Unemployment Rises To 9.2%; 18K Jobs Gained In June


U.S. employment growth ground to a halt in June, with employers hiring the fewest number of workers in nine months, dousing hopes the economy would regain momentum in the second half of the year. Nonfarm payrolls rose only 18,000, the weakest reading since September, the Labor Department said on Friday, well below economists' expectations for a 90,000 rise.

Revisions to April and May also were negative - "The government revised April and May payrolls to show 44,000 fewer jobs created than previously reported." What to do? Slash government spending of course. We are f*cked.

Speaking for me only

< Colorado Launches Petition Drive to Legalize Marijuana | The Purpose of Criminal Trials >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    And the VSPs want to treat (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 08:40:17 AM EST
    the problem with leeches.

    I'm really at a loss. This is awful.

    Andgarden (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 01:03:53 PM EST
    A gem of a comment - bleeding the already anemic patient

    Most apt description yet.


    Elsewhere someone mentioned (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by andgarden on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 01:11:37 PM EST
    that ignoring the role of demand in the current economic slump was equivalent to ignoring the germ theory of disease. I just illustrated the idea a bit differently. . .

    And brilliantly (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:08:06 AM EST
    How about getting the patient to kill himself or (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by jawbone on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 01:36:44 PM EST
    herself, both for the good of the economy and to help bring down the national debt?

    I called the WH with a jobs program/deficit payment plan for Obama to implement -- in this comment.

    There might not be enough progress for the number of jobs to really affect unemployment numbers by the 2012 election, but surely the progress and goals of the Obama Soylent Green Manufacturing and Debt Payment Plan will win him millions additional votes!

    What with the looming cuts to SocSec and Medicare, those cuts already in place for Medicaid, and the continuing high unemployment, I think we could kill two birds with one stone (heh) with the Obama Soylent Green Manufacturing
    jobs program (jobs to build and then run the factories, warehouses, and the Obama SS Intake Centers) and Debt Payment Plan.  Then, as seniors and the disabled  --or anyone wishing to make a true sacrifice for low taxation of the rich and for the greater good (minors will need to have signed parental permission)-- turn themselves in to the Obama SS (Self Sacrifice, but that won't be spelled out)Centers, there will be fewer outlays for SocSec and the healthcare programs for inital savings, along with perhaps fewer children to educate.

    But it gets better! There will be the product, Soylent Green, a nutritious, lower cost protein food for the poor and all those with little money.  There will be the sale of organs for even more profits, plus the intake centers will have to do physicals to determine which volunteers are suitable for organ harvesting -- more jobs!

    What's not to like, Obama? It's win (jobs)-win (profit centers)-win (R's get lower taxes and debt repayment)-win (fewer recipients for the safety net programs)-win (for the ill and suicidal; no waste, no mess, no burial necessary)-BIG WIN (for the R's in winning office because Dems will no longer support the so-called Democratic Party).

    A sure winner, and the nice lady who took my call said she would pass on my suggestion to the president.

    Surely he will see the benefits which will accrue to him and the political party which has his truest, most heartfelt fealty.

    "Shared sacrifice" -- You get sacrificed and the Uberwealthy get your share!

    202 456-1414, your WH.


    "I'm really at a loss. This is awful." (none / 0) (#19)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 09:49:32 AM EST
    try this, "The Marriage Vow"  link

    "leeches" will sound like brilliant medicine


    Amazing (none / 0) (#79)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 01:06:59 PM EST
    how many 'family values' Republicans have already violated the vow.

    Scary... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by masslib on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 08:46:29 AM EST
    We live in a non-reality based world when a Democratic President can look at this and say well obviously now is the time to slash the safety net.

    Spin it, ABG ... spin it! (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 08:47:29 AM EST
    Tell us how the economy's really improving and we don't need to worry because, after all, Obama's gonna get re-elected!


    No, no , no - the spin isn't that bad is good, (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 09:04:42 AM EST
    it's that (1) the rise just proves that it's more important than ever that we slash spending, and (2) when Obama's Grand Bargain causes unemployment to drop like a rock, the recovery will be what things always are when Obama's involved - historic - making him a shoo-in for 2012.

    Which is all that really matters - how this all affects Obama.


    This is Obama's 11 dimensional (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 09:15:00 AM EST
    chess at its finest. :-(

    Unemployed people will have more time to go to their polling place and stand in line to vote for Obama in 2012.


    I'm positive Obama's up to at least the 37th-level (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by jawbone on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 12:40:46 PM EST
    of whatever game he's playing.  

    And I think he's feeling that he's winning since he is now very willing to let his Inner Republican show through.

    His radio address on Saturday made me think a Repub was talking in his place -- or maybe he just hired a Republican speech writer? That might explain it, except he sounds so sincere. I think he's in his comfort zone: Being a Republican in word and deed.

    And his plans to cut --er, he'll call it "strengthen"-- Medicare and SocSec sound so nicely Republican.  And he gets the Dems to take the blame for doing what the R's have been unable to do since FDR introduced SocSec!

    Is there time for him to enter the Republican primary and run as a Republican?

    Oh, yeah, that's part of the game: He's a Repub running as a Dem and he'll say just enough of the right words to fool the rubes.


    I'll spin nothing (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:34:04 AM EST
    The difference between me and others is when the news is bad and undercuts my arguments, I say so instead of finding ways to make the facts fit.

    The news is bad and undercuts my arguments. I believe that Obama should carefully consider this as he's thinking of steps he will take in the next 3 months and I believe that we need to understand his path.  If he believes that much of this is the result of the deadlock on the budget, Greece, Oil and other factors, he should say so, lay out his evidence and let us evaluate it.

    I think that he cannot ignore the numbers and must address the apparent soft spot in the economy head on.

    Sorry to burst your bubble. If it's not working as i predicted, I give no excuses.

    No conversely, if the economy starts a real rebound in Q3-Q4 I'll be right back in your face and fully expect you to cop to your overreaching statements.


    We are in Q3 (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by me only on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:55:23 AM EST
    time is running out.

    Since WHEN?!? (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 11:17:26 AM EST
    You don't spin?!?  For the past 6 months (or more), you've been telling us that the economy is getting better, and that the most recent decline is just an anomaly on the road to recovery.  He//, just last night you were talking about how the "decent housing info out today and what looks to be a slightly improving job market tells me that the slow recovery is beginning again."

    Sorry to burst your bubble. If it's not working as i predicted, I give no excuses.

    That's all you do.  Even as you make this claim, you're already lining up excuses - not for yourself, but for Obama.  The reasons you list for the horrible economy are all factors that you will inevitably argue are beyond Obama's control.  Greece?  What can Obama do?  Oil?  What can Obama do?  Budget deadlock?  (1) Obama must agree to Republican demands for massive spending cuts and no/slight tax increases to avoid economic Armageddon, or (2) failure to reach a budget deal is due to those unreasonable, intransigent Republicans and has nothing to do with the DEAL or Obama's weakness as a negotiator.



    No conversely, if the economy starts a real rebound in Q3-Q4 I'll be right back in your face and fully expect you to cop to your overreaching statements.

    Absolutely!  Oh, ... wait.  I haven't made any overreaching statements, so I guess I shouldn't be too worried.  But I do like how you've already started to walk back your predictions, though.  From a "sharp reversal" and "markedly better" economy to merely "if the economy starts a real rebound" in just a couple of weeks.



    Saying what you just said (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 12:40:42 PM EST
    is a version of spinning and making the facts fit.

    You are spinning the fact that you always spin. You often, almost always give excuses. You aren't fooling anyone with this ridiculous post other than yourself.



    Are you kidding me (none / 0) (#89)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 01:40:19 PM EST
    Look, I am here to take my lumps when the bad news arises just as I will be right back here to gloat when the good stuff happens.

    But this idea that me saying "it looks bad and I hope it gets better" (which is in essence what I am saying) isn't good enough or is spinning or whatever is silly.

