The Labor Department reports that the labor market remained weak last month. Nationwide 39,000 jobs were created and the unemployment rate was 9.8%. There are 15 million unemployed in the nation.
Meanwhile the GOP is preventing extension of unemployment benefits and have no plan on how to increase demand for goods and services. Increased demand must occur before we will see a decline in unemployment. Unemployment compensation is the most effective means to counter cyclical recessionary declines. But the Republicans will not continue the benefit unless tycoons get a tax cut. In fact, the House Republicans (all but three) just yesterday voted against extending tax cuts on the first $250,000 of earnings by the nation's taxpayers.
Some comments here have placed the blame on the unemployed for needing the benefit. I don't believe that 15 million workers are kicked back on their couches waiting until their $300 a week benefit runs out. Think about that. The average unemployment benefit is $300 a week. Think about how your household would get by on $300 a week.
There are no jobs out there ... .
... and won't be until there is increased demand for goods and services. There will not be increased demand without someone spending some money. That is where the federal government must step up. People have no money to spend, states have no money to spend, businesses don't hire people unless they need the additional labor to produce for the market. Even now states are facing budget shortfalls that will throw even more people out of work. Something needs to be done and I don't see a plan from anyone in Washington on what to do. The Center for American Progress lays out the case for more stimulus at this link. All the talk is about deficits and I maintain that most Republicans (those not in the Congress) and most Americans don't give a flip about the deficit. Remember just a decade ago, the federal government had a surplus and was projecting surpluses in the future. That was before the ill-advised Bush tax cuts (trickle down does not work, never has), two expensive and ridiculous wars and a $500 billion unpaid for prescription drug benefit. We need to get our economy working again, get revenues up, and health care costs down. If Congressional Republicans won't allow more stimulus or even continue anti recessionary policies like unemployment, and want to repeal the only legislation that can curb health care costs, then please tell me what should be done. Please just skip the part where Barney Frank made all the banks give mortgages to poor people. It is not true and it doesn't matter now.
The country is in real trouble and our leaders fiddle while Rome burns.
DEEP Trouble
Friday, December 3, 2010
We Are In DEEP Trouble
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
31 comments:
Oh Bill, how has the average $300 unemployment check stimulated the economy so far?
Unemployment checks will not stimulate anything - has'nt over two years and trillions of dollars spent on unemployment, stimulus $$$, bank pay-offs, fannie mae and GM bailouts proven anything? It's not just a republican recalcitrance to 'help' the unemployed, they have stated over and over again that there needs to be CUTS in government services and pick=pocketing for them to consider spending still more money. It's as simple as that and what is our president's response? A surprise trip overseas to see the troops - the same day the devastating unemploymnet news is released. That and a new multi-billion dollar spending program to change school food programs to include such nonsesne as whole wheat pizza and salad bars along with additional options including dinners in schools. This administration is absolutely clueless and the November election results has not opened their eyes.
Yes rome is burning but more unemployment giveaways will not staunch the flames.
Oh how simple things are to fix! Just ask George W. and the Republican junta that ran this country into the ground. Look at the ton of sub-prime mortgages they insisted that Fannie Mae and Sallie Mae buy up. That was a great economic stimulus wasn't it binky? Let us see. Oh yes, the market is so flooded with foreclosed homes that the biggest real estate statistic from last month is how even foreclosed properties aren't selling. The thing about unemployment benefits binky is called survival. Bet you got a job right? How about those that can't get one because there are no jobs available? People who are highly educated or have viable trade skills are among the unemployed last time I checked. People who work hard trying to get a job. People who have lost their homes and life savings. What is next? Do we put these poor souls in concentration camps? Do we then subject them to "the final solution"? How Republican of you!
Extend unemployment how far Bill. Unemployment benefits currently lasts 99 weeks. Yes that is not a typo, almost 2 full years of benefits to find a job. You can't honestly want more than 99 weeks can you?
Extension of unemployment benefits costs less than our Afghan occupation, is less than the bonuses handed out to the banksters and Wall Street riverboat gamblers. This is the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. I would extend benefits until there are jobs to employ people. Set a target of 6% unemployment and continue benefits until that is reached.
What is the argument against it? It costs too much? What will the cost be if we don't extend them? It will be lower economic activity, recessionary pressure, and fewer jobs.
"Think about how your household would get by on $300 a week."
How about the seniors who have not much more more than $300 a MONTH to get by on?
Oh, yes, let's add a few more "modest amounts" of money that must be paid out for raises in town. Dartmouth can well afford it, right?
You are kidding Bill right? Extend benefits till we reach a target for unemployment? Not hard to predict how that will turn out. Nobody will return to work-benefits will last forever.
As far as turning once again and blaming Bush-that does not fly anymore. Obama and his cohorts own this. Every promise and prediction Obama has made has turned out WRONG. Trillions on stimulus and other free-spending has done nothing but throw good money after bad. Add to that the most costly spending program to hit us ever - OBAMACARE - which every day looks like a financial and humanitarian disaster.
Yup, I have a job and I do not apologize for that, I work my tail off every day to help ensure I keep that job.
I have no problem curtailing military spending so long as it is part of a large scale reduction in every other program the government now grows every day. That includes forgetting about new spending programs like the dream act, new school eating programs, billions to banks and corporations on and on. Get the house in order then talk about new programs and firing up the printing presses.
What is so hard to understand here?
Bill you speak constantly about the need for the town to limit its spending to what it an afford-I agree and applaud that position. I see no reason the same thought process should not apply to the federal government.
Your comments are reasonable Bill. As usual. However, keep in mind the following complications of the official unemployment rate calculation. Does it include people who have fallen off the scale? Does it include people who have taken jobs that cause them to be seriously under-employed and need better jobs? Does it include the chronically unemployed? The answer, of course, is no it doesn't. Anyone who questions your suggestion of 6% should keep these facts in mind. The 6% may well be a reasonable target and not comparable to what made up the unemployment calculation merely a few years ago.
What happened to 'The Summer of Recovery' that Joe Biden crowed about some 4 months ago? Bush mess that up too?
It would be unfair of me to comment about 9.8 percent unemployment, while Obama wants to continue dishing out unemployment checks that average 300 dollars per week and adding additional monies to the already outrageous deficit spending by the power leadership of our town/cities, county, and U.S. Government.
Not too long ago when Ike was president we had a nation at peace and people who wanted to work could find a job. Young people coming out of high school that went off to college, other kids were drafted into the army and served their country for two years. John Kennedy was elected president and he along with a democratic congress cut taxes for everyone. Across the board tax cuts created more money to spend and big business invested in more product, more people began to spend their new found money. Production created jobs and jobs created more money taken in by the state, and federal government through taxes paid on the dollar earned not given. Not until Johnson, who may have had something to do with Kennedy ending up in an early grave, began the great society. Unfunded Government created programs, caused taxes to increase. Johnson sent 500,000 thousand soldiers to fight a jungle war in Southeast Asia...or was it to fight the commies? The U.S. Congress deserted our troops by no longer funding the war they started. More than 50,000 thousand troops dead before a republican president called it quits and the U.S. American people waited in line to spit on the returning troops. The spit should have been saved for those who sent the troops into a war.
Along came Ford, Carter the peanut man, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush W, and now Obama. Between Johnson and Obama this country has accumulated over 13 trillion dollars of debt.
We can not sustain this madness. We need a balanced federal government budget. Reduce government spending by 20 percent each year for the next five years. Do away with all government spending on a federal level. Keep a strong military. Reduce taxation across the board for all business. Put people back to work and stop worrying about Iran, North Korea and China. Start worrying about our own country. Put Americans back to work and for those who can work but won't work send them to Mexico. Bring all our troops back into our country and patrol the boarders along Mexico and Canada. Hunker down, stop bring oil into our country from countries who are willing to kill us. Find a new sauce of transportation, fueling automobiles, flying airplanes, and stop all this Bull manure. Make it a federal mandate that all American produces are made and sold in the U.S.A. Tell unions to get out of the pockets of the people.
I'm too old to worry about myself, it's my grandchildren that I'm concerned with. No...I've never received a social security check or unemployment check. I made a few dollars by working and saving my money.
Bill, to solve this problem, we need to do the following:
1. You and everyone in Washington need to take their party glasses off for a minute, Republicans and Democrats. The blame game needs to stop.
2. Define a common goal and end result. You'll be surprised that both parties want the same goals (e.g.: create jobs, balance budget, reduce debt, stimulate economy)
3. Compromise on how to get to the common goals.
Stimulate economy: cut taxes? additional government spending bills?
Unemployment: allocation of funds for unemployment benefits
4. Keep the conversation directed at the issue at hand. Pelosi has been linking GOP not wanting to fund unemployment while wanting tax cuts for the top 2%. These are two different issues, two different pieces of legislation. This is just a political trick to make Republicans seem like they hate the poor. Your post also links the Afghan war. Keep the conversation directed at the issue at hand and we'll finally be able to have honest conversations with the American people.
---
My own take:
Extend unemployment benefits. Extend the 'Bush' tax cuts for every American. The latter will have a greater impact on stimulating our economy and establishing some certainty in the markets.
Remember, every dollar in the private sector, be a poor person or the top 2% of Americans, that dollar is in the private sector which will be spent on consumer goods, or reinvested in businesses. If taxed, that dollar is one less dollar that could go to truly stimulating our economy. Government does not create wealth. It stifles it. Government can create the environment in which our economy can stimulate itself.
Once again, tax cuts for the wealthy have not created prosperity for the country. How do you propose to do so?
Production does not create demand, demand creates production. No one invests resources unless there is demand. No demand, no investment. Our economy is not suffering from a lack of capacity but a lack of demand.
Republican presidents and their budget policies have created the majority of the national debt. St. Reagan's budgets increased the national debt by $1.9 trillion. W's budgets increased the deficit by $5 trillion. Neither of these two presidents presided over a particularly prosperous period in the economy.
Insufficient regulation of fraud and greed has devastated the economy, wrecked financial and real estate markets.
Not insufficient regulation Bill - INCOMEPTENT regulation.
We just had the Summer of Recovery, how could we be in such a mess again? I just don't understand. Obama promised recovery, I heard him so did Nancy and Harry and all the rest of them. C'mon it's not that bad. Why I heard on the news today that even though the jobs news was much worse than predicted just last week, there are signs that things are getting better. The news would'nt lie to us, neither would Gietner or Bernake would they? Things really are better, just keep those $300 checks coming.
Ahhh see - just 5 short months ago, all is well:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/06/biden-touts-summer-of-recovery/1
Matt Yglesias has this post on his blog about why a generous social safety net helps in today's economy
Clinton's deficit was 30 percent more than Reagan. Reagan has Dems in controll of Congress his entire 8 years except for one small majority in the Senate for 2 years.
You can't honestly blame Reagan for runaway spending when spending bills originate in the House or Reps.... That is a lie and you know it Bill. IF you don't know it I suggest you read about bills vs laws. Sheesh you are a dyed in the wool Democrat preaching the Dems creed. Sad really!
Federal and State welare dwarf the money spent fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Trillions are spent on handouts over 10 yrs. The war is under 1 Trillion.
He did not say why a generous social safety net helps in today's market. He said the WELFARE STATE is THE ANSWER Bill. I could not agree any less.
And the example he gives about the unfortunate film processer is very weak. Digital proessing and the changes it has brought was easy to foretell long before the last roll of film came off Kodak's assembly line. Technology changes, people adapt, just ask a telegraph err ahh a switchboard operator or digital 411,ohh never mind, just send a check.
RE: Clinton's deficit was 30 percent more than Reagan.
This is an absolute bold faced lie. The US government operated at a net surplus during those 8 years.
I was a long time homicide investigator. Prior to this move, I spent many years in law enforcement and getting (people) experience before advancing to detective. Attending specialized schools, seminars, and acquiring special investigative techniques was nice, but the truth be known, I developed my skills while working and questioning people with a criminal mind.
All the above information is being offered to make one pointed distinction concerning Sunday night 60 minutes interview with Mr. Bernanke,..... he lied. After listening to his quivering voice, body language, and explanation of time before the unemployment level becomes acceptable and the country is back on it's financial feet, so called, was nothing more then a lie. Mr. Bernanke could never pass a lie detector test. Mr. Bernanke, who is chairman of the countries financial direction, is on the verge of throwing a rope around his neck. I predict he is gone within one year, or less.
Our country is on the brink of a total financial break down. Something much worse then 1929. Unemployment will sore to heights never known to man. The presidents committee on what is needed to be done in order to get us back on financial stability is no longer being considered because the action needed is too much for the country to accept. BINGO
This is an absolute bold faced lie. The US government operated at a net surplus during those 8 years.
Not true, I suggest you look up intragovernmental debt. The borrowing from the trust funds to balance Clinton's budget resulted in a 1.4 trillion dollar increase in Total debt.
Look it up before calling someone a liar. The Clinton surplus was a myth and shell game hiding the debt. It never existed.
That said Clinton did a better job than most Presidents in controlling debt.
Re: Not true, I suggest you look up intragovernmental debt. The borrowing from the trust funds to balance Clinton's budget resulted in a 1.4 trillion dollar increase in Total debt.
This is hilarious. Calling investing Social Security money in Treasury notes (at good yields) is increasing the national debt? Simple minded folk may fall for your simple minded analysis. Intelligent people will not.
To borrow from the trust funds, the U.S. Department of the Treasury issues special non-marketable securities that cannot be resold on the secondary bond market. In other words unlike publicly traded bonds, these are non-transferable and must be held by the entity to which they were issued. Their technical designation is Government Account Series securities. They are often referred to as GAS Treasuries for short. These special government bonds can only be sold back to the government at face value and the interest they bear is set by a special formula. In its book-keeping, the Treasury refers to these securities as Intragovernmental Holdings. Intragovernmental debt, then, is incurred when the government borrows surplus money from federal trust funds in order to help finance its current operations.
There are no treasury notes, nothing can be sold to get the money back. It is not a good return on the investment because the USA is broke.
Clearly you didn't investigate intragovernmental holdings and you call me simple minded. That is sad, personal attacks are not needed.
In closing, Clinton never had a surplus of any kind. I did credit the man with coming closer than any recent President though. Sorry your partisan politics got in the way of the facts.
Where would you have Social Security funds invested? In the stock market? Guaranteed yields at no risk is not good enough? What do you call that? Reaganonmics? Yikes!
Social security is not invested anywhere. The Gov took the money and promised to pay it back along with the 13 trillion we already owe.
There are no treasury bonds, just a single page noting what the government owes social security.
What is a bigger risk? SS invested in the market or in the hands of the current government?
I am enclosing a link that provides the detail of where the Social Security funds are invested.
http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/transactions.cgi
Perhaps you recall (I doubt that you would admit it) that George W. wanted to take this money and invest it in the stock market.
Wrong again!
Your link is exactly what I said. NOT a single marketable bond was purchased.
SI bonds are a single sheet of paper that says.... yes we (the government) took billions in trust fund surplus and promise to pay it back.
There is no money, there are no bonds that are worth anything except the governments promise to pay it when needed.
IF the surplus was invested in the stock market even with the dip there would still be some money left. Now we have 0 dollars and a promise to pay the bill when needed.
One more time. Here is a link that may (?) explain how excess Social Security Trust funds are invested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund
They are invested in FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SECURITIES. Guaranteed by the US Government. To the uninformed, there are many types of US Government securities. By type, length, and yield. ALL GUARANTEED. You claim the stock market would have yielded more profit? The DJ index was over 1500 when George W. and his boys went after this money. Last time I checked, the DJ index was in the 1100 range. And you claim that this would have yielded more for the SS Trust fund? One thing for sure, you ain't getting near my money!
Post a Comment