home

New Jobless Claims: 429K

Reuters:

New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits rose more than expected last week, a government report showed on Thursday, suggesting little improvement in the labour market this month after employment stumbled in May.

Maybe somebody should do something.

< Misinformed | No New Taxes! >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Does shrugging their shoulders count? (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 08:33:59 AM EST
    Isn't cutting trillions in spending going to make jobs appear like magic?

    Ooh, wait - what about the payroll tax cut extension AND cut in the employer's payroll tax?  No?  

    Huh.

    Back to shrugging their shoulders when confronted, or working on those spending cuts, I guess.  Oh, and sprinkling fairy dust (this is known as "fine-tuning the message") at every opportunity in hopes that people will believe it.

    Too depressing for words, really...

    Silly rabbit (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 09:33:02 AM EST
    the tax cuts, the tax cuts were going to do that trick.  Wondering why this is not being pointed out by the powers that be?

    Parent
    NAwwww. (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by scribe on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 08:36:34 AM EST
    Too much like responding to the electorate.

    To be really clear the deciding issue in the coming election, or to be more precise the socio-political issue which will be decided by the election, is this:

    Should a president and elected officials who tolerate an official unemployment rate of 9% (and an actual unemployment and underemployment rate closer to 20%) and do nothing (effective) to reduce unemployment be re-elected?

    In other words, do you feel high unemployment in a time of record corporate profits and record accretion of wealth (in absolute and relative terms) to the rich at the expense of the poor, is acceptable?

    If the populace says "yes" and re-elects Obama, then reducing unemployment will never be an issue again, and the "f*ck the little guy" mentality of the rich will be the policy of the United States government, just as the 2004 election resolved the question of indefinite detention and torture in favor of indefinite detention and torture.

    The banksters are putting their money on "yes".

    Honestly, I think over two years of (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 09:11:57 AM EST
    doing nothing substantive to address the unemployment problem is all the proof anyone should need that high unemployment is the new normal; I think all we can expect going forward are a few bones being thrown at the electorate in the hope it will be enough to secure their votes.

    Congressional Democrats are now making noises about putting stimulus spending into the debt ceiling bill - as if that stands a snowball's chance of going anywhere - because they're beginning to understand that their own jobs may fall victim to the relentlessly bad economic pain being felt on Main Street.  

    The only employment our elected representatives - including the president - seem to have any interest in is their own.  And for the life of me, I don't know why anyone should lift a finger - well, other than the obvious one - to help a collection of people who, for over two years now, haven't lifted a finger to do much of anything for them.  

    The Republican alternative isn't any better; they have their fingers wrapped around the government's throat, and more of them in office probably only means they have a better chance of proceeding with the drowning that Democrats - too many of them - are already helping with.

    2012 may prove to be the lowest turnout for an election in years, as people realize it just doesn't matter who we vote for because no one's really working for us anymore.


    Parent

    Low turnout (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 04:45:58 PM EST
    is our fate and for exactly the reason you cite.

    Democracy just dwindles away.

    Parent

    Aggregate demand (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 08:42:18 AM EST
    Cutting the payroll tax for employers has negligible effect on aggregate demand.

    Companies hire people when there is demand for their goods, not as a tax scheme.

    Increase demand? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 10:35:53 AM EST
    And that is done how by this policy?

    Parent
    More domestic jobs are created (none / 0) (#29)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 10:45:52 AM EST

    by increasing the demand for domestic labor.

    Duh.

    Parent

    How does this do that? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:02:03 AM EST
    Huh? (none / 0) (#58)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:36:08 AM EST

    Increased employment is the direct result of increased demand for labor unless the supply of labor is constricted.  Conversely, a drop in the demand for labor means less labor employed.  

    In the current economy the supply of labor for practical purposes is unlimited.  Therefore an increase in demand for labor will result increased employment.

    Parent

    Demand for labor (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 05:02:21 PM EST
    only occurs when demand for goods and/or services cannot be met with existing workforce.

    Cutting payroll tax on employers cannot accomplish increased demand.

    Raise aggregate demand by direct government spending into the economy.

    Unfortunately that's not the plan.

    Parent

    Increaded denabd for labor (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:47:15 AM EST
    results from increased demand for a firm's goods or services.

    This does nothing for that.

