LATimes: Dismal jobs report shows unemployment rising to 9.2%

[techboy]

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

Most Keyenesians argue that the stimulus was way too small, so no.

The "massive spending to reverse a depression" was tried once in history, and (IMO) it's a sign of how far political partisanship has gone, that people are actually attempting to revise history to dispute the glaringly obvious fact that they were a resounding success. The comparisons of "before FDR" and "after FDR" cannot possibly be any clearer.

Complicating your narrative tremendously is that Keynesians, such as Paul Krugman, argue that the New Deal wasn't very effective because it was too small, and give the credit for the recovery to the massive stimulus of WWII:

What you see is that the fiscal stimulus provided by the WPA and all that was relatively small — and pulled back in 1937, with disastrous results. But when Dr. New Deal turned into Dr. Win the War, the economy got some serious stimulus.

While (generally) non-Keyenesians argue that some of FDR's policies made the Great Depression longer, as reported by Krugman (in a not very unbiased way )in an op-ed here:

Now, there’s a whole intellectual industry, mainly operating out of right-wing think tanks, devoted to propagating the idea that F.D.R. actually made the Depression worse. So it’s important to know that most of what you hear along those lines is based on deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. The New Deal brought real relief to most Americans.

That said, F.D.R. did not, in fact, manage to engineer a full economic recovery during his first two terms. This failure is often cited as evidence against Keynesian economics, which says that increased public spending can get a stalled economy moving. But the definitive study of fiscal policy in the ’30s, by the M.I.T. economist E. Cary Brown, reached a very different conclusion: fiscal stimulus was unsuccessful “not because it does not work, but because it was not tried.”

This may seem hard to believe. The New Deal famously placed millions of Americans on the public payroll via the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps. To this day we drive on W.P.A.-built roads and send our children to W.P.A.-built schools. Didn’t all these public works amount to a major fiscal stimulus?

Well, it wasn’t as major as you might think. The effects of federal public works spending were largely offset by other factors, notably a large tax increase, enacted by Herbert Hoover, whose full effects weren’t felt until his successor took office. Also, expansionary policy at the federal level was undercut by spending cuts and tax increases at the state and local level.

And F.D.R. wasn’t just reluctant to pursue an all-out fiscal expansion — he was eager to return to conservative budget principles. That eagerness almost destroyed his legacy. After winning a smashing election victory in 1936, the Roosevelt administration cut spending and raised taxes, precipitating an economic relapse that drove the unemployment rate back into double digits and led to a major defeat in the 1938 midterm elections.

What saved the economy, and the New Deal, was the enormous public works project known as World War II, which finally provided a fiscal stimulus adequate to the economy’s needs.

I tossed in more stuff about the Keyensian explanation for why the New Deal didn't work the way FDR intended.

The upshot is, though, that whichever side you take, FDR is not an example of something tried once before that worked. One side says it was a half-hearted effort that didn't work because it was too small (kind of like now), and the other side says it didn't work, and might have made things worse.

[twa]

I've seen a lot of Texas and enjoy the people. I don't relish what their state is going to have to do in order to make ends meet down there.

Your concern is touching,but you might better save it for those not making ends meet....you might note the fund continues to increase

we will get by somehow ...funny thing about jobs,expanding our tax base and taxpayers will help

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/07/rubio-lets-stop-talking-about

Let’s stop talking about new taxes and start talking about new taxpayers, which means jobs. This debt is the No. 1 issue on everyone’s minds and rightfully so. It is a major issue, but everywhere else, in the real world, the No. 1 issue on people’s minds is jobs. And I tell you, every other problem facing America — a mortgage crisis, a home foreclosure crisis, this debt problem — all of these issues get easier to deal with if people are gainfully employed across America. And the impact that unemployment is having across this country is devastating. …

now let's compare Texas

want to work?

[mardi gras skin]

Give me some examples of Bush compromising on policies that were actually signed into law to build your case.

I don't have a case. I was genuinely interested in your answer. I find it fascinating that liberals are content with the narrative that liberal congressmen and presidents get bullied into action they don't want while conservatives accomplish whatever they want to do.

Whether or not that narrative is actually true (and as I said, I don't have a case either way) it just amazes me that liberals are content with leadership that doesn't have the will to represent them.

[techboy]

This picture has little direct relevance beyond the fact that I just ran across it, and I think it's funny:

[Henry]

I don't have a case. I was genuinely interested in your answer. I find it fascinating that liberals are content with the narrative that liberal congressmen and presidents get bullied into action they don't want while conservatives accomplish whatever they want to do.

Whether or not that narrative is actually true (and as I said, I don't have a case either way) it just amazes me that liberals are content with leadership that doesn't have the will to represent them.

As a liberal, I do personally feel that Democrats allow themselves to be bullied far more than Republicans do. At least at the national level.

That doesn't mean I'm happy about it.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

As a liberal, I do personally feel that Democrats allow themselves to be bullied far more than Republicans do. At least at the national level.

That doesn't mean I'm happy about it.

+1

[twa]

C'mon admit it,ya like when we get rough big boy

[mardi gras skin]

As a liberal, I do personally feel that Democrats allow themselves to be bullied far more than Republicans do. At least at the national level.

That doesn't mean I'm happy about it.

I agree. Democrats "allow themselves" to be bullied. Each party plays politics differently because they're playing to a different set of constituents but these aren't frightened freshmen in the senior courtyard. If they're bullied its because that's the role they choose to play. I think liberal voters tend to accept victimization from their representatives over aggression. And its very effective in avoiding responsibility for failures. Its just a given among liberals that Bush bears more responsibility for his actions than Obama because Obama is dealing with bullies.

The reps you guys vote into office play that victim card pretty well and libs eat it up while complaining that they don't like it.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

I agree. Democrats "allow themselves" to be bullied. Each party plays politics differently because they're playing to a different set of constituents but these aren't frightened freshmen in the senior courtyard. If they're bullied its because that's the roll they choose to play. I think liberal voters tend to accept victimization from their representatives over aggression. And its very effective in avoiding responsibility for failures. Its just a given among liberals that Bush bears more responsibility for his actions that Obama because Obama is dealing with bullies.

The reps you guys vote into office play that victim card pretty well and libs eat it up while complaining that they don't like it.

Deleted post.

[mardi gras skin]

Incorrect....but amusing. :pfft:

Well you know...I sit in my comfy chair, drinking my morning coffee, trying to figure you guys out. All kind of crazy things come to mind.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Well you know...I sit in my comfy chair, drinking my morning coffee, trying to figure you guys out. All kind of crazy things come to mind.

It's easy to figure out liberals. At least the politicians.

We're soft. It is what it is.

As much as I've grown to despise the modern GOP I have give them credit for one thing: When push comes to shove, they'll present a united front.

I wish I could say the same for my party.

[NoCalMike]

Right, and here-in lies the dilemma, if you will of being a liberal american. Would I like to see a guy like Kuncinich or Bernie Sanders with a more impactful role in policy making? Sure. However, I am also not so sure how effective they would actually be as President because they would be dealing with just as much "Socialist, Communist, Mao, Traitor, Terrorist sympathizer" etc if not more than Obama.

The other big problem is that big money and corporate interests don't stop at the middle of the aisle, it is downright obvious that most of the (D)'s are on the take as well, which makes it that much harder for a guy like Obama who probably has his head and heart in the right place.

This is why it outrageous IMO for people to claim Obama is not compromising, or trying to meet in the middle on issues. I have presented evidence that he is, but as the election draws closer, and more is on the line, he is continually being met by the other side merely stone-walling and not open to anything. Guys like Rand Paul saying "I will filibuster everything unless I get what I want" What kind of bs is that? Sounds like a spoiled brat not wanting to eat his veggies.

Obama rolled on tax cuts for the wealthy, despite 70%(+) of people being polled saying they actually agreed with OBAMA's Position that taxes on them should go up. So basically he had overwhelming support, but he knew he had to get SOMETHING passed going into 2010 elections. So he basically kicked the can down the road a bit, and what did he get for his efforts, an entire ® party who says "no way no how, uh-uh" to any type of tax on the wealthiest Americans, who if you look at any statistics, you will see they have been doing just fine.

The sad truth is, while Obama doesn't seem very effective to his base, he very well could be the best filter we have right now against the GOP policies that would really make things astronomically worse.

For a little perspective, I see John Bohner tweeted "Where are the jobs Mr. President" well I mean I guess we could ask the same thing of the ® controlled Congress. Since the ®'s took the house, how many job bills have there been? Been busy trying to carve up unions and planned parenthood, not much by way of a jobs bill.

[mardi gras skin]

It's easy to figure out liberals. At least the politicians.

We're soft. It is what it is.

I don't know. I think its the voters. If liberals really didn't accept victimization from their reps, they'd elect people that aren't bullied...or, from my perspective, they'd stop thinking of Pelosi and Reid as victims and think of them as slick politicians playing the victim card to achieve their goals.

---------- Post added July-9th-2011 at 07:46 AM ----------

Obama rolled on tax cuts for the wealthy, despite 70%(+) of people being polled saying they actually agreed with OBAMA's Position that taxes on them should go up.

Did he roll on that issue or did he just give lip service to tax increases for the wealthy to shield himself from voters?

[NoCalMike]

Oh I don't consider Pelosi a victim at all. In fact, look at her record. She was pretty effective as house leader and actually seemed to push Obama into getting things moving. Despite what the right-wing think tanks want to put out there, she is effective, they know it, they want her gone.

Harry Reid on the other hand....... *no comment*

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Oh I don't consider Pelosi a victim at all. In fact, look at her record. She was pretty effective as house leader and actually seemed to push Obama into getting things moving. Despite what the right-wing think tanks want to put out there, she is effective, they know it, they want her gone.

This.

---------- Post added July-9th-2011 at 11:53 AM ----------

Right, and here-in lies the dilemma, if you will of being a liberal american. Would I like to see a guy like Kuncinich or Bernie Sanders with a more impactful role in policy making? Sure. However, I am also not so sure how effective they would actually be as President because they would be dealing with just as much "Socialist, Communist, Mao, Traitor, Terrorist sympathizer" etc if not more than Obama.

The other big problem is that big money and corporate interests don't stop at the middle of the aisle, it is downright obvious that most of the (D)'s are on the take as well, which makes it that much harder for a guy like Obama who probably has his head and heart in the right place.

This is why it outrageous IMO for people to claim Obama is not compromising, or trying to meet in the middle on issues. I have presented evidence that he is, but as the election draws closer, and more is on the line, he is continually being met by the other side merely stone-walling and not open to anything. Guys like Rand Paul saying "I will filibuster everything unless I get what I want" What kind of bs is that? Sounds like a spoiled brat not wanting to eat his veggies.

.

Yeah, I would argue that Obama has compromised too much. Hell, even the HCR was much more moderate than many would've liked. And ironically, HCR was almost identical to a bill proposed by Bob Dole years ago. A bill which many of these same Republicans supported.

[NoCalMike]

The problem is that the Republicans are using the bad economy as leverage.

They know Obama is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

If Obama fights for his policy and nothing gets passed, as a result. The Republicans will start running "Obama did nothing" ads.

If he compromises and watered-down bad policy gets passed that isn't going to help (kind of like a Stimulus package that was about 1/4th as big as it needed to be) the Republicans will say "Obama's policies failed"

I honestly still think Obama is going to win in 2012, because as of now just take a look at who his potential opponents are (and this includes Palin, should she decide to run) however my fear is that the "energized" portion of the base that has to feel "compelled" to go out and vote isn't going to show up in mass like they did in 2008, which will make things dangerously close.

Oh and re: HCR. Right. It is Republican policy. The ®'s have no real problem with it, but they have to act like they do because Obama proposed it. There is nothing "liberal" about it perse, besides the fact that it is actually covering more folks, and then certain attributes of it such as being able to stay on parents coverage longer, and things like that, but the "meat & potatoes" of it, is really a big handout to private insurance companies.

[Henry]

I agree. Democrats "allow themselves" to be bullied. Each party plays politics differently because they're playing to a different set of constituents but these aren't frightened freshmen in the senior courtyard. If they're bullied its because that's the role they choose to play. I think liberal voters tend to accept victimization from their representatives over aggression. And its very effective in avoiding responsibility for failures. Its just a given among liberals that Bush bears more responsibility for his actions than Obama because Obama is dealing with bullies.

The reps you guys vote into office play that victim card pretty well and libs eat it up while complaining that they don't like it.

Liberal voters tend to vote for politicians that are liberal. ALL voters tend to forgive the failings of their chosen side. It's not that complicated.

I can tell you I personally don't forgive an ineffective leader, regardless of the reasons why. If he (or she) is indecisive or just makes plain old bad decisions, if the results are the same the responsibility is the same, and my level of dissatisfaction is the same.

[twa]

I think it results from a fault in the liberal mindset,even the GOP gays are more effective and efficient

http://www.frumforum.com/log-cabin-republicans-finish-off-dont-ask-dont-tell

need something done?

http://www.gaypatriot.net/2011/07/07/a-gadsden-pride-flag/

[mardi gras skin]

Liberal voters tend to vote for politicians that are liberal. ALL voters tend to forgive the failings of their chosen side. It's not that complicated.

I can tell you I personally don't forgive an ineffective leader, regardless of the reasons why. If he (or she) is indecisive or just makes plain old bad decisions, if the results are the same the responsibility is the same, and my level of dissatisfaction is the same.

I think you're the exception. I mean, we all think we're exceptional but I think you really might be.

[Larry]

I can tell you I personally don't forgive an ineffective leader, regardless of the reasons why. If he (or she) is indecisive or just makes plain old bad decisions, if the results are the same the responsibility is the same, and my level of dissatisfaction is the same.

Just an observation, but I've been voting D, lately, specifically because they've been incompetent.

To me, elections for the past 20 years or so have been a choice between evil and incompetent. And I'll take incompetent every time.

If the Dems were as ruthlessly efficient and extreme as the Reps have been, the last 20-30 years? Then I'd probably be voting for some split tickets, at least. (Or, more likely, simply not voting at all.)

[mardi gras skin]

To me, elections for the past 20 years or so have been a choice between evil and incompetent. And I'll take incompetent every time.

Yes, this is just what I was talking about. Its the incompetent/victim against the evil/bully and each side is playing their part because that narrative attracts a particular demographic. I think there are more people like Larry voting for Dem's because they aren't evil and others voting for Republicans because they aren't weak than there are Henry's voting for whoever is the most competent and effective.

At a gut level, people tend to very clearly identify characteristics that repulse them (evil/weak). Building a case for shared values other people will support is more difficult.

[Fergasun]

It didn't take all but 40 posts for this topic to get derailed. Republicans will never admit that items like the stimulus are effective; yet they'll argue against getting rid of "tax loopholes" because that indirect government spending (via tax credits) creates jobs, just not public sector direct jobs. I've never heard the GOP get upset at the job cuts government workers will face if they get their agenda; even though it must be massive compared to that of what happens if "tax loopholes" are closed.

Here's the secret to Reagan's success. "Deficit Spending".

Here's the secret about Obama's budget. $350B went out the door in FY2009 (remember TARP passed on October 3, 2008), and the money that got "paid back" didn't go to reducing the deficit. Then the Democrats came in and did the stimulus. We've got massive construction problems going on in California still as a result of the stimulus. Does anyone want to argue that the stimulus made the employment situation worse? The complaint against Obama is that his stimulus wasn't good enough; thus isn't the counterpoint "we should've had a $1.5T stimulus!" (see Krugman, Paul).

I'm still saddened when I see the BS regarding Fannie and Freddie causing the crisis. Fannie/Freddie are in a complicated position; their CEOs need to make money for the shareholders, just like other companies (even if it is a quasi-public company). Fannie and Freddie were following the market when they went into the sub-prime business. I suggest anyone who really wants to know what happens go listen to Liz Warren's FCIC testimony... why no one has brought that up is beyond me other than she's telling a truth that hurts both Democratic and Republican narratives.

I hate that politics skews the truth. I like Obama, I'm a Republican, if we are honest about what happened to this country we can say both parties got us into this mess and they both need to lead us out of it.

[Larry]

Oh, I'm not saying that if Obama suddenly became the JFK that I was hoping for, that I wouldn't vote for him again.

I'm not saying that being competent renders a politician ineligible for my vote. I'm saying that being competent at being evil does.

When I voted for Obama, I was hoping that I was voting for JFK. (And for a while, there, I thought McCain looked pretty good, too. Maybe Gerald Ford? Maybe a better Reagan.) Instead, it looks like what I got was Jimmy Carter.

I'm simply observing that I'll knowingly vote for Jimmy Carter, if it's a choice between him and the Ayatollah/Mussolini.

[Henry]

Yes, this is just what I was talking about. Its the incompetent/victim against the evil/bully and each side is playing their part because that narrative attracts a particular demographic. I think there are more people like Larry voting for Dem's because they aren't evil and others voting for Republicans because they aren't weak than there are Henry's voting for whoever is the most competent.

Oh I do agree that generally the GOP attracts bullies and the Dems attract the bullied.

Who do you choose to side with there? Neither seems all that appealing.

But don't give me too much credit. I still vote Dem most of the time. I just wish they had more backbone like the GOP does.

[Madison Redskin]

I think it results from a fault in the liberal mindset,even the GOP gays are more effective and efficient

You're right. Conservatives are far better than liberals at taking directions and not asking questions. Liberals have a problem with actually thinking about what they're doing. :pfft: