Obama Still Has His Job, Do You?

If I were to predict a GOP bumper sticker for the 2012 election cycle, it might be "Obama Still Has His Job, Do You?" If the President and by extension the Democrats have an electoral Achilles Heel, it is the continuing erosion of the nation's labor market. By 2012, the nation's electorate will no longer remember that the bleed of jobs began in 2007 under George W. Bush nor are they likely to pin the blame on Reagan-era policies that set in motion a three decade destruction of the country's manufacturing sector. For too many Americans, this is not a recession but a quiet depression, an epic crash of living standards. Even for those still with jobs, wage deflation is a harsh reality and falling wages are a symptom of a sick economy. This sick economy may be a GOP legacy but if we fail to stem the ebb tide of jobs then a political day of reckoning will await us.

An editorial in the New York Times published on Saturday sets forth the urgency of the matter:

September was the 21st straight month of job loss -- the longest unbroken stretch of losses since record-keeping began in 1939 -- bringing to 7.2 million the number of positions that have been axed since December 2007. And that understates the damage. During the recession, the economy has failed to create another 2.7 million jobs that were needed simply to employ new workers -- like high school and college graduates, immigrants and stay-at-home parents who want to go back to work.

The unemployment rate for September -- 9.8 percent -- also understates the damage. It would have been higher but for the fact that 571,000 people dropped out of the work force last month -- in general, it's assumed, because they've despaired of finding work. If they had kept looking, they would have been counted as unemployed.

The combination of a rising unemployment rate and a quickening pace of labor-force dropouts is especially worrisome. In September, the employment rate for all workers -- defined as the share of the population with a job -- fell to 58.8 percent, its lowest level in more than 25 years. For adult men, who have been particularly hard hit by job loss in this recession, the employment rate fell to 67 percent, its lowest level since the government began keeping track in 1948. Before this recession, that rate had never dropped below 70.5 percent.

A shrinking labor force represents a tremendous waste of talent and potential, a loss of value that will not be entirely retrievable. Widespread joblessness among men is particularly devastating for the economy and many families, because men tend to earn more than women and to have jobs offering health insurance.

To make matters worse, unemployment among men and women is proving relentless. Of the 15.1 million people who are now officially counted as unemployed, over a third have been out of work for 27 weeks or longer, the highest percentage of long-term unemployment on record. By the end of the year, benefits will expire for more than one million unemployed workers.

Those are bleak numbers and the Administration seems to revel in celebrating a "catastrophe averted" when the pain remains all too evident. As the Times editorial board concludes, "Congress and the Administration also have not done enough to directly create jobs." Creating jobs is not just an economic necessity but a political imperative.

Tags: Fiscal Stimulus, Jobs Report, Labor Market, US Economy (all tags)

Comments

103 Comments

Re: Obama Still Has His Job, Do You?

President Obama is surrounded by neoliberal ideologues. They are not acting out of pragmatism as if often the claim. They act out fo a belief that this the way the system ought to work. Let me quote something said by Secretary Geithner back in Jan of this year as a response to the nationalization of the banks as a means of addressing the crisis (which remains one by the way):

"He discouraged speculation that the plan would include the nationalization of some banks.

"We have a financial system that is run by private shareholders, managed by private institutions, and we'd like to do our best to preserve that system," he said."

Daniel De Groot pointed out at the time that this is not merely a policy argument- it is a statement of ideological perspective.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia ryId=11231

Since that time, we continue to see that ideological perspective play itself out. Indeed, Wall Street is repackaging the toxic assets , and the administration has embraced too big to fail as a virtue rather than a vice.  Please read the following:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12543450 2953253695.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/24 /volcker-too-big-to-fail-s_n_298429.html

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/10/c hris-whalen-bank-losses-to-continue-at-h igh-levels-well-into-2010.html

Why are they only regurgitating the same strategies despite the fact they are failing? This again is ideological rather than pragmatically addressing the issues. Now, as to the specifics of your posts, the things that President Obama would have to do would have to go against the grain of neoliberal ideological perspectives. It is not as if there are not a lot of noted economists yelling "please break up the banks":

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/10/g uest-post-the-real-reason-the-giant-inso lvent-banks-arent-being-broken-up.html

If do not check out anything else, read the above article from Naked Capitalism. The WH is just refusing to listen.

Until recently, the administration seemed unwilling to admit to the full extent of the problem with unemployment. Bobswern covers that issue here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/3/ 213538/653

Still, it is becoming clear as you say that there is a huge problem:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2 0601068&sid=aGBkhROUjNds

For example, setting up an industrial policy that creates incentives for the growth of domestic industries. Re-thinking trade agreements and globalization to make it sane. Addressing wage stagnation.

I do not forsee that changing until a lot of additional damage is done. Do you? If so, why?  Finally, I have a practical question: previous to running for office just how much experience had President Obama had with addressing wide scale economic issues? Is he too trusting of the advisers he has to not be self interested in their own ideological perspective? Does he realize that they are approaching these issue from an ideological perspective.

I remember , I believe, it was Biden who said that they failed to realize the severity of the problem regarding the economy over the summer. They said they listened to a wide variety of economists, but no one could have predicted this. My question is whether they are living in a neoliberal bubble in the WH? I certainly see that with their surprise over the intensity of support for the Public Option.

by bruh3 2009-10-04 08:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Still Has His Job, Do You?

Just a few points:

You can not re-do trade agreements & globalization strategies/agreements simply because the economy is faltering.  The terms may be amended but done away with is the worst possible track.

I do believe that President Obama & V.P. Biden are too dependent upon the the institutional advice they are receiving from the same individuals who were grossly wrong in the first place simply for the fact that "their models" did not extrapolate the data being represented to them.

