An Era Of Diminished Expectations

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the United States economy had a net gain of 117,000 jobs, and upwardly revised job reports for May and June. The headline unemployment rate dropped by a tenth to 9.1%. The New York Times front page headline states that US Posts Solid Job Gains Amid Fear. It's story has the more accurate headline US Posts Stronger Job Gains Amid Fear.

Today the talk will be how things are not as bad they seemed. This is the Era of Diminished Expectations. While certainly a +117k jobs number in July is better than the May and June numbers, it is simply not good enough. Indeed, it is a sign, in my estimation of continued economic weakness. But because our expectations have been diminished, a number that would have been worrisome in May, now is cause for relief. This is bad for policy. It leads to government doing nothing about the jobs situation. It is bad politically for the President because people do not vote today on his reelection, or even this November. The President will come out today at 11 and tout this number. Sure, he'll say we have to do better, but he will say we are on the right track. We aren't. More. . .

In April, the BLS reported 244,000 jobs gained. The head of the President's Council of Economic Advisors Austan Goolsbee said then:

Today’s employment report shows that private sector payrolls increased by 268,000 in April, the strongest monthly growth in five years. [. . .] Despite headwinds from high energy prices and disruptions from the disaster in Japan, the last three months of private job gains have been the strongest in five years. While the solid pace of employment growth in recent months is encouraging, faster growth is needed to replace the jobs lost in the downturn. We are seeing signs that the initiatives put in place by this Administration – such as the payroll tax cut and business incentives for investment – are creating the conditions for companies to add new jobs and foster the industries of the future. We will continue to work with Congress to find ways to reduce spending, so that we can live within our means without neglecting the investments in education, infrastructure, and clean energy that will strengthen our economy.

(Emphasis supplied.) The President will no doubt say something similar today. It was wrong then. It is wrong now. It was more plausible then though. 244,000 is more than 117,000.

The economy is in terrible shape and likely to get worse. There is no better sign of this than the cheer a jobs report showing 117,000 jobs gained provides us.

This is an Era of Diminished Expectations.

< But Other Than That, How Did You Like The Play? | The Argument On GOP Obstruction >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    This jobs report (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 08:36:22 AM EST
    reminds me of those clever public service commercials awhile back: a young boy says, "I wanna grow up to be mediocre."

    Diminishing expectations, learn to live with it.

    Not the "change" we expected, but change nonetheless.

    Count me as a person... (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 08:37:10 AM EST
    ...who doesn't believe a word of it.  I don't think a single net job has been created in this country in the last year, how about that?  Job creation has been so poor, such a neglected area, that we are in effect creating no jobs at all.

    I don't believe any stat coming from my government about anything.  Not the economy, not war, nothing.  THAT is the biggest problem, that the American people no longer, in any way, shape, or form, believe in the government AT ALL, and they have little to no rational reason to.  This is not the era of diminished expectations, it is the era of NO expectations.  It is the end of America has we have known it.  She is never coming back, nostalgia will rule our lives until we are pushing up daisies.  Sh*t, we're a country so profoundly phucked up in our collective head, we think the WORD expectations is bad.  

    Interesting. (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Towanda on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 08:43:59 AM EST
    I also immediately thogught of body bags and Vietnam.  Lies, lies, when did my government last tell me the truth?  I really don't know.  All I see around me is the opposite of this report.

    And the numbers are SO pitiful (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:10:10 AM EST
    They are the equivalent of less than zero when put in the context of what we face as a nation attempting, quite unsuccessfully at this point, to move forward.

    Money markets could (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:26:57 AM EST
    actually go less than zero.

    Theatre of the Absurd (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 10:30:39 AM EST
    I'm waiting for a Bald Soprano to begin singing.

    I say we throw a hundred trillion at the American people.  If 20 trillion, give or take a few, was good enough for the masters, then more is good enough for the people.  Frame it as leveling the playing field.  When you give so many trillions to banksters and gamblers and debutantes, when you give that much to that small a number of people, you throw the whole balance of things outta whack.  This hundred tril, going entirely to the people who need it, will level out the playing field, and return economic power to a place it needs to be.

    Yeah yeah, impossible, a pipe drea, I know, but logic tells me that's what we need.  What we will do, however, lord only knows what cockamamie b.s. we will still have to endure before we realize our folly.

    I think I'm in a mood to bloody ol' Mary this morning.  I oughtta pummel her.  No real violence intended.


    I didn't disbelieve the numbers, but I immediately (none / 0) (#86)
    by esmense on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 01:17:00 PM EST
    thought that a lot of people would disbelieve the numbers. And why shouldn't they?

    I don't believe that they are conspiring to prevent false statistics. But I think it is highly likely their statistics are inaccurate. We will see revisions down the road. We always see revisions down the road.

    If the American people are looking for change, it needs to be radical change, and it is not going to come from the elite who finance our politicos and who are our politicos.

    It's got to come from the grassroots.

    I still have hope that ordinary Americans will, at some point, pick themselves up, turn to their neighbors, and say, "What in the hell are WE going to do about this?"


    should have read "present" (none / 0) (#87)
    by esmense on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 01:18:00 PM EST
    false statistics

    Real unemployment actually increased (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 08:37:46 AM EST
    If 125,000 jobs a month are necessary to just maintain the status quo, real unemployment increased regardless of the stated .1% drop that BLS is reporting.

    The unemployment rate fell partly because some unemployed workers stopped looking for work. That means they are no longer counted as unemployed. link

    Sad state of affairs when the best chance of lowering the BLS (BS) rate seems to be for more people to give up looking for work.

    More data on the state of unemployment (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:09:17 AM EST
    in U.S.

    Consider one crucial measure, the ratio of employment to population. In June 2007, around 63 percent of adults were employed. In June 2009, the official end of the recession, that number was down to 59.4. As of June 2011, two years into the alleged recovery, the number was: 58.2.

