The continuing failure of Obamanomics

Lance McMillian's picture

One of the first lessons of political spin is, whenever possible, to release damaging information on a late Friday afternoon before a holiday weekend. The theory: no one is paying attention anyway.

Applying this lesson well, the White House quietly published a report before the July 4th weekend by the White House Council of Economic Advisors — a group of three economists chosen by President Obama — that laid out the dismal effect of the stimulus on job creation: $666 billion spent to create only 2.4 million jobs, for an astronomical total of $278,000 per job.

The news did not get any better the following Friday when the jobs report for June shocked everyone by showing rising unemployment — the latest in a continuing string of bad data on the dreadful state of the U.S. economy. The real unemployment rate — which includes discouraged and part-time workers who desire full-time employment — now sits at 16.2%.

Nearly three years of Obamanomics and the results are not pretty: record deficits, catastrophic debt levels, rising inflation, high gas prices, no jobs.

Why all this pain? The answers for the Obama malaise are many, but three explanations predominate:

First, government cannot “fix” the economy. It is the conceit of all centralized planners that the mere implementation of their plans will alleviate the problem to be solved. History, however, has shown self-regard of this sort to be unfounded.

The failed war on poverty, the billions spent on education for inferior results, the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the price controls of the 1970s — all attest that the best laid plans of the best and brightest minds play out much differently in the real world than they do on paper.

Experience is the best teacher, and the perennial failure of these big government programs brings to mind Milton Friedman’s warning: “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand.”

Similarly, throwing money at the unemployment problem in the form of a bloated stimulus does not lead to meaningful job creation. Business creates jobs, not government. President Obama’s pro-government, anti-business vision doomed his agenda from the start. The proof is in the results.

Second, debt matters. For far too long, America’s political leaders — Democrat and Republican — have pretended that dealing with the country’s debt was an issue that could be pushed down the road to another day. With the additional $4 trillion in debt accumulated since President Obama took office, that day is here.

This bipartisan failure to make tough spending cuts has imperiled trust in the American economy, once thought to be the safest in the world. Combined with the steady rise of capitalism in other parts of the globe, the decreasing faith that the United States has the financial capability to meet its future obligations has led to significant capital flight as investors seek safer havens for their money.

To restore investor confidence, spending must be constrained. Economics is about making choices in a world of scarcity. Any leader unwilling to honestly deal with the realities of the debt crisis is unfit for office. Delay only worsens the eventual pain. The time for action is now.

Third, uncertainty depresses business investment. A little-reported fact is that corporate America presently sits on huge reserves of cash. In times past, businesses would already have jump-started an economic recovery by putting such cash to use in the form of labor and capital investment.

Today, however, corporate money remains on the sidelines because of the lingering uncertainty of the Obama administration’s plans — the continual threats of higher taxes, cap-and-trade, card check, job-killing environmental and energy rules, vague financial regulations, and biggest of all, the implementation of Obamacare.

In high school civics, we learn about the three branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial. This conception of the federal government has long been inadequate. In reality, there exists a fourth branch of government: the administrative state.

The administrative state — alphabet agencies such as the EPA, the SEC, the NLRB, the IRS, and the like — develops and enacts the myriad of federal regulations that control much of American life. Two things to know about these agencies: (a) they possess wide discretion to do what they want, and (b) they are now managed by regulators hostile to the policies that foster economic growth.

An Obama victory in 2012 will only embolden these anti-business bureaucrats to carry out their political agendas without fear of electoral consequences. The business community knows this.

One of the biggest drags on the economy, therefore, is the terror that President Obama will be re-elected. To create more jobs, the President needs to lose his. Everything starts at the top.

[Lance McMillian is a Fayette County resident and law professor at Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School.]

lion
lion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/16/2005
McMillian

Government cannot create jobs so Lance McMillian says.

Instead we need to rely on those delicate flowers who call themselves businessmen.

Businessmen need big hugs from us and the Government before they will hire or invest in the future. They are so afraid.

Yes, it is discouraging that America has relied on such private sector weaklings to build a future for our country.

But even though the Government is elected by the American people, we and the Government that represents us must sit helplessly by in times of economic troubles.

All that is asked of ordinary citizens is more sacrifice and and to give more tax cuts for business and the wealthy.

ptcrightnow
ptcrightnow's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/01/2011
National Debt Increase - Joe Kawfi

George W Bush 2001-2005 debt increase=$2.14 trillion
George W Bush 2005-2009 debt increase=$3.97 trillion

Barack Obama 2009-Feb 2011 debt increase=$3.5 trillion

There is enough blame to go around to everyone!

Republicans, Democrats..

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
PTCnow

Kawfi has been told all this several times. He isn't interested!

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
PTCnow

Bush - .75 trillion per year
Obama - 1.75 trillion per year

Where's the hope and change that we were all promised? Where's the 6% unemployment rate that we were all promised with the magic stimulus plan?

This was supposed to be the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was supposed to be the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was supposed to be the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Kawfi

You just need to add the two together at 2.5 Trillion and give it all to BUSH. Plus what is to come yet!
BUSH also had about 6 Trillion (counting the wars) while in office. It was all he could think of---the wars.

He left a horrendous mess. We can't solve it if we don't admit that!

Worst President so far except maybe The guy who ate the cold milk and cherries!

More Cowbelle
More Cowbelle's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/07/2010
Who Cares!

Bob, With the current Teapublican tax rates it's not like Soros is avoiding taxes.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Did Soros Just Make 10 Billion

Betting against America? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023809/Did-George-Soros-win-10-... Guess how many times Soros has been to the White House and win a prize. Wake up America! -GP

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Soros didn't bet against America

Soros bet on the willingness of the TEA Republicans to attack and destroy America's credit standing. That Soros understands the implications of the Republican's economic policies far better than the Republicans isn't surprising at all. Everybody could see this train wreck coming. Except,apparently, the Republicans and the Teas who caused it.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
It's all Bush's Fault!

No, wait, it is All the Tea Party's fault. Which is it?
The American people are smarter than that Jeff, not matter what the DNC talking points are, baseless demagoguery will not work in 2012.
Most of the Tea Party I know was behind the Cut/Cap/and Balance bill that was passed in the House and rejected by Reid and Obama. That bill did not even make it to the floor for debate in the Senate.
Now refresh me again on your President's plan? If it is spend us into oblivion I would say he is right on schedule.
Well, you and I can agree on one thing. Soros does understand the train wreck coming, after all, he is probably helping to drive the train! -GP

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Obama's plan GP?

The President's plan was to have a clean vote on the debt limit just like the previous 72 debt limit votes. The Republicans were and are free to propose whatever they want when they write the budget. Instead, they provoked an artificial crisis and threatened to cause America to default. They convinced everyone that they were willing to destroy America's financial standing for their political agenda because they were and are willing undermine the international prestige of the United States.

The Republicans manufactured this crisis for political purposes and used it to damage the United States' economy. $2 trillion dollars of America's wealth was destroyed as a direct consequence of those actions.

I understand the TEAs trying to deny responsibility for the damage they have caused to America, but the indisputable fact is that if the Republicans had voted to raise the debt limit and then had presented whatever they wanted in their budget, this financial crisis would not have occurred.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Obama's Plan Jeff?

