Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Thus far, Obama has been unable to get us out of the Bush Depression.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 05:31 AM
Original message
Thus far, Obama has been unable to get us out of the Bush Depression.
He has tried just about everything.

He used Bush's TARP money to try and save the banking system. He tried huge stimulus spending, almost a trillion dollars. He tried taxcuts for working people. He tried bailouts for the car makers. He tried giving money to the states. Yet, we still have high unemployment and businesses are not investing in jobs. The stock market and the wealthy are doing very well, however.

Republicans ask why Obama has not gotten us out of this "recession" yet? Reagan was able to do it in two or three years. Unfortunately, all "recessions" are not the same. This mess left behind by one George W Bush was a depression. It was an economic collapse. This is not your grandfather's recession.

For those that talk about a "double-dip", I would say that is not accurate. We never recovered from the first "dip". That dipshit Bush left us a Depression that is not going to be easy to extricate ourselves from. Some economists are suggesting it may take several years?

The President has tried but he has come up short. Republicans, as well as many Democrats, are calling him a failure. They want back in power because they say they know how to create jobs. More taxcuts! They are right about one thing - elections have consequences.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
John_Adams Donating Member (110 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 05:47 AM
Response to Original message
1. Huh...? This is not a depression (see 1930).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 05:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Couldn't resist, huh?
:-) Tell us the difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John_Adams Donating Member (110 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 06:07 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. If you don't know the difference, spend 10 or 15 minutes doing some research.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 06:13 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. A recession is when your neighbor loses his job..
A depression is when you lose *your* job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John_Adams Donating Member (110 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 06:51 AM
Response to Reply #9
25. You can say "depression" when you see 25% unemployment and a 25% drop in GDP.
But there is no way to legitimately equate the current situation with the Great Depression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #25
37. Ever been to Detroit? It is significantly worse than that
I guess it is only a depression when it effects *YOU*.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John_Adams Donating Member (110 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #37
39. Whatever...if you choose to base your economic summation on one city, rather than the whole
country, you will get the "right" answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #39
41. 1% of the country is getting richer while the other 99% is getting significantly poorer
And you are claiming that the average has remained the same. It is misleading to conflate the well being of a tiny cabal of rich people with the well being of the vast majority of the American people. It is a depression for everyone except the top 1% wealth holders and income collectors.

Whatever the fuck ever, hundreds of thousands of people have it significantly worse than during the great depression you want to average them with Warren Buffet to pretend that there is not an economic depression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #41
48. Not that things aren't pretty bad now, but still, compared to the 1930s...
...the current economy isn't anywhere near as bad, even factoring out "the well being of a tiny cabal of rich people". The current median standard of living (not average, median, so not much thrown off at all but the rich people at the top) is higher now than what most Americans had just before the Great Depression hit, during what was then considered a boom time.

Electric power and indoor plumbing still weren't something many people could count on in the 1920s. For many illnesses and injuries, being uninsured and treated in a crappy emergency room today will still lead to better results than a lot of rich people would have gotten back in the 1920s or 1930.

I understand, of course, that most people measure their economic pain not by long-term historic standards or world standards but by comparing to what they're personally accustomed to, but it's good to step back now and then and look at a larger perspective.

I don't mean to suggest we should be complacent. Things could be a lot better now than they are. There's a lot of injustice and plain stupidity in current economic policy, and we should fight that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #48
51. All those problems were problems of the era, and would have lingered without the depression
From an economic stand point, things are comparable to the great depression. Obviously, standard of living is higher because 80 years of technological advancements. Those changes are independent of the economic problems and must not be considered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #51
87. Definitely technology provides us with a higher baseline, but that's my point
When one compares our current conditions to the Great Depression, there are matters of relative and absolute poverty to be considered, relative and absolute health and well-being. We certainly have a right to expect better conditions than we have -- some pretty obvious tax and policy changes could make a lot of things a little better in short order and a lot better in the long run for many people -- but still, it bothers me when people compare our current conditions to the Great Depression because it demonstrates a lack of perspective and a lack of appreciation for how, at the very least, government didn't get in the way of, and may very well have helped along, many of the advances most of us benefit from greatly today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #87
93. That is not sufficient reason to dismiss the comparison
Edited on Sat Jun-04-11 06:27 PM by Taitertots
Sure, people today don't have to deal with legal spousal rape, systemic racism, systemic human rights abuses, religious intolerance, sexual intolerance, medical ignorance, scientific ignorance, unsafe workplaces, violence against unions....