    Parent

    Sometimes it does and sometimes not (none / 0) (#71)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 12:40:20 PM EST

    Even with flat demand a lower labor cost will allow the employment of additional sales, marketing and R&D types to drum up more demand.  

    Even if demand for product picks up, that may or may not increase hiring.  Stretching out deliveries when the economy is uncertain is a much more likely response.

    Parent

    Many of those who are hiring are (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 01:05:07 PM EST
    already able to do it at a reduced cost, because the glut of qualified applicants means that employers don't have to pay top dollar - people are more than willing to take less money just to have the job.

    Employers are also bringing people in on a part-time basis - even better for the employer because they don't have the benefits costs of full-time employees.

    A lot of employers are doing just fine with their reduced staffs - fewer people doing the work more people used to do - those who still have jobs are fearful enough of being in the unemployment line that they are doing more even if the raises have not kept up with the workload.

    You have to create a demand for the products or services before much of a dent will be made in the unemployment rate - there's simply no reason to hire more people otherwise.  And with more cutting on the public side, more jobs will continue to be shed, and that will also ripple out into the private sector.

    I like to think of it as the "Circling the Drain" School of Economic Policy, because that's pretty much what we're doing; apparently, these people prefer to just watch it happen than do the things we know will work to stop it.

    Parent

    I think what's notable (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by smott on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 01:41:48 PM EST
    Is that in any prior election cycle, 9% unemployment would nearly guarantee the ouster of the office holder.

    But the last few years of slowwly simmering us frogs in the pot, has "normalized" this level of unemployment, and the shrugs are happening not just in the Oval Office but in the electorate too. "Yeah, 10% out of work. Whattya gonna do?"

    I think 2012 may be historic in that a president with Depression-level unemployment, and NO attention to proper stimulus/jobs guarantee/jobs creation,  actually gets re-elected.....

    Parent

    So fire everyone (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:01:45 AM EST
    so you can get this new tax break?

    No, this does not work.

    Parent

    They could (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:25:12 AM EST
    or they could hire new people.

    Parent
    Government spending (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:31:16 AM EST
    Infrastructure (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:47:59 AM EST
    Summer jobs.

    Aid to states.

    WPA.

    Parent

    I'd use my time machine (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 12:21:35 PM EST
    push it all through reconciliation in 2009.

    Parent
    You were? (none / 0) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 02:54:23 PM EST
    I remind you of my phrase "the cake is baked."

    Parent
    A 2% payroll tax cut (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:00:24 AM EST
    is going to prevent companies from transferring jobs overseas?  Don't think so.

    Parent
    You betcha (none / 0) (#15)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 09:51:43 AM EST
    .

    Lowering the cost of labor at home (via a payroll tax reduction) will ensure that more of the new jobs are created at home rather than abroad.

    .

    Parent

    And how effective will it be at that (none / 0) (#21)
    by observed on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 10:13:41 AM EST
    job creation?

    Parent
    I Got It (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 09:22:11 AM EST
    Announce troop withdraws...

    Yes, but make sure ... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 09:38:01 AM EST
    it's far enough in the future so most won't notice when you change your mind.

    Parent
    Subterfuge. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 09:54:20 AM EST
    It also seemed to me that even if Obama were to "withdraw" the 30,000 troops that he stupidly put there upon taking office, the troops that Bush put there would still be in place. So we will have gone from worse to nowhere.

    I also did not notice if the "withdrawal" of troops indicated that they would be coming home, or merely shifted into another hell-hole du jour.

    Parent

    And we're starting new wars ... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 10:00:39 AM EST
    it seems almost daily.  So I'm sure there will be a place for them ... in harm's way.

    Parent
    not quite (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by CST on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 10:26:34 AM EST
    there will be fewer total troops overseas.

    Remember Iraq?

    Parent

    Yes... (none / 0) (#40)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:08:57 AM EST
    I remember Iraq.

    There are 45,000 U.S. troops there.

    None of the "withdrawn" troops came home.
    Most were shifted to Afghanistan.

    Correct me if I'm wrong.

    Parent

    right (none / 0) (#60)
    by CST on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:39:56 AM EST
    they went from Iraq to Afghanistan, and now they will be coming home.  My point was that the "surge" in Afghanistan was not new troops deployed overseas, it was troops shifted more or less from Iraq to Afghanistan.  So when they come home from Afghanistan there will be fewer total troops overseas than before the "surge" in Afghanistan, even if there will be the same number of troops in Afghanistan.