Also, I highly doubt the Administration listed to a wide variety of economists, because SEVERAL predicted this.  I do agree though, that Obama and the Administration is being engulfed in the same 'Bubble' that they mocked during the campaign.

by TxDem08 2009-10-05 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Still Has His Job, Do You?

I agree it would be hard to get out of the trade agreements,  but following through on a vastly different approach would be welcomes. Right now, I question their follow through given the administration's ideological bent.

by bruh3 2009-10-05 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Still Has His Job, Do You?

Follow up, on this part of my post:

""He discouraged speculation that the plan would include the nationalization of some banks.

"We have a financial system that is run by private shareholders, managed by private institutions, and we'd like to do our best to preserve that system," he said."

Daniel De Groot pointed out at the time that this is not merely a policy argument- it is a statement of ideological perspective.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia ryId=11231

I forgot to add that this is ideological because it starts from the position of cutting off a whole list of options that are readily available but they decide from the start are not something they wish to pursue? Why? Not because of policy reasons of pragmatically making the system healthy, but because of "this is the way things should be." It is ideological because it begs the question- why should things be that way if they are not working?

by bruh3 2009-10-04 08:58PM | 0 recs
Get it Right

Why do you continue to misuse "Begs the question?". Your error has been pointed out previously, and yet you persist in it.

For those who might be misled, and who would prefer not to be judged harshly for the same mistake, here's a link to understanding this really easy to understand phrase.

http://begthequestion.info/

by QTG 2009-10-05 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Get it Right

actually, bruh's usage is a common one, and it is accepted by linguists, even as your link points out.  It may make logicians cringe, but it's no different than what's happened to the use of the word "literally."

by slynch 2009-10-05 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Get it Right

The exact quote exposes your analysis to be dead wrong. So, I beg to differ.

While descriptivists and other such laissez-faire linguists are content to allow the misconception to fall into the vernacular, it cannot be denied that logic and philosophy stand to lose an important conceptual label should the meaning of BTQ become diluted to the point that we must constantly distinguish between the traditional usage and the erroneous "modern" usage. This is why we fight.

Dumbing the Universe down may seem acceptable behavior to you and certainly is the entire reason bruh3 exists, but I will stand and fight for what little remains of Human Culture and its linguistic heritage.

by QTG 2009-10-05 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Get it Right

apparently, you can't read.  The first clause "...descriptivists...are content to allow the misconception to fall into the vernacular..." is exactly what I said.  The fact that others disagree is irrelevant to the point that some accept its vernacular usage.

Ironically, your own argument here is question-begging in its classic sense.  You presuppose that a descriptivist usage of the term "question-begging" is bad, without demonstrating any such thing.  Surely, if you're the expert on this logical fallacy, you should recognize your own error.

In addition, the main reason I responded to you is that your initial comment to bruh was nothing but ad hominem.  I find it ironic that one who wants to play logic games finds it so necessary so often to commit such obvious fallacies.

by slynch 2009-10-05 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Get it Right

I think you are bruh. Similarities include sentence structure, word selection, touchy, and absolute inability to grasp the concept of 'begging the question'.

Forensically identical.

by QTG 2009-10-06 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Get it Right

you're too funny.  "Forensics," ha.  As if you know anything about the topic.  What, are you 12?  Maybe 14?  Maybe older, but on par with the average IQ of 100?

Apparently, you haven't been around here very long (either that or you just don't pay much attention), because there are several instances, probably about 5 months ago, of bruh and me going head-to-head over his support for nate silver's view (versus mine) on the prop 8 issue.  Actually, see my one and only diary here about it and bruh's comments in it.  I'm not a big fan of bruh's--at least I wasn't (s/he's growing on me).  I still think s/he must be a lush, given the way the grammar in his comments deteriorates as the evening goes on, but I don't really judge comments on the basis of their grammar or mis-use of colloquialisms.  I evaluate comments based on the merits of their arguments.

Aside from all this, you haven't addressed anything I said to you.  So, your comment is nothing more than "hand-waving," to use yet another vernacular expression to represent another logical problem with your commenting. (oh, and by the way, as a statistician, I certainly understand the "real" meaning of "hand-waving," so don't waste your time trying to explain to me the loss/protection of human culture)

But, whatever.  You seem like you might be just another fellow on the blog looking for an argument outside the bounds of the real discussions waged here, as evidenced by your comment to bruh that elicited my response.  Good luck to you.  To be honest, I enjoy seeing your comments for the most part.  But, please, try to stay topical.

by slynch 2009-10-06 08:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Get it Right

You're rant supports my theory in every respect.

by QTG 2009-10-07 04:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Get it Right

Sorry, "YOUR", not "you're" - a typo.

by QTG 2009-10-07 04:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Get it Right

I think you mean "your."  Just trying to preserve the culture.

by slynch 2009-10-07 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Get it Right

I corrected my typo seconds after I made it, mo.

by QTG 2009-10-07 12:03PM | 0 recs
Bubble, Bubble

I agree with your hypothesis regarding surprise of widespread support for a public option as evidence of a neoliberal bubble. There certainly is strong supporting evidence.

My only question is whether there was that widespread support back during the summer of town hall anger?

Sure there was tremendous progressive support in the blogosphere, and I believe the possibility for deep tremendous support in a yet uneducated public. But I conclude the President was too sensitive to an apparent anti-government public discourse back then, and took his push for the public option underground. This would be evidence against living in a bubble. In fact, it would be the opposite.

In both the economy and the health care debate, Obama chose to play it safe (conservative).