More of the same that got us in this mess? We have a SPENDING problem, the solution is not more spending! One more thing, the answer is also not more taxes! The American people are Taxed Enough Already! The Tea Party sent quite a few young freshmen into the House of representatives to turn the fire hoses on the flame of burning debt and so far they are doing a good job. And Jeff, guess what, we plan on dumping a whole lot more water on that flame in 2012. -GP

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Obama had no plan GP

During a Dec. 7 news conference, a reporter asked Obama why he had not done a debt limit deal to prevent the Republican leverage. Obama was totally clueless. He asked the reporter, "When you say significant leverage . . . what do you mean?" After the reporter clued him in, Obama said: "Look, here's my expectation, I'll take John Boehner at his word — that nobody, Democrat or Republican, is willing to see the full faith and credit of the United States government collapse. . . . Once John Boehner is sworn in as speaker, then he's going to have responsibilities to govern.

Obama never had a plan. He really believed that nobody, Democrat or Republican, was willing to see the full faith and credit of the United States government collapse. By the time Obama realized that the House Republicans were indeed perfectly willing to see the credit of the United States government collapse, it was over. He had no negotiating leverage whatsoever and the Republicans kicked the Democrats and Obama's collective tails and handed him his on a platter.

There is no disputing that the ramifications of the Republicans first of its kind attack on the debit ceiling has damaged the country, wiping out $2 trillion of America's wealth. My opinion is that Republicans deem this an acceptable if not cheap price. And really, the market will recover a lot of that, so the damage is not as bad as the immediate devastation makes it seem. The reason that it was worth it to the Republicans is that they have won a stunning victory. Regardless of the meaningless junk compromise they reached, the whole tone of the political discussion has changed to the Republican vision of economics. There are not going to be any further stimulus bills or anything like them, Obama's economic plan is in the trash. The only outcomes now are between an extremists conservative outcome and a hard-right conservative outcome. This is a fascinating and truly remarkable achievement. We just may be witnessing an historic turning point; as grandiose as that sounds. Certainly, we will need the 2012 election to clarify the country's mood.

Your comment: " And Jeff, guess what, we plan on dumping a whole lot more water on that flame in 2012", leads me to believe that my position is not clear and that is because it is indeed ambiguous. I do not believe that the TEA's economic theories are valid. On the other hand, history is unfolding, which is much more interesting. If you elect more people in 2012 then so be it. My mourning will be limited to having a lesser wine on election night and will not involve shedding tears I promise you. Even though I am a liberal, I believe our Republic is strong enough to even survive the upcoming calamity which will be the inevitable result of more Republican representation in Congress.

Let me end with a more personal note, which does not apply to you GP. I am taking a break. I blog here for fun and the exchange of ideas with people who have radically different visions than I do and who enjoy an intellectual challenge with me, if I may be so presumptuous, not for the personal abuse that I open myself up to by everybody knowing who I am. I am neither stupid, moronic, nor anybody's spawn, and from now on, I will simply not respond to those comments.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
JeffC

I think our different views can be boiled down to this, you feel government has the answer, I feel government is the problem.
The distance between us is large but with respectful discourse there is hope. Enjoy your break. -GP

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
$2.5 Trillion in Entitlements $2.3 Trillion in Revenues

That's what we have to work with Jeff.

We start every year with a shortfall. That's without any other spending Jeff just entitlements like Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, and promised spending like Social Security and then Military.

We start off in the hole each and every year. This current administration has projected deficits of $1.5 Trillion per year for the next 10 years.

So your Progressive Party's idea is to just create more debt. Can't stop spending no can't do that.

It's the debt stupid and always has been.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
You were right about the gold OOU... but little else

I hope that my blue-dog avatar is not what caused your assumption that my ignorance about the financial situation of the US was so vast that your banalities about the debt and deficits were informative.

The TEAs took a perfectly ordinary house keeping resolution to raise the debt limit for the 73rd time and used it for their political agenda. In the process, they damaged the credit of the United States, damaged America's international prestige, caused a downgrade of America's credit, and devastated $2 trillion dollars of America's families wealth. None of which would have happened had the Republicans simply voted to raise the debt limit for the 73rd time and like they did 17 times under Bush.

As I asked GP, what exactly was gained, while damaging America's credit and destroying $2 trillion dollars of wealth, that could not have been gained during the writing of the new US budget over which the House Republicans have complete and total Constitutional control?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Jeff your assumption was wrong from the beginning

and that is were you fall off the cliff. You are working from the false premise that a CREDIT rating agency wanted to see out debt raised and if we had we would still be a AAA rated Country.

Jeff that logic doesn't follow. You would have to believe that S&P and soon Moodys after telling us for years to get our debt under control actually wanted us to create more of that debt that they wanted us to start getting rid of.

S&P was very clear they wanted $4 Trillion in spending cuts and instead got $2.5 Trillion in debt increase.

Logic therefore follows that of course the credit rating agency lowered their assessment of our ability to repay is limited at best.

China has been telling us for the last two years to get control of ourselves and now they are taking steps to move away from the dollar because they are expecting a crash.

The market drop was predicable. Hate to say I told you so....but I did last year and earlier this year.

Jeff the debt is the issue. S&P's own report said the debt was the issue not a failure to compromise. We are walking down a path that leads only in one direction down.

Rather you realize that simple fact or you don't or maybe you do and approve.

Either way you and the Progressive agenda is a danger to our Republic.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
I see OOU

Your statement that I am “… working from the false premise that a CREDIT rating agency wanted to see out debt raised and if we had we would still be a AAA rated Country” and that “S&P's own report said the debt was the issue not a failure to compromise” are both based on misinformation.

The text of the S&P downgrade listed the primary reason for the downgrade as: “We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process.”

That really doesn't sound much like your interpretation that: “S&P's own report said the debt was the issue not a failure to compromise” does it?

And you are incorrect if you are assuming that S&P would have downgraded the US if the debt limit had been raised in a clean vote. They specifically said it was based on the debt burden coupled with the politics. As to the debt alone, they also specifically said that the ability of the US to pay its debts was unchanged: “Nevertheless, we view the U.S. federal government’s other economic, external, and monetary credit attributes, which form the basis for the sovereign rating, as broadly unchanged.”

It was the dysfunctional politics that triggered the downgrade; as S&P stated: “the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate.” This was indisputably the result of the TEAs hijacking the debt-limit vote. There is no way to spin away the responsibility of the TEA faction for the downgrade of the US and the resulting stock market collapse. Denying as you do that the politics of the debt-limit vote was the cause, in spite of the written statement from S&P stating exactly that, may give the TEAs a thin reed to grasp to try to shift the responsibility for the damage they have caused, but it simply is not true.

I guess nobody is going to answer my question as to why all of this could not have been handled by the House Republicans during their writing of the budget over which they have total Constitutional control and I understand perfectly well why not. There is no reason that debt reduction could not have been done during production of the budget but to admit that indisputable truth would also be admitting that this damage was caused by the TEAs for no reason and with disregard for the consequences.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Jeff you have yours I guess and I have mine

Opinion that is. However few agree with you, but I get the talking points you must repeat. After all Obama will not be able to run on his accomplishments and now he will not be able to run on the improving economy.

Someone has to get the blame. Certainly Obama accepts none nor do the Progressives.

"The Treasury Department said Wednesday that the deficit through July totals $1.1 trillion. Three years ago, that would have been a record high for the full year."

That's the problem Jeff not the teaparty trying to slow it down. In your World you would blame the fireman for the fire he was trying to put out. It makes as much sense.

btw- Since you said I was right about Gold but not much else I just wondered what that might be?

Was it what I said about Gas Prices going to rise because of QE2 and the devaluing our dollar?
Or was it what I said about our debt causing China to stop buying our bonds and start moving away from the dollar was I wrong about that? Or how about when I said the Constitution does not in fact guarantee the right to vote or how about when I said that Inflation was going to rise this year was I wrong about that?

Maybe it was when I said earlier this year that our credit rating was going to fall was I wrong about that? Or maybe it was when I said we were headed for a double dip recession am I wrong?

