LATimes: Dismal jobs report shows unemployment rising to 9.2%

[mjah]

Absolutely and hopefully Rick Perry will be the guy to supplant him. I'd like Perry and Michele Bachmann to form a ticket. Both are financial and job savvy.

Rick Perry plugged his own state's 2011 budget hole using $6.4B of Recovery Act money that was handed to him by the Democratically controlled Congress and the Obama administration. He won't look quite so financially savvy during Texas' 2012 budget process, with no Federal money to bail him out again.

As for Bachmann... if you want Obama re-elected, by all means put her up there.

If the economy continues to sputter, I hope to God the GOP can do better than these two.

[mardi gras skin]

Is this Obama's economy yet or is he still getting the "new guy" treatment?

[Chump Bailey]

Rick Perry plugged his own state's 2011 budget hole using $6.4B of Recovery Act money that was handed to him by the Democratically controlled Congress and the Obama administration. He won't look quite so financially savvy during Texas' 2012 budget process, with no Federal money to bail him out again.

As for Bachmann... if you want Obama re-elected, by all means put her up there.

If the economy continues to sputter, I hope to God the GOP can do better than these two.

I'll take anyone that imbues confidence.

[NoVaO]

I do not but if it is any consolation, I do not have faith in either party in this regard so it's not a Democrat or Republican thing.

I think the President is in a tough spot here. He has to agree to spending cuts or he is forced to do something on his own authority with the Debt Ceiling. If that happens, it's a big gamble because you don't know if an increase helps or hurts. If it helps, he is in a very good position to get re-elected but if it hurts, then he and the Democratic Party face a situations that could look very much like 2008 in reverse.

I agree with this...my hope is that the debt ceiling debate or at least the negativity that is emanating is part of what's holding back businesses from investing. Just another 100K jobs a month will help things

No, you didn't. And that's the point. Your sole focus is spending. So why not spend $10 trillion? If less spending = bad and more spending = good, why aren't you advocating a $10 trillion deficit?

There has to be some limit, doesn't there? I'd get an estimate from economists what they think the number should be. Or maybe I'd tie any stimulus program to the unemployment rate or GDP.

Why would we want to reduce the deficit? It's spending, right? Won't a long-term deficit reduction plan involve fewer government employees than long-term deficit reckless abandon? After all, like you keep saying, there are businesses that rely on customers who work for the government. When the government spends money, it gets spent again. Are you advocating the bankruptcy of future businesses that would have a lot of government employee customers? Why do you want less spending?

The hope is that the recovery will be self-sustaining by then. Nobody denies that the deficit is a big concern, but the immediate concern should be the jobs crisis. And not to mention, a really good way to bring down the deficit is for people to work.

The bottom line is that if consumers, business, and government sits on its hands and does nothing, economic growth will stagnate. Once businesses start investing and consumers start spending, you can back off government spending. Once the economy is self-sustainable, the Government can back off. You run deficits during the bad times, and surpluses during the good times. This is why tax cuts were such a bad idea back in 2001 and 2003 because it left the Government with very little revenue to combat the recession.

I remember hearing something incredibly similar 2 or 3 years ago....

I also remember those who said the stimulus needed to be bigger...

---------- Post added July-8th-2011 at 05:17 PM ----------

Perhaps. I do not believe that Government creates jobs. I believe the majority of jobs are created by SMB. The biggest problem with the stimulus, IMO, is that it was not put to direct use in the hands of American Business owners. American Business Owners saw way to little of it and now this President has a trust issue.

If he's going to right the economic ship, he's going to have to figure out another way to do it because he won't get the support he received before in things such large Government Spending Initiatives or Omnibus Packages.

What is SMB?

I disagree with you on the biggest problem of the stimulus. Business can't do anything without customers buying their products or services. There is no guarantee businesses would have invested that money back into the economy. Getting money into the pockets of consumers is more important, especially those who will spend that money and put it right back into the economy.

Remember, we have a demand problem. Businesses don't have enough customers. Businesses are actually quite profitable right now because they have cut costs as a result of the recession.

I agree with your second paragraph, unfortunately.

---------- Post added July-8th-2011 at 05:18 PM ----------

Is this Obama's economy yet or is he still getting the "new guy" treatment?

Surprisingly, he's not being blamed yet.

[Larry]

Really? And here I thought the problem was those subprime mortgages.

You know. The ones that didn't meet Fannie and Freddie's requirements?

Yes, the ones ultimately sold to Fannie and Freddie. You need to read up on the subject more, Fannie and Freddie aiding and abetting the whole situation.