    Parent
    I am (none / 0) (#79)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 02:16:41 PM EST
    asking - what makes you confident that they will be coming home and not redeployed in some other unsavory venture?

    Parent
    politics (none / 0) (#80)
    by CST on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 02:22:40 PM EST
    Politics? (none / 0) (#88)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 04:28:49 PM EST

    The politics part is inferring that they will be coming home, not the actual return to the United States.

    All Obama has said is supposed to happen at the end of 2012 - after the election.

    Who is going to take him at his word?
    Are you?
    I'm not.

    Parent

    september 2012 (none / 0) (#89)
    by CST on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 04:39:43 PM EST
    is the date actually.  I think that timing is not an accident.

    Link

    "In a nationally televised address from the East Room of the White House, Obama said 10,000 of the "surge" forces would withdraw by the end of this year, and the other 23,000 would leave Afghanistan by September 2012."

    Parent

    Will make great Fall campaign footage . . . . (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 05:13:21 PM EST
    be nice if those coming home could look forward to a job . . .

    Parent
    BS (none / 0) (#94)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 05:28:36 PM EST
    "Withdrawing" and "leaving" is not the same as "will be coming home".

    And by the way, even with that paltry announcement, all he is saying is that we will be back to square one: where we were when Bush left and Obama came in.

    Parent

    whatever (none / 0) (#95)
    by CST on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 05:33:12 PM EST
    you seem determined to not believe him.  I'm obviously not going to convince you otherwise.

    It does not leave us back at square one, there will be fewer troops in Iraq, the same number in Afghanistan, thus fewer total troops abroad.

    He is planning this withdrawl for just before the general election.  I don't think he's stupid enough to send them into another war, considering the fact that this feels like a politically timed release.  YMMV.

    Parent

    Yes. (none / 0) (#96)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 05:40:16 PM EST
    I don't believe him.
    Why should I?
    It has nothing to do with being determined not to believe him.
    He has exhibited a pattern of behavior which leads me not to believe a word he says. I'm not determined. I don't care what he says. I want to see action.

    I want to see these people brought home.

    When they are home, I'll believe him.

    Until then, it's just words.

    Parent

    because of all things (none / 0) (#97)
    by CST on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 05:49:29 PM EST
    he has done exactly what he said he would do re. Afghanistan.

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#98)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 05:58:50 PM EST
    it has been a disaster.

    Parent
    Show (none / 0) (#99)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 06:02:16 PM EST
    me where during the campaign of 2008 he said that if he were to be elected, he would send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

    It is such a load to keep repeating that his escalation of the war is an example of his trustworthiness.

    God awful.

    Parent

    I just think (none / 0) (#103)
    by CST on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 10:45:18 AM EST
    you're being irrational.

    The date of this article is November 7, 2008.

    Bottom line, there is no good political reason to send them into another war, and a ton of political reason not to.  He went on national TV as president (which is very different from as a candidate) and promised he would do something extremely politically popular 2 months before his re-election.  If he backs out of that, his political career is toast.  I think he wants to be re-elected.  Therefore, I think those troops are coming home.  It's not about trustworthiness, it's about being rational as to the situation at hand.

    And frankly, if you didn't know he was planning to escalate the war in Afghanistan during his campaign in '08 than you weren't paying attention very hard.  I'm not telling you how to feel about all that, I'm just saying it is what it is.

    Parent

    I hear that... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 09:59:46 AM EST
    and if by some miracle we did end the occupations, the soldiers we threw in the fire might expect a job stateside after discharge...rude awakening coming a la John Rambo.

    "Back there I could fly a gunship, I could drive a tank, I was in charge of million dollar equipment, back here I can't even hold a job parking cars!"


    Parent
    Don't get me started (none / 0) (#102)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:49:50 PM EST
    kdog...

    Parent
    More $ for banksters and foreign wars (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Coral on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 10:09:36 AM EST
    That'll solve the problem. If you don't have a job, you can join the army.

