home

Jobless Rate Goes Up To 9.8%

Maybe someone should do something:

In a jolting surprise to the economic recovery and market expectations, the United States economy added just 39,000 jobs in November, and the unemployment rate rose to 9.8 percent, according to the Department of Labor. November’s numbers were far below the consensus forecast of close to 150,000 jobs added and an unchanged unemployment rate of 9.6 percent.

< A Grover Norquist Christmas | Bunny Mellon's Relatives Make Grand Jury Appearance in John Edwards Investigation >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Do something? (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Anne on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 10:37:30 AM EST
    You mean other than work on fine-tuning the message?  

    Did you happen to read Robert Reich from Wednesday?  He's got a message for Obama (which is just as relevant to your Grover Norquist post):

    The Big Economic Story, and Why Obama Isn't Telling It

    Quiz: What's responsible for the lousy economy most Americans continue to wallow in?

    A. Big government, bureaucrats, and the cultural and intellectual elites who back them.

    B. Big business, Wall Street, and the powerful and privileged who represent them.

    [snip]

    In fact, the unwillingness of the President and Washington Democrats to tell story B itself promotes story A, because in the absence of an alternative narrative the Republican story is the only one the public hears.

    Obama's advisors explain the President's moves are designed to "preempt" the resurgent Republicans - just like Bill Clinton preempted the Gingrich crowd by announcing "the era of big government is over" and then tacking right.

    They're wrong. By telling story A and burying story B, the President legitimizes everything the right has been saying. He doesn't preempt them; he fuels them. He gives them more grounds for voting against raising the debt ceiling in a few weeks. He strengthens their argument against additional spending for extended unemployment benefits. He legitimizes their argument against additional stimulus spending.

    Bill Clinton had a rapidly expanding economy to fall back on, so his appeasement of Republicans didn't legitimize the Republican world view. Obama doesn't have that luxury. The American public is still hurting and they want to know why.

    Unless the President and Democrats explain why the economy still stinks for most Americans and offer a plan to fix it, the Republican explanation and solution - it's big government's fault, and all we need do is shrink it - will prevail.

    And this is, in my opinion, why "something" isn't being done about the jobs situation - because Obama is following a Republican script that isn't going to create anything, other than more pain and suffering.

    Jolting? (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 10:42:18 AM EST
    #$%&@!!!!

    Do all these economists live in an ivory tower? Supply side economics DO NOT WORK EVAH!!

    I heard that Obama proposed (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 11:06:30 AM EST
    some more tax credits in the past few days...

    lol - in dark and sad sort of way.

    Someone posted something funny at orange (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 11:20:49 AM EST
    But true

    Friends don't let their Presidents become President Buchanans

    Ha. I am up to 1981 in reading (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 11:37:19 AM EST
    "Saul Bellow's Letters."  He is very vocal in his criticism of President Carter.  Have to wonder what Bellow, a Chicago resident, would have had to say about President Obama?  (Bellow died in 2005.)

    Parent
    Haven't you heard? (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 10:28:41 AM EST
    Things are getting better and the economy is improving.  And since we have an administration that has passed the most progressive legislation in our lifetime, everything will be all right.

    They are going to do "something" (none / 0) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 10:36:22 AM EST
    They are going to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy. Next year they will probably stimulate the economy some more by reducing the taxes on corporation and the top 2% even futher.  


    This number really is a head scratcher. I follow (none / 0) (#4)
    by steviez314 on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 10:38:52 AM EST
    economic indicator releases very closely (as a trader), and for the past month every number has been very encouraging:  ISM Manufacturing, ISM Services, Durable Goods, car sales, retail same store sales, initial unemployment claims, ADP, Challenger layoffs.  

    Every number.

    It's like you expect 1+1 to equal 2, and instead it turns out 2+2=1.  Just incredibly odd.

    Maybe those numbers (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 10:41:37 AM EST
    were the odd ones?

    Actually, I don't agree with you. The difference statistically between the private sector numbers projected and what was reported today is not that big.

    Both stink.

