they certainly won't be a party to it even if results in more money in their pocket.

If that were true, none of the people in Congress who were supported by financial institutions would be there. Our financial system especially prospers off ill-gotten gains, funneled to them by a trickle-up economy that hits poor people every which way they turn, funneling unearned income to the shareholders and handing huge bonuses to employees whether they produce anything or not.

All big corporations are part of the game, milking the taxpayers equally, but bestowing the yield very unequally.


The public did recognize ill-gotten gains in the whole bank bailout business, and even understood what "too big to fail" should mean, but Congress wasn't having it. Bonuses from taxpayer money to the people who caused the problem was ill-gotten gains; and the institutions deemed too big to fail should have been chopped into little enough pieces that they wouldn't be too big to fail for a long, long time -- and the CEOs who led things into disaster should be in prison.

 

[Kulindahr]

Blah blah blah... this just goes to show you don't have an argument. You choose to use the F word to make your non-existent points while you scream about how bad Obama has been. If you're really a smart man, then you'd justify your points without using vulgar words. You're not George Carlin.

You choose to whine about the F-word to cover the fact that you don't have any responses to make. If you were really a smart man, then you'd make points like someone who actually has a master's degree in something.