    These may sound like dry statistics, but they reflect a truly terrible reality. Not only are vast numbers of Americans unemployed or underemployed, for the first time since the Great Depression many American workers are facing the prospect of very-long-term -- maybe permanent -- unemployment. Among other things, the rise in long-term unemployment will reduce future government revenues, so we're not even acting sensibly in purely fiscal terms. But, more important, it's a human catastrophe. Krugman

    Regardless of the BLS (which should be BS) rate, the percentage of the adult population that is employed keeps going down.  


    Only 58% of Americans are employed! (none / 0) (#110)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Aug 06, 2011 at 01:05:59 AM EST
    THAT is stunning! And horrifying.  

    Based on 2009 tax data (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:13:33 AM EST
    According to the data, the average income for American taxpayers fell to $54,283 -- a drop of $3,516, or about 6.1 percent, between 2008 and 2009. Not only that, but the overall number of taxpayers -- that is, individuals or married couples filing with the IRS -- fell by almost two million.
    The number of 1040EZ returns -- the simplified tax form for filers who have no dependents, and whose taxable income is less than $100,000 -- fell by 23 percent between 2008 and 2009.

    The decline in 1040EZs represents low-income taxpayers who lost their jobs and couldn't remain a part of the workforce, Kleinbard told The Huffington Post.

    "What you're seeing is people at the bottom rung of the economic ladder being taken off the economic ladder entirely," Kleinbard said. link

    Using "average" income (none / 0) (#19)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:25:00 AM EST
    is the wrong formula for displaying the income for most Americans. The greatly increased number of millionaires and billionaires created in the money grab of the past few decades make "average" income meaningless. Using "mean," or "median" income would give a much more accurate picture of what most Americans earn.

    I don't agree that the number is (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:51:20 AM EST
    meaningless. Less accurate surely but not meaningless. If as you contend the number of millionaires and billionaires has increased, then the fact that the average income has gone down, is still an indicator the the lower 98% are getting poorer all the time.

    my apologies (none / 0) (#56)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 11:52:00 AM EST
    But, whenever I hear the term, "average," I'm reminded of this example:

    If there are ten houses on a street, and each one is worth $100,000, the "average" worth of each house is, of course, $100,000.

    Now, if an eccentric millionaire buys one of the houses, knocks it down, and builds a new one worth $10,000,000, the "average worth of each of the houses becomes $1,090,000.

     Naturally, the math is correct, but the reality is distorted, to say the least.

    Sorry again for my boorishness, I understood the point you were making.


    It was a good point (none / 0) (#90)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 02:20:53 PM EST

    Curious what number you project as (none / 0) (#25)
    by BTAL on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:43:38 AM EST
    the greatly increased number of millionaires and billionaires there are in the US?

    I can not help but be skeptical (none / 0) (#58)
    by Amiss on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 11:56:56 AM EST
    of today's "new" jobs numbers. Sorry I just dont trust that the day after such a devastating drop yesterday that they just "magically" were doubled.

    Do you?


    To be fair (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 12:18:20 PM EST
    The job numbers are based on data from July and yesterday's drop was a result of the debt ceiling vote (among other things).  Possibly also part in anticipation of a bad jobs number.

    Hand-in-hand with diminished (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:05:32 AM EST
    expectations is continued high unemployment as "normal;" worse, the number we hear every month does not reflect the U6 numbers, which are about twice what the announced rate is.  Do you think knowing that the "real" number is more like 18% would get anyone's attention, snap them out of their stupor?

    Krugman today writes (my bold added):

    For two years, officials at the Federal Reserve, international organizations and, sad to say, within the Obama administration have insisted that the economy was on the mend. Every setback was attributed to temporary factors -- It's the Greeks! It's the tsunami! -- that would soon fade away. And the focus of policy turned from jobs and growth to the supposedly urgent issue of deficit reduction.

    But the economy wasn't on the mend.


    Consider one crucial measure, the ratio of employment to population. In June 2007, around 63 percent of adults were employed. In June 2009, the official end of the recession, that number was down to 59.4. As of June 2011, two years into the alleged recovery, the number was: 58.2.

    These may sound like dry statistics, but they reflect a truly terrible reality. Not only are vast numbers of Americans unemployed or underemployed, for the first time since the Great Depression many American workers are facing the prospect of very-long-term -- maybe permanent -- unemployment. Among other things, the rise in long-term unemployment will reduce future government revenues, so we're not even acting sensibly in purely fiscal terms. But, more important, it's a human catastrophe.

    A human catastrophe, which is going to be helped, how, exactly, by our new era of austerity?

    I'm sick to death of the excuses, the overall pathetic response from the WH and the Congress, the there's-not-much-we-can-do, shoulder-shrugging-while-looking-somber routine, the steady encroachment on programs that represent the only things keeping some people from falling into the abyss.  I'm sick of the talk about the "pivot" to jobs - because it's just more blather, same-old, same-old, uninspired, timid, conservative, Reagan-inspired trickle-down BS.

    And now, we're going to have to months and months of the administration sprinkling - no, maybe spackling - rhetorical magic fairy glitter all over the last couple of years; I'm not sure I can take it without large doses of mind-numbing medication.

    Obama's reelection campaign (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:33:13 AM EST
    a rerun of the of 2008 sell them Obama love while diverting away from facts and details.

    Basically, it boils down to this: "don't worry your pretty little heads about anything":

    President Obama counseled supporters Wednesday evening "not to get too bogged down" in details when explaining his record to voters during the campaign.

    The president, in a video conference with supporters Wednesday night from Chicago, encouraged his backers to focus on broad themes when it comes to his policies on taxes and war, instead of the specifics of individual policies. "I think the key is not to get too bogged down in detail," the president said last night.
    Obama said his campaign, led by Jeremy Bird, his national field director, would take the lead in ensuring that volunteers have good talking points to take out on the campaign trail. The president said his administration would also lay out new initiatives that would help his grassroots volunteers sell his record.

