Bad Jobs Report, Unemployment Rate Inches Up To 8.2%

NYTimes tells me that only 69K jobs were added in May and U6 inched upped to 8.2%:

The United States economy gained a net 69,000 jobs in May, the Labor Department said Friday, a dismal showing that reflected mounting fears of a global slowdown. The unemployment rate rose to 8.2 percent from 8.1 percent in April. Aprilís gain in jobs of 115,000 was revised down to an increase of 77,000.
Consider this Reuters article from yesterday anticipating today's report:

The data is not expected to have a major impact on the monetary policy outlook. Economists said it would take a payrolls number below 100,000 to jolt the Federal Reserve into action.

We need fiscal stimulus, not monetary stimulus, imo. We needed more of it in 2009 and 2010. We needed it in 2011. We need it now.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - if Obama loses this election, it will be because of what happened in 2009 and the advice provided him by the incompetent and corrupt Tim Geithner.

< Britons Face Death Penalty in Bali for Drugs | Friday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It's not just the (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 08:03:29 AM EST
    advice provided by Geither. It was the fact that Obama lacked the judgement to realize it was bad advice and later one when it wasn't working STILL failed to realize it was bad advice.

    "Austerity," (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 08:14:57 AM EST
    and firing more Government workers is their "Jobs" Program.

    Obama wanted to be a Transformational President, like Roosevelt. I think he got it mixed up a little bit. Roosevelt got us out of a depression. Obama is leading us into one.


    Add to that (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 08:23:42 AM EST
    He's reportedly telling big donors:

    President Barack Obama is confiding to his donors that he may be forced to revisit health care reform in his second term, if the Supreme Court rules against him.

    As he previewed his agenda for donors at a May 14 fundraiser, Obama said he may be forced to try to revise parts of his health-care plan, depending on how the court rules later this month, said one activist, who requested anonymity to discuss the president's comments. Guests at the $35,800-a-plate dinner in the Manhattan apartment of Blackstone Group LP (BX) President Tony James were asked to check their smart phones and BlackBerries at the door.

    The president has made similar remarks, usually in response to questions, at other fundraising events since the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case during the last week of March, according to two other activists, who also requested anonymity.

    Obama's answers, which begin with the president repeating his contention that the high court will uphold the law, have led some contributors to conclude the White House is making contingency plans should the justices strike down parts of the law, which would give Republicans a powerful talking point about one of his signature issues.

    THAT'S not gonna help job growth.


    I disagree (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 08:27:43 AM EST
    about Roosevelt. He wanted to be like Reagan.

    And what is sad...Reagan would have (none / 0) (#10)
    by Buckeye on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 08:39:57 AM EST
    never wanted to be like him.  Reagan never knew Obama but would not have liked him.  The admiration is one-sided.  Obama should have looked up to FDR.  He would have like Obama and provided Obama a blueprint of how to govern in a depression and how to take on recalcitrant republicans.

    He wanted to be transformational (none / 0) (#23)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 09:36:01 AM EST
    Roosevelt was transformational.

    In my haste I didn't realize the way it came out would be interpreted the way you did.

    Score 1/2 point for you. lol


    Yes (none / 0) (#93)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 03:11:43 PM EST
    As I recall Obama even panned FDR.

    So, what are we to make of the (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 09:41:12 AM EST
    judgment of the person who, three and a half years into his administration apparently doesn't know just how incompetent Geithner and the rest of his economic team are?  Is it possible we instead should be considering that Geithner and the rest of the team represent and reflect Obama's policy and agenda?  Or does that just get to the hopelessness of any significant changes coming in that area?  

    I just don't see how he has or has had so many people in his administration who are of the same mindset, and not be able to see that as an affirmation of the president's point of view.

    Right now, it is unbelievably cheap for the government to borrow money; it could fund large infrastructure projects, and other initiatives that would put significant numbers of people back to work and pump exponentially more money into local economies.  So, why isn't that happening?  Because the Obama administration is too busy bragging about how little money it is spending and how devoted it is to cutting more of it.  

    When is the last time you heard Obama speak from the bully pulpit about the dramatic shift Nancy Pelosi and House Dems have made on changing where the Bush tax cuts should end, from people making more than $250,000 to people making over $1 million?  Am I the only person who believes that that shift is a way of preparing us for the fact that Dems will end up extending the cuts again?  And paying for it where it always seems to want to get paid from - the people who can least afford to suffer the consequences: the old, the poor and the sick.

    If Geithner is a problem, then so is his boss, I think.  If Obama gets re-elected, we won't have Tim Geithner to kick around anymore, but chances are Obama won't be naming a Robert Reich/Paul Krugman-type to replace him; dollars-to-doughnuts, it'll be someone else from Wall Street or maybe someone like that smart and savvy Jamie Dimon that Obama so admires.

    Face it, we're screwed.

    Obama can't do what you propose (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 06:58:53 AM EST
    He needs to cut domestic programs and destroy the safety net programs in order to cut taxes for corporations, and maintain and enhance the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

    Regardless of his rhetoric, that was his agenda since 2008 and that is his real agenda now.