In the latter, if Obama had come out in favor of a strong public option with the Senate he has to work with early this summer, would the GOP have been able to change the public perception? Right now, we see support for a public option rising into the final floor votes, which is what we want. In the alternate reality, I don't know what would have happened. We may either have a stronger public option, or it could have been Obama's waterloo.

Similarly, in the economic situation, if Obama had chosen a more progressive course of action, would we be better off today? Sometimes great trouble calls for great risk taking. But the alternate hypothesis is that Obama feared a second Great Depression, and thus chose the safest course of action.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-05 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Bubble, Bubble

The  public option or a government health plan is something that has been supported by the American public for probably over a decade. I refer to this data from 2005:

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweb log.com/donkeyrising/archives/001291.php

So yes, the concept is wildly popular and has been for a long time.

by bruh3 2009-10-05 09:13AM | 0 recs
Yes, but by how much

One can argue if it was wise for Obama to take the fight for the Public Option underground, but it is more difficult for one to argue that Obama lives in a neoliberal bubble and at the same time was overreacting to a perceived public opinion. George Bush, in contrast, the classic model for a bubble administration, never, ever acted based on an unfavorable public opinion. My perception is not of a bubble Administration, but of one that has somehow lost touch with how progressive the country is in, almost as if he now views the country through a right-leaning lens. But then again, I'm a progressive and biased.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-05 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, but by how much

First, we have go to stop doing this. Comparing everything to bush may make you feel better, but it is not a useful bench mark. In fact, given the factual differences between bush's time in office and now, it is practically useless.

Second, that's a core problem of being in a bubble. You don't recognize to the full extent the times you are in.

Bush neoconservative bubble was maintained due the specifics of the facts of  his time in office. That bubble could afford to exist in a slow decline and stagnant growth.

Pres. Obama's bubble of neoliberalism can not because of the specifics- we are in the midst of a near depression like era. We face the prospects of things like private health care bankrupting the country. Re-inflating assets that nearly bankrupted the country. Double digit unemployment. etc.  Quantitatively different eras.

He does not have the political option to remain in his bubble despite WH desires regarding neoliberalism, but that does not mean that they can not do a lot of harm while trying to stay in the bubble anyway. It is not for lack of trying on their part. It is that the public gives them no choice.

I said the WH lives in a  neoliberal bubble because on policy after policy they keep using neoliberalism as the default regardless of facts.

Thus, substantively, like on things like the stimulus they waste vital political capital and cause unnecessary economic harm. They are resistant to change on these issues precisely because of that bubble of their ideological bent. It has nothing to do with the public other than the fact that the public pushes back  in ways that they did not against Bush.

For example, the public option is on the table not because of the Obama bubble was burst by PResident Obama or his team. It is on the table because of the unrelenting support of the option by the public and the progressives in the House finally growing a pair. The WH admits that they underestimated the level of support just as they underestimated the economic climate, and yet-- what is Geithner , for example doing with this information?

Here is Chris Bowers going into the issue from a different angle- how this neoliberlaims has halted what should have been a realligning election next year.

http://www.openleft.com/diary/15396/wall -street-bailout-thwarting-democratic-rea lignment

So, while the bubble exists, it does not mean that there is no  outside forces. What it means is that we get poor policies that then have to be changed later rather than done right the first time.

by bruh3 2009-10-05 01:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, but by how much

What factual differences? Bush's time in 0ffice was a mere 10 months ago. The only difference is now a Dem is in the WH and the powerfull aided by the dimwitted are going to do everything to tear them down.

Calling it a bubble of 'neo'-liberalism doesn't make it so. The Wall street bail-out was passed in Sep 2008 - in the middle of the campaign. That's about as unbubbly as you can get. And it wasn't the Obama admin who asked for TARP - that was the Bush admin. It's like you exist in your time-warp bubble.

by vecky 2009-10-05 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Bubble, Bubble

As for your wider question- the answer is no one can answer that because he did not do that. The best I can do is to guestimate. My guess is that he would have in a better place because at the end of the day the American people despite their labels are not ideologues. There is only a small group that is so dedicated to ideological belief that they are wiling to screw themselves and the country over for it. The lesson from Bush was not that you can be popular, and if you screw up, they will not like you. Bush did not screwed up due to policies that he enacted. So, the question is- if we had a stronger stimulus, and it worked better, what would we be looking forward to next year?  I am making assumptions here, but the idea of committing to half ass efforts seems a license to fail versus just going all in to at least give yourself a real shot with the American people. We know from history these types of ideas work.

by bruh3 2009-10-05 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Bubble, Bubble

What do you mean if? Obama has supported a Public Option since he started this proposal. He's mentioned it in every speech, every forum, every press conference.

HCR supporters ran and hid during the August recess, preferring to snipe at the President from the safety of the internet instead.

by vecky 2009-10-05 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Bubble, Bubble

They mean there is a difference between saying " I like the idea" and "I am going to go to bat for it." It is also one of sending mixed signals that "I like you, but can we date around too, if it does not work out."

I am coming to use the August recess as a barometer of how far out there some supporters of Pres Obama are. He has directly admitted to having made mistakes in Aug. Not the supporters of HRC, Obama. So to read you trying to defend what even he does not defend is amusing.

by bruh3 2009-10-05 09:58AM | 0 recs
Has a President ever not made mistakes?

I support Obama day and night.

I also believe he is far more intelligent than you or I, which is why he's President and we're here heckling from the truly cheap seats.

But it takes more than 7 months to view a Presidential decision of this magnitude as a mistake or the deciding strategy that won the war.

I don't believe in 11th dimensional chess. But I can not conclude with certainty that Obama's actions or inactions in August were detrimental to the overall goal of health care reform. It's just too soon.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-05 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Has a President ever not made mistakes?