    What exactly are you expecting me to concede about a story that hasn't reached the end yet? Things are looking bad.  Things could be better. Things are going to get better sooner than people think IMHO.

    If that's not good enough for you, sorry.  That's my take.  I am not quite sure what kind of response you want from me.


    Please. Try some other sucker for that.  We got some bad employment numbers in a week where we got some better housing numbers. Things are bad but I still approve of Obama's style and policies generally despite sharply disagreeing with him on many issues.



    ABG...you've got guts. (none / 0) (#154)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 02:07:56 PM EST
    What you wrote: My sentiments exactly.

    As for the predictable outpouring here: Time was that I would argue. As I got older, some learning seeped in and told me to wait out situations like this. We wait & see. Then, we can analyze (or whatever.)


    He should do us all a favor (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by loveed on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 04:33:47 PM EST
    and not run in 2012.

     This might save the democrat party.


    Well, he's not Frodo (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by masslib on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 04:47:30 PM EST
    for goodness sake.  I wouldn't expect him to do that.

    It's Democratic (none / 0) (#163)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:18:46 AM EST
    not Democrat

    Well, until this economic rebound (none / 0) (#82)
    by Towanda on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 01:15:42 PM EST
    that you keep talking about, I hold you responsible for this mess.

    You keep posting about all of the support that Obama has.  So I'll blame it on his supporters, starting with you.


    I guess if he does (none / 0) (#4)
    by me only on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 09:03:08 AM EST
    We can start to wonder if his secret identity is David Plouffe.

    Obama needs a new adviser.


    You'd think from a purely political (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 09:11:32 AM EST
    standpoint that Obama might want to look like he cares about these terrible employment numbers. I mean, with unemployment staying this high it's possible that even a Bachman could win, much less a Rommney or Perry.

    Rock and a hard place... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 09:26:07 AM EST
    seem like they care, all the while serving those they are paid to protect and serve...the Scrooge McDucks....not the unemployed or the working stiff.

    If we're dumb enough to keep voting for Obama's and Romney's and god forbid Bachmann's...well we get the government we deserve, as the saying goes...and I guess there is still worse to come before it starts to get better...much worse, I fear.


    It must be awfully tempting (none / 0) (#13)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 09:35:11 AM EST
    for Obama, who knows nothing about economics, to buy into policies that his beloved Timothy Geithner tells him will cure unemployment AND satisfy his Wall Street masters. That's a win-win!

    If only Obama knew! (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by sj on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:39:58 AM EST
    But actually I'm pretty sure the czar just doesn't care.

    well if there's a positive to be taken (none / 0) (#14)
    by smott on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 09:40:43 AM EST
    ....the Dems did have a teensy bit more spine with a Republican in the WH. At least a RIN anyway...

    Funny how that works... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 11:56:23 AM EST
    and when we have a Brand D pres, Brand R joins the anti-unnecessary war movement!

    One is almost forced to think both brands of sh*t don't believe in anything but power and grifting.


    True Dat (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by smott on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 12:34:38 PM EST
    I get in to this w my brother a lot. I traded my citizenship in 2004 to vote against Bush.
    Now I wish I could give it back because I really cannot morally support Dems anymore (changed to I).

    My bro even while souring on O is still in the "vote for 1% Less Evil" club. But he doesn't vote as he's not a citizen.

    I'm in PA and I'd hate to see it go Red (I think it will).

    But I cannot support these policies. Period.


    Know what you mean... (none / 0) (#77)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 12:48:47 PM EST
    I've been on the Independent vote for the also-ran train since 2000...with one relapse in '04 when I bought the hype that Bush was the worst thing since small pox.  He was awful in spectacular ways, don't get me wrong, but in the same ballpark as the Brand D before and after him.  Republicans cease to be so scary when you really can't tell the difference where it matters most...I'll vote for the also-ran till the country figures it our for themselves and joins me.  And even that might not make a meaningful difference, but its the only play that doesn't involve getting locked up...worth a shot.

    Speaking of Romney (none / 0) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 09:21:18 AM EST
    Romney's statement on Plouffle's less than stellar comments on unemployment.

    In a statement, GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney said, "Today's abysmal jobs report confirms what we all know - that President Obama has failed to get this economy moving again. Just this week, President Obama's closest White House adviser said that `unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers' do not matter to the average American.

    "If David Plouffe were working for me, I would fire him and then he could experience firsthand the pain of unemployment," Romney said. "His comments are an insult to the more than 20 million people who are out of work, underemployed or who have simply stopped looking for jobs. With their cavalier attitude about the economy, the White House has turned the audacity of hope into the audacity of indifference." link

    It hurts me (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by sj on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 09:24:59 AM EST
    that I cheer the sentiment.  That the speaker is also not credible hurts even more.

    Wow - Mittens takes the gloves off! (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by smott on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 09:44:11 AM EST
    Sadly, I concur also.

    As do I -- and I have to say (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Towanda on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:18:00 AM EST
    that implicit in Romney's statement is that unemploying Plouffe, or Geithner, is necessary but not sufficient.  They would be replaced by more of the same.

    So the solution that Romney is suggesting, of course, is to unemploy Obama.  

    And on that, sadly, I also have to concur.  I cannot continue to afford to support all of the unemployed in my family alone, and I have to look for the candidate who at least recognizes that the government's -- and president's -- priority in this crisis is to create jobs, period.


    But, the other problem is that a Romney (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:31:03 AM EST
    isn't going to get the government to create jobs the way they need to be created - through government spending; he and the rest of the Cavalcade of Clowns will suggest more and bigger tax cuts for business, more and deeper cuts in discretionary spending and good old "market forces" to solve the problem.  And, I fear, once they have the power, and have the example of Obama, will continue to whittle away at entitlements.

    Doesn't mean I could vote for Obama as the best of the bad choice we're going to be given, but I am under no illusions that Republicans are going to solve the unemployment problem.

    "F**ked" doesn't really even come close to describing what lies ahead.


    Unlike Obama, I hold with FDR (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Towanda on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:43:11 AM EST
    and his plan in economic crisis for this country:

    Try something, and if it doesn't work, try something else.

    Or someone else.

    If the Dems have the guts to put up a challenger to Obama, fine.


    THe Dems don't even (none / 0) (#130)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 04:47:31 PM EST
    have the guts to stick to their former 'line-in-the-sand" position on not touching Social Security.  See reports of how Nancy Pelosi came out of meeting sounding more conciliatory.

    Exactly - it is not like Romney would (none / 0) (#52)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:55:25 AM EST
    not be at least as bad on the economy. He would just go further in the wrong direction than Obama has.

    We are well and truly "F**ked"


    Romney's equity firm (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 01:28:16 PM EST
    put many people out of work and all for the sake of lining Romney's pockets.  Selling off even profitable enterprises in pieces and producing absolutely nothing but cash.  Despicable.

    Mittens is a truly bad actor, a junk man who, IMO, will turn this country into a junk yard.


    Agreed. And (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Towanda on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 01:40:12 PM EST
    Obama's policies put many people out of work, while he has nicely lined his pockets with future book contracts -- probably yet more books that produce only more obfuscation about who he really is.

    I'm ready for a real leader.  Romney isn't it.  Obama isn't it.  Who have you got?  He's going to need more than liberal guilt and styrofoam pillars and the lack of a record this time.

    Now Obama's got a record.  Just like Romney.


    But Romney and a Republican Congress would... (none / 0) (#32)
    by magster on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:23:11 AM EST
    extend the Bush tax cuts 'til infinity.  I see the temptation to get rid of Obama because he's a Blue Dog through and through.  It's more important to get the House back in Dem control.

    Besides, Nate Silver just posted that Bachmann may very well win the nomination.


    Bachmann won't win (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by lilburro on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:33:47 AM EST
    This is the Republican Party, people.  Bush v. Gore.  They will find a way for the primary process to produce a non-Bachmann candidate.  

