White House Fantasy: "Signs Of Gradual Labor Market Recovery"

In response to today's horrendous employment report, the the White House spin is appalling:

Today’s employment report shows continued signs of gradual labor market recovery. Private nonfarm payroll employment increased by 83,000 in June and the unemployment rate fell two-tenths of a percentage point to 9.5%. June marks the sixth month in a row that private sector employment has increased. These continued signs of healing are important, particularly given the recent volatility in world markets and the mixed behavior of other recent economic indicators. However, much stronger job gains are needed to repair the damage caused by the financial crisis and put the millions of unemployed Americans back to work.

This is sheer nonsense. 652,000 left the work force this month. Only 82,000 private sector jobs added. This is unbelievable nonsense from the White House. And to no avail. No one believes it. The White House's delusions on the jobs issue is a clear and imminent threat to the political prospects of the Democrats, in 2010 and 2012.

Speaking for me only

< Daily Kos Sues Research 2000 | Friday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    LOOK! Baby sea monkeys! (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:12:11 PM EST

    Own a bowlfull of .. (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 02:20:13 PM EST
    Aahhh, the magic catch phrase (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by BTAL on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:12:19 PM EST
    "Make no mistake: We are headed in the right direction," Obama said before leaving for Sen. Robert Byrd's funeral service in West Virginia.

    That's the verbial clue to pull up your trouser legs as it is going to start getting deep.

    I am starting to become more convinced of a (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Buckeye on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:20:14 PM EST
    double dip recession looming.  Every single economic indicator that has shown ANY sign of improvement (no matter how slight) is always tied to public sector spending (support for states, stimulus, census workers, 0% Fed Funds rate, etc.) or non-recurring private sector inventory corrections (since most companies had no idea where the bottom was going to be in Q408-Q109, they over-corrected on inventory).  All the public sector spending and one-timers in the private sector are evaporating and so is job growth.

    The private sector is not creating jobs, banks have not yet finished asset/debt writoffs (especially commercial which is the next bomb to drop), real estate prices have not stabilized, consumers are still buried in debt, retail sales are down, median wage rate/hour is down, consumer confidence is not only still in the toilet but has actually gotten worse, etc.  Europe is a mess and China and other emerging markets are about to slow.

    In spite of all this, Europe is about to embark on a savage austerity program, and our Senate cannot pass a small jobs bill, will not coutenance supporting state budgets, and will not extend unemployment benefits so lazy people will finally go out and get jobs?????

    My investment advice...bury your money in your back yard.

    And we are cutting unemployment benefits so lazy people


    Yup, and these austerity ... (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:48:20 PM EST
    programs in Europe (in the UK especially) aren't going to help us.

    I think history has shown us that in economic times like these the public sector has to take up the slack for the private sector ... deficit be damned!


    More than a double dip recession looming, (none / 0) (#55)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:52:56 PM EST
    Economist Paul Krugman thinks we are in the early stages of a third depression.  I sincerely hope he's wrong, but he (along with Joseph Stiglitz, and Nouriel Roubini) has been far more often correct than incorrect about this  economic crisis all along.

    Amen. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by christinep on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 02:10:48 PM EST
    I don't know how many times (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 03:47:30 PM EST
    I have had a Republican tell me that FDR's New Deal failed and it was only WWII that saved the economy.  This is cited as justification for opposing government spending to help the economy.

    Solution I.  Have Krugman take the chart of unemployment showing its ups and downs in the 1930s, and how it was connected to government spending, and have him broadcast this left and right, morning, noon and night.

    Solution II.  Someone convinces all the Chinese to each buy the new iphone.  


    Maybe they would have sued the word 'glacial' (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:22:13 PM EST
    instead of 'gradual' if only the glaciers weren't moving so fast these days.

    One thing I don't get is how they count the 600k+ that have given up. Even if you did not look this month, you might take a job if you stumbled on it by accident. I would think they should still be counted in the labor market. Of course the unemployment % would go higher, so I understand that part of the reporting.

    I heard an economist on NPR at lunch talking about how the temp jobs that they were hoping would become permanent jobs didn't - they really were temp jobs all along, and went away as scheduled. Not a good sign for the nature of future employment in the US.

    Glacial is perfect (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:30:10 PM EST
    they will feed us this and feed us this and feed us this though.

    Yup (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by lilburro on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:34:46 PM EST
    better hope that the President is powerless...because there is a chance we'll have a new one in 2012, and if we do, I really hope they don't have teeth.

    No Kidding (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:36:05 PM EST
    Only Democratic presidents are powerless. (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:42:48 PM EST
    Republican presidents are fearless and horribly efficacious.

    They are the deciders (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:44:41 PM EST
    The better spin would have ... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:50:30 PM EST
    been to tie any good signs to positive things you've done, and the overall negative news as an argument to do more.

    That's the classic way you work bad news to your advantage.

    Sure, it doesn't always work.  But at least you look like a pro.

    on the campaign trail maybe (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:00:33 PM EST
    at least you look like a pro

    in office?

    that ship has sailed - or sunk


    The worst thing ... (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:19:35 PM EST
    for a politician is to fail, look out of touch, and look incompetent.  If you can fight off these latter two impressions that's a pretty good day for a politician.

    But this statement reinforced rather than fought off those latter two impressions.

    Bad news is part of the life of being a politician.  Dealing with bad news well is one of the things which separates good pols from bad ones.  And very good politicians can use bad news to support a course they already wanted to take.


    O admin using words in a way that defies reality (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by robotalk on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:56:31 PM EST
    Something we see much too much of out of politics and pundits these days.

    Do they really think they can alter reality by this or do they just think they can fool people with it?

    Rational expectations my friend :) (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    If they leveled with the people (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:01:37 PM EST
    Just told us that nobody is coming to save us and our old lives, I think that would be the most humane thing to do. Then people would focus on how to take care of themselves instead of focusing on hoping that the old infrastructure heals.  The infrastructure can't heal, it is full of rot and deceit that creative bookkeeping is allowing to sit on the books and pretend it is worth something.  Pretending that requires a lot of other kinds of pretending....or what the Chicago school likes to call "rational expectations" and all the ways you can get to the "rational expectation" that you want to have :)  I think the economy would heal in fewer years though if people understood today that the way we have done things in the past is largely gone.  We must find new ways to care for ourselves with the resources we have on hand, and more community based and sweat oriented.  Oy, I get all these Jesus people to work with....oh well, I don't get to go to war with the army I wished I had :)

    Spin (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:01:37 PM EST
    Well the obvious reason for WH spin is to create the illusion that this administration efforts are improving the economy. A less obvious reason and nefarious reason, is that depressions are also fueled by fear. Once people believe that times are going to get really tough, they stop spending, which has a major effect on the economy.  

    I did notice that during the G20 meetings Obama kept emphasizing that countries had to keep spending, even though the popular consensus was on deficit reduction.

    If the WH sent out a press release saying that we are heading for a depression that could be worse than the great depression, it would have a very bad effect on the economy, imo. Many would also accuse him of fearmongering.

    Depressions are not fueled (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    by fear, they are fueled by actual insolvency that is sometimes exposed by fear.  If there is no enormous insolvency though there can be no depression.

    Time will also expose insolvency though too (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:07:40 PM EST
    and many other things will as well.  What they fear is the American people understanding the truth and then beginning to change how they live in order to survive the reality.  If and when that happens, Wall Street as they have known it is dead again for 20 years.  There really is no way to avoid the death of our current Wall Street reality, it is only a matter of time. But they will do everything they can to try to avoid it to include sacrificing our first borns to the FED God.

    I Am Sorry MT (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:23:46 PM EST
    Depressions are most certainly fueled by fear. When people stop spending money, because they believe that they are either going to be making much less, or making nothing, jobs dry up, goods stop being produced because there is no market, and depression spirals out of control.

    That is not to say that there are not also non-emotional factors that go into a depression, but emotion is certainly a part of it.

    If your expenses were $50,000/year and your income was $80,000/year and you had $100,000 invested or in savings, what would you do if you thought that it was likely that in one year you would have no job or source of income for an indeterminate time?

    You would cut your spending big time, unless you were far out of the norm. That would include letting employees go, btw.