I don't argue with people of faith, which is what your post is.

by bruh3 2009-10-05 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Bubble, Bubble

There is only a difference in the minds of those trying to tear down the President in the first place. Every single public utterance by Obama has been in support of the PO. His is not an ideological position but a pragmatic. He supports it because it provides competition and brings down costs. That's the reason most liberals support it.

You on the other hand sit on the sidelines and snipe. Rather than focus on the dems who have not yet committed to the PO, or to the Repubs like Snowne who like to wear false airs of moderation you turn your ire to your greatest ally. It makes me think your nothing but a GOP stooge.

by vecky 2009-10-05 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Still Has His Job, Do You?

If that's your definition of Ideologue then it doesn't leave much place in the spectrum for Bush and the neo-cons.

Or maybe you just believe that Obama & Geithner are just as bad as Bush & Paulson.

For all the bashing of the Obama admin that goes on, I for one think Geithner is about as good as one can hope for. At least he has a solid public service background and isn't a transplant from Goldman like Paulson.

by vecky 2009-10-04 10:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Still Has His Job, Do You?

The failures of one ideological perspective does not negate the failures of another. Communism is not justified by Fascism. Yet, that's your logic in a nutshell. In other words, the failures of neoliberalism is not justified by the failures neoconservatism.  

The issue is whether in following an ideological perspective is the country denied  the full range of pragmatic resolution with issues like high unemployment, the subject of the diary. The diarist mentions the issue, but does not address what is preventing the Obama team from addressing these issues. The core problem is that they are ideologues. So long as ideologues are in control of policy, we will see the same policies because they eliminate alternatives as a matter of course.

Here's the definition of the word ideologue: "an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology." The following quote by Geithner is not pragmatic problem solving, but instead blind adherence to an ideological perspective not justified by non-sequiturs like "it's not neoconservatism":

"He discouraged speculation that the plan would include the nationalization of some banks.

"We have a financial system that is run by private shareholders, managed by private institutions, and we'd like to do our best to preserve that system," he said."

It is a series of conclusion statements. A series of "ought' statements about what the system ought to look like rather than evidence based analysis that asks "how can we solve the problem at hand?" What's more - he's actually wrong. We nationalize banks all the time when the government takes over failed banks. The issue here was that they refused the approach as a systemic solution. That's why you have someone like Sheila Bair who advocated for this approach until she was overruled by the neoliberal ideologues.

Your position of Geithner is absurd. He was in control of the Fed in New York before the meltdown. He was one of the few people in a position to prevent the melt down. You offer no reason why he was the best choice other than a conclusion statement about him being the best that we can get. Without your criteria for what constitutes the best choice, your statement lacks meaning.

by bruh3 2009-10-04 11:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Still Has His Job, Do You?

Wow, you are dead on with your analysis.....I absolutely cannot agree any more, particularly about Geithner's negligence in all this

by BuckeyeBlogger 2009-10-05 05:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Still Has His Job, Do You?

Your basing your entire judgment on one statement? You assume, without evidence, that his ideology flows from that statement rather than it being a result of an informed decision that was made earlier. He is now merely defending that position. Geithner actually has a record of speaking about nationalization - both it's pros and cons. Try reading up, he's not some stooge from private industry like the last two Treasury Sec's were.

You seem to base your entire theory that merely because someone has reached a different conclusion than you, that person must be an ideologue. In reality the ideologue here is you. So maybe people in glass houses should not throw stones.

by vecky 2009-10-05 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Still Has His Job, Do You?

Do you not know who Timothy Geithner is?  Geithner has long been seen by the Street and policy wonks as an 'Interventionist'.

He has a long history of such, and even as Prez of the NY FED was prone to lean toward a more interventionist monetary policy with regards to investment, despite having no formal Economic training or theoretical proof defense(s) other than a Masters in International Economics and East Asian studies.

He has worked with the IMF, but other than that and his stint under Rubin, he has no other actual economic policy or economic training experience.

And most of all, who do you think put together the bail-out package in the first place and who was the conductor of the Goldman Sachs bail-out and Lehman Bros fall?

If you're trying to say the Geither isn't a private industry stooge, you're sadly mistaken and mis-informed.

by TxDem08 2009-10-05 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Still Has His Job, Do You?

You are asserting option .  I am analysis based on facts. One has more value than the other. So equating the two is false.

For the record, as pointed out by Tx,  Geithner is a Rubinite. Your entire post indicates you either don't care or don't know what you are talking about regarding who this person is.

by bruh3 2009-10-05 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Still Has His Job, Do You?

What facts, your statements have been unqualified.

And as for Geithner not having economic 'expertise' that's patently false - he served under both Rubin and Summers, worked at the CFR and IMF and was head of the NY Fed.

by vecky 2009-10-05 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Still Has His Job, Do You?

You are conflating two different posters arguments together.

by bruh3 2009-10-05 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Still Has His Job, Do You?

Your arguments are similarly unfounded.

That said there is an article out by Ryan Lizza in the New Yorker about the economic debate over what to do with the banks and auto-industries. The facts of the matter are that there was a debate and the cons of nationalization won out. This was a decision where all options were considered. Your baseless argument that it was blind ideology is merely the result of your own blind ideology.

by vecky 2009-10-05 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Still Has His Job, Do You?

One sign of a person who is unreasonable is where they conflate two different arguments. Rather than addressing your error in judgment you try to defend it. And, as quote I just posted- which was on Jan 2009 points out, your claims of their being a debate is not reflective of Gethner's own words on the matter.

by bruh3 2009-10-05 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Still Has His Job, Do You?