    For the life of me, I just don't (none / 0) (#108)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 08:51:56 AM EST
    understand how people can still be laying all of this off on the incompetence of Obama's advisers; what purpose does it serve to be so in denial?  Because the argument that we "have to" vote for Obama becomes so much harder to make?  Is it because admitting it means also having to admit that we have no real "Democratic" choice in the next election?  Or that we're stuck with repressive and regressive Republican policy no matter who gets elected?

    All of the above, maybe?

    [haven't see you much - hope all is well]


    Obama should be on the bully pulpit (none / 0) (#26)
    by CST on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 09:58:26 AM EST
    for sure, where he has failed miserably because he's too busy trying to win over those independents who like the word deficit (but like a functioning economy even more).  And he missed his chance early on by not going big enough, not nearly big enough.  That's all on him.  Geithner gave him bad advice, sure, but Obama's the one who implemented that agenda.  That's on him.  But...

    "Right now, it is unbelievably cheap for the government to borrow money; it could fund large infrastructure projects, and other initiatives that would put significant numbers of people back to work and pump exponentially more money into local economies.  So, why isn't that happening?"

    The answer to that specific question is the GOP house.  Whatever you think of his priorities and goals, I don't think Obama is stupid enough that he doesn't realize austerity is hurting his chances for re-election.


    I am not so sure (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:20:54 AM EST
    that Obama thinks austerity is hurting his chances for reelection. I mean he has offered up some austerity himself.

    You should cut the President (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:56:05 AM EST
    some slack. He is busy personally choosing human targets for our drones.  

    I'm kind of of two minds about this (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by CST on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:21:36 PM EST
    I'm not okay with drone attacks in foreign countries we're not at war with.  The idea of anything unmanned flying around killing things is horrifying.

    That aside, given that we are using them, who do you think should make the decision of where and when?

    If the part about Obama making the call keeps this issue in the news and keeps people talking about it, fine.  But IMO, that's not the story.  The story is that it's happening at all.


    I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:48:51 PM EST
    To emphasize your point: (none / 0) (#45)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:40:57 AM EST
    "....it is unbelievably cheap for the government to borrow money."

    Germany's long rates went negative this morning!


    Hard to tell anymore whehter Obama is trying to (none / 0) (#64)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:10:11 PM EST
    please deficit hawks or if he is one himself. In any event without the desire to go arm twisting balking GOP house members, spending on anything but defense is not going to happen. He should be trading them their votes on infrastructure spending for some of those defense projects in their districts they love so much.

    As the saying goes (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by lilburro on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:56:17 AM EST
    hope is not a plan.

    We destroy people every day to save money (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Dadler on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 01:39:52 PM EST
    We never think of doing the opposite to save people.  We may not think we do, but our actions prove that we consider money more valuable than human beings.  It's a sickness.  An inanimate object we create and which has no value in and of itself has now enslaved us better than any master.  Our stupidity knows know bounds.

    last month's figure (none / 0) (#1)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 07:46:39 AM EST
    revised down to 77K  from 115K

    Bad for last month (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 07:50:07 AM EST
    And even worse this month.

    We are entering a scary time.


    Yep, when the unemployment rate moves (none / 0) (#9)
    by Buckeye on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 08:36:19 AM EST
    up even with hundreds of thousands of people still dropping out of the calculation and labor participation at a 30 year low, you know you have a really bad report.

    I was talking to a few of my cousins last night.  One is a high school grad and the other fresh out of college.  They have been looking for work for over a year and have ZERO prospects right now.  People are really suffering.  And think...if Europe blows up in the next 3-6 months???  Then its really going to be ouch time.


    Apologies...it looks like (none / 0) (#13)
    by Buckeye on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 08:47:35 AM EST
    more people jumped into the workforce in May (not sure about April).  What I heard on that was wrong.  Labor participation though is still really low however.

    ISM Report (none / 0) (#3)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 07:57:39 AM EST
    "The key Non-Manufacturing Index declined to 53.5 from 56.0 a month earlier. A reading above 50 indicates expansion.

    Nearly across the board, the report showed less positive results, with lower readings of employment, new orders, and business activity."

    from Business insiders

    From Bloomberg (none / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 08:00:28 AM EST

    (Bolded is what I thought interesting)

    American employers in May added the smallest number of workers in a year and the unemployment rate unexpectedly increased as job-seekers re-entered the workforce, further evidence that the labor-market recovery is stalling.

    Payrolls climbed by 69,000 last month, less than the most- pessimistic forecast in a Bloomberg News survey, after a revised 77,000 gain in April that was smaller than initially estimated, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The median estimate called for a 150,000 May advance. The jobless rate rose to 8.2 percent from 8.1 percent, while hours worked declined.

    To paraphrase a Clintonian expression (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 08:41:42 AM EST
    It's the gasoline, stupid.

    Gasoline is as basic as food. People must have both in today's world and will purchase the two items before anything else. Gasoline's price acts as a governor on all other purchases and activities by consumers.

