E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS From NBC's Athena Jones
President Obama kept the emphasis on the positive as he responded Friday to a mixed June jobs report.
While the unemployment rate dipped to 9.5 percent -- the lowest level since July 2009 -- compared to 9.7 percent in May, the report showed 125,000 jobs were lost during the month, driven by the end of temporary census positions. Still, the president noted that the private sector added 83,000 jobs, marking the sixth-straight month of job growth among private firms.
"All told, our economy has created nearly 600,000 private sector jobs this year. That's a stark turnaround from the first six months of last year, when we lost 3.7 million jobs at the height of recession," the president told reporters at Andrews Air Force Base before boarding Air Force One. "Make no mistake: We are headed in the right direction, but as I was reminded on trip to Racine, WI earlier this week, we're not headed there fast enough for a lot Americans. We're not headed there fast enough for me either."
The growth in private sector jobs was one piece of good news, but fewer such jobs were added than the market expected. CNBC's Steve Liesman said many more private sector jobs must be created each month to solidify the recovery and said the overall unemployment rate fell "for all the wrong reasons," mainly because many people had simply stopped looking for work -- a fact Christina Romer, the chair of the the president's Council of Economic Advisers, acknowledged in a blog post on the White House's Web site.
Critics pounced quickly, with the Republican National Committee sending around an e-mail shortly after the jobs numbers were released calling this a "jobless summer."
The economy tops voters priorities as the midterm elections approach and the White House has been anxious to convince the American public that it is focused like a laser on the jobs issue.
"To every American who is looking for work, I promise you we are going to keep on doing everything we can," Obama said. "I will do everything in my power to help our economy create jobs and opportunities for all people."
The president, who was joined at Andrews by Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, also announced $795 million in government grants and loans to expand broadband service to under-served communities. That money will be combined with more than $200 million in private sector investment to create what the White House expects will be 5,000 jobs in the short term and to spur economic development in the long term, potentially leading to hundreds of thousands of new jobs, according to the president.
Obama was headed to Charleston, WV, to speak at the funeral service of the late Sen. Robert Byrd, who died Monday. He plans to head to Camp David later today, where he'll spend part of the holiday weekend with his family.
Leave a Comment:
Advice to Bo. Set the rules, then get out of the way and don't touch it. As long as the rules keep changing to satisfy this and this constituency, the more productive private money sits on the sidelines. It's like trying to play a football game where the rules for holding keep changing. But these are Democrats, they like to meddle, then tell people how great they are. So don't expect any changes soon.
i hear you rob. the democrats meddle too much. like when the democrats fought hard to repeal glass steagall and when they agreed with sec to adjust the leverage requirements in 2004 for investment banks. i remember how great they said they were. wait a minute, that was not the democrats, it was the ............
good thing the republicans don't like to meddle
Do you realize if Glass-Steagall was not repealed the crisis could have been much worse. Without Glass-Steagall getting in the way J.P. Morgan was able to buy Bear Stearns, Bank of America was able to buy Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs was able to save themselves by becoming a bank holding company.
kidding right rob? so what you are saying is that thank god glass-steagall was repealed, even though the repeal helped bring the financial system to it's knees- the greatness of the repeal allowed JP Morgan to buy bear stearns and B of A to buy Merrill after we lost millions of jobs and trillions of dollars because of the repeal?
good stuff rob. like to know what your smokin
Here we go again. The financial crisis was brought on, in part, by historically low interest rates, "regulations" put in place which punished lenders if they did not lend to those who could not afford the loans (legislators had the best of intentions in mind), regulators were also asleep at the wheel (and sleeping with those they were regulating), rules were also changed where Moody's and the others now represented the "seller" and not the "buyer".
Pletny of blame to go around. Pls don't buy into partisan politics, from the left or the right. Remember Democrats are not always your freind, and Republicans are not always your enemy.
I smoke 'Black and Milds'.
Warmest Regards, Cicero.
i know there is blame on both sides on this. and there are a multidude of reasons why the financial system went off of the rails. at the heart of it, was deregulation. period. the "hands off" business will police itself nearly brought us down. when you say "meddle" i would say yes, but you are focusing on the wrong side in your original comment.
i actually smoke nothing. trying to save a little on my health insurance.
Yes, "there you go again." You spew partisan talking points and then you ask that we not make it partisan. The ratings agencies were engaging in fraud. The CRA did not require banks to make loans to people who couldn't afford the loan. The "punishment" OF WHICH HE SPEAKS was that if the banks wanted to expand they had to make a good faith effort to work within their COMMUNITY to make loans to people with questionable ability to make good on paying back the entire loan, but if their mortgaged property went up in value they could keep from getting underwater. The point was to have the banks hold on to that paper, not sell the debt to someone else. If they keep t on their balance sheet they have a greater interest in seeing that the mortgage holder stays employed in their COMMUNITY. Hence they allow a loan to a small businessperson in their COMMUNITY who just might hire the out of work mortgage holder. The local economy expands and a rising tide raises everyone's ship.
Talk about putting lipstick on a pig.
America expects a little more job growth from a few trillion dollars of government "stimulus".
JoAnnayouignorantteabagger,
Obama is consistent. He has been stressing jobs for 18 months and has read some wonderful speeches to us about jobs.
It's my understanding Obama has $447 billion of the stimulus left after stimulating votes for HCR, propping up unions, etc. The "shovel ready" jobs are still there dummy, we just need to form a committee to find the shovels, form another committee to find out who's asz to kick for letting the shovels get rusty, make a speech about the unsustainability of shovel finishes and the need to pass new shovel maintenance regulations/legislation.
With the $447 billion we can buy some new shovels (creates more jobs! - so what if they are Chinese - they are part of the world too! they are poor shovel makers - racist!) and put some people to work before the elections.
Maybe this will even be enough to put diamond earrings on the pig - which you won't Obama credit for.
And by the way, Obama inherited that pig from Bush and GOBP republican'ts!
A few trillion dollars in stimulus, your numbers are off - by a few trillion.
Stimulus+TARP+ Fed_Printing_Money(a trillion, give or take a few billion)+GM_Purchase+Unemployment_Extensions
That equals a few trillion.
JoannaSmithyouignorantteabagger:
Facts: Reagan increased the national debt 186% (not a typo); GH Bush increased the national debt 55%; GW Bush increased the national debt 89%.
Facts: Carter increased the national debt 42%; Clinton increased national debt 36%
Bush tax cuts for the wealthy on personal wealth + Bush war in Afghanistan + Bush war in Iraq + Bush Medicare Advantage + Bush bank bailouts = trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars.
The private business sector is not spending, consumers aren't spending, that leaves one option to keep us from a depression, the Recovery Act, which was not enough.
Try getting some facts on your own instead of listening to the republicans and their media division.
So you count just about anything as "stimulus", did you count the 80 billion recently authorized for the war in Afghanistan. As I said you are way off - trillions off.
You mean the $37 billion for Afghan War, the other $43 billion is the House attempting to sneak more bailouts in by using the War fund as an excuse.
Sort of like how last years was only 32.3 billion but the bill was over $65 billion for cash for clunkers and other such bailouts "hidden".
JoAnnaSmith,
I'm stupid. I thought my facetious Dan Aykroyd parody was obvious, that is until I saw the green star - read my comment again and realized my parody was so stupidly - well, typical. Sorry for the new tag (I'm glad I didn't use Aykroyd's opening to Jane). I will watch the facetiousness.
Gina,
I heard the embassy hostages are coming home from Iran. Let's go meet them at the airport, O.K.?
Hard to believe anyone would even try to spin this report positively, but I suppose they have to make the effort.