Jeff face it the only one who clings to being on the wrong side is you.

Did Obama fix the economy like he said he would do?

Did Obama close Gitmo like he said he was going to do?

Did he end the wars like he said he was going to do?

Did he end the Patriot act like he said he would do?

Has he not got us into additional undeclared wars Libya and Yeman?

Jeff these are his accomplishments there his and his alone.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Frankly OOU

Yes, you were wrong about China not buying our debt, May and June were records, QE2 had zero to do with gas prices, the inflation you have been warning about for years and years has not materialized. I am asking to be excused for believing that our credit rating would not be downgraded. I didn't realize how extreme your radicalism was that y'all would provoke and follow through with that.

Your list of Gitmo, the wars, the Patriot Act, Yemen, and Libya only enrage me; and it's such a nice night...

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Need to re-appraise that Jeff

"China's Central Banker: We Own Too Much U.S. Debt: "China's Central Bank Chairman Zhou Xiaochuan told a Chinese monetary conference last week that “Foreign-exchange reserves have exceeded the reasonable level that our country actually needs,” which is essentially code for China won't be buying U.S. government debt any more. China's foreign currency reserves exceeded $3 trillion at the end of March, more than $1 trillion of which is U.S. government debt.

The limit on America's national credit card may have been reached..."

Now what was it that Benyankenme testified to before the Senate. Oh yeah that under no circumstances would the Fed "monetize" our debt. Buy yet he did it any way to the tune of $392 Billion dollars. Why because the Fed could not sell all of our bonds. Why because China refuse to buy them.

What was QE2 Jeff but the digital printing of dollars specifically $972 BILLION of them.

When you "create" more dollars you devalue the current amount of dollars on the market.

Oil is tied to the dollar Jeff. When you devalue the dollar oil prices go up simple as that.

Lastly I don't fault you for blaming the teaparty Jeff Leopards and spots and all that. It's what you have read and heard and as a progressive you fail to engage in critical thought to assess the real issues.

Yes S&P said one, Jeff, one of the issues was the dysfunction of the parties to compromise. However this is were you guys fall off the cliff you fail to put into perspective the overall reason S&P did what they did. Specifically the $4 Trillion in CUTS they said HAD TO HAPPEN. That was the compromise issue Jeff. The Teaparty Republicans wanted to give the $4 Trillion in spending cuts required to keep our credit rating and the Democrats said not no but hell no also simple as that.

First they should not have downgraded us. The difference in America and say Greece is that we can still service our debt. Yes by raising taxes.. So a downgrade was wrong. Still saw it coming though.

Second if there was not an issue of the debt there would be no need for a compromise now would there? So the debt is and was the main issue.

Conversely both plans the Republicans put out addressed the $4 Trillion in cuts that S&P wanted. Not a single "plan" put forth by the Democrats did.

So again Jeff which side tried to protect our credit rating and which side did not?

btw- everyone without a trust fund has seen that inflation Jeff.. Filled up with gas recently gone grocery shopping and walked out with two bags and a hundred dollars less Jeff?

Rising Gas and Food Prices Push U.S. Inflation Higher

"Consumers continued to feel the pinch at grocery stores and gasoline stations in April as a widely used index of inflation rose at the fastest 12-month rate since the later part of 2008, according to government figures released on Friday."
"The Labor Department said in its monthly report that the Consumer Price Index, the most widely used measure of inflation, was up 0.4 percent in April from March, and up 3.2 percent from a year earlier. The 12-month figure represents the biggest increase in the index in any 12-month period since October 2008."

This from the New York Times not a Conservative nest there Jeff.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/business/economy/14econ.html

So just how wrong have I been?

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
JeffC

Let me be sure I have this straight. You are saying the right thing to do was for the House to vote to just increase the debt limit with no spending cuts? That was Obama's plan?
Not gonna happen Jeff, not with this bunch from 2010. Not with Article 1 Section 7 of our Constitution. Thank God for the wisdom of our Founders.
So far all I have heard from Obama is blaming others and making excuses, two things that will be rejected by hard working,level headed Americans.
You see Jeff, we want government to be run responsibly like our homes or businesses are. We don't spend more than we make. We don't rob from our neighbors in order to redistribute their hard earned money. Most of all we don't blame others for our mistakes, we just fix them, which with the help of God we are going to do with this government in 2012. -GP

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Exactly Georgia Patriot

The right thing to do was to raise the debt limit. Instead, we followed the TEA plan of playing political games with the credit of the United States. How did that work out for America? If the Republicans had voted on a clean bill to raise the debt limit, this crisis would have never occurred, the credit of the United States would not have been downgraded, and $2 trillion dollars of American wealth would not have evaporated.

Your mention of Article 1 Section 7 of our Constitution, which reserves legislation raising revenues for the House, has nothing to do with raising the debt limit. However, I am glad you brought it up because it brings to the forefront my major objection to this contrived crisis.

Why could all of this not have been done during the writing of the budget under Article 1 Section 7 of our Constitution by which the House Republicans and the TEA faction have the sole mandate to produce?

What was gained while damaging America's credit and destroying $2 trillion dollars of wealth that could not have been gained during the writing of the budget over which the House Republicans have complete and total control?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
JeffC - Well

Well I guess we'll see what the American people think in 2012.

Can Mr. Obama buy the Presidency with 1 billion dollars?

Will the American people turn out the Republicans?

IMHO, the answer is yes and no. I could be wrong but I think this will be the likely outcome.

The spin machine is just getting started, I guess we are testing which excuse works best so the Democrats know where to throw their special interest money around.

1. It's the Tea Party
2. It's S&P
3. It's big business
4. It's the rich fat cats
5. It's Bush
6. It's the Bush tax cuts
7. It's the oil spill
8. It's Europe
9. It's the Chinese
10. It's extremists in the Republican party

It's anything but Democratic policy and mismanagement, right Jeff?

Get ready for a big repeat of the 2010 elections Jeff.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Jeff: Vote on debt limit alone?

I'm afraid many people do not understand the fact that a debt limit vote is usually done as a stand alone bill. Has always been that way.

This time however the TEAS demanded a certain amount of cuts with no tax increases and a small debt increase. That stymied the bill.

If those TEAS could not run again next election, they wouldn't have cared how it went.

It is a real shame on the participants who have absolutely caused maybe trillions of dollars of losses to come, and maybe a Depression.
For what?
To be reelected they thought.
And they simply weren't smart enough to realize the consequences.
And a black man is President, who they consider dangerous.

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Parable of the Canoe

Roundabout, Larry S., and Mayor Haddix were canoeing down the Amazon when the strong current pushed them off course and into a large rock, which ripped a hole in the bottom of the canoe. As the canoe filled up with water, Roundabout said, 'Let's get this here thing-a-ma-bob over to yonder there before we all goes gills up or some such!' Larry S. said, 'Good idea, but first I need to write a long blog post on the obvious mismanagement of the Amazon River Authority, as he pulled out his Blackberry and logged into the Citizen.' Mayor Haddix ignored them both, and the rising water, as he scanned the shoreline with his binoculars, looking for Imker on which to cast blame. The piranhas did not go hungry that day.

Atlanta on top of the Fish 3-0 in the middle of the 6th!

Falcons gearing up for a Superbowl run!

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Ninja: LOL!

Beachy is ON tonight.

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Beachy Is Peachy!

Hard to tell how well pitchers are doing just from the play-by-play on my ESPN iPhone App! But, I will not succumb to the TV! Only for Falcons games and Monday Night Football!

Keep J-Hey warming the bench until he learns to hit inside pitches and work a walk now and again!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
GP - It's

S&P's fault and we should investigate them!!