    Scoff if you like but its low price, and the Internet bubble, drove the boom years of Clinton, finished off the economy in 2008 and has been a leading indicator of where the economy is going since then.

    And while the pundits can say we came out of a recession two years ago and pontificate about a "double dip" the facts are that U3 and U6 tell a story of unemployment that is frightening.

    Blame Geithner if you like but the real demon has been Obama's energy policy.

    Shakes head (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 08:43:02 AM EST
    It apparently (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 09:12:08 AM EST
    doesn't matter how much evidence is presented to you  that undercuts your silly argument, you are like johnny one note where it's your story and you're sticking to it.

    Good grief. Conservatives were literally WHINING at the top of their lungs during the Clinton Administration about the price of gas. Even your hero George W. Bush was whining at the top of his lungs back in 2000 about the price of gas and saying it was the problem.

    Obama's energy policy? The energy policy that has the US drilling as much as it ever has in the history of the country? The only thing Obama's energy policy proves is that we CANNOT drill our way out of this mess.


    No. Conservatives were not whining (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:31:59 AM EST
    about $1.00 gas during the Clinton years.

    Your problem is that you want to defend Obama for each and everything he does. I mean you make "Mama Bear Palin" look tame.

    And since Obama has been anti-drilling his lack of action has probed nothing.

    Quit denying and look at unemployment vs oil prices and you can't miss the connection.


    GA6th (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:33:42 AM EST
    wants to defend everything Obama does?



    The results speak. (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:53:51 AM EST
    You should read more of her comments (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:58:43 AM EST
    She is most critical of him.

    The results speak (none / 0) (#55)
    by sj on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:59:55 AM EST
    too bad you're not listening.

    Mama Bear's often cuff their cubs upside (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 11:04:33 AM EST
    the head but will always rise to attack anything they feel threatens the cubs.



    wev (none / 0) (#58)
    by sj on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 11:08:24 AM EST
    Not ponying up to your non-sequiturs today.

    Then enjoy the day off!! ;-) (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:30:00 PM EST
    But the facts re gasoline prices remain...

    And it isn't political.

    When you take money from ordinary folks who would have spent it on X Y and Z and instead spend it on G.... Then companies X Y and Z suffer and lay people off.

    Now, we can make it political by blaming/praising as we desire but those are basic facts.

    Maybe once we agree on that we can have a rational conversation on how to prevent that from happening.

    My thought:

    1. Increase supply through drilling.

    My second thought:

    1. If increasing supply doesn't cause prices to drop then we have price control.

    My third thought:

    1. Prices controls caused by monopolies are illegal. We need to start breaking up the vertical integration of the oil companies and figure out how top break OPEC's back.


    Baa waa waa (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 11:45:15 AM EST
    $1.00 no but any time it went a nickel over $1.00 they started to whine.

    Defend Obama for everything? You obviously have not bothered to ready ANY of my posts if you thing that.  ROTFLMAO! That's a first.

    You keep talking about the price of gas when Bush left office. When Bush left office we were shedding millions of jobs. If the economy is so dependent on the price of gas then why weren't jobs created? The truth of the matter is that gas prices only matter on the margins NOT to the extent that you want it to  matter. And frankly what is the solution then? If you believe that gas prices are what drives the economy then you are more or less admitting that we are in for a very long recession because gas prices are not going down.


    Me Thinks Jim... (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:25:29 PM EST
    ...doesn't understand the difference between correlation and causation.

    If you don't understand (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:32:02 PM EST
    that money spent for sky high gasoline prices can't be spent for something else then I think you are

    1. out of touch with reality, or

    2. just wanting to snark

    On case you forget, or probably never even (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:37:48 PM EST
    knew... The gasoline price run up happened before Bush left office...and it then crashed before Bush left office..

    And it does take time for an economy to recover.

    BTW - Do you have a personal budget that allows you to ignore price run ups of gasoline or do you enjoy a situation in which you don't use enough for price to be a problem?


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 03:14:10 PM EST
    I knew about the gas prices and the economy crashing but the economy crashing had NOTHING to do with gas prices.

    Of course, I ahve a personal budget for gas just like everybody else but the gas prices have been more or less around $3.00 here in GA for YEARS. The extra money that goes to gas means no eating out for most people around here or eating out less. According to our local consumer advocate Clark Howard the grocery business is booming! So apparently to adjust to gas prices it's affecting the restaurant business and probably the vacation business which is where I'm getting it matters on the "margins". It's not like it affects everything like you're saying. I mean $50.00 a month is still $50.00 a month but it's not like it's $500 a month like you are acting like it is. I don't know. Maybe you spend a ton of money on gas driving everywhere. It seems most retired people I know drive all the time.


    Ridiculous (none / 0) (#103)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 05:15:40 PM EST
    Obama has significantly increased drilling.

    BTW (none / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 04:07:14 PM EST
    The increase in drilling has been on private lands overwhich Obama has no say.

    Over public lands....it has decreased.


    So what? (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 04:19:07 PM EST
    Even if that's true it proves my point that drilling is not the solution to gas prices.