    This is actually a reprise of the 2008 campaign's quasi religious "how I came to Obama" strategy: link

    Note to Mr. Bird: go (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 12:02:39 PM EST
    easy on the jokes, such as this one told by the president at the DNC Birthday bash in Chicago:  "And its true that I turn 50 tomorrow--(applause)--which means that by the time I wake up I'll have an email from AARP (laughter) asking me to call President Obama and tell him to protect Medicare--(laughter and applause).  

    "no one could have predicted" (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 01:49:35 PM EST
    that the WMD aimed at Medicare were under Obama's desk

    Oh how I'd love (none / 0) (#91)
    by cal1942 on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 03:24:04 PM EST
    to read those talking points.  

    Although, I'm sure we'll see them soon enough.

    We must prepare ourselves for either side splitting laughter or projectile vomiting.


    Coming to your big ABG screen soon :( (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 03:40:30 PM EST
    Cant help but wonder (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Amiss on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 12:03:32 PM EST
    how Oprah feels now about "the one". When you brought up the fundraiser, it made me wonder if she was there still supporting him.

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 12:36:19 PM EST
    Yes, she still loves him.

    Oprah isn't about the little guy.  She is about her rich-lady, trickle down, bottom line.


    Just another (none / 0) (#92)
    by cal1942 on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 03:27:49 PM EST
    one of our current day run of the mill elites.

    Nothing in the least bit remarkable about any of them.


    I think it's actually excellent tactics (none / 0) (#40)
    by smott on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 10:13:52 AM EST
    On the part of the Obama campaign to so studiously ignore jobs programs, talking about jobs programs (never mind creating them LOL!), or anything much related to the high UE rate.  It's absolutely in his interest to "normalize" 9-10% UE.

    He knows "it's the economy stupid" and the primary threat to re-election is the state of the economy as 2012 approaches...

    But if 9-10% UE is normal, well, nobody talks much about it.

    What we'll hear is that the economy is doing about as well as it can be given the eeevil GOP.


    look, everybody knows, (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 12:15:24 PM EST
    everybody, you, me, Obama, and everyone else that the ONLY theme is, "You Are Not Going To Vote For Anyone From THAT Crazy Party. You Can't Be That Crazy."

    But, of course, he can't say that, even though its true, and its going to work.


    Here In Chicago" Democrat Land " (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by samsguy18 on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 01:15:23 PM EST
    The unemployment rate is at 25%. The press here loves to report on each and everyone of Obama's 38 fundraisers and we can't forget to mention his star studded birthday bash on the day the market tanked again 500pts. If you happen to be one of the terminally unemployed middle aged individuals who have been pushed into medicaid I can assure you the humiliation of having to wait in a que for 6 to 12 hours to see a doctor or to obtain the low cost medication you need ...you'll break your arm first before you'll vote for Obama again !  

    Another great idea from the party of ideas :-( (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:23:21 AM EST
    Governor Corbett is suggesting that the commonwealth's 117 parks would be even better if they were sold off to private companies. Wait... what? No, it's not a joke (TL sidebar)

    Wonder how long it will take Obama to incorporate this "great idea" at the federal level into his deficit reduction plan.

    Ours (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:46:42 AM EST
    are already privatized.  Sold too? so that banksters, military contractors and other corporate welfare recipients can get even richer?

    I am so glad I have no children so I don't feel the guilt of having brought people into a world in a country where the government has no conscience.


    Thanks for bringing up another (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 10:01:32 AM EST
    parenting fail :) The list is long, you are not permitted to speak to my daughter about this :)

    That's the aim and the trend (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by cal1942 on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 03:45:36 PM EST
    Sell off public goods to further enrich the richest.

    Get the hands of the rich directly into our pockets.  Increase the income gap all the more and watch the economy erode all the more.

    Imagine our national parks sold off to the highest bidders.  They can make an extra buck  selling off building lots in Yosemite for a mansion with a multi-million dollar view.  Set up a fancy expensive lodge on Isle Royale so rich hunters can come in and shoot up the moose herd.  And on and on ...  


    Yeah (none / 0) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 05:40:05 PM EST
    I mean just so many of our poor, both working and non-working, get to use our National Parks.

    Why just the other day I saw a pick up loaded down with household goods from a foreclosed home barreling through the front gates of Yellowstone.


    I know they are talking about (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:25:48 AM EST
    selling all kinds of crazy stuff.  Who needs a park?

    Seriously... (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:43:46 AM EST
    when they talk about the budget axe, its all the good sh*t government does that they look to cut first.

    Good sh&t like SS and Medicare and our parks...I guess cuz only proles need and value these things...the money class have no need for parks, they have houses on pristine mutli-acre estates...and no need for SS or Medicare, the accountant handles that.


    Not to mention the fact that while (none / 0) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:59:24 AM EST
    the politicians in D.C. will force us into paying higher premiums for junk insurance and eliminate our financial security in our old age, we the taxpayer will continue to subsidize good health care and generous pension plans for them.

    BTW, what is the current news on the spider bite(s)?  


    Hangin' in... (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 10:13:05 AM EST
    welts still all swollen and oozing, real horror movie stuff!

    But I think the overall leg swelling is down a bit, and the discomfort is subsiding.  Only been 36 hours on the anti-b's so I guess its gonna take some time.  No calls regarding the blood work or culture yet,  so I guess no news is good news...no one could say what actually attacked me.

    Thanks for asking and your support!