Oh wait, they are already going to do that.

All this finger pointing reminds me of the school yard when I was in grade school.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
The Debt Crisis

and resulting downgrade rests squarely on Obama's shoulders. It's his lack of leadership and willingness to address the core problem that got us here.

Check mate!

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Kawfi: Leadership & Check mate?

Vague reasons. Very vague. You know who made this mess!

As to the stock market part of it with a 600 down yesterday and 400 back today, that amounts to about 5% of the entire value of the DOW.

No bunch of humans can advise their broker and get sold or bought that volume.

It is done by computer. rigged by the Institutions, Unions, 401-k funds, etc.

They can suddenly in one hour move the market 5% or more first WAY UP then suddenly in another hour another day, run it WAY DOWN, then re-buy at the low point and proceed to do it again.

Individuals are left holding the loss.

It is a conspiracy we have long had.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Wouldn't call that "betting against America" myself....

...that was a bet that the stock market was going to start declining due to the debt ceiling/rating as well as big financial troubles in Europe. It's no different than people buying gold when they think inflation will rise and that present monetary policies make gold a good investment. That's hardly anti-American.

There are a lot of people short-selling right now and have been, just like people short-sold airline stocks right after 9/11, bank stocks(an excellent choice right now too!!!! Keep on diving down BOA!)when the housing market showed it was about to blow up, etc.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
NUK_1 - So

So true, you can disagree with Soro's political positions but his market timing is uncanny. I don't know if he actually returned investors money before the last two market days sell off. I don't think he acted fast enough.

The market will continue its downward slide over the next 18 months leading up to the election. Shorting may bite you though, there will be upturns along the way.

Good luck.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
PTCO: I think Soros is no longer advising clients

I think he got out of the business completely from the standpoint of advising or handling people's investments, so he can pretty much operate with a more freer hand than before. he may or may not have been the one who made the big hedge fund bet(or it might just be investment myth too), but it wouldn't shock me if he was the one.

The key to short-selling is not to get greedy and settle for "some" gains and then get out :) I've never seen it as a long-term strategy but rather a decent hedge against bearish markets and/or events that lead to a temporary dive that will inevitably end sooner rather than later.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Soros avoiding Dodd-Frank disclosure

Under the Dodd-Frank requirements, hedge funds are required to register with the SEC by March 2012 if the fund continues to manage more than $150 million in assets for outside investors. The new requirements would call for funds to report information about the assets they manage, potential conflicts of interest and information on investors and employees.
Soros has stated there should be a "managed decline" of the dollar as part of his "new world order".
The roots of Soros controlled organizations in America run deep, IMHO this guy would love to see the destruction of the dollar. That's about as un-american as you can get in my book. http://totalinvestor.blogspot.com/2011/07/soros-gold-dollar-collapse-and... -GP

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
NUK

Like many other things the stock market is controlled by computer buying by the major institutions, pension funds, and wealthy in the USA.

The individual investor is generally the pawn in the fracas!

There is little difference now between lotteries, Las Vegas, and the New York stock market. The only large winners are the few who have sufficient funds to ride it out, or be smart enough to get out with a sufficient gain.

It is also similar to why the income of the USA isn't growing.
20% of the income and wealth in the USA is in the hands of 1% of the people.

The taxes of the 1% aren't raised, but the taxes are raised on the other 99% by reductions in their unemployment insurance, higher food prices, higher service costs, and no raises in decades above inflation.

The middle class built this country and they are practically now non-existent!

How do we get a middle class back? Provide 10 million productive jobs in the 35-65,000 dollar range. We have enough non-productive.

How do we do that? Investment by those who have the money and with the regulations necessary by the congress.

In any case 5-8 YEARS WILL BE NECESSARY TO DO THIS CHANGE.

conditon55
conditon55's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/12/2010
Rights and responsiblity

The EPA was created in a bill signed by President Richard Nixon because at the time, simply breathing the air in NYC was equivalent to smoking a pack of cigarettes today. What do you do about indoor smoking when you walk outside and the air there is worse than what you left inside. The Bald eagle, the national symbol was on the verge of extinction from DDT and the Perigrine Falcon had disappeared from east of the Mississippi. I always wondered why people went nuts when the first nesting pair reappeared in NYC.

Do you think that the polluters understood they were polluting ? Sure, but it was all legal ! So left to their own devices, they were powerless to do the right thing.

The SEC was established in response to the wall street abuses that led to the great depression. the SEC is responsible for administering seven major laws that govern the securities industry. They are: the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and most recently, the Credit Rating Agency Reform Act of 2006.

Note that the last 2 of the laws were passed under president Bush.

Do ya thin that we folks engaged in the ridiculous abuses of the system understood what they were doing ? When they finally caught Madoff, he said, I can't believe they let me get away with it for so long.

When I read the mindless trash in this column I think it is no wonder we are in decline as a nation.

People understand the rights. it is the responsibility they have trouble with. If the folks act responsibly then sure, we do not need all of the regulation. I mean why have traffic laws. If I want to drive drunk on the left side of the road. Who is to say it is wrong ?

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Tic Toc, Tic Toc, Tic Toc.....

and the clock keeps counting the seconds to that "coffin" corner. This is where tax cheat Geithner has to proclaim "game over". I still say an 11th hour agreement we be reached; however, we'll all be poorer because of it.

lion
lion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/16/2005
Debt crisis

This whole recent drama over the national debt was unnecessary and totally a creation of the extreme right wing of the Republican Party a.k. a. tea party folks.

There is only one other country in the world with a "debt ceiling" and that is Denmark. And the Danish debt limit is so high it never comes into play.

Our debt limit law dates from our entry into WWI and should have been abolished years ago.

Raising the debt limit just enables the Government to pay for obligations Congress has already made. When Congress obligates funds for programs it knows that if there is not sufficient revenue to pay for the programs then the Government must borrow the money it needs. Most of that money is borrowed from Americans, pension funds, etc. in the form of T-bills and other Government securities.

The Republican party created this phoney crisis to attempt to cut back or eliminate domestic programs that it does not support anymore.

Time to move on.

And the Republican Party, especially its extremists, are the ones responsible for the damage caused to our ecoomony and Government credit standing by giving the world the impression that America may become a deadbeat country and not pay its debts.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Well lion

"Raising the debt limit just enables the Government to pay for obligations Congress has already made."

Just think, revenues only cover 60% of the expenditures and the rest come from borrowing. And every year that borrowing has added up to where now that total almost equals our GDP.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
The US budget shows 5% for interest.....

.........on borrowed money!

I don't know what your connection is that the debt equals the GDP!

So what?

I'll bet the first house you bought put you in debt more than you made in a year. May still be true, I don't know.

I think the conservative gripe is for WHAT the borrowed money is spent, not how much!

Maybe we should give it to the oil companies or corporations to produce jobs just like they have been producing them now for several years with their tax gifts!

Well, the TEAS have been saying that we don't want any federal money sent to the states, now they have got their wish. They can simply raise local taxes to replace the federal money for schools, roads, police, fire, unemployment compensation payments, and a host of other things.

Cut the federal budget three trillion means the states have to raise their taxes more than three trillion because we will need 50 sets of administrators!

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
roundabout

You simply don't get it and I don't have time to teach it to you; at least not this morning.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Cyclist

I don't get it?

I think you think that you should get everything for free and pay no taxes!
It certainly seems that way to me.

I really believe that you and some others want to pay no FICA taxes, pay very little state and federal taxes, pay no SPLOSTS, pay no sales taxes, and pay 25-30% "fair Tax!