    Good Gravy (none / 0) (#39)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:32:50 AM EST
    According to Jim the way to ensure a Presidential victory is to eliminate/reduce the Federal Tax on gasoline.

    But it is extremely amusing to here a republican claim that Clinton did anything right and give him credit for the great economy.  

    Me thinks Jim hasn't thought this one through...  good stuff.


    No Scott, I didn't say that (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:51:23 AM EST
    But is typical of you to deliberately and knowingly make something up.

    And I didn't say anything about Clinton doing anything right. If he even had an energy policy I don't remember it.

    My point was that the economy is governed by the price of gasoline.

    Now, since a great number of people who post here are not in the vast majority of people whose driving consumes a great deal of their income I understand that you have difficulty understanding that when the price of gasoline goes up $1.50 then that's $40-50 dollars a week taken out of the families budget that would have been spent on other things but now goes to gasoline.

    Cause and effect as plain as the nose on your face.


    Let me add something here (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 11:07:19 AM EST
    for all those who don't believe that the cost of gasoline doesn't drive the economy.

    What you are saying is that when money that was being spent on X, Y and Z is diverted to G there is no negative effect on X, Y and Z.


    Not saying that - what some of us are saying (none / 0) (#76)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:52:53 PM EST
    is that personal spending is impacted more by the financial security provided by equity in ones home, or at least not being hopelessly underwater. That is what has killed the recovery, not gasoline prices.

    Oh sure (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:56:03 PM EST
    Gasoline prices are an add-on.  But if you don't have a job, or you can't pay your mortgage, THAT would be the biggest problem.

    The security you refer (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 01:54:30 PM EST
    to was real only if you used it as collateral on a loan. And while some people did that the price of gasoline was/is a more direct and immediate impact on personal spending.

    Jim (none / 0) (#78)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 01:04:41 PM EST
    We all get that, we also get that all goods are transported so when gas goes up so does nearly every product we purchase.  So you child like algebra should include some sort of multiplier for XYZ as well as the elasticity of each good.  Because if XYZ are all Necessary Goods, the only variable that can change would be your beloved G.

    Not buying your BS doesn't mean we don't understand high school economics.  You offer no proof of your claim beyond "It must be true because it makes sense to me."

    Some of us actually understand that the president has a marginal impact on the price of crude.  I know your buddies at Fox need you to not believe that, but in reality, the facts just don't play to your assertion.  Namely that Obama is hampering the supply side which is driving up prices, which is hampering the economy.

    Where is the proof Jim ?  
    The average American pays about $50 a month extra for a $1/gal increase in gas prices.  Assuming 10k miles a year @ 17mpg.

    How is that driving the economy ?


    Scott, I know it is hard for you (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 02:01:37 PM EST
    to lay politics aside and face just realty after politics, but you don't understand economics when you write such.

    It is the elastically of demand that I refer to when I note that when people have to spend money on G then they don't have it to spend it on X Y and Z.

    I suspect you are a young guy with a good job and don't have a reason to drive a lot.

    Contrast that with a family of 4 with both spouses working and both driving 30-40 miles round trip a day.

    See the difference?


    I Guess Proof Doesn't Exist (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 02:37:30 PM EST
    Your whole premise is based on nothing more than gut instinct.  If you feel like finding a scrap of proof to back it up, go for it, otherwise I am out.

    Jim says gas prices drive the economy, then it must be true, to hell with silliness like actually having a job to purchase gas to drive to, or having a home to drive from, or even having a GD car to buy gas for.  
    Nope, Jim says it's gasoline, there fore it is, he don't need no stinkin' proof.

    Try some common sense and think back a bit (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 04:04:15 PM EST

    And take it out of politics. Just look at the facts.

    As for you being out.... You've never been in.


    what going to happen if (none / 0) (#97)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 03:35:13 PM EST
    you say Clinton did ANYTHING right? Do the folks from Heritage show up at your place and search the premesis for copies of the Little Red Book and Das Kapital..?

    heh (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 04:05:13 PM EST
    After years of personal attacks by jondee and his continual demonstration of an inability to debate the issues I am forced to note that discussing anything with him is not worthwhile. Simply put, he is incapable of a reasoned debate.

    Gasoline prices are lower than they (none / 0) (#66)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:14:19 PM EST
    were in the Bush administration, and lower than they were last year at this time. Despite your promises of $4.00 gas this summer, it does not seem to be materializing.

    Not much (none / 0) (#70)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:26:30 PM EST
    And unfortunately, no, they aren't lower than in the Bush administration.  The highest average monthly price during the Bush administration was $3.19 (rounded) in May 2007.

    My bad (none / 0) (#71)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:27:52 PM EST
    Stopped a year early.  

    Yes, for 2 months in late 2008, gas prices DID top out over $4, but then fell to $2.21 (rounded) in November.

    I expect since it's an election year, we will see similar things happen.


    Chart (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 01:21:06 PM EST
    Here is a good chart of real prices.