    A recession can be fear based (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:26:49 PM EST
    A very very short term quarterly recession.  A depression cannot be, neither can a lengthy recession.

    Whatever You Say (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:31:20 PM EST
    That's right (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:34:00 PM EST
    Now remember that.  Call my husband and tell him that too cuz he always forgets.

    lol (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:46:16 PM EST
    Will do.

    At the very least ... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:41:11 PM EST
    fear can hurt a recovery.  FDR thought as much.

    But it seems to me fear can help trigger a depression.  Fear clearly played a role in the Great Depression.  


    Fear caused the run on the banks (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 02:03:09 PM EST
    which pushed the economy off the cliff.

    Hence, the FDR comments early on about fearing fear.

    This current mess is very similar--a panic in the what Krugman calls the shadow banking system.


    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 11:40:36 PM EST
    The "shadow banking system" was what caused the liquidity squeeze, and the crash, of 2008. Overnite lending between banks, "repos," ceased as bankers stopped trusting each other in their ability to pay back loans.

    That was what you might call a "Wall Street" problem, where today's is a "Main Street" problem.....retail sales plummeting, home sales frozen, job losses & fear of job losses. In other words, real bread and butter issues, and in my opinion, trying to jaw bone the public out of expressing fear when there  actually is something to fear, will lead to panic before calm.


    And the banks still don't trust each other (none / 0) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 12:52:24 AM EST
    There are still shadow balance sheets full of nonexistent assets rotting out there. Nobody really knows how bad off the other guy is.  It has all been covered up, but everyone at the poker table knows that.  Things are getting worse, who is solvent?  Who is safe?  Nobody really knows, credit lending between different banking entities is still locked up.  This is the price we paid and keep paying for not taking over the big banks that were insolvent.  We have killed any vitality our economy had to rebound, and now we have destroyed hundreds of thousands of jobs.  And the job loss has become a vicious cycle as more jobs and more jobs become economically unsustainable.

    And (none / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 02:09:14 PM EST
    The GOP appears to be hell bent on doing everything they can to trash the economy, because it will be blamed on the Democrats.

    Oh yeah, that includes Lieberman, Nelson, and a few other Democrats. I guess their plan is to point the finger at the rest of the Democrats and say I told you so....


    If you proposed robust solutions (none / 0) (#105)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 12:53:14 AM EST
    It would become very obvious who is to blame in the eyes of the voters.

    Interesting (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:03:46 PM EST
    Here's a question, in 2012, what's the spin going to be?

    Would it not be better to make robust proposals to deal with the issue? If the GOP blocks it, at least you can point a finger.

    As it is, Obama looks like he got precisely the policies he preferred. In 2012, the spin of 2010 ain't gong to help.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:15:33 PM EST
    Would it not be better to make robust proposals to deal with the issue? If the GOP blocks it, at least you can point a finger.
    No question about it. I agree with you and with Krugman, on this. The amount of money to jump start the economy was too little, and not distributed evenly where it would be needed.

    My point is it is one thing for the Krugman and you to suggest that we are heading into a really bad situation that has no solution because we missed an opportunity, and an entirely different thing for the WH to say that they failed and the country is on collision course and there is nothing we can do about it.

    Yes, it would be great strategy to propose massive spending through federal projects, like developing alternate energy, genetic research, public works projects to rebuild or maintain infrastructure like roads, rail, bridges etc. and have the GOP block it.

    But that could backfire too, as the GOP hypocrisy fearmongering about doom if we do not immediately cut the deficit, has worked its way into the public mindset. So calling for mega governmental spending could be turned into coloring Obama and the Democrats into irresponsible and insane party who only want to destroy the country.


    They're just going to be torn apart for this spin. (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by lilburro on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:40:50 PM EST
    There's got to be a middle ground.

    And I have to say, Obama contributed to the ridiculous deficit fear mongering.  The spending freeze, the deficit commission...he certainly hasn't fought back against the perception that the deficit is the worst thing ever.  And he would be wise to if he wants to get anything done.


    This is long term suffering (none / 0) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:25:28 PM EST
    You have no idea what things are going to look like five years into this because you don't want to see what is before your eyes.  Backfire?  How?

    How does it backfire? (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by christinep on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 02:07:54 PM EST
    Remember the Paul Krugman article from last year that emphasized the dilemma the Administration would face if the stimulus was not large enough <to create jobs, give a needed shove to the economy, etc.> He concluded that it would be extremely difficult--if not impractical--for Obama to go back to the American public and ask for more $$$. In the past months, all kinds of surveys/polls/focus groups bear out Krugman's foresight. A top concern--here and in Europe (we now see)--concerns the perception of a country's indebtedness. People are not differentiating between the predicament of job loss/economic loss and the "big spending" required to shovel out of the mess. (As some have suggested, the same dilemma confronted FDR...and, history shows that the same reversal threat occurred around 1936ish.) Yes, there is a major backlash against spending. Very unfortunately. We can decry it; but, how can we set it aright without asking our Democratic representatives to self-destruct? What should they actually argue in the face of this gripping fear?

    We can clearly see what happened (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 12:44:36 AM EST
    during the Great Depression when "stimulus" wasn't applied.  You use the fact as a reason to not do the right thing and the only thing that has a chance....because the backlash existed for FDR.  Can't you bring this situation to the people, be honest with them about it all and tell them where we are in this? Explain to them why we will spend money to give them jobs and what happened to us in the 30s when we were in this spot and we didn't?

    I do agree, MT, (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 01:55:24 PM EST
    that a genuine attempt should be made to explain the need for more $$$ directed toward stimulus. It might help that very specific projects be identified (and that those projects correspond to what constituencies seek.)

    My big concern here is the "easier said than done" thing. I remember listening to President Carter address the nation on the need for an energy policy, the need for our reducing energy demands, etc. That speech sounded sensible and persuasive to me. Whoops, was I wrong. In this country, the majority spoke very loudly against it by turning their back on what was dubbed the "malaise speech."

    The country seems to be wanting "big daddy"--to go "presto chango" in the BP catastrophe, to make $$$ flow quickly when the imbalance had been obvious the past 10 years, to resolve climate change in the next few months when we can't get people to wash their kids diapers or stop driving  behemoth vechicles (or driving everywhere)or scale back the size of houses or or or. Yes, I'd like the magic speech and I still believe magicians sometimes do what they lure us into imagining. Sorry, MT, I don't think the magic speech exists to have a near-term extrication. From where I sit, it looks like a gradual, step-by-step (and incremental) movement forward.

    Explanations--clear, concise should be the order of the day. Yes. But, lets not be surprised at the cognitive dissonance that would greet any talk that hints at "malaise," apology, aloof in an intellectual way....  As former President Clinton noted the other day: The openness to change has shut down and people are not listening, and won't until they "feel like winners" again. Again, from where I sit, Clinton is more often right than wrong in his observations of political behavior.


    Mostly Agree (none / 0) (#124)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 02:21:09 PM EST
    Except not so sure about this:

    From where I sit, it looks like a gradual, step-by-step (and incremental) movement forward.

    Personally, I do not see any difference between our "civilization" and the civilizations of the past. Evolution moves very slowly, imo. A few thousand years ago, is not more than a few seconds in evolutionary time. Progress is overrated, imo. Things just change, not sure about moving forward though.


    Hmmm about the direction (none / 0) (#125)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 02:56:48 PM EST
    "Forward" was used to describe the hoped for direction only. I guess to convince myself that it is generally forward (usually, it meanders)makes me feel better.

    No Kidding (none / 0) (#127)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 03:35:43 PM EST
    Most of us need to think we are progressing... and most cultures believe and have believed that they are/were at the height of civilization. Ongoing moveable goal posts to justify existence, I guess..

    Sorry For Being Unclear (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:43:37 PM EST
    There is no way Obama is going to be able to unleash a flood of federal spending because the public has been trained by GOP rhetoric that we are doomed if we do not cut the deficit.

    Of course they are the biggest hypocrites around because part of their policy is to create gigantic deficits so that they can cut social programs like medicare, social security, in order to redistribute the wealth to their cronies.

    But it sounds incredibly prudent, that if you do not have money you should not spend it. This hypocritical lie pumped relentlessly by the GOP has primed the voters to fear government spending.