    Glad to learn that you are experiencing (none / 0) (#57)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 11:53:37 AM EST
    improvement.  Antibiotic treatment does take a period of time, and, needs to be taken even beyond the time that both you and your wounds feel better (sounds like you do not have a temperature, but it would be well to check from time to time.)  Similarly, the cultures take some time to cook but the results should be available shortly.  However, the antibiotic you are taking probably has a broad enough microbial spectrum and the exact microbe may not be critical unless the antibiotic seems to be ineffective.--and another is needed.   I wonder if your dermatologist discontinued the external application of steroidal ointment, since there is an infection?  That is sometimes a tough call.  Also, leg sores and wounds tend to take longer than most to heal.  

    Usually takes 72 hours to get enough (none / 0) (#62)
    by Amiss on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 12:08:14 PM EST
    antibiotics in your bloodstream to make a real difference unless they are IV, and even then it can still take that long. Hope you get better sooner rather than later, brown recluse spiders are scarey from the damage they can do to a person. I will never forget a woman we worked months on debriding her neck after one bit her, to finally lose her. It was just awful!

    Feel better soon (none / 0) (#103)
    by sj on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 04:30:55 PM EST
    I've been worried about you.  Kind of weird, isn't it, when I wouldn't know you if I passed you on the sidewalk.

    But there it is.  I've been worried about you.


    Priorities I suppose :) (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:59:56 AM EST
    I think the question should be (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 10:12:07 AM EST
    Do we need 117 parks or would 83 be better because that's what we can afford?

    Isn't all of this like... Well, we don't want X pollutant in the atmosphere so we have reduced it to .0001% but now we want a billion dollars and to shut down 500,000 jobs to reduce it to .00001%.

    Have we found out that 3 glasses of wine are nice, 4 makes us tipsy, 5 makes us drunk and 6 makes us dangerous?


    Do have all these dumb remarks (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 12:20:40 PM EST
    in some kind of alphabetised roll-a-dex, or do you just pick them out of your

    wherever you keep your dumb remarks?


    Nope (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 05:36:44 PM EST
    I just look at what the Democrats have done and they just float to the surface of mind.

    I call them my NTStray nonsense blockers.


    Is that supposed to be a dig at me? (none / 0) (#113)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 06, 2011 at 12:51:02 PM EST
    Has Jim found out (none / 0) (#114)
    by Politalkix on Sat Aug 06, 2011 at 01:03:39 PM EST
    jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 10:12:07 AM EST
    "Have we found out that 3 glasses of wine are nice, 4 makes us tipsy, 5 makes us drunk and 6 makes us dangerous?"

    This is the question that Jim needs to answer

    Have the power elites found out that a yearly income of $500K is nice, a million makes them tipsy, multi-millions make them drunk with power and billions make them dangerous to mankind?


    Corbett's been an absolutae (none / 0) (#42)
    by smott on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 10:19:04 AM EST
    ...disaster here in PA. I sooo voted for Sestak but he was de-funded by the WH and couldn't compete. Thanks, Bar'.

    Corbett's essentially on the payroll of the Marcellus Shale drillers. Refuses to tax them  - which would have been an huge windfall for PA.

    We have to hope the EPA comes down hard on fracking, but they've been more or less taken over, so I'll be surprised if the studies say much more than "undetermined" whether fracking poisons the groundwater or the air....

    Meanwhile people are lighting the water out of their taps with their Bic lighters...


    I wonder when someone (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:31:44 AM EST
     of stature, someone respected and believable, will stand up and tell the American public the reality of the situation we find ourselves in, and give a preview of what the future portends.

    Look, the situation the American people are living in today is not unique in the annals of history. People throughout history have found themselves in situations that for any number of reasons, wars, famines, ethnic strife, have made their lives untenable. Usually they respond by moving to more favorable locations, and occasionally they stand and fight. Those that, for one reason or another, do neither, simply stay and accept a diminished standard of living.

    The way I see it is that the American economy is a zero sum game. There is a finite amount of wealth and the allocation of that wealth is what determines our standard of living. I don't have to recap for anyone here as to what has taken place in America these past several decades. The Plutocrats, after years of plotting and planning, debasing and corrupting, have struck in a final, coordinated, vicious assault on our treasure and the levers of power.

    I'm more convinced than ever that what we're experiencing is the American version of Richard Wagner's, "Götterdämmerung." The ruling class will not reduce, or give back, their unfair share of the national wealth, and thus we have 99% sharing what's left. I am told the goal is for us to learn to live with a 30% reduction of our standard of living.

    My point is, this is not just happening by coincidence, or natural selection; it is a planned, and, so far, brilliantly executed strategy to permanently change the structure and definition of the United States of America.

    Definitely agree with this (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:38:07 AM EST
    My point is, this is not just happening by coincidence, or natural selection; it is a planned, and, so far, brilliantly executed strategy to permanently change the structure and definition of the United States of America.

    This is IMO the true bipartisan agenda. All else is smoke and mirrors.  


    It seems that way doesn't? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:59:00 AM EST
    And it feels slimy and heinous and just flat EVIL.

    Yes, it is (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 12:25:17 PM EST
    but I just wish people would understand it, and not spend all their time arguing about this point, or that point, that Obama could have done better.

    The assumption that his vision of America resembles ours is, like herpes, the mistake that keeps on giving.


    I've never really seen (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:54:50 AM EST
    the United States as having a "finite" amount of wealth.  Mostly because if you've had a great idea or were inspired to provide a great service of some kind, it always seemed to me like you could make your way.  As far as retirement, invest in things you believe in that you see will be needed.

    The United States has become about protected markets though, it isn't shared risk and our markets aren't a reflection of our economic health anymore either. They are the only thing with any health at all, and it is that way because of team Geithner and what he and those who follow him thinks makes the world go round.  And by the time people cut from that cloth explain to you what makes the world go round...well, it's sexy.  It's a whole lot sexier than what I will be doing in an hour after the garbage comes.  They pick up trash on Friday, but I cleaned the freezer out on Saturday and the heat here has been a 100 degrees all week...I see bleach in my future :)

    It is time for us to get new phones too, and we are putting our daughter back on our plan.  So we have been out there cell phone and plan shopping, and how can the cell phone companies still be charging the rates they charge for the slovenly services they provide?  It makes my husband so furious because nobody has a cooler, most bandwidth available, more affordable phone than a NATO soldier.  American cell phone companies make my husband furious, how is it that we get the poor services alongside the costs that we get?  I wish I knew


    "finite" amount of wealth (none / 0) (#82)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 01:06:35 PM EST
    at any given point in time.

