The double-digit jobs disaster

[IndianaGreen]

The double-digit jobs disaster

There's plenty of money for more economic stimulus--if Barack Obama would fight for it.

November 18, 2009

A YEAR late and a trillion dollars short, Barack Obama is calling a jobs summit next month to try to come to grips with rising unemployment.

Jobs should have been at the top of Obama's agenda even before he took office. It didn't take a Ph.D. in economics to realize that the financial panic of 2008 was going to result in a big--and long-term--rise in unemployment.

But Obama rushed to aid bankers first, putting the government on the hook for as much as $11.6 trillion in bailouts and loan guarantees. After Wall Street came the Pentagon, which got $663.8 billion for fiscal 2010 to fund two wars and more high-tech weaponry that can already destroy the world several times over.

Obama's $787 stimulus package passed early this year was touted as a means to save or create jobs. But even the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, wanted stimulus spending of at least twice as much, according to the New Yorker magazine.

Plus, to appease Republicans, the stimulus plan included hundreds of billions in tax cuts, rather than direct job-creation measures, and gave only limited aid to state governments that have slashed jobs in the wake of falling tax revenues. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the state budget cuts will drain $470 billion out of the economy between 2010 and 2012, effectively cutting the stimulus in half.

It was only after the national jobless rate surged to 10.2 percent last month--and the number of workers underemployed or forced out of the labor market to 17.5 percent--that Obama felt the pressure to give job creation the political spotlight. But after two years of slump, the enormous suffering that occurs in every recession has turned into a full-fledged catastrophe for tens of millions of people.

http://socialistworker.org/2009/11/18/double-digit-jobs-disaster

[Zynx]

1. Considering how difficult it was to pass an $800 billion bill, I shudder to think how hard it would

have been to pass a $1.5 trillion bill.

[orwell]

4. It wouldn't have passed...

...people have short memories.

But then, some people seem to think that President Obama can wave a wand and get legislation passed.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. No, some people seem to think he is supposed to have qualities of leadership

Obama's willingness to sign whatever Congress passes is not an accomplishment.

If he cannot change minds and steer policy (which the cheerleaders insist must be "impossible" since he doesn't seem able to do it) then he had no business running for President.

He ran on changing minds, not on rubber-stamping bills.

He is supposed to ALTER what is politically "possible."

[Zynx]

8. Frankly, it is amazing something the size of the stimulus bill passed Congress less than a month

after he took office. There was no guarantee any bill would have passed. When the Republicans controlled 41 seats at the beginning of the year and none of them really wanted to play ball, it is hard to get anything done when one side just doesn't want to participate.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. It amazes you because you want to be amazed

[Zynx]

11. If you decide to read my posts from early 2008 on the primary, you will know

I was no huge booster of Obama. I frankly realize how hopelessly broken the political system is and I was a little surprised that something as large as the stimulus bill was passed.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. We are talking about a perception

I believe that even I could have gotten $1.5 trillion through Congress and I am fucking obnoxious.

I have what I believe to be sound reasons for thinking that, but it would have required an incoming administration that 1) understood the scope of the problem, which Obama clearly did not, and 2) was willing to destroy the Republican Party, even if it meant there wouldn't be enough vermin left down the road to play bipartisan games with.

But this is a "what if" question that relies on our differing perceptions--thing so subtle and multi-faceted that they cannot be hammered in an internet discussion forum.

I think what happened was underwhelming. You think it was impressive given the circumstances.

Where we differ is not in what people in Congress thought, but in what people could have been made to think.

I concede that I cannot prove or even demonstrate what I'm saying because there are too many moving parts. So it will remain a difference in perception.

Sorry for being rude.

[DJ13]

2. I cant blame Obama 100% for failing to think of jobs before Wall Street

He strikes me as a guy who is smart enough to delegate some of his authority to underlings to offload some of the vast workload a man in his position has to deal with.

Unfortunately those underlings dont always have his (or the country's) best interests in mind when they make decisions.

Summers and Geithner have always been Wall Street centered people, in choosing them Obama made a critical error that has threatened the economic health of our country, but if he moves quickly to change course it may not be too late.

This is an economic crisis that didnt originate with Wall Street, it originated with Main street when people could no longer afford the goods and services being offered by those companies represented on Wall Street.

Obama needed to choose consumer oriented economic advisers, not Wall Street lackeys.

Lets hope he uses his intelligence to rectify his error before its too late.

[IndianaGreen]

6. Obama came to the rescue of the investor class, at the expense of the working class

His deeds speak volumes of whose side he is on, which begs the question as to why the GOP, the representatives of the most reactionary elements of the American ruling class, hate Obama so much.

[DJ13]

10. begs the question.....why the GOP ....hate Obama so much

The same reason they hated Clinton.

Bill was more a Republican than a Democrat when it came to economic matters, so they naturally feared he was stealing their thunder.

Same with Obama...... his policies (so far) are so pro-corporation and Wall Street the GOP sees him trying to muscle in on their territory.

[notesdev]

3. There's not plenty of money

Someone doesn't understand the nation's economic position - this country is bankrupt, insolvent, and only accounting fraud is allowing anyone to claim otherwise. Something like 40% of what the fedgov spent this past fiscal year has been borrowed!

You can say "tax the rich", and maybe you get a bit out of that. But not much, considering the rich OWN your representatives and there's no way in hell any tax will pass without loopholes large enough to drive a galaxy through.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. Geez... can't we avoid RW budgetary thinking on DU at least?

There is nothing extraordinary about our borrowing. And we are not insolvent.

We are in a fairly middle-of-the-pack fiscal situation relative to other first world nations.


There is nothing even remotely remarkable about borrowing 40% of the federal budget in an epic economic downturn.

[notesdev]

12. Mathematics and accounting are not political

And just because everyone else is jumping off the bridge doesn't mean it's a great idea.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[notesdev]

16. That's not a measure of solvency

Seriously, you need some basic economics education.

Start here, it's worth your time, and it will give you the background knowledge necessary to understand the situation we are really in.

http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse

[branders seine]

15. they've made the economy worse, not better.

the current rise in leading indicators is an illusory artifact of the artificial giveaways to banks.

The Goldman Sachs-Geithner-Summers cabal are a disaster.