    In away THIS report might be more helpful because no one can claim it does not stink whereas the other reports give room for folks to claim the economy is "improving" when it is not.

    Parent

    I doubt all those other numbers were wrong, (none / 0) (#9)
    by steviez314 on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 10:50:55 AM EST
    especially since the government didn't issue most of them.

    In fact, I think the November business releases will cause 4Q GDP estimates to go up.  I'd still like to think that businesses were so surprised by their business strength that they didn't hire enough employees.

    Employment is still a lagging indicator, but it seems like every time it might turn up (like in March-May), some European country goes pfft.

    In any case, I won't tell any politicians this.

    Parent

    Oh stevie (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by kmblue on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 10:57:56 AM EST
    "so surprised by their business strength that they didn't hire enough employees..."

    you must be kidding.

    they didn't hire anyone because they DON'T WANT TO HARM THEIR PROFITS.  Get real.

    Parent

    True (2.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 01:20:28 PM EST
    Business managers hire only when they think hiring people will increase their profits.

    Imagine that.


    Parent

    Not true... (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 03:36:39 PM EST
    at least not back in the day when community mattered more than a few extra bucks, according the latest issue of SI, the article on KC Chiefs GM Scott Pioli...a good read about teamwork and what can accomplished by it.

    Long story short...his old man went on strike for a year in a small Jersey town, and he got part time work from the gas station owner and others when they really didn't need any extra help...it came right out of the business' profits actually.

    We're not all like the grifters Jim...

    Parent

    Perhaps true, but they will hire (none / 0) (#30)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 12:11:28 PM EST
    when it would generate more profits for them.  That is the basic engine of private sector hiring....

    The reason that hiring more people right now is not happening is that businesses see no demand for additional products or services.  No additional customers, means no reason to hire....

    The conservative view seems to be that businesses are sitting on a lot of cash and would just spend that money on additional workers if only they could have greater certainty about taxes.  In other words, just give the rich more tax breaks and they will willy, nilly hire a bunch of people.  Nonsense, even with a gazillion dollars piled up in front of them, they would only hire more people if those additional workers could generate additional profits; and that won't happen if there is no one to buy the products or services that the additional workers would generate.

    Classic conundrum that Keynes dealt with:  lack of aggregate demand.

    Parent

    It isn't just taxes (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 01:25:18 PM EST
    It's healthcare and energy costs and the fact that they are unknown.

    Business planning is done months and years in advance. No manager is going to put their neck on the line with all the unknowns. So they assume the worst... Nobody ever got fired for exceeding expectations.

    Parent

    Businesses always have unknowns (none / 0) (#58)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 02:07:20 PM EST
    Par for the course.

    What they don't have right now is customers....

    A lot of extra customers banging on your doors with money to burn, and businesses find a way to contingency plan....

    But now that the tax issue will be fixed, time for the Republicans to move the goalposts.....So, one cannot blame Republicans for the bad economy after they get their tax cuts.....Republicans always say that their theories have never been disproven because they have never been fully tried.  Convenient, isn't it?

    And, as to being fired for hiring too many people, small businesses hires the most, so it is the owner doing that....

    The build-it-and-they-will-come supply side theories have been an oddity not really believed by anyone.  Reagan was a Keynesian who did not care diddly squat about deficit spending....He increased spending and cut taxes and voila! aggregate demand increased.....John Maynard would have been proud....  

    Parent

    Well...... (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 03:25:17 PM EST
    Firing the owner is called bankruptcy. People worry about such things and are understandably cautious.

    Whatever Reagan was he cut the heck out of the FIT and the economy boomed. As for spending, I seem to remember it was a Demo congress during his time in office.

    And there are no new tax cuts. Just an extension of the Bush cuts.

    Parent

    You guys (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 06:16:50 PM EST
    drive me crazy with this always blaming someone else. Reagan was a big spender. There's no debate there and you guys always forget that the GOP controlled 2/3 of the government from 1981-1987 when all that spending went on.

    Parent
    For those asleep in a dogmatic slumber (none / 0) (#76)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 02:16:55 AM EST
    between early 2001 and 2009, from www.ontheissues(dot)org:

    O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.



    Parent
    uuuhhhhh??????? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by waldenpond on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 11:26:23 AM EST
     I'd still like to think that businesses were so surprised by their business strength that they didn't hire enough employees.

    OMFG. sigh.

    Parent

    First of all (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by NYShooter on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 07:26:25 PM EST
    When did businesses become shy about firing workers? If they had customers they would load up on workers and at the first sign of a slowdown, wham! Out the door.

    Secondly, Businesses have been grooming customers to expect lousy service for decades now. And customers have, like the sheep they've become, submissively accepted it.

    And, finally, as to this bull-crap about "uncertainty," when was the future about anything "certain?" Taxes? Pffft! Somehow John D. figured out how to become a billionaire when the marginal rate was 97%

    No, the answer is that "American" businessmen are no more American than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad  is. And American consumers are no longer the engine for the world they used to be. Our "American" business "patriots" will continue killing the golden goose until it's finally flat-lined, and then shift their beady eyes, and grubby fingers, to the "emerging markets" who are only too eager to eat our lunch.

    Parent

    That's a very cogent counter argument. I hadn't (none / 0) (#26)
    by steviez314 on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 11:51:32 AM EST
    appreciated that nuance.  Thank you.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 10:54:39 AM EST
    I think you and I have a fundamental disagreement regarding the condition of the economy.

    Parent
    I'm reading all over that (none / 0) (#12)
    by masslib on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 11:05:52 AM EST
    lots of people expect the numbers are off. Maybe later holiday hiring.  We'll see.

    Parent
    In my retail rounds lately, (none / 0) (#14)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 11:07:42 AM EST
    I haven't seen many extra workers on the floor.

    Parent
    Yeah, I'm not saying I believe it... (none / 0) (#15)
    by masslib on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 11:12:54 AM EST
    Just what alot of folks in the markets are saying.

    Frankly, I think the holiday shopping started early as people sought out deals and is going to be less than expected in the later weeks.

    Parent

    I just can't get in the mood (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 11:16:40 AM EST
    I've got a couple of the things for the grandgirls that were cute, I have Joshua's list but his dad will probably take care of that because he understands gaming a whole better than I do.  I have to make friends with the management of GameStop to get by when my husband is deployed.  Other than the kids though, I can't seem to give a chit right now.

    Parent
    Saw many ads around here for the (none / 0) (#21)
    by nycstray on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 11:36:10 AM EST
    bigger retailers (and some smaller) for holiday hiring. Seemed earlier than last year. But who knows how many positions they actually had open, and I sure wouldn't want to be competing for one of those jobs.

    I think many people have been shopping lately, not just for the holiday, but for discounts on things they couldn't otherwise afford this past year . . .  After the holiday's, I predict ugliness . . . . one long, cold winter.

    Parent

    The numbers do surprise (none / 0) (#20)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 11:34:09 AM EST
    The last batch or so of government numbers have been revised upward.  But these numbers are not good at all, so some upward revision will not help all that much....

    Parent
    The numbers help Republicans (none / 0) (#24)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 11:37:25 AM EST
    There will be more pressure to cut taxes for the wealthy....

    When people get scared, they want the government to stop spending and to cut taxes, regardless of whether that helps or not.   Save money, they think.   1937 comes to mind--although there are differences...

    Parent

    The current tax rates (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 01:27:07 PM EST
    will be cut?

    I didn't know that.

    Parent

    The Republicans have no answers for (none / 0) (#59)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 02:12:26 PM EST
    anything.

    ....the extension of the current tax cut is not really a tax cut....

    But it is Obamacare, which has not even been implemented, that holds back the economy.  Aside from saying undo what Obama did, they have no answers....except:

    Just go back to what W did and all will be well.....

    Parent

    I have discovered (4.25 / 4) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 03:19:09 PM EST
    in my long life, that when I talk to a Demo the Repubs are dumb and when I talk to a Repub the Demos are dumb.

    Obamacare should have been called InsuranceCompanyCare because all I see so far is everyone rates going up.