    No comment really, but pretty hard to judge since crude prices are always increasing over time (beyond inflation), so every administration is going to hear the same campaign mantra, "Gas prices are higher than the previous administration."

    Plus there was/are the wars, the market crash, and the oil spill, events that effected prices without any sort of energy policy change.

    I think gas price increases are something we are just going to plan for, and as the supply decrease worldwide, that curve is only going to get steeper no matter what party is in charge.


    Well maybe (none / 0) (#80)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 01:29:52 PM EST
    The government could do a better job encouraging private companies to jump on the "telework" and flex scheduling bandwagon. I could certainly do my job from home, but the law firms and clients won't allow it (which is ridiculous and the rant about that is for another time).  Many government jobs and bigger companies already allow this - it would alleviate congestion and save on gas (not to mention improve morale and save facilities costs).

    Telecommuting (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by me only on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 03:03:27 PM EST
    is terrible.  It means your home is your work.  AKA you are never away from work.  Tried it, hate it.

    I would hate it too (none / 0) (#92)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 03:11:25 PM EST
    If I had to do it all the time (but, on the upside, my house would become immaculately clean, as I am a procrastinator!).

    I would just like the option a day or two a week -it would save on gas, and save me $13 a day in parking.


    I am going to guess that (none / 0) (#95)
    by me only on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 03:15:13 PM EST
    the partners get free parking.

    I don't work at a law firm (none / 0) (#96)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 03:19:30 PM EST
    But yes, they probably do.  :)

    And $13 is cheap - I get an "early bird special" (I get in before 9 am).  But the project I am working on right now is 2 blocks from the WH and Treasury Department (I can look out the window and wave to Timmy Geithner),so some of the garages go up to $40.  And the kicker is, that's what you get charged after 1 hour - the same as the whole day rate.  (No pro-rating here).

    The funny thing is, to take the metro from my apartment (which is down the street) would cost me $12 a day, and would take longer, so I am definitely not incentivized to take the train.


    Actually crude decreased during the Clinton (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 02:08:02 PM EST

    And here's a link for gasoline prices.

    And the point is not POLICY. The point is the effect on the economy.


    Blaming Geithner (none / 0) (#14)
    by BTAL on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 08:54:19 AM EST
    3.5 years into an administration is very weak sauce.

    Weak sauce to pretend you have never read me criticize Geithner before.

    Have read you Geithner bashing (none / 0) (#17)
    by BTAL on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 09:05:41 AM EST
    numerous times.  Point being, it is not the core issue relating to today's economic and unemployment situation.  

    But it is the core issue (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 09:07:31 AM EST
    Geithner's failure on the housing crisis and the stimulus in 2009 is at the very heart of today's issues.

    No wonder you think it's weak sauce, you don;t understand how critical it is.


    Have you seen Barney Frank's (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:01:56 AM EST
    remarks on the housing/mortgage crisis?  I realize that Frank is not the uber-liberal he's often described as, and lord knows he's played a lot of footsie with the housing industry, but here he is, in NY Magazine, revealing that Hank Paulson offered to do mortgage write-downs, and that offer was rejected:

    The mortgage crisis was worsened this past time because critical decisions were made during the transition between Bush and Obama. We voted the TARP out. The TARP was basically being administered by Hank Paulson as the last man home in a lame duck, and I was disappointed. I tried to get them to use the TARP to put some leverage on the banks to do more about mortgages, and Paulson at first resisted that, he just wanted to get the money out. And after he got the first chunk of money out, he would have had to ask for a second chunk, he said, all right, I'll tell you what, I'll ask for that second chunk and I'll use some of that as leverage on mortgages, but I'm not going to do that unless Obama asks for it.  This is now December, so we tried to get the Obama people to ask him and they wouldn't do it.

    Matt Stoller:

    There were policy debates within Obama's economic team about what to do about the mortgage crisis.  The choices were to create some sort of legal entity to write down mortgage debt or to allow the write-down of mortgage debt through a massive wave of foreclosures over the next four to six years.  He choice the latter.  That choice was part of what led to roughly $7 trillion of middle class wealth gone, with financial assets for the elites re-inflated.


    In fact, crisis response is the single most significant policymaking time imaginable, because all structural barriers are swept away.  Think about it - this was literally a deal offered by Hank Paulson - one guy - to Barack Obama, with a multi-trillion dollar impact.  No 60 votes in the Senate.  No hearings.  No confirmations.  Just a handshake, basically.  In other words, policy does matter, and Obama had a variety of choices and leverage, and he did what he thought was best.  He did not want to write down mortgages, even though he was offered that choice by the Bush administration and Barney Frank.  So he didn't.

    Was that Geithner?  It would seem so, based on Frank's reference to "...we tried to get the Obama people to ask him and they wouldn't do it."  That's clearly incompetence - and evidence of the smart people on the team boxing Obama out of some of the decision-making by not even telling him what was out there.

    Is it possible he never knew it was an option?  I don't see how he could truly have been so insulated - it's not like it wasn't discussed in the 2008 campaign, but if I remember correctly, he wasn't much of a fan.  

