You are missing the point (purposely?) which is that you can’t just jump between two different definitions of unemployment. While the 16% number may be a more accurate representation of unemployment, it is not the rate that is generally talked about and was talked about in the unemployment projections that you trotted out.
It is like arguing,
You: “You claimed this is 12 long and I am getting 30.”
Rational person: “Well, I claimed it was 12 inches and you measured in centimeters.”
You: “Well, the metric system is a better measure, so centimeters is the way to go, so we are back to the fact that you claimed it was 12 and I measure it to be 30.”
And, even to the extent that the claims are true that the unemployment rate ended up higher than the Obama Administration at one time projected, that doesn’t tell one much except that it is very difficult to do economic projections, particularly when the economy is in free-fall with the biggest financial disaster than the Great Depression and losing something like half a million jobs a month.
Real economists have made estimates of how much higher unemployment would have been if not for the stimulus. It is admittedly an uncertain calculation but to claim that you know it didn’t create jobs because of one economic projection with large errorbars is just immature.
Magiver, I am still waiting for you to give us some cite from a reputable economist to back up the ideological nonsense that you trot out as facts here. All that you’ve presented are axioms of conservative faith that fly in the face of any elementary understanding of economics, mixed with outright falsehoods (like your conflating two totally different measures of unemployment).
If anybody here thinks that modern American conservatism has not become a completely bankrupt ideology that has divorced itself utterly from reality, they only need read your posts here to be convinced otherwise.
“while the 16% number may be a more accurate representation of unemployment”…
What don’t you understand about this? The “stimulus” package did nothing but raise the level of debt. The bill that just passed did nothing to address it.
How can a road not generate wealth when workers are employed to build it? It puts money in their pockets which they spend. That stimulates the economy. Many roads and many new bridges equal an improved economy. An improved economy generaties wealth. That doesn’t mean it makes everyone “wealthy” in the Dun and Bradstreet sense of the word, but it does generate wealth.
Well, since you asked The obvious way would be to build a “road to nowhere” that doesn’t go to or from anyplace people want, and use eminent domain to drive it willy-nilly through people’s homes and businesses. “Good news: we’re giving you a job at minimum wage! Bad news: It’s to drive the bulldozer that flattens your house.”
No, I don’t think anyone is likely to do that. But you DID ask…
There is nothing that I don’t understand about this. I understand that you ridiculously distorted figures in the service of your ideological ends and that you have this article of faith based completely on ideology that flies in the face of any economic understanding.
As people have pointed out, even if the government only does completely useless things with the money, like using it to pay people to dig holes and fill them back in again (which is a ridiculous assumption), you are still putting money in the hands of people who are going to go out and spend it at a time when the economy is paralyzed by a large contraction of demand.
The only coherent argument that I have seen for how such a policy could not be stimulative is if the increased government debt drives up interest rates, thus offsetting some or all of the stimulative effect. However, it is hard to see how interest rates could be significantly lower than they are now!
My argument is, in some respects, like the free trade argument. The more access people have to economic opportunity, and the easier it is to add value to the economy, the better off everyone is.
To the same extent that free trade relocates wealth from rich countries to poor countries, I suppose… I’m rather surprised you are making that argument. Although there are effects to eliminating trade barriers (like encouraging exploitative trade practices in some countries) and building roads (completely paving the earth would cause serious environmental consequences), I would tend to say that making access to goods and markets easier tends to make everyone wealthier, regardless if we’re talking about international trade, interstate trade, or business within a city.
Since we more or less agree on the larger point – that government investment in infrastructure doesn’t necessarily make millionaires, but that infrastructure does indeed grow the economy and create wealth, I submit that there are many more government activities that create wealth.
The education system means we have a literate workforce. Disease research creates medicines that are sold for tidy profits by drug companies. Health care programs help create a capable workforce that isn’t riddled with polio, chicken pox, measles, and other easily preventable diseases. The list goes on and on.
Of course government creates wealth. If you want to destroy wealth, take away public education, government funded R&D, roads, the Internet, shipping facilities, health care, public transit, and all those other things. Then let’s see how much wealth gets created.
A maliciously-created terminology designed in the '70s to redefine reality with perceptions that are actually false. *"Everybody understood at the time that economies are driven by demand. People with good jobs have money in their pockets, and want to use it to buy things. The job of the business community is to either determine or drive that demand to their particular goods, and when they’re successful at meeting the demand then factories get built, more people become employed to make more products, and those newly-employed people have a paycheck that further increases demand.