    If Obama were to get up and say to the american people, don't worry about the deficit, money is only symbolic, the government needs to spend 10 times what it is already spending in order to fix the economy, he would be laughed out of office, along with any Dem congress critter who went along with him.

    Now I can not assure you that that it would backfire, if Obama were to announce another big government spending plan, only to have it blocked by the GOP, but to imagine losing more public support as a possible outcome, is not unreasonable, imo.


    So being laughed at by the ignorant... (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Dadler on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 02:24:22 PM EST
    ...is reason not to act in an effective manner?  Are you saying he is incapable of speaking the truth and convincing enough people? If that's the case, then we are currently hopeless when it comes to that office.  Sorry, but IMO if he's not willing to lose his job on principle (and the CORRECT one at that), then what IS he willing to lose it over? If the answer is nothing, then, well, I suppose we have nothing to discuss.



    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 02:40:23 PM EST
    There is always a dance between leadership and pandering, imo. That is why Plato said that the best government would be by ruled by the enlightened philosopher class, aka benevolent dictators that do not have to worry about the idiots who cannot see beyond their own noses.

    As far as principal goes, isn't it the responsibility of our elected leaders to reflect the will of the majority?

    Also, here is a paradox for you, if the Democrats believe that their leadership will make america a better country, and the well being of all americans are at stake, they would be risk adverse to making unpopular decisions would result in losing power. So they cave to the right, and therefore become just like the GOP, sort of anyway.


    Well said, squeaky (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by christinep on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 05:36:21 PM EST
    And, there is another dance that we can get lost in: The wh-has-the-lock-on-truth dance. That dance is applauded by the dancers who know how to do it. But, if the majority of unlookers--those not-so-gifted--do not think they are included, then you have that interesting reversal of the "leaders" being left with noone to lead. It reminds me of the John Stuart Mill essay "On liberty." Also: JFK's book "Profiles in Courage" discusses when leading is following (aka servant and public service leadership.)

    In fact, I believe schools now offer entire courses on the various definitions of "leadership." It is tough for the intellect in that getting into the head too much often locks out the relationship with those who would be led. And finally, for Democrats (of which I am a lifelong one) especially, I hope that we remember the importance of different approaches and the importance of respecting those who may "not be the brightest bulbs" in the pack. To do otherwise only sets us apart as presumed elitists, and typically consigns us to minority party status.

    BTW, squeaky, you do show respect to many different positions. I respect that in your comments.


    - becoming like the GOP (none / 0) (#135)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 01:24:22 AM EST
    explains a lot of our Dear President's broken promises.  Of course, he really didn't break any promises.  He actually made very few, allowing us to ascribe to our Candidate Tabula-Rasa-in-Chief our own belief systems, a confirmation bias in every pot.

    What do you fall on the sword for (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by christinep on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 05:21:46 PM EST
    Yep, if someone laughs at you because that individual is ignorant...then go ahead without him/her and do what is right. If a majority of the country in a country that practices democracy laughs at you and are ignorant in doing so, then ??? Do you fall on your sword, and let them reinstate the people who just a bit over a year ago delivered us into this mess? Do you whine that it isn't fair? Do you decry the ignominy of it all? Do you say all those others must be stupid and we should have a king? C'mon. We all get upset. But then, we think it through. Are we talking about feeling "righteous" or can we discern a way to thread the needle, so to speak?

    Not a problem with proposing (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 03:36:43 PM EST
    appropriate fixes.....

    But we can't even get an extension of unemployment benefits.  

    We are not going to get more fiscal stimulus.....

    One option:  a deal to extend the Bush tax cuts one more year in return for more fiscal help--this time, visible projects like buildings and rail, etc.

    The Republicans might go for such a deal as they really don't care about deficits (Cheney famously saying that Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.)

    The problem was the original desire to compromise with Republicans when Democrats were at the height of their power.....no need to offer tax cuts then....

    Now, a compromise may be only option left.....Unless 60 Senators get a big desire for more spending all of a sudden.....Maybe next year's budget can pick it up--which would need less than 60 votes--assuming the Dems still control the Congress.

    But nothing to be lost in Obama proposing new  projects to create more jobs....


    I don't think he needs to say money (none / 0) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 12:36:25 AM EST
    is only symbolic.  The truth is without jobs, there are no taxes to pay for infrastructure or to even pay the deficit down with.  I think ordinary people can easily understand this.

    Yup, a smart pol ... (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:24:28 PM EST
    would use this news to argue they haven't done enough.

    The conditions keeping screaming for a new FDR, but the President seems happy to be a new Herbert Hoover.  "Prosperity is just around the corner."


    Would it not be better to make robust proposals? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:10:22 PM EST
    Hell yeah!  To do anything less is just flat nuts IMO.  But now you are moving the country left BTD and away from the big money.

    More promises? (none / 0) (#137)
    by dkmich on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 07:10:26 AM EST
    Yes, we can and this time I really mean it!  The only reason any of the Democrats beat the Republicans is because people were sick to death of Bush/Cheney and the destruction.  They would have voted for Daffy Duck, and did, if he had a D after his/her name.  I think they will "throw all the bums out".  Freedom is having nothing left to lose, and boy, are we free.

    Correction (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:02:23 PM EST
    A less obvious and less nefarious reason...

    Another quibble (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 06:29:37 PM EST
    damage caused by the financial crisis

    The economy was bleeding jobs to the tune of 300-600k per month starting in 2003. This is part of what led to the foreclosure crisis, and hence the financial crisis.  Saying job loss was because of the financial crisis obscures the weakness of the underlying economy and makes it sound like fixing the banks was all that was needed to bring back job growth.

    Oh yeah,  I remember - the banks were going to lend all that money out for companies to grow and create new jobs.

     "TARP!," she screamed, raising her fist to the sky.

    ".......lend all that money ...." (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 06:39:40 PM EST
    It's not like we gave those insolvent banksters all that money, with no strings attached. If we hadn't put restrictions on what they could do with the money they'd probabvly pay themselves billions in bonuses with it.

    Goldman Sachs? Set aside 19 billion for year end bonuses?

    Look! Over there! fireworks tonight...hurry.

    Yes, what was I thinking? (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 07:38:14 PM EST
    Thank god we bailed out the rich and not the poor. They would have just wasted it on food and stuff, and never learned from their mistakes.

    As huuuuge long (wknd) Fri news dumps go ... (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Ellie on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 07:36:08 PM EST
    ... this one stinks worse than usual. Adding to the reek is the Dem & WH flop sweat during the newest attempt to offload responsibility for the latest clusterf*ck onto the general public.

    Independently speaking, I automatically tune out messages that worry about how all of this will affect Obama's or the Dems' image health  '10 (and '12). (Yep, that's my first concern when I have to choose between what my lying eyes and screaming pockets have been trying to tell me.)

    Honestly, sometimes the reason people aren't spending isn't out of FEAR but because there's no money to spare.

    At least I have some mental clarity to make smarter choices during the hard road ahead.

    The inevitable clutter of oBot psycho-babble has been easier to block completely, as it stopped being good even for a cheap laugh long ago.


    Two female friends, one 58, the (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 11:15:23 PM EST
    other 68, were recently terminated from employers for which each worked for 30 years.  What are their chances of gaining jobs at this age?

    None, unless (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 12:16:33 AM EST
    they want to fight with teenagers and the mentally disabled for the supermarket bagger jobs.

    $2 Billion For Jobs (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 01:54:15 PM EST
    Not sure if this will change the economy, but it is good news, imo:

    US President Barack Obama announced on Saturday the awarding of nearly two billion dollars to two solar energy companies that have agreed to build new power plants in the United States, creating thousands of new jobs.


    more of that please!

    And what will be (none / 0) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 04:13:49 PM EST
    KWH price to the consumer?? Will it be in the .10 to .12 range?

    Spain has lost its shirt over subsidized solar power.


    wait ... (2.00 / 1) (#11)
    by nyrias on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:43:05 PM EST
    83k jobs created and that is not a sign of recovery?

    Sure you can argue it may be slow but isn't adding jobs the right direction?

    You guys know what the word "sign" means, right?

    What about the clearer signs (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:46:56 PM EST
    that we are headed towards a double dip recession?  What about the clearer signs that we are the beginning of a lost decade?  If we are going to talk signs here how about we talk about the clearest most obvious "signs"?  Just my opinion about signs and the signs we all need to focus on.