    If I'm selling my car, and you give me $100 for it, you end up with $100 less money, and I end up with $100 more. As far as the country is concerned, nothing changes, the total amount of money remains the same.


    A saving grace, if any... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:51:20 AM EST
    is we've become used to expecting nothing but grief from our representation, and surviving anyway.

    Or maybe just I learned the lesson very young...applying for Medicaid and getting denied, subject to arrest all the time...the myth was shattered for me by the time I was 21, for the Boomers it may be a more rude awakening.  I remember my parents took it kinda hard when they came to realize Brand D was Brand R in sheep's clothing, after believing Brand D actually cared about poor and working people for 30+ years...nobody likes to be made a fool.  

    Not me my friend (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:57:52 AM EST
    As long as things look like this, expect me to go to my grave b*tch*ng.  They'll put it on my headstone......Loving mother and wife.....died b*tch*ing, arguing, finger pointing, and hostile :)

    The fact is, tho (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:59:00 AM EST
    that when your parents signed up as Democrats, even Republicans were more like Democrats than the Democrats are now.

    They weren't taken for fools.  Their party simply left them.

    Your parents are brilliant, balanced, flexible thinkers to admit that things aren't what they were or aren't what they seem, and then change their thinking accordingly.  Some people probably never will admit this or do this.  

    I know several highly respected, supposedly brilliant academics who still hold onto the helpless president theory, etc. etc. I also think it has a lot to do with who thinks of politics as team sports and who thinks about how politicians change our lives.  The former tends to stick with the "team" until the bitter end, the 29%ers of the world.


    one of my favorite sayings (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by CST on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 10:16:29 AM EST
    from my dad:

    "The only thing worse than Democrats are Republicans"

    His rude awakening came when he realized that the communists weren't all that great either :)

    My other favorite quote is:

    "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"

    Nothing is given to you by anyone.  But it is in fact possible to make things better.  Some people do that from shouting on the outside looking in, others try to work it from the inside.  I think we need a lot of both right now.


    I fear... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 10:26:25 AM EST
    the inside is busted and perhaps beyond repair, the two party duopoly.  Anybody with some fixes is nixed before their idea sees the light of day.
    The only inside fix I can think of is a viable third party, but I guess if the greedy can buy two, why not three or four? Outside, yes, it can better if we stop kicking the dog and fighting over scraps, and help each other.

    Ya got this part right..."nothing is given to you by anyone"...but I'd add "in power" to the end, plenty is given to us by our friends and neighbors...thats how we're getting by in the age of the grifter on steroids.


    if the tea party (none / 0) (#53)
    by CST on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 11:41:19 AM EST
    can do it to the Republican party, why can't we have a movement to the left within the Democratic party?  Think of the difference between Democrats today and 30 years ago.  I see no reason why things have to stand still in the future.

    The problem with a third party system is that we don't have representative government.  I don't know that it's a viable option in the U.S. the way our system is set up.  But it's completely possible to change a party from within so that it is a completely different party.  It's happened a number of times over our history.  It can happen again.


    Can we reform Brand D from within... (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 11:50:07 AM EST
    without ceasing to vote for them, at least for a few elections?

    I mean where is the motivation for the party to reform when most people that support the party say they will vote Brand D no matter what?

    I'm not convinced the Tea Party has done anything with Brand R except change their rhetoric a little either...the billionaires who hijacked their little movement made sure of that.


    I agree with all of this (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 12:21:31 PM EST
    I think (none / 0) (#74)
    by CST on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 12:27:25 PM EST
    any change has to start on a local, smaller level.  It's harder to push the top of the ticket than the lower levels.

    But it's possible.  I mean think about if every blue state had a Bernie Sanders in there instead of John Kerry, or Schumer, or whomever.

    And it's even more possible at the house level.  All you need is good solid individuals to run for office.  Whether they brand themselves D is irrelevant.  I think sometimes people forget that politicians are individuals, just like the rest of us.  Some of them are certainly better than others.

    Thinking of MA, we have a fairly solid house delegation, although there are certainly some changes that could be made there.  But our senators both blow big time.  So that's where my focus will be in 2012.

    Another place to start is within state governments.  We have been shielded from a lot of terrible national policy by having a solid left-wing state house for years.

    Maybe the tea party was a bad example, but it's the only recent thing I could think of.


    Think global, act local... (none / 0) (#89)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 01:49:58 PM EST
    is the way to go...voters are failing there, the more local the election the less people seem to care, and the lesser the turnout.  Everybody knows who Obama is, I'm scared to ask how many Americans don't know who their local house rep is.

    Good solid people don't seem to get very far in a dirty, shady business...and the truly brilliant are smart enough to want no part of it.  Vonnegut's Fundamental Flaw of the Republic.

    The last grassroots movements to make a huge difference and create positive change were the labor movement, civil rights movement, and the anti-war movement during Vietnam.  What they all had in common was the willingness to get their heads bashed in.  The more I try to think of a way around that, the less I think its possible to make change without staring down a billy club and tear gas...and entrenched power has learned from past mistakes, and now have the consolidated corporate media firmly in their pocket.


    The "Tea Party" is not IMO a movement (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 11:57:28 AM EST
    so much as it is another arm of the "rape and pillage" of America crowd. It is extremely well funded and organized by people like the Koch brothers. They are validated and promoted by not only the corporate media but by the current president.