    I think the Republican party has devolved (none / 0) (#43)
    by magster on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:43:10 AM EST
    into insanity. Bachmann can very well win this. I fear that her handlers will soften her enough to win the whole enchilada if the economy is bad enough.

    She could be the Martin Sheen type of President (from the Dead Zone, not the West Wing).  Hallelujah!


    Not to worry (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:49:23 AM EST
    Under the Obama presidency Bush's tax cuts will not be extended 'til infinity. The more generous Obama Dec. 2010 tax cuts, as well as the soon to be announced lower corporate rate, will be extended 'til infinity.

    BTW Towanda (none / 0) (#58)
    by magster on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 11:15:46 AM EST
    My family seems to be weathering this economy better than apparently yours (knock on wood).  So, whenever I try to persuade you one way, I'm not judging.  If you think Romney will be better after consideration, I doubt you'll be the only one feeling that way. Hope your family members find a little luck soon.

    Misquoting what I wrote (none / 0) (#60)
    by Towanda on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 11:19:12 AM EST
    as quoting is not voting.

    But thanks for the good thoughts.


    no $hit he would fire him (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by CST on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:29:17 AM EST
    All Romney ever did as a businessman was figure out ways to fire lots of people.  That was his job.

    So great, he's gonna fix unemployment... by firing people.

    This is the same man who wrote an op-ed telling Obama to let Detroit go bankrupt - for their own good of course.


    Repubs will attack from the left--on jobs, Social (none / 0) (#91)
    by jawbone on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 01:43:50 PM EST
    Security, health care, Medicare, Medicaid, the overall economy.

    They have no problem saying two opposite things at the same time.

    It worked in 2010 because people were so pissed at the Dems and Obama for doing nothing to help them, zero, zip, nada.  

    It could be a rerun of that in 2012.

    With only two choices, and the one made in 2008 let people down badly, where can they put their votes? They can stay home, they can write in some slogan (essentially not voting), or they can vote for the opposition, bat guano crazy or not.


    Yep, that's the plan (none / 0) (#96)
    by Towanda on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 01:57:26 PM EST
    as provided by Obama and these Dems.  Now all that remains to be filled in for the next 15 months is which Republicans say all of the above, over and over about Obama's and these Dems' record.  

    And then, as you say, all that remains to be seen is which choice the voters make from the many choices that they will have, not just two choices.  But no matter how many times that is said, see how many commenters on this thread alone still act as if voters will have only two choices.


    There's a third choice, (none / 0) (#121)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 04:15:42 PM EST
    and possibly a fourth:

    The third choice is that people vote for Obama (basically voting against the Republican) but withhold their money. Its a way to deny the Republican the Presidency, plus the S.C. Appointments that go with it, and sending a clear message while assuaging their consciences by denying Obama Money.

    The fourth way is with a third party candidate. Not that he/she would realistically have a chance of winning, but, as Perot & Nader have shown, the threat of being a "spoiler" shouldn't be discounted.


    that might work (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by sj on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 09:08:14 PM EST
    if he needed our money.  Did you really think he expected to get one billion dollars from citizens?

    What makes you so sure that (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by Madeline on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 09:35:58 PM EST
    Obama wouldn't ....again...support another Roberts?

    If he is not to be trusted now, what makes him so Democratic that he will appoint a liberal or very moderate SC candidate?  

    If a Republican wins the presidency and the Democrats win back the House and keep the Senate, who needs Obama in 2012?


    After 2012 (none / 0) (#144)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 11:39:01 PM EST
    he can swing as far right as he wants. We won't even get crumbs.

    Obama is gearing his policies (none / 0) (#123)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 04:26:00 PM EST
    to prove just how business friendly his administration is for a reason. Or should I say a billion reasons. He is going after the big bucks from corporations and his savvy friends. MO individual donations received or withheld will be chump change in comparison.

    Don't be too sure MO (none / 0) (#145)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 12:26:26 AM EST
    My understanding is that the meeting he had with the Banksters didn't go so well. After flipping him the bird, saying "suck on this," they told him, "get off your knees already, you're the President for God's sake! Show a little respect for these hallowed halls Mister; this isn't the white house you know"

    Seriously, they let him know 2012 isn't 2008, and after acknowledging what a good little Gopher he's been in his first term they're going to wait and see who the Republicans put up. If its not one of the crazies, if someone like Romney is the standard bearer then the refrain to Obama will be, "doesn't unrequited love really suck?"

    I'm not even too sure they'd want him as a lobbyist.


    Obama raised $2.4 million from (none / 0) (#147)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 07:01:42 AM EST
    Wall St. in one night (June, 2011).

    The DNC fundraiser at tony restaurant Daniel cost attendees $35,800 each, and a source told Ben White at Morning Money that the event netted $2.4 million.

    So his calculations were that at least 67 financiers had come to the party.

    "Wall Street may hate Washington but sources tell M.M. that last night's $35,800 per-head event... was a boffo success packed with hedge fund and private equity types." link

    While they may be putting the pressure on him because they want to make sure that he delivers on SS and other items on their "To Do List", they IMO will continue to back for no other reason than he is accomplishing things that the Republican failed to do in the past.


    Of course, (none / 0) (#160)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 08:31:03 PM EST
     many financiers, regardless of their feelings, are going to hedge their bets and give to both sides. And, that's what you saw at that well publicized dinner.  But, more importantly, who wasn't there? All the major money-center, Too Big To Fail Banksters; no Jamie, no Lloyd, no Morgan, no Big Shots like in '08. What's 4 million out of one Billion?

    My point was, however, that this year there's a real chance that Obama won't be re-elected. And, if it comes down to Romney vs Obama, and if the polls show Romney leading (or with a real shot) Mittens can just name his price and the money will just rain down on him.

    They got all the use out of Obama they could have hoped for, with Romney they can finish the job Obama so willingly started for them.  


    History lesson for NYShooter (none / 0) (#161)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 08:54:48 PM EST
    Didn't the bankers and financiers who got all the use out of Bill and Hillary Clinton that they could have hoped for, line up behind GWB to finish the job that the Clintons started and restore "honor back to the WH"?

    Banksters knew that Hillary had talked Bill into a (2.00 / 1) (#167)
    by jawbone on Tue Jul 12, 2011 at 06:57:16 PM EST
    veto threat on one of their highly desired legislative changes (iirc, it was repeal of Glass-Steagal).  With the veto threat, Bill was able to ameliorate the bill a bit. He knew his veto would most likely be overriden by the R's and D's supporting FIRE.

    The Wall Street Gank Banksters did not trust Hillary to do their bidding, at all. Hence, their selection of Obama.


    History lesson for Politalkix (none / 0) (#166)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 05:05:07 PM EST

    Don't you ever tire of fairy tales?


    Those are choices #6 and #7 (none / 0) (#125)
    by Towanda on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 04:31:11 PM EST
    if you read the comment to which I replied, covering choices #3, #4, and #5.

    I suspect that in the ranking of those choices, voting for Obama is slipping down darn fast.


    He must believe (none / 0) (#12)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 09:30:47 AM EST
    that his policies are the right ones and that they will fix the unemployment problem.

    Any day now. Annnnnnnyyyyyyyyy dayyyyyyyy. (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 09:44:29 AM EST
    Give it another (none / 0) (#22)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:05:11 AM EST
    six months. I'm sure everything will be fine then.

    Indeed, the infamous Friedman Unit -- (none / 0) (#92)
    by jawbone on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 01:46:55 PM EST
    Things always are getting better "in six months."

    Via Atrios.  

    The big FU.


    I understand the dilemma (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by sj on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 09:23:43 AM EST
    between "We are f*cked" and "I'll vote for him in 2012 anyway", but I just can't make that compromise anymore.  

    The supreme court it important, but what has it really done lately that serves the nation and the Common Good?

    I just can't contribute to the boot kicking me and my family.  I just can't.  It will happen anyway, but without my help.  I can't even say "let the chips fall where they may" because the game is rigged from the get-go.

