U3 Unemployment Rises To 9.1%; Only 54K New Jobs In May

Double dip:

U.S. hiring slowed dramatically in May and the unemployment rate kept rising, adding to concerns the jobs market will take years to heal as the economy remains weak. Nonfarm payrolls rose by 54,000 last month as the private sector posted the smallest jobs gain in nearly a year, the Labor Department said Friday in its survey of employers. Payrolls data for the previous two months were revised down by a total 39,000 to show increases of 232,000 jobs in April and 194,000 in March. The jobless rate, which is obtained from a separate household survey, unexpectedly rose to 9.1% in May from 9.0% in April. There are almost 13.9 million Americans who would like to work but can't get a job.

The last line is incorrect. There are 13.9 million Americans who are reported as still looking for jobs who can't get a job. There are many millions more who would like a job but are so discouraged, they have stopped looking. The percentage of the working age American population who is employed is at a record low. The economy is in shambles for Main Street. Wall Street of course is making record profits. Well done Tim Geithner!

Speaking for me only

< Vermont Becomes 8th State to Legalize Medical Marijuana Dispensaries | The Default Message >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Most people do not understand (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Buckeye on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 08:16:39 AM EST
    what you wrote explaining unemployment (difference between looking and not looking).  High unemployment has remained stagnant for several years now.  Krugman wrote about it today in the Times.

    Yes, there has been some job creation -- but at a pace barely keeping up with population growth. The percentage of American adults with jobs, which plunged between 2007 and 2009, has barely budged since then. And the latest numbers suggest that even this modest, inadequate job growth is sputtering out.

    What is also not understood by many is that the jobs that are being created that barely keep up with population growth are far less desirable than those they are replacing.

    We are only about halfway through our lost decade.

    The difference between the wages of (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 08:43:09 AM EST
    the jobs that are lost to those that are being created is staggering.

    According to NELP:

    • Lower-wage industries (those paying $9.03 -$12.91 per hour) accounted for just 23 percent of job losses, but fully 49 percent of recent growth.
    • Midwage industries ($12.92 -$19.04 per hour) accounted for 36 percent of job losses, and 37 percent of recent growth.
    • Higher-wage industries ($19.05 -$31.40 per hour) accounted for 40 percent of job loss, but only 14 percent of recent growth. NYT

    Once again, only 14% of the new jobs pay an hourly wage that will generate an annual income of $39,624 (based on 40 hr week) or higher.

    And the reality is that the competition (none / 0) (#9)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 08:54:08 AM EST
    for the low wage jobs is pretty intense.  If you are a person who is over 40 and has lost a job in the higher wage industries, you are not that likely to get those lower paying jobs.  You will be considered over qualified by many employers.

    Here are numbers from AP yesterday- (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by ek hornbeck on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 08:19:04 AM EST
    More job seekers give up, reducing unemployment
    By PAUL WISEMAN, AP Economics Writer
    19 mins ago

    The percentage of adults in the labor force is a figure that economists call the participation rate. It is 64.2 percent, the smallest since 1984. And that's become a mystery to economists. Normally after a recession, an improving economy lures job seekers back into the labor market. This time, many are staying on the sidelines.

    Their decision not to seek work means the drop in unemployment from 9.8 percent in November to 9 percent in April isn't as good as it looks.

    If the 529,000 missing workers had been out scavenging for a job without success, the unemployment rate would have been 9.3 percent in April, not the reported rate of 9 percent. And if the participation rate were as high as it was when the recession began, 66 percent, in December 2007, the unemployment rate could have been as high as 11.5 percent.

    I know (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 08:23:06 AM EST
    one of these people. She has been out of work for two years, no longer gets unemployment and sporadically looks for a job. One of her problems is that there is NOTHING to apply for. So maybe the people who have "quit looking" are people who are finding no jobs out there to even put in an application for.

    Plus, the few companies hiring would rather (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:21:37 AM EST
    hire the already employed. The unemployed are now viewed as damaged goods.