    Just think of how often liberal groups have self funded protests and had their activities either ignored or discounted. Also, think about how often the powers that be, including the president, has portrayed them as the fringe and liken them to the Tea Party only from the left. Also, most of the current so called liberal groups completely neuter themselves by promising to vote for Dems regardless of what the politicians do. Whoever promoted that idea must have been generously rewarded by the powers that be.


    Huh?? (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 05:45:22 PM EST
    I keep reading about how the Tea Party is so well funded, etc., etc but I haven't seen any proof.

    Could someone provide some links????

    I want to give'm a call and see if they will pick up dinner for the next meeting I attend.


    Oh for crying out loud (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by sj on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 06:15:29 PM EST
    You won't look at them anyway.  Find your own links to ignore.

    I take it from that answer (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 06, 2011 at 09:10:28 AM EST
    that you can't provide them.

    I also remember that an old Internet truism is that he who makes the claim provides the proof.


    Or, we could just use your method ... (none / 0) (#112)
    by Yman on Sat Aug 06, 2011 at 10:04:02 AM EST
    ... and claim "it's just common sense", or "we all know", without providing any evidence.  

    But your newfound interest in facts and evidence is duly noted.


    I see that your (none / 0) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 06, 2011 at 08:30:18 PM EST
    typical response is to try and reframe.

    And I have provided numerous links in our discussions.

    But laying that aside, what I did or did not do does not alter the fact that no one has shown me.


    You provide "numerous links" (none / 0) (#116)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 07:42:28 AM EST
    ... to unrelated facts, not links supporting the silly claims you draw from those facts.  I'm reframing nothing ... just laughing at the hypocrisy of someone who provides no evidence to support his silly claims, while demanding evidence from others.

    It's funny.


    I think the lefty blogs (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 12:13:30 PM EST
    were expected to fill that role. Sounds silly now. But during the Bush years, when the left was nearly apoplectic over the Patriot Act and the Iraq War, there was all sorts of talk about revitalizing the left wing of the party. But other than Soros, there didn't seem to be anyone with the money to fund it. And Move-on was the only organized group with a roster of members. Hence, the blogs, which were run by politically aware, rebellious techies, designed to both fuel and channel the anger: the "meet-ups," "drinking liberally," the Kos conventions, etc... The blogs were supposed to be the catalyzing force for all sorts of organizing. After Obama's election, a lot of it lost its cache because there was no Bush or Cheney bogey man to rail against. The left got suckered into complacency (and suckered into believing they shouldn't go after the new boss the way they went after the old boss.) And to see how the whole lefty blog dream died, you only need to think about what's happened with HuffPo. Arianna has the bankroll, but she's only interested in being a major media maven, not in finding better Democratic candidates. And neither HuffPo nor the Orange Place will countenance any talk of third parties! Ain't it great?

    Lastly, now we have to deal with the results of Citizens United, and the sad fact that the left still really doesn't have the same kind of resources to exploit that.

    One person's opinion.


    Very good thoughts (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 12:39:56 PM EST
    kinda sad, isn't it?

    like the first time you learned there's no santa claus. As skeptical and cynical as I am, I still found it breathtaking that once the D's got all the levers of power, the jig was up. They had no place to run, no place to hide, and the dirty little secret, The Good Guys.......well, there were no Good Guys.

    Just devastating.


    The Tea Party (none / 0) (#101)
    by sj on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 04:23:58 PM EST
    is supported by the Koch brothers.  A rally of 100 tea partiers will get media exposure.  How did that compare to the national coverage of the protests in Wisconsin?

    I worked for years at the local level of the Democratic Party.  I canvassed, did GOTV, made endless phone calls, attended conventions at all levels but national.  I've not only participated in Colorado caucuses, I've run them.

    Because I left Colorado I resigned from my position (which was an elected one, by the way) just before the 2008 campaign began in earnest.  From what I hear, that was pure good luck for me.  

    [started a long dissertation here but will go with the bottom line of:] The Obama campaign coopted our resources (actually took away resources from local candidates/activities) and our party.  All that work for nothing.  

    I hear what you're saying, but I'm starting to believe that it would be easier to start with an alternate party than to return the Democratic Party to its roots.

    I almost wish all incumbents would lose.


    That margin (none / 0) (#95)
    by cal1942 on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 03:51:43 PM EST
    of survival is becoming narrower with each passing day.

    See Greenwald today for (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 01:13:31 PM EST
    diminished expectations re social safety net:   military spending to be paid for by cuts in social security, medicare, etc.  Leon is out front with the president's plan to fund militarism at the expense of everything else.

    The Age of Diminished Expectations (none / 0) (#1)
    by Buckeye on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 08:29:38 AM EST
    was the first book we read in our economics class at Vanderbilt (MBA) written by Krugman.  We have now come full circle.

    I hope the Fed can find a way to do (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 08:31:02 AM EST
    something, anything. Bernanke is a real economist who understands what is going on. Now whether he has the political will to do what he can is another question.  

    The fed can't fix what has been done (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 08:51:34 AM EST
    And what has been done was done with Bernanke's blessings for years.  They are at the point now where all they can do is employ quantitative easing, and all that does is temporarily rescue the markets.  Each time they employ it though it also has a diminished affect upon the economy.  They've done it twice, they probably only have one more time left to be able to have any affect at all.  They will save that most likely when we are facing total wipeout.  Maybe not, but they haven't really fixed anything in the banking industry meaningfully so if they play their last card now and they haven't done what needed to be done to enable real recovery....what happens after that?

    What do you think (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 10:33:51 AM EST
    the Fed could do that they haven't tried already?

    Monetary policy has failed because we are in a balance sheet recession. The private sector has enormous debt that it must pay off if it is to go back to spending. The only way to get that money into people's hands debt-free is for the government to spend it into the economy, i.e. stimulus, which is a fiscal policy.

