It's the JOBS stupid!

[ddeclue]

:rant:

<rant>

That's this year's campaign mantra if you want to win - it's the JOBS stupid!

I admit it's a play off of Carville's 1992 slogan "It's the economy stupid!" but fundamentally in either year it came down to jobs.

Here in Florida the rate is around 11%.

In Michigan it's 16.5%.

Nationally it's over 10% - the worst in 25+ years.

Realistically because of how they've gamed the numbers over the years, it's probably the worst since the Great Depression given the number of people who have given up and aren't counted and the number who are just chronically underemployed.

A lot of candidates seem to think that the issues they run on are up to them.

Not if they want to win.

Especially this year.

It's the JOBS stupid.

Focus on how to bring the jobs back - not how to fix Wall Street, not how to solve health care, not how to fix education, or how to fix the environment. If you want to talk about other issues they better have a clear tie-in to creating good high paying jobs in your district. Otherwise you are just wasting your time and your money running for a personal ego trip.

It's the JOBS stupid.

</rant>

[Hippo_Tron]

1. There's only so much the government can do to create jobs

If they could wave a magic wand and just create more jobs, I'm sure they would.

[ddeclue]

2. Not so - there's a LOT more they can and should do - as FDR did in the 1930's

don't buy into the M$M meme about the free market fixing everything.

[OhioChick]

3. You're absolutely right. n/t

[dysfunctional press]

9. build solar panels in the u.s., install them on people's homes and commercial buildings...

and wire them into the grid.

develop and build regional high-speed rail hubs, and connect them into a nationwide system.

an apollo-type program to make us energy-independent(while also cutting down coal use)

institute 'single-payer health care'/'medicare for all'

and get the FUCK OUT of afghanistan and iraq YESTERDAY.

there's a lot that can be done and that sooner or later will HAVE to be done.

[vadawg]

11. yup but i would add one, look to the stars and start to build a space program

for the 25th century, start to look to moving off and away from the earth, even if it takes us 100's of years the science leaps would be huge in the meantime...

[dysfunctional press]

24. that's about the last thing we need to spend money on at this point.

we'd be much better off exploring/developing the depths of out own oceans, than the reaches of space.

it might make for great movies and science fiction- but actually colonizing space away from earth as a way to continue civilization is just a silly concept at this point. we've got much bigger fish to fry right here on good ol' terra.

[vadawg]

25. says you, personally i would rather we spent money on looking to the stars than just about anything

else out there, go back to the moon, go to mars, get a permanent presence in space, the problem is that yes it may be a long way off until we can colonize space but if we dont try then we will ever get it done. I dont think our future as a species is tied to the earth but actually lies out there.

[dysfunctional press]

33. then buy yourself a nicer telescope- i'd rather see people put to work.

doing things that are beneficial to continuing the life we have here.
i don't think that 'colonizing space' is a long way off- i don't think that our species will ever accomplish it, and it shouldn't be a goal or even a consideration when it comes to the space program.
we've got an entire planet and an entire population with a whole lot of problems to fix as it is. we should worry about those first, instead of wasting time and effort thinking about how to run away from them.
for our needs, any kind of space exploration is better left to robotic 'astronauts' that don't have to take their own air, water, food, etc...with them.

[Mind_your_head]

27. + 1000

[Hippo_Tron]

31. I used a poor choice of words, meant to say...

That they can't just wave a magic wand and eliminate unemployment. The New Deal did result in about a 10% drop in unemployment from 1933 to 1940 but it was still at 15% in 1940. Put another way, the government can create jobs but there is a finite amount of them that they can create.

The government can certainly do more, but there is still only so much they can do.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. They Could Fund Jobs Instead Of Funding Banker Bonuses

It's a distinct choice that Obama's administration made.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. They can do both.

And they've done both using TARP and stimulus.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Obama: "Too Late, Money's All Gone."

TARP is a small bit of what's been done for the Predator Class. The big deal is that we've guaranteed $13 Trillion in junk assets - which are worth a hell of a lot less than $13 Trillion. We gave AIG counterparties 100 cents on the dollar when we bailed out that exploding turd, a many-billion-dollar wet kiss to Goldman Sachs et al. And so forth. So your tax dollars are gone, gone, gone.

Now Obama and Co. are yammering about the critical importance of "deficit reduction", which is a code phrase for "sorry, we shot our load giving your tax money to the bankers - oh, did you want some too? Sorry, nothing left."

[earth mom]

20. Wrong. There is a lot the gov can do. Obama needs to take a cue from FDR.

Educate yourself here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/ccc/

And not only that, but all those TRILLIONS * & Obama gave to the banksters could have created a shitload of green jobs.

[anonymous171]

30. WPA, look it up. nt

[SoCalDem]

4. too late..we jumped that shark..but it swam after us and well you know...

Decades-worth of unnecessary jobs/businesses have come to an end.

Posted by SoCalDem in General Discussion
Thu Oct 15th 2009, 04:47 PM

This is what's at the crux of our next problem.

We (the US) are no longer the driving force in the world. We no longer make & provide the necessities of life for the world.

When we stopped BIG manufacturing, on a grand scale, we switched to a "make-work" economy, where paper-pushing, phone-answering, consulting, counseling, tending-to, etc., became our "new way".

We were all told that manufacturing was dirty, time-consuming, back-breaking work...it polluted (it really did), it was costly to maintain and innovate all those creaky old factories, and our "colonies" abroad could do the work for pennies on the dollar...YAY!! cheap stuff.

The manipulation of currency and trade deals and so many other financial shenanigans drove this runaway bus, but it's finally run out of gas, and there are so many enterprises that will never be coming back, and so many jobs will never return either.

We can accept the fact that the fantastic steel mill wages & UAW wages and so many other "good" jobs will never again be here, but even the cruddy soul-sucking desk/cubicle jobs are scarce now.

We overdid it, because so many people had to have an income, and that meant there had to be jobs for people, even if they were not "necessary" jobs.

Those of us who are older, have a reference point to gauge the changes.

A town of 20-30K used to have a few shoe stores, a few good department stores, a couple of grocery stores, maybe 2 or 3 theaters..There was competition, but there was also enough business to support all (or most) of these businesses. Many were businesses that had been there for 50 year or more, and had supported families, employed people, and prospered. They were NOT 110K sq.ft./jammed to the rafters stores. They were modest family businesses. The owners did not "borrow to meet payroll". they paid for their merchandise with the 10-day-discount, they saved their profit, for lean times, and they did not loot their businesses for their own gratification.

Everywhere you go today, things are exactly the same, all towns have the same stores, restaurants, etc. People all work for the same bosses, because a precious few own everything. Entrepreneurs start a business, it prospers a little, and they immediately look into selling it for "big-bucks" to a corporate cannibal, who guts it, lays people off, and passes it on to the next corporate cannibal, looking for a write-off. The customers & employees of that company just fall by the wayside.

There is more to business than just price-cutting and undercutting. People have basic needs and they have wants & desires. Businesses crop up to satisfy these needs & wants, but when there are too many places offering these goods & services, there's not enough demand to keep them all afloat.

People are lazy, and they like to get everything easy. It's no wonder that the shopping center idea took root in the 60's & 70's, but too much it still too much.

We were all better off when we had fewer "choices", but those choices were goods made by, transported by, sold by our own fellow citizens, and the commerce was spread around to everyone along the line. Money circulated and it made stops all along the ladder..top to bottom.

Progress always puts someone out of business, but hyper-progress and mass consumerism has put millions out of work, and millions more deep into life-crushing debt..and lowered wages for most of us.

What's next?

Where will all these unemployed find work?

house building-selling-furnishing? unlikely anytime soon

will 45-60 yr olds "go back to school" so they can start over? unlikely

just how does a 24 yr old saddled with 40K of school debt, ever get out of debt in time to start a life?

If 35-40% of income goes to put a roof over your head and 30% is "acceptable" for medical COVERAGE (not the actual medical procedures), how does the remaining 30% lead one to a comfortable lifestyle?

all questions & no answers yet..

stay tuned..it's going to be an interesting docu-drama

[MarjorieG]

6. With China holding our debt, free to also put 3.5 trillion to their infrastructure, how do we spend?

We're were left with almost global depression, truly, so now what? Climate regulation and health care changes will create jobs, just not overnight.

[FVZA_Colonel]

8. It seems like they may have finally realized this.

I'm honestly worried though, that as Krugman said recently, that people have conflated the idea of government-investment with the bail-outs so thouroughly that it would be all but impossible politically to get one through.

Let's hope they can.