    Kind of like the housing market as we were discussing yesterday.


    True, the other point this misses (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Buckeye on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 08:24:46 AM EST
    is that not only did 529,000 people stop looking (lowering the numerator in the calculation) but the census added 1.2 million to the denominator in December from census.  That is why the U4 dropped from 9.8% to 9.0% November to December.  One could argue that if the census was correct, the U4 should have never been that high to begin with.  Fine.  But the drop from 9.8% to 9.0% was not due to job creation (which is what people feed their families on) but calculation changes.  It was always a myth that unemployment was getting better.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 08:21:15 AM EST
    done Obama NOT. Sooner or later you are going to have start holding Obama responsible for this mess. The voters can't vote for Geither but Obama's the one up for reelection.

    As long as the GOP doesn't nominate a nut, Obama is done. There's no way that the employment picture is going to get get appreciably better in the next 18 months.

    Good post. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Buckeye on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 08:26:23 AM EST
    Only the republicans can save Obama now.

    Paul Ryan is trying very hard, but I still think a Pawlenty, Romney, or Huntsman candidacy would beat him.


    Bad news (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 08:34:27 AM EST
    As recently as 7:30 this morning, experts were on predicting 100K jobs added (which still wouldn't have been good) - but half that??

    Not To Mention (none / 0) (#12)
    by The Maven on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:00:53 AM EST
    the significant downward revision of 39K for prior months, resulting in a net gain of only 15K above the total employment number that existed as of 8:29 a.m. today.

    And while we hear plenty from the Republicans -- and, to a somewhat lesser extent, their allies within Obama's administration -- about the need to avoid "job-killing" tax increases, how come almost no one in power seems to be willing to match that with a forceful opposition to job-killing spending cuts (which also are vastly more tightly correlated, in any event)?

    It's all so horribly depressing, as Krugman notes, that we're following in the footsteps of policies from over 70 years ago that we know -- or ought to know -- will result in long-term malaise, if not worse.


    Not sure how much lower you (none / 0) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:07:38 AM EST
    can go than this:

    ...Between 2008 and 2010, a dozen major US corporations--including General Electric, ExxonMobil, and Verizon--paid a negative tax rate, despite collectively recording $171 billion in pretax US profits, according to an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice. Taken together, these companies' tax burden was -$2.5 billion, and ten of the companies recorded at least one no-tax year between 2008 and 2010.

    Not a single one of the companies paid anything close to the 35 percent statutory tax rate. In fact, the "highest tax" company on our list, Exxon Mobil, paid an effective three-year tax rate of only 14.2 percent. That's 60 percent below the 35 percent rate that companies are supposed to pay. And over the past two years, Exxon Mobil's net tax on its $9.9 billion in U.S. pretax profits was a minuscule $39 million, an effective tax rate of only 0.4 percent.

    Had these 12 companies paid the full 35 percent corporate tax, their federal income taxes over the three years would have totaled $59.9 billion. Instead, they enjoyed so many tax subsidies that they paid $62.4 billion less than that.

    If just these 12 companies had paid at a 35 percent tax rate over the past three years, total federal revenues from corporate taxes would have been 12 percent higher than they actually were. link

    "Unexpectedly"the jobless rate rose (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by samsguy18 on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:14:08 AM EST
    Give me a break !  The ongoing deliberate manipulation of the numbers by the Obama administration and the media is shameful.

    The feigned shock is truly maddening (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:28:09 AM EST
    We are cutting government spending right and left, state by state and at the federal level. How can unemployment be expected to decrease? Government spending means jobs, plain and simple. Most of those jobs have no equivalent in the private sector. Even if the private sector was hiring, they are not hiring department of children and family services agents.

    Even more maddening on the part of the press, who are doing absolutely no independent reporting.


    And the only thing the Obama administration (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:19:51 AM EST
    has to offer is...cutting spending? Or wait - reforming the corporate tax code?