Also, feel that all welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing be cancelled, and that everyone arrange for their own health and life insurance! Even the 40% of the population who can not pay for it.

Do you have any idea where people (10-20% soon) are going to get a livable job, or any job? That costs money!

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
That's correct roundabout....

you don't get it. There's a problem when 40% - and growing - of the government revenue is from borrowed money. Even the bill that just passed the House is going to add another $2+ trillion of borrowed money. This has got to stop.

Both parties have got to find the "cojones" necessary to cut things that we can not afford and if more revenue is necessary for things that we do need then change the tax code to raise the funds. Stop the stupid whining about the evil rich and their private jets. That group - by itself - does not have the wherewithal to upright the federal budget.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Cyclist

And I suppose you would want the tax increases to keep from going into debt to be paid by workers?

There is a lot of money to be had by those earning (or getting) over $200,000 per year! Don't think 5% would harm them! Most are not "job makers" either!

What a privilege it would be to be able to pay 5% extra to make over $200,000 per year. (May not have to raise the capital gains taxes either).

Actually, with all the deductions most of these people have, the 5% would shrink to half that!

If there are no Treasury bonds to buy with no debt, what does that do to the investment industry? Think about it a moment.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
roundabout
roundabout wrote:

There is a lot of money to be had by those earning (or getting) over $200,000 per year! Don't think 5% would harm them! Most are not "job makers" either!

Are you really sure that it would only take 5% or are you just picking numbers again. Remember, the gap is $1.4 trillion. Going forward, that does not count the increases for SS, Medicare or that pie-in-the-sky healthcare plan. You know the plan which is also a jobs bill along with unidentified and open ended funding that will be at the discretion of the HHS Secretary.

BTW, did you see that Central Falls, Rhode Island did a Chapter 9 yesterday. They seem to have a problem with unfunded retirement benefits. They asked retirees to take a 50% cut and the retirees told them to go pound sand. So will the good citizens of Rhode Island make the difference up or will we?

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
cyclist

I don't know if 5% is sufficient to cover the whole bill---I doubt it. It is simply a contribution to it.

There will also be deep budget cuts which of course will cause unemployment to sky-rocket.

The biggest contributor would be full employment making products to sell.

I think there is a fund in the government to help with failed retirement systems such as for Rhode Island. It is paid for by contributions by retirement funds.
It is odd to me that states always seem to want to be free of the federal government, but run to them for money in such cases as those kind of funds, and in Georgia's case for unemployment payments---about 3/4 billion now! The interest is so low GA will never repay it!

As I have said several times before, the situation of the country was so bad at the beginning of 2007-8 due to total inaction for the previous eight years, that an ultimate deep recession was inevitable.

We staved it off with a small stimulus to Wall Street and auto companies
temporarily, but it is back. Wall Street and the auto companies have paid most of it back with interest, but they borrowed it from the banks! A better deal for them than to construction and small companies, where the jobs are!

There is no construction to do with bank money. They are through with it!
Three years of empty houses and 2-3 years of commercial store-fronts is in inventory. More banks will soon close---lots of them.

Without jobs and the debt allowed by Wall Street, I see no way to find 10 million jobs lost since 2000- most of them in 2006-08.

It may get bad enough due to negligence to maybe start another big war?
Those bonds would really sell!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Lion - I agree!

We should move on to a balanced budget amendment, let's see which Senator and which Representative will deny the people the decision to decide whether or not we have balanced budgets in the future. After all it's a democracy, right Lion?

BTW, the credit rating downgrade and its aftermath will be both parties fault for their irrational exuberance in debt spending over the last forty or fifty years.

I think Thomas Jefferson said it best:

“I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our constitution taking from the Federal Government their power of borrowing.”

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
PTCO

Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and many of those people either inherited or married their fortune!
Then with slaves to do the work and provide sex and children for them they lived a pretty good life.
Franklin even had many kids he left in France!

Not one worker or non-landowner had any say in the writing of the constitution---most couldn't write due to no schools.
Women had no vote, no say, and obeyed all orders.

We live in a more civilized time now.
We even give criminals a trial when possible. Not then!

Just duel it out with a malcontent!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Cyclist - You're

one of my favorites on this board.

This week we could see the downgrade, remember the advise I gave earlier, I have re-balanced the old portfolio and am waiting for the great fall when this announcement comes. If it doesn't that's ok too, I am still ready.

Good luck pal.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
PTCO: I have decided.....

..........to agree with you and the TEAS, or at least give it a try!

It seems what we need is to start over with our economy.
We should go ahead and not raise the debt limit and allow the Depression to start.
When the unemployment gets to 30-35%, and there is no unemployment compensation nor jobs of any kind, and the 401-ks tank, and stockholders lose it all, we can then begin anew!

Although most banks will fail within 60 days, a few will be re-started and start making loans again for home mortgages with a 20% down payment and 12% interest. There will be no small business loans.

The banks will again take title to all of the foreclosed homes and businesses, as they did in the last depression by just paying the taxes, and create a whole new set of wealthy connivers.

Treasury bonds that financed the public debt will be declared worthless
and once again the USA will owe nothing. Then the Chinese, Japanese, and a few other loaners will no longer send goods here due to lack of payment.
Brazil is waiting to buy all of it.

Our umemployed and poor will grow to about 35-40%, live in home made shacks, eat what they can beg, borrow or steal, and the kids will be dumb since the schools will have shut down.

Many universities will close but a few will be left for the kids of bankers, lawyers, doctors, and inheriters---as it was in the 20-30-40s!

A large black market will exist for those who have a little money, but it is mostly used to barter since folks have no cash. Stolen goods pay for some meat for example.

After about 20 years of this we will start a war somewhere, borrow trillions again and start over.
Even go to Mars.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
PTC Observer

I'm watching CNN with Sanjay Gupta interviewing IMF Chief Christine Lagarde. She's saying that "we" need a sound dollar for the sake of the world economy and, we have to protect all those in need. I don't really think she gets it. She must have went to one of those exclusive Keynesian schools. You know, where they teach the "money for nothing" philosophy.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Cyclist - Lagarde

Christine Lagarde is a French socialist, so it doesn't surprise me on anything she might have to say.

The IMF describes itself as “an organization of 187 countries (as of July 2010), working to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty.”

It does this by manipulating money supplies worldwide, coordinating interest rates, and basically "managing" the monetary markets. A socialist notion that markets can and should be "controlled" by the state. The problem is it doesn't work and our debt ridden world is on the verge of collapse.

I would say this however anyone can see, that the world is in serious, serious trouble when we are at the mercy of a half-baked communist, from France, that runs a government "bank" funded primarily by the United States and run by socialist governments. The fact that CNN holds Madam Lagarde in high regard also doesn't surprise me.

We should dissolve the IMF and stop propping up socialist governments worldwide using our money.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
A refreshing debate on the Senate floor

The gentlemen from Illinois and Arizona brought faith back to our American democracy. Honest, open debate on issues important to the American people based on fact and experience couched with civility. Hope you all get to see it!