    Then list them .. (none / 0) (#16)
    by nyrias on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:49:32 PM EST
    and discuss how they conflict with THIS sign.

    Don't you think people should weigh all the signs instead of claiming some data should be ignored? That smacks on a lack of intellectual honesty.


    Fine (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:22:33 PM EST
    25 signs of double dip recession

    And Krugman on the looming lost decade that BTD already posted about.

    If you want to go with Horse Feathers, I can't help you.  My survival instincts have always been acute.  I was born this way and according to Darwin not everyone was :)


    Zandi's comments (none / 0) (#53)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:47:16 PM EST
    on that list are the most concerning....

    It takes 225k or so jobs created per month (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:48:21 PM EST
    just to keep up with people entering the market. Yes, adding 83k is better than nothing, but it is still not even close to keeping up with even the status qou. And even as a sign it is bad, since it is down from the 140k in the last couple of months.

    Yes, it isn't a good sign (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:50:12 PM EST
    See .. this is much better (none / 0) (#20)
    by nyrias on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:52:29 PM EST
    argument than saying adding 83k is not a sign.

    btw, where did u get the 225k figure?


    A certtain level of knowledge (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:57:23 PM EST
    was assumed of the reader.

    My apologies for the assumption.


    I thought it was 125K (none / 0) (#32)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:07:51 PM EST
    But it doesn't make a difference for this report....

    Hopefully, it is a one or two month lull--caused by worries about the EU situation and the generally sour mood caused by the BP spill....

    If, on the other hand, it is just the stimulus running out of gas and exposing an underlying weakness that has never been addressed, then we really could be in for it.


    Thanks MKS (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by christinep on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:42:52 PM EST
    Your comment raises some interesting points about the trajectory...is it a pause or is it the exposed weakness that P. Krugman alluded to in the early stages of the stimulus.
    Lots of numbers being tossed around: We hear that 83k were added and that a larger number were lost (I thought that the loss number was on the order of 125k per the AP report.) We knew that a loss was coming, but we thought a loss was coming also in the unemployment rate. Some economists now are saying that this shows continually, albeit slow, growth; others say this could border on the brink of another down-dip. With that kind of data, any White House would probably put the best read on it. (Nothing new, since "pols will be pols" right?)
    At this moment on this blog, there seems to be a lot of something that looks like "wailing and gnashing of teeth." None of us likes the economic situation now. From my perspective, it is a lot better than all the numbers/projections left to the Administration and us a year ago. Yet, it is hard to shake the impression that a larger stimulus--like a stronger dose of antibiotice--would have been better for the sick economy that we inherited. (Trans.: I'm not a fan of Geithner either.) Yet again, the emotion-laden "everything is going to h*** in a handbasket" is a theme that seems disproportionate as a venting technique. Or, did I miss some underlying agenda?

    I was actually relieved (4.00 / 3) (#57)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 02:00:00 PM EST
    by these numbers--I expected worse.

    The payroll company ADP had showed a net increase of 13k private sector jobs....

    The rate did not go up but down....So, as misleading as that number might be, it is better than the number ratcheting up to 10%--appearances can make people feel better.

    Some good news from the EU would nice.  And capping the BP well would be good too....Economic panics can be caused by all kinds of things....The reverse could be true too....Build it and they will come....One has to hope...


    I think the EU crisis (none / 0) (#56)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:53:38 PM EST
    is the culprit....Weakening demand in Europe will affect us all.

    BTD has always believed the original stimulus was too watered down....But, if we can hold steady, there is still a chance of getting through this without a double dip recession.   So much of it is just plain confidence--economic psychology....and people right now are in a bad mood, tightening up, spending less.


    I think it is what Atrios usually uses (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:22:26 PM EST
    I've been using it as my barometer since the Bush years.

    My apologies if I am remembering it incorrectly. It is definitely higher than 100k though


    140 K per Atrios (none / 0) (#45)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:37:21 PM EST
    back a few years ago anyway. My ,istake.

    Hey, it's a better sign than I thought! Why am I still not happy?


    Because we have lost so many jobs (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:41:20 PM EST
    you would need to see 500,000 jobs created before you could probably begin to feel a little bit happier.

    83k private sector (none / 0) (#50)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:43:19 PM EST
    jobs is better than the private sector jobs added in May.

    But still not that good....

    The one hope, who knows how realistic it might be, is that recoveries do not always show straight line progress--there can be a month or two of less than great news without jeopardizing the overall recovery.  But this is the second month of these kinds of numbers. So, if July is the same......


    July will be the same -- or worse (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 02:05:48 PM EST
    from what I am seeing.  In a state in which tourism is the number-one industry, the economy is killing it -- for example, I have handled very late pleas to enroll in my summer courses by students, many of them formerly fulltime employees (and parttime students) who were laid off in June.  So were traditional (younger) students hired for the summer but laid off only a few weeks into it.

    And the construction industry continue to suffer, with one stepson in our state still laid off for months now -- and, worse, another stepson now laid off in another state . . . in Illinois, Obama's home state, which has been doing far better than our state because of that, at least until now.  And summer, of course, ought to be the prime construction season.

    As for the infusion of funds that was to come to the sustainable energy industry?  Ha.  Family member in the field still is not seeing it, still has managed to put together only two parttime jobs.  One had been parttime, when to fulltime briefly upon promises that the White House was going to get its act together to get the funds out and about, but that did not happen, so the job went back to parttime . . . and now, that one looks like it is about to end in a layoff, too.

    By the way, folks, the numbers do not reflect thousands of teachers laid off for fall here and around the country, because teachers are considered "seasonal workers" (with nine-month contracts) who do not get to file for unemployment.  And municipal and state governments do not have to pay into unemployment funds, either.  Nice how that works for them.

    In sum, by fall, figure on this all looking even more awful . . . with wintertime homeless and winter heating bills ahead.  There will be tragedies.


    Last night on one of the NPR shows (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 02:15:07 PM EST
    They had the usual one side v the other analysis. One economist said she had never seen a recovery like this with lob growth staying so bad for so long. The guy on the other side said this happens with every single recovery since the 70s. I was disappointed that the reporter didn't even try to figure out the truth. NPR sometimes will do that, unlike say, CNN.

    I keep coming back to what I see on the ground - very little reason to think it will be better anytime soon. What will happen to change the dynamic? It is not a random number - for it to get better, something has to change, and I don't see it.


    Not when 652,000 leave the work force (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:49:23 PM EST
    Not when you need to create over 100k jobs per month to absorb new entrants to the labor force.

    It simply is not sign of a jobs recovery in any sense.


    This White House hasn't learned ... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:58:33 PM EST
    from the Herbert Hoover example.  Or how crisis management can be used to your advantage.  

    652K gave up looking for jobs vs. 83K new jobs. (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 03:32:26 PM EST
    Yeah, we know what sign means. Thanks for asking.

    No, it's not... (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Romberry on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 11:07:34 PM EST
    ...a sign of recovery. It takes somewhere around 150k new jobs/month just to keep up with population growth. Any number below that means you're still moving backwards.

    Think of it like this: You get on a treadmill that's set for 5 mph. You run 3 mph. Which way are you going?


    Yeah... (none / 0) (#19)
    by BTAL on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:52:26 PM EST
    You guys know what the word "sign" means, right?

    Here's your sign.
    - Bill Engvall


    Look at this (none / 0) (#113)
    by jbindc on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 11:20:19 AM EST
    Yes, the writer is not a fan of Democrats, but he compiles some stories from during the Bush years, where many months 125,000 jobs added was not good (or "a recovery") and we also had 5-6% unemployment at the

    Unemployment rate dropped (none / 0) (#1)
    by Buckeye on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:10:38 PM EST
    because MANY people quit looking, not because of private sector job creation.

    I wonder how many of the "quit lookings" (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:22:41 PM EST
    are actually working off the books someplace, or collecting cans, or hustling.

    I mean you can make 75-100 a day if you really bust your arse collecting cans...it sucks, but beats giving up.


    $75 to $100 a day? On what planet? (none / 0) (#67)
    by DFLer on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 02:24:46 PM EST
    Even if you can get $.87 a pound, at approx between 30 to 35 cans per pound, that's over 3,000 can a day to make $75.00 Where you going find that many abandoned cans?