I think the phrase "We certainly have a right to expect better conditions than we have" is putting it politely. The single largest factors leading to the (Whatever we are going to call it) are republican party politics. Specifically, deregulation, under regulation, under taxation, corruption between business and government, and excessive war spending.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StarsInHerHair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #48
115. here's something you might want to read
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/06/housing-prices-h... "Saturday, June 4, 2011
Housing Prices Have Already Fallen More than During the Great Depression ... How Much Lower Will They Go? The folks at Capital Economics write in with this gloomy tidbit: The further fall in house prices in the first quarter means that, on the Case-Shiller index, prices have now fallen by more than they did during the Great Depression.

By their calculations, prices are now down 33% from their 2006 peak, compared with the 31% decline during the Depression."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/us-hous... " US house price fall 'beats Great Depression slide'

By Stephen Foley

Wednesday, 1 June 2011"

http://www.businessinsider.com/gary-shilling-house-pric...

GARY SHILLING: And Now House Prices Will Drop Another 20%
Gary Shilling, A. Gary Shilling & Co. | Mar. 26, 2011, 9:20 AM | 284,972 | comment 53

A A A


Gary Shilling

Image: A Gary Shilling & Co.
Last October, when everyone was jubilant about the housing "recovery," Gary Shilling of A. Gary Shilling & Co., predicted that house prices would fall another 20%

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/06/unemployment-dur...

Here is a comparison of Lebergott and Darby's unemployment figures:


Year Lebergott Darby

1929 3.2% 3.2%

1930 8.7% 8.7%

1931 15.9% 15.3%

1932 23.6% 22.9%

1933 24.9% 20.6%

1934 21.7% 16.0%

1935 20.1% 14.2%

1936 16.9% 9.9%

1937 14.3% 9.1%

1938 19.0% 12.5%

1939 17.2% 11.3%

1940 14.6% 9.5%

For example, economist John Williams puts current U-6 unemployment at 15.9%. That's higher than 9 out of 12 years charted by Darby

And there are certainly Depression-level statistics in some states. For example, official Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers put U-6 above 20% in several states:

California: 22.0

Nevada: 23.7

Michigan 20.3

(and Los Angeles County has 24.1% unemployment, higher than any of the Depression years as reported by Darby)



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StarsInHerHair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #115
117. WHAT? LOOK HERE!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessionalLeftist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #25
40. How do you know it's not at 25%? If they calculated it the way they used to
and quit tinkering with the numbers to make them look good, it's probably at 25% and has been for some time. Those who've long since fallen off the unemployment rolls are not counted. Neither are the underemployed (working poor).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John_Adams Donating Member (110 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #40
44. So, is everyone supposed to disregard the entire dataset used to compile economic statistics,
and go with your numbers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #44
52. Just Ignore the "Official Lies"


issued by "house economists".

http://www.shadowstats.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John_Adams Donating Member (110 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #52
63. Mr. Williams appears to be using the same dataset, as his plots track
the "official" plots very closely. However, it costs 175 duckies to see how he analyzes the data. Are you a subscriber?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #44
53. When the numbers are intentionally misleading.... Yes, absolutely
Or would you rather use intentionally misleading figures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #44
79. The government economic numbers are manipulated BS.
if we measured unemployment the same way we did in 1980 it would be almost 20%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #25
58. All depressions are not the Great Depression
Something you missed in your research. There have been others. Investigate the Panic of 1893. Also look into 1873.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John_Adams Donating Member (110 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #58
64. The problem with your hypothesis relates to the fact that the economy is actually growing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #64
68. If you count the 60,000 jobs by McDonalds...
and don't count the 99'ers that are no longer in the numbers and those millions that have given up, you could manipulate the numbers a bit, I suppose?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #64
80. The economy was growing in 1934, too. That doesn't mean the Depression was over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #25
105. Foreclosure rates are higher than during the "depression".
And from here in Detroit, I sit as the
malaise SPREADS.

The rest of the country will be WORSE
off than Detroit if we start cutting
the military budget which is propping
everything up.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 06:14 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. And I like your sigline also.
Don't care much for democracy, huh?

Where do you think we would be right now if we did not have the social programs, brought about by the First Great Depression? No food stamps, no Social Security, no Medicare, no help for the needy. Do you know how many people are unemployed right now? Do you know how many homeless we have right now? Even with the Democratic social programs, our country is unable to get out of the Bush Depression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John_Adams Donating Member (110 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 06:33 AM
Response to Reply #10
18. No, I don't care much for democracy--it's unconstitutional.
Edited on Sat Jun-04-11 06:53 AM by John_Adams
Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
Benjamin Franklin

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughBeaumont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 07:16 AM
Response to Reply #18
31. "LIBERTY!" Oh PLEASE don't tell me you're one of those Paul people.
Edited on Sat Jun-04-11 07:18 AM by HughBeaumont
Right on the war, wrong on pretty much everything else. Anti-universal health care, anti-social security, anti-education, anti-every thing relating to the government, pro "I gots Mine!". Yeah, that's really who I want in the White House.

"But Democrats (well, MAINLY Democrats) and Republicans BOTH suck!" So the solution is to put Paul in?

It's funny . . . when Republicans and Paulites say "government", is it NOT a dog-whistle for "lib'rul demmycraps"? Everyone with a brain stem knows that "government" is backed by arch-conservative corporate handlers who want their people to enact the very same economic policies Republicans (and to some extent, Ron Paul) favors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John_Adams Donating Member (110 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #31
38. What are your objections to "liberty?"
I admit to holding some libertarian views, particularly in the realm of privacy and personal freedom. But I am not beholden to the concept of group thought, so I am not a member of any political party. I supported Obama, and even though he has disappointed me, I have no doubt that the alternative would have far worse.

So, you can call me whatever you want, but I just don't place too much stock in the political class, who make promises that they know they cannot keep, at the same time they are making them.

I call that lying--and that is something everyone should object to.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughBeaumont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #38
72. Because several visitors who mention the word "liberty" . . .
. . . usually reveal themselves, and their use of the word, as dog-whistles for "I hate Progressives/Liberals/Democrats".

I'm generally kind of suspect of founding-father worshippers who, more often than not, say they hate both parties while spending 90% of political discussion bashing one party while not-so-mysteriously leaving the truly damaging party (the Republicans) alone.

And at least you understand, unlike some even on this site, that yes, the alternative WOULD very much have been far, far worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John_Adams Donating Member (110 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #72
95. I don't "worship" the founding fathers, but I think that they did a masterful job
of defining the division of powers within the government and including a mechanism of checks and balances. Regrettably, the system of checks and balances has a few dings as evidenced by the ability of the executive branch to initiate wars without the authorization of Congress.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #18
81. I think you are at the wrong website. That's a RW extremist talking point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John_Adams Donating Member (110 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #81
83. My, how times have changed. During the time it was enacted, the Constitution
was considered to be a very liberal charter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #10
50. The US will never get out of the Bush Depression by continuing almost all of junior's major
policies and initiatives, i.e., fiscal policies, tax policies, wars, corporate welfare, et al. :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StarsInHerHair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #10
116. this very could be an artificial person, a bot, made by that software prograam
that was pulled out into the sunlight earlier, waste your breath at your own risk. Me, well....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 06:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
12. I once heard that is was called a "Depression"
Edited on Sat Jun-04-11 06:16 AM by elocs
because they did not want to use the scare word "Recession". My, how times change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John_Adams Donating Member (110 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #12
22. It is no doubt possible that the US (and world) could experience a depression
in the coming years. However, that term will not be applicable until it's clear that economic statistics are some of the worst in history. As bad as things are, it is nowhere near as bad as it was during the Great Depression
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #12
82. Actually, it was because Hoover didn't want to use the term "financial panic".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eShirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 06:59 AM
Response to Reply #1
28. "Sit down, John! Sit down, John!
For Godssakes, John, sit down!" :D

Sorry, couldn't resist!
Been watching the musical "1776" :patriot:

"I'm obnoxious and disliked."
"I hadn't heard!"

:D

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalLoner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 07:33 AM
Response to Reply #28
34. LOL I love that play! Saw it years ago in Ford's theater in DC, good times! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John_Adams Donating Member (110 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #28
43. Great show...! Saw it on Broadway in the 90s.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #28
47. Nevuh!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #1
56. "Wealth inequality is as extreme today as it was during the Great Depression years.
....In real terms, the wealthy hold the majority of this nations wealth and income. The problem in this country is mass disillusionment. In a recent study by Duke and Harvard University they found many Americans believe that the top 20% of our nations wealthiest own 60% of the wealth. The real figure is the top 20% own 84% of our nations wealth and it is increasing every year."

http://www.politicususa.com/en/american-socialists
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John_Adams Donating Member (110 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #56
65. What you cite is a problem, but unless the definition of the word "depression"
was changed last night, those statistics do not = depression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SugarShack Donating Member (979 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
67. Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu are why we still have a Bush recession....
Little Mary Landrieu voted against ending oil corporation subsidies two weeks ago. Ben Nelson...another one, he and four three other dems voted agianst the jobs bill. They are keeping us in this Bush recession. We need to change the seats that are blocking change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
74. Here's the analysis:
From http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/06/guest-post-yastr... in part quoting other sources available at the link:

It is difficult to compare current unemployment with that during the Great Depression. In the Depression, unemployment numbers werent tracked very consistently, and the U-3 and U-6 statistics we use today werent used back then. And statistical adjustments such as the birth-death model are being used today that werent used in the 1930s.

But lets discuss the facts we do know.

* * * * *

The Christian Science Monitor wrote an article in June entitled, Length of unemployment reaches Great Depression levels.