    Although the Reported Rate (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by The Maven on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 09:46:12 AM EST
    of unemployment (U-3) rose only slightly, from 9.1 to 9.2 percent, the better gauge (U-6) rose from 15.8 to 16.2 percent.  U-6 measures "Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force".

    So what better time to seek to impose a decade-long austerity package?

    I think I read somewhere that someone (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:20:29 AM EST
    is considered to be employed even if he or she only works an hour a week, so those people don't get counted as being unemployed - we see the effects of those kinds of "under-employment" in that U-6 number, which - for my money - is more honest and reflective of the dismal reality that far too many are facing.

    Obama is like a (bad) surgeon who, confronted by a patient losing blood from an artery in the leg, decides the cure is to cut off the leg, and when the bleeding stops, declares his treatment plan a success, failing to note that his patient is dead; I want a surgeon who will (1) begin pumping blood back into the patient, (2) find the source of the bleed and (3) repair it while saving the leg and the patient's life.

    Too much to ask, I guess.


    Shadow Government Statistics about 25% as the FULL (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by jawbone on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 01:50:29 PM EST
    unemployment number.

    Link to Shadow Stats.


    emptywheel on unemployment (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 09:47:09 AM EST
    Who Knew Firing Public Workers Increases Unemployment?

    And DC's solution is going to be to fight about corporate jet tax breaks for another week while cutting more government jobs.

    BLS report (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 11:13:00 AM EST
    I always love the "marginally attached to the labor force" number, aka hanging by a thread.  

    Gee, 39,000 government jobs gone.  Who would think that cut backs cause unemployment.  

    Remember certitude?  Why we had to pass the tax cuts etc, because businesses would then know what's going on and would hire people?  Is the instability of the debt ceiling from the right contributing to certitude?  I guess certitude is not an issue anymore.  Being serious about cutting social security is.  


    President Obama has (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 09:51:40 AM EST
    gotten the headlines he wants, such as this front pager in today's NYT: "...2 Sides Will Seek $4 Trillion in Savings." Yes, both sides, the president will not be out "savingsed"  by no Republicans!   That same article goes on to report that the president and Congressional leaders did not close gaps but they did achieve a consensus to aim for the biggest possible deal--"one resulting in up to $4 trillion in savings."  

    The same amount of "savings" was to be achieved, we noted,  by the failed Catfood Commission--failed because that group, stacked by the president as it was,  adjourned after months of meetings without an official vote (sentiments were registered which indicated that the necessary votes would not be there).  But, it was clear, as in any slasher movie, that the danger would be back.

    The Catfood Commission, we can be sure, is the blueprint for the president's $4 trillion in "savings"--it shows up, as one example, in his right wing friend and Commission member, Tom Coburn's, pet project of altering the cost of living calculations for social security. A major reason for member Jan Schakowsky's rejection (along with raising eligibility age).

    Maybe, the "savings" are to be implemented, as with the ACA, over several years with the hope that this change we can't believe will go unnoticed.  And, an added stealth to the grand bargain, to compensate the Republicans for giving up  a dollar or two of  new revenue, is likely to be an understanding that the Bush tax cuts will be made permanent.

    Once the entitlement programs are cut, (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 09:58:40 AM EST
    IIRC the next agenda item is lowering the corporate tax rate under the guise of "fixing the tax code."

    So the "fixes" to the entitlement programs will be used to finance the "fixes" made to taxes (lower corporate rates and making the Obama tax cuts permanent).


    Views from abroad (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:06:19 AM EST
    it doesn't get much play in our media, but the insanity that has overtaken our political process is scaring the bejesus out of our European allies.

    At a campsite in Tennessee recently I met some European vacationers who are petrified "to the bones" about what's going on here. I was deluged by comments like "your poor vote against health care?"  "intelligence appears to be dis-qualifier for public service," and "your working people denounce Unions?"

    I said, "just wait, you ain't seen nothing yet. The campaign hasn't even begun."

    welcome to America circa 2011

    4 Trillion in Savings (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Dadler on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:08:47 AM EST
    And where, I wonder, does that 4 trillion get to rest and recover after being saved from...well, I don't know what fate that flesh and blood money was facing, it must have been horrible; I only know that all these people made of paper and pot metal and electronic blips should shut their imaginary mouths.

    Seriously, yippee, we saved 4 trillion dollars from what?  Ourselves?  Poor people who could use it?  The educational system?  A green revolution?

    President Obama, you are mentally disabled.  Worse, you are CHOOSING to be mentally disabled.

    This is the thing (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:15:29 AM EST
    Government savings just means money that disappears. The federal government does not save for future spending. It spends money into existence and taxes it out of existence.

    Spending cuts of $4 trillion won't make the government any richer, but will make everyone else $4 trillion poorer.


    That was what I meant (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Dadler on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:23:02 AM EST
    Like I've said, it's like we pretend to live in some barter economy where we use seeds or livestock, and we're now all crying and wringing our hands because the animals just can reproduce fast enough and we have to take the pressure off them so they can get it on and make babies in peace so we call all have some again.

    I swear, ask your average person to explain what money is and what gives it value, you'd get some of the most empty looks you'll ever get.


    Ask your average economist (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:27:44 AM EST
    and you'll get some of the emptiest words you've ever heard.

    Rimshot, please (none / 0) (#36)
    by Dadler on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:32:20 AM EST
    And very true.  Only guys who make astrologers look like clairvoyants.

    Are you familiar with (none / 0) (#47)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:48:11 AM EST
    modern monetary theory (MMT)? Because you seem to have a grasp of the basic complaint MMT has against mainstream economists.

    Not as familiar as I should be (none / 0) (#62)
    by Dadler on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 11:28:39 AM EST
    Please offer any reading recommendations in this area, I'd love them.  The only book about money specifically that sticks with me is "The History of Money" by Jack Weatherford.  Read it maybe fifteen years back.  Gave me a nice basic overview of the development.  Everything else I've come to believe, for the most part, is just a product of observing and thinking and realizing the absurdity, on a simple logical level, of most economic theory, policy, and discussion.  

    Here are the blogs (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 11:52:08 AM EST
    I read most often on the subject:

    Bill Mitchell, an Australian economist and perhaps the leading proponent of MMT. Definitely the most liberal as far as I can tell.

    Warren Mosler

    New Economic Perspectives - posts by Scott Fullwiler, Marshall Auerback, Stephanie Kelton and Warren Mosler

    Rodger Mitchell - not strictly an MMTer, he calls himself a Monetary Sovreigntist. He came to his economic views by a different route and disagrees with MMTers on a few issues that aren't significant to someone first learning about it.

    Cullen Roche - proving that MMT isn't just for liberals.

    I would probably start here however. It's sort of an aggregating blog, mostly taking posts from Bill Mitchell's blog but organizing them into a primer on MMT and how the monetary system actually works.

    It takes a while to grasp MMT because it's counter-intuitive, or at least counter to what the media and politicians keep telling us about the economy, and hence what everyone thinks they know about economics. But it's the only theory that completely explains why government bond rates are so low and why Japan coasts along the way it does in spite of its supposedly high debt. Forget about the lower zero bound and liquidity traps. Those concepts explain nothing.

    MMT is the Copernican theory of how fiat money works. Mainstream economists are still working in the equivalent of an earth-centric paradigm in which they concoct epicycles and other elaborations to try to explain what they see instead of realizing it's time to chuck their paradigm.


    Many thanks (none / 0) (#69)
    by Dadler on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 12:18:00 PM EST
    Lots to look at.

    Ask the average (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 12:16:09 PM EST
    Paul supporter, and you'll get "Our money should be based on gold again!  Gold will give it value!"  Idiots.  Gold is just a "marker," as is anything to which we assign value (including greenbacks).

    Gold (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Dadler on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 12:21:10 PM EST
    They may put it on some fancy cakes and pastries in thin leaf, and at the bottom of Goldschlager liquor, but someone better tell those Paulites that it doesn't spread too well on toast.  