Well, #1, they all ended up getting bundled and sold to Fannie and Freddie as securities and #2, the collapse of the subprime market deflated the entire housing market, which, in turn, led to the collapse of the whole shebang.

And yet, I've been told, right here on ES, that the definition of a subprime mortgage is "one that Fannie and Freddie won't buy, because it doesn't meet their standards".

So I'm wondering how we get to the claim that the entire problem was caused by mortgages that Fannie and Freddie won't touch, to the claim that it's entirely Fannie and Freddie's fault that those banks chose to wrote mortgages that Fannie and Freddie wouldn't buy.

[deejaydana]

So I'm wondering how we get to the claim that the entire problem was caused by mortgages that Fannie and Freddie won't touch, to the claim that it's entirely Fannie and Freddie's fault that those banks chose to wrote mortgages that Fannie and Freddie wouldn't buy.

Larry, If you're interested check this out. It may change your take on how involved Fannie really was in causing the meltdown. It's sobering for sure. I just don't get how we haven't really made any meaningful changes to these organizations yet. Fannie's CEO made changes so they started writing loans for people who clearly had no skin in the game & should not have been given mortgages in the first place. It was all done in the name of serving minorities really (or at least that was a major part of it). It hasn't really come out that much in the press but this book is an excellent take on Fannie's involvement (and culpability).

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.. http://www.amazon.com/Reckless-Endangerment-Outsized-Corruption-Armageddon/dp/0805091203/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310161879&sr=1-1

[Larry]

I am not sure if the Obama Defenders are blaming Bush for not creating jobs in 2011 or just everyone except Obama.

Perhaps if you paid attention to what they're actually saying, instead of trying to make things up for them to say?

Just a thought.

[Madison Redskin]

Is this Obama's economy yet or is he still getting the "new guy" treatment?

Obama and Congress are certainly somewhat responsible for the current sad state of the economy, although I think the general public tends to give the government far too much credit/blame for economic conditions that are largely the result of forces beyond government's control. In any case, do you deny (1) the economy was in shambles on the day Obama took office and (2) the economy is better today than it was when he first took office?

I'm not denying Obama is partially to blame for the absence of the Great Recovery. I'm just saying he's not responsible for the Great Recession. So, excuse me if I fart in the general direction of those who pretend that this whole mess is Obama's fault and has nothing to do with events that took place well before he became POTUS.

[Hubbs]

There has to be some limit, doesn't there?

Why?

You've spent most of the thread describing what happens when the government spends money. Nowhere have you said that those things only happen when the government spends $2 trillion, but if it spent $2.1 trillion, that last $100 billion will somehow be completely different. Isn't this about avoiding government layoffs? Why shouldn't the government go out and hire 10 million people tomorrow? Won't more hypothetical businesses avoid having to file for hypothetical business bankruptcy if 10 million people are hired tomorrow? What happened to all that talk about spending? If another trillion in spending is good, why is another five trillion bad? And another five on top of that? Where did this fear of "too much spending" suddenly come from? I really want to know. Why is it ridiculous to run a deficit of $10 trillion?

I'd get an estimate from economists what they think the number should be.

Well, Jesus, if you want to get about a billion different answers....

The hope is that the recovery will be self-sustaining by then.

Do you consider the housing bubble to have been a "self-sustaining" recovery from the recession at the beginning of the decade?

Nobody denies that the deficit is a big concern, but the immediate concern should be the jobs crisis. And not to mention, a really good way to bring down the deficit is for people to work.

You didn't answer any of my questions. I'm not asking them sarcastically. I really want to know how you'd answer. Nothing you've said would suggest that a deficit should be a big concern, or, really, any concern at all. Let's say unemployment is at 7.5% two years from now. Do you start trimming the deficit then? You realize that will result in layoffs, right? Less government customers spending money at private businesses. What if you short-circuit the recovery? How can you tell if any recovery is self-sustaining while running a deficit of more than a trillion dollars? How can you get an accurate read on how the economy would work without a deficit if the deficit is 13% of our entire GDP?

The bottom line is that if consumers, business, and government sits on its hands and does nothing, economic growth will stagnate. Once businesses start investing and consumers start spending, you can back off government spending. Once the economy is self-sustainable, the Government can back off.

What makes you think that will happen within five years? Within ten? You seem to know enough about economics to be familiar with the Japanese situation. We're doing the same things in response to the same problem. They've been in a state of economic suspended animation for more than 20 years. Would it be shocking if we got the same result?

You run deficits during the bad times, and surpluses during the good times.

And if we hadn't done the exact opposite for, you know, almost 30 years, then I'd sincerely hope that the government would open up its coffers and unleash the untold billions that it was sitting on.

