"These numbers were bad if we look at a little bit of trend in composition, and not just one month at a time," David Stockman, former OMB director under President Reagan, told CNBC Friday.
"Where is the half-million jobs that were lost in the last thirty days that no one talked about? I'm talking about the once a year, re-benchmarking of the number of absolute jobs in the economy," Stockman said.
"Thirty days ago we were told 130.7 million jobs in the economy, in December, this morning it was 130.2," he said, adding, "that's the half million."
"Over the last 19 months, since the recession ended, we had 130.7 million jobs in the economy. This morning they said we had 130.2, we're still down a quarter of a million jobs from when the recession ended," Stockman added.
In addition, the U.S. is issuing three times more bonds a month than the GDP is growing, he said, adding, "I don't think we are headed for a cliff, I think we are heading for a wall."
One look at the Shadow Government Statistics web site, where unemployment numbers are counted the way they were before the 1990's, shows our functional unemployment has been north of 20% for two years now, and it seems neither the Democrats nor the Republicans care enough in Congress to do much, if anything, about it.
We're told the problem is deficit, austerity, and sacrifice.
The real problem is Washington doesn't give a damn about jobs. Democrats were punished in the polls for the economy, and Republicans newly in power in the House are responding by looking for as many cuts as they can find...oh yes and trying to redefine rape and fighting Obamacare.
Meanwhile the country burns. Maybe that's the point.
Posts
16 comments:
"Democrats were punished in the polls for the economy, and Republicans newly in power in the House are responding by looking for as many cuts as they can find..."
Which of course would create millions of new jobs if these spending cuts could be paired with tax cuts on businesses.
Republicans are doing infinitely more for jobs than Obama and his corrupt cronies did over the last two years. Look at your own numbers.
American voters aren't buying "The economy is Bush's fault!" anymore. Secretly, I don't think you are anymore, either.
Must be a nasty shock to finally see the truth.
Let's review. Obama inherited a very high unemployment rate that has been reduced since he has been in office. There is data that the stimulus bill, which most Republicans opposed, did in fact produce jobs. So, what is your basis of saying that the Republicans have done more to produce jobs than Democrats? By the way, if jobs are created by tax cuts, then they will created regardless of where those tax cuts are made. It is not necessary to cut taxes for the wealthy to get this effect.
Obama inherited a very high unemployment rate that has been reduced since he has been in office.
Yes he did. This page has charts of the monthly unemployment rate since 2008. In February, 2008, the rate was 8.2%, a very high rate.
But it hasn't been reduced, since it sits at 9% (adding in the underemployed, it's much higher). So what you say is proven wrong.
There is data that the stimulus bill, which most Republicans opposed, did in fact produce jobs.
That data was produced by people who make the proverbial snake oil salesmen look like angels.
So, what is your basis of saying that the Republicans have done more to produce jobs than Democrats?
Reagan, Gingrich, and Bush 43. The statistics bear it out.
By the way, if jobs are created by tax cuts, then they will created regardless of where those tax cuts are made. It is not necessary to cut taxes for the wealthy to get this effect.
Really? Name me one poor person who has created a job.
All of them, Steve. They all do, because they all still buy food, pay rent, buy medication, and what have you. They use utilities, they drive their cars, and they make do. They don't have much money, which is why they are poor, and they have to make sacrifices to just get by. But they do buy things, and as a result, they create demand.
I know demand is a foreign concept to Reagan worshiping supply siders, but demand really does drive the economic cycle. The poor have quite a lot of it, because there are quite a lot of them. When they manage to get more money in their pockets, by tax cuts, or by entitlement benefits such as UI, or EITC increases, or a raise in minimum wage or new investment in the local job markets, then they generally spend that money immediately.
Meanwhile, tax cuts to the wealthy or to corporations, time and again, have been shown to NOT produce much in the way of jobs, if any at all. It's just as likely to be saved up, or spent on something small and pretty than put towards investment, and even in the latter case, there's no guarantee that it will be spent in this country.
All of them, Steve.
Ah, yes. The Marxist answer.
I realize supply is a foreign concept to Marxists, but someone actually has to produce the food, living facilities (homes and apartments), medications, and what have you. Somebody has to put out the capital for this production, otherwise there would be none of these items being demanded.
So it is the suppliers who create the paying jobs, providing capital for those who would normally only demand things to put their capital (investment) to supply other things.
Punish the suppliers and there will be less supply for the demand, which raises prices. Punish the suppliers and they will go somewhere else where they won't be punished. Then the jobs they create will not be here, and then the people here who had those jobs will not be provided the capital with which to improve themselves economically.
Meanwhile, tax cuts to the wealthy or to corporations, time and again, have been shown to NOT produce much in the way of jobs, if any at all.
And that is the other facet of the Marxist: lying. There were no tax cuts to only the rich; income tax rates were cut for everyone. Everyone. The wealthy got a bigger cut since they pay a massively larger share of income taxes than everyone else. But everyone kept more of their own money.