    You should see how... (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 03:00:21 PM EST
    the salvagers do in NYC...it's a marvel of engineering how they carry so many cans in a shopping cart on their runs.

    I'm thinking a nickel a can redemption, so you only need to find 2000 to make a hundo (only 1k in Michigan!)...if you know the dumpsters to dive in it is quite doable.  Recycling pick-up day is a goldmine, but I think it might be illegal to collect and redeem those cans put out for sanitation pick-up.

    I guess it's not an option though in rural areas...good point.  But for city dwellers in states with bottle & can redemption, it's a living.


    Aluminum is by weight most places (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 03:14:28 PM EST
    and drink cans don't weigh much. Nobody even buys glass most places either. You need to get out of NY more, kdog. Come visit the Old Dominion sometime! Beautiful place-just avoid the wingnuts.

    Not By Weight In NYC (none / 0) (#78)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 03:35:49 PM EST
    There is a $.05 deposit on cans bottles. NYC bottle bill

    And the people that take it as a daily job, by going through residential, street recycling bags, dumpsters etc. have multiple shopping carts piled mountain high, and other engineering feats to contain their voluminous bounty.. easily $75/day, imo.

    As kdog says it is a sight to see..  


    Well, your unemployed folk looking for that (none / 0) (#83)
    by DFLer on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 04:24:12 PM EST
    suggested killing in can collecting don't all live in a 5 cent redemption state.

    Stealing from recycling day isn't very cool, 'cause that's how the pick-up people (private or municipal) make their money. Better take all the cardboard and paper too then...

    I mean come on...it's a dream scenario. There are plenty of urban areas where this is not an option.


    No (none / 0) (#84)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 04:30:24 PM EST
    Not stealing from recycling people. The NYC Department of Sanitation  collects cans and bottles and crushes them. I really douby that the DOS workers pick through all the random metal, glass and plastic to find deposit cans and bottles. They make a decent wage.

    More than likely the can collectors are doing the city workers, and the city a favor by lightening the load.


    Maybe in your city. But in mine (none / 0) (#86)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 04:56:52 PM EST
    the monies from recycling are themselves recycled into the city budget, which already is hurting a lot.

    And if the amount of recycling, garbage, etc., is reduced by widespread followers of kdog's economic recovery plan, then even more city workers will be laid off.  (Yes, I actually have sat through municipal meetings where alderpersons cite stats of garbage tonnage to suggest more "furloughs" aka pay cuts as well as layoffs.  Such meetings are about as fascinating as watching paint dry . . . that is, if it's not city paint bought too cheap that just runs with the next rainfall.)

    All that said, it is so sad to see people up and down our streets, diving into our recycling dumpsters.  Problem is that they are coming onto private property and removing private property, until the city retrieves it -- or so the police say when they sometimes warn or even arrest the dumpster divers.  

    Plus, we have had cases of a very not being the hardworking poor trying to live anyway that they can.  Some have been found to be casing our neighborhoods.  It all is a conundrum, probably varying from place to place, with no simple solutions.


    Not In NYC (none / 0) (#88)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 05:25:31 PM EST
    It is a rite for the homeless, unemployed, and poor. There is apparently a problem with out of town, out of state trunks that come and steal the paper recycling, from what I understand.

    The city does not concern itself with homeless et al collecting deposit cans, and most residents are happy to oblige.


    Yes, so you said (none / 0) (#90)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 05:34:24 PM EST
    and as I acknowledged.

    Fair enough... (none / 0) (#107)
    by kdog on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 09:10:02 AM EST
    it's a viable option in 11 states...and a much better option than "quit looking" in those 11 states, unless one thinks they're too good for the work...in which case that's part of their unemployment problem right there.  There is no right to the job of your dreams, or even a job...ya gotta hustle.

    I just can't wrap my head around "quit looking" ya know? Who quits looking to survive?  A good chunk of that "quit looking" number has gotta have money comin' in somehow...off the books, cans, slinging dope, something.    

    Don't get me wrong...the job market sucks. I'm all for ending the occupations and the drug war and rolling some of that funding into massive public works projects...that's government spending where we have something of value at the end of the day and good jobs.  And after TARP I can't see how the fed can vote against extending benefits, that's cold.  But absent any of that ya gotta get busy livin' or get busy dyin', ya don't ever f*ckin' quit trying to feed and house yourself...that's as basic as it gets.  The odds are long for some, life ain't fair, but that's the world.  

    - The Clash, "Bankrobber"

    This is what seriously scares me about you folks.. (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by Upstart Crow on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 01:40:03 PM EST
    Kdog, the people who have "quit looking" may be secondary household incomes, or maybe they are stringing together free-lance work off the books.

    I know, I've been there. And just as, on another thread, many of you don't know the psychological dynamics of sexual harrassment and assault, yet talk as if you do, you don't know what it is like to be seriously down and out.

    "There is no right to the job of your dreams, or even a job...ya gotta hustle." True. But it is a full-time job to look for jobs for which you are qualified.  

    I was in my 50s when I was out on my can. I wasn't turning away any jobs that were "beneath" me -- I was working full-time against the job for jobs I was qualified for.  It was one of the toughest things in my life -- and I fully understand that others just don't have my moxie. It was really really grinding and humiliating!  And I won!

    Employers know when you are overqualified; you are likely to leave when a better offer comes, or be bored, or otherwise not fit in with the team. It's not a matter of "turning away" jobs beneath you.

    And who can pay the rent by collecting cans?  Seriously!

    I don't know what people are going to do. What happened to me was a miracle. I don't know if there's enough of those to go around.


    I can relate; I lost almost everything (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 03:22:57 PM EST
    I had earned and saved for decades in an awful divorce -- and I had no access at all to savings in the game of legal delay after legal delay, so I was nearly destitute and did not know how I would feed my progeny.  I finally had to apply for AFDC and never will forget how I was treated. . . .   At least I did not have to actually go on AFDC, as applying forced the issue and finally got the court to come up an interim measure.

    And I had gone parttime in my career for the sake of the spouse and progeny so was back looking for fulltime work -- and having gone parttime was read as not being serious and committed to my work, etc.  And it was a downtime in the economy then, too.  So it was a long, hard haul back, to starting all over again.

    We never look at the world the same way again, do we, when we learn how anyone can lose it all in a moment?  It does tend to make us impatient with the silly suggestions that so lack empathy and understanding of the plight of so many people today.  "Let them pick up cans" somehow sounds a lot like "Let them eat cake."


    That's what I was sayin'.... (none / 0) (#165)
    by kdog on Sun Jul 11, 2010 at 08:03:11 AM EST
    if you're a "quit lookin'" you must have some money comin' in, so technically you have a gig, even if it's sh*t.  Or you have somebody supporting you.

    I've known down and out, or damn close...enough to wake at 5 am to walk a couple miles to the mock-up site on the hopes to get picked up for a days' work for 75 bucks here in NY Crow...or doing the on the books day labor thing down in Florida for 35 bucks a day when nothing decent or steady was available.  There were people there north of 50 too hopin' their name got called by the seedy bossman.  Forget rent, they were homeless...food and drink was all they were hopin' for.  Still they hadn't "quit looking"....they were still gettin' busy livin' instead of rolling over and dying.  

    So pardon me if I don't take "40k a year is beneath me" guy seriously...people got real problems.


    How many cans are there in NYC? (none / 0) (#108)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 10:06:59 AM EST
    Enough to feed and clothe and house about how many individuals and families would you say?

    NYC (none / 0) (#111)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 11:04:49 AM EST
    People put their garbage on the street in bags, and recycling in clear and blue bags during designated recycling days. People can also use cans but they are not required. The rats lobbied to make metal garbage cans obsolete for most of the city. Storing the cans and lifting the cans were inconvienient for both the apartment buildings and sanitation workers. The rats love it, dinner time on garbage days.. I did see a plastic bag that had a logo on it claiming to be "rat resistant"... nice marketing scam... lol

    There is a new program going into effect where there will be recycling receptacles placed in various public locations, like they do in Europe.

    I think that is a great idea.