Unfortunately, that's not the case.

This is why tax cuts were such a bad idea back in 2001 and 2003 because it left the Government with very little revenue to combat the recession.

Completely agree.

I also remember those who said the stimulus needed to be bigger...

And I have no doubt that the can would have been much more successfully kicked had the stimulus been $2 trillion.

[mardi gras skin]

Obama and Congress are certainly somewhat responsible for the current sad state of the economy, although I think the general public tends to give the government far too much credit/blame for economic conditions that are largely the result of forces beyond government's control.

Well sure, but Bush was getting the blame for the economy for quite a while. I'm just asking if Obama has been in office long enough to start blaming him instead of Bush.

[heyholetsgogrant]

Obama and Congress are certainly somewhat responsible for the current sad state of the economy, although I think the general public tends to give the government far too much credit/blame for economic conditions that are largely the result of forces beyond government's control. In any case, do you deny (1) the economy was in shambles on the day Obama took office and (2) the economy is better today than it was when he first took office?

I'm not businesses denying Obama is partially to blame for the absence of the Great Recovery. I'm just saying he's not responsible for the Great Recession. So, excuse me if I fart in the general direction of those who pretend that this whole mess is Obama's fault and has nothing to do with events that took place well before he became POTUS.

I agree with some of this, but it seems to me congress is too worried about political gain. Party ahead of country. Obama cant stick a gun to the head of corporations and tell them to hire people, there is no incentive to do so when they have trillions in profits. I think we need to invest way more in small/medium sized businesses, because they have shown more willingness to create jobs.

[LadySkinsFan]

So, has Congress passed a law yet that penalizes corporations that send jobs overseas?

Oh wait, I saw on C-Span the other night that the Republicans defeated an amendment that would do just that!

No job creation in the United States.

[twa]

Rick Perry plugged his own state's 2011 budget hole using $6.4B of Recovery Act money that was handed to him by the Democratically controlled Congress and the Obama administration. He won't look quite so financially savvy during Texas' 2012 budget process, with no Federal money to bail him out again.

As for Bachmann... if you want Obama re-elected, by all means put her up there.

If the economy continues to sputter, I hope to God the GOP can do better than these two.

I hope we can do better as well, but Obama is a disaster on the domestic front.....and it is gonna get worse

As to Texas.....we are on solid footing and don't do deficits,even if it means cutting till it bleeds and liberals faint.

care to compare how the other states(such as Cali) that also received recovery act money will fare?

I guess you can blame Perry for the 8 billion or so sitting in our rainy day fund too.:pfft:

[Larry]

Well sure, but Bush was getting the blame for the economy for quite a while.

Not from me you haven't.

All I've done is to point out that we were (supposedly) mere days away from a situation worse than the Great Depression, six months before Obama took office.

Now, was that Bush's fault?

Oh, I think that he and the Republicans deserve at least a share. My main basis for what I admit is simply a gut feeling is the fact that I recall, for years leading reading story after story about the government repealing/relaxing/waiving banking regulations that had been put in place after the Great Depression, for the specific purpose of preventing the next one. I remember being told that I was ignorant about financial matters, because everybody knows that those great depression banking regulations were completely obsolete in the modern world. I remember being told that I was ignorant when I tried to argue that, to me, if a person can't afford a mortgage unless it has an artificially low introductory rate, then that person was overextending himself.

I remember people telling me that they were buying homes with 2%, interest-only payments for the first five years, because they couldn't afford the payments on a fixed-rate mortgage, and that I was an idiot for being skeptical about this plan. When I'd ask them what they intended to do if, 10 years from now, their mortgage payment tripled, their response was that well, then, they'd just refinance.

Do I think that Bush, or the Republican Party, or the entire government, have all the blame? Come on. The government has more control over the economy than it has over the weather, but not a lot more. There's lots of forces involved in this "storm system".

----------

Now, does Obama deserve some of the blame now? I'm not certain that he does. But the reason I'm not certain isn't because I think he's protected by some kind of "new guy rule". I'm not certain he deserves blame, because I'm not certain that there's any blame to go around.

Three years ago, I'll point out, we were supposedly days away from the worst economic disaster in world history.

Should we be handing out blame, because of how things are now? Or should we be handing out credit? :whoknows:

[Bucaro]

I hope we can do better as well, but Obama is a disaster on the domestic front.....and it is gonna get worse

As to Texas.....we are on solid footing and don't do deficits,even if it means cutting till it bleeds and liberals faint.

care to compare how the other states(such as Cali) that also received recovery act money will fare?