The error of 'judgment' is not mine but yours. Rather than see other evidence on the matter (of which there is plenty available), you simply base your argument on a single quote, which in itself doesn't say anything. In order words you have let your own ideology warp your judgment. That's not a pretty position to be in.

by vecky 2009-10-05 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Still Has His Job, Do You?

You really are not a logical person. If there was this open debate as you claim, he would have been making that statement in Jan 2009. The date alone tells anyone who is logical that what you describe was not in fact the case. That's why I used it- the datae is damning of your claims.

That quote by the way is only one of many backed up with his actions.

by bruh3 2009-10-05 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Still Has His Job, Do You?

Your statement is not logical. There was a debate, they arrived at a position, so statements supporting that position are of course going to be made. The date itself is meaningless. Pragmatists are welded to dates, they can and do reserve the right to change their position as the circumstances warrant.

That may be hard for an ideologue like you to grasp.

Try reading the New Yorker article before spouting again.

by vecky 2009-10-05 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Still Has His Job, Do You?

I wrote what I did quickly- let me restate it: if there was this open process, then it must have happened for all of 2 weeks since Pres Obama did not become president until Jan 20 2009. Thus, for the administration to already be making that statement says they were never open in the first place. The fact we got all this corraborating evidence that came after this is only meant to reinforce what was already the ideological bent since Jan.

by bruh3 2009-10-05 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Still Has His Job, Do You?

Obama's economic team had been meeting since November. Debates on what to do with the myriad of crises continued since then, and I bet it's still continuing. Just because you don't bother to know the facts dosn't mean they didn't happen.

by vecky 2009-10-05 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Still Has His Job, Do You?

I give up. You are so far gone it is a waste of time.

by bruh3 2009-10-05 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Still Has His Job, Do You?

Obvious when faced with facts you can't refute you won't even let go of your pet theories. Now that's the definition of an ideologue!

by vecky 2009-10-05 07:50PM | 0 recs
I'm not a fan of the Huffington Post

but this is a great explanation of a jobs problem that has existed since I finished school earlier in the decade.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/04 /as-layoffs-persist-good-j_n_309232.html

Economists say the main problem is a mismatch between available work and people qualified to do it. Millions of jobs with attractive pay and benefits that once drew legions of workers to the auto industry, construction, Wall Street and other sectors are gone, probably for good. And those who lost those jobs generally lack the right experience for new positions popping up in health care, energy and engineering.

Many of these specialized jobs were hard to fill even before the recession. But during downturns, recruiters tend to become even choosier, less willing to take financial risks on untested workers.

The mismatch between job opening and job seeker is likely to persist even as the economy strengthens and begins to add jobs. It also will make it harder for the unemployment rate, now at 9.8 percent, to drop down to a healthier level.

"Workers are going to have to find not just a new company, but a new industry," said Sophia Koropeckyj, managing director of Moody's Economy.com. "A fifty-year-old guy who has been screwing bolts into the side of a car panel is not going to be able to become a health care administrator overnight."

When I was working at the Daily News, we had an a year before it ws filled. The problem was they were asking for a certain number of years experience and the pay wasn't great...someone with the experience they're looking for would have been able to find a better paying job in 2005...so the rookies who were eager to learn were turned away because nobody wanted to teach them or give them a chance.

Also, I'm not sure I know anyone who got a job off the internet or by going to the HR office unnannounced and asked for a job or cold contacts. Everyone I know, including myself, got work through connections, either that they made or their families and friends made...and sometimes that person is so unqualified that they would never be considered if they weren't someone's son/daughter/sister/brother/niece/nephew /student/babysitter/candy striper. I got my first job at Newsday from the dean of my school and I didn't really met their qualifications. I never would've gotten that job on my own, but I was eager to learn and I mastered the job in weeks...I went to the Daily News thanks to a guy I met at a journalism convention. PBS came from another dean at my college and ABC came through the husband of a secretary at my law school.

and meanwhile here were have all these jobs and no one with the skill set to hold them or anyone willing to help those people get the skills.

This problem, is specifically, something that predated the recession.

by DTOzone 2009-10-04 10:52PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not a fan of the Huffington Post

Every job I have landed came via a connection. It's uncanny.

Of course, this is a problem now because I lack job searching skills.

by Charles Lemos 2009-10-05 02:09PM | 0 recs
Obama's timing could not have been worse

He was elected just as the recession started to really deepen.  This is going to be a very tough two, three, or perhaps even five more years.

The trend in the unemployment numbers suggests that even if economic growth picks up significantly in 2011, Obama is likely to have to defend the charge in 2012 that he is the only President since Herbert Hoover that presided over a net job loss during his term.  

by Kent 2009-10-04 11:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's timing could not have been worse

Bush had a 2.3 million net job loss during his term.  Don't let the facts get in the way of your doomsaying, though.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/dis cuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address =102x386640

by lojasmo 2009-10-05 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's timing could not have been worse

From 1/01 to 12/01 Bush had a NET job creation of -1762 (including the after effects of 9/11)

From 1/09 to 9/09 Obama has a NET job creation of -4127 (which encompasses the economic collapse and it's ancillary problems)

So it's easy to establish that the disaster that Obama is facing is worse economically for the country than what happened on 9/11, and that the Republican Congress and those whom they appointed and took money from were directly responsible for the collapse and the instruments with which the collapse devastated our economy.

There is their rebuttal/slogan(s).

by TxDem08 2009-10-05 08:54AM | 0 recs
what could Congress be doing

to create more jobs? I don't disagree with this post, but I don't understand where the jobs are going to come from. We have too much capacity in the retail sector already, and as you say, those good manufacturing jobs are mostly gone.