    Lets see... (none / 0) (#115)
    by kdog on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 11:33:21 AM EST
    some rough numbers...90 billion containers collected in 26 years, approx. 3.5 billion per year, times a nickel....thats 175 million bucks a year.  Lets say half the beverage deposit driniking public returns their own containers, that leaves us with 87.5 million.  That's a 50k a year living for 1750 people.  Plus 20-30% or so of container deposits are never redeemed, and I think my half returning their own is a very generous estimate, probably closer to 25%.

    The end of unemployment?  Hardly.  But nothing to sneeze at either...plus all the work at beverage distributors processing the returns.  

    Source Source


    I see, let them eat cans. (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 01:18:06 PM EST
    Kdog, try being a little more "generous" why don't you. Here are some numbers that are somewhat more accurate. LINK:

    *Americans use in excess of 100 billion cans a year. Let's say all of those cans are thrown away. Let's say each of those cans is picked up and redeemed for 5¢. That's a total of five billion dollars!

    *If your hypothetical 1750 people picked up all the cans (at 5¢ a pop) they would each make $2.8 million a year. No doubt a lot more people would want a piece of that action, no?

    *So, let's say a whopping 3% of the population started picking up cans, full time.

    *Each of those nine million people would stand to make a grand total of $543 a year; that's $1.49 per day or 19¢ per hour.

    Pardon me if I sneeze here bro. Hope I don't get any on you (I've been dumpster diving for cans :-). Glad you understand.


    OK Foxhole... (none / 0) (#136)
    by kdog on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 07:02:14 AM EST
    you sneeze while people with nothing get to eat tonight because of those cans...if you've got a better idea besides "quitting" for those folks, I'm sure they are all ears.  I sure wish I had a better one.

    Oh, Got It (none / 0) (#117)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 11:49:10 AM EST
    Soda cans (and bottles), although most do not collect bottles as they are too heavy...

    not garbage cans...


    They need to put deposits on them (none / 0) (#118)
    by jbindc on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 12:04:47 PM EST
    First, it reduces the amount of bottles and cans put in the trash or thrown on the side of the road.  And second, people really do return them.  My college roommate and I used to pay our electric bill every month with our pop cans (10 cents in Michigan!)  Another older gentleman who walked around campus and took a class or two, always had big bags with him and he picked up the random pop can left in the classrooms. Rumor had it that he made $50 or so a day (in 1987).  Then he'd go over on Saturday after a football game, and pick up what was left after tailgating and make more money that way.

    I hate that I live in Virginia and there is no deposit around here.  Michigan is even trying now to get deposits on juice and water bottles.


    lol (none / 0) (#109)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 10:58:04 AM EST
    The drug war and occupations (WOT) are big public works projects. Unfortunately, death, jailing and destruction is the collateral damage...

    So true... (none / 0) (#110)
    by kdog on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 11:02:05 AM EST
    nothing of value at the end of the day though...unless you value prisoners of senseless war.

    Bingo (none / 0) (#89)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 05:26:03 PM EST
    If you had an ultra efficient vehicle the absolute goldmines for cans are the rest/restaurant stops along the interstate, thruway highways.

    People use those places to dump out accumulated stuff from their trips and, even if they're thrifty at home, on the road they just clean out their cars.

    I had an old, recovering alcoholic/gambler friend who "found G*d," became a preacher, and even though he was practically broke, he decided to tithe 10% of his meager income to the church. On weekends he rounded the young kids in his Parish, and they scoured the highways & byways of New England doing what I said above. I was running a large warehouse complex at the time, and I lent him one of our Mitsubishi trucks to ply his trade.

    Anyway, come Monday morning (I also let him use our warehouses to store the cans) he added up his spoils and to end up with 3-$4,000 was commonplace. I know cause I handled his finances. (And, no, I didn't skim any for myself....lol)


    Nice work if you can get it hey.

    the money (none / 0) (#128)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 03:46:06 PM EST
    went to the church.

    I think G*d would waive the child labor laws for them.


    Really? The kids got squat for dumpster diving? (none / 0) (#134)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 08:10:54 PM EST
    Nice church -- great G*d too.

    ugh. sued = used (none / 0) (#6)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:22:31 PM EST

    Man (none / 0) (#65)
    by CST on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 02:23:10 PM EST
    between this news, unemployment benefits running out, and school being out - I am really worried about an uptick in violence this summer.

    This is the type of atmosphere that people get killed in.  But you know, we gotta make sure everyone has the right to own whatever guns they want.

    Also (none / 0) (#68)
    by CST on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 02:25:37 PM EST
    I almost want republicans to win again in 2010.  Because then they will start to own this mess again and might have some incentive to play ball.  Right now they are content to fiddle while Rome burns so they can just blame it all on Dems.  If they win, at least maybe then they will start to feel accountable and do something about it.

    Well, they did not feel (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 02:46:51 PM EST
    accountable and do anything about it in the time they had control before, so I wouldn't expect anything better this time.

    Yea (none / 0) (#71)
    by CST on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 02:50:59 PM EST
    to be clear, I don't really want them to win.  I just am so freaking frustrated.

    I know what you mean, CST (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 03:03:01 PM EST
    It's almost like alcoholics- they frequently have to "bottom out" before they realize they need help.  I thought that the American people had "bottomed out" under Bush and were starting to realize that the Republicans (and the Blue Dog Democrats) were not on the side of the average American.  I guess not.  Too many people get their news (and opinions) from Fox News, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, etc.  They don't seem to realize that all these guys are not average, middle and lower class Americans.  They're wealthy, and they want to stay that way.  They have nothing in common with their listeners/viewers.  Wake up, Americans!  

    And (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by BTAL on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 03:09:34 PM EST
    Couric, Matthews, Olbermann and Maddow are "just ordinary folk".

    Of course they're not (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 03:43:12 PM EST
    And the problem that I have with even the so-called "left-leaning" media is that they are all too far removed from what the average American is going through.  Many of the (let's call them) Democratic-friendly media stars are too starry-eyed about the whole Obama mystique.  They are drinking one kind of Kool-Aid.  OTOH, many of the (let's call them) Republican-friendly media stars are so anti-Obama, they cannot seem to realize that at least some (IMHO, many, but then, I'm a DFH) of the things he has done are, shall we say, things that a Republican president would have done.  They are drinking another flavor of Kool-Aid.  Neither the media (left, center, or right) nor our politicians are down in the trenches, and have absolutely no clue what it's like to live paycheck to paycheck (for those lucky enough to even have paychecks), worry about losing their homes and their health care, worry about paying their bills, worry about whether their jobs will still exist tomorrow (or whether they'll get another job) and on and on.  They all live in their own little bubbles, and I have a huge dose of skepticism about what any of them think, despite their words.  

    Fair enough (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by BTAL on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 03:55:39 PM EST
    and I agree.  The knife does have two edges and am glad to see you also realize that.

    As one that sits on the right side of the aisle, I don't swallow (nor watch/listen) to the Hannitys, O'Reillys, Becks or Limbaugh as my source of information.  I fully recognize that the extremes (pundits/citizenry/voters) on both sides are just that, extreme.  That is one reason I enjoy this site even though I know I'm in indian country.


    I know, I understand! (none / 0) (#75)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 03:11:52 PM EST
    Me too. I was about to say it was a good idea until I remembered the Bush-Boehner-McConnell years, when tax cuts were going to create 300k jobs a month and  recovery was always just around the corner.

    Hoo hah (none / 0) (#92)
    by christinep on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 05:47:30 PM EST
    I have that kind of feeling too. We'll take turns being the party of no.  But, Republicans would only turn all their cr** on the WH arguing that they can't get anything done, and before you know it.... They ARE quite good at message control and at following Ben Franklin's advice "We must all hang together, or surely we will hang separately."

    It also would help (none / 0) (#114)
    by jbindc on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 11:22:03 AM EST
    The administration out by allowing them to use the "Hey, don't blame me, we have a Congress of the opposing party who is obstructing the work we want to do for YOU - the American people!" theme.

    Great theme to take into 2012, when voters have the attention spans of gnats.


    Republicans are using the state of (none / 0) (#85)
    by observed on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 04:52:32 PM EST
    the economy to argue that Obama's stimulus was a failure---that it would have been better to cut taxes, or something.
    A middle of the road policy, pursued with little enthusiasm and failing to turn the economy around, seems politically horrible.