I guess you can blame Perry for the 8 billion or so sitting in our rainy day fund too.:pfft:

What about the $27B budget shortfall this year in Texas?

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-taxes/2011-budget-shortfall/about/

That was closed by slashing education, college aid etc (in what is alrady an educational system ranked near the bottom in the US) and it is also a bit of a house of cards because, although the gap has been closed for this fiscal year, they need to increase spending by $20+B next year just to maintain the same services...putting off paying "bills" until 2013, or delaying a $2B payment to schools by 1 day so it goes on the next years budget? He doubled the states debt from 01-09, I feel like this one looks like a house of cards but I certainly hope it is not

Oh, and the "rainy day fund" - here is a quote from a republican in the legislature: “We’ve got to get the message right. There’s been a lot of misinformation out there that there’s $6 billion in the fund that’s not been used. It’s been used,” Charles Perry, R-Lubbock

[twa]

So, has Congress passed a law yet that penalizes corporations that send jobs overseas?

Oh wait, I saw on C-Span the other night that the Republicans defeated an amendment that would do just that!

No job creation in the United States.

You mean like quit buying the Chinese wind turbines we subsidize?

Or was it strangling domestic oil production?

Or the coal generating plants?

Or .......

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/wind-power-equal-job-power/story?id=9759949

[Prosperity]

Is this Obama's economy yet or is he still getting the "new guy" treatment?

new guy until term #2

though the American Economy is way bigger than any President

[Larry]

new guy until term #2

Kinda makes it tough to decide how to vote, if you have to re-elect him before he's responsible.

[Prosperity]

I hope we can do better as well, but Obama is a disaster on the domestic front.....and it is gonna get worse

As to Texas.....we are on solid footing and don't do deficits,even if it means cutting till it bleeds and liberals faint.

care to compare how the other states(such as Cali) that also received recovery act money will fare?

I guess you can blame Perry for the 8 billion or so sitting in our rainy day fund too.:pfft:

why would Texas use a rainy day fund when it has such a booming economy

weird... I guess Texas is having a rainy day after all

[twa]

What about the $27B budget shortfall this year in Texas?

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-taxes/2011-budget-shortfall/about/

That was closed by slashing education, college grants etc (in what is alrady an educational system ranked near the bottom in the US) and it is also a bit of a house of cards because, although the gap has been closed for this fiscal year, they need to increase spending by $20+B next year just to maintain the same services...

Taken care of w/o tax increases or touching much in savings

http://www.politifact.com/texas/promises/perry-o-meter/promise/828/balance-the-budget-without-a-tax-increase/

you don't like our education system?...stay the hell away,I don't need more company

It seemed to do well by my kids(who attended public schools with major minority representation) and most others

btw...we do two yr budgets,next 2 yrs spending is in this budget

[Prosperity]

Kinda makes it tough to decide how to vote, if you have to re-elect him before he's responsible.

I don't think there is any way to accurately measure a President's performance on the "economy" (could you think of a more vague and gigantic word? maybe the "environment") after 1 term

the US economy is simply too big for that

of course there's other rationales behind voting than the general health of "The Economy"

[mardi gras skin]

I don't think there is any way to accurately measure a President's performance on the "economy" (could you think of a more vague and gigantic word? maybe the "environment")

George H.W. Bush agrees with you.

It's the Economy Stupid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_the_economy,_stupid

The phrase became something of a slogan for the Clinton election campaign. Clinton's campaign used the recession to successfully unseat George H.W. Bush.

[deejaydana]

so looking ahead, if the Stimulus continues to provide weak or even negative results are Keynesian solutions then dead for good?

I'm risking the wrath of Zoony who called me dumb AND arrogant for suggesting as much last week.... :paranoid:

[Prosperity]

George H.W. Bush agrees with you.

It's the Economy Stupid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_the_economy,_stupid

damn shame what happened to Bush I, the last respectable Republican

[Larry]

so looking ahead, if the Stimulus continues to provide weak or even negative results are Keynesian solutions then dead for good?

Oh, come now.

We've been practicing Reganomics for 30 years, with really questionable and frequently negative results, and the response is to demand that we do it more.

----------

Remembering a story (that I think I read in an Arthur C. Clarke book).

A University President is at a dinner party, and he's venting.

"Engineering. Physics. Chemistry. Medicine. They always want more. Nuclear accelerators. Positronic scanners. Gigaquad supercomputers. More, more more. Newer, newer, newer.

"What can't they be like the Mathematics department? All they need is a chalkboard and a wastebasket.

"Or Philosophy? They don't need a wastebasket."