The economy added 151K jobs in October, and August and September numbers were revised up. Unemployment holds steady at 9.6% It’s still ugly out there, but the job markets were clearly anticipating the Republican wave. A few more tax cuts should have this problem completely solved.
Reader Interactions
205Comments
Comments are closed.
burnspbesq
I know you intended this to be snark, but it will be Village CW in 3, 2, 1 …
eric
@burnspbesq: of course. plus, it is tails i win, heads you lose…
(1) Economy picks up, it is because the GOP is gonna be or is actively in charge (of the House);
or
(2a) Economy does not pick up, it is because the GOP ideas where rejected by the White House;
or
(2b) Economy does not pick up, but it would have been far worse had their still be democrat (sic) control of Congress.
take your pick, the CW is already written
joe from Lowell
You know, some of us were saying that the weak-but-still-positive job growth numbers this summer and fall were harbingers of stronger growth all along.
I can’t possibly be the only one who isn’t surprised to see job growth picking up.
Cat Lady
Green Balloons.
Bullsmith
It’s all well and good to offer tax cuts, but the government has to be careful not to reward slackers who think just because they have jobs they’re contributing to the economy, especially not those freeloaders in unions. Tax cuts should be reserved only for those who actually generate wealth. Anyone who’s not in the top 1% of earnings needs to stop asking for handouts and work more.
jon
Just as Obama put his Presidential pen to those bailouts using his mad puppeteering skills in 2008? I’ve got to figure out this whole time-space-political continuum thing.
Is a TARDIS involved? Will Bachmann wear a deerskin bikini? This could be an exciting time for… politics and stuff.
New Yorker
Beat me to it. You just need to add that this shows the resilience of the salt-of-the-earth American businessman in the face of Obama’s attempt to destroy the country with TARP.
cleek
the meme will be: the GOP’s takeover has eliminated the uncertainty about taxes and regulations that was stopping employers from hiring.
bet on it.
SpotWeld
Is it me, or does it feel like the management levels of the commercial sector are trying to engineer another “jobless recovery”?
arguingwithsignposts
Not that he’s the economic analyst to go to, but Rupert Murdoch is predicting tough times ahead:
Huggy Bear
@SpotWeld:
Yup, because “jobless recovery” means funnel the money to the top.
Dave
@cleek:
You nailed it. Businesses have been sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars. Now that their puppets are partially in control, the environment will magically get better, allowing our corporate overlords to make it rain once again.
Que Sera Sera
AWS: I like how Murdoch says that “consumers are on-strike,” sort of the that a double-amputee is staging a sit-in (or possibly holding their applause).
IU1995
How many reports have we heard that productivity is up, profits are up but hiring is still flat? Companies are not hiring because the CEOs are nervous or they “don’t feel right”?
I’ve believed since day one that corporate America was purposely keeping job growth low as long as Dems were in power.
Que Sera Sera
. . . the way that . . .
Felonious Wench
Meanwhile, I get this gem this morning: Texas Governor Rick Perry says the idea of letting states opt out of Social Security is worthy of discussion.
YESSSSS!!!!! Please, Rick, grab ahold of this and run with it! I fully support this strategy of telling all of the old white geezers that voted for you in the last election that you want Texas to opt out of Social Security!
Now if we can just convince him killing puppies and kittens is what real conservatives do… Anyone got a pretty chart I can borrow? And pictures of a puppy in a Che t-shirt, and a kitten wearing an Obama ’08 bandana? Preferably at a gay pride rally?
If the man is nothing else, he’s damned entertaining. If he runs for president and even one of you votes for him, even as a joke, I’m hunting you down with a chainsaw.
FW
Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac
Steven Colbert’s recap of the “Bohner recovery” on wednesday night was classic television that should be stored for future use.
He mentioned the 2% growth in GDP, the job growth numbers, the car sales numbers, the manufacturing increase numbers, etc etc.
I cheered.
joe from Lowell
There seem to be some people who believe that the credit for an improving economy will go to the party that controls (half of) Congress, not to the incumbent president and his party.
Well, the Democrats controlled the House from 1981-1984. Did they get credit for the recovery?
The Republican controlled both houses of Congress from Jan 1995 onward. They then proceeded to lose the next presidential election, as well as seats in the next three Congressional elections.
4tehlulz
@IU1995: They weren’t hiring like the ’90s during the Bush “recovery” either.
Business would rather pocket the bonuses than invest in labor, regardless of who’s in office.
liberal
@joe from Lowell:
“Stronger” does not equal “strong.”
If you subtract out the amount needed to keep employment level (due to increasing pop), you end up with a positive number, but not very large one. At least according to Krugman’s latest (short) blog post, where he ends with the quip, “At this rate we’ll return to full employment around 2030 or so.”
lacp
@arguingwithsignposts: Damn. He sounds like Dean Baker.
BudP
the invisible hand of the market only faps to mama grizzlies
SpotWeld
@IU1995: That’s a bit more coordination than I’m willing to attribute to corporate America.
The simpler answer seems to be that when unemployment is high, those with jobs are more willing to be tasked with longer hours and less pay (or at least postponed annual raises). So, production goes up and wages stay low (when avereaged across the economy).
So why should employers expend any money to make unemployment decrese if they can meet production with the current employment levels. Sure they’re screwing themselves in the long term by buring out thier workforce and limiting thier ability to grow as a company, but the shareholders are happy.
joe from Lowell
@liberal: No, “stronger” equals “improving.” As my use of the term “harbinger” indicates, I’m talking about trends.
No kidding this isn’t strong job growth. It’s just so-so job growth. However, it is also a sign that, contra the predictions of some, job growth is picking up.
Also, LOL@ “At this rate…” Since when have rates ever lasted for twenty years?
I remember hearing “At this rate, the national debt will be completely paid off by 2010” back in 2000. Yeah, IF NOTHING CHANGES IN THE ECONOMY FOR A DECADE OR TWO.
I, on the other hand, am talking about change – the economy is changing for the better.
Nick
@Felonious Wench:
Texans voted for him, let them eat cat food
Disco
Obama should allow them to make the tax cuts permanent. They’d love nothing more than to make them temporary again just so we can have this fight again. Pay for them with massive cuts to the defense budget. You give a little, you get a little.
BTD
@joe from Lowell:
Harbingers of stronger growth to come seems a tad optimistic don’t you think?
That said, this presents a great political opportunity for Democrats and the President.
If the GOP actually enacts its policies of slashing government spending,the unemployment rate will go up significantly.
The Dems will lose the debate in terms of vites – we will enact a GOP economic policy I think and the results will be disastrous.
In order to make the GOP own the disaster, Dems need to lay out their vision in contrast to what the GOP wants and then make clear that GOP policies are being enacted which will then lead to deeper economic hardship.
I suppose the President can dig in his heels on this, but I suspect he will not. Who owns the disaster will be key to possibly enacting the right policies in 2 years.
Kryptik
@joe from Lowell:
And you know what’s different about those two times?
Three letters: FOX.
Fox and the media morons that rush to emulate Fox will make it oh-so-clear that the glorious Republican wave was the reason for our job growth and the Dems did jack shit, and perhaps were even intentionally tanking the economy before for their own nefarious deeds.
And people will eat it the fuck up, because after all, everyone trusts Fox, right?
NonyNony
@joe from Lowell:
No, I think the assumption is that credit will go to the Republicans. Mostly because the Republicans are very, very good at talking about how everything good was their idea in the first place and how everything bad is the fault of liberal Commie Moooslim illegal-immigrant-loving Democrats. And Democrats are very good at giving mealy-mouthed responses and not trumpeting their successes. And the media then dutifully reports “both sides” and the guys who make 6-7 figures a year to read the news off their teleprompters make sure the credit goes to the guys who promised them a tax cut and some government handouts to pay for things like their kids’ private school tuition.