    All monetary policy does is swap one form of financial asset for another. Quantitative easing was undertaken in the mistaken belief that it would spur bank lending by increasing bank reserves via the 'money multiplier' concept of fractional reserve lending. This failed because banks don't have qualified customers to lend to, and loans aren't really created automatically out of reserves. Banks lend first and then obtain reserves afterwards if they need them.

    What QE did do was drive up commodity prices because so many market participants expected that QE would be inflationary, so they dove into commodities as a classic hedge against inflation. It also drained money from the economy in the form of interest payments on treasuries going to the Fed instead of to the private sector.

    QE has been a big fail and monetary policy has shot its wad. Fiscal stimulus is the only thing that will get the economy moving again. A sudden reversal in the trade deficit could help if the US were to find some country out there with lots of money to spend on US made products, but that's just not going to happen, so fiscal policy is all we have left. The government refuses to use this policy tool, so the result will be a Japan-like extended period of stagnation.


    Warren T. (none / 0) (#52)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 11:38:20 AM EST
    Will interest rates soon go up?  Because of "loss of confidence", in the dollar, it seems the high rollers are putting their money into Swiss francs and gold. Would this result in having to offer higher interest rates for government bonds (which, at present, have dropped), and, in turn, higher interest rates, generally?

    I'm not an expert (none / 0) (#54)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 11:49:54 AM EST
    so don't invest based on anything I say. But my take on it is that interest rates won't be going up any time soon. Short term rates, which are set by the Fed, are basically at zero and will remain there.

    What we are seeing now is long term rates are beginning to come down too. Long term rates are basically a prediction of where short term rates will be in the future. Long term rates are coming down as investors see that future short term rates will continue to be low because the economy is expected to be poor for quite some time into the future. I suspect that by the time rates start to go up it will be a non-story because everyone will have recognized that the economy is beginning to recover at that point.


    Thank you. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 12:08:36 PM EST
    Not a personal investment question, just trying to understand, what for me, is an area often difficult to grasp.

    It's a difficult area (none / 0) (#64)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 12:10:28 PM EST
    for anyone to grasp. I've just spend a lot of time studying these things. I still have a long way to go, however.

    Exports/Imports (none / 0) (#98)
    by cal1942 on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 04:05:13 PM EST
    Or stop the bleeding.  The proposed South Korean trade agreement will lose still more manufacturing jobs.  The retraining for those displaced by trade has been decoupled and probably won't happen.  Even at that, if retraining actually occurred I have to ask retrained to do what?

    We're still giving away public goods and enriching the local economies of significant industrial competitors while losing manufacturing jobs.


    A detail of the jobs report (none / 0) (#6)
    by BTAL on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 08:38:54 AM EST
    Within the private sector, most of the job gains were concentrated in the services sector. Temporary help -- a harbinger of permanent hiring -- rebounded modestly after declining for three straight months.

    In the past that harbinger may have been true.  IMHO, it is now a falsehood.  

    If it wasn't for the circuit breakers (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 08:57:24 AM EST
    Who knows what could happen to us in this mess?

    but how about the jobs saved? (none / 0) (#10)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:03:52 AM EST
    They also saved the jobs of every American who still has a job.  I would say that in terms of jobs gained and saved, well the numbers look great!!

    Compared to what? (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:11:08 AM EST
    Everything looks great when compared to Somalia :)

    Did you forget to put (none / 0) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:16:14 AM EST
    a snark tag on this comment?

    yes (none / 0) (#72)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 12:25:07 PM EST
    I forgot the snark tag.  = )

    The market opened up (like 135 points) (none / 0) (#11)
    by Buckeye on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:03:59 AM EST
    and it has immediately dropped down again (down about 50 points).  I do not think the market is going to be impressed with this report at all.  Better than the 85,000 expected, but 33,000 below what is needed to keep up w/ population growth.

    My paper (none / 0) (#30)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:53:10 AM EST
    also listed this little margin of error change as a "dip" in unemployment.

    Me, I know who the dips are ;-).

    9.1 is less than 9.2 (none / 0) (#44)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 10:27:04 AM EST
    I get the point. It is not fantastic and all of

    But can we at least acknowledge (1) that that is the direction we want it to go and (2) it was better than the .2% increase many were anticipating.

    I said that last month was likely the high mark of unemployment and got a lot of crap for it. Could still be wrong, but can we celebrate the fact that I might not be for a day before getting back into the same old, same old.

    No we can not acknowledge that (5.00 / 6) (#47)
    by me only on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 10:47:43 AM EST
    people dropping out of the work force is the direction that we want to go.

    The rise/fall in unemployment the last two quarters is due to "discouraged workers" rising/falling.  Not people finding jobs.


    Leave him alone (none / 0) (#50)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 10:55:43 AM EST
    stop taking away his candy ;-).

    Diminished expectations (5.00 / 8) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 10:49:35 AM EST
    Ouch! (none / 0) (#49)
    by BTAL on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 10:53:01 AM EST
    That's gonna leave a mark.

    Here is the thing (none / 0) (#65)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 12:11:21 PM EST
    I could provide counter evidence that says it wasn't folks dropping out of the market (20,000 of the jobs "lost" were due to the Minneapolis shut down and when the shut down ended those jobs were "restored" and were not included in the new calculation) but I guess it doesn't matter.

    You put the spin on it that helps support your point.  We all do.

    The number is 9.1%. The number last month was 9.2%.  That's the only thing we can agree on so that's what I'll rick with for now.


    The MN jobs could be factored in and (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by BTAL on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 12:57:48 PM EST
    the .1% change would still not be encouraging nor would it be truly accurate.

    From CNBC:

    Beneath Jobs Report Surface Lies Some Ugly Truths


    According to a Bureau of Labor Statistics breakdown, there were 139,296,000 people working in July, compared to 139,334,000 the month before, or a drop of 38,000.

    But the job creation number was positive and the unemployment rate went down, right? So how does that work?