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
DMom & Senators

Wasn't a debate, but a colloquy, which is simply a collegial sharing of opinions or positions. More of them would be good but useless if they don't result in some sort of agreement and action. Otherwise, just "feel good" stuff.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
AHG

....and what did the uncivil rhetoric win us?
If this show of uncivil debate ends in the loss of our AAA credit rating , we've all lost. We'll see.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Sometimes Failure

is success. It all depends on your perspective and what you want to happen. Question, does Obama want America to succeed? Guess that depends on your definition of success.
This particular fellow wants America to fail: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread733038/pg1 . Could this be Spooky Dude himself....you know, the guy that just might be pulling strings at a high level in our government?? The guy that broke the bank of England? Certainly this fits his M.O.
Looks like old Georgie is taking his huge hedge fund totally private, that way he can jump through a loophole in the Dodd-Frank financial legislation.
What a mess, the problem really simple though, we spend more than we make. The answer simply can not be more spending! -GP

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Price of GA (Roswell)

says that the worry about the inaction of our Congress causing economic problems is unfounded - as we watch the market beginning to react to the 'inaction' of our Congress. The Republicans have won! No new taxes, no tax reform, serious cuts to entitlement programs, etc. Yet, they are still the party of no in the House - and the Democrats saying no to going through this fiasco again in six months. One citizen proposed that if one in four Americans sent five dollars a month straight to the Treasury Department, our debt would be paid. Hmmmmm. Sure would give our Congress a chance to return to governing rather than playing one upmanship for the next election. Consequences of no deal. Higher interest rates; FOR ALL OF US!
COMPROMISE!!!! and move on!

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
PTC Observer. Thanks for the response.

I guess the "personal freedom" concept means different things to different folks. Thanks for the reply though. You are free to have a great weekend. If u wander over to Bourbon street this weekend, you can join a gaggle of Oklahoma boys exploring the concept of "personal freedom" to its fullest extent ;-).

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Nonsense from Lance McMillian

Presumably, law professor Lance McMillian is familiar with the concept of evidence. His statement, "...throwing money at the unemployment problem in the form of a bloated stimulus does not lead to meaningful job creation", is clearly and demonstrably inaccurate, proven by the chart below:

Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (May 2011 Jobs Data)

Perhaps Mr. McMillian can interpret the chart as something besides clear evidence that the stimulus worked.

Let's not forget that the economy was collapsing under Bush and when Obama came into office, 800,000 jobs a month were being lost and the pace was accelerating. The debt is Bush's debt. Clinton left him a surplus and the Bush administration instituted tax cuts that were unfunded, started two wars that he did not fund, and implemented an unfunded prescription drug program. These were long-term structural changes, not the temporary TARP spending by Obama; much of which will be or has been repaid.

Obama’s and Bush’s effects on the deficit in one graph

Mr. McMillian's statement, "Business creates jobs, not government" is simply a revelation of adherence to a political philosophy with no basis in reality. I would like to see him try to convince all the members of the military, the police, school teachers, etc. that they do not have jobs.

The rest is mostly supply-sided nonsense. The supply-side theory that all American business is cowering in a corner afraid of regulations and that is why business isn't hiring is simply ridiculous. As is the notion that businesses will produce supply-sided theory products without Keynesian demand.

Businesses are not hiring because there is a lack of demand. All of the government agencies that Mr. McMillian supposes are hindering the economy have been around for almost a hundred years except EPA. There is no evidence whatsoever that regulations are hindering growth. If demand exist, somebody or some company will attempt to fill that demand. If some companies operate under Mr. McMillian's business plan and refuse to hire to meet increasing demand, then they will simply lose market share because they failed to understand basic economics. Other companies will fill that demand. Classic Keynesian economics. Supply-sided economics is junk.

maximus
maximus's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/03/2007
There you go again, Jeffc,

…not reading your own links. The first article clearly states that Bush’s job creation was better than Obama’s, but I guess you figured that out. You should just stick to the Washington Post which you know will try to slant everything to the left’s point of view.

And do you really believe that “The debt is Bush's debt. Clinton left him a surplus…”? There was no surplus, Jeff. The national debt was somewhere around $6 TRILLION! Obamarx will have added more by the end of this year than Bush did in all eight of his overspending years.

It’s funny watching you Keynesians try to spin the numbers and blame everything on Bush. Go back and read your first link. Don’t just glance at the pretty charts this time.

9.2% unemployed and the civilian labor force is down by 1.2 million in the last two and a half years. The "Bush" recession ended two years ago. The “blame Bush for everything” routine still isn’t working.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Don't think so Maximus

Please Re-read my post. Granted Bush's eight year record was better than the ending two years. My point is that people who insist that the stimulus did not work are ignoring the reality of the turnaround from losing 800,000 jobs per month. If the turn-around in unemployment, as shown in the chart, isn't a result of the stimulus, how do you explain it?

maximus
maximus's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/03/2007
Turnaround, Jeff?

Have you seen the revised GDP numbers? If we are not back in a recession, this is close as you can get. The stimulus did nothing but suck capital out of the real economy and give it to bureaucrat hacks to squander, and that’s what they did.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
What capital Maximus

The stimulus didn't suck capital out of the economy. It injected money into the economy. Businesses are sitting on $2 trillion and interest rates are essentially zero. There is no lack of liquidity.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
JeffC - I think

no one questions that the "intent" was to inject money into the economy, but I don't think there were that many jobs actually created. So, what happened to the money? Inquiring minds would like to know....any ideas?

If business wants to sit on its money it has every right to do so, or don't you agree with this?

There is one thing that business doesn't like Jeff, uncertainty. I believe you can agree that the government has done absolutely nothing to reduce uncertainly. In fact, I think we can agree it has done nothing but drive uncertainly into the markets.

This is a very abnormal time for risk.....all government driven.

In normal, stable times, "injected" tax money, takes capital from the private market and tries to reallocate it through the government based on some "great vision", then it is economically inefficient, it leaves less money available for private investments based on market demands, not "great visions". Thus this mis-allocation of capital does in fact pull capital out of the private economy.

Hope and change has changed the way business does business. And if you haven't noticed it's not a good change Jeff.

maximus
maximus's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/03/2007
Well said, PTC

Statists have a hard time understanding that the money has to come from somewhere. Either direct taxation, or borrowing through treasury sales – either way the money is taken out of the hands of the real job/wealth creators and given to the central planners to waste.

The stimulus killed more jobs than it created, which is reflected in the horrible unemployment and GDP numbers.

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
Maximus: Obamarx? Anders Behring Breivik would be proud.

True kindred spirits you are.

Jeff needs no help from me, but let's not try to conflate NATIONAL DEBT with FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICIT.

Bill Clinton could not, in one Presidency, pay off the national debt which Ronald Reagan helped explode. He did, however, help balance the federal budget and even preside over a federal budget surplus. One budget surplus after another is how we pay off the national debt. Am I wrong? One bite at a time, right?

How do you eat a Maximus? One bite at a time. You just have to ignore the bitter, salty, angry taste in your mouth.

BTW: You can whine about me pointing out the fact that you use the same language as a right wing mass murderer, but I don't care. I'm not the one emulating a nut job psychopath.

maximus
maximus's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/03/2007
Anders Behring Breivik?

It seems that trying to defend the marxist in chief has driven you insane, Hack. But you may be on the road to recovery since you didn’t even try to defend him in this post – you simply went back to a more comfortable debate of Reagan vs. Clinton. Believe me, I wish we could trade Clinton for Obumbles too; either Clinton.

If Jeff says he meant to say “deficit” rather than “debt” I would take his word for it. But it’s a common leftist tactic to confuse the two.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
maximus - Budget

The President never submitted one.

Budgets? Budgets? We don't need no stinking budgets....we'll spend our way out of this recession.

gregm35
gregm35's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/12/2008
JeffC

Maybe it's time for another Carter to make a run for the White House.

You've got my vote Jeff!!!

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Gosh JeffC, You Make

too much sense to be blogging here! I think you analysis will be wasted on the local mises.org crowd! Perhaps you can turn your analysis to helping the Braves find a big right handed bat and a good, solid middle reliever without giving away the farm! Frank Wren is waiting for your call!