BTD
@joe from Lowell:
The problem with your formulation is that a big impetus for the the tepid job growth was increased government spending which is winding down and likely not going to be continued.
In essence we are headed to a 1937 experience and the real question is who will be blamed for it in 2012.
BTD
@NonyNony:
I think the real question is who is going to be blamed when the economy worsens again once the GOP slashes government spending.
Fighting for the credit is not the issue. Placing the blame will be the issue.
arguingwithsignposts
@Nick:
To be fair to Texas (as I are one, at least a native), the TX Gov. is pretty weak, so he’d have to get it through both houses of the legislature, and even in Texas that would be a tall order.
Plus, there are old people in Texas. That would not go over well.
Sentient Puddle
Yeah, I can’t wait for McConnell or Boehner to release their statement saying that the elections on November 2 were the driving factor of job growth in October. The verbal gymnastics will be a thing of beauty.
lamh32
The cable guy is here hooking up my cable & Internet.But I had to post this:Dems Who Voted Against Unemployment Benefits Soon To Be Unemployedhttp://www.rolandsmartin.com/blog/index.php/2010/11/04/dems-who-voted-against-unemployment-benefits-soon-to-be-unemployed/
Kryptik
@Sentient Puddle:
The
hilariousgalling thing will be that, if nothing else actually changes, and companies are still hiring at a higher rate, it essentially says ‘Companies were waiting for republicans to actually hire, because the only reason they were ‘not confident’ in the market is because Democrats were in charge.In other words, companies fucked people over out of potential employment precisely to make sure Republicans look like their shit don’t stink. And again, people will eat it up and take it like gospel that Dems are bad for business because they scare businesses into not hiring and hoarding instead.
New Yorker
@Felonious Wench:
I’m all for it. Let Texas and all the other Real ‘Murkan states turn into Bolivia as they completely gut any remnant of the welfare state: the people who voted for him get what they deserve, and people like me in sane states get to see a drop in taxes (or maybe a more generous welfare state). Sound like a win-win to me
Nick
@arguingwithsignposts:
Have you seen the new numbers in the Texas legislature?
gene108
@Sentient Puddle: They don’t have to, the media will do it for them. If job growth continues, it’ll be because of Republicans in control of Congress and a Democrat in the White House, because that’s just the way it is for the economy to do well.
It doesn’t matter that it was the Democratic policies in 1993 that caused the recovery and reduction of the deficit or it’s the Democratic response to this recession that’s spurred the recovery.
Republicans controlling Congress and Dems controlling the White House equals good times.
New Yorker
So to sum up:
1) 9/11 happened under Clinton.
2) The Bush years were the greatest economic boom the country has ever seen.
3) The financial crisis was caused by Obama, who also passed TARP.
4) The GOP takeover of the House caused an economic turnaround.
Is there anything else I’m missing from the
North Korean state TVFOX talking points?Martin
@Dave: Oh, more than that. 3Q profits were the 6th highest ever recorded. The S&P 500 is sitting on over $1T in cash and short term investments. The richest 400 Americans are also sitting on roughly $1T.
That’s $2T not doing anything for the economy. Democrats need to ask what those 900 entities plan to do with their $2T because there’s 300,000,000 people out here that need it to be applied to the economy – not to finance but to the economy.
General Stuck
There is no real evidence to support this suspicion. Contrary to netroots declarations, Obama has ceded very little of great substance to the wingnuts the past 2 years, mostly crumbs around the margins. It was one reason of several, the GOP hates him so much. He will not make high end tax cuts permanent, I will bet you. There will likely be increased concessions to the wingnuts, but hardly enacting republican economic policy. And my prediction is also bolstered by the fact that dems ended up with 53 senate seats, that takes vichy dem Nelson, and fruit loop Lieberman largely out of the equation. So dems have better odds at stopping House fueled winger nonsense, and shielding Obama from having to use the veto pen as much, which always gets higher play in the media.
The wingnuts, via having the House, can wreak plenty of mischief on budget and appropriations initiatives, or antics with purse strings, but they will be largely isolated. And they will not be able to keep from tinkering with entitlements that despite giving the goopers the keys again, the voting public likes their entitlements, even republicans.
I expect the mother of all over reaches by the goopers
Zifnab
Ok, so call me crazy, but the White House is still controlled by Obama and the Senate is still held by the Democrats. Should the economy actually turn around, you’re still going to get to see Republicans doing asinine and juvenile stunts straight up to 2012. The only difference is that now we won’t be looking at 10% unemployment.
It’ll be Morning In America, and Obama can run out proclaiming you are better off today than you were 4 years ago. And his coat tails will sweep the nation.
Then he can cut taxes in half for the upper class, deregulate the banking industry, sell weapons to fuel a war between Iraq and Iran, and invade Grenada, and he’ll be well on his way to achieving the much-sought-after mantel of Ronald Reagen.
Kryptik
@gene108:
No, no, no, no, you got it half wrong: Republicans controlling congress, in spite of a Democrat in the White House, is what equals good times. Don’t you remember how awesome and incredible the economy was under Bush? It was only until those goddamned dirty commie Dems got Congress that things went belly up, they’re the goddamn evil bastards who ruined America, DON’T YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAAAAAAAAAAAND?!
Fuck, I’m never going to get my bitter cynical sarcasm under control at this rate, am I?
Nick
@BTD:
or he will, and no one will notice, and he’ll dig his heels for weeks while the professional left tries to parse everyone’s words to prove he isn’t, and then when the battle is lost, he’ll give in and we’ll hear about how he never fought at all.
Judas Escargot
@joe from Lowell:
There seem to be some people who believe that the credit for an improving economy will go to the party that controls (half of) Congress, not to the incumbent president and his party.
This line of thought presupposes that a long-term recovery will occur at all: And I don’t think it will.
The GOP is already sworn to block any policy that might help Obama in 2012. So there will be no more stimulus coming, no substantial reforms for Wall Street or the banks (once it becomes apparent that the FinReg bill wasn’t enough), and quite possibly the first US default next year if they refuse to raise the debt ceiling.
Even without the lust for Obama’s defeat, the House GOP is incapable of coming up with any real ideas to ‘fix’ the economy even if they wanted to (if they had such ideas, I’d be voting for them).
We were already on the verge of double-dip as it was– but I suspect that Tuesday has all but assured that we’ll all get to personally test out Krugman’s theory about what causes a decades-long deflationary spiral.
Gravenstone
@cleek:
Indeed. Wednesday, on another board I frequent, one of the members (a Wall Streeter) opined that now is the perfect time to buy stocks, since the markets would celebrate the coming gridlock and the end of governmental uncertainty. And of course, the local Libertarian agreed with him whole heartedly. *sigh*
arguingwithsignposts
@Nick:
I would have to look closer at the individuals involved, fwiw. State legislators in Texas (in my experience) were much more centrist overall. That has probably changed in the 10 years since I’ve lived there. But I can say for certain they’d have a huge fight on their hands if they did try to pull that opt-out shit.
And I can’t imagine the leges going along.
Nick
@Martin: Well, I’m pretty sure that money will move around now that the Democrats don’t completely control the government.
The Republicans make the argument that Democratic control is bad for business, and it is, because businesses themselves make it bad. They manipulate politics to their advantage.
General Stuck
@Zifnab:
I mostly agree with this. But it doesn’t surprise me a bit, the usual suspects running around all chicken little screaming Obama and dems are DOOOMED.
Suffern Ace
That Perry thing is confusing. He does realize that people move between states, and actually we want them to do that? I wasn’t aware that, unlike Medicaid, the states receive transfer funds for social security that they could refuse on behalf of their citizens.
gene108
@Nick: What’s the point of having gobs of money, if you can’t get legislatures to write laws that benefit you?
I mean seriously, what’s the point of being rich, if the peons on the street – who of course outnumber you and have more votes than you to elect people into government – get to call the shots.
arguingwithsignposts
@Suffern Ace:
Perry as a rule is confusing. He’s an idiot with good hair.
Nick
@gene108:
but they can
Sentient Puddle
@Nick:
Quick search pulls up this:
Which is ouch, but…
So not quite all doom and gloom. At least not yet.
Socraticsilence
@eric:
Actually I disagree- Remember the press is lazy, and as lazy fucks they’ll fall back on the easiest possible option- if the economy picks up it means “Divided Government works” expect to see lots of pictures of Clinton and Bob Dole, Clinton and Gingrich, Clinton and Phil Gramm, and then if the press is feeling extra ambitious Reagan and Tip Oneil. Obama will reap the benefits to a large extent but it will make it really hard to retake congress. The press wont back impeachment this time because of just how badly they misread the public last time.
joe from Lowell
@BTD: The president and his party own the economy. Period. No spin, no media strategy is going to change that. If the economy improves, Obama gets the credit. If it doesn’t, he gets the blame.
Clinton had to seriously trim his sails, economically, after the Republicans took over in Jan 1995, and the policies that were implemented had a big Republican stamp on them – and yet, he got the credit for the economic recovery and his party won the White House and picked up seats in every election while he was in the White House.
Newt tried to take the credit for the Republicans, but it didn’t work.
Suffern Ace
@Gravenstone: God, they don’t quit. Which is why those kinds of investors get shellacked and fleeced. How about this: Now is a good time to buy stocks since the Fed has decided to pump $$ into the monetary system and since there is no place to spend that money, it will end up invested in stocks, like it usually does.
When those investors aren’t looking at some point, the Chamber is going to have Sarbanes-Oxley gutted and therefore you will get shellacked some more in another Enron Style Bubble. But sure, invest on political party euphoria…
arguingwithsignposts
@Sentient Puddle:
Also, too, there is no way in fuck-all that the US Congress lets states opt-out of SS.
Perry: “It’s worthy of discussion.”
Discussion: You’re a fucking idiot.
End of discussion.
joe from Lowell
@Kryptik:
No. The president and his party own the economy and national security. Always have, always will. There’s only so much spin can do.
Nick
@joe from Lowell: I’m pretty sure they’ll give both credit and the next six years will be a Republican Congress vs. Democratic President
Sooo…the next realistic window for real progressive legislation in 2017, though quite possibly that might be pushed to 2021, or even 2025.
See you then!
Kryptik
@joe from Lowell:
Like I said, the big difference between then with the Clinton administration, and now? Fox. It’s going to happen, whether the meme will be fought off, that’s the only question I have.
joe from Lowell
@BTD:
I think we saw the effect of that winding down already, in the weaker job growth this summer and fall vs. the strong and improving job growth this spring.
It’s not as though there was a surge in government spending in late September and October that explains the big jump in jobs last month.
Steve
@Suffern Ace: Opting out of SS is a non-starter, even if people never move from state to state. If someone opts out today, that means some senior doesn’t get their check tomorrow. That’s why allowing people to choose “private accounts” would require us to borrow trillions (yes, trillions) to cover the transition costs.
Nerf
Just a thought, but if Republicans start subpoenaing Obama and try to impeach him, could the Democrats turn and indict Bush for War crimes due to his admission of ordering torture? Would that be a way of heading off all the silly stuff? I’m sure if that came up, the real powers that be could clamp down on Issa doing anything. Thoughts?
General Stuck
@joe from Lowell:
From my understanding, though I don’t know about this month, that one of the bright spots of what anemic job growth there has been in the private sector, it has been manufacturing jobs, of all things, leading the way.
joe from Lowell
@Judas Escargot:
You don’t need stimulus to continue a recovery once it has begun. You just need it to spark a recovery when it hasn’t started. The actual work of growing out of a recession isn’t done by the government; they just get the country through the trough, and get things stabilized to where the private sector doesn’t keel over. That’s already been done.
No, we weren’t. If we were, we wouldn’t have seen the big jump in numbers in October. The low growth over the summer and early fall WAS the double-dip, to the extent we had one.
FlipYrWhig
@Suffern Ace:
No _real_ Texan comes from somewhere else, or _leaves_ for somewhere else, that’s for goshdang sure. [spit]
General Stuck
@Nerf:
I linked to this in an earlier thread. It sure seems to me that a bold admission like that would have to require action by somebody to bring charges. If not here, then someplace like the Hague. But I am sure it has gotten Holder’s squirrel cage and conscience working overtime right now on what to do.
BTD
@joe from Lowell:
That’s not correct. Job growth is a lagging indicator. The job growth in October is in fact attributable increase in aggregate demand from earlier government spending.
Pull out the government spending, and job growth will cease. Indeed, job losses will resume.
BTD
@joe from Lowell:
This is not correct. There is not a sustainable economic recovery right now. And when government spending decreases, it will reverse.
This is 1937 all over again.
Khârn the Betrayer
My Boehner Recovery began last night, know what I’m saying?
Hurr, hurr, hurr.
BFTBG/SFTST
The Republic of Stupidity
@New Yorker:
Yes… you forgot to even mention Soros, Michael Moore, or Barney Frank…
Soros is at fault, because he’s a ferringer…
Moore is fat…
And Frank is both fat AND gay, making him twice as responsible…
joe from Lowell
@Gravenstone:
The stock market is at its highest point in years.
Like the gold ads – Gold is at record highs! The price has been going up for years! So, buy now! – this is just an insider trying to fleece idiots.
BTD
@joe from Lowell:
Then we are screwed.
The difference between 1994 and 2010 is that successful Dem economic policies were already in place (not to mention the economy is in much worse shape now than then) and Clinton could block the GOP economic policies and still have economic success to show in 1996.
He needs to make the GOP own the coming catastrophe. I’m not sure how, but a way must be found.
Tsulagi
@Zifnab: Crazy.
joe from Lowell
@Nick: I’m pretty sure the Republicans are going to get pasted in 2012, and the Democrats win back the House, as the economy improves and the Obama voters return to the polls.
BTD
@Nick:
I don’t think the Professional Left matters at all on this.
Either the President can control the narrative or he can not. The Professional Left will be as irrelevant as it has ever been in the next 2 years.
BTD
@joe from Lowell:
“As the economy improves.” The 64$ question right there.
What if it does not?
joe from Lowell
@Kryptik:
The Fox News Channel went on the air in 1996.
Bob L
@joe from Lowell: No, I am not surprised. Pretty much were I live it’s what recession? My friends are working their ass off, traffic sucks and the store are full of shoppers.
What I have heard is killing the job growth is the companies are being ultra picky about new hires. Asking for “purple squirrels” people with bizarre skill sets. Eventually they will have to break down and stop trying to hirer freaks of nature.
And,.. I am required by law at this point to say the new hires are because buisness new the GOP was going to take over, like the economy crash because in ’07 the banks knew Obama would be President in ’09
Judas Escargot
could the Democrats turn and indict Bush for War crimes due to his admission of ordering torture? Would that be a way of heading off all the silly stuff?