If you want a realistic evaluation, look to the stock market's anticipation of, and finally, receipt of of this month's jobs report.
The stock market finished lower today for the 7th day in a row. The last time that occurred was in October, 2008...at the beginning of the ongoing economic downturn. The people working at the NYSE do this for a living...and their assessment was bleak.
Prior to the last two months' jobs reports, it looked like the employment situation was steadily improving, albeit excruciatingly slowly. However, for the last two months (after a downward revision in May's numbers), the economy has produced less than 120,000 private sector jobs. It must produce about 100,000 new jobs each month simply to accomodate young people entering the work force for the first time...re-employing those who have lost their jobs is a separate matter entirely.
Actually, 652,000 people dropped out of the work force last month, and that accounts for the decrease in the overall unemployment rate to 9.5%.
That said...spin away.
Americans know whether or not they have a job.
I hope the President and his family come to Boston for one of our 4th of July celebrations with the Boston Pops over at the Esplanade here on the Charles River. It's a blast. The one that DC puts on is always great as well. Here's Barry Manilow at last year's Concert in DC singing Let Freedom Ring - it's awesome!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TO-_iluH_4
We gotta keep digging out of this recession.
Well we avoided a great Depression so there should be some gratitude here. I will admit it started with Bush and the Bank bailout which unfortunately had to be done as most of us have our pensions in the system somewhere. The President has been doing everything possible in a very difficult situation. We all need to quit bashing each other and think about why we should be greatful. I don't make a fortune but I do have a job and a place to live. If people would start being grateful and asking what can I do this country would be so much better off.
How DARE you come in these forums and make sense! ;-)
Nice post, well said. Things are still a mess, but imagine the mess they'd be in if we stayed the course.
Well cheriejae:
According to those on the right Obama is supposed to fix anything and everything with a snap of his fingers including making a plumbing repair run to your house if you happen to incur a leak.
"Daniel Gross is wrong. When the economy became an issue towards the end of the general election campaign the election was already over."
strike two...
Global financial crisis in September 2008
The subprime mortgage crisis reached a critical stage during the first week of September 2008, characterized by severely contracted liquidity in the global credit markets[1] and insolvency threats to investment banks and other institutions.
September 9, 2008
Gallup Daily: McCain Maintains 5-Point Lead
Support among registered voters steady at 49%
September 16, 2008
Gallup Daily: Presidential Contest Remains a Dead Heat
McCain 47%, Obama 46%
September 19, 2008
Gallup Daily: Obama Now Leads McCain by 5 Points
At 49%, support for Obama is near his record high for the year
http://www.gallup.com/poll/110533/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Now-Leads-McCain-Points.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008#Two-way_contest:_Barack_Obama_vs_John_McCain
Sam Stein
stein@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting
First Posted: 09-24-08 11:18 PM
McCain's Financial Crisis Timeline
When John McCain held an unexpected news conference mid-Wednesday afternoon he addressed the current economic crisis with direness previously unseen. His campaign would be suspended, he told reporters, in order to work on the bailout legislation in Congress. The debate scheduled with Barack Obama on Friday night, he added, could be postponed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/24/mccains-financial-crisis_n_129118.html
There is absolutely no question that the election turned on the economy and the financial crisis. Period.
#10.6 - Fri Jul 2, 2010 11:18 AM EDT
cherijae- I agree.
Obama is doing everything he can and with considerable oppostion from the GOP and blue dogs.
We need to show our support.
Polls, the most valid, reliable and steady form of sound and objective data to be used to support a contention or position available to man. lol
Get a clue dangerfield. The election was over. McCain's poor response to the economic dive was simply the icing on the cake. Obama was not elected "primarliy" on the economic crises.
Having a clue, a browser, and the ability to pull information and opinions from somewhere other than my rectum, I stand in awe of the arrogance of your position in the face of actual scholarship to smugly continue in your utterly wrong and worse, unsupportable contention that the election did NOT turn on the economy.
Historians, Gallup, The New York Times, Sam Stein, The Huffington post, Slate, Daniel Gross...all need to "get a clue"...Thank you "Mr. Know-it-all"*
*apologies to Bullwinkle J. Moose
(The Kerwood Derby would probably explode on this CA guy's head!)
We have not avoided anything yet, the government has got to layout an environment for job creation, they have not done that. All compainies have been promised is higher taxes, fees and potential limits on profits. Business are not going to hire in such an uncertain environment. Compainies cannot take on long term expenses (employees) unless they have some idea of what their potential cost of doing business is going to be. With HCR, CAP and Trade, potentially a VAT, nobody knows what it is going to cost to hire anybody. It will be years before we recover at this rate.
The election was over as soon as Palin opened her mouth. Over 70% of the people polled were scared out of their wits that she would be second in line. If McCain had a chance he blew it with his VP pick.
Oh crap dangerfield. What you pull out of your browser rectum is what you want to pull out. I could point out just as many numerous websites, opinions, articles, election studies, books where opinions are a dime a dozen and where many point out that you have no clue. But what is the point. Your mind which is connected to your rectum is too narrow-and tight to consider other opinions. I'll repeat, Obama was elected for the following reasons, supported by numerous political scientists, educators, pundits, newspaper columnists, politicians and pollsters alike:
Empathy and Genuine Help for the Middle Class Amercian
Steady Leadership and Calm Temperament
Fair and Cost Effective HCR
Withdrawl From Iraq
Choosing Biden as a Running Mate over that of Palin by McCain
Better able to meet the challeneges of the economic crises may be listed as part of the first reason listed, but in no way was Obama elected "primarily" due to the econmic crises.
No more dangerfield. No point. You are lost. Go away and come back when you might know what you are talking about.
Someone prove to me that we avoided a DEPRESSION. There is no way to measure that. It is all opinion and ifs, ands, and maybe's...If a dog had a square azz he would sh!t blocks.
No one in here can prove a depression was avoided. That is all political hyperbole. frankly just a talking point.
Hmm ... And here I thought McCain lost the election the night he stood up David Letterman. Just goes to show how many ways there are to look at something.
cheriejae ~ Agreed as to doing something -- everyone should -- but no one should ever forget that republicans want you to be grateful just to have a job (preferably minimum wage, if they can't get rid of that), a place to live (but certainly not to own), and not much else. You've just described their base and their ideal workforce.
"I could point out just as many numerous websites, opinions, articles, election studies"...
Bull(winkle)...Mr. Know-it-all...I dare you to prove your big mouth, again unsupported by nothing more than your arrogance, contention. You won't because you can't. You have been proven to be intellectually lazy at best.
Put up or shut up. Mr. Know-it-all...after all, unlike the rest of us, you KNOW(it-all) what you're talking about...now let's see which orifice you're talking out of...
Oh yeah, I forgot that one. There were six reasons why Obama won the election. The five reasons listed above and as concluded by many others whose names are not Samuel Stein or Daniel Gross ,and the night that McCain stood up David Letterman.
The same middle class America that is seeing nearly 10% (within the margin of error) unemployment?
Has Obama figured out whose azz to kick yet?
Fair and cost effective to who? The insurance companies? Rates continue to skyrocket, doctors keep turning away more Medicare and Medicaid patients, and the unions are still exempt from paying their "Fair share".
Ehh, we're still in Iraq. BTW, how's that closing of Gitmo going?
That's the thing about Joe. Anyone looks good when compared to Joe.
And Obama will lose his re-election in 2012 for one reason, and only one reason, the economy.
CA,
Obama rode a perfect storm of popular anger at Bush and the financial meltdown, capitalized by his landmark candidacy as a black American and disingenuous promises for centrist and bipartisan governance.
Obama was also a verbal virtuoso with remarkable political and elocution talent. He is so talented in this respect, that it could be argued that Obama is probably the first in history to win the Nobel Peace Prize based on bs.
Obama spoke to many, his diaphanous notions of "hope and change", "slowing the rise of the oceans", "healing the planet", "we are the ones we have been waiting for", ..........
One of the original progressives, Woodrow Wilson said of a leader:
It is interesting that the first thing on CA's list of reasons is "Empathy .....
Was Obama speaking to stir intellects, or to stir passion?
Wilson was right, and Obama learned well.
Catch 22 - How do you create jobs when no one is spending?
For many years people used the equity in their houses like ATM’s even as spendable income declined and personal debt increased. Now the equity is gone, if they even still have a house, but the debt remains. Any extra income (tax cuts, etc) is going toward either debt reduction or savings. This trend will not change for a long time.
Business is sitting on trillions of dollars waiting for people to start spending so they can add people, expand and reinvest. Tax incentives will have little impact on getting them to spend.
Many demand that we, as a country, cut spending and reduce the national debt and deficit but if the government doesn’t spend who will? On the other hand the G20 decided to focus on debt reduction and as a result we see that exports from China are declining indicating another global slowdown. If other countries are unwilling to spend then neither should we.
This will be a very long recovery.
Dennis:
Yes, it will be a long recovery as most economic experts predicted when the seriousness of the recession became apparent. And the fact is many of the private sector jobs lost during the end of the Bush administration and the beginning of the Obama administration will never return. Employers have learned to streamline and to produce the same and even more with less manpower. Those left in the workplace will take on more duties and work longer hours to satsify any demands that businesses have today. Expansion of business or new business that might add manpower is going to rely on new products for the future and ingenuity in the market place. But you are right, demand will be the driving force behind an economic recovery and any increase job growth. And unless there is an increase in demand for housing, transportation, large ticket items as appliances and the like don't look for a complete recovery or any substantial job growth. The unemployment rate may drop in the next year to two years but I can see this country experiencing an unemployment rate of 6% -7% for years to come. Unemployment rates of 4% - 5% are a thing of the past for quite some time.
CA, There is one ray of light in the dark – Green Jobs, creating millions of decent paying jobs while at the same time decreasing our dependence on foreign oil.
The question is: Who has the balls to pass and fund it?
And that is the same as I meant when stating that new products and ingenuity will be required to increase job growth.
Ah yes, "green jobs"....the "Godot" of our age...
Business will invest and spend once they understand what it is going to cost them to operate in the future. This government is creating an environment of uncertanty which is why all the capital is sitting on the sidelines. We have to be very careful what this environment becomes, if it is cheaper to operate outside the US, this money will leave the country and then no recovery will be possible. I love all this talk about green jobs, problem is there is no demand for green products. How are they suppose to opperate? The same people you say are not spending money today are all of the sudden going to start buying solar panels? I don't think so. Once business understands they tax and employee liability you will see some movement. Problem is that movement maybe to other countries.
Bush was losing 750,000 jobs a month can you please explain that. Was it uncertainty about taxes?
dangerfield-
I've spent too much time waiting for my toast to pop up.
Godot...?
Oh my...
Joanna, what planet are you on? You must have been home-schooled, and didn't learn math and reading very well.
The stimulus was 787 billion dollars, about HALF of which were Republican-demanded TAX CUTS! That leaves - oh let's see here, math whiz - about 400 BILLION for the economy. That's only about 20% of what most liberal economists were saying was necessary.
So the predictable result? Republicans are now whining that there's not enough jobs? Well, rich people have the lowest tax structure in 6 decades, and have more wealth than at any time in our history.
Why aren't the rich out there creating jobs, if the "free market" fixes all? They sure as heck have enough money to pay people!!
Because, Jose, the Republicans don't want jobs created. They want the economy to stay as bad as possible without completely imploding (although even that's debatable) so they can use that as an election strategy. The think it's better to say "No!" to everything the President does to help the country instead of saying "Vote for me, I helped the President get the country back on track!"
Precisely, Mike. So that begs the question:
Why do Republicans hate America?
Jose: an excellent question, and one I have wondered about myself. Perhaps poor little Joanna could take this one.
When the economy was tanking in Sept. of 2008, I was at a family gathering where, when the talking head on CNN announced that the falling stock market (it had plummeted 400 points that day) was beneficial to the Obama campaign, my mother-in-law, a huge Obama supporter said, "If this helps, I hope it goes down 1,000 points" to which my father-in-law replied "I want him to win too, but I also know we have a lot invested in the market..."
It's only natural for supporters to want conditions favorable to the election of their candidates, but only to the point where it would severely impact on their own livelihood and family well being.
Republicans aren't evil
Democrats aren't evil
They represent competing philosophies of governance in a capitalist-democracy
That competition of ideas, in their synthesis is what has made our nation great...I think we should take a day to celebrate that...
So, obviously Jose is NOT rich. Jose, have you ever employed anybody? Ever had to make payroll? You do understand that it's the"rich" that do the employing and create the wealth?
Having no real idea what Obamacare will cost in actual dollars, and knowing as we all do, that taxes are going up, including payroll taxes, there is just no way business can hire folk now in any appreciable numbers. Too much uncertainty.
When marginal taxes rates decrease, employment goes up.
Spanky can you explain the 750,000 jobs a month lost in the last two years of the Bush administration. It certainly had nothing to do with Obama or health care just wondering why that would happen with taxes at a near historic low and a republican president.
125,000 jobs lost in June.
Unemployent rate 9.5%, yeah, it's down 0.2 percentage points which I'm sure will be what the Obama admin will be touting. But, the reason it's down is because the jobs market sucks so bad 652,000 people just gave up looking for a job and are no longer counted as unemployed. Here's a thought: If Obama could make the jobs market SO BAD everyone gave up looking for a job then POOF!! zero unemployment rate and problem solved.
You're doing a heck of a job Barry.
Yes.... "heck of a job," indeed.
Let's see now: Job market AND stop market were both losing ground FAST when Obama came into office, and he's doing everything he can to turn things around from the "TAX CUT AND SPEND" Republican control of Congress (you know the debt went from 5 TRILLION to 10 TRILLION on THEIR watch, right?). And the economy IS creating jobs presently, just not as fast as we'd all like.
But here's the question I keep asking, that no one on the right will answer: Why is it that with the LOWEST tax rate structure in 60 years, and the GREATEST concentration of wealth in the top 1% of earners, that rich people aren't creating jobs? I mean, conservatives always say that the "free market" fixes everything, and that government needs to get out of the way. Okay - the rich literally have the vast majority of wealth in the country, right now. Why not create some jobs with it? Why are conservatives blaming Obama?
They've got the money. GO CREATE SOME JOBS, rich people. What's the hold up?
Yeah, heck of a job. Eighty thousand of them were added in the private sector, doubling the May job gains in the private sector. Republicans haven''t succeeded in stopping the recovery yet, although their obstructionism has certainly slowed it down.
So, Joe, and all you other righties - while it is true and regrettable that the unemployment rate dropped due to those who quit looking. You are making valid political points with that.
Will you then accept your licks when the unemployment rate rises when those same people start looking again because the economy improves such that employers start hiring again?
Something tells me you won't.
Bush created millions of jobs but they are in China.
From today's NYT
Over all, the nation lost 125,000 jobs, according to the monthly snapshot of the job market released by the Labor Department on Friday. Most of the lost jobs came as temporary workers hired by the federal government for the 2010 Census exited their jobs. The unemployment rate, based on a different survey, declined to 9.5 percent in June from the previous 9.7 percent. This decline came only because the nation’s labor force shrank by 652,000 jobs."
snip
"Indeed, the overall Labor Department numbers remain weak. The median forecast from economists was that the nation would add 110,000 jobs. The economy needs about 130,000 to 150,000 jobs just to keep pace with new workers entering the market. The labor pool is already packed with 15 million Americans looking for work."...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/business/economy/03jobs.html?_r=1&hp
"They've got the money. GO CREATE SOME JOBS, rich people. What's the hold up?"
"The rich" would be fools to invest and create jobs in the US under such an anti-business President and Congress. What the lefty liberals don't understand is that the evil "global economy" means that capital investments in production and jobs will go wherever it is welcomed and rewarded. That ain't today's good ole USA folks.
"Yeah, heck of a job. Eighty thousand of them were added in the private sector, doubling the May job gains in the private sector."
Yeah, too bad for you that the economy needs 125-150,000 new jobs a month just to stay EVEN with population growth. Anything less than that is a LOSS to the economy.
"Will you then accept your licks when the unemployment rate rises when those same people start looking again because the economy improves such that employers start hiring again?"
HUH?!?!?!?
"Bush created millions of jobs but they are in China."
Even if that were true, so what?? Bush is not the President any more and the Dems have had control of Congress since 01/01/07. Hell of a lot of good that's dome the country.
So what? Here is what, it proves you are dead wrong, the business climate could not have been more business friendly, and taxes at an all time low. So why did the jobs leave the country, well you said it, they would be fools to invest in America when the profit margin is so much better in China. It is strange how republicans hate those communists in China unless they can use them as slave labor. The sad fact is, the reason is greed plain and simple it has nothing to do with any of the things you claim. Same reason the republicans will not touch immigration reform with a ten foot pole they want to take advantage of the cheap unregulated labor. These republican business owners are not the patriotic creators of jobs you want to claim they are, they will sell out America for a greater profit margin in a heartbeat. You can claim all the crap you want about taxes and health care but there is no way any American can compete with the Chinese building I- phones for less than $200 a month in wages, or teenage girls working in a clothing factory for 23 cents an hour. Save that good Christian, real American Republican bull@!$%# for some teenager that does not know any better. They are greedy plain and simple, there is never enough profit for them and that is the simple fact. You know what else, they don't "hate us for our freedom", they hate us because we use their children as slaves. They hate us because their child walks out of a Nike plant barefoot.
Forrest Gump:
That is the kind of "plain talk" we need.
You should run for Congress!
But maybe not. You have too much common sense for that.
Enjoy your weekend as you use all those "goods" made in China.
Happy Birthday America!!!
"So what? Here is what, it proves you are dead wrong, the business climate could not have been more business friendly, and taxes at an all time low."
What part of "the global economy" do you not understand?? Grumpimg about the state of the world economy is not going to create even one new UAW/Steelworkers/Teamsters high-priced, benefits-larded union job. There is a reason why union membership in private industry has been declining in the USA for decades. The only place union membership is growing is the USA's growth area: bigger government. If the good ole USA can't find a way to compete, then it's going to lose out to those countries that deliver what the world wants at a price they are willing to pay. I think economists call it "supply and demand".
"dead wrong"?? Look in the mirror, pal.
Sheila MD
Thank You, and have a great 4 th of july weekend.
What the lefty liberals don't understand is that the evil "global economy" means that capital investments in production and jobs will go wherever it is welcomed and rewarded.
Welcome and rewarded with slave labor rates like 23 cents an hour, no taxes, and no regulations. Like I said republicans hate communists, except when they are business partners.
I'm sure that no bo no joe no job is crying in his beer that instead of the premature incorrect estimate from ADP that only 13,000 private industry jobs were created we see 83,000 private industry jobs created. A really paltry number of jobs created by private industry considering that each quarter big banking, big oil and other big businesses are raking in billions of profits each quarter yet they're wasting billions each quarter on unearned and undeserved exectuive bonuses instead of bringing back the millions of jobs they shed the past 3 years.
Don't get all excited dopes of nope those lost 125,000 jobs are merely temporary government jobs for the census. Don't get all whiny about how the unemployment rate dropped to 9.5% instead of rising as we Democrats saw the same screwy numbers during Clueless George Bush's reign of econmomic terror. Just means more people are dropping out of looking for a job because they see that the dopes of nope are killing our economy for their petty partisan political gain.
So where is all the job creation at that all that tax cut welfare for the rich and greedy at now that they're paying historically low individual income tax rates? Where are all the jobs that Clueless George Bush promised us would come about after cutting capital gains tax rates to a mere 15%? Once again we see the Great Right Lie about tax cuts for the rich and greedy creating jobs is just another Great Right Lie disproven by reality.
Time to replace the top two tax brackets Ronny Raygunz eliminated, restore capital gains tax rates to normal income tax rates and to never allow the estate tax to lapse in order to bring our massive budget deficit back into the black. Time to force the Corrupt Wall Street Criminals to stop paying bonuses to themselves and to start bringing back the millions of jobs they got rid of!
I am sure that all Americans are relieved that the job numbers seem to be better than expected. Our Republican friends are probably celebrating the idea that this country, that they claim they love like no other is on the road to improvement. I am equally sure that they will give credit to President Obama, and the determined efforts he has made on our behalf. I am grateful to have him as our President. I want to wish all a very happy Fourth! My favorite holiday. My cherubs will all be home, and we will be doing a trail ride in the morning, with a barbecue and fireworks to follow. We take this opportunity as a family to celebrate our ancestor, old John from Northern Ireland, who came here, was an Aide to Washington, was wounded at Valley Forge, but kept up the fight for freedom. We will read his story as our family has always done at dark, right before fireworks, our way to express our gratitude to his foresight, his bravery about being a part of the REAL Boston Tea Party, and as a reminder to the youngsters of what is important. On behalf of John from Ireland....Slainte!
Where I live there are noticably more jobs being created. The company I work for has hired several new people and will probably hire a few more before the end of the year. We have a company in our community that makes solar collectors and they are doubling in size. I know some communities aren't in as good of shape as we are but to make statements about the failure of stimulus and to lie about what President Obama has done for our economy just isn't true everywhere.
FR:
In May, the jobs gained were artificially high due to the census workers, and only 40,000 private sector jobs were actually added. If I'm reading this right, the jobs lost figure for June is totally artificial because the jobs lost were mostly due to the census taker jobs ending, and the number of private sector jobs actually DOUBLED in June. That doesn't sound quite so bad, does it? Not that the Republicans will admit it. They're still working as hard as they can to stop the recovery.
BTW: Has anyone else noticed the Republicans are contradicting themselves when they blame Obama for a lack of jobs.? And then they turn around and say that the jobs are there if only the lazy unemployed are denied unemployment benefits so they'll get off their duffs and take them? But a lack of logic never bothered Republicans. In fact, the Republican base distrusts politicians who make sense and will punish them in the primaries. Better to babble like Rand Paul, Sharron Angle, and Sarah Palin. You betcha.
You're trying to find a silver lining with a crow bar, and it's just not happening. Grading Obama on a curve just isn't going to cut it. The benchmark for the economy isn't positive job growth, it's positive job growth to the tune of 150,000 a month. And that number is just the number of jobs required to support the population growth. To make a dent in the unemployment numbers, say to take 1% off that number, you'd have to have sustained job growth of 250,000 per month for an entire year. We're nowhere close to that number, and it doesn't look like we'll get there anytime soon.
JoAnnaSmith is a perfect example of an incoherently babbling wingnut. She's furious that the private sector added jobs. She wants to go back to the good old days of Duhbya's misadministration, which lost 700,000 jobs at its disastrous conclusion. She wants to grade Bush on a curve. But cheer up: historians have only graded him the fifth worst president in American history so far.
Gee wilikers, girl!
18 months ago we were headed for a depression and now you are quibbling because the economy isn't growning fast enough!
Houston...only the 5th worst? It's still too soon for all the damage he caused to come to light. He'll be #1 someday.
Houston,
Man shut up! Everytime you open your trap you put your foot in it. Stop trying to spin those job numbers. You worship Obama so much as to where you just go along with whatever he says as Gospel. he is no Jesus Christ.
The numbers are garbage. People have just gotten tired of looking. Take the sh!t for what it is.
Oh, Houston. Poor, poor Houston. It is all about Bush for you, isn't it? But Bush isn't spending all this money, Obama is. And Bush isn't in control of the economy, Obama is. And just where are all those jobs Obama promised? He sounded oh so good when he gave that speech back in early 2009 saying that he would create 4 million jobs, but only if Congress passed his massive record-breaking stimulus bill. Well, Congress passed it, and America promptly lost 4 million jobs. So by that count, Obama is 8 million behind his promise.
And you say Bush is rated by "historians" to be the 5th worst president? Better watch out, CA is lurking about, he'll get you for saying "historians" and not being specific as to what historians made this claim. CA is a real stickler for details. Either way, it looks like Bush will move up to 6th worst of all time, once Obama is done, and is rated the Worst President Ever, by historians of course.
JoAnna Smith:
No way in hell will Barack Obama ever be a worst president that GWB!
By the way, Obama is spending "all this money" because Bush kept the money off the books for two wars, tax cuts for the rich and Medicare Part D!
cheriejae
It's unfortunate that Republicans have placed the United States into an age of floccinaucinihilipilificationism. Senator Byrd RIP spoke so well of this. We as Americans could easily avoid the GOPcalypse from coming if, we prepare ourselves and the next generation to pitch in and help rebuild America. Members of the GOPcalypse are doing their best to cut back on public education, employment, and finacial reform in this county. Without the government how much public infrastructure can we have? Thank that drunken Republican John "bone head" and other on the hard right for working hard to just say "Hell No-o-o-o-o" to everything progressive. Somehow I don't think this GOPcalypse plan is gonna work. Americans are waking up each day to this charade of Republican nothingness.
My math skills are fine, seeing $288 billion went to tax relief and that would be about 37%. But apparently, you think 288 is half of 787. Public school product are you?
Your math skills are pretty abysmal if you can't understand that 80,000 private sector jobs were added last month and the loss of jobs was due to the ending of the census jobs. How is it that "socialist" Obama is improving the private sector that Bush nearly destroyed?
Houston. Poor, ignorant Houston. See the market lately Houston? It doesn't appear there is much good news for ObamaNomics. You left wingnuts keep telling us Obama avoided a depression (Proof? None.), but yet it looking more and more like we'll have a double-dip recession. And with how bad the economy was when Obama inherited it, he could have done nothing and it would have improved. Instead though he meddled with it, trying to pay off his government workers and union friends, and really screwed it up. Joe Biden was out there crowing when 450,000 jobs were created last month, but we don't see Joe crowing much today when the we lost 125,000 jobs. And didn't Joe just say a couple months ago we'd be getting job growth at a rate 500,000 jobs per month? Why, yes he did say that! I guess he was wrong.
And you're wrong too Houston. You're cheerleading for the losing team.
Oh, and here's the link for Biden's predictions. Have a nice 4th Houston.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/04/biden-predicts-economy-will-cr.html
And you think 787 billion is a few trillion!
What about the 1.7 million unemployed that do not show up on the unemployment report because they no longer are counted because the umemployment extenisin didn't pass , so they are no longer counted in the report lol lol what a joke
-shrugs-
That isn't how the unemployment figure is calculated. It is calculated by a separate poll altogether. The figures are neither ultra-good as some would have you believe or as ultra-bad as others would have you believe. The bad part is that the recovery of the late part of last year and early part of this years seems to be grinding to a halt. The good news is that we are not bleeding jobs yet. At this point, it could pick up steam again or it could go completely south.
There are a lot of factors that seem to point toward it going completely south - the troubles in the euro zone, the collapse of the housing starts, the drop in manufacturing orders, etc - but it all boils down to what it has all boiled down to all along.
The private sector.
The only thing that can fix this situation is the private sector. The government can do its best to try to create an environment conducive to economic growth, but taxes are among the most minor of factors associated with businessmaking decisions. In raw terms, if the business forecasts no demand for its product, it will slow production. If it slows production, it fires workers, who subsequently cannot afford to buy anything, which cycles back around and causes demand to drop even further. It is a vicious cycle and the constant negativity of the right doesn't help because the constantly negative attitude about life in general in the U.S. probably contibutes to the hazy attribute of 'consumer confidence' that factors into many businesses' forecasts.
The only thing that will turn the American economy around at this point is for Americans to basically say, "Screw it, I'm buying anyway."
However, if another 2 million people suddenly have no money coming in at all, as small in comparison as those benefits might be to the national gdp, demand for products will be depressed even further, so I doubt that people will be doing that. We are probably entering into a fairly long deflationary period here. The Great Depression of the 30's probably isn't the best model to look at as far as a historically analagous situation is concerned.
Probably better to look at the Long Depression that started in 1873 and lasted until roughly 1896.
The current situation has a lot more in common with 1875 it does 1932.
Focusing on private sector growth is good MR. Obama-keep it up! When a government employee works for 25 years and gets a pension for 25 more, it's equivalent to paying him/her double the wage-which is higher than the private sector worker to begin with!! This is over promising and unsustainable!! We've finally got the bill for this irresponsible behavior and it should ruin the economy for a generation! Union influence on politicians is to blame! Ask what your country can do for you?? Government jobs should pay less than the private sector!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Also, Bush ran a $100B-500B deficit for most of his years FYI (see the data-don't listen to liberal whinners with no facts and small brains) He was forced into the war we all voted for and forced to bail out the rotten apple to save the union!! I'd say he's one of the best we had!! Bill the role model clinton expanded goverment big time and we're now paying for it!
Obviously you say that because you have never had a Government job. If I put in 25 yrs, I want something in return too.
Wow! I mean, holy s---! I mean, wow! There are at least 8 erroneous and/or unsupported assertions there. But, at least they were stated so with such emphasis and self-assuredness.
We were forced into a war with a country that has no Navy, No Air Force, and would starve to death in a month if we didn't feed them. That's why the big BS weapons of mass destruction story, Iraq threatens the US and forces us into a war! You are as nutty as squirrel poop.
"He (Bush) was forced into the war"
That is all anyone needs to read to validate to themselves that you Uncle Sammy are an idiot.
By the way, Iraq was and is not a war. It was and is a policing action. Big difference.
I have 4 tours in Iraq. I don't know where in the hell you get that it is not a war. You tell that to all of the fallen's families. You go tell that to a member of the military that has served in Iraq to his face, see what it gets you.
I don't call getting your azz shot at 24/7, getting blown the phukk up by IED's, suicide bombers a frikken police action.
A police action was Bosnia, Haiti....
Iraq IS a phukkin warzone.......
CA, A Declaration of War was approved at 10:00pm on March 18, 2003 and announced by President Bush at 10:15pm (0315 GMT).
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/19/sprj.irq.int.bush.transcript/
Dennis, Columbus, Ohio
How dare you contradict Mr. Know-it-all with actual facts...
And that war vote had no impact on the democratic primaries or Obama's candidacy...right Mr. K-I-A?
Were you even awake in 2008? I'm gonna call strike three...looking
Go grab some pine, Mr. Know-it-all, you're OUT!...:)
Lighten up In-The-Middle:
Calling Iraq a war or a policing action has nothing to do with paying homage to, supporting or showing respect for those fallen soldiers and those who have served, been injured or died in Iraq.
Your service to the country is appreciated but you are not the only one who has served, been wounded or has known loved ones to have served or died for this country in combat situations. So please do not use your service as a point of contention when someone disagrees with you as to what is a war and what is a policing action. People do serve, get wounded and die in policing actions.
Dennis:
Declaring something a war does not make it a war.
dangerfield:
Because someone does not agree with you then that makes them a know-it-all. So I suppose if you disagree with me then that makes you a know-it-all as well. Your use and reference to the term "opinions" when expressing yours or that of others that you use to try and support your opinion is lost in the translation of your comments that clearly exhibit an I'm right and you are wrong attitude. By definition that would make you the know-it-all.
CA, I was just stating the facts.
I didn’t say it was a just war.
Dennis, Columbus, Ohio
"CA, I was just stating the facts.
I didn’t say it was a just war."
(nor did they, but it is nice of you to try to give the poor fellow/lady an "out")
Mr Know-it-all isn't confused or dissuaded by the facts...You must accept that It isn't a war unless Mr Know-it-all says it is...:)
I'm a military man and none of us has ever figured out what the hell is a "Just War", "Illegal War"? This all seems like Democrat talking points that have made it into the vocabulary of SOME Americans.
War is War. If it is declared, by Congress or if they delegate it to the POTUS (I believe that is unconstitutional) but.......it is legal.
Who declares the legality? Is it bloggers, Liberal pundits, war protesters, etc....who? OH I know the UN..(sarcastic)
One other question...Who is the "WE" that is fighting the wars? I always hear people say we never should have went. We are fighting an unwinnable war etc.? I do know that about 1% of the population serve and about maybe 7% know someone or have a direct link to it.
I T M
The “we” is the same we as in “We the people …”
Our military is controlled under civilian authority. Thus, WE have a right to determine the mission {period}. I served 6 years but my point is valid even if I didn’t.
It is often said that the Iraq war was unjust because our country, its territories, foreign bases or any allies were not attacked. This was the first ever declared war without any being provoked.
Questions;
1) What will the unemployment rate be in OCTOBER 2010?
2) What will be the #1 issue in the election?
Dangerfield - The jobs report was bad. Private companies didn't hire. Putting partisanship aside for a moment. I'll tell the truth. In november people will not remember the GOP blocking unemployment benefits, they won't remeber what Boehner said about 'ants and nuclear weapons'. This country has a short attention span.
1. I would guess the unemployment rate will be about 9.5% in October. This will be after better hiring numbers but the rate will be kept down by more people joining the work force.
2. The number 1 issue will be economy/unemployment, barring some terrible october surprise, war terroist attack etc. Issues I care about like tough responsible environmental reform, tough responsible comprehensive immigration reform will not matter to the majority of the electorate. So the left and right will vote their particular partisan ticket.
(Ok switching back to partisan mode) The only hope for this country is if independents vote democratic and reject the GOP and tea party. The democrats couldn't get good legislation through these last two years. They tried but they didn't. Wasn't a fan of HCR, not even the drafters know what is in wall street reform = weak. Energy reform is dead on arrival even after the oil spill, sad. But if and when republicans take over more seats in the house and senate I cringe to think of what will happpen.
Two Questions, Two Answers:
1. Too high.
2. Oil. Too much.
WAY too easy.
1. Probably about 10.5%
2. That everyone in the world is still in a galactically bad mood and ready to take their bad mood out on the nearest convenient target.
Mark D-
Yeah, the republicans will probably take the house if UE is over 9%, and then they will have a share in the "misery index" too. The electorate assign responsibility to the MAJORITY, so the clock will start ticking for them to come up with some ideas, and they better have some, or they won't be around for more than a couple of years either...
Michael Thompson-
Geez! I really hope you are wrong on your prediction #1, though you are pretty right on as to #2...
I'm a bit surprised, but heartened to see as many adult posts as I have on this thread. Yes, there are some truly juvenile ones, but I expected to see a whole rash of purely bigoted hyena-like anti-Obama posters here. I suppose I assumed I'd see that because the title is one that seems to me would draw the jackals from the fringe right to crow at the thought of a president they fear and hate being further obstructed by the corporate lackeys in Washington.
I 'hope' we've all moved past the silly notion of 'throwing them all out', something that was invented by the GOP for obvious reasons. After all, it we threw every current senator or congressman out of office, there would be a net gain and control of both houses by Republicans. We saw a lot more of that phrase a couple of months ago than lately. I feel fairly secure that's because most Americans saw through the ploy. You'd have to be either pretty stupid or pretty biased to fall for such a thing. For one thing, I hope voters consider the performance of each of their representatives, and review what's happened in the time since the last election.
To that end, I'd like to point out a few things:
1) A congress that was obstructed from providing a health care system that included a a robust public option. Republicans in congress, who have always been the recipient of the larger campaign donations from health insurance companies, stalled, delayed, acted like they wanted reform, and basically drew out the process for what seemed like forever, securing concessions along the way that actually put more money in the pockets of corporations and took it out of the pockets of average Americans. Democrats finally got a watered down bill passed they hope can be amended in the future to include the only thing that will contain costs, a public option.
2) Financial Reform - Republicans in congress are stripping as much meat out of the regulations needed to remove the ability of Wall Street to gamble OUR money away, which is exactly what caused this deep recession we are abiding in the first place. Again, over the past 8 election cycles and more, Republicans on average receive about twice the contributions Democrats do from banks and financial institutions. In fact, the 'defanging' of regulatory agencies and the elimination of checks and balances were a direct result of legislation passed and regulations eliminated by those in congress whose masters are the CEO's and corporate boards of not only American companies, but foreign ones. The CEO's could have written the legislation themselves, and in some cases did so. In effect, Republicans want to continue the abuses of banks too big to fail, and their ability to gamble with YOUR money.
3) Jobs - 6 million jobs were lost during the Bush years, many of which went overseas as a result of relaxed laws put into place by Republicans during the last couple of years of Clinton, and the first several of Bush. This doesn't count the fact jobs that were taken by people who were able to find work paid much less than before. Meanwhile over the past few months, 600,000 'private sector' jobs have been created, and a review of the famous 'bikini graph' clearly demonstrates Obama's term thus far shows a substantial net gain. The announcement today that a 'real' growth in manufacturing jobs of nearly 100,000, along with a reduced unemployment and even a downward trend of 'real' unemployment are signs of recovery. It's slow but 'real'. Countless jobs were 'saved', including our teachers, police and fire fighters and emergency responders, and the jobs that support those categories. At the bare minimum, between the stimulus package and a return to some sort of fiscal responsibility, the bleeding has been stopped. Obama announced a further release of stimulus funds for broad band that benefits all Americans and will create hundreds of thousands of jobs in every industrial and service sector in the country. Yes, too many people still need jobs, or better ones, but it could and would have been a lot worse.