    Jesus, I give up.  Really, how much more clear can it be that the policies of this administration are not fixing the economy - and how much more obvious can it be that they are just flat-out ignoring the lessons of history and have closed their eyes to the failure these same kinds of policies have been in other countries that have instituted them?

    Why?  Why would presumably smart people keep doing this?  Look no further than corporate profits; they have made what the greater population is enduring more or less irrelevant.  The longer companies can continue to be productive without having to hire, and if they can maintain profits, the less incentive there is for politicians, who get oceans of cash from corporate donors, to do what should be done.

    The answers, sadly, are not going to be found, or changed, in any electoral process; it makes me feel like I live in a third world country, where "elections" are for show because everyone knows the fix is in.

    Not to worry (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 12:36:07 PM EST
    He is  the president and he has a secret "existing" plan.

    But Obama responded that he has to be more careful and more considered than that, and that he is executing an existing plan. link

    He also is proud of his negotiating skills. Maybe that will put to rest any arguments that the president was forced into the deals the president got in his negotiations with corporate America and the Republicans.


    Secret Existing Plan Revealed :-) (none / 0) (#77)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 04, 2011 at 09:11:17 AM EST
    President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) will finally hit the links for a round of golf - and al fresco negotiation - on June 18, a White House official told POLITICO.

    To quote digby:

    I can't think of a better way to show the American people that the government cares about jobs and the economy, can you? link

    I cannot be optomistic (none / 0) (#10)
    by Slado on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 08:59:46 AM EST
    As I've said before our massive debt load is dragging us down and we can no longer count on growth to pull us out.

    We can choose to bite the bullet and suffer through a few rough years or drag this thing out over decades.

    Right now we are dragging it out and I have zero confidence in our government whether it's run by Obama or a Republican to be named later that they will pull us out.

    Too many people are refusing to except that the last two years where a stimulation bubble and the hard facts of what got us into this mess remained unchanged.

    No monetary policy can change the fact that we have too much inventory in housing.   If there are 10 houses for sale and only 4 or 5 couple ready to buy them then the market will drop and there is no need to build more.   Same for commercial real estate, on and on and on.

    The hard core facts of supply and demand say that we cannot recover until we work off all the debt, save some money and start producing things that people need.

    There will be no 4 or 5 or 6 %  GDP growth to wash away the fact that for 2 plus decades we spent more then we could afford and now it's time to pay the piper.

    This is not the correct way to view this IMO (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Buckeye on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:25:34 AM EST
    The premise of Keynesian economics is that stimulus spending is done not to solve the problems in a weak economy, but support an economy dealing with insufficient demand while the root cause of the problems causing the demand shortfalls gets solved.  The reason why Obama's policies have failed regarding unemployment is two-fold (IMO of course):

    1)    The original stimulus was too small and poorly structured. About 37% was wasted on one time tax cuts.  Tax cuts can stimulate the economy if they are (1) permanent ( IOW, people can count on them in every paycheck), and (2) targeted towards those that spend most of what they make.  Obama's one-time tax cuts in the stimulus plan essentially stuffed checks in an envelope and mailed them out to people who knew it was a one-time payout and something they cannot count on going forward.  During scary times, people will not spend that money, just save it or pay down debt (IOW, give it to banks).  Since banks were already getting public money and were not lending, this spending did nothing to stimulate demand.  Another large piece of the stimulus was support for state budgets.  This kept states from laying people off, but did nothing to stimulate incremental demand.  The piece of the stimulus remaining that would lift up demand (things like infrastructure spending, jobs programs, training, etc.) was far too small to have much impact.

    2)    During the time the stimulus was doing whatever it did to support the economy, nothing was being done to fix the root cause of the problem - private debt, especially housing.  Obama stuck us with Geitner, who only focused on Wall Street, and either ignored main street or ripped us off with crappy programs like HAMP.