60 Minutes in a must-watch segment notes that our current situation tops the Great Depression in one respect: never have we had a recession this deep with a recovery this flat.

* * * * *

Given that the broader U-6 measure of unemployment is currently around 17% (ShadowStats.com puts the figure at 22%, and some put it even higher), the current numbers are that much worse.

MUCH more at the link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
77. The economy was mostly growing again after 1933, it was still a depression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
obxhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 05:49 AM
Response to Original message
2. Here's a solution to try:
Jack tax rates up on the wealthy to double the Clinton era rates and use the funds to create a real jobs program to rebuild the infrastructure in America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PuffedMica Donating Member (584 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 06:14 AM
Response to Reply #2
11. We need an Apollo moon shot program for clean, renewable energy sources
We are at the cross roads for energy production. America can take the path of advanced technology energy production for of the future, or continue down the road of obsolete of petroleum production. The choice is ours to either hold the chair of excellence for energy production, or languish in the torment of peak oil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John_Adams Donating Member (110 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #11
33. The Renewable energy industry is in its infancy...
It should be nurtured, but government shouldn't pick the winners and losers. That will result in products from the most innovative lobbyists, not the most innovative inventors.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hassin Bin Sober Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #33
45. "most innovative lobbyists"
Just like the gas and oil interests.

We've been "picking" gas and oil for 100 years. Why not "pick" something that is renewable and sustainable for the future and will untangle us from the mess in the middle east?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PuffedMica Donating Member (584 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #33
49. Why not pick the American people to be the winners and get off the "free market will save us" crap
The current players in the energy industry will never move over to wind and solar unless the Government does it for them. The petroleum companies already have the current system rigged in their favor, and unless we break their strangle hold on us, nothing will change.

There is no benefit for fossil fuel companies to combat global warming. It will take a massive effort from the Government to change the way we do business and correct our behavior to support the planet, not profits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John_Adams Donating Member (110 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #49
62. The only way the American people win is when they do the "picking."
Corporations with well connected lobbyists win when the government chooses for them.

You are wrong to suggest that petroleum dominates the energy industry. Is the most efficient source of portable energy, but it's only used to generate about 3% of our electricity. The reason it is the "Mother of all Commodities" relates to the fact it is used to manufacture of a wide variety of materials.

The most efficient energy source for the future could very well be anti matter, which is 100% efficient. Unfortunately, it's extremely costly to create and very hard to store. However, I have no doubt that if our scientists are free to research and create, they will figure it, or something else out.

What we don't need is a corrupt government "correcting our behavior" through the implementation of policies based on input from K street.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PuffedMica Donating Member (584 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #62
69. Oh, now it is "Anti Matter" will save us
You got any real world solutions that are not backed by right wing talking points?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John_Adams Donating Member (110 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #69
97. No, I don't have the solutions, but I am an optimistic dreamer...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #62
70. There is no such thing as a monopoly..
and the strong will not run roughshod over the rest. All the wealth will not gather at the top. The middle class will continue to grow and make this a better country. If we just let the market work? That is a big slice of bologna. It takes government to work for the people and to keep an eye on the powerful and the wealthy. And it takes a justice system that is willing to throw a few of them in the caboose when they break the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John_Adams Donating Member (110 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #70
99. You have accurately identified many of the problems...
However, you appear to be seeking solutions from the same people who created them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 05:52 AM
Response to Original message
4. Yes, when one throws gasoline and blows oxygen on a raging fire
Edited on Sat Jun-04-11 05:54 AM by Demeter
one is unlikely to extinguish it. The blaze, however is tremendous!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 06:25 AM
Response to Reply #4
16. Yep, exactly
well said. :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Holden_C Donating Member (26 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 05:57 AM
Response to Original message
5. The difference is that
Dems actually put country first and worked with Rancid Ronnie to fix the problem.

Today the reTHUGS, are doing everything they can to make O fail to score cheap political points.

That is why.

The reTHUGS are already looking at missing raising the debt limit in order to make O look bad.

Watch how it plays out, the reTHUGS will tell their Corporate Masters they will miss raising the debt ceiling for a few days. To keep Americas credit rating from being reduced O will capitulate to them with more tax cuts for the wealthy and cuts to social programs. the reTHUGS will get get what they want just like they have been since O was elected.

IMHO O lacks the balls to stand up to the Pubs.

He would rather be nice to the swine.

Expect disappointment, that way you won't be disappointed when it happens in a few weeks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 06:06 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. It's President Obama.... Not "O".
Edited on Sat Jun-04-11 06:08 AM by JTFrog
Give it a try.