I wish I were President: I’d give Bush a Presidential Pardon, whether he wanted one or not.
“As many of you may now know, my predecessor has recently admitted to war crimes while he was in office. The law of the land calls for him to be indicted for these war crimes. But, this would be just one more distraction in these times of great crisis. Therefore, in the interests of Unity and moving forward, I hereby grant G.W. Bush a full pardon.”
Bush then either has to refuse the pardon, or admit to war crimes. Teabag heads explode across the nation as they have no idea how to respond. Hilarity ensues.
Ok, I’m nuts– but it’d force the war crimes issue back into the discussion, and change the conversation for at least a few news cycles. At least it’d be entertaining.
DBrown
Before everyone gets depressed, this Slate writer hits the nail on the head when he says …
Paris
Glad to see people are getting jobs. Hoocoodanode that the House was such a powerful part of the gov’t?
BTD
@General Stuck:
I hope you are right. But I think on the tax issue we already see that the Bush tax cuts will be extended.
Some see a “decoupling” strategy as a successful one. I do not.
But that the Bush tax cuts will be extended is now a foregone conclusion.
Nerf
They could waterboard Laura B. to see if he revealed any State Secrets to her.
joe from Lowell
@BTD:
It is a lagging indicator OF GDP. We’re not talking about GDP here, but government spending – and the drawdown of stimulus spending over 2010 is a well-know fact.
There is simply no correlation between the rates of stimulus spending, which fell relatively smoothly over the course of 2010, and the job growth numbers, which increased strongly over the first part of the year, then fell to a steady, low level, and have now increased again in October.
catclub
@Dave:
There will be two competing motivations:
1. Claim that because the GOP owns the House, things are better.
But,
2. Mitchell still wants to do everything to make Obama a one term President. That happens best if the economy is still very bad.
I think the GOP was purposefully obstructive to growth generating projects and will continue to be so. If the economy actually picks up over the next year, Obama is not a one term president. I fear a second bad leg of the housing/foreclosure crisis.
Nick
@joe from Lowell:
and didn’t show it’s partisan true colors until 2001.
Suffern Ace
@BTD: Maybe he could change parties?
BTD
@Nick:
That’s certainly false. It showed its true colors from Day 1.
BTW, you may not remember who first declared W PResident in election night 2000, but I do.
arguingwithsignposts
@BTD:
Kind of hard to control the narrative when you’ve got the entire media doing their damndest to push their own oppositional narrative.
El Cid
@DBrown: Pelosi has been flat-out one of the best Democratic leaders we’ve had in at least decades.
joe from Lowell
@BTD: People who write “This is” some period from the past “all over again” are falling into an intellectual trap. It is not 1937 all over again. It is 2010, with a completely different set of circumstances. We never fell as low as we did in the 30s, for one thing.
Also, you would mind not leading off a naked expression of opinion with the rather rude “This is not correct?” If I say that 2X3=7, go ahead and write “This is not correct.” Otherwise, let’s recognize that we’re in the realm of opinion, ok?
catclub
@Judas Escargot:
Best of all, we get to ship him off to ICC who now have his confession.
Kryptik
@joe from Lowell:
@Nick:
@BTD:
I would say it only first became the ‘darling’ it is today during the Lewinsky scandal which hit in 1998. Regardless, it wasn’t nearly as powerful as it is now, nor did it really hit home enough to color the economic situation back then like it can now.
The Republic of Stupidity
@Nerf:
I have to say, I find Bush’s comments of late… interesting…
His biggest failure was not privatizing social security?
His worst moment was Kanye West’s rant calling him a racist?
And now he’s openly admitting he green lighted the water boarding?
Will he be breaking out the cod piece one of these days too?
BTW… I did not read the details on Bush and his admission on water boarding… did Bush actually call it water boarding?
‘Cause for a while there, All The Responsible Types were referring to it as Enhanced Interrogation… my local rag (SF Chron) did use the phrase ‘water boarding’ this week… does this mean Boooooooooooooosch and his inner circle now feel free from any possible repercussions for their actions?
I also find it telling that Boooooooosch only said this (about the water boarding) AFTER the Republicans had regained control of the House…
KDP
I’m not surprised. Why should businesses hire new people when:
1) Existing employees, who are nervous about being laid off, can be pushed to do more while receiving less
2) The long-term unemployed can’t be hired under the pretext that ‘there must be something wrong with them’ or they’d have found work already
3) New graduates can’t be hired because they have no work experience
4) Those who are 50+ can’t be hired because they are too expensive.
Any excuse to avoid spending money on payroll let’s more money go to shareholders.
BTD
@joe from Lowell:
It is not correct to say that job creation is a leading indicator of an economic recovery. That is not a matter of opinion.
As for the comparison to 1937, well, we’ll see who is right on that front.
For all of our sakes, I hope you are right, not me.
joe from Lowell
@BTD:
What if this is the first time in American history that the economy doesn’t come out of a recession?
A recession that began in December 2007, and ended in the middle of 2009?
What if there isn’t actual job growth after three entire calendar years of GDP growth?
We’d be a rather tough spot, I’d say.
BTD
@arguingwithsignposts:
Well, I think he can do it.
BTD
@joe from Lowell:
When is the issue, not whether. And how is the other question.
You act as if this is a typical cyclical recession. It is not.
Now I know you are familiar with the arguments on this point. I suppose you simply reject the view that this is a different type of recession.
But I think you need to at least acknowledge the opposing view and also acknowledge that your view is the decidedly minority view among economists.
arguingwithsignposts
@BTD:
I’ve got at least two years evidence saying it isn’t happening. Even GWB didn’t control the narrative without the help of Osama Bin Laden and 9/11.
Not so easy on domestic stuff.
joe from Lowell
@Nick:
What BTD said. Fox was Fox back then, too.
General Stuck
@BTD:
Extended, maybe. Not made permanent, that would bust the budget, which is one reason dems lost from wingers demagoguing the deficit. I think it will surprise you how dems buck up, and Obama, after this election. Less blue dogs to contend with, and still have the WH and senate. And now a GOP as a player, and a foil.
BTD
@arguingwithsignposts:
Time will tell. I think Obama is clearly motivated to try and I think he will succeed better than most of you do.
One of the things Obama was lacking was an easy villain to play off of.
I think he has that now.
Omnes Omnibus
@joe from Lowell: Debate rules? On Balloon Juice?
BTD
@General Stuck:
I hope you are right. I really do.
It is imperative that you are.
Kay
@DBrown:
It was a judgment call they made. I knew it at the time, and everyone else should have to, because it was obvious. When they got in and realized how bad the economy was, they had two choices: put off the legislative agenda and do economy, economy, economy or push forward. They couldn’t do both things. They pushed forward. A decision had to be made.
I think second-guessing that predicate decision is a complete waste of time.
BTD
@Omnes Omnibus:
I like the idea. I tried to clarify that I was referring to his claims regarding job creation and when that comes in an economic recovery. It is a lagging indicator. That is a fact. Not an opinion.
Martin
@BTD: You sell yourself short by a mile. The GOP leadership doesn’t peddle the kind of shit that brings out their base – it’s the professional right that does that. And they’re very effective at riling up the base and getting them to vote or mail blocks of ice to the people that disappoint them or whatever the fuck they do.