    Anyway, take it for what it's worth and reach whatever conclusions make sense.


    We KNOW it was Geithner (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:10:46 AM EST
    So Barney says: (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:36:33 AM EST
    This is now December, so we tried to get the Obama people to ask him and they wouldn't do it.

    Now let me understand. Barney was a very senior and very influential Congressman with special connections to housing and banking.....

    And he couldn't pick up the phone himself and call Obama??

    I mean.... Does he expect anyone to believe that?


    If they leverage the banks in that (none / 0) (#107)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 08:03:15 AM EST
    fashion it blows up the mortgage backed securities again and crashes the "investment" markets.  It blows up derivatives again too probably and the over leveraging of derivatives is worse than it was before the first crash.

    Summers is to blame for this too.


    Geithner (none / 0) (#21)
    by BTAL on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 09:23:52 AM EST
    is not the POTUS.  Put the blame where it belongs.

    that is what he has been doing (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Buckeye on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 09:30:22 AM EST
    Obama appointed him and never fired him.  If Obama loses, it will be because of Geitner.  But Obama is responsible for Geitner.

    Backstopping derivatives with the Fed (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 09:38:22 AM EST
    Discount window is not helping our economy heal either.  The job creators are too busy right now at the magic casino in the sky that none of them can lose in.  If FDR saved capitalism, at this point the Obama administration could be considered as trying to destroy it.  If they won't stop staying the invisible hand and making the majority of us little people the only ones who suffer... people will want the invisible hand done away with in a very different way than the Obama administration has done away with it.

    Core issue... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 09:17:05 AM EST
    I can't think of more core than propping up an economy based on serving the needs of grifter's almost exclusively, to the detriment of all other workers/entrepenuers who produce something of...ya know, actual value.

    When the grifter's economy was primed to collapse under the weight of its greed & fundamental flaws, Geithner was the driving force behind slapping a band-aid on it, as opposed to seizing the moment and creating a new economy that actually serves all Americans and not 1% of Americans.


    Your missing the much bigger bigger picture (none / 0) (#42)
    by Slado on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:35:10 AM EST
    We have an economy we can't afford.   Spread it however you like but it's not sustainable.  In my view expanding government and an over aggressive FED led to our current situation.   More of the same will not solve but make the problem worse.

    We need less of what we're doing and not more.    The 1% 99% argument misses the point.   There will always be a 1%.   The question is do we let government decide how much the 99% gets.


    We've let the government decide... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:43:59 AM EST
    how much the 1% gets for the last 30 years...too much of it.

    I agree it is not sustainable, which makes the Geithner band-aid even more perplexing and infuriating.  2008-2009 was the time for imagination to create a sustainable capitalist economy, instead of our suicidal extremist brand of capitalism.


    2008-2009 (none / 0) (#59)
    by Slado on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 11:18:46 AM EST
    was the time to let it fall apart.

    With 20/20 hindsight I know that now.   2008 was the culmination of the policies of central planning and fed manipulation.   Cheap money and a push by the government for housing for all led to the bubble popping.

    The action taken instead was to cover it up with more debt and re-inflating the balloon.   Instead of that we should have entered into the depression we deserved.  We would now be on our way back up instead of entering year three of a decade or more of economic stagnation.

    This was a bipartisan mess and a bipartisan solution.   Blaming Geitner or Obama or Bush misses the point.   We should blame the unaffordable nature of the government and economy we've created and start demanding that our government officials take their hands of the wheel and let this car wreck finally finish.

    That would mean giving up the belief that everyone can have everything because there will always be a rich person to pay for it.   For Obama and unfortuantely for a majority of all politicians and the voting public that is a very hard thing to do.


    We must give up the belief.... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 11:41:55 AM EST
    that 1% can have infinite everything because 99% will willingly be glorified indentured servants.

    No doubt its a bipartisan conspiracy...but you make it sound like a commie plot, I think its closer to an oligarchal plot.  


    Expanding Govt (none / 0) (#104)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 05:34:07 PM EST
    Only guessing about what you mean by current situation.  I'll assume employment.

    Cutting government spending is no way to improve employment.

    Jobs are only added in response to demand for goods and services.  Government spends huge amounts on goods and services.

    Shrink government and unemployment will increase.

    Obama has shed many federal employees while state and local governments have also significantly decreased employment.

    Add back the government jobs lost since the start of the recession and the employment picture improves dramatically.  Government employees do not live on the moon, they spend their money in this economy.

    The only way to get out of a recession is to spend money and given tight private budgets government is the spender of last resort.

    No way can austerity liven the economy.


    demand (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 08:55:39 AM EST
    So what to do with stagnation? 1) Raise the inflation target. 2) Roads, bridges & transportation (400 Billion) 3) Raise taxes 4) Break up big banks

    I believe Faber to be correct -- if the Fed does not adjust inflation, and House/Senate continue to do absolutely nothing (worst legislature in history?) -- we will lapse into recession in 2013. QE3 seems to be open for discussion in the last two FOMC minutes but its efficacy was more appropriate when the banks were suffering from liquidity issues.

    The reality is, the Fed will do something (most likely QE and not inflation adjustment for political reasons), House/Senate will do nothing and we will lapse into recession in the 4th qtr of this year or the first of 2013.

    The "crowding out -- over regulation" argument has gone silent over the past year. Now that gov't has been contracting for 18 months or better and the market essentially recovered (the 6% correction in May is a pre-cursor to the August one I think will be 10-14%) as have corporate profits since 2010, which clearly indicates "crowding out" to be the bullsh*t most of us knew it to be. Businesses have had solid, if not enormous profits since 2010 and are not hiring, rather are forcing employees to continue to take on more work, to maximize productivity and profits.

    The regulations argument died a quiet death after the right failed to provide any real time examples.

    Our problem is demand, and the solution is demand. Until we demand our legislators stop complaining about Obama not creating jobs, and start creating legislation to address UE, we will remain stagnant. Before July arrives, the media will start to talk of how the Great Recession evolved into the Great Stagnation.

    agree with most of your post, (none / 0) (#28)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:05:58 AM EST
    except QE (3)

    QE's are intended to bring long rates down. (The Fed has direct control of short rates)

    But, since the bond market has figured out what Obama & Geithner stubbornly have not...(the economy, worldwide is tanking and long rates are plummeting all by themselves, without any help from the FED) there is no need for QE3.

    You know the world is coming to an end when I agree with BTD on economic issues, but here he's right. And, he's also right that the majority of blame rests with Geithner, more so than with Obama, for numerous reasons.

    Obama is not an expert on the economy, and Geithner, supposedly is. For Obama to overrule Geithner he would need years of experience to gain the confidence in making such a move.

    Also, Geithner is not only the Treasury Secretary for the U.S. he is the de facto T.S. for Europe (and Asia to a lesser degree.) In today's Global economy if any major market in the world sneezes, earth catches a pneumonia. Geithner has been shuttling between the U.S, Europe, and Asia to put pressure on those countries to follow America's lead regarding economic policy.

    Timmie not only screwed up our economy, he was instrumental in getting everyone aboard the disastrous "austerity" policy that is now taking us into a global depression.


    thanks (none / 0) (#30)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:19:44 AM EST
    i blame legislature, they have done a remarkable job of reminding us how awful the job market is, and absolutely nothing to address it.  

    while we're throwing some blame around (none / 0) (#33)
    by CST on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:25:17 AM EST
    how about those GOP governors??

    "Of the eleven states in which Republicans came into power in 2010 - Alabama, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin - five were among the seven states that lost more than 2.5 percent of their workforce from December 2010 to December 2011."

    "Overall, these 11 states were responsible for 40 percent of the total state and local public sector job losses in 2011. Add to these Texas, which because of its large size is responsible for 31 percent of the total at the state and local level. Taken together, these 12 red states drove over 70 percent of the total losses. The rest of the states suffered much smaller losses or even slight gains."


    Red states? (none / 0) (#35)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:27:50 AM EST
    Michigan? Pennsylvania? Wisconsin?

    who said anything about red/blue states (none / 0) (#36)
    by CST on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:30:27 AM EST
    "Of the eleven states in which Republicans came into power in 2010"

    That is not a debatable question.


    Next sentence (none / 0) (#37)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:31:20 AM EST
    Taken together, these 12 red states drove over 70 percent of the total losses.

    okay sorry (none / 0) (#40)
    by CST on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:33:18 AM EST
    I missed that word.

    But they are currently being run by the GOP.  And those policies are what led to these losses.


    Michigan (none / 0) (#105)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 05:46:57 PM EST
    has been carried by Democratic Presidential candidates in 5 straight elections but the governor and both houses of the state legislature are Republican.

    Unemployment has decreased in Michigan but only because of the rescue of the auto industry.

    GOP controlled state government is doing everything possible to damage the state's economy.


    Here is an interactive (none / 0) (#47)
    by BTAL on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:44:57 AM EST
    table  Link that you can adjust the timeline to your 2010 - 2011 window and select the states you cite.  The BLS numbers don't support the dire picture you paint.

    The BLS numbers (none / 0) (#63)
    by CST on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:01:24 PM EST
    don't address the picture I was painting.  Which is referring specifically to public sector job losses.

    The private sector has been on the rebound nationally for quite some time.  Imagine where we would be if we hadn't laid off all those teachers.


    The public sector employment numbers (none / 0) (#83)
    by BTAL on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 02:00:21 PM EST
    are not based on a binary R vs D argument.  An honest debate must include:

    City and county revenues have taken massive hits due to decreased property taxes from the housing situation.  Teachers and LEO/Firefighter costs are city and county bills.

    States were impacted due to reduced income tax revenues from reduced private sector employment.

    States had to deal with the loss of Stimulus funds (which also increased state employees in the beginning) to include reductions in Medicaid stimulus plus ups.


    70% of the public sector job losses (none / 0) (#87)
    by CST on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 02:12:00 PM EST
    came in states with a 2010 elected GOP governor (in other words when the tea party influence was strongest) and Texas.

    I don't know how you can sit there and say it has nothing to do with the R's running the show there.

    You think the other 38 states didn't have those problems too?


    You should cite/link to your (none / 0) (#89)
    by BTAL on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 02:44:29 PM EST
    source when making those quotes.  One article from the Roosevelt Institute does not make the numbers completely accurate.  Nor does relying purely on percentages.  You could take those 12 states (which not all had new R governors) and put their actual employee numbers on par with the other 38 and you still would have the effectively today's reported unemployment rate.

    my bad (none / 0) (#91)
    by CST on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 03:03:34 PM EST
    sorry I though I left a link but I guess not.

    Here it is.

    And yes, it is talking about that report.  Which is here.

    The only one that didn't is Texas, which has been run by the GOP for ages.  Many economists disagree that 600,000 job losses in the public sector are irrelevant during a recession.  I think it's worth taking a look at where (and why) that's happening.


    Agree it is a worthwhile discussion (none / 0) (#98)
    by BTAL on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 03:37:06 PM EST
    Which should include govt employee levels, specifically in relation to the ratio of govt employees to population.  

    The items listed in #83 have a far greater bearing on the situation than the letter after a governor's name, especially since states and local governments can't run deficits nor print their own currency.  


    Obama didn't mess up in 2009 (none / 0) (#32)
    by Slado on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:24:33 AM EST
    He messed up when he became a democrat who accepted the philosophy that an ever expanding government was sustainable.

    As we see in Europe there is a point when government becomes to large and we have already crossed that barrier here.

    Stimulus is not the answer.  The only thing more stimulus will do is get us to the crash faster.

    We need to slowly unwind the debt levels we have and get back in line at all levels of government.

    This is not a short term solution.   Stimulus is a short term solution and all it's done so far is make a bad economy seem a little better but math is math and eventually the rent comes due.

    You cannot spend your way to a better economy.   You guys have to let this idea go.  It's not going to work.   A bigger stimulus would just postpone the problem longer.   Not fix it.

    David Cameron proves you wrong (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:27:17 AM EST
    But continue with the nonsense. Hell, if Romney wins, he can even try European style austerity.

    Stop calling it auesterity (none / 0) (#60)
    by Slado on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 11:28:46 AM EST
    Not cutting government (merely halting a rapid increase) and raising taxes is not what I'd call austerity.

    It's a hard pill to swallow BTD.  I know.  I swallowed it a couple years ago.   There is no easy fix to this.  No free lunch.   If you could just print your way with money out of a long term debt crisis everyone would just do it and magical demand would answer all of our problems.

    Thing is we did that in 2009 and it didn't work.   Now the rent is due because we continue to carry a huge government that we can't afford.   Government at all levels is broke and unsustainable.  Our healthcare system is unsustainable and the lifestyle of a majority of Americans is unsustainable.    

    Add that all up and your answer is to print more money we don't have so that we do what exactly?  

    Even if your solution could work, which I believe it can't, the ability of our government to execute it I think we can all agree is zero.   So why even try if it?

    Let the economy fall apart and lets start over.  That will be less painful in the long run then our continued halfass attempts to not address the real problem.   Debt.  


    The US is sovereign in its own (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:13:56 PM EST
    currency, Slado; debt really is not the issue people want it to be.  The government's budget is not the same as an individual's budget: it can and does and should spend more than it takes in, in fact, I would argue that it is the government's responsibility to spend to increase demand.  Cutting spending is not boosting the economy, it is not creating jobs, it is not stimulating local economies.

    Right now, the government can borrow money at the ridiculously low rate of 1.45%.  It could re-hire the teachers and cops and other public sector workers who were let go, to the detriment of the communities they were serving and the local economies they were helping to support.  They could put hundreds of thousands of people back to work on infrastructure projects that would need engineers, managers, supervisors, laborers - not to mention materials and supplies that would boost manufacturing.

    This is so much of a no-brainer I can't believe people are still making the argument that we can't afford to do anything but stew in our own flop sweat.


    Swallow whatever you want (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:23:41 PM EST
    Your swallowing merde does not mean the rest of have to.

    You don't understand what money is (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Dadler on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 02:05:40 PM EST
    It's really amazing. You write so much and seem to have no idea that money is fake, an artificial thing, that can't do ANYthing to ANYone.  We invest it with value, we decide what we want it to be used for, and right now that decision of use has been co-opted.  Every single thing said about money is pure bullsh*t.  Every time you want to say money, replace it with "people" because money is nothing but a proxy for how humans treat other humans. Right now, that treatment is disgraceful.  The only thing we need is the establishment of a generous, an overly generous, floor, that requires and provides work.  You leave opportunities for wealth in place, let people invent and innovate, you simply don't let giant swaths of your population fall into the toilet.

    We are just a powerfully stupid race of creatures, enslaved by an inanimate object of our own creation.

    Absurd and pathetic and really inexcusable in, supposedly, the most free and creative and imaginative nation on earth.