    We cannot pass judgment on the soundness of using government activism to help a floundering economy based on what has happened over the last 2.5 years because Obama's policies did not follow this economic strategy.


    Explain (none / 0) (#29)
    by me only on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:35:49 AM EST
    During scary times, people will not spend that money, just save it or pay down debt

    nothing was being done to fix the root cause of the problem - private debt, especially housing.

    How does 2 follow 1?


    You are not going to solve (none / 0) (#45)
    by Buckeye on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 10:42:54 AM EST
    a private debt problem with an $800 rebate check if that problem is housing.  People may use that money to pay off a car loan or a credit card.  But a house that is underwater by $20K to $30K or the homeowner has a monthly mortgage payment they can no longer afford, a one-time rebate check will not solve it.  

    My point on the tax cut not being stimulative is that the one-time rebate check is going into some kind of a savings account or going against a credit card, student loan, car loan, etc.   It is not going back into the economy.  

    We will not have a recovery until the housing crisis gets remediated.  It will eventually happen on its own, but will take a long time and will bring economic deprivation until it happens.  Keynesian economics would stipulate supporting demand with government investments while working to solve the housing crisis.  This could greatly speed up recovery.  Without government activism, the recovery will eventually happen, but will take years/decades longer and considerable suffering.


    Even Keynesian (none / 0) (#52)
    by me only on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 01:29:31 PM EST
    economics cannot fix the bubble.  It did not fix the stock market in the '30's.  It cannot fix the housing market today.

    Someone has to take the loss.  Housing was historically overpriced.  The only question is who takes the loss, the owner, the bank or the taxpayer.  Since the banks are not solvent, they cannot take the loss.  That leaves the owners or the taxpayers.


    The government could take on the debt (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Buckeye on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 01:50:07 PM EST
    As Krugman has written before, it does matter where debt resides in an economy.

    David Dayen has also written some excellent posts on what can be done to expedite remediation of the housing crisis...such as cramdown, mortgage modification, better use of TARP, improved HAMP program, employee mobility programs, etc.


    If it were only this simple (none / 0) (#62)
    by me only on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 04:31:01 PM EST
    In this world, we'll assume that no real investment is possible
    is all you have to read to in that column.

    Secondly, that column is not about the government assuming Sam's debts.  It is about the government spending money on something so that Sam can have a job to pay Janet.

    In the housing bubble it isn't that Sam needs a job, it is that he could never afford the house to begin with.  That he was counting on leveraging the equity he was going to get when the house appreciated.  That didn't happen.  Sam cannot afford the house.

    So we are to the point that someone has to pay.  The question is who.


    me only, this is absolutely right (none / 0) (#63)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 05:30:39 PM EST
    It is going to fall on the owners or the tax payers and the republicans don't want the tax payers to suffer and the democrats don't want the owners to suffer.

    I agree (none / 0) (#60)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 03:08:47 PM EST
    People are trying to wish away the effect of the  housing crisis on the general economy, but the economy is simply not going to recover while 25% of people with mortgages are underwater. These people cannot refinance to take advantage of the vaunted low interest rates, nor can they spend any extra money they have, knowing they will owe the bank tens of thousands of dollars if they have to sell their homes.

    And that applies to people like me who can perfectly afford their mortgages. It goes without saying that people in trouble already are not spending money.

    It is a huge sector of consumer spending gone. Now one could argue that the economy should not be so dependent on consumer spending, but that would be a major restructuring.


    What he said (none / 0) (#13)
    by Slado on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:07:17 AM EST
    Even worse (none / 0) (#15)
    by Slado on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:09:24 AM EST
    Evcn stupider (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:19:16 AM EST
    "Main stream economists just can't figure out what happened to this so called recovery that has been underway for two years. They would rather cling to their meaningless mantras like "it's just a normal mid-cycle slowdown."

    Um, what? That would be FRESHWATER economists who have had their economic religions utterly discredited.