The professional left has less influence but reaches the same type of audience. You reach the non-union GOTVers. You really do set a lot of the tone. Whether this is a President or Congress worth fighting for is mostly your narrative. Democrats don’t have the kind of blind loyalty that Republicans do, but there are various people that they do trust. They aren’t uniform on this, but Hamsher has her crowd, and Kos has his, and you have yours, and Greenwald, and so on. You have a fair bit of influence over where money goes and where hours are invested. The narrative that the WH sets is yours to accept or reject, and almost to a letter you guys publicly reject it. I think you accept the larger arc, but you nitpick the fuck out of every goddamn thing that it comes off as ‘don’t bother, these guys aren’t really serious’. In the end everyone gets there and gets it done, but there’s a HUGE amount of heat loss along the way, work that could go into shoring things up if only the commentators that have trusting audiences would instead say ‘like every single piece of legislation ever passed, it’s not perfect, but it’s the kind of progress we’re looking for – go fight for this thing’.
You guys are the force multipliers. You don’t reach the undecideds, but you reach the base, and they’re the ones that knock on the doors. Rather than wind up the troops like they reliably do on the right, the professional left too often is expressing disappointment. Rather than blame every legislative failure on a GOP that would filibuster Christmas, you too often lay the blame on the guys actually trying to vote for what you want. And every time you do that, it makes it *harder* for them to vote because not only are they afraid of losing the moderates, they’re afraid of losing the left if they get blocked by the GOP. The Dems didn’t fail to repeal DADT, the GOP did. That’s completely not a debatable point, yet it’s CW among the left, not because of the WH or Congress that have come out strongly in favor of repealing it, but from the professional left.
joe from Lowell
@BTD:
Nor did I say it was. The job growth in October was the result of pervious GDP growth.
When I wrote that the positive but low job growth this summer was a harbinger of stronger growth, I was still talking about job growth at the end of the sentence – the stronger job growth we, finally, saw in October.
I understood that we were going to see stronger job growth late this year, because the numbers held their own through the summer, rather than continuing to drop off. I hope I’m clearer this time.
arguingwithsignposts
@BTD:
It’s easier to denigrate one person (POTUS, Reid, Pelosi) than a whole party full of fuckups.
I hope you’re right. But judging from the questioning at the presser after the elections, I’m not making any bets.
BTD
@Kay:
All second guessing now is pointless. Let’s look forward.
chopper
@BTD:
depends on how it fails, if you ask me. if the economy slumps from a bunch of small wounds, it’ll be hard for the dems to pin it on the goopers. if, however, the gop does something big and stupid (like smoot-hawley or debt ceiling stupid) and cocks the whole thing up then we have a good chance.
Bob L
@joe from Lowell: “It’s different this time” has been the refrain since 1840. Just as easy to talk yourself into thinking that crash will never end just as it’s easy to talk yourself into thinking a bubble will never burst. Worth noting that if the economy is really recovering it doesn’t’ appear to because of the Fed pumping up yet another bubble.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@BTD:
From where I sit, it looks like BTD is correct. I expect U3 and U6 to be higher in 2012 than they are now, barring some sort of miracle.
BTD
@joe from Lowell:
I’m not sure I understand your point. The number in October is a decided jump over anything we have seen this year, when you back out the census hires.
Indeed, I expect a good number next month as well. This is the lagging job creation from earlier economic recovery.
The problem is, imo, GOP policies will stop the recovery in its tracks, by slashing government spending thus lowering aggregate demand.
To wit, in late 2011, a double dip will begin. And job losses will begin again.
The 1937 analogy is apt here.
joe from Lowell
@BTD:
I think there are two things going on – one of which is like a typical recession, and one of which is more structural.
Because of the structural problems, I don’t think we’ll see the economy jump up and go on as if the recession never happened, like we did after the 1990 recession. There is a “new normal,” and we are going to recover from a lower baseline.
However, the financial meltdown didn’t just change the underlying situation. It also sent the economy into a recession, and we can expect it to recover from that recession, even if the structural challenges keep that recovery from being as steep as the downturn.
BTD
@Martin:
To be clear, I am a professional attorney, not a professional activist. The little blog I write at has an audience of 10,000.
While I reject your larger point, I just wnted to clarify the smaller personal point.
arguingwithsignposts
@BTD:
The 1937 analogy will be apt if the GOP does slash spending. Which is why we have reality as well as prediction, to see what happens.
I hope they won’t, I think they’ll try, but there’s not that much to cut that’s “discretionary.” We’ll see how they adapt once they look at an actual budget.
joe from Lowell
@Omnes Omnibus:
Well, as you can see, I’m an optimist.
Heh.
BTD
@joe from Lowell:
In a “normal” recession, the Fed can spur growth by lowering interest rates. Stiglitz, in his interview by Ezra Klein, noted that people simply do not get that this is not your father’s recession where the Fed has any power.
This is like the 1930s, even if not as bad.
Since that type of downturn requires an increase in aggregate demand through vehicles not run by the Fed, the abandonment of fiscal stimulus and indeed, the likely adoption of fiscal RETRACTION means the recovery will be stopped dead in its tracks and a new downturn is likely.
The reality is this recession has nothing in common with say, the 1982 recession.
Kay
@BTD:
I was unloading my dishwasher and listening to Chris Matthews and I thought “wow. They’re going to go forward with the legislative agenda, despite the economy”.
Because I know Obama could have gone the other way, and it would have been accepted. He could have announced that the economy was worse than he was told (true) and that he was going to switch gears, back-burner the legislative end (health care and finance) and focus on that. I don’t think he could do both things.
I thought it was risky then and I tend to be more cautious than that, but I understood it, and accepted it as a choice.
There’s downsides to both approaches, and I’m impatient with hypotheticals.
joe from Lowell
@Bob L:
It seems to me that the left is good at recognizing this when it comes to unbridled optimism about a boom never ending or a bubble never popping, but not so good at recognizing it when the prediction is that “This, too, shall pass.”
BTD
@arguingwithsignposts:
They are going to cut. Taxes and spending.
When what we need is to increase taxes on the wealthy and increase short term government spending.
We are taking the exact opposite policy path than we need.
This will lead to economic misery imo.
RinaX
@General Stuck:
Thank you. The concessions we made were to conservative Democrats who for the most part had their asses handed to them on Tuesday.
BTD
@Kay:
Looking forward, I think Obama should state what he thinks needs to happen, fight for it and then do what he must, but always articulating what HE thinks we should do.
Then, when the GOP does not do what the President thinks should have been done, he can say, if we had done what I said, we would be doing great. So elect Dems to help me get this right.
But it is not an easy spot. Much tougher than what Clinton faced in 94, mostly because Clinton had basically set his economic policy in motion in the first 2 years.
Obama saved the economy, but he will need to save it again after the GOP House gets through with it.
Martin
@BTD: And Sarah Palin is a nobody. She doesn’t even hold a political office.
In case you hadn’t noticed, most people that post here go unreplied most of the time. You never do. Your influence is what it is, regardless of how many page views you garnered last week.
joe from Lowell
@BTD:
I expect good numbers next month, too. There was clearly some GDP growth earlier in the year that explains this job growth.
However, I dispute your contention that this GDP growth was funded by government spending. Job growth in 2010 increased over the first four months of the year, into the six-digits per month, then fell flat to only a few tens of thousands over the subsequent half year, and is now rising again. Government stimulus did not follow this pattern – it dropped off smoothly over the course of the year.
Therefore, I conclude that the boosts in hiring in October cannot have been the result of a jump in government spending, and must be the result of actual private-sector economic growth. The dramatic improvement in hiring, the change from over half a million jobs vanishing every month in early 2009 to about 200,000 being added in April 2010 – that was funded by government spending, done in an effort to “get the engine to turn over,” and we can see that government stimulus spending ramped up along the same trend line, but a few months earlier. The drop-off this past summer also matches the drop-off in ARRA spending. However, this increase we saw in October (and saw earlier in Massachusetts) doesn’t match up with any change of government spending.