    If he had actually wanted to do something worthwhile he should have went for a single payer system modeled on Medicare.

    Parent

    Stop, you're scaring me (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by sj on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 04:04:02 PM EST
    'Cause I agree with you.  Again.  

    Parent
    Always have to read Jim's comments. (none / 0) (#69)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 04:08:35 PM EST
    We don't always agree, but I can see his point of view. Sometimes I think that POV is way off, but YMMV. This one, spot on for me too.

    Parent
    My experience reinforces (none / 0) (#77)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 02:29:31 AM EST
    John Stuart Mill's observation to a Conservative MP, from www.wikiquote(dot)org:

    I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.



    Parent
    Except that this is really (none / 0) (#78)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 08:48:47 AM EST
    how PPJ feels about Democrats:

    There are no moderate Democrats.

    A few are less radical than the others.



    Parent
    I know (none / 0) (#79)
    by sj on Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 11:54:26 AM EST
    That's why it's scaring me.

    Parent
    What you noticed may (none / 0) (#80)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 11:17:34 PM EST
    be explained by the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance, from The Skeptic's Dictionary:

    If cognitive dissonance were a problem, it would show up at the level of methods used to evaluate beliefs. Yet, many people seem to have no discomfort using science, logic, and reason to establish one set of beliefs, while using desire, feelings, faith, emotional attachment to a charismatic leader, and the like to establish another set of beliefs.

    Click Me


    Parent

    cat food commission fails (none / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 10:39:00 AM EST
    Never fear (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 12:19:46 PM EST
    Reid says he will work with the co-chairs to get it a vote next year. Who says that Obama and the Dems are not willing to move mountains in pursuit of a policy that they really support.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has agreed to work with the commission's chairmen, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, to hold a floor vote on the package next Congress. But incoming Speaker John Boehner has thus far refused to make the same commitment. TPM



    Parent
    Review of effort to gut Social Security (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 01:29:11 PM EST
    Oh my bad. Reduce the deficit but include gutting SS even if it doesn't effect the deficit.

    Establishing a deficit commission fails to get 60 votes in the Senate. Obama by presidential degree decides to overrule the will of the Senate and establishes a deficit commission which includes cutting SS regardless of the fact that it does not impact the deficit. Commission does not get the 14 votes necessary to move recommendations to the floor for a vote. Reid disregards 14 vote requirement and states he will work with co-chairs to get the Senate to vote on recommendations in 2011. Sen. Conrad calls for a summit between the White House and congressional leaders as the next step in efforts to tackle the nation's budgetary issues.

    Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) on Friday called for a summit between the White House and congressional leaders as the next step in efforts to tackle the nation's budgetary issues.

    Conrad suggested that President Obama and House and Senate leadership sit down and discuss the way forward on a plan to reduce deficits and debt. link

    Want to bet that the main focus of this summit will be gutting Social Security. It is a shame that the President and the Dems did not focus this much energy on creating jobs.

    Parent

    Finally (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 10:44:23 AM EST
    some good news at least.

    Parent
    Nope (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by waldenpond on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 11:28:31 AM EST
    The spin before the vote was that the supermajority vote was irrelevant, it only needed a majority.  No majority?  No matter... now it only matters that 2 VSDP and 2 VSRP vote for it.  Demonstrates bi-partisanship that the Pres can use to press his agenda to cut SS.

    Parent
    Not really (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by sj on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 04:13:49 PM EST
    Read the article.  O is saying the same things he would be saying if the vote had been as he wanted it.  

    It was all about managing expectations.  Preparing us to say "whew! at least they 'only' raised the retirement age and added means testing!"

    It might work, too.  People even here are accepting and even promoting the idea of raising the retirement age.  They must either be white collar workers or haven't yet reached the age where the body starts to break down.

    Parent

    Responsible (none / 0) (#22)
    by lilburro on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 11:36:56 AM EST
    I mean, if folks think that we could have gotten Ben Nelson, Arlen Specter and Susan Collins to vote for additional stimulus beyond the $700 billion that we got, then I would just suggest you weren't in the meetings.