[janedum]

12. Too bad Obama thinks everything's fine. His TARP money made stock market go up.

Helllooooooo?? Earth to Obama, Earth to Obama ...
Remember YOUR campaign? J-O-B-S ..???
If he keeps kissing China's @$$, NO jobs will be coming back HERE anytime soon.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. Obama's created and saved hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Thanks to the billions invested in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. No thanks to the Republicans and their obnoxious little trolls.

[MannyGoldstein]

14. But He Spent Heavily On The Bankers, Less So On The Middle Class

Hrugman, Stiglitz and other economists with excellent track records told us what would happen. Obama/Emanuel blew them off and called them names. Now we are here.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. If he hadn't bailed out the banks, we'd have another great depression.

Unemployment would be in the twenties.

Anybody blaming Obama for high unemployment is dishonest, wrong, and a shill for the Republicans who got us in this mess in the first place.

[MannyGoldstein]

16. Obama Did The Least-Best Thing

He should have nationalized the banks and sent the bankers packing.

Instead, he showered the bankers with huge cash gifts (from the taxpayers) and backed $13 trillion in junk assets. He made terrible deals for equity, set zero rules on what the bailed-out bankers could do, and let the bankers sodomize the rest of us at will.

He saved the bankers - the economy is far from saved.

And as to my being a Republican shill - that's silly, please rethink it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. What's silly is blaming Obama for high unemployment.

And no.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. Do you disagree that the same money could have saved far more jobs

If we spent it on the middle class instead of the obscenely rich?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. I'm thinking if you don't do both we'd be in much deeper shit.

And Obama did both.

[MannyGoldstein]

So the banks couldn't be saved without paying many billionS

To the bankers perdonal bank accounts?

the banks could have been nationalized. Rules could have been imposed.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Sure they could.

And that's why we didn't pay billions to their perdonal bank accounts.

[MannyGoldstein]

34. One Of Us Is Living In An Alternate Reality nt

[earth mom]

17. Unemployment is at 17.5% when you add in those who have been out of work a long time

and don't qualify for benefits anymore.

[flyarm]

22. Foreclosures and Housing price declines also reflect job loses..

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/data-bytes/housing-market-monitor/hmm-trails-credit-expiration/

Housing Market Monitor
Housing Market Trails Off With Expiration of First Homebuyer Tax Credit


By Dean Baker

November 18, 2009

The 60-day delinquency rate in the 3rd quarter was 58 percent above the year-ago level.

There appeared to be a sharp falloff in the housing market in October, as the November 30th expiration date for the first-time homebuyers tax credit approached. As expected, this credit pulled home purchases forward, leading to a substantial increase in sales in the late summer and early fall. The National Association of Realtors’ Pending Home Sales Index increased 6.1 percent from August to September and stood 21.2 percent above its year-ago level.


snip:

A third factor that could have an important impact on the market is the lending practices of the Federal Housing Administration. With the agency now below its minimum capital requirements, there is pressure to tighten lending standards. It is now buying up nearly a quarter of new mortgages. If it were to cut back these purchases by 20 percent, this would mean that 5 percent of potential homebuyers would have to turn elsewhere for mortgages. Since most homebuyers go to the FHA because they could not get private financing, a substantial cutback in FHA loans is likely to have a noticeable impact on the market.

The underlying glut in housing means that it is only a matter of time before house prices begin to fall again. Delinquencies hit another record in the third quarter of 2009. The 6.25 percent 60-day delinquency rate was 58 percent above the level for the third quarter of 2008. Even with a higher percentage of delinquent homeowners now benefiting from mortgage modifications, the foreclosure rate is still running at near record levels. With unemployment virtually certain to remain high well into next year, there is little prospect for any sizable drop in foreclosures.

As a result, foreclosures will be putting homes on the market at an annual rate of close to a 2 million. This is guaranteed to depress prices in a market with total demand of close to 5 million. In short, house prices will almost certainly resume their decline. The only questions are how soon and how fast.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mind_your_head]

28. lol

you've picked yurself up from your bootstrap did ya? Where did the capital come from? Who's paying for your workers healthCARE (not insurance).

Can EVERYONE/ANYONE do what YOU do/did?

I don't think so.

You're a "lucky" man....don't think you did it all on your own (oh, and "best of luck" to keep it in this environment, btw).

[OhioChick]

29. More of the Bangalore spam, again? n/t

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!