So, I’m concluding that something else must have caused it, and that that something else can only be the private-sector economy finally catching. Therefore, I don’t think that the ongoing recovery will be stalled out, going forward, by lower levels of government spending.
Sly
Eliminating capital gains so that hedge fund managers don’t pay taxes at all will surely prompt them to invest the hundreds of billions of dollars they’re sitting on into businesses that can’t sell anything because consumers are fucking broke.
Also, too, unemployment benefits should be eliminated altogether because a construction worker taking small jobs on the side for cash while collecting benefits is the height of immorality. Everyone but the top two percent needs to be liquidated for a truly ethical society to emerge, joyful and triumphant.
Omnes Omnibus
@BTD: In some ways, it will be easier for him to articulate a vision with the House Republicans as a contrast than it was when Democrats were trying to to herd all their cats in one direction. A milder version of the old Bush “with us or against us” line can come into play. With Nelson, Baucus, and the like, he had to at least pretend that everyone wanted the same thing and that there simply were differences of opinion about how to get there.
Jay in Oregon
@Khârn the Betrayer:
Consult your doctor if job growth continues for more than 4 hours…
BTD
@Martin:
All I am saying is I’m not even a Kevin Drum, much less a John Cole or a Markos Moulitsas.
BTD
@Omnes Omnibus:
Agreed.
Kay
@BTD:
Maybe. I don’t know. In the region where I live, Obama saved the US auto industry. They’re hiring, and when they hire, all the related and dependent pieces hire. The unemployment rate in this county ticks steadily down. It’s agonizingly slow, but it’s there.
He needs to find a way to take credit, but I suck at “messaging”, the whole thing drives me crazy, so I don’t know how to fix that. I think I can say it wouldn’t hurt to fire some people and hire some others, because whatever they’re doing isn’t working.
chopper
@BTD:
certainly the fed is hamstrung, hence quantitative easing being not only on the books but in it’s second round. i’m just surprised we’ve been hanging out just outside the event horizon of the biggest liquidity trap in history for so long without falling in yet.
while i agree that this upcoming recession isn’t exactly like 1937, that’s why it’s an analogy. and the main cause of 37 were the same type of austerity measures that are now coming down the pike now that the GOP has the house. austerity sounds good to people so it’ll generally be supported by voters even though it’s a poison pill. and the GOP will be more easily able to slip out of ownership of the ensuing malaise because of it.
i agree that what’s going on now certainly has a structural aspect to it that we haven’t seen since the 30’s.
joe from Lowell
@BTD:
I don’t know if the Fed’s new action on QE is going to work or not. I’m just glad they’re not to actively clamp down in pursuit of fictional inflation. That could have actually choked off the recovery.
Like I said, though, I think we’re actually seeing the results of real, private-sector growth with this latest jobs number, and that it’s not dependent upon government action, either fiscal or monetary, to keep going.
I also highly doubt that the Republicans, who won’t touch Medicare, Social Security, or the military budget, will actually cut the budget enough to produce a retraction.
Sly
@joe from Lowell:
“The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again.”
Kay
@Omnes Omnibus:
I agree. It’s really really difficult to fight the shadow Republican Party (Beck, Palin, the rest of the mouthpieces), because it’s all talk. They’re not responsible or accountable for anything. The GOP House exists.
GregB
Bush’s worst moment wasn’t the lack of WMD’s or the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis in the misbegotten war or the deaths of over 1,000 Americans in New Orleans.
Nope his worst moment was when he was personally insulted on TV.
Yet according to Wingnut World, President Obama is the narcissist.
joe from Lowell
@BTD:
I think we need to increase taxes on the wealthy, too, in order to bring the long-term deficit under control, but I don’t really see the connection between raising taxes on the wealthy and increasing demand.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@joe from Lowell:
This is a good analysis so far as the macro-economic results and federal fiscal policy go. What I think you may be missing which makes me much more pessimistic is that the contribution of fiscal policy to aggregate demand occurs at both the federal and the state and local level.
The big political story this week is the GOP taking the House, but the story which is getting less attention is how well they did in picking up legislative seats and governorships at the state level. The GOP is now in a position to drastically cut back state and local spending (which was temporarily propped up by the funds transfer part of the 2009 stimulus act) in many parts of the country, and they were elected on a platform of doing precisely that.
If this turns out to be merely an empty campaign promise, then we may dodge a bullet. But if they cut and cut and cut again, the economy will take a hit to aggregate demand which Obama and the Dems in DC can do little to stop. And these cuts will impact the part of the population where the multiplier effect for fiscal stimulus is highest, which means the multiplier effect for fiscal retrenchment is also highest.
arguingwithsignposts
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
Again, the closer you get to the ground, the more pushback there is going to be to this stuff. Not to mention the fact that these are not small holes in state budgets, but huge, gaping holes that will cause lots more pain along the way.
They may get their wish, but they won’t be in office for long if they do.
joe from Lowell
@Sly: I’ve written nothing about “the long run.” I’m talking about job growth LAST MONTH, and it being a result of economic growth that happened A FEW MONTHS AGO.
chopper
@Sly:
i don’t think joe is trying to pass himself off as an ‘economist’.
trollhattan
“October surprise!” Three days late.
Oh well…
joe from Lowell
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ: While reduction in aggregate demand from any source will obviously not help growth, I don’t think that public-sector spending is the sole lifeline anymore. I think we’re actually seeing private-sector economic recovery now, and public-sector spending isn’t the end-all-be-all stoking growth, the way it was a year and a half ago.
chopper
@joe from Lowell:
when what is needed to get the economy going again is more spending, blocking necessary discretionary spending is just about as as bad as cutting it.
Omnes Omnibus
@chopper:
Of course not, these days it would be more respectable to pass oneself off as a trial lawyer or assistant crack whore.
arguingwithsignposts
@joe from Lowell:
Except when public sector employees get laid off, that will drag the economy back down – because a lot of those public sector jobs pay much better than the shit jobs at Mall-Wart. Vicious cycle.
joe from Lowell
I guess I haven’t made myself clear, so once again: I DON’T THINK THAT WHAT IS NEEDED TO GET THE ECONOMY GOING AGAIN IS MORE GOVERNMENT SPENDING. I think the economy has actually gotten going again, finally.
Hence, my comments about the October job figures not matching up with any increase in government spending. There is something other than government spending getting the economy going again – actual economic recovery.
arguingwithsignposts
@joe from Lowell:
I disagree with your assessment, but we’ll see.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@arguingwithsignposts:
If we were talking about the old GOP of Karl Rove and Tom Delay, then yes I’d agree that pragmatism and a sense of self-perservation would lead the GOPers who now control state houses across the nation to cynically do what was best for their local economies by spending lavishly on local projects, despite their campaign rhetoric.
But I think the Tea Party may have changed that equation. We are dealing with more true believers now than in the past, and this time I think they are really going to pull the plug. Not only do they truly think that if we shut down the govt the private economy will blossom, but cutting state taxes will force catastrophic cuts in state spending, and if there is one thing they are determined to do it is cutting taxes.
It may destroy their long term political prospects, but that is going to be small consolation if they take the economy down with them.