    It's a product of something the government calls "discouraged workers," or those who were unemployed but not out looking for work during the reporting period.

    This is where the numbers showed a really big spike--up from 982,000 to 1.119 million, a difference of 137,000 or a 14 percent increase. These folks are generally not included in the government's various job measures.

    So the drop in the unemployment rate is fairly illusory--stick all those people back in the workforce and you wipe out the job creation and the drop in unemployment.

    For once, some of the government's other tools of economic voodoo didn't help the count.


    Active denial (none / 0) (#69)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 12:19:35 PM EST
    Hey, why look at the BLS when you (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 12:46:31 PM EST
    can just wait for the Bureau of ABG Statistics, Eyes Wide Shut Division, to explain it all to you?

    Speaking of the BLS (none / 0) (#83)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 01:07:34 PM EST
    I contacted the Library of Congress a couple of weeks ago with an unemployment related question, and they had the BLS send me the answer. Despite the fact that I'm not a statistician, I found them to be pretty helpful, and they sent me other links to research further.

    But, see, I'm interested in the "Why did this happen?" as well as the "What happened?"

    And it's a shame that no one seems to have cared to come up with a plausible number of those who were self-employed and are now unemployed. Politicans love to praise us for our entrepreneurial spirit, but once business activity goes so far down that you can't continue, there is silence. Since the formerly self-employed don't collect any UI benefits, those job loss stats simply don't exist anywhere.

    Who can seriously look at 9.1% and not know it's really at least 16%?


    NPR's Tamara Keith was reporting this a.m. (none / 0) (#51)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 11:12:50 AM EST
    that the .01 drop in unemployment was due less to the July hiring numbers, more to the people who have simply stopped looking for work.

    Differing conclusions depend on who you're listening to. I'm not saying NPR or PRI has cornered the market on astute economic analysis, but at least when I listen to people like Robert Reich, I don't feel I'm being handed a load of b.s.


    And, (none / 0) (#80)
    by lentinel on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 12:51:39 PM EST
    lest we forget, 3 is less that 4.


    8 is more than 7.


    Not to hound you ABG (none / 0) (#97)
    by Left of the Left on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 04:02:29 PM EST
    But I replied late and am sure you missed it. I am very curious as to what your explanation would be so I am reposting my reply to a previous post here:


    It is clear now that dems, liberals and moderates support the deal in greater numbers than conservatives.

    of course, they support the president, and still believe him. As to why? thats a better question.

        How does this correlate to the message of betrayal this was supposed to have sent and the victory in public opinion the GOP was supposed to have won.

    I dont recall pundits saying the GOP won the PR war. But the PR war is less important than whether or not the deal is any good. I know not to you, but to reality. When the economy slows and unemployment rises Obama can speechify on how he won the narrative.


     I am still trying to connect the reality as viewed by the average observer with the reality as viewed by the pundits on both sides.

        Everyone seems to think this was a huge political loss for the dems except most people.

    Look at the trend of Obamas approval on Gallup daily tracking since the deal, then comeback and explain to me how those people dont seem to be feeling the victory.


    OK angry (none / 0) (#99)
    by cal1942 on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 04:11:20 PM EST
    It's time you get a load of reality

    Get off the promotion gig and wise up.  Or are you an Obama operative?


    If you must have 125,000 new (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 05:47:55 PM EST
    jobs, how can $117,000 be a "dip?"

    and we get daily updates from Obama (none / 0) (#75)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 12:36:06 PM EST
    trying to buck up our courage.  The problem is that he only makes people more depressed.  He is a real downer.

    ps... this bus tour he is doing is being paid for by tax payers because they are pretending it is not a campaign tour.  

    Oh No (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 12:40:58 PM EST
    Wow....that is really disappointing to me.

    Notice (none / 0) (#100)
    by cal1942 on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 04:13:35 PM EST
    the states he'll be touring are states he won in '08 but is now tanking in the polls.

    personal credit (none / 0) (#96)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 04:02:28 PM EST
    the next looming crisis?  with states, muni's, feds and business cutting jobs, and no extension of ue benefits, how many will live on borrowed time to try and get through the next two years?

    what happens in two years when they are still ue, no mas credit, and their mortgage/rent stops getting paid?

    it ain't just the 25 million un or underemployed, it is their families as well.  Does anyone really believe that within two years 10% of these people will be back to work?

    The economy needs a shot in the arm, what are all those job creators doing with the tax cuts they have been getting for the past 10 years?  

    They are fortifying their balance sheets for the next round of acquisitions in two years when the weaker companies get strained by the lack of demand.

    I wonder how long before the great recession is renamed to the great stagnation?

    I think you already know (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by cal1942 on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 04:30:05 PM EST
    what are all those job creators doing with the tax cuts they have been getting for the past 10 years

    Investing it overseas and buying back their own stock to enrich CEOs and other officers who'll cash in stock options.

    When wealth is concentrated this happens.

    By some estimates, U.S. corporations are sitting on about $2 trillion in cash and banks have returned to profitability, so a lot of money is sitting idle, waiting for profitable investment opportunities.  Economists have noted that there is considerable evidence that the growth of consumer demand is too anemic in the U.S. to spur much investment here, so the investment eye is on the emerging markets of the world where real incomes and consumer demand are growing.

    The irony, IMO, is that those same corporations have had a hand directly and indirectly in decreasing demand in the US.


    Personal credit? (none / 0) (#108)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 06:14:16 PM EST
    I go see Tony. I know what the vig will be. With the banksters and credit cards, not so much.

    Never thought I'd see the day when loansharking was done by the Bank of something, but the guys with enforcers offered better rates and deals.

    and if I don't pay on time, it doesn't hurt my credit rating. First it hurts my stomach once weekly for a month or so, then it hurts my kidneys for the same amount of time. Eventually I get a broken leg, and the vig stops while I can't work.

    Amazing system.