    Honestly, these discussions are pointless. Conclusive evidence that the Freshwater theories are utter nonsense are simply not even noted.

    Keynes has been completely vindicated and you and the Freshwaters continue to believe in fairy tales.

    Economics is now just an extension of politics.


    Agree to disagree (none / 0) (#31)
    by Slado on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:44:59 AM EST
    As I state in another post its a moot point.

    I think it never could of worked and you think it was poorly executed.

    Either way it didn't work.

    Now what?  A good 1.5 trillion dollar stimulus?

    That's not going to happen.

    Obama had his chance to do something and he did what he did.

    It didn't work.

    Now what?


    QE? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:52:58 AM EST
    No I was in the never gonna work school.

    A waste of time.


    Things are getting a little clearer now: (none / 0) (#73)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:35:51 PM EST
    Regarding the "Freshwater" philosophy....

    "Lawrence H. Summers, top adviser to Mr. Dukakis, says he too finds that elements of fresh-water thinking have a place in policy making."
    Among the benefits of "Freshwater thinking".............."workers settling for stable or lower wages."



    Really? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:16:04 AM EST
    That was one of the more ridiculous pieces I have ever read.

    That's becasue you believe (none / 0) (#20)
    by Slado on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:19:45 AM EST
    if we'd only borrowed and spent mroe money we didn't have we could pull out of this mess.

    We can't.

    We have to stop borrowing/printing money.  

    If you don't except that point at least admit that the Fed's monetary policy hasn't worked.    So why would more of the same work now?

    Either way that ship has sailed.  I don't believe it ever would have worked but we can both agree that it didn't.

    Borrow/print more money and see where it gets us.

    By all means.


    Why would I admit a falsehood? (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:22:42 AM EST
    As for monetary policy, just yesterday or the day before I wrote about the failure of QEII.

    The problem is aggregate demand.

    See Stiglitz, Joe.

    Raising aggregate demand is the issue. And has been from day 1 of this recession.


    You need money to have demand (none / 0) (#34)
    by Slado on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:53:25 AM EST
    Real money.  IE savings and wealth.

    Not inflated money that's worth no more then it was 2 years ago.

    For the average American home values are dropping, wages are stagnant, food, gas and other commodities are rising and the only answer from Washington is more stimulus.  Stimulus in bailouts, tax cuts, propping up green energy on and on.

    You guys say we didn't stimulate enough but how much more then 3.1 trillion dollars in total borrowing and printing would have been enough?

    This economy is trying to retract.  Once again the graph.

    There is no politics of math.   We must retract the debt bubble or we'll be doing this dance for years.

    See Japan.


    Are you positiing (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 10:01:38 AM EST
    That government spending creates "fake" demand? That police officers, firefighters, soldiers, prosecutors, judges, tax collectors, etc. are not
    "real demand?"

    And you believe this why? Are they paid in fake money? Do they buy fake products?


    No, their money isn't fake (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 06:05:15 PM EST
    but unlike manufacturing what they produce does not use piece parts from other manufacturing entities and/or designers. The value of service jobs, and that is what is being created, is not sufficient to expand the economy in relationship to what they cost in tax dollars.  

    They use equipment on the job that gets (none / 0) (#71)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 08:05:24 PM EST
    purchased and they spend their wages on goods. It is not all services.

    Yes, but they aren't buying equipment from (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 04, 2011 at 09:05:35 AM EST
    OEM's that employ people who buy equipment from OEM, etc.

    Money spent on service providers does not have the same impact.


    One thing you and I agree on (none / 0) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 04, 2011 at 10:10:40 AM EST
    Ding (none / 0) (#64)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 05:32:10 PM EST
    This is right.

    What does "bite the bullet" mean? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:14:17 AM EST
    It means (none / 0) (#23)
    by Slado on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:21:57 AM EST
    we have to stop.  Let the economy fall back to normal and then grow out of it.