    Ba-dum-dum (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 12:43:01 PM EST
    Thank you, thank you folks, Dadler will be here all week!  Next time, try the veal!  Don't forget to tip your waiter!    ;-)

    Practically speaking... (none / 0) (#84)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 01:27:31 PM EST
    silver is a better conductor of electricity than gold...sh*t so is copper.

    So if fantasy value is your bag...forget money, forget gold, and go with silver or copper. Or salt even.

    Canned goods is the most practical, or medicines, or pains me to say, firearms.


    i've been saying that (none / 0) (#131)
    by cpinva on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 04:49:18 PM EST
    to people for a while, when they claim a metal (any metal) is a smart investment to have, when the economy collapses into dust. it doesn't grill well.

    Sorry I bothered to watch his statement just now (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by andgarden on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:14:45 AM EST
    "Weak tea" doesn't even begin to describe it.

    It sounded like a cut & paste (none / 0) (#64)
    by BTAL on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 11:39:27 AM EST
    from the press conference last week but without the "attitude" sound effects.

    I'll also add that IMO those negative revisions... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Dadler on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:34:15 AM EST
    ...were very conservative numbers, at best.  My guess is you can almost double any number the government gives you in this area, if you want to talk about flesh and blood reality.  There are many people living, essentially, off the radar at this point.  

    Correct. For example (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Towanda on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:45:51 AM EST
    none of the many unemployed in my family, including most of my children, are counted in this.

    Not that many haven't been off it for awhile (none / 0) (#40)
    by Dadler on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:35:03 AM EST
    I really don't get (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by CST on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:35:41 AM EST
    how the f*ck they can look at these numbers and talk about cutting benefits right now.  It's completely insane.

    Best case scenario right now, this entire deal falls apart.

    That's what the 11 dimensional chess (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:45:27 AM EST
    fans are saying. Obama really doesn't want or intend to cut medicare or SS, goes the argument. He's just proposing it because he knows that the GOP will reject anything he proposes if it includes any form of revenue increase. So by proposing a combination of miniscule revenue increases and massive entitlement cuts, Obama makes himself look eminently reasonable and willing to compromise, whereas the GOP just looks bad for being so unreasonable. Andrew Leonard at slate and Jonathan Chait at TNR both make this argument.

    I don't buy it, given all his endless rhetoric about the government being like a household that must save, and I can't see the point of it either.


    Not buying it, either; (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 11:07:35 AM EST
    Obama's been moving to this point since before he took the oath, and has not said or done or even hinted at anything that suggests he sees government as a solution to anything -for him, it's the Reagan/Norquist approach - the government is the problem  - and that's only picked up steam in the months since the Deficit Commission failed to send Congress recommendations to vote on.

    It's a sad day, and it makes a terrible commentary on the state of affairs, when this liberal finds herself pulling for Republican intransigence to hold; the problem is that we know how Obama deals with GOP stubbornness: he gives them more of what they want.  And I have zero - maybe less than zero - confidence that Dems who are making all these noises about how terrible this deal is shaping up to be, and how they just won't stand for it, will actually refuse to give the president what he wants.

    Rock and a hard place.
    Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
    Kick in the shins or a sharp stick in the eye.

    Wow, the choices just keep getting better and better, don't they?


    Obama wants a deal (none / 0) (#50)
    by CST on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:52:55 AM EST
    for sure.

    He might not get one though.  That's what I'm holding out for.


    I don't buy it either (none / 0) (#53)
    by lilburro on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:57:38 AM EST
    all this, just to raise the debt ceiling (which should've been done as part of The Deal, anyway?).

    How does Obama offering $4 trillion in spending cuts and possible cuts to Social Security (or, sorry, changes that amount to cuts) and Medicare strengthen his hand in the future?

    The nicest thing I can think of is that Obama thinks this is necessary (it's not), that it won't hurt the economy too much (it probably will hurt the economy), and that better he shape the future as a Democrat than have a Republican do it (but at a time when the GOP is so radicalized that his policy is substantively conservative!).  And also, it's a nice little achievement.

    Or you can believe it's just a giant farce to raise the debt ceiling.  If so, there had to be an easier way.


    Not raising the debt ceiling (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 11:12:25 AM EST
    as part of the Deal was a colossal blunder.

    It was a blunder for Obama... (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by Romberry on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 07:25:19 PM EST
    ...only if you assume that the current circumstance was not his preferred and intended outcome. I don't assume that. In fact, I assume the opposite. The real blunder was the madness which led frenzied masses to vote for this man in the first place.

    Outside of the madness, what he was at his core was there to see, and for any who payed close attention to his words and parsed them very carefully, his intentions with regards to things like Social Security and the deficit were also plain. (And on other issues where things were sometimes not so plain, he just out and out lied: FISA. Revisiting NAFTA. Indefinite detention without charge or trial. Launching unprovoked wars without facing an imminent threat to the US or its vital interests.)


    At the time (none / 0) (#63)
    by lilburro on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 11:33:51 AM EST
    in various quarters The Deal was being sold as necessary to progressives because it would include the debt ceiling, the arms treaty, etc.  And most frustrating of all, self-proclaimed progressives were doing the selling.  It's not like the Obama Administration were pushing that.

    I think we're all mistaken (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:49:40 AM EST
    The idea that Obama "doesn't understand economics," or that he "believes in the Right Wing, Conservative agenda," doesn't hold water. Let's face facts, Obama is a brilliant man; devious, unfeeling, immoral? Yes. Stupid? Most definitely, No.

    His entire history displays a person of pathological ambition, accompanied by a detached reticence, and complete lack of empathy, especially towards poor people. He truly believes that because he became successful, the only reason that others did not is due to some moral deficiency. "They deserve what they're getting. If they wanted to be successful, they could be. Just look at me."

    And, while all politicians are ambitious, there's a big difference between ambition, and blind ambition. And Obama is nothing, if not a brilliantly, blindly ambitious politician. He can "read the tea leaves" with the best of them and has rightly determined which political movement offers the path of least resistance to satisfy his unquenchable thirst for victory.....his, not the country's.

    He knows exactly what he's doing and unless we start understanding what a disturbed, and defective human we elected to deliver us from the evils of Bush/Cheney we're in for more trouble than we can imagine.


    You'd think an evil genius (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 11:09:39 AM EST
    could manage to find a way to get re-elected and still espouse one or two correct views about the economy.

    Obama is a ... (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 12:35:18 PM EST
    mildly talented puppet.  Nothing more.  Without massive cover from the lapdog media, his numbers would be in the toilet.

    He frankly rivals W in the saying stupid things category.  But the media ignores it, and the Republicans won't capitalize on it (further proof he's really their guy), so Obama skates by.  And this imaginary legend of his political skill is allowed to continue.


    there is nothing in his academic (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by cpinva on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 04:52:53 PM EST
    or professional background to support any claim that he does understand basic economics, nothing. i'm inclined to believe he doesn't. either that, or the academy should nominate him for the best actor award, in a role requiring that he appear totally ignorant of a subject.

    I couldn't have said it better myself. (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 01:59:59 PM EST
    Every puppy has his day, (none / 0) (#122)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 04:21:30 PM EST
    and today is yours, Jim.

    "A stopped clock" and all that.

    So here's a toast to today, cheers.


    Looks like that clock has been running 24/7 (none / 0) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 04:37:48 PM EST
    since about this time in 2008.

    But you know, I would rather have a vibrant economy and Obama in office that what we have now.


    Obama and the Media make it up (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by samsguy18 on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 11:28:07 AM EST
    As they go along ......They have been distorting the numbers for the last  six months. David Plouffe's comment about unemlpoyment... how it will not be a deciding factor in 2012 is another campaign strategy to spin more BS......Obama is incompetent ! At this point in time I really believe the media's complicity and support of the great pretender borders on criminal.