BTD
@joe from Lowell:
The connection is that the funding of short term government spending requires, politically, a funding source (even if only a symbolic source). That source has to be taxes on the rich.
chopper
@joe from Lowell:
i understand, but i disagree. and i think the rest of us are going to be proven right over the next year or so. unfortunately.
joe from Lowell
@arguingwithsignposts:
That would certainly be a drag, no question. I just don’t think that is the only force at play in influencing future GDP and job growth.
chopper
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
we’re dealing with the political party equivalent of walter peck from ghostbusters. we’re boned.
joe from Lowell
@arguingwithsignposts
@chopper:
Why do you think so many jobs were added in October, then?
Just statistical noise? Or do you think there was some other explanation besides private-sector economic growth, and I’m missing it?
It can’t be government spending, because Lord knows there was no jump in government stimulus in the mid-2010.
arguingwithsignposts
@joe from Lowell:
Re: Oct. jobs – my personal opinion is that we haven’t felt the shakeout from the next round of state/local budget cuts and CRE implosion on job growth, not to mention pension issues, more foreclosures, etc. YMMV.
For instance, in IL, they basically refused to deal with budget issues until after election. Now we get to watch fireworks (thankfully with Quinn rather than Brady, but that’s cold comfort).
I never said it was the sole data point, but those people losing public sector jobs have mortgages, bills, etc., and the squeeze is going to be on them too, and we’re still at ~5 job seekers for every job.
Punchy
Impeachment Charge Number One, natch.
Hey, did you know Obama is spending
200 million400 million1.52 billion dollars a day in India, or Indiana, or something?Martin
@joe from Lowell: Below a certain point people spend because they have no choice – it’s food, housing. Above that they save for retirement, etc. Above *that* they save for no reason.
High marginal taxes are designed to stress high earners to seek higher revenues. Rather than rely on financial income, they need to rely on economic output – for individuals, this is taking risks and creating or expanding businesses. For corporations this is expanding into new markets.
If individuals and corporations won’t do it themselves, in ways that benefit them, the government will tax them and do in ways they have no control over.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@arguingwithsignposts: And Texas is about to have a huge budget crisis. They are going to have to decide what to do with 1/4th of their budget.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@joe from Lowell:
I don’t think anybody engaged in this discussion is naive enough to think that there are not multiple factors at play here. The crucial question is: what are their relative sizes. If a strong recovery is beginning in the private sector, then fiscal policy may not matter very much. If the recovery is weak, then fiscal policy matters more, in inverse proportion to the weakness of the private recovery.
And that is where structural issues in the private economy come into play. If this is a balance sheet recession (IMHO it is) rather than a more conventional cyclic recession, then it is hard to imagine a strong recovery under any circumstances, until enough households have repaired their balance sheets to dilute this factor.
Socraticsilence
@arguingwithsignposts:
You know what “harms the economy” about the 2012 election Rupert? Employing 3/4ths of the canidates for the Presidency and at the same time reporting on said economy.
Nom de Plume
@joe from Lowell: The president and his party own the economy. Period. No spin, no media strategy is going to change that.
True shit. Saint Reagan never controlled the House, and he lost the Senate for his last two years. In fact, for the majority of his presidency, he had margins almost identical to what Obama has now (or will have starting in January).
Similarly, Clinton didn’t have Congress for the majority of his presidency. Take a look at polls of presidents in the last 30 years. Which ones were the most popular?
Socraticsilence
@BTD:
It would be easier for Obama to make his case if he had come in under FDRs circumstances- the bottom of a recession- instead of coming into office in the middle of a downward curve- sure basically all economists say the stimulus helped significantly- but mitigating damage is hard to run on or make a case for- so unless slashing spending causes a steeper drop than the natural fall that was occuring when Obama first took office its extremely hard for him to point to a drop in jobs and blame the GOP.
Martin
@joe from Lowell:
I agree, but who are the beneficiaries of this growth?
A longstanding thesis of mine is that the US economy is exceptionally efficient. In fact, it’s so efficient that it can scale ahead of employment. Labor in the US has become so (relatively) expensive compared to what we output, that US corporations can meet economic demand without anywhere near full employment.
The worker pool is an artificial construct – it always has been. A century ago it comprised everyone from 14 to 80 and ran as high as 70 hours per week. Now it’s quite compact to more like 22-65 and 40 hours.
I don’t think the US job market will ever recover unless we do either of two things:
1) Export more (or import less). Either goods or services to drive the economy above its steady-state size.
2) Shrink the job market even more. Reduce hours to 36 per week. Mandate 3 weeks vacation for everyone. Basically force the country by fiat to be less productive on a per-worker basis.
So we’ve got economic growth, but it’s entirely going into the financial sector, not labor. My investments are doing great. Worth far more than they were in 2008. My salary, however, is down and I’ve lost staff. We’re just making the investment class wealthier because corporations just don’t need labor to grow.
arguingwithsignposts
@Martin:
Most retirement savings isn’t really “choice” in any real sense. it’s removed before the check is deposited, whether SS or 401K or whatever. We have horrible retirement savings practices in the US.
Napoleon
Pelosi announces for minority leader
http://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/594181965750272#
Socraticsilence
@Nick:
Yes I have and I could see how it goes through but what I don’t see is how such legislation would work- I mean Perry’s not suicidal so I don’t think he means “opting out of benefits” just opting out of paying- which to be frank, is fucking moronic- seriously I can see such a bill being very, very popular with most people- hey, who wouldn’t want a 10-15% bump in their paycheck (unsure which portion of FICA is totally for Social Security and which covers the other federal entitlements- I thought it was all SS but someone told me that’s wrong) – but if it results in Texas’s being cut out of SS benefits lets just say that it would be bad.
lamh32
@Napoleon:
Can we get a HELL yeah! If Nancy wins, watch Boehner cry!
Martin
@arguingwithsignposts: Well, my point being that there’s this island between rich and poor where we *want* people to put discretionary income into savings. We don’t want them relying on Social Security. We don’t want them living in their kids attic in their golden years. We want to encourage savings for everyone below a certain income level.
For those above that income level, we want them to stop saving – they are no longer saving for themselves and instead are saving for their heirs or saving for the sake of saying that they’re millionaires. It’s money taken out of the economy, and we’d much rather, as a society, have their kids working in exchange for that income than not working in exchange for that inheritance. Wealth is an economy killer above a certain point.
arguingwithsignposts
@Martin:
Oh, I agree with your overall point. But the retirement savings below the rich level was what I was talking about. We’ve bled that turnip dry already.
Xenos
@Nerf:
I am not sure it would work politically… I like it much better as a threat, than an actual effort. In any case, Bush has admitted to war crimes – he apparently includes it in his book. So go ahead and start leaking details, a fresh horror every week. And include the secret congressional testimony. Having 50 Republicans and five Democrats facing international prosecution is what we need to shoot for.
chopper
@Martin:
waves of technological advancement and the efficiencies that come with them, combined with massive outsourcing (both of which rely on consistently cheap energy) have really squeezed the modern american laborer dry.
i have a feeling our economy is going to limp from jobless recovery to recession to jobless recovery until finally resource depletion puts a bullet in the brain pan of modern capitalism once and for all.
then again, i’m cynical today.
Martin
@Socraticsilence: FICA is 6.2% from the worker and the same from the employer. It covers Medicare and OASDI, which is old-age survivor and disability. So, benefits when you retire (what people traditionally call social security), survivor benefits for widows and orphans, and benefits for the disabled.
cyntax
Just an FYI, there are a number of Blue Dogs calling for Pelosi’s removal. So if you are happy about the job she’s done, then you might want to get over to the GOS and sign their petition for her so the rest of the Dem caucus knows how popular she is.