:eyes:

And welcome back and all that stuff.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 06:21 AM
Response to Reply #6
13. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 06:22 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Enjoy your stay. n/t
Edited on Sat Jun-04-11 06:26 AM by JTFrog

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savalez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #14
114. lol
However short it may be. Who knows? He might enjoy it here and eventually identify himself as just a plain ol' human being.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 06:24 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. This is the Democratic Underground.
Just so you know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Holden_C Donating Member (26 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 06:30 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. I know it is
yet I REFUSE to be a cheerleader just because he has a D after his name. Yes I grudgingly voted for him, to much of a BlueDog IMHO for my liking.

Unless of course the goal of DU is to be nothing more than a liberal version of FreeRepublic.

If calling O, O is against the rules, than it should be listed as a rule.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 06:39 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 06:42 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 06:42 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Not. Even. Close.
:shrug:

But thanks for asking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Holden_C Donating Member (26 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 06:48 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. Gee what will make you happy?
what can I do to make you happy than?

Is the point of DU to openly discuss issues or make you and others happy?

Just asking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #13
110. ROFL Holy Shit!
as a free white male over 21

So what, Negroes, wimmen and chirren just need to shut up, right?? I can't believe you typed that shit! Actually I can. I'm just amazed at how well it blends in around here these days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #5
24. If the Republicans actually delay ..
... the raising of the debt limit past Aug 2, it is they who will be a huge political price, not Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 06:57 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. I haven't forgotten..
Edited on Sat Jun-04-11 06:58 AM by sendero
... anything. But the "media" only holds so much sway. If they were all powerful as you seem to think, 80% of Americans wouldn' be calling for tax increases on the rich.

By downplaying the economic morass from the start, the "media" is hamstringing themselves. More and more Americans see the HUGE disconnect between what they are being told and what is actually happening. "Green shoots" my ass.

The government and tbe media are flushing their "credibility" down the toilet at a very fast pace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #5
46. So the brave thing to do is to let us live with the consequences of
not raising the debt ceiling?

Do you think some huge majority of voters support that (or would admire Obama's "balls" for it no matter what they had to suffer?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 06:11 AM
Response to Original message
8. "Smirk." - xCommander AWOL (R - Mission Accomplisher)
Edited on Sat Jun-04-11 06:13 AM by SpiralHawk

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 07:05 AM
Response to Original message
29. What Obama has tried has been more of the same
The first stimulus was made up of forty percent tax cuts and credits. The second "stimulus" was virtually nothing but tax cuts and tax credits. After throwing money at Wall St. The Fed policy board is simply printing money. None of this is sure, solid programs for ending this madness.

Obama has squandered his opportunities to truly do something about this economy, back when he had large majorities in both Houses of Congress. He has instead pursued a course to the right of Eisenhower, one that is starting to resemble Hoover.

What was, and still is needed is a true jobs creation program, one that repairs and updates our infrastructure. We saw that this worked back in the day with FDR, we've seen how China has used this same tactic to great effect in the latest downturn, perhaps it is time we used it.

But apparently we're not going to, and will instead continue to muddle along with lower wages and high unemployment. Of course that plays right into the hands of the corporate masters, it keeps labor prices low. Meanwhile, in the name of cutting the debt and forced austerity, we're going to watch social services get cut to the bone, while continuing to fund three illegal, immoral wars.

Just another example of our two party/same corporate master system of government at work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 07:21 AM
Response to Original message
32. It's Worked For Those Who Matter...The Ones Who Write The Big Checks
The Dow was at an all-time low when President Obama took over, it's doubled since then. It's meant big money for those "in the game" and these are the people who our politicians really work for. They write the big checks and with $1 billion needed for next year's election, that's a lot of checks that will be written. The rest will get theirs..."in time". The only time the little guys matter is after the big money is collected, the nomination secured and in the closing weeks of the general election.

For this administration, the hope is that they can finesse those unemployment numbers next year but the problems with this economy run deep and will edure for quite some time. Jobs have been outsourced and corporates only see profits when they downsize...failing to realize they have outsourced their prime customers. Sales drop, more jobs are cut...and the spiral continues. Much of the profits now come from abroad and thus another bonanza for those "in the game" that a majority of us can't feel or cash in on.

I've long been in favor of a revised WPA...a works program to redeveloped our crumbling infrastructure as well as big tax breaks and grants to develop alternative energies, but this isn't where the big money is. Unforutnately we live in a non-stop campaign-mode world and with it comes both the verbose rhetoric and the non-stop fundraising...this is what distort those inside the beltway from truly understanding what's happening outside.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamanaut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 07:37 AM
Response to Original message
35. One has to wonder what happened to the 2.5 million jobs and the
work on the infrastructure promised in the way back years. It is 2011, the promised year.

Here's something from the 'way back' machine:


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/22/obama-p ... /

<snip> President -elect Barack Obama has asked his economic team to draft a plan to save or create 2.5 million jobs by 2011, the Democrat told the nation in his second weekly radio address Saturday morning.