    What (none / 0) (#93)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 06:08:26 PM EST
    Would we do if a massive war broke out now? We'd spend as much money as we had to in order to prevail. And what would happen to our citizenry if a major war broke out? They would suffer physically, economically, and spiritually.......exactly what they'll suffer if the economy heads to where some very smart economists are warning that we're heading to.

    I recently read a research report as to the history of our citizens mobilizing when faced with catastrophic dangers, and led by able, competent/confident Leaders.

    Their conclusion was that Obama should "Declare a new Marshall Plan/Manhattan Project type WAR" against the pending economic blight. They said Obama should adopt the attitude, "screw the Republicans and Right/Dems" and, ala FDR, go directly to the people as he so ably did in his campaign.

    Some here have stated that fear could cause, or add to a depression/recession. But, we've also shown what we can do when faced with great danger and had confidence in our Leadership.  

    A depression IS coming, even after all the Government has done to stimulate the economy (not nearly enough, of course) we've just reported the worst home sales statistics since we began keeping records. Someone here asked the right question, "what will pull us out?" I've been warning about that for years now. Look around, exactly what will pull us out.?

    The Government is the only chance, and Obama should show the people that he IS the Government.

    Let the obstructionist try to stop him. We've seen him in action, this could be the opportunity to wipe them out for the next half century.

    Insanity is often described (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 08:42:32 AM EST
    as doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

    The stimulus has failed. (Actually it never had a chance.)

    Cut taxes and lower energy costs via drilling for new oil and constructing new nuclear facilities.

    If you will think back about a year... the economy started to recover when gasoline fell to around $1.60.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by waldenpond on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 11:18:47 AM EST
    To keep proposing tax cuts to encourage the economy is insane.  It is also insane to declare the stimulus has failed (it hasn't, it is partially negated by State cuts but you know this) when 1/3 (that's 275 BILLION dollars) was tax cuts which everyone (yes, even the Republicans knew weren't going to be 'stimulative'

    Yes, it is insane to again propose the US increase drilling with the repeatedly proven false theory that it will have much impact on the industry.  It would take many years to get on line and that is hardly stimulative.  We have so little it would have negligible effect on imports (security) and so little it would only have the possibility of a few cents impact.  Oil price is driven by speculation and we know you aren't proposing regulation on the oil market. :)

    Oh and this is just another completely false theory... nuclear energy to spur the economy?  Nuclear which costs .25 to .30 per kwh?  That's what? 3x average US cost right now?  I just read another article that decommissioning costs are skyrocketing.  That should bump it up a little more.  We may need nuclear in about 30 years, when oil declines and becomes hugely expensive, but it is a political boondoggle right now that I think it is unfair to force taxpayers to subsidize.  You don't want to force the govt to stiff me for the bill for your nuclear energy do you?  That wouldn't be the free market.

    hmmmmm.... what else happened a year ago, let me think, oh that's right, the stimulus money was hitting.


    Think back 9 years to the Bush tax cuts (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 11:41:57 AM EST
    How many jobs were created?

    Tax cuts create jobs is a discredited economic policy. You can argue they do other things you like, but they do not create jobs.


    Oh really? (none / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 04:10:43 PM EST
    Let us return to those days of February 2007 when the Demos were taking control of both Houses of Congress...

    Unemployment was around 4 to 5%, the DJIA was around 13000 and gasoline around $2.00/gallon..

    That was after the Bush tax cuts pulled us out of the recession Clinton left us and 9/11 finished.

    By mid 2008 oil was $137 a barrel, gasoline $4.50 a gallon. The market was falling, unemployment was rising and foreclosures were out of control.

    Bush finally issued an E.O. rescinding the ban on off shore drilling and the oil bubble speculation died. By the end of 2008 it was around $41.00 a barrel, about a $96.00 decline.

    Since then it has eased back up to around $80.00 a barrel based on nothing but the belief that the Democrats will not allow an energy policy that allows drilling.

    The economy is dying and the price of oil is one the major reasons.

    But Obama's environmentalist friends are happy.


    I find it very interesting (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by BTAL on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 06:18:29 PM EST
    that the left continue to beat the "8 year" R's in control drum.  Look at any set of independently sourced numbers relating to spending and deficits and they all spike after Jan 09.

    Don't get me wrong, I am not a happy camper with what the R's did when in control of congress (but without super majorities) and their spending levels.  However, the "8 year" broad brush is not factual.


    Speaking for myself - from the right aisle (none / 0) (#132)
    by BTAL on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 06:19:30 PM EST
    Oil prices (none / 0) (#133)
    by waldenpond on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 06:48:43 PM EST
    Economic policy has no effect on the price of oil in itself.  The Dems have nothing to do with the price of oil.  Today it is driven mostly by speculation and to a lesser degree supply/demand.  Rescinding a ban does nothing to the price of oil in itself, only the response of speculators.  It is wrong to think that lifting a ban is going to guarantee drilling, or that drilling which won't be online and productive for years is going to effect short term pricing.

    The fact is that the US does not have enough oil to have an impact on global pricing.

    Oil prices spiked with bulging reserves.  Even huge tankers were parked with oil driving the price up in the expectation of recovery and increased demand.

    You are complaining about the free market... again.  Your choices are to demand Obama regulate speculation (hardly Republican of you) or go hat in hand ala Bush and whine to Saudi Arabia.


    I sometimes feel like Roadrunner (none / 0) (#138)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 08:33:26 AM EST
    just before Wiley looks both ways and steps onto the road.

    I aint a Repub.......

    And the bubble burst when he did the E.O. trick on off shore drilling.

    No connection. Of course not. Nada.. None. All fake.

    To say that restricting drilling for oil has no impact on the market is like saying that lettuce doesn't go up in the winter.

    Of course you probably also believe that flooding the labor market with illegal immigrants doesn't depress wages.

    And if you buy the "won't be available for years" then I assume you don't send your children to school.... Sixteen years or so is just tooooooooo far in the future.

    We have oil shale in great abundance. We have off shore reserves. We have nuclear technology. We have coal.

    We also have a Democratic Party that is in hock to the environmental wackos that are pushing an energy policy that is killing the economy and a Speaker of the House who owns shares in a company that her blocking drilling increases the value.

    What I would do is tell SA and others that since they want to restrict supply I would send the Seventh Fleet to help them shut down production and then impose an export tax on all food going to SA... Let's see how they like $80.00 wheat and $70.00 corn.

    Would they try and buy from other countries? Of course. But what do you think the other countries would do? Lower their prices? No. They would raise them.

    Far fetched?


    But desperate times demand desperate measures.


    Yes, conservatives are desperate (none / 0) (#139)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 09:51:30 AM EST
    So you consider yourself too far right to be called a Republican?  Not at all surprised. :)

    You are simply incoherent on the economy.  None of your thinking will spur the economy in the short term (which is what you are complaining about, try to focus)

    Simple supply and demand of labor and it's affect on wages are not related to long term investment on education, nor are they related to the long term effect of drilling nor are they related to short term energy speculation.

    oil shale development-long term and expensive will have no effect on the short term economy.
    Off shore drilling - expensive to clean up now isn't it?  Price effect in the short term?  Nuclear is (focus on the facts here) 3xs the cost of current energy.  You believe you can lower the overall cost of energy by increasing it by a factor of 3. Really?  jeez

    [We also have a Democratic Party that is in hock to the environmental wackos that are pushing an energy policy that is killing the economy and a Speaker of the House who owns shares in a company that her blocking drilling increases the value.]  You are so off on some things I just don't know how you can live in your head. ha!

    Poor thing, it isn't just the environmentalists anymore... the world's scientists have left you behind, the world's economists have left you behing, the world's militaries have left you behind.   Little factoid for you..... the cost of cleaning up environmental damage is more than BAU.  Some politicians are going to save our corporations a few bucks by changing energy use.  It's just a business investment, take tax payer dollars now to save communities and corporations trillions of dollars in the future.


    Hmmmmm (none / 0) (#144)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 12:40:23 PM EST
    Europe is calling for less spending...

    Or did you miss that?

    You claim that we need long term solutions yet tell me that drilling and shale are long term.

    I guess there is PC long term and non-PC long term.