    Huge cuts in Healthcare (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by samsguy18 on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 10:48:24 AM EST
    The last five to six years all of the large healthcare institutions in Chicago have been putting a lot of money into brick and motar... all the while making major staff cuts especially in the last two years.Yesterday I happened to sit in on a meeting where the MBA types were hypercritical of the lazy Doctors and nurses. The medical staff needed to pick it up ! I was appalled ! For the most part these MBA's  make five and six figure bonuses commensurating with the money they've saved their institution ( cuts in staff means a bonus for them) while working 8hr days. These individuals don't have a clue about patient care...they determine how much time a doctor or nurse should spend with a patient.  The Doctors and nurses before the cuts worked 12 to 16 hour days......these days If they still have a job they've endured pay cuts and forget raises. The jobs in healthcare they keep touting are low paying jobs outside medical centers and many are only partime. I am venting...I just heard there will be another round of cuts where I am working. I quess I'm getting frustrated...


    I chuckle (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:07:14 AM EST
    when they say unemployment rose "more than expected."

    I think instead of asking ivory tower idiots what the unemployment rate is going to be, they should ask those of us on the street.  

    WE know!

    I was laughing at that too (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:55:50 AM EST
    More than WHO expected? the same guys that have been wrong every other month?

    Parent
    Not to worry, not to worry (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by shoephone on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:23:33 AM EST
    I just read on a thread yesterday that unemployment numbers will be down into the 5% range by the time Obama finishes his second term.

    I'm just not convinvced that the current numbers indicate that he's going to get  -- or deserve -- a second term.

    I'm making a new account-- (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by observed on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:28:36 AM EST
    Anybody But Geithner.
    I'll use that account to respond to the kind of nonsense you are referring to.

    Parent
    I look forward to (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by sj on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:33:36 AM EST
    ABG vs ABG

    Parent
    Every time I think about those predictions, (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:32:34 AM EST
    the phrase "barking mad" keeps popping into my head...

    Parent
    Yes, well, I'm predicting (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Zorba on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 06:07:39 PM EST
    that there will be rainbow-colored flying ponies for everyone.  That has about as much chance of happening as 5% unemployment.  (That is, unless the current administration takes some muscular measures to actually create jobs.  But then, that possibility is also in the "ponies" category.)

    Parent
    A Million Employees (none / 0) (#10)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 09:35:02 AM EST
    This goes back to your other post, how is reducing payroll taxes going to get Americans hired at Foxconn ?  With a million people they have to be one of the worlds largest employers.

    They probably have a handful of employees in the marketing/sales area, but nothing substantial, certainly not enough to make any difference in regards to changing payroll tax rates.

    Seem like you are making the arguement that companies aren't hiring needed people because payroll are 'too damn high'.

    Pretty sure the reason Foxconn is doing so well is because of labor costs, not payroll taxes.

    Or at least... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 10:54:30 AM EST
    allow human beings the same rights as money and capital...free to move anywhere in the world where the getting is good, little to no restrictions.

    Lets see how hot to trot offshore our grifters are when a third world laborer is free to move anywhere in the first world for a chance at an increased quality of life.

    Parent

    Did You Just Dodge the Question (none / 0) (#49)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:25:31 AM EST
    I tied your comment to the payroll assumption you made earlier.

    We are losing jobs to foreign counties because of labor costs, not payroll taxes.  But you claim lowering payroll taxes will increase employment.

    Now you are off one a tangent that is about as likely as world peace.  With your plan, prices on almost all consumer goods would sky rocket, how exactly is that going to help the economy ?

    Parent

    That's an Opinion Piece (none / 0) (#65)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:58:18 AM EST
    Funny thing is it specifically mentions that the White House is thinking about the idea.

    I don't buy this premise, "If you want to induce businesses to hire people whom, under current economic conditions, they wouldn't otherwise take on, you have to reduce their costs of doing so."  While somewhat true, payroll costs are a very small portion of employer costs.  Reducing an already small number isn't going to cause this huge employment turn around IMO.  

    Plus the last think the Fed needs is less dollars.  What do you want to cut to make up the difference ?  Debt ceiling and all is going to make any reduction a battle to end all battles.

    But you dodged the question again, guess Foxconn won't be hiring Americans even if the payroll tax is zero.

    Parent

    You don't seem to get it. (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 05:25:54 PM EST
    goods produced by American owned corporations overseas are shipped here without import duties.  There is no penalty to American corporations for shipping in foreign made goods.  They ship jobs overseas to save labor costs and avoid corporate taxes because large amount of their profits are earned overseas and are not subject to US taxes.

    A significant breach of the social compact and it's killing the nation but under current trade agreements and corporate tax laws nothing can be done and certainly cuts in payroll taxes are picayune compared to the massive profits garnered under the current system.  Cutting payroll taxes on employers will simply be squandering revenue with no domestic job increases.

    Change the trade laws and eliminate territorial taxation, but, that's not likely to happen;  Boehner wants to broaden the scope of territorial taxation.  If that happens offshoring will increase from a flood to a tsunami.

    Parent

    I Get What You Are Saying (none / 0) (#76)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 01:50:55 PM EST
    ... but it's impractical.  That discussion needed to happen about 20 years ago.  I totally agree with you, but making that sort of drastic change now would pretty much guarantee a recession on a depression like scale.

    Solution, it's easy as you get, raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy and guarantee anyone who wants a job they will have one.  The rich man's tax will ensure all Americans that want a job, have one.  This business of giving the rich massive tax breaks in hopes they will reciprocate is a proven failure, let's try trickle up economics this time around.

    They don't like, well they can give their fortunes to someone who does.  I for one am sick of zillion dollar profits/bonuses while the country needlessly suffers.  We, the middle class and the poor, tend to spend what we make, that money will go round and round, generating much needed tax revenues and cycling around in the economy. Giving people who have everything, tax breaks just means they have a larger savings at the end of the year, that is dead money.

    I know, as likely as you idea, but it's an easy fix, that could have been implemented (the tax portion) by doing absolutely nothing.  And in a couple years it could be implemented again, by doing nothing.

    Parent

    And you don't think UE is going to (none / 0) (#85)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 03:27:17 PM EST
    be an issue in 2012 in regards to tax cuts expiring? Seems like we will be in the same boat or worse. We have a higher long term unemployed rate than during TGD. And if we dbl dip . . . . plus, do you really think the right was going to not extend UE, and tank any 2012 chances?

    Parent
    And you don't think UE is going to (none / 0) (#86)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 03:27:31 PM EST
    be an issue in 2012 in regards to tax cuts expiring? Seems like we will be in the same boat or worse. We have a higher long term unemployed rate than during TGD. And if we dbl dip . . . . plus, do you really think the right was going to not extend UE, and tank any 2012 chances?

    Parent
    Maybe somebody should do something. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 09:48:22 AM EST

    Lets see, Obama has done a few things.

    1. He increased federal spending to a post war high.
    2. He signed into law massive increases in regulation. Dodd-Frank is a prime example.  Obamacare is another.
    3. He has increased taxes on tires, medical devices, investment income, and tobacco among others.
    4. He has threatened even more tax increases to fund his crony capitalist buddies.  
    5. He has indicated that moderately successful middle class people (say a cop married to a nurse) should be taxed at the same rate as millionaires and billionaires.

    Now that the results are in, the obvious solution is more of the same!

    There's a little concept called ... (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 10:41:26 AM EST
    ... "causation", which would be an issue with your claims.

    He has indicated that moderately successful middle class people (say a cop married to a nurse) should be taxed at the same rate as millionaires and billionaires.

    Beyond ridiculous.  What he proposed doing re: taxes is: 1) increase the capital gains rate from 15% to 20% for those couples earning $250,000 or more, and 2) eliminate the Bush tax cuts for those earning $250,000 or more.

    First of all, neither of these things have actually passed, so including them in a winger list of the causes of unemployment is just silly.  Moreover, those tax increases would only apply to couples in the top 2% of income earners, hardly "moderately successful middle class people".  Finally, the average cop earns $49,827.  The average RN earns $65,000.  Maybe if you limit your pool to cops and nurses in major metroplitan areas with 20-30 years experience and who have been promoted to management positions (i.e. senior officers/heads of nursing departments), you might have a tiny bit of validity to your point, but to lump this hypothetical (rare) couple in with "moderately successful middle class" is more than deceptive.  Moreover, they would hardly be taxed the "same as millionaires/billionaires", since only the very small portion of their income which exceeded $250,000 would be taxed "at the same rate", not the vast majority of their income, as would be the case with millionaires/billionaires.


    Parent

    Averages (none / 0) (#69)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 12:29:01 PM EST

     Finally, the average cop earns $49,827.  The average RN earns $65,000.  

    Averages that include first year newbies is certainly not reflective of what the more successful practitioners make.