<snip> I have already directed my economic team to come up with an Economic Recovery Plan that will mean 2.5 million more jobs by January of 2011 a plan big enough to meet the challenges we face that I intend to sign soon after taking office, he said in the address.
.
<snip> Mr. Obama said it would be a two-year, nationwide effort to jumpstart job creation in America and lay the foundation for a strong and growing economy.

<snip> He reprised his promises from the campaign trail, saying he would put people to work rebuilding the nations roads and bridges and with jobs in the new energy sector as part of a broad plan to stem effects of climate change.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoePhilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #35
55. Private sector has added 2.1 million jobs in the last 15 months.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea/blog

But let's not facts get in the way.

The big issue are the GOP Governor's who are cutting government jobs as fast as they can to offset Obama's efforts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamanaut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #55
66. If 'added' did not mean 'replaced some that were lost', there would not
Edited on Sat Jun-04-11 12:40 PM by Obamanaut
be such rampant unemployment.

Oh, wait, that isn't what 'added' means, is it.

"...2.5 million MORE jobs..." (caps are mine) More, to me, means additional, more than before, an amount that wasn't there before.

They just ain't there, GITMO is not closed, and I don't have my pony yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoePhilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #66
75. ... you can't read the graph apparently.
I know this is hard to follow.

When you look at the graph, draw a line down the page between Feb 2009 and March 2009, because that is when the stimulus passed.

On the LEFT side of the graph we see increasing job loses each month. On the right side, we see that job loss trend slow, and then reverse. And its now been positive for 15 months.

Next you'll want to say that everyone who lost a job has to the same job back now.

BTW .... the same trend can be seen for the GDP. That mean and nasty Obama.

And ummmm ... I'm not sure what GITMO has to do with job loss figures, or did you run out of bullets and just decide to throw the gun?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamanaut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #75
84. GITMO simply has to do with failed (empty) promises. At least 50K
of those 'added' (or not) jobs were the recently touted McDonalds mass hire-fest.

Interpret these things any way that makes you feel all gooey inside, but the fact remains - with more people NOT employed, that sorta means there aren't as many jobs, otherwise they would BE employed.

Where are all those roads/projects jobs that were mentioned a couple of years ago? We know that presidents really cannot create jobs, they promise things, but they can't create them. But we believe them when they are candidates, because they are shiny and new. And we are filled with hope for change. And then, reality and disappointment arrive. We don't learn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Motown_Johnny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 07:42 AM
Response to Original message
36. You can't just make up definitions for words and be taken seriously
I will admit that the exact meaning of the word "depression" is debatable but in no way did our recession meet the severity for it to be considered a depression.




This was never a depression


We are out of the recession


These are indisputable facts, unless you redefine the words into whatever gibberish you want them to mean
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #36
57. I disagree...
At its foundation, it may be worse than the Great Depression. The big difference being that in the Great Depression, we did not have a social network of any kind. No foodstamps, no unemployment, no Social Security, no Medicare, etc. Take those away today and even you could imagine the severity of the problem we are now facing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #57
103. There's 'Depression' as you use the term and then there is 'Depression'
as economists generally use the term. The latter is marked by a shrinkage in GDP of 10% or more or by a recession that lasts two or more years.

Ah, but there's the rub, because a 'recession' as economists use the term is defined as any two successive quarters of shrinking GDP, no matter how small each quarter's shrinkage is. So to have a recession that lasts two years? What exactly does that mean? For example, would a recession that lasted two years mean you would need to have 8 successive quarters where GDP shrank? No one can say for sure.

What one can say is that, were it not for New Deal and Great Society safety net programs like unemployment, SS, Medicare and food security, the severe economic downturn of the past two years would have become a Depression, even using the strict definition employed by economists.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blindpig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
42. Too much credit to a dude that couldn't pour piss out of a boot...
It's a Capitalist Depression, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are both capitalist parties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
54. The stimulus was sort of a joke. Every non ideological economist
said it wasn't enough and had too much in terms of tax breaks. What he did get right as a stimulus were rail, infrastructure, and cash for clunkers. It just wasn't enough of that and too much on the tax break side (which was already on the low side and was not a drag on the economy).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #54
104. I bash Obama as much as the next progressive, but every non-
ideological economist concedes that the ARRA, undersized as it was, preserved between 1-2 million jobs that would have otherwise been lost.

Agree with you, though, that it was too small probably by a factor of 80%. In other words, it needed to be about 4 times bigger than it was to have the stimulative effect needed to jump-start the national economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
59. Where Obama has failed
is because he didn't attach heavier conditions to that TARP money.

These slimy Governors used the money and didn't disclose to their state that it was TARP money--the only thing the states knew was that their Governors publicly protested the money.