I support major public works programs, like building high-speed rail to connect every major city, but Congress won't spend that kind of money.

by desmoinesdem 2009-10-05 03:11AM | 0 recs
Re: what could Congress be doing

A second New Deal, which is what Krugman the Curmudgeon calls for, is what you're suggesting.

I would love nothing more. Maybe even Obama would love nothing more.

But George Bush killed that idea by leaving Obama with a tremendous deficit. There was tremendous public reticence over the first stimulus package.

The public becomes very uneasy with government spending. For better or worse, because there wasn't a second depression, there wasn't a sufficient calamity to overcome that uneasiness. Krugman doesn't get that.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-05 09:02AM | 0 recs
I made this case somewhere else

as part of the WPA, the government built the Merritt Parkway in Connecticut.

One of the aspects of the Merritt Parkway is that every one of the parkway's overpasses are build to have a unique design. Part of the reason that was done, beside asthetics, was to make it take longer to build and keep people employed longer.

Good idea? No?

Well, it made construction cost a hell of a lot more while it did wonders for employment.

That wouldn't happen today...Today, we'd have pundits clutching their pearls complaining about it being a waste of money...completely ignoring the fact that the idea was to keep employment sustainable.

It is very important that we don't inconvience taxpayers with the burden of helping people.

by DTOzone 2009-10-05 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: what could Congress be doing

Re the Deficit

As Robert Reich points out-- you are not going to address a deficit in the middle of this type of job situation because it becomes self defeating. You are by definition going to have to address the shrinking job market. It is like doing trauma care. You have to address the most pressing crisis first, and then , go from there.

by bruh3 2009-10-05 09:27AM | 0 recs
This is a great question

We are running a debt/gdp ratio of 12%, the highest since 1942 and more than double anything that FDR ran during peacetime. This is in way shape or form sustainable, but over the short run it does not appear that the US is having any difficulty financing our debt.

What is critical here is that we need to realize that there is a free lunch here.  Krugman broached the subject last week.  In short, the cost of providing more public employment is less than the cost of leaving people jobless.  

Any new stimulus program, to be policically salable, has to focus on stopping the increasing layoffs at the state level.  In the last unemployment report 53,000 jobs were lost in Government, many of these in education and other essential services.  

by fladem 2009-10-05 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: what could Congress be doing

My posts are a variation on a theme. I am going to make arguments in favor of a national industrial policy and a second stimulus that includes more funds for worker retraining.

by Charles Lemos 2009-10-05 02:12PM | 0 recs
Robert Reich

went on more of a right wing direction today calling for payroll tax holidays.

I'm not sure how a payroll tax holiday is going to help someone who doesn't have a job, and how limited income to the government is going to help when we have a massive deficit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-rei ch/the-phantom-recovery-and_b_309931.htm l

by DTOzone 2009-10-05 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: what could Congress be doing

I do not understand the point of discussing these issues without also addressing wheher the Democrats will be going in that direct.

by bruh3 2009-10-05 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Still Has His Job, Do You?

If we had a neutral media, this would have been labeled the Bush Recession and blame would have been attributed accordingly.  Instead it is Republican owned and the truth is withheld!

by captain dan 2009-10-05 05:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Still Has His Job, Do You?

Having the media blame Bush won't create a single job. President Obama said that unless we pass the massive stimulus, unemployment would go over 8%. It's not working because the only job growth is in the public sector. There has been no incentive for private companies to hire workers and there is massive uncertainty about future energy costs, healthcare costs, and taxes.

Why take risks when you don't know what the rules are going to be?

by tpeichel 2009-10-05 07:52AM | 0 recs
Which is why

we're in the process of passing healthcare reform and climate change legislation, to ease that uncertainty.

by DTOzone 2009-10-05 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Which is why

Yes, they certainly are trying. I have my doubts that the policies will create more jobs than they destroy though.

by tpeichel 2009-10-05 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Which is why

The climate change bill is garbage and I am, sure will cost the economy jobs and the taxpayers money....flawed bill, flawed science....

by BuckeyeBlogger 2009-10-05 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Which is why

If the regurgitation of Repub talking points continues this site needs to be renamed to myGOP.

by vecky 2009-10-05 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Which is why

Flawed science? Like evolution is flawed science? Care to provide anything in the way of, oh I don't know, scientific proof for that statement?

by fsm 2009-10-05 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Which is why

I can provide as much science refuting global warming as you can supporting it. Further, there is no real evidence to hafve every supported man made global warm. Where woudl you like to start?

by BuckeyeBlogger 2009-10-05 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Which is why

This is not my issue, but I know that your post is inaccurate about the science. First, I want you to list those studies, and the source of who is funding them because that's critical to whether that science is accurate. Second, let me point out that corporate interests that have  vested stake in the outcomes- ie, disaster insurance companies, etc are worried about global warming based on the scientific evidence. There are reasons why energy companies and others are leaving the Chamber of Commerce over this. It has gone beyond proof on your side to being a flat earth argument. No proof will ever be enough.

Third, you are inaccurate about the human made element. There are other examples of how humans influence the environment such as chlroflurocarbons (unrelated but gives an idea of how we can and do influence the environment through our activities).

The science is either conclusive in some areas or strongly suggestive in others. THe problem is by the time we get to conclusive in all areas like someone like you would want, we may have wasted too much time.

As a practical matter, the arguments also makes no sense because it prevents innovation.  We are still using technologies that went into style over a century ago not because of a lack of innovation or even cost, but the size of corporations and their influence on government policies.

Let's pretend you are right for a second- the cost of public health and known climate issue as  well as the government subsidization and national security issues involved in obtaining say oil are also reasons why we want to start to push for changed in how we address these issues.