As far as corporate tax rates, do you know what a corporation actually is, or a business for that matter? Or profit? If you're anything like Obama and Zandar, you're clueless.
Ah yes. The Conservative Myth.
It goes like this: We all owe our existence to the folk at the top, because we serfs simply don't have the power to make things ourselves. And if all the money left, we'd all huddle in the mud, naked and hungry. Sure it ignores the history of humans and for that matter, some animals. But it's true because rich people are the special anointed who must be slavishly doted on lest their fickle nature turns their heads to fairer climes. Like Communist China.
Horse puckey.
I hear this myth often from the same mouths that declare 'government never created a single job'. Seems to me that if all that's needed to make a job is capital outlay, we can get it from them, or a non-profit, or even just by community organization, rather than waiting for dainty Nathaniel Mayweather to come and anoint the project.
'Suppliers' lay out capital in response to demand, and not the other way around. Offering something that didn't exist before can create that demand, but if there was no demand there would be no supply. And in the absence of capital to create it, a need will find some other way to be filled, by hook or by crook.
And again, tax cuts did go to the wealthy; we all got the income tax cut, but the people who work for a living (raises his hand) got our payroll taxes raised. Rich people pay damned little of that, if you were wondering. We saw corporate taxes get cut, estate taxes get relief, not sure how many poor folks get a cut of those. Not sure how many middle class folks get those either.
And what did we end up with? Did the wealthy shower us with new jobs? Or did they ship them over seas, where the labor laws are, shall we say, 'flexible'? Or lobby to have regulation loosened to cut their costs even more, rather than maintain their business properly?
PS: 'Marxist'? Really? That dates you quite a bit, pulling that chestnut out is like using 'agents of the Czar' or 'Yellow Peril' as an insult. Keep it classy, wanker.
'Marxist'? Really? That dates you quite a bit,...
Maybe, but it doesn't mean it isn't true.
Take a look at that comment of yours. You're fighting against a feudal society that really never existed in the United States, except where there was slavery (which, by the way, is over). You want the establishment of a feudal society where a select few in the government tell the rest of us how to live and what to do. You're a dishonest, hypocritical, class warfare Marxist.
The Soviet Union is dead. Communism is a proven failure. Here's some advice: grow up.
If you had just said 'Marxist', that would be fine and amusing in it's own way. 'Marxist' is tossed around without any foundation of thought these days by the Tea Party adherents anymore.
But it's very amusing that you read my comment on why the wealthy are not the origin of all human success and gaming the tax system in their favor isn't working, and concluding that I favor the return of the feudal system. But, it's hardly uncommon for a conservative to get something very wrong.
But what is astoundingly laugh out loud hilarious is that you manage to call me both in the same post and mean it. Did the sudden contradiction cause you pain at all? Cause my ribs are still aching.
Seriously, you have no idea what 'feudal' and 'Marxist' means, you really have no idea what you are saying, and I doubt you even know why it's funny.
Seriously, you have no idea what 'feudal' and 'Marxist' means,...
Oh but I do. See that is what the Marxists have done, created a new form of feudalism, where members of a certain clique get the benefits while enslaving everyone else; they just don't call themselves by the old titles. But that's what it is.
You can laugh all you want. But I know you for the Marxist liar you are. I'm the one whose been doing the laughing.
Yeah, where I sit, that 'clique' today isn't the government, it's the wealthy who yell 'jump' at the government, Democrats and Conservatives, and get results. It's the big banks that crashed the economy and walked away without a scratch. It's the industries that continuously pollute the world and endanger their own workers in search of the almighty dollar. It's televangelist frauds that cry about the imminent End of Days while they feather their nests for the long term.
I think you are ridiculous, Steve, because you seem to have sided with these gigantic leeches while claiming they are the ones we are indebted to. These are the same people who have made out like bandits in the last 30 years of deregulation and low taxes, while the rest of us work harder to stay in place while our cities slowly crumble to dust.
But, to be fair, I don't think you're a liar; I just think you're another Tea Party leaning doofus who took the conservative line and isn't willing to take the hook out of your mouth.
I think you are ridiculous, Steve, because you seem to have sided with these gigantic leeches while claiming they are the ones we are indebted to.
I'm not indebted to them. Neither is anyone else. The wealthy provide us with the opportunity to become wealthy ourselves; it's up to us to take advantage of it. See, that's a difference between you and me: you look at it as something that should be given to you without having to earn it; I look at it as an earned opportunity. In fact, that's how the Declaration of Independence looks at it, and which was codified in the Bill of Rights; we have the right to the pursuit of happiness, with pursuit being the key word. You want happiness to be a guarantee; there is no guarantee.
Yeah, where I sit, that 'clique' today isn't the government, it's the wealthy who yell 'jump' at the government, Democrats and Conservatives, and get results.