"Wanniski decided to turn the classical world of economics – which had operated on this simple demand-driven equation for seven thousand years – on its head. In 1974 he invented a new phrase – “supply side economics” – and suggested that the reason economies grew wasn’t because people had money and wanted to buy things with it but, instead, because things were available for sale, thus tantalizing people to part with their money. The more things there were, the faster the economy would grow.
"At the same time, Arthur Laffer was taking that equation a step further. Not only was supply-side a rational concept, Laffer suggested, but as taxes went down, revenue to the government would go up!
"Neither concept made any sense – and time has proven both to be colossal idiocies – but together they offered the Republican Party a way out of the wilderness.
"Ronald Reagan was the first national Republican politician to suggest that he could cut taxes on rich people and businesses, that those tax cuts would cause them to take their surplus money and build factories or import large quantities of cheap stuff from low-labor countries, and that the more stuff there was supplying the economy the faster it would grow. George Herbert Walker Bush – like most Republicans of the time – was horrified. Ronald Reagan was suggesting “Voodoo Economics,” said Bush in the primary campaign, and Wanniski’s supply-side and Laffer’s tax-cut theories would throw the nation into such deep debt that we’d ultimately crash into another Republican Great Depression.
“But Wanniski had been doing his homework on how to sell supply-side economics. In 1976, he rolled out to the hard-right insiders in the Republican Party his “Two Santa Clauses” theory, which would enable the Republicans to take power in America for the next thirty years.”*
The L.A. Times tackled that question and determined that Obama (and by default – no pun intended – the Democrats) won this negotiation. *"Next, consider some basic negotiation theory. Every negotiator begins by looking to what is inelegantly called the BATNA, or Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. No one will rationally accept a deal that is worse than his BATNA. That’s why the party that can do well without a deal almost always does better with a deal.
Now apply these considerations to the debt ceiling debate.
"Obama and the Democrats made it clear that default would be catastrophic. They believe, as a matter of economic fact, that default would have sent the economy back into recession and possibly depression. And they believe, as a matter of moral principle, that such a downturn would inflict wanton cruelty on hardworking Americans. The Democrats’ BATNA was not much of an option.
“Congressional Republicans, especially the House “tea party” types who are commonly said to be calling the Republican shots, were in a different position. Republican economists ranging from the Cato Institute’s John Tamny to Christian evangelical Gary North have long argued that default would not be that big a deal. And the House Republicans’ moral position, as their nearly unanimous support for the Cut, Cap and Balance Act made clear, approves a draconian roll-back of the core entitlements — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — that drive the debate on the national debt.”
. . .
"Given this posture, and given the tea partyers’ apparent commitment to ideological purity over electability, basic negotiation theory predicts that only deals close to the Republican negotiating position — the position embodied in Cut, Cap and Balance — would ever be made. The most that the Republicans should have agreed to is a short-term stop-gap rise in the debt ceiling, insisting on some cuts in social spending now while retaining all of their leverage for demanding deep, structural cuts in a subsequent negotiation in the fall.
"The deal that was struck is dramatically — shockingly — better from the Democrats’ point of view.*
And don’t forget, Gramm-Rudman wasn’t so much changed as it was ruled unconstitutional in Bowsher v. Synar. There may end up being challenges to this, as well.
It’s little more than a canard that government is even supposed to create wealth. No one expects the government to create “wealth.” What the government does, which is indisputable, is create jobs that help our country grow and prosper. Jobs that build and maintain critical infrastructure. Jobs that advance technology that have the potential to improve anything and everything from actual workplace processes to cures for diseases. Jobs that put money in people’s pockets so that they can actually buy things that these “so-called wealth producers” are selling.
It stuns me beyond imagination how people still buy into the falsehood that the wealthy people and big corporations in this country will just naturally use their wealth to create jobs for other people, rather than pocket their wealth for themselves, when real-world evidence points to exactly the opposite. During a time when individual and corporate wealth are at all-time highs, CEOs gave themselves 23% raises last year and corporations are hoarding their cash. And don’t even go there with the “Obama’s making them so scared they have to” nonsense, which is entirely untrue. And even if it weren’t, the obvious rebuttal to that is, the government doesn’t sit on its money, it puts it to use with, among other things, creating jobs. It doesn’t stop creating jobs because it’s a big fat scardy cat. Commentary: CEOs to workers: More for me, less for you
*"Big company CEOs got a 23 percent raise last year and corporate profits are at record highs. But the minimum wage has less buying power now than in 1956 - the year Elvis Presley first topped the charts, videotape was breakthrough technology and the Dow closed above 500 for the very first time.
"It’s no accident wages are down while corporate profits are up. As JPMorgan’s July 11 “Eye on the Market” newsletter put it, “Reductions in wages and benefits explain the majority of the net improvement in (profit) margins… US labor compensation is now at a 50-year low relative to both company sales and US GDP.”*
And this: 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America
“…Real average earnings have not increased in 50 years
…The last two decades were great…if you were a CEO or owner. Not if you were anyone else.
…Republican tax cuts have significantly increased the wealth gap”
And lest we leave out: HSBC to cut 30,000 jobs; posts surprise profit rise
*"Shares in HSBC rose as much as 5 percent as it unveiled first-half pretax profits of $11.5 billion, up from $11.1 billion a year ago and better than the $10.9 billion average in a Reuters poll of analysts.
The bank also said it had cut 5,000 jobs following restructuring of operations in Latin America, the United States, Britain, France and the Middle East and that it would cut another 25,000 between now and 2013.
“There will be further job cuts,” Chief Executive Stuart Gulliver told reporters on a conference call. “There will be something like 25,000 roles eliminated between now and the end of 2013.”"*
So, what were you saying about those fat cat “job creators” again?
To the OP, the notion that President Obama didn’t stand up for himself is silly. He is probably one of the most shrewd negotiators this country has ever had at its helm. Consider what the debt deal doesn’t include, which is actually most of what Republicans were demanding, despite their boasting otherwise! The man offered up $4trillion in cuts, and ultimately the Republicans “demanded” their way down to less than $2.5! The Bush tax cuts are still set to expire at the end of 2012, and the “trigger” is much worse for the Republicans if it’s pulled, than for Democrats, because in spite of containing what are being called “cuts” to Medicare, those cuts aren’t to benefits, but to providers. And they aren’t actually “cuts” in any meaningful sense, because all that’s happening is a reduction in the increases that were set to be spent on that program! And SS and Medicaid aren’t even touched in the “trigger”.
If the bush tax cuts expire they expire on everybody including poor people.
thats why obama cut that deal in december. to preseve the bush tax cuts for middle class.
if the bush tax cuts expire working people in the 10% tax braket
will have to pay 15% instead. Liberals forget that.
plus the republicans got played,because all of the budget cuts take place
in the out years, which means they are never gonna happen.
there is only 7-21 billion being cut this year out of a 3.2 trillion
budget.
Nope, it’s part of a master plan. Refuse any reasonable cuts on the supercommittee, which will force cuts in defense, which you can then blame on the Dems for not “cooperating” and hating America. Big win!
The sentiment I constantly see among liberals is that either Obama is incompetent when it comes to negotiations and governance, or he secretly wants the policies that get enacted despite public protests to the contrary.
Obama could’ve passed the debt ceiling when the dems still had majorities, but he seemed to sincerely believe the GOP would negotiate in good faith. He was wrong, just like he was wrong when he believed that about health reform.
Obama could’ve used the 14th amendment, or at the very least threatened to use it. But he gave that leverage up rather than use it, or even threaten to use it.
So is he incompetent or does he want these policies? I think both.
I think Obama is mostly concerned with his self image as a post partisan politician-citizen who is above political bickering and all it entails (not trusting your opponents, dominating your opponents with slim majorities, using back door methods to pass legislation, using strong arm tactics to pressure legislators). I think he believes in all that dialogue about being nice being more important than being right, and I think he thinks being friends is more important than good governance and good policy. And I think he feels compromise for its own sake is a good thing since it is a sign of friendship, and I believe he feels compromise, bipartisanship and post-partisanship are more important than good policy. To be fair, I voted for him, donated to him and volunteered for him in 2008. But I guess I didn’t see all that back then.
In that light, his incompetence makes more sense IMO. He didn’t use the 14th amendment because it wasn’t ‘post partisan’, even though it was good policy. Policy isn’t as important as his self image. Recess appointments work, but they aren’t ‘compromise with your friends who you trust’ like going through congress is. But why does he constantly trust people who are treating him like shit? I don’t know.
At the same time I think he does want some plutocratic policies. He claimed to support a public option but he really gave it away to the insurance companies so they wouldn’t oppose health reform. He condemned back door deals with pharma as a candidate, then did them as president, giving them endless billions in giveaways to not oppose the legislation. Obama raises tons of money from the financial industry, so he isn’t going to piss them off.