    The congresscritters will save the corporations nothing. The increase it costs will be passed to the consumer. The decrease it business will throw millions more out of work and put corporations out of business. But you call that savings?

    The environmental movement, like MADD and other "do good" movements, have went from doing good to doing harm.

    Your claims ring hollow and leave a bitter taste.


    free markets baby (none / 0) (#140)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:05:08 AM EST
    and there you go hatin' on the free market again.  The Saudi's are as entitled to manipulate the price of their natural resources as any nation.... That's the free market.

    but no, there's your, you want the govt to steal hundreds if not thousands of my dollars to finance a 'military' force to steal the Saudi's oil so poor little you can get a few pennies off at the pump.  You sound like a self-entitled little brat.  waaaaah, my gas isn't cheap enough go blow the mean brown people into a fine red mist!

    and a trade war!!!! yippee!!!! Let's see how they like $80.00 wheat and $70.00 corn.  Starve em' out, that's the ticket.  

    Why not annihilate Canada?.....save me some money transporting troops and equipment.

    Oy, you are such a cliche of a Republican.


    No. (none / 0) (#143)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 12:33:08 PM EST
    I see that you don't understand the free market. OPEC by its very nature is a monopoly. As Teddy R taught us, the function of government is to destroy monopolies.

    I find it amusing, but instructive, to see you defending a monopoly.

    Why attack Canada? Because they are followers, not leaders and can feed themselves. SA is a leader and cannot feed themselves.


    But really, you omit that the recession (none / 0) (#141)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 11:33:27 AM EST
    started only months later in 2007, a tad too soon to put it all on the Dems in power for only a matter of months then.  Angry as I am at them, too, revisionist history to the extent of revising the reality of the calendar is not useful, really.

    So the economic mess must trace back to actions by Congress and the White House before then, dontcha think?


    The Dow was around 12500 (none / 0) (#142)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 12:27:08 PM EST
    in 2/07 by 7/08 it had dropped to around 11000 and was in a free fall dropping to around 7000 by 2/09, about 50% down from its high of near 14000.

    But just looking at 2/07 to 2/08 that's 17 months in which the Democrats did nothing to provide new energy sources and nothing to help Bush regulate the financial markets.

    Shorter. If you can blame 9/11 on Bush, then the oncoming depression is a Democrat bred and Obama midwifed affair.


    Oh, I agree that lack of leadership since (none / 0) (#145)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 12:41:46 PM EST
    has multiplied the economic problems immensely.

    And I do understand and at times even applaud your attempts to overbalance for the pro-Dem/anti-GOP-in-all-things tendency here.  But overbalancing it is, on both sides, if ignoring the timing of the start of the recession -- important as it is for trying to understand it and figure a way out of it as well as a way to push our leadership to prevent this particular screwup of the economy again.

    Of course, then Wall Street and others will just find another way. . . .


    heh (none / 0) (#146)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 04:08:33 PM EST
    I keep on telling everyone that I am a social liberal. You can check my positions on social liberal items and you will have to agree.

    If I wasn't an Independent I would be a poor Repub and a worse Demo.

    That also means that there hasn't been any Democrats worth voting for in the past 10 years. That also means that the vast majority of people who now call themselves liberal are, in fact, "progressives." Progressives, in my view, can be identified by a burning desire to enact what can only be described as socialist agendas. They are as far Left of center as the John Birch Society was to the Right of center.

    Obama is a Progressive trying to act like he is a Liberal. He is not. The somewhat mixed messages he has sent is the result of him trying to please his base while not completely losing the country.

    Like most things done by committee the results have been terrible. Thankfully so in some cases, horribly so in others.


    loL (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 04:31:36 PM EST
    Social liberals do not perpetuate bigotry and racism, nor do they advocate killing torture and shooting looters.

    Sorry but your social liberal rhetoric is nothing but a fraud, wolf in sheep's clothing who uses an extremely bad tailor.


    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 05, 2010 at 09:29:28 AM EST
    Social liberals do not perpetuate bigotry...

    Not TRUE social liberals, but many who call themselves liberals do - see many comments around here and other liberal blogs about how people feel towards those who are religious, or those who are not quite as "liberal" in their thoughts.  Many who call themselves "liberal" are just as intolerant as those on the right that they despise.


    Good One lol (none / 0) (#155)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 05, 2010 at 10:10:38 AM EST
    Redefining bigotry now? Seems that you would have it that those who call out hypocrisy are bigots, or those who call out people who use religion as a cover to barbarity, and now one loses their liberal creds when they have trouble with another so called liberal's penchant for spouting right wing views.

    Nice twist.


    Bigotry (none / 0) (#158)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 05, 2010 at 01:13:55 PM EST
    isn't limited to the right wing.

    Duh? (none / 0) (#159)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 05, 2010 at 01:51:14 PM EST
    Far different comment than the one you just made implying that my criticism of hollow claims ppj makes calling himself a social liberal is a sort of bigotry.

    Or the absurd view that those here, including myself, who have voiced criticisms and no patience with christians spouting off love thy neighbor while sticking a knife in a furriner's back, is just another form of bigotry, called "liberal bigotry".


    Shrug (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 06:56:14 AM EST
    Many here lump all people who believe in some organized religion with the radical evangelicals.

    And since you are talking about yourself, well, you are not very tolerant of those who hold views different from you. It has become evident from many of your comments that you would prefer to "cleanse" this site so it becomes an echo chamber - all chanting the same party lines and all in agreement with your world view.

    Not very liberal, IMO.


    Utter BS (none / 0) (#162)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 11:17:06 AM EST
    Many here lump all people who believe in some organized religion with the radical evangelicals.

    Please name one commenter who comments regularly and does what you say.

    Well I sure do have little tolerance for bigotry, racism, sexism, and will argue till I am blue in the face with pro prosecution prison nation supporters like you...

    That does not make me bigoted. And as far as toleration, I certainly have tolerated your relentless nonsense. In fact your right wing positions on crime have even tested the queen of tolerance, namely Jeralyn. That is saying a lot.  


    Jeralyn not tolerant (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 11:41:58 AM EST
    on crime issues.  Good grief.  This is a defense site.  She repeatedly requests people review the site rules and understand she is a defense attorney and this is a defense site.  She is very clear she is adamantly pro-defense and specifically will not tolerate pro-guilty posturing.

    A person must be neutral or pro-accused to tread in Jeralyn's posts or your comments will be deleted and she will ban the person.


    I Heartily Disagree (none / 0) (#164)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 11:50:46 AM EST
    If Jeralyn were not tolerant, jbindc et al. would have been banned long ago. She welcomes other points of views...  

    The problem is that the same person (none / 0) (#157)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 05, 2010 at 01:13:28 PM EST
    who seize your property to protect a red headed purple geewat bird will declare themselves a liberal.

    Must I remind you of a "Squeakyism?" (none / 0) (#150)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 08:15:14 PM EST
    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    I think this defines your methods and claims quite well.


    lol (none / 0) (#152)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:34:01 PM EST
    you won't find a lot of Rove lovers here... Please feel free to embarrass yourself, or tout your love of wingnuts as much as you want.

    Nice try (none / 0) (#156)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 05, 2010 at 01:10:07 PM EST
    But the subject wasn't about Rove.

    It was about you.


    Puhleeze, Obama is not a Progressive (none / 0) (#148)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 05:27:40 PM EST
    I think what you mean is that Obama called himself a Progressive . . when it was convenient.  Or a Dem when it's convenient.  Or . . . pols will be pols, etc.

    Well (none / 0) (#149)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 05:50:15 PM EST
    Pols are pols for sure, and Obama as any good politician, panders to a wide swath of the voters. But he has pandered to the progressives, albeit not enough, and we know it will never be enough.

    He has appointed many progressives. That is not nothing.


    Whatever he is isn't working very well (none / 0) (#151)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 09:59:11 PM EST
    with the voters.

    Perhaps doubling the national debt in 18 months has gotten some attention.


    Hilarious (none / 0) (#153)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:36:04 PM EST
    Polls, when Bush approval rate was 26% meant nothing as you relentlessly said, but with Obama at 46% all of a sudden voters are unhappy.... lol

    Obama last week: (none / 0) (#161)
    by BTAL on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 08:07:32 AM EST