    This notion that somehow I could have gone and made the case around the country for a far bigger stimulus because of the magnitude of the crisis, well, we understood the magnitude of the crisis. We didn't actually, I think, do what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, which was basically wait for six months until the thing had gotten so bad that it became an easier sell politically because we thought that was irresponsible. We had to act quickly.

    FDL.

    Not that I'm entirely unsympathetic to what he's saying, but is letting the economy slip into a Lost Decade somehow more responsible?  His argument is all sadder of course since Arlen became a Dem shortly thereafter.

    Yes, Obama, the notion (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by masslib on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 11:42:04 AM EST
    that you could have argued for a bigger stimulus given the magnitude of the crisis rings true for any thinking person.  And, you really need to read up on FDR's first 100 days, dolt.

    Parent
    I think the reference to 6 months was the time (none / 0) (#27)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 12:02:41 PM EST
    between the election and March when FDR was sworn in.

    There was chatter in December 2008 about whether Obama should stay out of the decisions being made at that time and wait until he was actually sworn in, as FDR waited until March 1933 to start to act.  That would more clearly demarcate the mess as a Republican one.

    That I think is the context to what Obama was saying....Still not really relevent to the Stimulus bill which was passed after Obama took office and pursuant to his oversight.

    There is a good point to be made about Republicans having left town just as everything was falling apart.  If Obama had been elected in 2009 instead of 2008, it would have been much clearer, although it should be clear now, about who caused this mess and what should be done to clean it up....

    Parent

    Oh please.... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by masslib on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 12:04:28 PM EST
    It was plenty clear.  The public was behind him.  he got exactly the economic stimulus he asked for and he could have gotten a much more effective package.

    Parent
    Maybe so (none / 0) (#32)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 12:21:38 PM EST
    But we will never know for sure.  Obama says Collins and Nelson told him they would not have voted for a bigger bill....

    If a bigger bill had first been defeated, then Obama's point would have been proven.  

    But we have only speculation about what Nelson et al would have really done.

    What is clear is that a bigger bill was needed....

    The greater failure was to not try to pass a lot of additional little bills along the way.  30 billion here and there for this road and that bridge and that green energy initative...And to highlight each one along the way with bully pulpit PR....Could have had more impact and made people feel better that someone was actually trying to fix the mess.

    Parent

    I agree about the "greater failure" (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by observed on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 12:28:45 PM EST
    part. That describes the last 2 years, all the way.

    Parent
    He didn't (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 01:04:04 PM EST
    need Collins vote other than his determination to play this stupid PPUS game.

    Bill Clinton passed the Omnibus Bill in '93 with less Senators than Obama had.

    Either he got what he wanted or he's not smart enough to know what to do. Take your pick.

    Parent

    True, that tax hike passed 50-50 with Gore (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 01:11:39 PM EST
    breaking the tie.....

    Budget reconciliation has been under-utilized the last couple of years....

    Parent

    But that was then--before the '94 losses (none / 0) (#57)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 01:54:52 PM EST
    had chastened a lot of Democrats.  Maybe a sliced-ever-so-thin strategy like that would work again....but we don't know because it was not tried....

    Also, don't know if a budget reconciliation approach was feasible for the Stimulus.  You first have to pass a budget.....(There may be an actual answer to this question procedurally, so it may not be speculation if the procedure was available)....But speed was also needed....The Stimulus passed in February.....And early 2009 was right on the cliff of a Depression.   Was there time to first pass a budget?

    The '93 tax increase took every bit of Team Bill's talent and it almost failed.  It only won by 2 votes or so in the House.

    The stakes were much higher this time around....and thus a greater need to avoid a near miss on passing legislation....

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 02:17:57 PM EST
    one of my problem with Obama has always been that he's a very poor negotiator. I would hate to have him for my lawyer. Can you imagine? In a divorce he would give away the store to your ex.

    He's always saying that's the best that could have been done when he doesn't even try to do better.

    The bottom line is that he's the wrong president for our times. He hasn't a clue as to what to do or who to listen to so we get all this mush that's going to end up destroying him and the party for quite a while.

    Parent

    But funny that he's always a poor (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 07:17:55 PM EST
    negotiator when it comes to negotiating on behalf of Democratic principles.  

    Parent
    I could argue you here (2.00 / 1) (#33)
    by masslib on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 12:24:23 PM EST
    point by point, but the excuse making never ends with some people.

    Parent
    FU (1.50 / 2) (#34)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 12:25:17 PM EST
    Take it easy (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 12:30:10 PM EST
    I think your comment was more than reasonable and MassLib's reaction unfair but let's not make this nasty.

    Parent
    When you provide a substantive (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 12:26:34 PM EST
    response so will I.  

    Parent
    Well, ok... (none / 0) (#39)
    by masslib on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 12:36:05 PM EST
    He had the bully pulpit.  He had the backing of the public.  And he had huge majorities.  He could have run ads against the Maine girls until they folded and agreed to his stimulus.  He could have worked with Reid to bend the rules for the stimulus vote, and yes, the rules have been bent before.  He could have started out by asking for a much larger, jobs-focused stimulus and negotiated down, rather than starting from the point of asking for the exact tax heavy, too small, stimulus he got.  

    Parent
    The Maine Sisters are touchy (none / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 12:49:50 PM EST
    You try and bully them--and they could have easily retreated into their caucus for comfort and support and commiserated with Judd Gregg....

    I do agree that Obama never tried (opting at one point to start with a smaller bill to see what would be added on as most bills get bigger, right?) so we won't know for sure.....And I guess you missed that nuance in my prior post....

    All ills in the original stimulus could have been cured by piecemeal add-ons later.  (That was part of my prior post too.) No need to have one and done...

    Parent

    But we know they could not have (none / 0) (#42)
    by masslib on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 12:54:25 PM EST
    because there was no appetite in the Senate to do more after the original stim passed.  I disagree about Maine.  Maine was hurting.  They could have pushed Snowe and Collins.

    Parent
    Sure they could have pushed (none / 0) (#44)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 01:01:15 PM EST
    but you know for a fact it would have worked?

    Pushing them has always worked?  I read them differently.  Arlen you can push.  The Maine Sisters are harder to push....They bolt on some of the flimsiest details....

    So you have your guess, and I have my guess--which is we don't know.  I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion....

    Parent

    No, I don't know for a fact... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by masslib on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 01:17:43 PM EST
    though that was just one method I suggested for getting through a larger stim.  But having observed government for several decades now, my experience suggests he could have certainly passed a larger, less tax heavy stim if he had wanted to.  Indeed, I think it was the biggest failure of this administration, well, for now at least. We'll have to see what happens with taxes.  Now, of course, none of us know for sure, but wouldn't you have liked to have seen him try?

    Parent
    Try, yes (none / 0) (#55)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 01:33:45 PM EST
    That is what I said in essence in my first post on this subject.

    Parent
    And, I disagree on your small bill (none / 0) (#40)
    by masslib on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 12:38:22 PM EST
    theory.  The greater failure was the original stimulus.  All the signals were there that Obama had one bite at the apple.  Their strategy actually was the small stim./small bills strategy and we see how that worked out.

    Parent
    All speculation (none / 0) (#43)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 12:54:43 PM EST
    We know what happened.  Beyond that, anyone's guess is entitled to the same weight.

    Parent
    but that's not your argument, which is that (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by observed on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 01:22:54 PM EST
    Obama chose the best course.

    Parent
    No, I never said that (none / 0) (#56)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 01:39:04 PM EST
    What I explained was Obama's position--and I said he might have been right that he could not have gotten a bigger bill but that we would never know.

    What I also clearly said was the stimulus was too small.....You did read that part, right?

    I thought my first post clearly indicated that Obama should have tried--or least clearly implied that he should have....

    The Right I understand suffers from Black-or-White, binary worlditis.....Now, here too.

    Parent

    I quoted this (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by lilburro on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 01:26:41 PM EST
    earlier this week from aimai:

    Uh, yes. The smartest guys in the room are, in fact, not so smart. Privately negotiating for the votes of individual Republicans has proven a complete disaster over and over and over again. But remember when you made fun of everyone for asking Obama to use the "bully pulpit"? What people meant was that he had to go public over what was really going on--when it mattered, of course, like before the god damned midterm--and f*ck up these wankers publicly. The long term interests of the Republican party trump the long and short term interest of the country--but you can't tell me that there aren't some billionaires out there who can call up John Kyl personally and tell him to get the f*ck in line on foreign policy/nuclear negotiations. And each individual Republican is subject to that kind of pressure from the one's that's bought them for other reasons.

    I think it's not just Snowe and Collins but also the bully pulpit and other things that could've been done.  BUT...there was also simply bad advice in the WH about what was needed.  The most liberal economic voices were right about what was needed, but they didn't have influence.  That seems like the major issue to me and there's any number of reasons for that.

    Parent

    No. FDR did not even wait for inauguration (none / 0) (#66)
    by Towanda on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 03:53:25 PM EST
    to push his economic repair agenda.  Notably, he pushed the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition through -- to put millions back to work in the brewing industry and peripheral businesses -- with the bill's introduction only weeks after the election and with an address to Congress months before the inaugural.  Keep in mind that there were more months between the election and the inauguration then, but the nation was glad to not have to wait even weeks for action on his agenda.

    And much of his "First 100 Days" agenda was out and about before the inauguration, too, to get public support to push it through fast as soon as FDR was in office.  That's how it's done.  Or that's how it could have been done in December 2008 and January 2009, with the economy spiraling down and with the mandate and support that Obama had.  

    Parent

    huh. (none / 0) (#71)
    by sj on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 04:17:32 PM EST
    I didn't know that.  Interesting reading.

    Parent
    This is Reich's take on the numbers... (none / 0) (#28)
    by masslib on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 12:03:05 PM EST
    LINK

    He was so wrong, wrong, wrong about Obama, but he's been so right about the current crisis.

    Good article (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 01:07:51 PM EST
    I'm one of those statistics. I'm a network administrator that has been out of work since Mar 2009 when the company I worked for went bankrupt.

    Long term unemployed have to deal with loss of subject matter, depression, stuggle to stay afloat and rejection. That is why it is so difficult for them to unite. Unions, I beleive, are the only united fronts lobbying for the unemployed.

    I spend more time looking for employment than I did working. I have 26 different resumes, 12 cover letters, my college degree (graduated with honors), 3 letters of recommendation from former employers, 4 great references and NO JOB.

    A month ago I was getting 1-2 interviews per week. Recently, nothing.

    I'm now sub-teacher for 5 school districts. I take what little work I can get.

    Off subject but - I didn't know that finger prints could wear off. My FBI finger printing was rejected due to prints being worn down. I had to get my name run through the system.

    Parent

    Good luck (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 02:19:00 PM EST
    to you. My husband was out of work for two months and I consider us extremely lucky. I have many friends who are just like you. There just aren't enough jobs out there for people.

    Parent
    I'm hoping for you. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 03:14:48 PM EST
    If you begin feeling down, post more on blogs, vent, people do that here.

    Make sure to keep anxiety in check by any means possible, because going to a job interview anxious doesn't seem to work. I really wish I could do more than offer these few platitudes.

    I worry also for my students, who, after graduating, say, "Gee... what can I do now? I guess more school..." for some, but the nontraditionals, folks with children, parents and their semi-adult children in different sections of the same class...trying to make some sort of decent life in this time.

    Prayers and positive thoughts.

    Something needs to give. Something has to give.

    Parent

    Good luck to you (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by sj on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 04:07:22 PM EST
    Finger prints can wear off it (none / 0) (#74)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 07:21:17 PM EST
    you handle a lot of xeroxed paper!

    Parent
    Here is a substative post (none / 0) (#36)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 12:27:41 PM EST
    Of course, Reich is right...Standard Keynesian stuff....  

    Parent