This must change or else we will be still using out dated technologies a century from now.

by bruh3 2009-10-05 11:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Which is why

Well, why don't we start with your claim that you can provide as much science refuting global warming as supporting it. Point me to any statistic that says the data the existence of global warming is even remotely close to the data refuting it.

As bruh3 mentions, here's a hint: studies conducted by oil companies don't usually qualify as actual science. Yet even if you include those, the sheer volume of data supporting global warming far outweighs anything to support your position.

by fsm 2009-10-05 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Which is why

We can start with these and dont even talk to mne about Al Gore whose assertions have been debunked by reputable scientists. Further, are you so foolish to believe that Global Warming alarmists dont have economic interests and political interests? Cap and trade will do nothing but cost taxpayers money and jobs. I am sure you also believe that the answer to reducing healthcare costs is simply to cover everyone?..

http://www.climatescienceinternational.o rg/
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/glob al-warming073107m.htm
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/resul ts/851/Polar_ice_cap_studies_refute_glob al_warming.html

by BuckeyeBlogger 2009-10-05 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Which is why

It took me two minutes to look up the background on the sites you link to:

I was only able to do a quick search of two of the three he lists, and as you may guess they are far right wing sites:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Free _Press

heartland.org

"Heartland's mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies."

I said credible sources rather than sources. Credible here are scientific journals with reviewed experiments that have been repeated to illustrate that the arguments of right wingers are validated by the science as far as we can know it at this point. You did not provide that. You provide right wing propaganda sites. Just as I suspected you would. The one other article you list I was able to find it linked to a denial site so that one too is suspect, but frankly after finding two fast I did n not see the point of further illustrating who you are.

by bruh3 2009-10-05 09:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Still Has His Job, Do You?
There could be a World War II style effort.  That would get us out of this "Great Recession," just as the other one got us out of the Great Depression.  As well, it is misleading to speak of jobs as "lost for good."  That is the typical speech of a journalist who has no idea of how the mass of the population lives.
One wishes that Obama would get rid of these neoliberal twits.  They were no good back in the 90's, and they are no good now.  Unfortunately, however, and also ominously, he may still think, like so many other African-Americans, that the 90's were a great time and that Clinton was the "first black president."  
by demjim 2009-10-05 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Still Has His Job, Do You?

Maybe, but WW2 also benefited from the fact that 6 million men were drafted into the army. If we did that today, what would they do?

by vecky 2009-10-05 07:41AM | 0 recs
Huh?

Are you suggesting we send all the unemployed to fight a war? I don't understand.

by DTOzone 2009-10-05 08:00AM | 0 recs
Could be worse

We could have McCain presiding over even worse gridlock and denying the problem while continuing the Bush program of shadow corporate welfare.

I don't think it will be too difficult for Obama to campaign against allegations that it's his recession.  Opponents and journalists (who might as well be opponents in this situation) constantly underestimate his ability to communicate with the people.  

by Dracomicron 2009-10-05 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Still Has His Job, Do You?

Rush Limbaugh still has his job. And, apparently, so do you...Charles.

by QTG 2009-10-05 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Still Has His Job, Do You?

Sorry to be misunderstood, but to clarify...

we should have a World War II style effort, but dedicated to civilian production, infrastructure, and social needs, not warfare.

by demjim 2009-10-05 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Still Has His Job, Do You?

Another New Deal WILL NOT solve the problems.  It will help to be an intermediary step and will help to act as a stop-gap, but is only a temporary measure.

Long-term it will be more of a problem than a help, however, it is a case of the baby/bath water issue.  Do you wait and not do the projects...and collapse simply b/c you know long-term (25-30 years) the projects will swallow you up, or do the projects and then deal with them later @ 10-20x the cost.

Indeed a double edged sword...

by TxDem08 2009-10-05 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Still Has His Job, Do You?

Isn't alot of what you're suggesting already in the stimulus package?

by tpeichel 2009-10-05 09:01AM | 0 recs
but the war

was the reason we needed that civilian production and infrastructure...we needed to build a military. What's the reason now?

We can't just build shit for the sake of building shit...they need to have some use.

by DTOzone 2009-10-05 09:04AM | 0 recs
Like the American Reinvestment & Recovery Act?

Obama kind of already did that, and it was a small success. If there wasn't a huge deficit, we could have done more.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-05 09:08AM | 0 recs
It has no legs

At least not now. Calls for tremendous Republican gains in 2010 are not supported by any poling data other than blogosphere unease.

Moreover, I counterspeculate (against your speculation) that the unemployed public will blame corporatism first before they blame progressivism or liberalism. The transgressor is too tangible to ignore.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-05 09:05AM | 0 recs
It might be a good thing for progressive

challengers in primaries and general elections.

by DTOzone 2009-10-05 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: It might be a good thing for progressive

Agreed. For the first time in my life, the oppressed working class is blaming corporatism before big government. The Republicans have no room on that argument.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-05 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: It has no legs

we will not know until next year what will happen, and at that point it will be too late.

by bruh3 2009-10-05 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: It is far too early

to know whether it will be too late.

by QTG 2009-10-05 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: It is far too early

because of the lag time between policy implementation and affect on the economy. This is not theory or ideological. it is the really of any policy implementation. What is also not theory is that voters will not give you credit for having tried. They will grade you results. This too has been true in the past.

by bruh3 2009-10-05 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: That is

pure gobbledygook.

by QTG 2009-10-05 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: That is

Well, as I keep saying, if I talk to a nutjob, I should not expect much more than what you post. It is funny to watch you come into my diaries for example on economic issues, and say plainly to others you have no idea what's going as you did with Charles Lemos, but then when someone tells you actual information- your response is this. Piece of advice. Spend more time researching these issues, and less coming here to tell me I am wrong over things I have actually researched.

by bruh3 2009-10-05 12:46PM | 0 recs
The problem may be

that while you feel you are presenting actual facts and reality, others feel they are more akin to sweeping and unsubstantiated assertions that often slip into self-contradiction and general incoherence.

by JJE 2009-10-05 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Uh, not really....

it's just gobbledygook.

by QTG 2009-10-05 03:30PM | 0 recs
Wait a second.