Martin
@arguingwithsignposts: Well, after 2008, the savings rate soared. So, it’s not all bad. I think it’s back up at 5% or so, which is actually pretty high. Not helping the recovery any, but that was always the wrong money to use to drive the economy…
Tsulagi
@Punchy: I’m really hoping Bachmann becomes the big voice of the now T-centered Rs in Congress. Palin and Beck are boring. They’re good salesmen of stupid, they make a lot of bucks at it, but they just don’t have that purity of loon that is Bachmann.
arguingwithsignposts
@Martin:
True, but I’m wondering how much is retirement savings vs. emergency fund savings.
I am really worried about the pension fund issue, fwiw, even though I’m a long way from retirement.
Martin
@cyntax: I’m of mixed opinion about Pelosi staying on. I think she’s fantastic, but I don’t think she’s nearly as effective as minority leader.
I’d much rather have a firebrand in there, someone more like Barney Frank. We need someone that can carry a message outside of the walls of Congress. Nancy is a great organizer, but she’s not terribly strong at messaging. It’s a very different kind of job as majority leader.
arguingwithsignposts
@Martin:
Not getting into an argument here, but what does that mean, exactly? Frank does a good job “messaging” on some issues, bad on others. What do we get if he’s minority leader that we don’t get in Pelosi other than sputtering?
morzer
Rather than the October jobs news showing much evidence of a strengthening economy, we might just be seeing the annual run up to Christmas starting a touch early. It’s obviously good that the jobs numbers are a bit better – but in themselves they don’t yet show a trend. We’ve seen strong months before, followed by revisions/poor months.
arguingwithsignposts
@morzer:
good point – revisions will be important.
El Cid
@morzer: Increased sales at Christmastime will also be proof of the Republican recovery.
morzer
@El Cid:
Well, now that David W. Hedrick has proved that Obama is socializing Christmas…..
cyntax
@Martin:
Frank might be good, and your distinction about the Minority Leader being a diiferent role is a good point, but remember that it’s the remaining Blue Dogs that are calling for her ouster, so I don’t seem them supporting Frank. They’re gonna want someone who’s center right and I don’t see that helping at all.
liberal
@joe from Lowell:
Not sure what you mean here.
AFAICT when people say “structural” they’re referring to things long-term, secular declines in manufacturing employment; the huge trade deficits we’ve had for the better part of the Reagan and post-Reagan era; and so on.
Then there’s the impact on the economy of the collapse of a financial bubble.
What we definitely do NOT have as an ingredient is a typical recession, where the economy cyclically overheats, the Fed puts on the brakes, and things cool off. As BTD seems to imply, recoveries in those recessions are much quicker than recoveries due to financial collapses. At least that’s what history says.
The bit above about the secular, structural elements just means “yeah, we’re facing a challenge like Japan’s lost decade…but worse.”
liberal
@Martin:
It’s high relative to the bubble years, but not really high compared to a longer history of data. And some analysts claim it’s not high at all, that what we’re seeing as increased savings is actually just debt being written off.
morzer
@liberal:
Could you explain to us what was “lost” about Japan’s lost decade?
During said decade they had:
3.6% unemployment
the savings ratio increased to 20%
GDP increased by 10%
life expectancy rose to 80 years
liberal
@morzer:
GDP grew very slowly, as compared to previous Japanese GDP growth or other First World nations.
OTOH, it’s not as bad if you consider the per capita picture.
Given the structural differences between the US and Japan, it’s going to be worse here.
Judas Escargot
@joe from Lowell:
You don’t need stimulus to continue a recovery once it has begun.
Fair enough. But I’m not convinced that a real recovery has begun. Not with U6 in double digits and 1/4 of mortgages underwater.
(Trust me, I WANT to be wrong on this one– but personally haven’t bought into the ‘recovery is underway’ rhetoric).
morzer
@liberal:
Yes, but GDP growth isn’t the be all and end all. The “lost decade” wasn’t really “lost” in any meaningful sense.. Sure, ludicrously over-valued shares/companies/properties saw the inflated value cut down to size – but Japan was still humming along quite nicely. If we manage a similar lost decade, we should go down on our knees and thank God/Aqua Buddha etc.
Mnemosyne
@cyntax:
On the plus side, the number of Blue Dogs has been cut in half, so I don’t think they’re going to have nearly as much influence as they’re hoping they will. IIRC, the Progressive Caucus now outnumbers them by almost 3 to 1.
chopper
@morzer:
GDP increased by 1.14% annually during the 90’s while the US GDP went up by about 3.8% per year (which is about how much japan’s economy grew during the 80’s).
1.14 aint shit when everyone else is soaring.
cckids
@New Yorker:
Yes: 5) In 2009-10, the Republicans offered many fabulous amendments to legislation like HCR, but were spurned & ignored at every point. No Democrats would listen to them at all, every piece of that law is LIBERAL SOCIALISM.
joe from Lowell
@Martin: I certainly agree that an economic recovery is only a necessary, and not sufficient, condition for an improvement in the economic circumstances of the American worker.
Nonetheless, it’s a necessary one. We aren’t going to get anything done if the trend line isn’t going up.
joe from Lowell
@chopper:
Pah-rum-pum-pum-pum!
Pah-rum-pum-pum-pum!
Rum-pum-pum-pum, rum-pum-pum-pum, rum-pum-pum-pum!
God bless us, every one!
joe from Lowell
@Judas Escargot:
Recoveries start at the bottom. That’s what makes them recoveries.
joe from Lowell
Anyway, Tuesday sure was a Boehner day for the Republicans.
tap tap tap, is this thing on?
morzer
@chopper:
So, you can have Japan’s lost decade.. or our current economic circumstances dating back to 2001ish. Make the call.
Steaming Pile
This is the business cycle at work, nothing more. Of course, it won’t keep the Big Orange Boner from trying to take credit, nor will it keep Democrats from failing to call him on it. My guess is, we’ll start seeing better employment numbers solely based on pent-up demand, the unemployment number will drop as well, and the Big Orange Boner (aka B.O.B.) will break his own arm patting himself on the bat, although there will be precious little he could point to, if asked (hint. hint), that would have actually caused the improvement.
chopper
@joe from Lowell:
so you’re seeing ‘green shoots’?
Chris
Prediction: the Republican takeover of the house makes (most) business types feel better. (Some of you may have witnessed this yourself.) They think things will get better. This causes a temporary bump in optimism. The stock market runs up as they put their own money (of which they have plenty) into stocks.
After the celebration, though, the hangover hits. Each of these oh-so-excited business persons does not hire lots of new employees, because (surprise, surprise) there is still no demand for their products.
This does not to hurt the stock market for a while, because corporate profits are unchanged and the higher baseline (from the earlier euphoric buying) can simply stick where it is.
Exactly what happens after that, I am not yet ready to predict. This takes us through early 2011 at least, though.
DougW
@arguingwithsignposts:
Since Murdoch is the founder and fund-raiser for the ReThuglican Party, it’s not so surprising to see his predictions for the future.
He knows damn well that major corporations are acting in concert under the auspices of the Roberts Republican Excellent Court to make sure that they can butter their bread whatever way they want…
Recession to get rid of the unions? Consider it done. FOX Propaganda will aid us…
Get rid of nasty environmental laws so that we can rape the world? No problem (make sure rich kids get sent to Sweden or Switzerland for school – just to keep them away from the public water).
We’ve now gone beyond IOKIFAR, to unless your screwing everyone lower on the totem poll than you, you’re a piker. A sham. A maroon. Possibly even a pussy. Have fun with that…