The August jobs report is fairly sucky. I don’t know if two tax cuts will be enough to fix it – maybe 3 tax cuts and a repeal of Dodd/Frank will be the only thing that gets us going again.
Reader Interactions
113Comments
Comments are closed.
Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
The revolution will be supervised.
It’s not hopeless, and we’re not helpless.
It may be funny to you motherfucker, but it’s not funny to me.
The lights are all blinking red.
This isn’t Democrats spending madly. This is government catching up.
You’re just a puppy masquerading as an old coot.
People are complicated. Love is not.
In my day, never was longer.
Republicans choose power over democracy, every day.
This chaos was totally avoidable.
There are a lot more evil idiots than evil geniuses.
Giving in to doom is how authoritarians win.
We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. keep building.
The cruelty is the point; the law be damned.
She burned that motherfucker down, and I am so here for it. Thank you, Caroline Kennedy.
It’s the corruption, stupid.
Prediction: the gop will rethink its strategy of boycotting future committees.
Impressively dumb. Congratulations.
So it was an October Surprise A Day, like an Advent calendar but for crime.
Jack Smith: “Why did you start campaigning in the middle of my investigation?!”
“The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.”
Hey hey, RFK, how many kids did you kill today?
Republicans don’t lie to be believed, they lie to be repeated.
The line between political reporting and fan fiction continues to blur.
Exurban Mom
But…doesn’t that make it 30 consecutive months of private sector job growth? Doesn’t that drop the unemployment rate from 8.3% to 8.1%?
Glass is half full, friends, half full, not half empty.
cmorenc
You forgot: making “Atlas Shrugged” mandatory reading for all Freshman college students and entering MBA students alike. To insure students don’t fall into enthrallment over Kenyan socialist ideas during their time on campus.
EconWatcher
The only silver lining: this should push Bernanke to start QE3 which, with some signs of life in the housing sector, might actually spur some construction (as well as business investment).
El Tiburon
Perhaps it’s time to recalibrate what constitutes a decent job report.
What BOOM is left in this political climate? Green jobs? Massive World War? Manufacturing? Ha. Ha.
Earn a college degree and hope your tips from working the night shift at Denny’s fills up your tank?
Even without republican obstructionism, does Obama really have it in him to do what it really takes to correct this?
I dont see it.
Patricia Kayden
@Exurban Mom:
Amen. The economy is growing jobs and not losing them, which is the glass half full that Dems should emphasize. Had Repubs worked with Obama to pass his jobs bill, more jobs could have been created.
Enhanced Voting Techniques
Well if they had increased government spending this year that would solve this problem. The real issue is Wall Street has decided the economy will suck until next year because of the mess in Greece so companies are being cautious on their spending and hiring.
Litlebritdifrnt
I see a lot of comments about it dropped to 8.1% because “people are taking themselves out of the labor force”. Perhaps I am stupid but doesn’t this mean that they are retiring? I mean everyone keeps saying that the boomers are all coming up to retirement age, so why is everyone surprised that people are taking themselves out of the labor force? What am I missing here?
amk
Well, 4 years ago, dumbya was bleeding jobs at the same rate Obama is growing them now.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@El Tiburon:
This seems like a great logic sentence: If FALSE, then the entire premise is TRUE. If we didn’t have Republican obstructionism, we would have passed a number of jobs bills.
kc
Maybe rebates to the “job creators,” funded by a tax on the unemployed?
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Litlebritdifrnt: Also, school has started back up.
Raven
@El Tiburon: Recalibrate and do what dick head? Vote for Romney?
Suffern ACE
@amk: No. We were bleeding jobs at 700k a month. It’s easy to promise that the rebound will be as fast as the crash, but it would be odd to have 700k job growth in any economy.
amk
@El Tiburon: Is the firebaggers’ site down today?
James Hare
Purely anecdotal; however, I just got a new (higher-paying!!) job after 6 months of employment and the last week of waiting for my start date has been jam-packed with recruiters calling for jobs — I’ve had more contacts from recruiters in the last week than in the 6 months before. At least for high school graduates with modest computer skills there appear to be quite a few jobs in the DC area that weren’t there a week or so ago. Hopefully the September report is better.
I’m surprised yesterday’s estimate of 200,000 was so far off.
Just Some Fuckhead
This particular problem can’t be fixed with tax cuts, deregulation and vouchers. We’re gonna need more guns and Jesus.
Dave
It is a sucky jobs report. But in the cold calculus of politics, 8.1 is better than 8.3. And that trumps talk about people taking themselves out of the labor market (which is, in part, due to school beginning and people retiring).
El Tiburon
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
I understand a lot of job bills. So what. Have you heard of HAMP? Have you heard of half ass stimulus?
A few jobs bills, is that what it really akes to correct the world of shit we are in?
Would Obama or any democrat this side of Sanders or Kucinich do what it really takes: a massive works program dedicating hundreds of billions of dollars to create new industries and prop those industries up to create millions of new jobs that will last longer than patching the side of a barn?
Would Obama do that?
And short of that, is it even possible to recover?
How did we get out of the Great Depression? A few job bills?
Enhanced Voting Techniques
@James Hare:
Yes, why would ADP be carry water for the Dems?
“A word of caution: The “official” jobs report issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics often differs from ADP because the BLS accounts for government jobs and ADP reports only private sector jobs. So everyone will be looking at their computers tomorrow morning.”
NonyNony
@Litlebritdifrnt:
You’re not stupid. The way we measure unemployment is non-intuitive. “Taking themselves out of the labor force” is a euphemism for “stopped looking for jobs”. Some of those folks may have been unemployed and hit the age where they could collect SS, but there are also people who were in two-income homes where one lost a job and has given up on finding another one, people who have moved back in with their parents or other relatives, people living on friends’ couches, people sleeping in their cars and taking whatever day labor they can manage, or people who have otherwise just given up actively looking for permanent employment and so don’t get counted as part of the overall unemployment rate.
Also (unless this changed and I didn’t hear it) if you’ve been looking for work for so long your benefits run out, you’re also not counted in the most commonly reported unemployment rates. (There are rates where those folks are counted, but they aren’t the ones that get focused on. For reasons that have been explained to me but that I’ve never found very satisfactory so I won’t repeat them for fear that I’m just building a strawman instead of relaying an honest argument).
Nemesis
@Enhanced Voting Techniques: The Wall Street you speak of hit a 4 year high yesterday, as Euro Zone fears subside and employment outlooks improve.
Dave
@El Tiburon:
We fought a world war. The single biggest stimulus ever in US history.
Unemployment had started rising against after the works packages (16.9 in ’36, 19.0 in ’38) By 1944, unemployment was 1.2%.
maya
This would be the perfect time to start up a door-to-door Bain Way distributorship.
What would it sell? Why, everything of value inventoried behind each door.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Dave: It’s 8.1% because of all the people that have dropped out of the workforce because they can’t get a job. If we can get the Employment-Population ratio somewhere under 10%, we’ll have negative unmployment. How awesome will that be?
Napoleon
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
Shouldn’t the seasonal adjustment take this into account?
Dave
@Just Some Fuckhead: I’m not saying it’s awesome. I am saying that we want to win this election and the simple truth is that 8.1 sounds better than 8.3 even though WHY it’s 8.1 isn’t good news.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Dave: And I’m simply saying the more people that give up looking for a job, the better chance you have of winning the election. Amirite?
El Tiburon
@Dave:
Thom Hartmann would disagree strenuously with your assertion. Krugman not so much.
Fact is massive massive work programs were instituted that helped build this country and we are still reaping those benefits. These programs helped to lift us out of the GD.
I will ask again: without similar type programs is it even possible to go back to where we were?
Is private enterprise going to put millions of Americans back to work?
So, maybe it is time to accept sucky jobs reports as the new normal. And to accept that many if not most of new jobs created will be lower wage service jos.
lamh35
So once Romney becomes President, what’s his plan for job growth?
Kane
It is being said that the unemployment rate fell only because more people gave up looking for work. But are we to assume that all of these people are not working? Could it be possible that some people gave up looking for traditional employment but are creating their own home-based businesses?
Enhanced Voting Techniques
and the ansewer is
From and article on the difference between the June ADP report and the BLS report
So basically this is directly the result of the Republicans nonsense
smith
@lamh35:
Give billionaires tax breaks because we all know that instead of buying yachts, sports teams, private jets, etc. they’ll turn this economy around and hire every single person that is out of a job.
Dave
@El Tiburon: No, I agree with you. Fact is even with my point about the war, that’d have never been possible without the works programs.
Alex S.
The world as a whole is moving towards recession again. The UK already is in a double-dip recession, much of Europe has followed, Germany is going to join, too. Growth in India and China is slowing down rapidly. In a global context, this development isn`t that bad… but noone looks at this context. Well, at least, the report looks better than it is.
Nina
ADP only reports jobs for companies that use ADP for payroll processing. Which is a lot of companies, but by no means the whole country. The ADP number can be misleading if the marketing team has an unusually successful sales month, or if they lose a couple of big customers at once.
And, as said above, it doesn’t show government jobs and it may overstate large corporate and construction jobs.
lacp
@lamh35: He says that in his first year in office, he’s going to do a ‘job tour’ around the country.
And in the second year, he’ll fire everybody he met in the first year.
The Ancient Randonneur
You’ll need to bring back DADT and pass a Constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage to stimulate any meaningful job growth.
celcus
I know! Tax cuts and repeal the clean water act. That should fix it.
Violet
This doesn’t look all that bad to me. Looks bad in comparison to expectations, but then expectations can always get you in trouble.
JPL
When ACA is enacted, the CBO report thought more people would retire early since they could buy health insurance. I can’t remember the number but I’m pretty sure it was in the millions.
@Alex S.: The numbers in
Europe prove that austerity works.
Soonergrunt
@El Tiburon: You claim to understand a lot of job bills, but you clearly don’t understand the Constitution.
Christ I hate it when people who are too fucking stupid to get the most basic facts about how the government is organized and functions make comments that fit their world view and completely ignore reality.
Sanders would do this. Kucinich would do that.
The fucking Easter Bunny would spill jobs by the millions from his magic egg basket if he could because he doesn’t have to deal with Congress either you stupid bastard.
arguingwithsignposts
@El Tiburon:
Sanders is not a democrat.
kd bart
Any idea of the regional breakdown of these numbers? For instance, is job growth booming in the Midwest but lagging in the Rocky Mountain region?
FormerSwingVoter
Economically, this is likely to be good news in the long run – the Fed will almost have to provide some sort of easing when they meet later this month. I’m hoping for QE3, given that inflation is still below 1.5%, but that may be overly optimistic.
Politically, this gives Romney more ammo, since the only reason the unemployment rate went down is from an increasing number of “discouraged workers” (those who’ve just stopped looking for jobs).
scott
While fully conceding that the other side is infinitely worse and not a viable alternative, I find it a little depressing that there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of “fierce urgency of now” among Dems to do something about unemployment. Both parties in Washington seem much less exercised by this problem than about the abstraction of “debt,” which even pushed the Prez to endorse Simpson-Bowles last night. I feel like the proverbial frog in the pot of slowly boiling water, adjusting to the “new normal” that would have been unacceptable 10, 20, or 30 years ago but that seems not all that pressing to our elected leaders.
Tommy D Cosmology
Deadbeat Dads
Government needs to do certain things effectively and efficiently. Conservatives like to say that we are spending beyond our means and need to be more responsible, like a family balancing their home budget. But this is the wrong analogy. The family’s budget was balanced under Democrats’ “Pay as You Go” plan. The better analogy is that Republican economics are like a deadbeat dad. He quits his well-paying job to care only for himself. He reduces family revenue to pay for his hookers (Senator Vitter, R) while his kids have no money for lunches; he has to pay off his mistress’ family with hush money (Senators Coburn and Ensign, Rs), and he refuses to pay the alimony he owes his wife (Congressman Joe Walsh, R), while spending money on his friends. Republicans ruined the family budget because they act like deadbeat dads. They don’t provide for the needs of the family, they care only about themselves. They are lazy, selfish, angry and irresponsible.
Dan
@El Tiburon:
LOLKucinich
Dave
@FormerSwingVoter: Does it help Romney, though? The low-info voter sees the number and that’s it. If you get wonky about it with explanations they tune out. So to those people, 8.1 is better.
Kilgore Trout
@amk: Four years ago W was bleeding jobs at SIX TIMES the rate we are growing them now.
Mino
@lamh35: Pass a national right to work law and repeal the minimum wage, of course.
PurpleGirl
@Exurban Mom: We have states still shedding people/jobs and that is deducted from the number of jobs/people added. Also, too, There are still people being dropped from the UI rolls, so the percent unemployed goes down when they are no longer being counted.
FlipYrWhig
@El Tiburon:
It could be Hypothetical President Saul Alinsky, and if he couldn’t get Republican saboteurs from fucking around, and couldn’t get weaselly Democratic “moderates” to play ball, he’d have the exact same problem Actual President Obama does. The only way to square that circle is to imagine “leadership” that mystically overcomes deliberate no-holds-barred obstruction, credit it to someone imaginary, then bash Obama for lacking it. IMHO that kind of investment in the powers of leadership belongs more on the right wing than the left.
General Stuck
Have no idea if it’s true, but the conventional wisdom on economics and job creation during a POTUS campaign, is that voters conclusions on econ matters becomes baked into voters psyche at about 4 months prior to the election. I don’t know if that’s true or not, and judging from polling for years now, I’d say we are about as hardened into 50/50 pol camps as we ever have been, to where hardly anything moves the numbers. And the election will be likely decided by the carnival barker vote.
I am going to enjoy the truly delightful weather we have around here this time of year, and take some photos in the forest. And try to commune with liberal jeebus for the stretch run.
El Tiburon
@Soonergrunt:
Hey sooner grunt I don’t know what crawled up your fucking asshole. Maybe you Are pissed your sooners suck dick.
But if you are going to take the time to respond why dont you take a breath and write something of substance. As a front pager I think you owe it to yourself.
Your unhinged response didn’t even really address my point. Instead of bellowing like a stuck cow why don’t you take a moment to read what I wrote and stop letting your personal hatred of me taint your responses.
And yeah bob stoops wears granny boots and is a pederast. And yes the Lomghorns are going to crush your inbred fagball team.
Now thats a fucking response.
feebog
El Triburon:
I suppose if we lived in a fucking dictatorship then Obama could simply put thousands of proles to work on massive infrastructure projects. But we don’t. We live in a democracy with a bi-cameral legislative body. And the Republicans in both houses are far more interested in trying to make Obama a one term President than they are in trying to improve the economy. In fact, sabotaging the economy, in large ways and small, is their basic game plan for returning to power.
So please tell us how, under our constitution framework, Obama could have simply dictated that we have a massive infrastructure program, or shut the fuck up.
El Tiburon
@feebog:
Jesus Christ in a Popsicle. Did you even read my original post? Did you read where I specifically wrote. And i quote “…even without republican obstructionism…”
Did you read that part because it is very germane to my entire fucking point. Are you an sooner grunt sniffing glue. Again?
Let me put it this way: been if Obama were dictator I doubt he would be bold enough to enact the bold and widespread type of programs needed to get Americans back to work and create the imfrastructure for long term and gainful employment.
catclub
@scott: Because Obama whining that the GOP house will not vote to begin paying for a massive government jobs programs that we need sounds weak, so he does not bother to whine and sound weak.
So nobody mentions it.
FlipYrWhig
@feebog: And it’s not just the Republicans, which too many people overlook. There are Democrats, and a lot of them in the Senate, who get the heebie-jeebies about Big Government Spending. Getting them in line is difficult. They SHOULD like massive infrastructure programs launched with cheap borrowed cash that multiply the public benefit. But, you know, they don’t, because they’re either (1) not that bright, or (2) leery of being tagged as tax-‘n’-spend because it could cost them their next election, or both.
If it were a matter of presenting open-minded people the best possible ideas to choose from, politics would be easy. It ain’t like that. You can be right, with all the facts and all the numbers on your side, but if you’re not persuasive, even through nothing you did but because your allies are dim or cowardly, your great ideas die before they can even start.