    We've borrowed/printed 3.1 trillion dollars to spur the economy and for all that we have 2% growth.

    Now that we are going to stop what's going to happen next?

    We would have been better off doing nothing.


    So we need a Depression (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:23:21 AM EST
    is your answer.



    And if we need a Great Depression (4.83 / 6) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:24:02 AM EST
    I'd rather it start with the destruction of Wall Street, not Main Street.

    Well, that's the crux of the problem (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:58:56 AM EST
    isn't it?  If they had a allowed the total meltdown of the markets when they were on the verge, there might have been some sort of legitimate correction possible.  I didn't think that that made sense and I still don't - but what happened was that they propped up the Wall Street economy and left the rest of us in the dust feeling the effects of Wall Street's failures.  

    If we are going to "work our way out" of anything, then everyone has to work - including the people on Wall Street.  So far, they've been asked to do nothing while Main Street has been pushed beyond its limits.

    They should have taken over and broken up those banks when they had the chance.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#39)
    by Slado on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 10:00:40 AM EST
    The more I read, watch and learn about 2008 and TARP the less I like.

    All that money and what did we get?  Nothing.

    Maybe we shouldn't have let it crash but we also shouldn't have let a few banks consolidate and go back tot he business that caused the mess.

    A bipartisan mess by the way.


    The reality is that Main Street should (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 11:20:53 AM EST
    have received at least as much attention and direct help as those few big banks did - and the banks should have been given the money only if they were willing to change their business model to protect against similar failures in the future.  As it was we gave them unconditional assistance, they did not change and the people of this country were left with the burdens of and no assistance in a crisis that in reality they had next to nothing to do with creating.

    Tons of average Americans who followed all of the rules are totally flattened right now.  Meanwhile, the banks and financiers who broke all the rules and brought on a financial crisis of epic proportion are richer and fatter right now.  That's not okay.


    The funny thing is (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 11:22:45 AM EST
    Had they just given every American $50,000, more shopping would have taken place, thus helping retailers and manufacturers, and more debt would have been paid down, thus helping the bankers.  Everyone would have won.

    They could have thrown cash-money (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 11:36:03 AM EST
    out of airplanes and done more good than they did with their  timid policies and that anemic stimulus plan.

    Do you really think that we could (none / 0) (#53)
    by me only on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 01:38:35 PM EST
    have printed $15 trillion dollars (more than a year's worth of gdp) and not experienced a trifle bit of inflation?  You cannot be that lost.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 01:46:55 PM EST
    But my point was it would have been more stimulative and better overall for everyone had the same amount of money been given to average people.

    That whole rising tide lifting all boats things.


    Inflation would have gone through the roof. (2.00 / 1) (#65)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 05:33:12 PM EST
    Fwop! (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 06:28:59 PM EST
    (head crashing on desktop)

    Shooter, you had to know that this justification (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 06:40:37 PM EST
    was inevitable from the grasping-at-straws contingent; it would be laughable if it weren't just so sad and desperate.

    Remember: whatever is happening, that (1), if it's bad, Obama was always powerless to do anything about it, and (2), if it's good, Obama was a genius.

    Here, take some Advil for your headache.


    And just (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 06:53:36 PM EST
    as I was getting into the melody of the little birdies chirping around my unconscious mind you come along with your usual dose of migraine inducing reality.

    And I swear one of the little melodious swallows had ABG monogrammed on its cute little feathery breast.

    Now go away and let me hear their finale:)


    Wrong (none / 0) (#56)
    by Slado on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 01:53:45 PM EST
    Wealth comes from savings.

    Savings lead to spending.

    Spending creates demand.

    Demand for new and better products grows the economy.

    The multiplier effect doesn't work.  How could it?

    My 5 year old is learning to multiply.

    1 x 1 = 1
    1 x 2 = 2

    1 x 3.5 trillion = 3.5 trillion   not 4 trillion

    The money put into the economy was not earned through production and the creation of wealth.  It was borrowed or created out of thin air.  It did not spur any real demand just artificially kept the bubble from deflating.