4) Gulf Oil Disaster - Once again, Republicans have historically won much more in donations from oil and mining special interests than Democrats. As a result, deregulation of safety requirements that would have insured this catastrophe would not have occurred. Regulations across the world are much tighter than those here or off our shores. Meanwhile BP had hundreds of violations they held up in litigation or paid small fines even before the explosion in the gulf. What regulations existed had no teeth, and regulators employed during the Bush years rubber stamped Big Oil's expanded drilling without secure plans in the event of any incidents like the one that happened. More needs to be done to clean up the mess, and our government is 'currently' at fault for not being able to respond better. However, it's well worth mentioning our government shouldn't have had the need to do so in the first place, and isn't in the oil business. Republicans don't want the government to contain the worst instincts of big oil, but suddenly when something happens as a result of their own misguided philosophies, they want government to step in to save the day. Well, government isn't prepared for that, regardless of what administration is in office at the time. Republicans are now using the expanding oil spill as a political ploy against the administration. Keep in mind, Katrina was 'one' incident, an act of nature that happened over a short period. The devastation was horrible, but this corporate made catastrophe is ongoing, and in our minds and our TV sets on a daily basis. Keep your eye on the prize, which is to stop the flow of oil into the gulf and try to do what we can to avoid further damage. Let's take a wait and see attitude to what happens from this point on, and listen to see if there are further apologies to BP from the Republicans, whether spoken or by their deeds and reading between the lines. After all, they continue to fight Obama on things like forcing BP to pay for their mistakes, and it appears they will continue to do this in view of the massive sums of money being paid to them by BP and other big oil companies. Democrats aren't exempt from this of course, but if you follow the money, you'll see by comparison they are small potatoes compared to Republicans.
5) Stimulus and Bail-Out - We've all talked this one out before. My only reminder is it was the Bush Administration was in office when the bailout was passed, and that administration owns the responsibility for the reason stimulus was and is needed.
6) Immigration - The Bush administration suggested exactly the same programs Obama is now proposing, and in 2006 it was supported by the majority of Republicans in the senate. 17 of those Republican senators, all of whom were on board with Bush in '06, are now against it, including John McCain of Arizona. That administration didn't take on the work to pass legislation. What's the difference now? The only difference I see is the guy in the White House!
7) The deficit - Three things. First, two unpaid for wars costing (thus far and counting) more than $2 Trillion. Second, 3 unpaid for tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest 1 1/2% of Americans with a cost of $2 Trillion. Third, an unpaid for senior prescription drug program the working class will be responsible for paying. Cost - $1,2 Trillion. These three don't account for jobs lost and fewer taxes being collected as a result of millions of Americans out of work and not paying taxes. It also doesn't count cash outlays for workers unemployment benefits necessary to maintain families in need of basic things like housing, food, health care, etc. It doesn't help there is a global financial crisis, and again most of the world blames the Bush/Cheney years for that. Do we all remember Bush inherited an economy with a budget surplus that eventually would have began to reduce the national debt? I hope so!
All of the 7 issues mentioned above have one thing in common, the genesis of these problems residing with Republicans. I don't love all Democratic policies, and I especially don't love the way they've been governed or not able to govern. However, I dislike what they've done and haven't done much less than my dislike for what Republicans have done or not done. Further, in contrast to the 'loyal opposition" Republicans like to say they are, instead they are doing everything they can to make this president fail. The fact the country is failing right along with the president not only doesn't matter to them, but it makes them absolutely gleeful. We've all seen that. They'd rather see Americans losing jobs, losing income, losing the American dream if it helps them at the polls in November. Republicans now say they will be 'more' responsible than the Bush/Cheney administration. Where's the proof of that? When you see them asking forgiveness from BP, doing everything they can to maintain the failed policies that allowed Wall Street and big business to tank our economy, how is it possible to believe them? I suggest we consider all aspects of our elected officials and the candidates who come up for election, and think about the possibility of a Republican Congress. I'd much prefer to see a larger Democratic majority than currently exists. Legislation to salvage our republic and its democratic precepts would be much better, and wouldn't take forever or be stopped dead in their tracks by the party of no, and no ideas. I urge education and mature and unbiased assessment of what has transpired in the past couple of decades. Follow the money and keep your eye on the ball. The country is at stake.
Gentile Hawk - And to think all the efforts of your long and detailed liberal anti-Republican ranting will be for naught come Nov. Results have consequences with Dems as well as Repubs. Obama/Reid/and Pelosi are a disaster for this nation's existence that goes far beyond that of the Bush administration. Dems will pay a price. Too bad that you have to be so biased. A little more balance and I actually might have given you some credibility.
Followed by the usual "Blame the Republicans for everything" rant.
Nothing silly about it. The President, his administration, and all members of the House and Senate have stunk up the joint. Promises made have not been followed by promises kept. Like Obama, a politician can get away with talking the talk for only so long. At some point it's about performance, and Obama and the super-majorities of Democrats in Congress have not performed. If Obama and the Democrats haven't gotten that message by now, they will get on election day. And the same will happen for many RINO Republicans.
Its quite clear that JoannaSmith hasn't been pleasured by a man in many years.
I didn't hide my political philosophy. I prefer everyone know where I'm coming from for transparency reasons. I expect my analysis to stand on its own without masking the fact I have certain beliefs. Too often I've seen the far right come to these threads claiming to be democrats or independents, and within a couple of lines we know otherwise. I'd rather people know from the start as relates to me and my own personal ethics.
As for blaming the Bush/Cheney years, why shouldn't I? In case you have forgotten, that administration started blaming Clinton for everything under the sun before they even took office, and it didn't the entire time they were in office. I watched a video on one of the cable newscasts less than a week ago. It featured Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, and a whole list of Bush officials and GOP people blaming Clinton for everything that happened while they (Bush, et. al) were in office. All of these videos of the GOP gang were dated, and the last one was the month Obama took office. Clinton was blamed for the two wars (including Iraq), for Bush's job losses, for Katrina, for the deficit, for the tax cuts Bush doled out to the rich, and the list goes on and on.
Clinton handed off a pretty good situation to Bush, and Bush turned champagne into vinegar, all the while throwing flames at the Clinton years. What Bush handed to Obama when he left office is a catastrophe that will impact our nation for decades to come, and the truth is, we may never recover from the stunningly bad management his administration brought to the country. It's not in anyone's interest to forget history and ignore the facts. If we don't learn and remember our mistakes, they will be repeated. There is no reason for those of us with knowledge and memories not to point that out, and to point it out often. In fact, I urge others to do the same. It's the only right thing to do for our country, the patriotic thing!
One last point here. Pat Huntington. I find your comment about JoAnna not only offensive and a personal attack, but incredibly juvenile. She is here for serious adult discussion, something you obviously have no ability to deploy. Meanwhile BTW, I'm guessing (accurately) you're just bitter that no real woman would have anything at all to do with you. That's your problem Ace, not JoAnna's. Gawd, how creepy can you be?...... shuddering....
GH,
1) Democrats originally had absolute control of HCR, they did not need 1 Rebublican. The watering down, the back room deals, the "Cornhusker" deal, the "Louisiana Purchase" on and on were to woo Democrat members against the will of their constituents. Irregardless, it passed despite BIPARTISAN support against it and against the will of the majority of Americans.
2) A recurrent theme of your comments is Republican donations. It's interesting that you typically skew the statistics to suit your arguement. With respect to our present crisis and financial reform, as opposed to 8 election cycles ago, Obama received $994,795 from Goldman Sachs to McCain's 230, 095. Obama received $701,290 from Citigroup to McCain's $322,051. Obama received $695,132 from J.P. Morgan Chase to McCains $288, 595. Overall, Wall Street supported Obama 4-1 over McCain, and similarly Democrats 4-1 over Republicans. Nasty Hedge Fund guys almost exclusively supported Dems. Fannie and Freddie, which precipitated the whole thing, top 3 recipients were Dodd, Obama and Kerry. Obama's #1 financial contributor, Goldman Sachs, set industry records last year for profits.