I believe the opposite. He seems like he has no idea that the GOP isn’t negotiating in good faith despite it happening over and over. That is the opposite of practicalist, a true practicalist would’ve learned the lesson by now and found ways to counter it.
If Obama were a practicalist he would say 'The GOPs main goals are ideological purity, promoting their ideology in the government (regressive economics, reducing the size of gov when it comes to infrastructure and social safety, etc), opposing me and anything I stand for, and making me lose in 2012. And they are willing to appear as brazen hypocrites, cause damage to the country and pass legislation that is counterproductive or hurtful to the country if it helps them do those things. How can I use those facts to my political advantage and to pass democratic legislation". Obama instead says 'The GOP negotiate in good faith and are my friends".
Also he doesn’t have ideas he believes in deeply. He supported gay marriage in 1996, and he supported single payer health care in 2003. He supported ending the bush tax cuts as a candidate. He supported a public option. He supported tax hikes in the debt ceiling. He opposed back door negotiations with corporations. He gave all those positions up once there was any resistance either from public disapproval or political stress.
So I think the exact opposite. Obama has no real principals he is willing to stand behind once there is any pressure or stress, and he seems hopelessly naive. He is the opposite of a principled practialist
I don’t agree with that. Private business needs a functioning military, police force, educational system, transportation infrastructure, basic research, etc to make a profit. There are no billionaire business startups in Somalia.
If our health care system were as efficient as what they have in nations like Canada, American businesses would save hundreds of billions a year.
Democrats have been stating publicly that they want to cut defense.
and even the american public doesnt wanna be the police of the world support for afghanistan and iraq are at record lows.
There is supporting what you believe in and what can actually get accomplished.
He said he would support single payer if we could start from scratch. Believe it or not people like there blue cross and blue shield, and we cant revamp 1/6th of our economy from private to completely public in two years.
You have a congress and interest group, blame Senator lieberman , Sen.Baucus
for the public option,not getting passed they couldnt 60 votes in the senate for it.
and health care though it was timid, was controversial as is.
The bush Tax cuts once again if the bush tax cuts go up on the rich, they
expire on the poor as well, for letting 2% of the earners keep their cut he got tax breaks for the middle class a payroll tax cut, unemployment insurance, DADT repealed and the start treaty. and the cuts are expected to expire in 2013 in the lame duck section after the 2012 election can be only stopped by a vote of congress. see its a long game.
thats why progressive never get our way, we cant see the long game.
They want instant gratification.
What does this have to do with Obama supporting gay marriage when he was running for the Il state senate in 1996, then abandoning that position when he started running for national president? That does not show principles. Maybe he was being pragmatic about his support among conservative democrats.
I agree that money is a huge problem in politics. Interest groups could’ve easily derailed health reform if the democrats had not handed them so many bribes (not letting medicare negotiate Rx prices, not allowing importation from canada, changing patent and generic laws, not allowing the public option, mandating everyone buy private health insurance, etc). And yeah, you have to work within that system. But you give what you have to, nothing more. And you should know your opponents are not always your friends, their interests may conflict with your own. And you need to be willing to use leverage when needed.
DADT wasn’t tied to the tax cut issue from what I know. But I could be wrong.
I don’t think single payer was realistic on the national level, and I think health reform was a good idea for several reasons. Vermont just passed a single payer esqe system designed by the guy who designed Taiwan’s health system. It could create a state by state movement that allows it to eventually hit the national stage.
Progressives not seeing the long game, or wanting instant gratification has nothing to do with not using (or threatening to use) the 14th amendment or recess appointments. To me that just shows an unwillingness to use the leverage available to him. The complaint against Obama isn’t so much that he can’t overpower all these forces organized against him or against democratic policies, it is that he doesn’t even seem to try most of the time. It is one thing to lose the fight after trying your best, it is another to barely show up for the fight. Obama seems like the latter.
And I don’t agree that progressives can’t see the long game, that sounded like an insult rather than an observation. I personally think voting reform (making it easier to vote, same day registration, making election day a national holiday, repealing voter ID laws, etc) and labor reform (increasing the scope of unions) are necessary key ingredients to allow long term progressive influence 20+ years from now. With health reform I think acts like Vermonts may pave the way for national single payer 20 years from now.
The obvious way would be to build a “road to nowhere” that doesn’t go to or from anyplace people want, and use eminent domain to drive it willy-nilly through people’s homes and businesses. “Good news: we’re giving you a job at minimum wage! Bad news: It’s to drive the bulldozer that flattens your house.”