    The "incompetent" label only fits Obama (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 12:16:11 PM EST
    if you think he is trying to advance a real Democratic agenda, or pushing for more liberal policies, and failing; the thing is that that's not what he's doing.  If you removed Obama's name from all that he's said and done, and were asked to identify the party affiliation of the person behind all of it, I'm positive you would say "Republican" in a heartbeat.

    He's good at being a Republican; he's bad at being a Democrat because he isn't one.  He hides behind it, and his supporters still insist on calling him a liberal, but it's hard to run from ideology.

    The media - jeez, don't get me started.  Maybe just remember that the media are part of huge corporations, and they know which side of the bread their butter is on - and it isn't in criticizing or questioning the policies of an administration that is openly and cravenly and constantly finding new ways to show their love to Wall Street, the banksters and the rest of corporate America..

    Obama and his advisors have no choice but to engage in a campaign of revisionism because they have nothing else to fall back on; they are going to have to bank on an electorate that is willing to accept their version of life under Barack Obama instead of the one they've actually been living - and the sad thing is, they will find a fair number of people like that.  I don't know, is denial what we're all going to have to do in order to hang onto our sanity?

    No, Obama's not incompetent - he's very good at being a Republican, which I'm sure the Republicans will be secretly thanking him for when they take over in 2013.


    Plouffe could be right (none / 0) (#139)
    by dandelion on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 07:03:42 PM EST
    American voters might not care about the economy in 2012 for the simple reason that there might not be any economy left to care about.

    Here's something that really ... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 12:27:49 PM EST
    needs to be dealt with.  And congress is busy arguing about the arbitrary, imaginary, and irrelevant debt ceiling.

    makes perfectly good sense to me. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by cpinva on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 01:07:05 PM EST
    following this logic, the next step is to reduce marginal tax rates on corps/rich people to near zero, and eliminate all public spending except defense (and require soldiers to provide their own rations & ammunition). based on the friedman/greenspan/austrian/rand economic models, 240 million jobs should be created, literally overnite.

    if they're counting on (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by desmoinesdem on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 01:21:53 PM EST
    huge fundraising and running against someone "unelectable" being enough to get Obama a second term, I think they are mistaken. These employment numbers are only going to get worse now that stimulus spending is done and there will be further government job/funding cuts.

    Watching Michele Bachmann's new ad and her short stump speech in Iowa, I don't think she sounds unelectable at all.

    Obama can't claim to have put the economy on the right track. He isn't in any position to argue against the Republican prescription for the economy (more tax cuts and spending cuts), because he's been embracing austerity politics for the last year and a half.

    Will this be the week (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Towanda on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 01:35:18 PM EST
    that the 2012 election was lost for the Dems, when pundits and historians and others look back for the turning point at which decisions were made -- on Social Security and Medicare, on JOBS, on three wars and more -- that could only lead to political disaster?

    If not this week, then it will be pinpointed as a week already behind us in this long and painful decline of leadership and of this land.  Ahead, I see only disaster.  And the only disaster I can worry about now is for the American people.  

    Obama and the Dem leaders? since they don't worry about me and mine, I don't worry about them.  They'll do fine, but they'll do so out of office and/or out of power, because they are not doing a d*mn thing to show voters that their leaders even care.  And that's when leaders lose their support.


    Everyone has his or her own (5.00 / 7) (#100)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 02:01:59 PM EST
    tipping point, that thing that happens or is said that makes them say, "That's it, I'm done!"  And Obama and his brain trust and the Democratic leadership and Dems up for re-election in 2012 can ignore that, if they like, but they do so at their peril.  One more family member who loses a job, one more person who loses a home, who goes from a good-paying job to minimum wage, whose kids give up trying to afford a house, who gives up on the dream, is probably one more person who wakes up to the fact that Democrats are not only not helping them, but pushing policies that hurt them, that will keep them down.  They will know, as I do, that Republicans are not going to help them, either, so what will they do?  Stay home.  Leave the ballot blank where it says, "President of the United States."  Write in someone - anyone - who seems to understand the importance of public service, the greater good and improving the quality of people's lives.

    Part of me understands that getting people to the point where they give up serves - quite well - the interests of the powerful, and so is as much a strategy as efforts to get out the vote.  Grind the people to the point where they won't come out to vote against you, and maybe you can still win.

    Heckuva strategy - very Plouffian, I think; the man who in saying that unemployment doesn't matter is really saying that people who don't contribute anything don't deserve anything except the bottom of his shoe.

    Actually, maybe it's less Plouffian than it is Obama-esque; why blame the employee for speaking for the employer, right?


    Yes, this new form of voter suppression (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Towanda on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 02:36:39 PM EST
    by openly stating that this administration does not care about so many Americans is intriguing.  

    I would not bet on its viability, though.  The unemployed today are not primarily the non-voters of the past; many are from the middle class (and formerly middle class), the group that has voted in past, and the group that may be feeling the most betrayed.  They're certainly the group that, rather than not contributing anything, have contributed for years, decades, even half a century toward their Social Security and Medicare.

    Take their jobs and savings and now take their contributions to their security in future, too?  And do so while stating that this administration does not care about them?  Obama's brilliant strategists must be so convinced that he is historic that they have some new plan for getting out the vote and the voters that defies all that ever has happened before in our history.


    30+ yrs and counting . . . (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 02:47:33 PM EST
    They're certainly the group that, rather than not contributing anything, have contributed for years, decades, even half a century toward their Social Security and Medicare.

    O's a phucking fool if he thinks he can talk his way around messing with SS/MC. In case he hasn't noticed, people ARE paying attention, and bad news travels fast. And we don't need his father knows best attitude while he explains it's for our own good, it's the best he can do or whatever recycled excuse he's dishing out.


    Yes, the talk in the bagel shops (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Towanda on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 03:03:46 PM EST
    (which are the barber shops of my community, with so many folks either long-haired or hairless owing to fashion, age and/or chemo) has been all about these cuts.  

    There is a table at our favorite bagel stop of diehard, obnoxious, loud right-wingers who drive most others there nuts on any issues.  Over time, they have become an island, and others have given up discussion with them.  But for the first time in a long time, there is a general sense of community again on these cuts, and the right-wingers received grudging admission that they right about something:  how they voted in 2008.

    You bet that people are paying attention, all sorts of people.  Everyone in the place knew something about the cuts to Social Security and Medicare.  And even the younger set who have invested for not many years at all understand that as soon as the teenagers move out, the grandparents could have to move in -- or, as some pointed out whose kids have not been able to afford to leave or have had to move back home, they could be back to the three- or four-generation families under one roof.

    That elicited great groans from the sandwich generation, like us, already having to support a couple of generations and already having to defer our retirement to do so.  In sum, this issue truly hits home in American homes no matter their previous politics.


    Your rhetoric notwithstanding (2.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Politalkix on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 03:02:12 PM EST
    Plouffe did not say what you wrote ("Heckuva strategy - very Plouffian, I think; the man who in saying that unemployment doesn't matter is really saying that people who don't contribute anything don't deserve anything except the bottom of his shoe").

    What he said is provided in link.
    Essentially he is saying that it does not matter whether the unemployment rate is 9% or 5%, nobody would care or believe any number if the numbers ran counter to their own experience about the economy. This is very different from what you wrote.


    essentially (none / 0) (#153)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 09:49:39 AM EST
    Plouffe & Obama are doubling down on the cluelessness & condescension

    that's what i take from Plouffe's remarks


    Deep Thought of the Day (2.67 / 3) (#90)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 01:41:59 PM EST
    My experience in agreeing with my TL family on things like DSK is a lot more pleasant than disagreeing with them on Obama.

    I think the Obama Hatred over the next few weeks is going to make for an unpleasant time for the kid.

    Calling it "Obama Hatred" says you are (5.00 / 13) (#94)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 01:50:49 PM EST
    truly clueless, totally dishonest, not paying attention, blinded, or just trying to stir the pot. Which is it?

    Oh, and you don't score much higher when it comes to issues involving women. Just sayin' . . . you have a track record.


    +1000 (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 02:00:55 PM EST
    thank you, nycstray

    Nope (1.00 / 2) (#102)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 02:13:41 PM EST
    I believe that there are some, but no all, who hate the guy. I say that because I believe that no matter how much the economy recovers or what he does or what events occur from this point out, some will refuse to give him any credit.

    Call that dislike or hate or whatever.

    Whatever you want to call it, if the reaction is separated from his results, it isn't logical and has some emotional or other component.

    DADT was a great example. The repeal happened he signed it. It occurred within his first two years.

    When I saw folks here arguing that Obama deserved zero credit for it, I knew that the reaction was completely separated from the facts.  I call that hateraid.

    Now is not the time to judge hateraid on the economic stuff because the facts tell us that Obama deserves every bit of the heat he is getting.  Between this and the deficit stuff, he (and his supporters) have to suck it up and take the blasting they are getting.


    I think that the tables will change more quickly than many think. And when they do, the hateraid will be apparent to all that objectively look for it.


    To test your thesis (5.00 / 6) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 02:15:13 PM EST
    we will need for to have some facts on the ground - "I believe that no matter how much the economy recovers . . ."

    When that happens, let's talk.


    First, the economy has to actually, you know, (5.00 / 5) (#116)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 03:38:16 PM EST
    recover, don't you think, before you can pre-judge whether Obama will or won't be given any credit?

    I've said this before, and I'll say it again: my disapproval is directed at the job Obama is doing as president, at the policies he's advocating, at the agenda he's pushing - not - did you get that?  not at him, the person, the man, the individual.  I don't know that person, so it wouldn't really make much sense for me to project my disapproval and dissatisfaction about the job he's doing onto him, personally.

    It's true that his manner of speaking grates on my ears, but I don't think that translates to I hate "him."

    Not that you will be inclined to believe me, as that won't fit with your wanting to ascribe the negativity to the man and not the job.

    With respect to some of the social issues, Obama has a tendency to adopt a rather passive attitude; if others will do the work, and the work results in movement, he's willing to sign on, but the passivity means that he can also stay out of the fray if he sees political risk in being in the middle of it - or, God forbid, leading the way.

    I'm sure there are people who "hate" Obama, but most of the people here, in my opinion, are  policy-driven and not personality-driven.  This makes it hard to discuss a lot of things with you because your comments suggest that you are more invested in Obama's political fortunes than you are in the quality and consequence of his policy.

    And for as long as we keep talking about what's best for the country, and you keep talking about what's best for Obama, I suspect we will continue to clash.


    Your return to the (5.00 / 5) (#137)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 05:11:15 PM EST
    Obama hatred meme you've trotted out so often in the past does no more than reflect an inability to support your positions on the merits.  As I've responded to you in the past, no one here hates Obama.  We disagree intensely with many of his policies.  Go back and read the posts when Osama Bin Laden was killed.  Pres. got broad-based kudos here for a nervy, well-executed decision. Many of us simply are opposed to the actions Pres. Obama has taken, particularly regarding the economy, jobs, entitlement programs, etc.

    And (none / 0) (#107)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 02:32:32 PM EST
    Regarding DADT, so when will that repeal be enacted.

    All of these examples you give are not examples!



    Today (none / 0) (#108)
    by lilburro on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 02:33:57 PM EST
    This business (none / 0) (#117)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 04:02:21 PM EST
    about DADT not being repealed is silly.  The path is set and it will happen. This period of implementation was always contemplated in any plan that included military support.

    Shorter:  There is your hateraid.


    DADT, etc, etc (none / 0) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 04:42:55 PM EST
    And all of that...is essentially meaningless.

    The issue is the economy. The problem was/is and apparently will be, surplus of houses and too high gasoline prices.

    Obama can't solve the former and doesn't have a problem with the latter.


    Make sure you check (none / 0) (#133)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 04:57:11 PM EST
    the hatred column next to my name.

    I'll give you an analogy that even you might understand. I hate bullies, and I am grateful for being raised by parents who made sure I would never tolerate being a victim, nor tolerate watching passively while others were being victimized. Most everyone has been witness to the stressed, bully father in the supermarket who whops his 4 year old viciously for some typical 4 year old infraction. What I feel seeing that is hatred.

    What Obama is doing to the countless millions of our completely innocent seniors, minors,  weak, sick, and defenseless fellow citizens is nothing short of sociopathic, sadistic, and completely unnecessary violence to both body and soul. If seeing a 4 year old abused brings out the hatred in me I'll leave it to your imagination of how I feel seeing Obama abusing an entire nation.

    You want me to be "fair" and give him "credit" for buying some girl scout cookies? That's your delusional game.

    No thanks. I'll stick with hatred.


    Yeah I was not kidding (none / 0) (#157)
    by lilburro on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 04:24:56 PM EST
    as of yesterday DADT was implemented and the military is now accepting openly gay solders' applications.  There are issues in full equality and implementation that are important to monitor (MilitaryTracy has been following it and providing us updates) but as for DADT, they're doing a good job.

    2 realities - right here at TL! (none / 0) (#110)
    by smott on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 02:42:07 PM EST
    I believe that there are some, but no all, who hate the guy. I say that because I believe that no matter how much the economy recovers or what he does or what events occur from this point out, some will refuse to give him any credit.

    We believe that there are some, like ABG, who will defend the guy no matter how many Democratic principles he betrays. We say that because  we  believe that no matter how much the economy  continues to tank,  or how many failed Reaganist policies he continues to roll out,  f-cking the bottom 98%,  from this point out, ABG  will  continue to apologize/defend/make sh-t up/ or otherwise pretend that Obama is the New FDR.


    Oh (none / 0) (#118)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 04:04:10 PM EST
    You think I am the only one who believes that?



    ABG..... (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by samsguy18 on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 02:01:02 PM EST
    No one hates Obama here at TL.....However speaking for myself he was not qualified for this job...

    Sooo (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 02:13:39 PM EST
    You no longer believe the economy will show significant improvement "over the next several months?"

    Nope (none / 0) (#104)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 02:16:50 PM EST
    I will double down and wager that the numbers in July will be better than June and will mark the start of the improvement.

    I believe that I stated last week or so that we've probably hit the top of the unemployment numbers but acknowledged that it may nudge up slightly.

    Given the projections I am reading for July, I think that's it.  We'll start dropping now.  Maybe not in a straight line but this is the worst it gets.

    So says ABG, July 8, 2011.


    Better than June (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 02:52:01 PM EST
    Pretty low bar no?

    Not low at all (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 04:06:35 PM EST
    People here claimed without caveat that this was a double dip. If it is a double dip, any incremental improvement disproves their assertions.

    A trend of .1% a month improvement from here on out puts the number in the 8% range by the end of 2012 and you know my predictions on that.

    We don't need huge drops, which just need steady drops in the right direction.


    I'd like to play poker or (none / 0) (#124)
    by observed on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 04:27:55 PM EST
    backgammon with you.

    Still predicting the unemployment #'s (none / 0) (#115)
    by shoephone on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 03:18:01 PM EST
    will be in the 7% range by the election?

    7-8% range (none / 0) (#120)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 04:07:17 PM EST
    That's been my prediction and I stand by it.

    Between 7-8.9%? (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 06:18:37 PM EST
    Or between 7 and 8.0%?

    Here's a lil' light reading for ya (none / 0) (#140)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 07:22:02 PM EST
    I'm sure you'll be able to find something in there to support you prediction . . . .

    Hyperbole again, and it will not work (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Towanda on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 02:28:32 PM EST
    in 2012.  The majority of Americans, including me, continue to find him very likeable, so we hardly  "hate" him.

    However, his policies and his actions are hateful toward too many of us who vote based on policies and actions.