Yeah, where I sit, it is the government and all those who want to ingratiate themselves with the government. But the influence of the wealthy isn't power since it's only those in government who have the power to pass laws. If Democrat and Republican (especially conservatives) lawmakers are the ones being influenced (bribed) and allowing those attempting to influence the lawmakers, who is ultimately at fault if the politician accepts the influence? The lawmaker since, like I said, they are the ones who make the laws.
So yes, it is definitely the government that is creating the "clique", the same kind of clique that ran feudal societies, fascist governments, and Communist governments. That goes against everything specified in the Declaration and the Constitution.
Especially Communists, using all the arguments you've made to claim a tyrannical government could be replaced by one that is more "fair" under them. Then they installed a more brutal and murderous tyranny than the one they replaced. I call you a liar because your kind is still seeking to do that, something you've been doing throughout this thread.
All those others you mentioned (banks, industries, televangilists), they aren't the "clique" conservatives like myself are worried about.
I forgot to mention federal bureaucrats who are part of this clique.
You have the EPA regulating plant food (carbon dioxide). You have the Dept. of Energy putting in and maintaining an illegal deep water drilling moratorium that was based on lies given to it by the White House (DoE was hit with contempt charges for this). You have an FCC regulating the internet when a federal court said this was illegal. And you have HHS illegally proceeding with Obamacare's implementation even though a federal judge said Obamacare was unconstitutional (this is the ruling that matters, since it was a declaratory judgment; the DoJ has yet to file an appeal to either stay the ruling or proceed to the appellate court). And other than Obamacare, none of the other bureaucratic actions I mentioned are backed by any legislation from Congress.
Now you tell me how the clique today isn't the government.
So, you don't believe you're indebted to the wealthy, you just believe that they provide the opportunities for some to thrive, provided people do something for them in return. Now I like a joke as much as the next guy, but that is fairly laughable as a statement, because that is a contradiction in terms. If you are not going to be indebted to the rich, then you don't need their opportunities either.
And that happens to be true, we don't need the wealthy to survive, which is my point. I think we could actually thrive better as a nation if some of the more egregious gargoyles in the upper classes were actually held accountable for their actions. Not every billionaire makes their lucre unfairly but a good number have and to the detriment of the economy and the rest of us.
And if wealth isn't power, then you're actually quite hopeless to talk to; I don't know how many scandals involving the financial world need to be made before it becomes clear to you that they have successfully gamed the system in their favor, but if what's already occurred isn't good enough, then I give up trying to convince you. It is amazingly nice of you for letting a lobbyist slide for influence but not the pol - I guess 'accessory' doesn't end up a lot in conservative discussions.
Again, I'm not calling you a liar - you're welcome - but I am calling you hopelessly out of touch with certain political realities. Or, considering your 'plant food' comment, scientific ones as well. I shall leave it at that, for now, because it is late and I find myself scowling at you very hard, which is the sign that I'm getting worked up over some guy over the internet I will never meet.
Not every billionaire makes their lucre unfairly but a good number have and to the detriment of the economy and the rest of us.
That's right. They call them criminals. That is unless politicians create rules that allow criminals not to be criminals because the politicians benefit from them. Again, who is at fault, the billionaires or the politicians?
And that happens to be true, we don't need the wealthy to survive, which is my point.
Oh that's right. We could survive through non-profits. Except non-profits have to pay their executives, and some have quite hefty salaries and benefits.
We could survive through community organizations and the government. Because we're all one big, happy commune. Except someone has to run the thing. But we're all such angels that we can trust those that run the commune, the government, to always do the right thing. Just like those people who put their faith in the Communist Party of various countries. The same Communists who murdered, what...something like 100 million of their own people? It's probably not a good idea to re-implement something that is truly harmful to humanity.
Or, considering your 'plant food' comment, scientific ones as well.
Really? Don't plants take in carbon dioxide to survive? That's basic science. Or does your "science" have a different belief? In which case, your "science" would seem to be a religion, and a false one at that, don't you think?
And if wealth isn't power, then you're actually quite hopeless to talk to;...
I actually never said that. I said influence wasn't power. That is a true statement. You would probably feel less hopeless if you actually read what I wrote instead of poorly translating what I say into your warped brain.
So, you don't believe you're indebted to the wealthy, you just believe that they provide the opportunities for some to thrive, provided people do something for them in return.
That's right. It's called work. I get paid to do work, and I can use the money I've earned to do what I like (provided it's legal). Like support my family, donate to charity or my church, or invest it. And I don't have to work for just one rich person; I can choose to work for another, or even the government or non-profit if I choose to. Or if I accumulate enough of my wealth, then I don't have to work for any of them. Haven't you figured that out yet? Or is it that you believe the wealthy owe you things you don't have to work for? Is that your schtick?
I am calling you hopelessly out of touch with certain political realities.
You're the Marxist (which you've never denied, by the way). Marxism is dead. That is the reality.
"I get paid to do work"
And work for SteveAR=trolling Zandar.
But he is an especially verbose spoof, so I guess that's ok. Does he get paid by the word?
Post a Comment