    Now that "stimulus" has run it course and what's left?

    Nothing.  No growth.  A still deflating housing bubble, inflation etc...

    If stimulus worked why not pas a 50 zillion dollar one?  Then we could all be rich.


    You prove my point (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 02:40:27 PM EST
    Had the same stimulus money been given to "regular" Americans instead of the banksters and tax cuts for the rich, it would have been plowed immediately back into the economy. Even if many Americans paid down debt - that would have been good for the banks, as they could have erased those liabilities off their books.  People would have purchased new cars, clothes, started new business ventures, taken vacations - all going right back into the economy.

    As it was, we saved the banks, who turned around and foreclosed on homes and got stingy with credit for the little guy.


    How would you have given the money (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 06:08:04 PM EST
    to "regular" Americans?

    Robert and Charles (none / 0) (#57)
    by Slado on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 01:57:41 PM EST
    I am not sure what in particular (none / 0) (#59)
    by me only on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 03:04:52 PM EST
    would have been better.  Are you talking about the stimulus?  At $780B, you are talking about $2,600/individual.  Was that better than keeping people employed (like the state jobs that were saved)?  Better than keeping Medicaid funding so that people were not dropped?

    I was throwing a number out there (none / 0) (#61)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 03:53:14 PM EST
    Not a depression (none / 0) (#35)
    by Slado on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:56:38 AM EST
    but a long recession as we pay off the debt.

    I'd rather have a 2,3 or 4 year recession that we can plan for followed by growth then a 20 year flat economy where all we do is put off the inevitable.

    Instead of printing money to give to Wall St. why not print less money to provide a parachute for the people that will be hurt.  Cut military spending in half etc.. etc...

    We could have started the process two years ago.  Instead we spent two years making it worse.

    Now here we are with no end in sight.


    A Lost Decade? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:58:02 AM EST
    To coin a phrase?

    The growth never comes back.


    A lost decade or two if we keep (none / 0) (#41)
    by Slado on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 10:03:02 AM EST
    doing what we're doing.

    I'd take 1/2 a decade over two any day.

    The model for what we're currently doing is Japan.   We are heading down the same path.

    Also the idea that we can expect to fix a issue that took decades to create in a few quarters is just absurd.  As we are seeing any short ray of light is quickly followed by harsh reality.

    Only a long term solution to a problem that started in the 80's or even 70's is going to really work and allow our economy to grow again.

    The idea of a quick fix is just a pipe dream.


    IT didn;pt start in the 30s? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 10:06:03 AM EST
    The New Deal?

    You want us to go back to Hooverism don't you? IF we had just listened to him, we'd be in great shape right?


    The economy is going to (none / 0) (#43)
    by Slado on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 10:19:36 AM EST
    retract with our without us.

    do you think we can grow out of a total debt that is 300 plus % of GDP?

    Really?  We'd need 10 or 20% growth to pay off this debt in a decade.

    More simply put how would we ever expect to grow our economy when you can't sell your house without taking a huge loss?

    There is not solution to the housing crisis other then population growth.   There are too many houses that nobody wants to live in.  Until we work off the inventory there will be no rebound.
    This same scenario is playing out all over the economy.

    Stimulate away but the hard facts of too much stuff bought with other peoples money will always pull us back down to reality.


    What other artificial thing... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Dadler on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:50:24 AM EST
    ...do you think should control our lives.  Why not let Legos do it?  Or Lincoln Logs?  How about toothpicks?  Do you have a better inanimate object that should keep us enslaved?

    Money is fake, it's value determined by nothing more than our human thoughts.  

    You talk like someone who views money as a migratory bird.  Money doesn't bleed, pal, PEOPLE do.

    Currency is fake, it's trinkets, we control EVERY aspect of it, and you want to pray to the Gods.

    Ridiculous and, frankly, very dumb.