    Tell you what:  If even one of our unemployed family members finally lands a job or even an interview in the next month, so that we can save more to compensate for the coming, hateful cuts in our Social Security and Medicare, we'll reconvene here to reconsider our current reaction to Obama's record.


    oh please, spare me! (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by cpinva on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 05:01:13 PM EST
    no one on this site has expressed hatred of obama, more like either disappointment, or "i told you so". i didn't vote for him in my state's D primary. i don't hate him, i just didn't think, as educated, articulate and smart as he obviously is, that he was quite ready for the leap just yet. he needed more experience at the national level, before being brought up to the big league.

    unfortunately, i have been proven correct in my assessment. i wish i had been horribly, horribly wrong.

    he's a pitcher who went directly from "A" ball, to the major leagues, and gets clobbered in his first start. no one is particularly shocked.


    He isn't a kid (none / 0) (#149)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 08:34:20 AM EST
    Heh, and more deep thoughts (none / 0) (#151)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 08:48:38 AM EST
    In terms of House votes, where are we? (none / 0) (#24)
    by magster on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:06:31 AM EST
    There's a number of dead-enders who will vote against any debt ceiling extension.  There's also Blue Dogs that will relish Obama's cave-in.  How many Blue Dogs does Boehner need to counter the Republicans who won't vote for any extension?

    And then, is the debt ceiling a 50 or 60 vote threshold in the Senate?

    Some Dems (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 05:01:10 PM EST
    in House are stating that they will not vote for any proposal that cuts Social Security, etc., but prefer to let House Repubs stick their necks out and vote for such legislation, so that the public can see who favors cuts to the safety net and who does not.  I agree here. Then let the Repubs run for reelection with that record, and few Dems for cover.  

    If Boehner pushes a plan (none / 0) (#105)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 02:24:21 PM EST
    that requires Dem. votes to pass, he will be out as Speaker in a heartbeat and Cantor will be the new Speaker.  I very much doubt Boehner is willing to risk that for what he knows very well is the good of the country.

    The problem is, was and will be... (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 01:56:44 PM EST
    Two fold.

    Too many houses chasing too few buyers has/will keep that market depressed.

    The price of oil in 2008 was the stake that was driven through the economy in 2008 to finish it off. Bush finally, with the help of some Demos, popped that bubble, oil prices dropped and the economy started to improve in 2009.

    So what did Obama do? He signaled the oil mavens and speculators that he didn't mind high energy prices.

    Facing gas prices near $4 a gallon and a pivotal national election, congressional Democrats allowed a ban on offshore drilling to lapse in September

    But times change, and on Tuesday, the Obama administration - with gas prices roughly half what they were and many Democrats' having been swept into office - blocked offshore drilling plans put in place at the last minute by the Bush administration, including plans to open the national outer continental shelf for drilling.

    Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar also announced last week that his agency would block drilling on public lands in Utah, criticizing the Bush administration for releasing its offshore drilling plan just days before leaving office.


    And gasoline prices, which were around $1.80/gallon have drifted slowly upward since 1/20/09... After hitting a high of above $4.00 it dropped for a few weeks but is how climbing again gaining about 15 cents in the past few days.

    Yet Obama will not admit that his energy policy is wrong.

    But he doesn't have to. The economy is doing it for him.

    one itsy, bitsy problem (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by cpinva on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 05:08:55 PM EST
    with your analysis:

    if there was that much oil sitting offshore, just waiting to be sucked out, don't you think it would have happened 20 or 30 years ago? not to mention (but i will), wells don't just start producing overnight. were i to start drilling today, it would be a year or two before commercial level production began, assuming i actually hit paydirt.

    there just isn't that much in the way of known or anticipated reserves in or around the continental US, to supply current and future domestic energy needs, absent the discovery of some ginormous new pool. it would be best if we expended those funds developing viable (and more environmentally friendly) alternative energy sources, vs wasting them chasing after a dwindling supply of oil.


    He's right in a way (none / 0) (#146)
    by Slado on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 06:32:14 AM EST
    In that this is a structural reality.

    Obama inherited a lare amount of debt.  Add that to the household and mortgage debt and the economy was retracting when he took office.  He along with Bush bet that if the govt stepped in and stimulated the economy through bailouts and printing it could cause the economy to grow fast enough to make up for the increased debt.

    They where wrong.  Some will say they just didn't think big enough.  That argument can be saved for another day.  Be it principal or execution the policy that Obama tried has failed.  

    Now we have more debt, a slow economy that is still trying to retract and all that leads to zero job creation.

    Dems just can't accept the economic reality that until we deal with our debt issues we will not rebound.  It sucks.  It won't be pretty but if we keep fooling ourselves that we can borrow and print our way to prosperity wenwil drag out the pain for years.

    That means slashing everything, entitlements, military, NASA, etc....  Everybody loses.  

    Too bad ournsystem isn't set up for reality.


    Debt is not the problem (none / 0) (#148)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 08:33:17 AM EST
    The inability to generate demand is the problem.  People and governments will always have bills...forever

    Without demand there aren't any jobs and no taxes paid in and goods being sold.  If you slash government spending right now you will lose even more demand and trigger the next Great Depression.


    Wrong (none / 0) (#155)
    by Slado on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 02:17:01 PM EST
    There is no demand because their is no money, only debt.

    People are broke, govts are broke and companies can't sell things to people who can't afforfd to buy them.

    Think about housing.  Too many houses, not enough buyers.  Then look at autos, too much capacity, not enough buyers.  On and on.

    For that last decade or more we collectively inflated the economy with cheap money and it is naturally retracting to realistic levels.  All this stimulating and borrowing is making it worse because money is worth less and most of us still have or make about the same as we did two years ago.

    The average American has credit card debt, a stagnant or reduced salary and a mortgage that they are upside down on.  How is that person supposed to create demand?

    In a way you are right but the root issue isn't demand, its the debt that's causing the lack of it.


    Our government is never (none / 0) (#159)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 08:04:32 PM EST
    actually broke, our government is what creates our currency. Now can we look better to investors by not packing around what they would deem a dangerous amount of debt indicating that we may not pay up someday?  Sure, but compared to the rest of the world we are still the currency of investor choice.  What you can do though by cutting government spending right now is usher in the next Great Depression.  That is what you will accomplish with where you are going with all this.  You won't/can't heal anything doing what you think needs to be done, you will only destroy even more.

    Tipped because you wooed me (none / 0) (#150)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 08:38:17 AM EST
    I read everything you wrote, you sucked me in :)

    It's going down worse than I thought (none / 0) (#152)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 08:54:34 AM EST
    it was going to, and I'm such a doomsday girl when it comes to Obama's economic policy failure.  How could this actually be going down worse?  On the way home I listened to some Republican getting his few minutes on NPR saying that the Fed never should have allowed QE to end, but it wasn't doing anything for average or poor people, it was only enriching the rich and making economic disparity even worse.  It only ended a few days ago, the same day that the books closed on the employment/unemployment figures for June.

    Now you get it. (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Slado on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 02:24:40 PM EST
    How could QE help the average person?

    Did it help them pay off their credit card?

    Did it help them refinance their house?

    Did it cause them to get a raise?

    No.  It pumped money into the top of the system and the rest of us from the middle to the bottom still have the same issues.

    Only difference is now the govt is more in debt then before and it must cut services.

    Wish we could get that money back.


    Now I get it? (none / 0) (#158)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 07:43:00 PM EST
    I always got it where QE is concerned.  Perhaps you should read some of my comments maybe huh? Thought it was a horrible idea.  Wanna make any bets on whether or not QE3 happens?  I bet if the stock market starts to tank, they will still do it.  They are still doing a QE3 lite.

    Interesting Twitter tweet (none / 0) (#164)
    by Natal on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 08:25:50 AM EST
    Canada has 38m pop and created 24k jobs. US has 308m pop but only created 18k jobs.

    Interesting Twitter tweet (none / 0) (#165)
    by Natal on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 09:16:30 AM EST
    Canada has 38m pop and created 24k jobs. US has 308m pop but only created 18k jobs.