Braves still 4 games back!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
JeffC - It's hard

to prove a negative but I would certainly say government creates jobs. If it didn't create jobs then there would be no sense in it. The fact is the government (aka politicians) like to create jobs. You can't get re-elected if you can't create a constituency of dependent people. Big government block votes have always been essential to re-election, that goes for unions too. It doesn't have anything to do with helping the "little guy", it has everything with getting rich at the expense of some other sucker. You know like peanut seed subsidies, or corn, or oil, or etc. You get the picture and yes, I am sure people need peanuts.

I think it is more accurate to say that private business creates jobs that are sustainable. That is they are based on demand for goods and services. Yes, these can be demanded by government workers too. However, government workers (this is not their fault mind you) are only able to have a job if someone gives up their wages in the private sector in the form of taxes. It's called productivity Jeff, something that is foreign to government processes. In fact, productivity is a cancer in government processes, if government improves, it can't create even more make work jobs. So, what's the answer? Well a good old flat tax could do the trick, and maybe we could just get rid of the EPA, DOE, DOE, and the hundreds of other useless make work government departments. We could get rid of income tax, and all those tax loop holes that politicians and neo-capitalists love so much.

Oh yes, that regulation thing, there we go with proving a negative. How could we prove that over the last hundred or so years we would have been better off without regulation? Well, let's look at Hong Kong, you know the old colony of Great Britain that even the communist Chinese didn't want to change? Look into it, you may understand why regulation is so bad if you look at a positive example of how the lack of it pulled an entire population out of poverty following WWII.

The fact is Jeff the world revolves around the government and many of us think it shouldn't. We think it should revolve around individual freedom to choose. That's not economic theory, that's what the Republic was founded upon.

bad_ptc
bad_ptc's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2006
JeffC, did you read Mr. Hazlett’s entire article?

“Similarly, throwing money at the unemployment problem in the form of a bloated stimulus does not lead to meaningful job creation.”

JeffC, did you not read the part that said, “meaningful job creation.”

As per your own source:

“More bad news is that the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate actually ticked up in May from a whopping 9.0% to an even worse 9.1%. This number is 1.8 percentage points worse than President Bush’s last full month in office in December 2008.”

See chart: “Labor Force Participation Rate”

Perhaps JeffC can interpret the chart as clear evidence that the stimulus worked.

“Therefore, the unemployment situation is even worse than it appears, because it does not account for people who have been forced to exit the labor market because they can not find jobs.”

See chart: “Change in Total Private Employment (in thousands), “

Perhaps JeffC can interpret the chart as clear evidence that the stimulus worked.

“President Bush’s overall record continues to look far better than President Obama’s to date. Over President Bush’s presidency, the private sector created a net 141,000 jobs. Surprisingly, this number includes the 3.78 million private sector jobs lost in 2008.”

See chart; “Change in Total Private Employment (in thousands)”

Perhaps JeffC can interpret the chart as clear evidence that the stimulus worked.”

“For every job that the private sector created under George W. Bush, the private sector eliminated ~20 jobs under Barack Obama. While the private sector job outlook has improved recently, the economy still must create 2.87 million private sector jobs to break even.”

“The country still has a long way to go to restoring full employment and the President is running out of time. According to The New York Times, no sitting President since Franklin Roosevelt has won re-election when unemployment was over 7.2% on election day.”

“And President Obama is no FDR.” Amen to that!

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Certainly bad_ptc

I read the “meaningful job creation”. The charts are of private employment. What's not meaningful?

“President Bush’s overall record continues to look far better than President Obama’s to date. Over President Bush’s presidency, the private sector created a net 141,000 jobs.."

You realize, of course, that Bush's record is the worse in history. Clinton created something like 23 million jobs if I remember correctly.

"...no sitting President since Franklin Roosevelt has won re-election when unemployment was over 7.2% on election day.” Well, why leave out FDR? After all, isn't this economic crisis more comparable to his administration than any other? FDR won with 16% unemployment. I'll grant you that Obama is in trouble and, because of the economy, is historically very vulnerable. However, the TEA Party's actions in the House are going to throw the election to Obama. He's going to tie the economy to the Republicans. You just know that the Ds are taping that fool Bachmann when she's saying that there are no consequences for default.

"President Obama is no FDR". You've got that right! I couldn't agree more. I'd just like it if he channeled a little more of LBJ.

bad_ptc
bad_ptc's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2006
JeffC, I strayed off your topic

What do you say when studies suggest that President Obama's stimulus cost $278,000/job?

Google, "obama stimulus, cost per job" and pick and all you like.

What do you say when other studies show that the stimulus didn't actually create any private sector jobs but instead cost some 600,000 jobs?

Google, "obama stimulus economists study", again, pick any you like.

P.S. I've been waiting for either you or kevin to comment on the 'Hobbit' remarks today. I personally found them to be funny.

Additionally, would someone please tell Mrs. Obama not to look so happy while hugging a 4 time felon.

I can't imagine what the SS had to go through to allow that photo shoot.

Imagen what President Obama thought when his wife personally endorsed a convicted insider trader. I'll just assume it was an inside 'thanks' to wall street for their continued support.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
bad, Joe and PTCO don't let them get you off message

The message is Obama's record NOW. Today and tomorrow.

They love to go back to the past, drag Reagan or Bush out to beat on to get you guys to start defending their records. They have no choice they cannot defend Obama's record.

Their records stand on their own. Reagan's deficit brought a Communist empire to it's knees. For me that was a pretty good bang for the buck. Bush's deficit ended a Terrorist regime and probably saved thousands of lives. Maybe not as good of an investment but still it did something.

What has Obama's deficit given us? A Healthcare monstrosity that most Americans did not want or need?

A Stimulus that only Wall Street benefited from?

A Car manufacturer that should have been allowed to go into receivership but now the taxpayers are subsidizing?

Big Corporations crawling into bed with Government?

This is the message we need to hammer each and everyday. Kevin, Jeff and Dmom are all cut from the same cloth. Either they are to blind to see where we are headed or they know all to well exactly were this all leads and they approve.

Either way they are a danger to our Republic.

Most Americans agree the spending must be stopped or at least slowed. Progressives believe we can just keep spending with no consequences.

kevink wrote:

We can spend as long as we have credit; as long as our sterling reputation allows us to borrow, we can spend. That's why we have NEVER defaulted on our debts.

They are of course wrong. We have reached the saturation point for our debt. We currently borrow $0.40 for every dollar we spend. Soon within the next 10 years that will double. We can no longer spend as if there is no tomorrow.

"When President Barack Obama took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, the total federal debt held by the public stood at 6.3073 trillion, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department. As of Aug. 20, 2010, after the first nineteen months of President Obama’s 48-month term, the total federal debt held by the public had grown to a total of $8.8333 trillion, an increase of $2.5260 trillion.

In just the last four months (May through August), according to the CBO, the Obama administration has run cumulative deficits of $464 billion, more than the $458 billion deficit the Bush administration ran through the entirety of fiscal 2008.

The CBO predicted this week that the annual budget deficit for fiscal 2010, which ends on the last day of this month, will exceed $1.3 trillion."

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
OOU, I think

you have me confused with someone else, I don't believe I have ever tried to defend either Bush I or Bush II.

The fact is that all "modern" presidents including the current one have been complicit in robbery, none of them except maybe Bill Clinton did anything to reduce entitlement spending, but the only thing he did was not to veto the bill that gave us "welfare reform", ending welfare as we know it. LOL

We have been on a socialist debt binge since 1913, unabated. That's when the bank was opened by the 16th Amendment and politicians had a new source for buying votes.

All of this party posturing is just that, party posturing. The fact is it's the Congress along with the President(s) that have gotten us into this mess. I say we vote all incumbents out in 2012, and replace them with people with some fiscal common sense.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
PTCO didn't mean to lump you all together

just shouting out a message.

The but..but..Bush... but...but Reagan got it or did it is the typical way of taking most off their message.

Just because it was done in the past is their excuse to do so now.

Like you I think both parties stink on ice.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
bad_ptc

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the stimulus bill will have created 3.7 million jobs by September. Of course most of the money was not for job creation. It had tax cuts, which were nice but useless for creating jobs, extensions of unemployment insurance, Build America Bonds, etc.

In any event, we didn't get our money's worth.

I have not heard about the hobbits, nor the 4 time felon, nor insider trading. Perhaps you could post a link.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
JeffC

The Government uses a multiplier of 1.5 per dollar spent when calculating growth, the ARRA that the CBO scored was based on this multiplier.
It means that when government spends money, it creates more growth than it spent. That is their model.

However, there is much research which calls this model into question.

Harvard University economist Robert Barro, research showed that historically the multiplier is 0.7 (and negative once we account for the taxes we must pay to finance the government spending). Also there is the Stanford University economist John Taylor’s research with John Cogan, Volker Wieland, and Tobias Cwik, which found that the multiplier for ARRA is around 0.7.

Reality Jeff is it's somewhere between 0 and .07 at its best most optimistic point. So the fantasy that Government spending i.e. Stimulus created growth/jobs is not based on anything but Government accounting voodoo economics.

Additionally Jeff according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and data from the Administration’s website Recovery.gov the data clearly shows that since February 2010, the economy has shed 3,179,328 jobs while the Administration claims to have “created or saved” 638,825 jobs. This means that, on average, for each job created or saved, over 6 jobs were lost.
Also that same report since the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act private industry has suffered a net loss of 2,610,000 employees (or 2.3 percent of total private employment.

http://www.bls.gov/lau/ststdnsadata.txt

So by what measure to you judge the Stimulus created more jobs then was lost?

bad_ptc
bad_ptc's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2006
JeffC, links
Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
bad_ptc

You're wasting your time. Jeff, Weasel (kevink) and David's Mom don't respond to negative facts regarding their savior Obama.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Kawfi/Jeff C

No need to respond when Jeff's comments are being born out by reality. When the leadership of the House and the Senate both fail at compromise, then the President will have to step in - and it won't be because he is a dictator, but because of failed leadership in Congress. Thanks Tea Party and Blue Dog democrats.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
What reality?

Please explain.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Then how about some positive Obama facts

After less than 2 years of Obamarule, control of the House of Representatives was taken by the Republicans - 65 seat gain! And that was when the Tea Party was simply getting started. By next November the gains in House, Senate and of course the White House will really be significant. This whole thing about the debt ceiling is being delayed because the 65 freshman realize they were elected to not raise taxes and to reduce the size and scope of government - and possibly to defund Obamacare. The Dem's realize this and Prezbo certainly does and that's why there is such a focus on demonizing the Tea Party and some prominent members like Michelle Bachman. And of course the final solution for Democrats - the race card and social security scares. These people are really working out of a 50 year-old playbook.

Of course the Republicans are not much better trying to compromise and pretend that this whole discussion is about governing the country. When the Tea Party philosophy of smaller government and no tax increases finally gets embraced by the Republican Party - things will look up. And part of what Republicans need to do is drop the right-wing social engineering; you will notice the Tea Party could care less about all that. This debt ceiling argument could be easily solved with 10 more Tea Party-minded people in the House and Senate and just a regular old white guy Republican in the White House.

Painful transition? Sure is. Credit rating slip. Rising interest rates. Stock market crash. Higher and longer unemployment. Higher retirement age (in 2050). Scale back the entitlements - making people work for a check instead of having babies. Lose some government jobs and even whole departments (EPA and Education should be the first to go). Small business failures by the boatload. Another graduating class of college and high school seniors who can't find jobs. No recovery in housing. More foreclosures. More 26 year-old kids moving back with their parents.

All this is probably going to start next week and continue for a couple years and it will either be hung around Obama's neck where it belongs or he and his enablers will pin it on the Tea Party. Either way 1 simple fact will determine next November's results - and that is 10% unemployment for too long a time to even pretend that it is George Bush's fault. How in the world is someone who has been unemployed for 2 plus years going to vote for more of the same? Then the 4 years of Prezbo's great social experiment will end and rebuilding begins.

Now go ahead and denigrate the Tea Party, Michelle Bachman and anything else that entertains you and keeps you from focusing on the reality of the country actually waking up for a change and taking back control of government. If were real lucky, it might even happen at the local level - nawwww, that's fantasy.

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
Robert Morgan. There is nothing new or novel about your approach

"making people work for a check instead of having babies. Lose some government jobs and even whole departments (EPA and Education should be the first to go)"

1. Scapegoat welfare moms as the cause of all of our woes.
2. Get rid of government jobs that help educate the next generation and keep us from drinking contaminated water and eating diseased meat.

If you are going to talk about elections, Robert, please mention the elections that have happened since the Tea party candidates showed their colors.

How are Republicans doing in Wisconsin? How did the Tea Party do in the special election in New York's 23d district which had been GOP held for a hundred years? How was Alan West greeted in his home district in Fl after voting on the Ryan plan? Be honest with yourself, Robert. Your candidates came in crying jobs, jobs, jobs. Nationally they have done nothing but draw a government paycheck and use their government healthcare while doing nothing. State by state they have universally reduced funding to public schools (North Carolina and right here in Georgia are great examples). They have attacked women's legal right to choose, but they have done NOTHING to get people working. As a matter of fact, REPUBLICANS blocked funding of The FAA in an effort to put anti-union legislation in place. This has caused over 4000 FAA employees and contractors to lose their jobs, unable to work until funding is re-established. Your party has focused on ending union jobs and fighting the right to choose. Those are the points of fact. The polling does not look good for your Tea Party candidates' futures. This is not my opinion. This is the reality of your party's irrational behavior, exemplified by Michelle Bachmann saying default will not have consequences while the markets already have begun sliding. The Tea Party is not interested in rational governance. They have proven to be blind ideologues, and your predictions of their rise in numbers will be just as accurate as your opinion on the last presidential election was. Remember how correct you were, Robert? I do.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Dude, you in that big river

the one in Egypt - da nile.
Check with me next year.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
RWM: Want a depression, huh?

OK, we have fought the good fight to save Bush from the credit for a depression but failed.

Now, would it be OK if the "white" republican as President was a Black Hispanic, or oriental man or woman? Maybe an Eskimo, huh?

Palin and Bachmann could be twin new cabinet heads of the "Bash the Peons."

BHH
BHH's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2011
Well said Morgan

There is hope on the local level too though.

Frady finally realized and admitted Fayette will be a donor county for the regional SPLOST.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Jeff

One can not speak ill of Ronaldo---the Crown Prince of Republicanism and former union head! Also, the "doing the best we can," President.

He spent one half of our current debt and W the other half except for Obama's try to pay unemployment for the states who also had no budget for it!
Georgia is approaching one billion dollars they owe (off the books) for unemployment loans from DC.

GA also doesn't know how they are going to function anything next year without federal help for education and many other expenses.

Oh well, the TEAS don't want any of their money anyway!

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
What's going to be fun roundabout

Is when the Republicans finally start campaigning against each other instead of having group press conferences agreeing the Obama is bad. Whichever candidate emerges, they are going to have to have agreed with the most radical of the TEAs demands. Obama should be toast. Instead, the Republicans are going to nominate a candidate who has pledged to slash Medicare and Social Security.

And I can't wait until one of the Republican candidates mentions that Bachmann is a nut.

Recent Comments