I don’t know why people choose not to understand this. Anyone who has ever been in a staff meeting has seen it happen.
catclub
@scott: Plus also, 8% unemployment is 92% employment (yes, I know about effective underemployment, but my point remains). So even though it is bad, most people you know ( and virtually everyone they know) is employed. This is the same problem with dealing with health insurance. The majority already has it, so they do not feel the urgency.
FlipYrWhig
@El Tiburon: So, in essence, your view is that even Hypothetical Omnipotent Obama would be a pu$$y.
Dennis SGMM
@FlipYrWhig:
This. I suspect that the blowback from the bailouts has left many pols believing that the only big thing that government can do now is send our troops to blow people up.
Brachiator
@El Tiburon:
Is there really some obvious solution that is being purposefully overlooked or avoided?
@catclub:
Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. There are people so discouraged that they have stopped looking for work (this is emphasized in the recent jobs report). Others are under employed in low paying jobs. Others have seen hours and benefits cut back. Others come to work in fear of looming layoffs.
And more layoffs are coming, even in the cushy tech sector (HP, Yahoo, Motorola).
Where is this alternate universe in which most people are employed?
Or was this snark and I just missed it?
Patricia Kayden
@lamh35: Tax cuts for him and his friends. They’re the job creators, don’t you know?
different-church-lady
Seven tax cuts, tax credits for stock portfolios over $4 million, repeal of Dodd Frank, the 14th amendment and the Bill of Rights. NOTHING LESS WILL GET US BACK ON TRACK!
PaulW
The GOP will raise you FIVE tax cuts, a repeal of ALL business regulations, and a constitutional amendment outlawing unions and worker safety rights. Then maybe we’ll see an end to the high unemployment numbers in GOPLand(mostly because they’ll stop making monthly reports about unemployment).
Yutsano
@Patricia Kayden: Please. Those earning over $1 million need a negative tax rate. Nothing else will motivate teh job creators (PBUT) to magically fart out jobs yesterday.
different-church-lady
@El Tiburon:
I know what you’re saying, but unfortunately that sounds uncomfortably similar to “new normal”.
Brachiator
Of course, they can always opt for the movie version of the novel.
Trailer here if you want to give yourself a little scare. Or have a good laugh.
Soonergrunt
@El Tiburon: And this is the defense of the dumbass firebagger. When called out on the pure fantasyland properties of their spew, they resort to the claim that even if the President were the dictator they’d need him to be to do what they want, he wouldn’t do it because of a character defect.
It’s epistemic closure within a circle of one, and it’s really quite impressive. What makes it so is that while the dictator is thankfully untestable, the supposition of a character defect on the President’s part is completely contrary to anything representing what we call available, testable evidence.
El Tiburon
@FlipYrWhig:
In my original post I asked a few things. Maybe you would like a stab at them.
1. In our economy we have today, is it even really possible to get back to 4-5% unemployment? Where would these millions of lost jobs come from? Green economy? A massive world war?
2. Take away ALL obstructionism, do the Democrats have it within them as far as ideology to Go Big?
Personally I don’t think they do. I don’t think Obama or most democrats would have the brass to propose something of such a scale that would put millions of Americans back to work. I just don’t see it. I especially don’t see it from Obama. And he is the President. I don’t see it from President Biden or President H. Clinton or President J. Castro.
So, if any of what I’m saying is true, then I think we will have to get used to crappy job reports and learn to accept 8% or 7.5 or 7.0% as the new normal.
What in the hell is wrong with this argument? Where do I stray so far off kilter as to get the “firebagger” treatment?
Heliopause
The Republican plan, if you can call it that, is brainless. The Obama plan is:
1. Conjure up a few manufacturing jobs by tweaking the tax code,
2. drill, baby, drill and perhaps frack, baby, frack,
3. slow the growth rate of tuition from disastrous to slightly less disastrous.
Do I even need to say how utterly dispiriting this should be to an objective observer? That the boldest a leader is allowed to be, in the richest society in the history of the universe, is to nibble at the margins of problems? That we have to continue despoiling the planet just to tread water on jobs? The utter folly of turning entire generations into a vast debtor class in exchange for an education?
Yes, Obama and the Dems will surely keep the ship of fools floating longer than the GOP will, maybe even long enough for me to die in relative comfort. Those of you younger than me, I feel sorry for you.
Soonergrunt
Typical sorry assed firebagger/conservative behavior. I’m not the only one who called out your reality-challenged spew on the points. You still haven’t responded to anyone with anything approximating an actual answer. You want your pony, and… that’s it, apparently.
Here’s an idea. If you don’t like getting called out for being a stupid bastard, don’t whine about being called out, but STOP DOING AND SAYING THE THINGS THAT STUPID BASTARDS SAY AND DO.
El Tiburon
@Soonergrunt:
Has NOTHING to do with a character defect. It has to do with the man’s ideology – and that of a lot of or not most of the current Democratic party.
You can pretend all day that I think President Obama has character defects when I think nothing of the sort.
so when I say Obama wouldn’t dare GO BIG, what you hear is “OBAMA IS A FUCKING PUSSY!!!!!”
No. You are wrong. My point is very very simple and I will try it one more time: Our economy and jobs situation is very dire. We are now going on several months (if not couple of years) with very poor job reports.
So, is this the new normal? If so, what can we do to get out of it? Rely on private enterprise? I don’t think so.
Rely on government? yes, I think that is the answer. And what does the government need to do? They need to do something huge – similar to the programs enacted in the New Deal.
Do our current Democratic leaders feel the same way? NO. They do not. Not because of a character defect, but because this is what they believe.
Or, you can put you firebagger glasses on and curse at me.
El Tiburon
@Heliopause:
Really? Read #70 and #73.
And #56 was a direct response to the substance of that commenter’s post.
Now you are just being a dick. Especially now that you have written at least 3 responses to me and the first one was just a sophomoric attack on me with zero substance as was this last one.
Why don’t you have some coffee, read comment #70 and try to RESPOND to the substance. Or is this ABL posing as Soonergrunt?
Some Loser
Okay, El Tiburon, what would you propose Obama do? I mean, in this climate, what would you do if you were in Obama’s shoes? How would you bypass the Separation of Powers baked into the Constitution of the United States of America and force the risk-averse members of the Democratic Party in Congress to pass a sizable Jobs Creation bill? Do you even realize that the President of the United States cannot force Legislation through as that is the roll of Congress? How would you plan around that? How would you get members of the Republican Party to stop committing treason against you?
El Tiburon
#74 was meant to be a response to Soonergrunt.
I apologize if anyone was offended. It was not my intent.
Cacti
Last month’s job report was actually the best August job numbers in 6-years.
August tends not to be a huge month for job growth. Kids go back to school, seasonal employment winds down, etc.
El Tiburon
@Some Loser:
For the LOVE OF GOD will you fucking read my original post if you are going to respond.
One more time: I premised the entire argument on the premise there was NO OBSTRUCTION and Obama was free to do as he pleased.
Are all of you Obamabots still all tingly and punch-drunk from last night?
Brachiator
@El Tiburon:
You keep hinting at some fantasy “go big” option that would put millions to work, but you never reveal what that would be.
And your fantasy of the president being able to go big ignores the reality of the Contitution, the Congress and existing political methods of passing legislation to implement policy.
You have offered no argument. None at all.
@Heliopause:
We’re not the richest society in the history of the universe. But, apart from this, same challenge as above: what’s the solution?
Soonergrunt
And again, you make these assertions not just in absence of evidence, but in the face of evidence to the contrary in the forms of what he’s said and tried to do over the years.
And I don’t just call you a firebagger for this. I call you that because you are one of, if not THE most consistent firebaggers on this site. You have been for as long as I could recognize the username ‘El Tiburon’. This stuff of yours is only the most recent example. And if you are finally pivoting to something less assinine, then good for you, but it’s not where you started on this thread, and I’m not going to pretend that it was.
Some Loser
@El Tiburon:
I asked you what would you do if you were in Obama’s shoes. You said Obama does not have the stones, and I asked if you were in his position. Defend yourself. Don’t get mad. If you really think Obama is just a coward who’ll do nothing, just show us the evidence. You say, in any reality with Obama as the leader, that you do not believe Obama would save the workforce. Okay, so in a reality where Obama did not have to deal with Republican obstructionism what would you have him do? He propped up the whole goddamn Auto Industry and saved my home state, but we can’t be sure he would do the same for other industries, right? Explain yourself, firebagger.
gene108
@Heliopause:
Politicians, in America at least, are not the harbingers of change. They are reactionary. All of them are reactionary, whether liberal or conservative, whether Democrat, Republican, Green Party, Libertarian, or Constitution Party, it doesn’t matter; none of them will ever be on the forefront of any radical change.
If the people start pushing for a change in the way things are done, a political party will hitch their wagon to that group.
If you want more done with regards to issues that are important to you, you (all of us) have to work to make that change seem possible and good and then, and only then, will politicians be willing to take the baton, cross the finish line and make the change a reality.
The problem for liberals is the other side is much better funded. It makes it harder for us to create and sustain a movement or a cause, but the reality of American politics is the Democrats are willing to hitch their wagon to liberal causes, if liberals can bring them the support they need politically to cross the finish line.
LAC
@feebog:
As much as we wish it, El Whinuron will not pick the SHTFUP door. But it is nice to know that Bernie Saunders has stepped into the Ralph Nader solver role. Makes all the difference because all you need is a lot of self righteous hot air and finger pointing and ta dah problem solved. Fuck that three branches of government bullshit, right? After all, the title is El Presidente, not the President.
And El Tapioca a question for you. Are all you firedoglake fuckers done boring each other and that’s why you are here?
El Tiburon
@Brachiator:
No, I haven’t revealed what that is because I don’t know what it is. I have mentioned several times the type of programs enacted in the 30s. You know, those Big Programs that put millions to work and helped to lift us out of the Great Depression. So yeah, you got me: I don’t have an actual policy paper on what the Going Big entails.
This is getting to be ridiculous, so I’ll say it to you: in my original post I typed, and I quote it here again: “…without Republican obstructionism…” So, yes, I’m doing a little thought experiment where WE IMAGINE a new reality and then offer up what that new reality would entail. So, my new reality is, if there was NO OBSTRUCTIONISM would be that Obama would still offer half-assed, tepid responses to this crisis. That’s my argument I’ve made since my very first comment.
It is because you choose not to see it.
El Tiburon
@Some Loser:
Such a silly question. I mean, seriously. Very silly.
Look: contrary to all of you dipshits, I understand the Constitution and I understand the Republican party and the Blue Dogs and the severe limitations that Obama is under, ok? That is not the issue here.
This entire thread is about the “sucky” jobs report. Right? so all I said is that “sucky” may be the new “normal” Right?
Any problems so far with this?
I then went on to ask what will get us out of this? And still NOBODY has offered any type of response to that. Most of you are so happy to resort back to your junior high taunts. Fair enough. You are Balloon Juicers. I expect as much.
But – anyone care to offer what is going to lift us out of continual sucky job reports? Private enterprise? Magic ponies?
Then I continued and said that EVEN WITHOUT REPUBLICAN OBSTRUCTIONISM, I don’t think Obama would think to Go Big.
And still, nobody cares to address these points. All of you dbags cackle: But what about the Republicans!!!!.
So fuck me running. I’m trying like hell to stay on message but all of you monkeys are too busy fingering your own buttholes.
1. What will lift us out of this?
2. I don’t think Obama would do it, whatever IT is.
3. Go fuck yourselves.
How’s that?
LAC
@El Tiburon:
Why you are so fucking sure about what the President would do without Republican obstructionism? Seems to me like you think you should be allowed to make sweeping generalizations about the President and “half assed” ideas, but if challenged, you revert to your whiny “you’re all mean Obamabots” and “we could have had our sparkle ponies by now if (lFaux progressive approved hero) was there” screed. Your arguments take no account of the economic realities of when the President took office.
Lurking Canadian
@Brachiator: The Market is always right. Except about conservative movies, apparently.
El Tiburon
@Soonergrunt:
Here is exactly where I started, and this is my entire comment:
What is so Firebagger about this? So now I’m a firebagger if I say I don’t think Obama has what it takes to correct this, or to Go Big? THAT makes me a firebagger?
Please, Soonergrunt, for an idiot like me, will you clearly state what and where in this comment I come off as a firebagger?
That entire comment was rather tame. I wasn’t blowing Obama out of the water. I didn’t blame him for the economy.
You are all fucking crazy.
LAC
@El Tiburon: And, El Tittybar, being a little bitch about not getting a cookie for your deep thoughts is sad. You base your whole whinathon on an opinion that you have yet to show evidence of – Obama would not go big – and we are playing with our buttholes? You know, you should approach Hasbro with your game of fellating yourself. Could be out in time for Christmas.
El Tiburon
@LAC:
What the fuck are you talking about? Can you please show me where I said I was SURE the President would do anything?
Was it when I wrote this:
See where I wrote “I don’t see it.” Do you see that? That is my way of saying: “I have no idea what the President would do – but I just DON’T THINK he would do it.” That is quite the opposite of me being SURE of anything. So your entire comment is invalid because it is based on a false premise. Just like Soonergrunts entire existence here.
Brachiator
@El Tiburon:
OK, although somewhat vague.
And still wrong.
Problem 1: Ignoring the oversimplification that WW II “saved the US economy,” the larger fact is that FDR had a longer period of time to try various programs, and that many of the New Deal efforts were not successful. The first phase of the New Deal included stabs at fiscal conservativism, and was a massive failure.
Problem 2: The US economy has absorbed the best of the New Deal and is still struggling.
Problem 3: One of the efforts that everyone seems to love, “massive infrastructure investment,” ain’t gonna work as easily in contemporary America. It takes far fewer people to do construction than in the 1930s, and construction projects are not likely to employ massive numbers of women employees.
So, assuming that Obama could get Congress to agree, are you now falling back on a massive WPA program, with the fed creating make work non construction jobs?
LAC
@El Tiburon: And, El Tittybar, being a little bitch about not getting a cookie for your deep thoughts is sad. You base your whole whinathon on an opinion that you have yet to show evidence of – Obama would not go big – and we are playing with our buttholes? You know, you should approach Hasbro with your game of fellating yourself. Could be out in time for Christmas.
El Tiburon
@LAC:
What the fuck are you talking about? Can you please show me where I said I was SURE the President would do anything?
Was it when I wrote this:
See where I wrote “I don’t see it.” Do you see that? That is my way of saying: “I have no idea what the President would do – but I just DON’T THINK he would do it.” That is quite the opposite of me being SURE of anything. So your entire comment is invalid because it is based on a false premise. Just like Soonergrunts entire existence here.
LAC
@El Tiburon: And, El Tittybar, being a little bitch about not getting a cookie for your deep thoughts is sad. You base your whole whinathon on an opinion that you have yet to show evidence of – Obama would not go big – and we are playing with our buttholes? You know, you should approach Hasbro with your game of fellating yourself. Could be out in time for Christmas.
FlipYrWhig
@El Tiburon: You do see, don’t you, that “I’m convinced Obama is not capable of fixing things because by being Obama he is necessarily incapable, QED” is not really an argument, right? I think Soonergrunt is right about the “circle of one”: even if there were nothing holding him back from doing whatever he wanted, he wouldn’t do the right thing, because of the way he is. And it’s a problem afflicting not just Obama, but everyone you could possibly name.
Even if you were correct, I don’t know where we’re supposed to go or what we’re supposed to do after that. Political action has to occur at some point. Laws have to be made and institutions have to be built. If no one is capable of doing what you want, well, grit your teeth, adjust your expectations, and make the best of your despair.
FlipYrWhig
@El Tiburon:
Mostly this shows that the only Obama you can imagine in a nearly perfect world would still fall short of what you like. That may be a problem with your imagination, not with Obama (or any other politician in the world that actually exists).
El Tiburon
@FlipYrWhig:
Did you read my comment where I said this has NOTHING do with Obama per se, but my thuoghts would be the same if it was President H. Clinton or President Biden or President J. Castro?
I use Obama as the titular head of the Democratic machine. I don’t think today’s democratic machine is capable of putting forth the policies necessary to restore this economy.
Until we get more liberals like a Kucinich (who I have no special affection for) or a Sanders (who I do have affection for) then I believe we are entering a new paradigm, a new normal of high unemployment numbers. And even without the Republicans, i don’t think the Democrats are capable of putting forth the policies to really address the core problem.
I don’t understand what is wrong with this argument.
perhaps I misunderstand what this blog is about. I thought it was a place for somewhat, like-minded individuals to get together and express thoughts and ideas. I didn’t know, that to comment here, you had to back it up with a solid plan of action.
Also, it doesn’t matter if I’m correct. It’s just my opinion. And still I have yet to have anyone really address any of my points, which is fine. But a lot of ink has been spilled hurling insults my way. Which is also fine. It’s your mothers basement your living in so I don’t care, you know?
But I’m still waiting for any substantive response. Guess I’ll troll on over to FDL where at least David Dayen is reporting on some actual news.
Some Loser
@El Tiburon:
I am going to ignore your incivility, El Tiburon, and I am going to ask you another question. :))
You say you don’t what you would do in this situation. You have no plan, and your closet answer to an idea of what to do is emulate the New Deal and other work programs from the 30s and 40s. You say our politicians need to do something like that, but you worry that our president, Obama, would not enact policies like these if he had the chance. Considering that Obama and Congress created the Auto Industry bailout (a very sizable stimulus in its own right), why do you think they wouldn’t do any other large scale bills if they had the opportunity?
different-church-lady
@El Tiburon:
I think the problem is your argument is based on hypothetical Obama trying to negotiate with invisible GOP. Plus
you’re conflating two different pointsI think you’re trying to make two seemingly conflicting points at once: (1): Obama and Dems don’t have the stones to go for a game-breaking play and (2) there is no game-breaking play for this economy.That being said, I think the pig pile you’re at the bottom of right now is a bit excessive. But I haven’t read every comment yet.
different-church-lady
@El Tiburon:
Well, it’s a lot clearer, at any rate…
ericblair
I’d like to point out that a lot of the negotiation and stupid timewasting bullshit posturing we’ve had to endure was between the administration and a few holdout Blue Dogs. Everybody just wrote off the goopers whenever possible.
The broader question of whether the employment problem is solvable in its current form: do we have a problem that there’s enough work for everybody but it’s not being done, or that there’s not enough for everybody to do at full employment?
We’ve talked about jobs programs to deal with the first problem, but the second looks like the “superstar” economic problem where a few top people can do the work and the rest aren’t needed. We don’t need a zillion artists anymore when a few blockbuster artists can do the work and sell millions of copies, for example. That problem needs social engineering, like decreasing the workweek to spread work around, assuring universal benefits so you’re not tied to a job you don’t need for healthcare and the like. Obamacare’s a first step there.
different-church-lady
@ericblair:
The problem is partially one of our embrace of economic monocultures/winner-take-all attitudes. It would be nice if we could have a few blockbuster artists selling paintings at $200,000 as well as many more good artists selling paintings at $200. It is possible for micro-sections of the economy to function quite well with the latter, but not when policy and perception make the former the only viable choice and drive out the ability of the small-timers to make a living. We, as a society ought to have both major symphony orchestras and local cello recitals. But we live in a world where CEOs are good and stock boys are bad, so we engineer all the stock boys out of existence, either with technology or structural pressures.
El Tiburon
@different-church-lady:
Massive investment in infrastructure and conversion to renewable energies is a game changer, don’t you think?
I think a Wired magazine article from several years ago talked about retrofitting Americas gas stations for electric cars or something similar. Creating a solar industry. I think it’s there for the Smart People to toss against the wall.
Yes. Yes. Yes. I understand it will never happen in this political climate.
ericblair
@different-church-lady:
Completely agree with this, and that’s the big problem. Oh, lawdy, we’ve got to pay this CEO $20 mil a year or he’ll fuck off to the competitor. Guess what, I guarantee there are twenty senior managers below him who are perfectly capable of doing the CEO’s job as well or better, so we shouldn’t have a problem just ditching his expensive ass and saving money. Except they don’t.
So why are the .01% irreplaceable? Mainly, because the .01% say so, and who are we to argue, because they’re the most successful, right? You can see these closed self-perpetuating cliques at the top just like the last guilded age.
The hate Clinton and Obama so fucking much because he’s not One of Them. For all the stupidity and bullshit, they loved Dubya because he sure as hell was One of Them.
And it looks to my why they’re pushing this Job Creator bullshit so damn hard. If you don’t have that story to sell to the proles, just how can you justify all this wealth going to a few people that haven’t done anything useful for the country? The goopers may be happy with the traditional arguments of “MineMineMine” and “We’re Better Than You”, but they don’t get you across the finish line. So selling the Job Creator bullshit is a necessity.
El Tiburon
@Some Loser:
Couple of things: Didn’t bailout originate to some extent under Bush?
Regardless, bailing out the auto industry (or other existing industries) is a good thing no doubt. But almost a no-brainer and not really a Big Ticket item a la The New Deal. Auto bailout protected hundreds of thousands of existing jobs which is GREAT.
But what we need are new industries that are long-lasting and will employ millions of Americans all of over the US.
different-church-lady
@El Tiburon: Just to be clear, I’m saying these things in an attempt to better understand your position, rather than establishing one of my own.
Obama has made efforts towards green energy. I think it’s quite reasonably debatable whether he’s made enough effort on that item. As to whether it’s a game breaker, I don’t know, but it does make more sense to head in that direction than not.
The thing about the long bomb is that sometimes it breaks the game, and sometimes it gets picked in the end zone. And nobody knows which one it’s going to be until you heave it up there.
P.S. Just to be really clear, I don’t know if there’s a game breaker for this economy or not, I was trying to describe my understanding of your position with that comment.
kd bart
We should start making widgets again.
Some Loser
@El Tiburon:
So what if the bailout had its origins under Bush? Obama was endorsing it and was prepared to accept any consequences as a Senator and a President-Elect. It was not only Obama; a lot of Congressmen and -women voted for it, too.
Do we really need new industries? Honestly, even with the watered down stimulus, we would probably be doing fine, but local and state governments were cutting down on public-sector employees.
Anyway, the main idea of your comment, the one people were contesting, is the idea of Obama not doing everything within his power to turn employment and the economy around. His willingness to support the Auto Bailout, his job acts, and his endless supply of job-centered bill proposals flies in the face of that argument. We have literally no reason to think he wouldn’t accept a New Deal Pt. 2. Hell, if he was unconstrained by Congress and was a dictator, we would have Universal Healthcare with a Public Option.
Actually, when you think about, his original Healthcare reform was a pretty huge piece of legislation. Isn’t the fact that he would propose and beg for such a bill evidence that he is not opposed to huge reform plans?
One of the evidence you use to backup your opinion is that Obama has not proposed a large bill/reform plan like the New Deal and instead opted to incentivize certain markets with tax credits. Obama’s first priority was the Stimulus and bailouts to stop the economy from collapsing on itself. His second priority was his Healthcare reform.
The Democratic Party had an unopposable majority for four months (before certain Senators fell into sickness), and that time was spent on passing the Affordable Care Act. Because of infighting in the party and threat of filibuster, Obama couldn’t even pass a full stimulus package or get his dream legislation passed. You know this by now, so you should also know that by the time President Obama set his priorities to creating Jobs, he had to work with these same individuals but with a much reduced political capital. He began proposing small but strong legislation for job creation.
At this point, you can try and use this to reinforce your point, or you can accept that maybe, just maybe, President Obama was trying to pass legislation that he thought he could get through. Particularly his American Job Act.
Why else do you think President Obama would not propose a huge Job’s bill (in any reality)?
Just Some Fuckhead
You fuckers could ruin a teen orgy.
Catsy
@El Tiburon: Write substance and you’ll likely get substance in response.
Write inane, willfully ignorant concern trolling and you’ll get treated like a troll.
“Even without those guys holding us at gunpoint, do we really have what it takes to escape?” Gee, I don’t know, Sparky… let’s get rid of the motherfuckers holding us hostage and then maybe we can answer that question?
Idiot.
Kuci… ni… BWAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Ahem. Better now. I thi… no… BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Sorry. Really better.
Repeat after me, Sparky. And I will type this very slowly so that you have a chance to look up the big words.
WHICH DEMOCRATS MIGHT DO WHAT IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THE FACT THAT NO PROPOSAL FROM DEMOCRATS THAT MIGHT IMPROVE THE ECONOMY WILL PASS THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS.
Engrave that on the insides of your eyelids if that’s what it takes to penetrate your skull. It is a fact. In the context of passing legislation to help the economy, right now it is the only fact that matters.
But if you really think that a massive jobs bill backed by Kucinich and Sanders–or any other Democrat–has even the faintest ghost of a chance of passing the Republican-controlled Congress, you are so comprehensively ignorant of the political reality in which we live that you have nothing of value to say on the subject.
No. By the arguments you’re making, you exhibit no understanding of the sort whatsoever.
FlipYrWhig
@El Tiburon: There are a lot of interesting ways to complete the sentence “what we need is.” The discussion of how to _get_ what we need takes a very different path.
El Tiburon
@Some Loser:
Um. Yes. Remember when we invented industries like manufacturing cars and so on? Yeah, I think it would be great to be the leader and innovator in new industry. @Some Loser:
I think we have lots of reasons. That the conversation is reducing Social Security benefits instead of increasing them a la the Grand Bargain.
Article at Think Progress about the Jobs Bill that has been held up for over a year. It says it would create in the range of 1.5 – 2 million jobs. Now, that is something. I don’t guess I knew that. But, and this is very important: I think there is a difference in MAINTAINING a lot of jobs and doing something proactive to go out and create new ones and new industries.
Look, to clarify again: I don’t believe Obama has a defect. It is today’s Democratic party that is defective. They make a good bunch of Reagan Republicans.
Yes. Based on a conservative idea. I’m not bashing ACA (not here anyway) and I understand his metric.
Some Loser
@El Tiburon:
Race baiting Reagan? You mean the Reagan who helped legitimize this modern Republican party?
No, we do not have any damn reason to believe Obama would not accept another New Deal. I tried to be reasonable with you, so don’t you dare trout out that firebagging bullshit.
You still haven’t answered the most pertinent question, El Tiburon. Why do believe Obama would not accept a large scale jobs creation program? He’s not ideologically opposed to it. He’s not scare of it backfiring on him. We’ve been here since this morning.
Earlier, I was in the mood to give you the benefit of the doubt. I don’t care about that anymore. It is obvious to anyone that you doubt President Obama because you are suffering from ODS. You have provided literally no reason why you doubt, and given your past history, I’m too
boredbusy to deal with shit.