    Not dubm, realistic (none / 0) (#38)
    by Slado on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:58:57 AM EST
    As I post below we've printed a whole lot of money and you me and the average Joe has hardly seen a dime, meanwhile we continue spending more and more policing the world etc...

    We could have printed 1/10th of that money and sent everyone a check to pay the light bill and pulled out of Iraq, and Afghanistan and stop fooling ourselves that we can do everything.

    Pay now or pay later but we will all eventually pay.

    Plan for the slowdown, protect the less fortunate and get through it.

    Now we are just in purgatory and there is no way to get out other then to repent.


    What level of (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 12:13:15 PM EST
    starvation do you think is necessary to help the economy recover?

    The sacrifices by Main St. have (none / 0) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:00:03 AM EST
    been ignored. Maybe this headline will make Obama pay attention to jobs.

    Stocks tank after soft US jobs data

    Unfortunately, we cannot trust that his solutions will help rather than hurt Main St.

    Welcome to wage slavery.. (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:44:27 AM EST
    formerly middle class professionals, joining the formerly middle class blue collars in working poor wage slave drudgery.

    McDonalds is hiring....or you can try and sue your alma mater for false advertising, though I can't see how it is the law school's fault there are too many lawyers...shoulda majored in grifting lady, what can I tell ya.  

    Well, for one thing, the law school from (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 10:22:39 AM EST
    plaintiff graduated is held in the lowest esteem of as to law schools in the county.  

    Dollars to donuts... (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 10:45:06 AM EST
    she didn't apply at Starbucks.

    There is a difference in not being able to find the job you want or feel you deserve and not being able to find a job, period.  There are jobs, the problem is the jobs that are available are for the most part sh*t, and don't pay enough to cover the way of life to which some have become accustomed.  New World Economic Order baby.  

    But don't try and tell me you couldn't find any job in 3 years...you can't find your dream job, join the club.

    I realize the youth of America have been sold a lemon...if you go to college you'll get ahead and have the white picket fence and two cars in the drive and all that hot air...but that sh*t is fantasy land.  Who could be so gullible.


    Check out LAT article about (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 08:35:58 PM EST
    LAPD helicopters chasing a suspect re Starbucks tip jar.  

    Although it doesn't say so explicitly (none / 0) (#75)
    by Raymond Bell on Sat Jun 04, 2011 at 07:50:53 AM EST
    I think the decision to use the helicopter was based on more than alleged petty thievery:

    Police first responded to a call about three men stealing tip money from the Starbucks at 250 E. 17th St., and then discovered that the suspects were fleeing the scene in a stolen car, said Sgt. Jeff Van Es, an Airborne Law Enforcement pilot with the Santa Ana Police Department.

    Police Helicopter chases trio

    I think it would be reasonable to follow a stolen car in a helicopter, even if the occupants were fleeing with the proceeds of a lemonade stand.

    At least that's how I'd feel if it was my stolen car that was used, call me crazy.

    This isn't a beer run, this is possibly grand theft auto, which the last time I checked was still a serious crime in California.


    I apologized to my daughter (none / 0) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 04, 2011 at 01:58:00 AM EST
    yesterday for ending up being nothing but a flapper.  She used to feel abused by us because we didn't just pull out the credit card and give her everything and anything though she has never wanted for anything.  But her whole generation really has been screwed.  They watched everyone for ten years go free credit nuts and now the show is over and we crash just when they have to figure out how to survive on their own.  This is such a mess.  And here I am, just a flapper.  Maybe she'll end up being a member of the next greatest generation.  It is going to be very hard for them though.  How many people did we lose to suicide during the Great Depression?

    Dennis Cardoza (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 04, 2011 at 09:16:12 AM EST
    had this to say:

    I don't blame [the administration] for causing the housing crisis," Cardoza said. "But at two-and-a-half years in office, if they can't figure out something to do soon that turns us around, I guarantee you they will pay for this at the ballot box