    The median income of a Nurse Anesthetist is $155K.  While half of those nurses earned less than that, half made more.  I know one personally.  I don't know her income, but she routinely works 60+ hours a week.  Hardly what you would call the idle rich.

    Law enforcement officers also have a wide range of incomes.  I personally know UAW members that have made over $100K.  So when Obama or his apologists talk about taxing millionaires and  billionaires but intend to apply those rates to what are indeed moderately successful middle class couples it gives the game away.

    BTW, this link has a list of over 5000 California teacher and administrator retirees whose pensions are greater than $100k.  Describing those folks as "moderately successful" seems very appropriate.  Taxing them at the same rate as Bill Gates just does not seem right.

    Parent

    nurse v nurse anesthetist. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 01:43:38 PM EST
    not the same for comparative purposes.

    Parent
    There are all flavors of nursing (none / 0) (#82)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 02:57:28 PM EST

    a nurse anesthetist is the most financially successful.  However, unlike Billy Gates and Warren Buffet they still have to go to work every day to get paid.  

    Parent
    yup (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by CST on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 03:05:40 PM EST
    but they are going to work, and getting paid, not unsubstantial amounts of money.  Which is a lot more than 15% of the population can say.

    They can afford to give a little more, so that their neighbor can stay in their home and housing prices stop dropping.  Or so the bridge they drive over every day gets fixed.  A lot of their neighbors can't afford it, and they can.  They'll survive just fine.

    Parent

    None of which change the fact ... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 08:07:31 PM EST
    ... that someone earning $200,000+ (in the top 1-2% of salary earners) is not "moderately successful middle class".  It also doesn't change the fact that: 1) as wager earners, they're currently paying higher tax rates than Bill Gates or other millionaire/billionaires, who earn much of their income by capital gains/dividends, or 2) the Bush tax cuts for the upper class were extended, so blaming Obama's proposal to rescind them makes no sense, and 3) no one suggested that a nurse anesthetist (no matter how much they make) doesn't have to go to work to get paid.

    BTW - There all "all flavors" of any profession.  The median salary for an actor/performer in the US is @ $50,000.  The median salary for an A-list movie star is over $20,000.000.  Guess which one could accurately be called "moderately successful middle class".

    Parent

    Not even a good try (none / 0) (#73)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 01:28:19 PM EST
    1)  A "nurse anesthitist" is not merely a "nurse".  An NA must first become an RN, then complete 1-2 years in an acute care setting.  Then, the nurse must complete either a masters or doctoral level program in anesthesiology (2-3 years of advanced schooling), after which they are usually board certified.  But, hey ...

    ... they both have the word "nurse" in their job description, right?

    1.  How exactly did Obama's promise to roll back the Bush tax cuts (which never actually happened) result in higher unemployment, as you claim?

    2.  How does being in the top 1-2% of wage earners in the US make you a "moderately successful middle class"?  Funny, when I was in school, if you were in the top 2% you weren't part of the "middle", you were considered to be a top student.  Pretty much the same for any other aspect of life.

    3.  Causation?  You haven't shown a single study to support your theories that this list of (mainly imaginary) "actions" by Obama caused unemployment.

    Guess there's a reason for that.

    4)  

    Averages that include first year newbies is certainly not reflective of what the more successful practitioners make.

    Uh, .... yeah ..... that's why they call it an "average".  But I do appreciate your sudden approval of median incomes of Nurse Anesthetists in the very next sentence.

    Heh.

    I know one personally.  I don't know her income, but she routinely works 60+ hours a week.  Hardly what you would call the idle rich.

    Then maybe you shouldn't call her that.  Personally, being at the pinnacle of a very competetive profession that requires education and training almost on par with an M.D. and provides an income in the top 1-2% of all US citizens, I wouldn't refer to her as "moderately successful" or "middle class".

    Law enforcement officers also have a wide range of incomes.

    Really?!?  So that means there like almost any other occupation in the US?

    wow.

    I personally know UAW members that have made over $100K.  So when Obama or his apologists talk about taxing millionaires and  billionaires but intend to apply those rates to what are indeed moderately successful middle class couples it gives the game away.

    Good for you.  Of course, Obama's (never enacted) pledge to allow the Bush tax cuts for those making over $200,000 (individual) wouldn't really apply to them.  Even if your UAW acquaintances were in the tiny group of UAW members whose household income exceeded $250,000, only a iny portion of their income would be taxed at the top rate.  Unless, of course, you also know UAW members making millions/billions, like Bill Gates.

    Heh.

    BTW, this link has a list of over 5000 California teacher and administrator retirees whose pensions are greater than $100k.  Describing those folks as "moderately successful" seems very appropriate.  Taxing them at the same rate as Bill Gates just does not seem right.

    Maybe.  Guess it's a good thing Obama's (never enacted) wouldn't affect the vast majority of them earning less than $200,000 ($250,000 household).  Of course, even if it did affect the tiny portion of their income over those limits, it's hardly comparable to Bill Gate's income.

    But your sudden concern for the "moderately successful middle class" UAW members and educator retirees (and repeated citing of the "Californians for Pension Reform" website) is duly noted.

    Heh.

    BTW - Since you're so concerned for the "moderately successful middle class", I wonder whether you agree with Obama's proposal to raise the capital gains and dividend taxes from 15% to 20%?  I mean, after all, many of those same millionaires and billionaires receive the bulk of their income through capital gains and dividends, and you seem to think it's unfair to treat tax them "at the same rate" as the "moderately successful middle class".  Surely you must be outraged when all those wage-earning nurse anesthetists, cops and UAW members are taxed at a higher rate than Bill Gates, right?

    Parent

    Well, maybe you can explain why the (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 10:56:09 AM EST
    Treasury has yet to set up the Small Business Lending Fund that, when the legislation passed that created it, was heralded as having the potential to create 500,000 new jobs...

    David Dayen:

    This was one of the few successful bills passed that had anything to do with jobs last year. In theory, it was supposed to use $30 billion to lever up to $300 billion in small business lending through community banks. When it was signed last September, the theory was it could help create 500,000 jobs.

    There has not been a lack of effort: 844 businesses have applied for $11.6 billion from the Small Business Lending Fund, according to Politico. It's just taken nine months to "vet the financial soundness of each bank," according to Treasury. An official said he expects the money to start going out this month, which is what you would say when cornered like this.

    There's some industry grousing about capital requirements here, but that's bunk. You're talking about $30 billion untethered to those requirements.

    [snip]

    UPDATE: Sen. Jeff Merkley was one of the leaders who got the small business lending bill passed last year. I asked his office about this story today. "Senator Merkley has been extremely frustrated with the slow pace of Treasury in setting up the Small Business Lending Fund - and urged Treasury last month to pick up the pace," they said. You can read Merkley's letter to Treasury here. Simply put, Merkley's office believes this fund should be the highest priority at Treasury, especially with unemployment so high, and he doesn't see that kind of commitment yet.

    This is just rank incompetence, combined with a stunning level of indifference, don't you think?


    Parent

    Perfect. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:12:09 AM EST
    "...rank incompetence, combined with a stunning level of indifference..."

    A perfect summation of the Obama years.

    Parent

    They're not incompetent .... (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:18:00 AM EST
    when it comes to funneling money to their banking cronies and protecting them from prosecution.

    When it comes to these thing their competency is impressive.

    Parent

    True (none / 0) (#78)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 02:14:50 PM EST
    enough.

    But the indifference to human suffering is also impressive.

    Parent

    Yes, their indifference ... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 03:58:01 PM EST
    is highly competent as well.

    ;)

    Parent

    AAA You Tend to Exagerate... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:34:28 AM EST
    ... occasionally, but mostly you make right wing hack job claims.

    Nice slide with the regulation, and tying it to Health Care.  Only something the truly dimented are capable of.  

    Since Health Care hasn't kicked in and the mess we are in is almost entirely due to the lack of regulation, your claim is beyond ridiculous.

    Some might even call it a bold face lie.

    Not that Obama hasn't crewed the pooch on this one, but quit tying to unrelated right wing talking points, it's getting old.

    You forgot to blame Teachers and Unions, maybe next time.

    Parent

    well, "more of the same" is a (none / 0) (#14)
    by observed on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 09:51:22 AM EST
    GOP mantra, when it comes to failed GOP policies.


    Parent
    Apple (none / 0) (#13)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 09:49:01 AM EST
    Foxconn also manufactures for many other high tech companies, not just Apple.  

    it was on msnbc open view last night and on youtube and various forums . . .  a woman in her own front yard was arrested by police for failing to obey his/their instruction that she go inside; she was filming a traffic stop.

    to me it seems to have been wrong, but I don't know enough legally to prove it . . . the questions are

    when is one required to follow a policeperson's extralegal order or not
    and

    is an order given to a woman to go inside a wrongful order, esp in light of the fact that there were many other observers not told to go inside?

    Equipment Credits (none / 0) (#26)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 10:39:51 AM EST
    Did they not give some credits for buying machinery?  What did the machines do?  Cut jobs.  Yes.  

    What amazed me yesterday was Bernanke sounding surprised that the "miracle" turn around did not happen.  

    Why do they keep thinking the housing market will turn around?  

    They don't think ... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:11:33 AM EST
    the housing market will turn around.  But they will pretend it will till everyone accepts current conditions as the "new normal".

    Parent
    The housing market is turning around - in flyover (none / 0) (#43)
    by Farmboy on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:12:39 AM EST
    land. Here in Iowa, housing construction is back to looking like it did five years ago. Farm land near cities and towns is being cleared for sprawl, and tract homes, apartments, and strip malls are popping up like mushrooms after the rain. (and they're all made out of ticky tacky, and they all look just the same...)

    Admittedly, our housing bubble wasn't much of a bubble so there wasn't as much of a crash - more of a slowdown. Our foreclosure rate is being driven by defaults on mcmansions near Des Moines, not on medium income housing, but it is still less than 3% statewide (it's normally around 2%). And our unemployment rate is only 6%, far below the national rate, so folks are getting loans.

    My relatives and friends in Minnesota and Wisconsin tell me that outside of the major cities things are much the same as here. Of course, if everyone lived in the Shire it wouldn't be the Shire anymore, but still...

    Parent

    Obama (none / 0) (#31)
    by CST on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 10:49:28 AM EST
    has been in foreign policy mode for a few months now.  That's great and all, but we need you to walk and chew gum at the same time.

    Then again, I'm a little worried about what "chewing gum" would amount to at this stage.  More cutbacks?

    That being said, the MA bubble is doing pretty well.  Unemployment dropped to 7.6% last month and keeps dropping every month.  Must be all that conservative government at work...  In fact, if you are a teacher or an engineer or in healthcare or even just a receptionist - I know people who are hiring here.  So if you don't mind the cold, it's really not a bad place to be right now.  There will probably be some state budget cuts on the horizon, but a lot of towns are in the habit of voting to raise their own taxes to keep schools or other services intact.  Plus the feds did just find all that cash in Whitey's apartment...

    So we (none / 0) (#37)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:05:07 AM EST
    all move to Massachusetts! ;-).  There's a solution!  Think we'll all fit?  Talk about bubble!

    Maybe the unemployment rate is low because people are moving out of Mass.  Could that be?  Maybe people who couldn't afford Romneycare got the whelk out of there.

    Parent

    I somehow doubt this... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by lilburro on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:07:33 AM EST
    Maybe people who couldn't afford Romneycare got the whelk out of there.


    Parent
    yea... (none / 0) (#61)
    by CST on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:47:01 AM EST
    we've had Romneycare in place for a while now.  If people really hate it, they would have left years ago.

    Parent
    we're growing in population (none / 0) (#59)
    by CST on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:36:26 AM EST
    just not as fast as other places south and warm.  Actually there is a huge housing problem.  That would be a much more prohibative than Romneycare.  If you do live here, you will need roommates - the kind who can pay rent.  And it helps if you are willing to consider less conventional neighborhoods.  Health insurance for people who are really broke is free, and discounted for the less well off.  The mandate is only for people who make 300% of the FPL.

    The unemployment rate is dropping because there are jobs.  Businesses are moving here for the educated tax base, with good public services ("despite" a very high rate of union membership).  In other words, effective liberal government.  And these aren't McDonalds jobs either.

    That being said, 7.6% is still high - and people are still hurting, the next round of budget cuts -since the stimulus is gone - won't help.  I just bring it up as a counter to the national scene, where everyone is talking "slash slash slash" but there is no growth.  The people in this state actually held a vote on tax cuts and did not go that route - yet we are achieving growth.

    Parent

    We could fit the entire world population, (none / 0) (#77)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 01:52:05 PM EST
    shoulder-to-shoulder, in metropolitan Los Angeles.

    Parent