What is irritating is that Perry for example, balanced his state budget with the TARP money and then ran for office on a balanced budget. He got credit for it. Now that the money is gone, Obama is getting the blame for taking the money away.

It didn't create more jobs--it merely paid for existing jobs that our state already had the money for.

He also failed in not replacing the Bush appointees. Keeping them in the administration was a toxic move. I understand he wanted to extend an olive branch...but how many times does he have to be beaten over the head with that olive branch to understand that you simply cannot appease or negotiate with someone whose sole mission is to destroy the Democratic Party?

I think the vision of the TARP would have worked IF the money had been used for its intended purpose...and in some states it was. But in the republican states, it simply was not.

I think that given the fact that he was given a mandate and all of the political capital in the world AND a simple majority in both houses--he NEEDED to be assertive and ramrod through a progressive agenda.
It was our only chance.

I understand he wants to govern from the center...and IF we were in the center, I could abide that.
However, our country was pulled so far right that "center" is still right wing. He has a long way to go to reach across the aisle to meet the left wing and IMHO, he hasn't even come close.
We had too much radical change during the bush years--it was going to take radical change to get back to the middle--and I am pretty upset that he failed to realize that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #59
106. I blame Rahm. He, of course, called me and my kind 'fucking retarded' so
Edited on Sun Jun-05-11 01:33 PM by coalition_unwilling
tbere you have it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 11:09 AM
Response to Original message
60. Agree it's a depression .... however Obama's stimulus was only 20% or less of what was required ....
and his economic advisors clearly told him that -- and Obama settled for even less!!

That's what wrong -- too little sitmulus --

And the fact that the trade agreements continue to move jobs out --

54,000 manufacturing plants now closed in last ten years!!

Jobs going out still EXCEED jobs being created by 100,000's every month!!


Unemployment is actually 15% according to Sen. Bernie Sanders -- considering long

term unemployed -- !!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theophilus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
61. He should have focused on jobs first. I don't really think Mr. Obama is
the politician I thought he was. He was either putting on a "show" or he has been "captured" by controlling forces. Time will tell. If there are more cuts to social programs and good initiatives, wilderness protections, etc., then I guess I'll have to rethink a lot of things.
It is very depressing, to me, to see how the Reps are becoming more and more unpopular and yet the President and the Democrats are not showing the way to a better solution. It's like they are not fighting for we the people at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
71. He has been "unable" because he is using the republican ideology
to try to fix the problem. Seriously, he hasn't so much as told the nation that we need a different way, that conservative ideology is what got us in this mess, and that there is a better way. So for all of those people who will crow "...but but he has republicans to work with..blah blah" I say he hasn't even told the truth to the nation about why we are in this mess. Instead, he has adopted the conservative framing of the issues which only makes matters worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
73. 54,000 new jobs is suddenly bad, and the sky is falling?
Not to pick on the OP, but one would think that the media is desperate for something to bury Obama with, for all the doom and gloom about the jobs report.

Months of positive numbers, months of economic growth, good news on trade, etc, and one month of weak jobs numbers = The Great Depression Pt II...whatever. People who think 54,000 new jobs and 1.8% annualized economic growth is bad news really need to get some perspective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #73
78. The needs at least 150,000 new jobs per month to keep up with population growth.
otherwise unemployment will increase.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #78
94. If its really a population problem, we might as well say so
If you look at the total employment numbers and gross payroll, the economy is in phenomenal shape.

The real problem then is rather that we have multiplied faster that the economy has grown.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #94
107. The economy IS NOT in phenomenal shape. U6 figure is approaching
20% and may be higher than that, reaching close to Great Depression era percentages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #107
108. and how much of that is population added since 2000?
If you say that all the economic growth we have had doesn't count simply because the population grew faster, then haven't we done this over and over and over again in the past? And aren't we likely to have another round of economic growth again, which after a few years we'll turn around and ignore because population grew faster again, and we're all worse off anyway?

Of course at the moment that perspective helps nobody at all, but it does point out how ridiculous it is to pray for economic growth to "lift us all out of poverty", while we ignore the one thing that keeps shoving us back into worse circumstances.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #108
109. You said the economy is in 'phenomenal shape' (your words) and
Edited on Sun Jun-05-11 07:58 PM by coalition_unwilling
I responded that certain measures of unemployment are approaching levels last seen in January 1933 (when FDR was inaugurated). Now if you still wish to maintain that a situation where 20-25% of the work force is un- or underemployed represents an economy in 'phenomenal shape,' be my guest. I certainly will not be able to talk you out of it with a discussion of statistics that economists typically use to measure the health (or lack thereof) of the macro economy.