Above, you're arguing Obama has made mistakes 8+ months into his Presidency (i.e., health care and the public option) before the outcome is even known, and now you're arguing that a midterm electoral disaster looms that won't be known until it is too late?

Nonsense.

The polling data will foreshadow the magnitude of losses with some precision well before Election Day.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-05 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Wait a second.

The problem here is you conflate so many thing together that it would require a lot of work on my part to address how your reasoning  is the problem.

A quick example, but by no means the only one, the conflation of what I say about the health care debate as it is happening right now with the impact of the state of the overall economy at the time on elections that will occur Nov 2011 or what people will be thinking in a year.

For the record, I did not claim to know what would happen next year. What I said is pretty clear, and it was not a "disaster" will happen.

What I  said is that we are in a bad economy, and, therefore, if it is still bad next year we can not assume that public opinion will remain the same more than year out from the elections.

What we can say is that any policies that Pres Obama could pass to mitigate any issues related to the overall economy would have to be passed now to have time to have the desired effect by next year.  What we can say is that when they make projections, and those projections are proving to be wrong as to the jobs recovery, then we need to be concerned rather than circling the wagons by pretending that we can say for certain that the number of people without jobs will not affect midterms.

There is a lot more that I can say to clear up the situation, but to be quite frank the fact you choose to just mush everything together (which was designed to discuss ideological bent rather than what you are doing with the arguments) means that I probably would be wasting my time.

by bruh3 2009-10-05 02:13PM | 0 recs
There's no need to be insulting

I just refuse to believe your assertion that continuing economic troubles spell guaranteed disaster for the Democrats (and that Obama needs to act with haste).

It's completely one dimensional thinking.

More than the state of the times affect the populations perception of Congress. And what you ignore is that people blame the GOP for the current crisis far more than the democrats. And I'm reasonably confident they will a year from now too.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-05 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: There's no need to be insulting

Yeap, another flat earther. Thanks for playing.

by bruh3 2009-10-05 02:47PM | 0 recs
We're doomed!

DOOOOOOMED!!!!

Yeah, right. I'll believe it when I see poling data to prove it.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-05 10:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Wait a second.

Follow up:

"What we can say is that any policies that Pres Obama could pass to mitigate any issues related to the overall economy would have to be passed now to have time to have the desired effect by next year."

This by the way is the key to understanding the situation regarding  2010 election. That any policy he hopes to implement to change the job situation for 2010 would have to happen relatively soon to have any impact. This is not nonsense. This is whether you understand economic policy making and how long it takes to have positive noticeable effect. The health care issue only comes up above in the context of ideological impact.I thin the only place it will have impact are in marginal blue dog districts but that's speculation.

by bruh3 2009-10-05 02:17PM | 0 recs
I think you need a word limit on your posts

Seriously, like 100 words or less. Please make your points succinctly instead of belaboring the same point in posts and follow up posts.

So don't condescend, for it is you that is making the completely unwarranted assumption that ongoing unemployment or economic troubles will translate into GOP votes.

Stop rambling on and show me the evidence that it will. As long as the GOP is far more toxic than the Democrats, then concerns about 2010 now a year in advance are a lot of hot air.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-05 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: I think you need a word limit on your posts

You want me to prove to you that economic policies take time to be implemented when it comes to job creation programs? That's what you just wrote. As I said, you are the other nuts here are quite odd.

by bruh3 2009-10-05 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: "It takes time"

It takes time, but time will run out before there's enough time!

Now THAT is 'begging the question'.

Get it right.

by QTG 2009-10-05 03:36PM | 0 recs
Re: "It takes time"

What are you talking about? Are you serious this nuts in real life or just here? THe funny thing is I am saying anything controversial. I said that policies take time to impact jobs numbers. I added that we can not know 1 year out the impact of bad numbers on Democratic races. Finally, I said, we should not assume that we will win because bad economies in the past have hurt politicians. Nothing controversial at all. Yet for you people it is like I am speaking some kind of complicated language. I begin to realize why many of you think there this unknowable nature to what Pres Obama does.

by bruh3 2009-10-05 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Then we are all in agreement

You don't know.

by QTG 2009-10-05 04:06PM | 0 recs
It's not some complicated language...

...it's just wrong.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-05 10:37PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not some complicated language...

I will let your comments speak for themselves.

by bruh3 2009-10-06 07:20AM | 0 recs
Blah blah blah blah blah...

Of course economic policies take time to implement. You're just trying to gin up concern (hmmm....) that a continuing poor economic condition will doom (DOOM!) the democrats in 2010.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-05 10:36PM | 0 recs
If unemployment rises

All the Republicans need to do is take the Wall Street bail out (together with Obama's comments equating bankers and entrepreneurs) and hang it like a stone around this administration's neck. For some reason this administration has adopted the Bushie talking point that what's good for the Dow Jones is good for the people of US. We have the same culprits causing the Dow to rise purely on the basis of high stakes gambling and the same practices that got us in this mess, without actually creating any wealth or generating new employment. If this jobless growth goes on we will be in for another bust as Nouriel Roubini forecasts. That will be DISASTER for the Dems. We do not have W to kick around any more.

by tarheel74 2009-10-05 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: If unemployment rises

tarheel(x)prognosticating disaster for the dems - will wonders never cease?

by QTG 2009-10-07 04:23AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------