You are right however on one thing, the "Big 6" CEOs are writing the current legislation. And the Democrats are getting it through and Obama will sign it and it will ultimately have been nothing more productive than the dog and pony show it is.
3) Tony Hayward's predecessor, Lord Browne, is one one of the world's most prominent promoters of Cap and Trade - Obama's centerpiece issue on his environmental/energy agenda. Steve Chu is responsible for a $500 million dollar grant to University of California, Berkeley by BP. Steve Chu is now Obama's Secretary of Energy. University of California, Berkeley donations to Obama - $1,591,395. Obama also received more BP money than any other politician in the last 20 years.
You mention hundreds of BP safety violations (actually 760), but fail to mention that Obama's administration awarded the safety award last year to BP and BP was a finalist again this year before the disaster. Since January 2009, MMS approved 346 drilling plans, that according to MMS records show permission was granted without the permits required under federal law. The Directoress of MMS was a Harvard attorney with no executive experience. She was fired after the disaster and replaced by another Harvard attorney with no executive experience who's first action is to change the name and reorganize. He's changing letterhead while the greatest disaster in the Gulf is on going. The 15,000 psi pressure test of the BOP was waived. The inspector of the Deepwater Horizon rig in April was a trainee with 4 months experience. On and on.
Under the Oil Protection Act of 1990, Obama has authority to take over and he has deferred to BP. Over 30 countries have offered help. 3 Panamex tankers alone can process and remove more oil in 1 day than has been recovered 70+ days by BP and the USCG. The spill was avoidable. The disaster is inexcusable.
With regard to the other issues, you get the idea. Doesn't really matter .....we can always blame the Republicans for everything.
You expected to see a tide of anti-Obama posters here?
At First Read?
Either you have the dryest sense of humor I've ever encountered...or, you need to be more aware of your surroundings, GH.
You two posting together again? PanaMax tankers are not skimmers dimwit. They can hold a lot of fluid and transport it through the PANAMA canal, hence Panamax, maximum size for the canal. Obama doesn't need to take control of the blowout capping effort, that is clearly BP's domain and problem. The gulf clean-up operation should be handled better with more free access for free media to show us what is being done poorly. I am pretty certain that Admiral Thad Allen has already been bought off by big oil, you watch, when this is finally over he'll retire from the Coast Guard and be officially hired by BP.
Panamax tankers converted to skimmers. But you knew that, just like A Whale, another converted tanker.
"clearly BP's domain and problem." - I trust this remark is accredited more to your disputatious nature than your intelligence, you are not that simple.
Allen works for Obama. Who does BP work for?
Nice attempt at covering your ass.
Facts: Reagan increased, actually tripled, the national debt 186% (not a typo); GH Bush increased the national debt 55%; GW Bush increased the national debt 89%.
Facts: Carter increased the national debt 42%; Clinton increased national debt 36%
Bush tax cuts for the wealthy on personal wealth + Bush war in Afghanistan + Bush war in Iraq + Bush Medicare Advantage + Bush bank bailouts = trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars.
The private business sector is not spending, consumers are not spending, that leaves one option to keep us from a depression, the Recovery Act, which was not enough.
This article may seem like a right wing nut rant, but it's not so far out there. Consider Pres Obama's circle of friends, his former church of 20+ years, his community activism, his written words expressing his gravitation to radicals and socialists in college. Pres Obama is a global socialist. He is capitalizing on a series of crises to enable a liberal congress and his ultra liberal cabinet and WH cronies to admonish capitalism at every turn, an to significantly grow the power and scope of the Federal gov. It is my belief that he knows he is a one term President and he will stop at nothing to leave a legacy to his progressive followers. My guess is this article will not get much response from libs. Obama is an incompetent President thrust into this role by a blind and gullible voting public.
You are wrong about many things, especially your opening line...your post most definitely is a right wing nut rant and it is soooo far out there.
If Republicans take the House, and Democrats keep a slimmer majority in the Senate, guess what people! Gridlock like you've never seen before.
patHuntington... ya mean sorta like the gridlock in your brain that is filled with so much misinformation, lies, deceit, fear, hatred and bigotry it can't function?
GH-
Waht'd you do with this guy?
"I'm a bit surprised, but heartened to see as many adult posts as I have on this thread. Yes, there are some truly juvenile ones, but I expected to see a whole rash of purely bigoted hyena-like posters here."
The guy simply predicted even greater legislative gridlock if the republicans took control of the house. That's probably true...read the post again and let the other sane guy reply...
patHuntington. My apologies for misidentifying your politics. That's what happens though when we use personal attacks in place of dialogue. I saw your insulting post to JoAnna, and assumed it was from the right as most 'initial' personal attacks seem to be. I stand by my comment about the attack believing that sort of comment should never be used, but aplogize for misreading the poltics.
Note to danger. Yes, you'll notice I saw my error from my earlier admission of that fact. I was blinded by the personal insult to a woman, thinking of course that sort of insult usually comes from the right. My apologies to you and to others for my error. Again however, sexual comments about women are out of bounds unless initiated by the other person unless of course she initiates it with something as bad or worse. Same with men for that matter.
You, Mr. President, want job growth in the private sector? Then get out of business' way and tell the idiots in Congress to do the same.
Business isn't moving because they are waiting for the next stupid thing to come out of DC that will derail their plans. You know this is true. They are still tallying up the tax bills coming due in 2011 and forever after that they are going to have to pass on to the consumers as higher prices. So what incentive is there for the private sector to ramp it up?
Because 88% of 2 million dollars = 1.76 million dollars, whereas 90% of 1 million dollars = 800k?
The whole, 'businesses have no incentive to make more money if their taxes are raised' doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Businesses are in the business to make more money than they made last year. If they have the opportunity to make more money than they made last year, they might grouse about the increased taxes, but they aren't going to sit on their ass and pout because they could have made EVEN MORE if those taxes hadn't been raised.
That is... unless their board of directors are just, you know, dumb.
It makes sense to wait out to see if your company or industry will be selected as the latest and next boogie man that gets villified and driven to the brink of extinction because you are on the other side of another stupid idea that comes out of DC.
I think all business has to balance out the feasability of incresing production with the publics ability to consume. Right now we have neither working and My feelings of this is because of Big Govs involvement and the States inability to temper the Fed because they are too weak to play in the game as mediator, anymore.
I think all business has to balance out the feasability of incresing production with the publics ability to consume.
This is essentially correct. And it has absolutely nothing to do with whether the government is calling you the boogieman or whether it is raising taxes on your corporate profits. Look at it this way, the tobacco companies are without a doubt the most vilified and demonized corporations of the last half century. They have also been the most highly taxed corporations in the nation over the same time period.
If what you are saying is true, then tobacco companies would have folded their tents and closed up shop decades ago. There are, however, still profits to be made, so they are still making them. Businesses largely make business related decisions solely on whether demand still exists for the product they are selling. Like I said, if a company makes $10 one year and have an opportunity to make $18 the next, they aren't going to forego making that extra $8 because if the new taxes hadn't come along, they would have made $20. They are going to make the extra $8 and bitterly complain about the fact that they missed out on making another $2 on top of it.
The economy is in a tailspin because businesses are forecasting and seeing no demand. It has little to nothing to do with anything the government is doing at all. Look at the converse of what I said above. If a business expects to make $10 this year and the government loosens up taxes, so that the business now stands to make $10.10, do you really that that is incentive for the business to do anything other than pocket the extra $0.10 and say, 'thanks?'