FWIW, this economy represents a classic textbook case of under-utilization of productive capacity due to anemic demand from consumers and businesses. In such a scenario, the standard Keynesian model calls for massive expansion of government spending to 'prime the pump' and compensate for the anemic consumer and business demand. Instead of cutting spending to balance the budget as the Repukes want to do, we should be increasing government spending, even at the cost of increasing the budget deficit, in the interests of moving the economy back towards full employment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #109
111. Now this is changing the subject a bit -
but I think that the economy is a textbook example not of "under-utilization of productive capacity due to anemic demand from consumers and businesses", but rather it is a textbook example of the limiting factor of finite energy supply upon productive capacity, and of a population which has met the limits of its resource base. Energy drives the economy and resources are required for economic growth; in a finite world, a point is reached where growing energy production becomes uneconomical, and where resource constraints limit growth. Classic economics don't really account for that, as "substitution" and the "invisible hand of the markets" are supposed to automatically fix everything.

With that said, I think we have a phenomenal economy, probably the largest economy ever supported on this piece of the continent. Its just not growing fast enough to keep up with the growing population, and, given the global and local real energy and resource circumstances, it can't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #111
112. I'm not aware of any textbook that puts forth your theory, probably
because there is little evidence to support it. By contrast, my theory (of anemic consumer and business demand) is supported by some 80 years of theory and data (and several mainstream economic textbooks, not least of which is Samuelson's).

Even assuming your textbooks do exist, do they (or you) argue that businesses that have shuttered their doors or limited their output would ramp up again if only they had access to more and\or cheaper energy? In other words, in your view, does today's high unemployment stem from an insufficient supply of resources and not from an insufficient demand for economic output?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #112
113. Yes, an abundant cheap energy source would do it
the constraints that resource limits place on production, at the current very high level of production, could be alleviated by an abundant cheap source of energy.

Lacking sufficient affordable energy inputs, economic growth is constrained - thats simple enough even in classic economics. And again, high unemployment is the result of a population which is growing faster than the economy is growing. The total employment numbers are at a historic high, but population has increased past the point where even a historic high is adequate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
76. All Obama has done is empower those who CAUSED the depression in the first place.
The Corporatists, the Banksters, the Monetarist Neo-Liberals. The Pro-Austerity Brigade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
85. Actually,
yes he has.



A slow or stalled recovery isn't a depression.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #85
88. Why the discrepencies in these graphs?


Is it due to the inclusion/exclusion of farm jobs?

http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2011/06/...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #88
90. That
combines private and public sector jobs, reflecting state and local government layoffs. The other is only private sector.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #90
92. Interesting, thanks for the clarification. The second seems more accurate,
then. A job is a job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lame54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
86. Has he tried ending the wars and and killing the Bush tax cuts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Little Star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
89. I don't know why he hasn't tried some new deal type programs....
FDR took on the elites of his day to do what was right for this country.

I think he's tried many things as long as it didn't upset our overlords. He needed to take the overlords on, with a fire in his belly, when we held all three branches for two years. He had so much capital to spend and it was squandered, imho.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymar64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
91. Bear in mind, Bush dug us into a pretty deep hole . . .
I'll criticize Obama when he digs that hole deeper and praise him when he works towards getting us out of it.

The Republicans are in disarray and since they have shown their true colors with the Ryan Budget and at the state level as well, I am going to put on my Nostradamus hat and predict a Democratic landslide in congressional races and state races as well in 2012.

I know it sounds hopeful, but I think that 2010 was a fluke that will not be repeated next year.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 07:07 PM
Response to Original message
96. "Tried everything?" Uh, no. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #96
100. I think you misquote?
"tried just about everything"?

Which leaves open the possibility that there may be some things that have not been tried, don't you agree?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #100
101. "Americans can be counted upon to do the right thing, after they've exhausted the alternatives."
- Churchill.

Obama hasn't tried ANY of the things which have any likelihood of success. Why would he compare the current economic situation to the depression, yet summarily reject all the methods FDR used successfully to end it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
franzia99 Donating Member (479 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
98. He needs to try harder: jobs program, public inv projects, bring jobs back to U.S.
through revised international trade agreements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
102. And, unwilling to get us out of Bush's wars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 02:29 AM
Response to Original message
118. Look a little closer at that stimulus
It was $550 billion in spending and $275 billion in tax cuts. It SHOULD have been $1 trillion all in spending.

If they were trying to stimulate the economy, they threw $275 billion down a rathole because tax cuts don't work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Distant Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 03:58 AM
Response to Original message
119. Pres has 1 chance to "WIN THE FUTURE" by focusing "stimulus" on "new industry" job creation
but he missed that opp but hoping too much that the pork-barrel Dems and the tax-cut giveaway Reps would do the right thing.

Too bad. His WIN THE FUTURE speech was on point, but a year too late. He had already given away the store.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 23rd 2014, 05:30 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC