LATimes: Dismal jobs report shows unemployment rising to 9.2%

[zoony]

It's amusing to see so many actively rooting against the economy and this administration

In my anecdotal experience it is usually the unemployed, marginally employed, or government workers.

Good news is, we've repeatedly been told by the negative nancies on this forum that the unemployment numbers (whenever gains are posted) don't mean a thing. So, this doesn't mean anything either. We've got that going for us, which is nice.

[mardi gras skin]

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.

Yeah, it'd be great to have a bona fide competent candidate or representative. I'm just saying its much easier for a politician to present themselves at either "strong" or "not evil" than it is to be viewed as "competent". In lieu of competency, we we vote for what our guy ISN'T. He's either not evil or he's not a wishy-washy push over.

---------- Post added July-9th-2011 at 10:44 AM ----------

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.

On a personal level I have a great deal of contempt for bullies. I loath them. But worse than bullies, I hate faux victims that create the impression that others are bullies even when they aren't and rob the horror of actual victimization. For that reason, I tend to loathe Democrats more than Republicans.

edit: that last paragraph was full of the words "hate" and "loath". With a broader vocabulary, I suppose I would have chosen more incendiary words to express my revulsion instead. I have visceral reactions against oppression and those who claim they are oppressed without good cause.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Yeah, it'd be great to have a bona fide competent candidate or representative. I'm just saying its much easier for a politician to present themselves at either "strong" or "not evil" than it is to be viewed as "competent". In lieu of competency, we we vote for what our guy ISN'T. He's either not evil or he's not a wishy-washy push over.

---------- Post added July-9th-2011 at 10:44 AM ----------

On a personal level I have a great deal of contempt for bullies. I loath them. But worse than bullies, I hate faux victims that create the impression that others are bullies even when they aren't and rob the horror of actual victimization. For that reason, I tend to loathe Democrats more than Republicans.

Nah, I think you just loathe Democrats because you're a Republican, And thats OK.

[DRSmith]

Sorry but what job bills has congress put forth?

What have they said or done to strngthen the economic situation in congress?

How many jobs have been lost in states like Ohio Wisconsin and other state where the pubs are attacking the working class in hopes of creating a slave class

[zoony]

On a personal level I have a great deal of contempt for bullies. I loath them. But worse than bullies, I hate faux victims that create the impression that others are bullies even when they aren't and rob the horror of actual victimization. For that reason, I tend to loathe Democrats more than Republicans.

I think this is fair.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Sorry but what job bills has congress put forth?

What have they said or done to strngthen the economic situation in congress?

I don't know about a job bills but I know they want to eliminate things like Pell grants while they keep tax breaks for ****ing corporations. :doh:

[zoony]

Sorry but what job bills has congress put forth?

What have they said or done to strngthen the economic situation in congress?

How many jobs have been lost in states like Ohio Wisconsin and other state where the pubs are attacking the working class in hopes of creating a slave class

The GOP is nothing more than a party of critics. They offer nothing, they build nothing, they stand for nothing other than No on gay marriage and give the rich another tax break.

We saw it for 6 years of Bush. Complete control and they accomplished nothing. Zilch. Worse, they left with the economy in shambles, two wars, and the greatest financial crisis since 1929.

Now they're laying back hurling stones again. Which it seems, is they only thing they're good at.

[Fergasun]

Why do you guys assume that individual competency means anything? The parties are driven by ideology; and they don't want someone rogue going against the party-wishes. The parties meet and caucus together, and I imagine develop strategies on something like a 6-month time-frame. Hence you get months and months of the same "messaging". I bet "jobs-killing-health-care-bill" was uttered at some point by every member of the GOP party. The same could be said of like the March-April 2009 talk from the Democrats about "our banks are getting stronger, we are starting to see economic recovery". They are more concerned with winning the next election, energizing their base then really doing what is right for the country. Actually, they think that doing right for the country is doing what their ideology drives them to do. Then when they figure out that that direction is they fund places like Heritage (or left-side equivalents) to put out good statistics and good press touting the same solutions which they've already pre-decided on supporting. It's freakin' disgusting, blatent, and obvious this happens! Don't even mention the double-speak double standard they put on their rhetoric. For instance, the GOP says "no new taxes, don't raise taxes to close the budget hole!" yet they are more than willing to "tax" government workers to close the hole in the budget. Comon!

It makes me sick to see people parroting their lame arguments on this board. Both parties are way off the rails when it comes to "good governance". I'm convinced someone with money and a competency platform could do a lot of good for the country... however it takes boatloads to fund individual candidates on a Federal level.

Rational people would say what the country needs is some type of balanced recipe of good ideas from both parties, and then get rid of some of the horrible ideas from both parties which they are wedded to (like the need for $$$ foreign interventions). It's politically impossible in the current climate.

[mardi gras skin]

Nah, I think you just loathe Democrats because you're a Republican, And thats OK.

Well that could be true too!

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Well that could be true too!

[DRSmith]

On a personal level I have a great deal of contempt for bullies. I loath them. But worse than bullies, I hate faux victims that create the impression that others are bullies even when they aren't and rob the horror of actual victimization. For that reason, I tend to loathe Democrats more than Republicans.

Sorry but Republicans have owned the victim card now for the last 3 or 4 years

The media is out to get them

Higher education is out to get them

Science is out to get them

Heck everytime I hear a pub now complain about the media I think of Chris Rock's bit and them saying "it's not us it's the media."

[mardi gras skin]

It's amusing to see so many actively rooting against the economy and this administration

In my anecdotal experience it is usually the unemployed, marginally employed, or government workers.

Good news is, we've repeatedly been told by the negative nancies on this forum that the unemployment numbers (whenever gains are posted) don't mean a thing. So, this doesn't mean anything either. We've got that going for us, which is nice.

Zoony, I hope this isn't too far afield but I think you'd make a great Democrat. Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans tend to be my favorite politicians. Not because they're moderate or anything but because they've had to wrestle against the stream and fight to make their point against thoughtless opposition. They've let go of things that aren't all too important to them and they've refined they things that are important.

Southern Democrats usually know how to be strong in ways that aren't shrill or dismissive of their opposition. If you weren't on a message board batting around invisible knuckleheads, my guess is you could do that pretty well.

---------- Post added July-9th-2011 at 11:07 AM ----------

Sorry but Republicans have owned the victim card now for the last 3 or 4 years

The media is out to get them

Higher education is out to get them

Science is out to get them

Heck everytime I hear a pub now complain about the media I think of Chris Rock's bit and them saying "it's not us it's the media."

That reminds me, Rush Limbaugh is the worst of all possible worlds. He's both the bully and the faux victim. Total douche.

But most news media is liberal because most news people are liberal. Intentional or not, its just that way. Republicans go about expressing that truth crudely and with too much passion, but it is true that the news media attracts and employees far more liberals than conservatives. The results aren't often "overt and concious", but bias does exist.

[DRSmith]

Zoony, I hope this isn't too far afield but I think you'd make a great Democrat. Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans tend to be my favorite politicians. Not because they're moderate or anything but because they've had to wrestle against the stream and fight to make their point against thoughtless opposition. They've let go of things that aren't all too important to them and they've refined they things that are important.

Southern Democrats usually know how to be strong in ways that aren't shrill or dismissive of their opposition. If you weren't on a message board batting around invisible knuckleheads, my guess is you could do that pretty well.

---------- Post added July-9th-2011 at 11:07 AM ----------

Rush Limbaugh is the worst of all possible worlds. He's both the bully and the faux victim. Total douche.

I use to get and watch Limbaughs show when it was on early mornings right up until Clinton got elected then he went from someone I agreed with the whiney chicken little

[Prosperity]

Yep. Damn shame what Clinton did to him. But it is a pretty solid blueprint for Romney to throw at Obama, right?

it's solid blueprint, of course Romney is no Clinton, and Obama aint Bush I

all the Dems have to do is throw out something about gay marriage and the GOP idiot army will drown out everything else

Sorry but Republicans have owned the victim card now for the last 3 or 4 years

The media is out to get them

Higher education is out to get them

Science is out to get them

Heck everytime I hear a pub now complain about the media I think of Chris Rock's bit and them saying "it's not us it's the media."

don't forget the War on Christian and how the atheists and muslims are breaking down the gates. Or "Reverse Racism" for that matter.

Democrats play the role of the victim, but in the context of politics (e.g. "waaah they won't compromise"). Republicans play the victim in a much broader context... actually in almost every context. They take advantage of the nature of conservative movements. People feel their way of life is threatened by change... but the GOP harnesses that fear and uses it against people outside of their communities. They have created a narrative of a global conspiracy against Real Americans. The atheists, the communists, the anti-Americans, the muslims, the gays, the immigrants and minorities, the unions, the media, Academia.. they are all out destroy the Real American life. Remember Palin? Oh the poor women, and those mean old Democrats destroying her career.

The GOP is a bully and plays the victim, frankly if it were a person I would consider it a sociopath and narcissist. And, I have no doubt the core of the GOP elite is exactly that (e.g. Limbaugh)

[NavyDave]

Sorry but Republicans have owned the victim card now for the last 3 or 4 years

The media is out to get them

Higher education is out to get them

Science is out to get them

Heck everytime I hear a pub now complain about the media I think of Chris Rock's bit and them saying "it's not us it's the media."

Yeah it must have been my imagination this week when I heard liberal talking heads cough Chris Matthews calling the GOP terrorists when it came to them not agreeing to an increase spending and a tax hike, since there is a record of Democrats lying about reigning in spending after GOP types agree to a tax increase.

[HailGreen28]

Money circulating in the economy. General loss of wealth.

These two things are not the same.

I agree.

Yeah. Making it happen is the tough part, to me.

The only way to do this is if you get more people to buy those goods and services. Business won't expand if they don't have the customers. Unless they see an increase in demand, they won't hire.

Demand is one part of it. Profitability is another. Fortunately we haven't had bad inflation, or shortages of goods/servicesso maybe upping demand is a good thing at this time. But you aren't producing anything. And the daily shopping people do goes from groceries/walmart/etc, to businesses that rely on cheap labor like farms and overseas, to corporate HQ and overseas. This does little for the local businesses. Especially money spent by the poor, on basic necessities today.

What do you mean right back where you started?

The money goes from recipients, to retailers, to corporate HQ and overseas. Where are you at when the government checks stop coming?

Welfare has a negative connotation to it, so I'm going to use something like unemployment benefits. Issuing unemployment benefits is one of the most stimulative things you can do for an economy because the unemployed tend to spend every cent they earn. All of that money circulates back into the economy. There is a multiplier effect. For every $1 spent on unemployment benefits, you get $1.61 in economic activity.

Let's call them Super Happy Fun Bucks, if you want. There is no multiplier effect to the Fun Bucks. Linear, sure, and it's a good effect. But it's no different that way than cutting taxes. Money saved (given to the banks for interest), or invested (In business, treasury bills, etc.) are also good for the economy. You still aren't producing anything passing out the Fun Bucks. And again, what happens when the Super Happy Fun Bucks stop coming?

ILook at what Sweden did to soften the blow of the global recession:

I read it, there may be some good points to it, but I don't see stimulus being the answer here either. They ended up better by not running the debts as badly as we did to begin with, to the point they were running surpluses before the crisis. And not making as many bad business loans and mortages as we did. Being more fiscally responsible during the crisis helped too, but we're doing the opposite. I don't think encouraging the banks to loan more money is such a good idea on the face of it, although if we had some kind of competition to reward banks good decisions and not just prop up bad decisions. More money for banks at this point, I feel, would just make them even more "too big to fail". I do think more credit available to business is a good thing, just don't know if that's an issue now. With all the T-bills and as much as we are a "consumer" economy, do we really want to tank the dollar now?

A few things...

1. A third of the stimulus bill was made up of tax cuts.

2. The tax cut bill passed in December was almost all tax cuts.

3. Tax cuts do have a stimulative effect, but it's not typically sustained.

And the tax cuts are no less "sustained" than the Fun Bucks. Of course, we're talking about economic activity being less taxed, when talking about tax cuts, so there's an additional benefit to the economy, that you don't see with the Fun Bucks.

The reason tax cuts are less stimulative is because they are not guaranteed to be spent. If people end up saving them, that does no good for the economy, and this is why tax cuts to the rich are such a bad idea as they are mostly either put into a bank account or moved overseas.

Wrong. Some businesses, like the auto industry, need investment bad. So do all levels of government. Supposedly the banks still do, but that's a different can of worms.

4. The Government does need some revenue to function.

They're taking in more than ever before, already.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to get out of the link you provided. The bottom line is that the Government at all levels have shed hundreds of thousands of jobs going back to 2008.

Citation needed. I don't really think that's the case. Including the link I gave, which wasn't about any real point, other than the disconnect between federal hires and the economy right now.

The U.S. is a consumer based because 70% of our economy relies on consumer spending. When people are not spending, our economy suffers. And that is why the income inequality, the concentration of wealth at the very top, and the stagnant wages for workers is an extremely dangerous thing.

And passing out the Super Happy Fun Bucks does nothing to address this. We can make it as a service-based economy, like we did as a production-based economy. But the country is headed for a welfare state, to the rest of the world, with only an artificial dollar to prop us up, if we really try to be a "consumer-based" economy. (And the rest of the world will not be our keeper forever.)

Just to emphasize: Spending money, is not productive in itself, like providing goods and services. You can't sustain an economy that way.

[NoVaO]

These two things are not the same.

First one. Second one doesn't make sense, not sure why I added it...

Demand is one part of it. Profitability is another. Fortunately we haven't had bad inflation, or shortages of goods/servicesso maybe upping demand is a good thing at this time. But you aren't producing anything. And the daily shopping people do goes from groceries/walmart/etc, to businesses that rely on cheap labor like farms and overseas, to corporate HQ and overseas. This does little for the local businesses. Especially money spent by the poor, on basic necessities today.

I agree these are other problems with our economy and require more than just putting money in people's pockets.

Let's call them Super Happy Fun Bucks, if you want. There is no multiplier effect to the Fun Bucks. Linear, sure, and it's a good effect. But it's no different that way than cutting taxes. Money saved (given to the banks for interest), or invested (In business, treasury bills, etc.) are also good for the economy. You still aren't producing anything passing out the Fun Bucks. And again, what happens when the Super Happy Fun Bucks stop coming?

Unemployment benefits have a bigger economic impact than tax cuts. Money saved right now is actually not a good thing right now, though we also don't want people going into debt, which they've been doing for the last 10 years. Investing is good.

You will have no argument from me that we need to start producing things here in America, or that we need to re-build America's infrastructure. There are things that Government can do to help, but nothing is going to pass Congress right now. One thing we need to do is at least close the loopholes that encourage business to move jobs/money overseas.

I read it, there may be some good points to it, but I don't see stimulus being the answer here either. They ended up better by not running the debts as badly as we did to begin with, to the point they were running surpluses before the crisis. And not making as many bad business loans and mortages as we did. Being more fiscally responsible during the crisis helped too, but we're doing the opposite. I don't think encouraging the banks to loan more money is such a good idea on the face of it, although if we had some kind of competition to reward banks good decisions and not just prop up bad decisions. More money for banks at this point, I feel, would just make them even more "too big to fail". I do think more credit available to business is a good thing, just don't know if that's an issue now. With all the T-bills and as much as we are a "consumer" economy, do we really want to tank the dollar now?

I think the stimulus has to part of it. Combine with a long-term plan to reduce the deficit.

Wrong. Some businesses, like the auto industry, need investment bad. So do all levels of government. Supposedly the banks still do, but that's a different can of worms.

Are you saying you are for providing tax incentives to business for them to invest? I'm not opposed at all to that. There has to be a condition that they not hoard it, send it overseas, or turn it into dividends for share holders, and not invest the money back into their company.

They're taking in more than ever before, already.

Are you adjusting on a per capita basis and for population growth? Taxes are at an all time low in this country.

Citation needed. I don't really think that's the case. Including the link I gave, which wasn't about any real point, other than the disconnect between federal hires and the economy right now.

http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2011/07/08/public-sector-job-cuts-threaten-recovery

http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/07/08/263588/the-conservative-recovery-continues-2/

And passing out the Super Happy Fun Bucks does nothing to address this. We can make it as a service-based economy, like we did as a production-based economy. But the country is headed for a welfare state, to the rest of the world, with only an artificial dollar to prop us up, if we really try to be a "consumer-based" economy. (And the rest of the world will not be our keeper forever.)

Just to emphasize: Spending money, is not productive in itself, like providing goods and services. You can't sustain an economy that way.

Hey, I don't disagree. This country needs to produce more, and move away from being a consumer-based economy. But I still think this economy needs another jump-start, and that now is not the time to significantly cut spending or increase taxes on those in the middle and lower class. People still need more money in their pockets.

[Hubbs]

I'm gonna repost this, since it's been buried under pages of another Great Depression discussion:

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.

[twa]

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:

Taking directions or common agreement on solutions?

while Libs debate ,we implement ........grab a root and grunt son,this crappy economy ain't waiting while you debate among yourselves.

it does help when your supporters believe in absolutes

[hkHog]

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.

After the Bush tax cuts over eight million net jobs were added to the economy and tax revenues increased from 16% of GDP to 18.5% of GDP, the highest in US history.

[Hubbs]

After the Bush tax cuts over eight million net jobs were added to the economy and tax revenues increased from 16% of GDP to 18.5% of GDP, the highest in US history.

You do remember the inflation of an enormous economic mega-bubble, right? Bubble inflation comes with artificially goosed employment, which in turn creates higher tax revenues.

[mardi gras skin]

You do remember the inflation of an enormous economic mega-bubble, right? Bubble inflation comes with artificially goosed employment, which in turn creates higher tax revenues.

Tax cuts caused the housing bubble?

edit: or were you talking specifically about the Clinton era capital gains tax cut for housing?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/business/19tax.html

Vernon L. Smith, a Nobel laureate and economics professor at George Mason University, has said the tax law change was responsible for “fueling the mother of all housing bubbles.”

[Hubbs]

Tax cuts caused the housing bubble?

Silly rabbit, I was saying almost the exact opposite of that. :pfft:

(Namely, that arguing that the added jobs and tax revenues were a result of the tax cuts is borderline ludicrous given that the final and largest stage of the inflation of the housing bubble was happening at the same time, and once that bubble popped, we actually have fewer jobs and lower revenues even though the tax cuts are still in place.)

[mardi gras skin]

Silly rabbit, I was saying almost the exact opposite of that. :pfft:

(Namely, that arguing that the added jobs and tax revenues were a result of the tax cuts is borderline ludicrous given that the final and largest stage of the inflation of the housing bubble was happening at the same time, and once that bubble popped, we actually have fewer jobs and lower revenues even though the tax cuts are still in place.)

Got it. Well, with the housing bubble inflating revenue during that time, is there any way to know how much revenue was gained or lost directly related to Bush's tax cuts? I mean, much of the job loss and lower revenue we're facing now is a backlash resulting the housing meltdown right?

[chipwhich]

MGS and Hubbs showing the real truth in economics. Something posters in the tailgate rarely understand.

Simple truth.

Will a tax increase hurt this economy? Dunno

Will a tax increase help this economy? Dunno

Will a tax increase lower our deficit? Dunno

Will a tax increase hurt the deficit? Dunno

The simple truth is, without an economy to speak of, neither answer is correct.

To compare tax strategies and assume they will have the same effect as with the Bush cuts/economy or the Clinton hikes/economy is of no real value. Clinton rode the greatest tech wave in our history, and I promise you it had nothing to do with his tax policy