Jobs Are His Number One Priority

[dayman]

You are either trolling or don't know how to read.

 

What we are branding as ridiculous is how someone could say that the reason the economy contracted is because of austerity which is ridiculous because there has been no such thing.

 

If that **** confuses you, then you are worse than NJSue.

 

I can read and I'm just asking...

[Magox]

He's not trolling, he just doesn't understand.

[meazza]

I can read and I'm just asking...

 

That's what is surprising. It's quite clear.

[dayman]

To slash or not to slash...that is the question of our age... hehe

[Magox]

At this stage of the game, deficit spending will happen no matter what, and if didn't then we'd certainly fall into not just a recession but probably a depression. The problem with the president's "stimulus" bill was that it didn't address our structural labor market woes. Everything for the most part were short-term measures, that added temporary stimulus with the idea that somehow the spending was going to be enough of a boost so that the economy could reach escape velocity. Well, their calculations were wrong, it did give us a temporary boost, but once the funds exhausted, the economy came back down to earth, sorta like gravity. Krugman said we should of done a stimulus of 2 Trillion rather than the original 800B that Obama passed. Well, the problem is that we've had more "stimulus" measures that have passed, not to mention all the extraordinary measures the Fed has engaged in over the past few years. Federal Government administered stimulus has come close to that 2 Trillion dollars and 4 years later, here we are with subpar growth.

 

Why? Again, very little has been done to structurally and sustainably improve the labor market or for that matter the economy.

 

Many years from now, this will be a perfect case study that keynesian economics for these sort of systemic economic break downs don't work... Not to say that keynesian economics can't work, but for these sort of downturns, they aren't the answer. Krugman was wrong.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Magox

[B-Man]

Economic Stagnation and the Administrative State

 

It’s possible that one day American civilization will collapse under the weight of unnecessary rules, and the runaway regulatory state will come to some biblical end.

 

In the meantime, however, the explosion in regulations under the Obama administration is proving a huge drag on the economy. That explains why the slowest and most meager recovery of modern times is once again slouching back towards recession, losing a tenth of a percent GDP.

 

You would think that anyone can see how the regulatory rampage is slowing economic growth, but actually liberals can’t. As Adam White recently reported in a harrowing feature for the The Weekly Standard, the administration freely admits that its regulations have been five times more burdensome than all of George W. Bush’s, and almost four times more burdensome than all of Clinton’s. But, the administration argues, the regulations’ many benefits make Obama’s regulations 25 times more beneficial than all of Bush’s! Therefore, the economy would be performing even more slowly but for Obama regulations!

 

If every dollar in regulatory costs brings five dollars in regulatory benefits (a profit margin of 400 percent I guess?) then by far the most productive business activity is regulatory compliance, and businesses should avoid doing anything else. Of course, with one major exception,* regulations don’t generally result in large net economic benefits. The administration has fudged the numbers to make it seem otherwise. Its outrageous misuse of science in “calculating” regulatory benefits has already been exposed, by Kathleen Hartnett White of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, among others.

[meazza]

So it's Republicans fault that the economy contracted

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/01/30/carney_blames_republicans_in_congress_for_contracting_economy.html

 

Y'all deserve this for voting for this clown.

[dayman]

While I could agree that New England Clam Chowder is objectively a better tasting soup and one I enjoy very much, I order Broccoli and Cheddar more often than any other soup. The least frequently ordered soup that I would rank top 5, would have to be French Onion. Italian Wedding is the worst commonly available soup.

[B-Man]

So it's Republicans fault that the economy contracted

 

http://www.realclear...ng_economy.html

 

Y'all deserve this for voting for this clown.

 

I don't have some of the economic expertise as some on the board, but is Carney just phoning the excuses in at this point ?

 

 

It takes a lot longer than the two weeks it took to set the fiscal deal in mid-December to actually shrink the 4th quarter GDP. Doesn't it ?

 

It takes a whole year, of continuing hostile environment for business, and an unprecedented raft of rules, restrictions, regulations and taxes to accomplish an actual shrinkage.

 

How can the reporters sit there with a straight face ??..........................................................................rhetorical.

 

 

.

[meazza]

I don't have some of the economic expertise as some on the board, but is Carney just phoning the excuses in at this point ?

 

 

It takes a lot longer than the two weeks it took to set the fiscal deal in mid-December to actually shrink the 4th quarter GDP. Doesn't it ?

 

It takes a whole year, of continuing hostile environment for business, and an unprecedented raft of rules, restrictions, regulations and taxes to accomplish an actual shrinkage.

 

How can the reporters sit there with a straight face ??..........................................................................rhetorical.

.

 

I'll defer to the experts on this one:

 

Here is one of the most comprehensive expert opinion on this matter:

 

While I could agree that New England Clam Chowder is objectively a better tasting soup and one I enjoy very much, I order Broccoli and Cheddar more often than any other soup. The least frequently ordered soup that I would rank top 5, would have to be French Onion. Italian Wedding is the worst commonly available soup.

[B-Man]

I'll defer to the experts on this one:

 

Here is one of the most comprehensive expert opinion on this matter:

 

 

2 thumbs up..............

 

Edited January 30, 2013 by B-Man

[meazza]

2 thumbs up..............

 

 

I prefer this one:

 

[Nanker]

While I could agree that New England Clam Chowder is objectively a better tasting soup and one I enjoy very much, I order Broccoli and Cheddar more often than any other soup. The least frequently ordered soup that I would rank top 5, would have to be French Onion. Italian Wedding is the worst commonly available soup.

So, by your own admission, you are nearly single-handedly responsible for the contraction of the economy due to your paltry ordering of less-than-desirable, or rather less-than-preferred soups. While you sit back on your haunches eating peanut butter sandwiches and sipping Chablis, the world around you is awash in your unpaid bills.

 

Wake up! If you're not spending more than you earn, you're not increasing the debt, and just how do you ever think we'll have economic prosperity if you don't start eating more soup?

[Doc]

Four years later, and what do we have to show for it? Over 5 Trillion dollars worth of new debt, near record low labor participation rate and a stagnant economy that is virtually flat lining.

Yeah, but Barry's just as cool as ever!

[Gary M]

Yeah, but Barry's just as cool as ever!

 

And Michelle is dreamy.

[Juror#8]

I have a response but I am unsure of a few things from your post and I was hoping that you (or anyone) could help me clear them up. I have my opinions on some of these items, but I'd like to know yours:

 

The problem with the president's "stimulus" bill was that it didn't address our structural labor market woes.

 

When was the last time a president addressed "structural labor market woes"?

 

Everything for the most part were short-term measures, that added temporary stimulus with the idea that somehow the spending was going to be enough of a boost so that the economy could reach escape velocity.

 

When was the last instance that something more significant than a "short-term measure" was employed to boost the economy enough to reach escape velosity?

 

here we are with subpar growth.

 

When was the last time the country experienced something appreciably better than "subpar growth"?

 

Again, very little has been done to structurally and sustainably improve the labor market or for that matter the economy.

 

To the best of your recollection, when was the last time very much [was] done to "structurally and sustainably improve labor markets and the economy"?

[3rdnlng]

Mission Accomplished---Jobs Council no longer needed:

 

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2013/01/31/obamas-jobs-council-shutting-down-thursday

 

 

"WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama will let his jobs council expire this week without renewing its charter, winding down one source of input from the business community even as unemployment remains stubbornly high.

 

When Obama in January 2011 formed his Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, unemployment was hovering above 9 percent. Two years president later, more than 12 million people in the U.S. are out of work. The unemployment rate has improved to 7.8 percent, but both parties agree that's still too high.

A provision in Obama's executive order establishing the council says it sunsets on Thursday. A White House official said the president does not plan to extend it.

Officials said the president always intended for the council to fulfill its mission and then wind down, and said that Obama would continue to actively engage and seek input from business leaders about ways to accelerate job-creation and economic growth. Among the steps Obama plans to pursue are expedited permits for infrastructure projects, the White House said."

[Magox]

 

 

When was the last time a president addressed "structural labor market woes"?

 

 

 

When was the last instance that something more significant than a "short-term measure" was employed to boost the economy enough to reach escape velosity?

 

 

 

When was the last time the country experienced something appreciably better than "subpar growth"?

 

 

 

To the best of your recollection, when was the last time very much [was] done to "structurally and sustainably improve labor markets and the economy"?

 

 

When was the last time the country experienced something appreciably better than "subpar growth"?

 

Since "Subpar" is a subjective term, I think it's important to note that not all similar GDP growth rates aren't created equal. What do I mean by that? Well, it normally takes a GDP growth rate north of 2- 2.5% to lower the unemployment rate. Anything above that normally shows net job creation relative to population increase, anything below, shows stagnant to net job losses.

 

If you have an economy that is moving at 2-2.5% job growth with an economy that is fully employed with below 5% unemployment, then you have an economy that is relatively healthy, generally with enough slack to absorb a typical shock to the economy. An economy at this GDP growth rate fully employed is not only a mildly positive development domestically, but for abroad as well, meaning there are enough employed Americans to continue the cycle of American's buying foreign products.

 

If you have a 2-2.5% GDP Economy that has a very high unemployment rate of 8%, and you get that growth, well again, you aren't adding jobs relative to population increase, which means the economy isn't really improving all that much. When you are in a hole as deep as we are, it's important to have meaningful growth to get that unemployment rate down. And when I say down, not down in the sense where people leave the labor market which therefore artificially lowers the unemployment rate.

 

Having said that, here is a list of some previous presidents growth rates:

 

http://www.davemanuel.com/2010/08/03/us-gdp-growth-by-president-1948-2009/

 

1981-1988 (Ronald Reagan, Republican), 3.4%

1989-1992 (George H. W. Bush, Republican), 2.17%

1993-2000 (Bill Clinton, Democrat), 3.88%

2001-2008 (George W. Bush, Republican), +2.09%

 

Obama's first term was at 1.2%

 

Reagan and Clinton both inherited weak economies, which gave them an inherent advantage in being able to produce higher GDP growth rates. Typically the larger the hole, the more opportunity for subsequent growth. Both Bush's inherited fully employed economies. It's a little more difficult to produce higher growth rates when the economy is fully employed.

 

 

You were responding to this :

 

 

 

The problem with the president's "stimulus" bill was that it didn't address our structural labor market woes.

 

When was the last time a president addressed "structural labor market woes"?

 

So, I think it's important to understand what it is that I mean when I say "structural labor market woes". Structural from my perspective are fundamental solutions that have long-term impacts. When the president offered bailouts for State and Local governments so that they could stem the job losses from these states. That wasn't structural. The problem with the states is that they had budgets based off baselines that were from the housing bubble booms. It was unsustainable, unfortunately the only sane way to solve this dilemma is to allow the steep cuts to occur. Now that those funds have exhausted, what happened to those state budgets and jobs? They were eventually cut and let go, hence the job losses from these state and local governments. Now reasonable people can argue that it was needed in 2009 so that the economy wouldn't continue to fall at the precipitous rate it was when the President entered into the job. But it still wasn't a fundamental structural solution.

 

What about all the temporary tax credits and pay roll tax deductions he had? Again, they were all short-term, all it did was give a temporary boost to the economy, now that they have expired, guess what has been happening to Consumer confidence? Dropping.

 

So what are the solutions that would be considered "structural". I've spoken about this at great length, but I''ll go over it again.

 

1) A tremendous investment in jobs training. We have plenty of jobs here in the U.S that can't be filled because there aren't enough qualified prospects to fill the jobs. We can do this by reforming some of the "safety nets". I believe there should be strings attached for people who are unemployed that are receiving food stamps and for people who request extended unemployment benefits. What I mean is that there should be a huge investment in getting these people trained so that they can enter the work force. The government from my view should help identify where demand is for these jobs, offer job training programs and have people retrain. When people remain unemployed for too long they develop atrophy in their former job skills. Not to mention some of those skills aren't needed nearly as much as they use to, such as construction jobs.

 

2) We are blessed with Energy here in the U.S Look at the Dakotas, experiencing near sub 3% unemployment. There is so much energy here in the U.S, we should open up territories for drilling. This alone would add many jobs throughout the U.S. This is a twofold structural development, because one it adds jobs, and two it would reduce or help mitigate the rise of energy prices. This is not only a great development for the U.S consumer who will have more money to spend, but also on manufacturers who will have lower input costs.

 

3) We should look to build vehicles that run off of Natural gas. We have the natural resources here in the U.S to make it happen. Obviously there are many logistical hurdles, but we could begin to incrementally increase production of these vehicles by giving incentives for State/local and Federal vehicles to run off of Natural gas. Once the logistics take care of itself, in time, we can look to produce more of these vehicles for the open market. Again, this would lead to job creation and lower energy prices, specially for gasoline.

 

4) Tax reform. Reasonable people can argue what tax reform should look like, but reforms are structural by nature. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, and yes I know there are many loopholes that Giant companies evade, but they aren't keeping that money home. We are losing out, many of these companies have gone on record saying that if we lowered the rates and allowed some sort of forgiveness that they would repatriate those funds back home. Obviously I'm a little skeptical of some of their claims, but let's put it this way, it would end being a net plus.

 

5) An aggressive push create trade deals with our trading partners, primarily the faster developing nations. We should tirelessly be looking to see how we can enter these markets, you know, make deals. I hardly hear anything from this administration on that front, and I keep up.

 

6) Regulatory Reform, one can argue that is precisely what this administration is doing, but the reforms by in large from the business community both at the corporate and small business level do not approve. I for one lost my job because of the Dodd Frank Regulations. I can go on and on with examples in how this has, is and will continue to be the case.

 

I've got many more ideas in what would constitute as structural reforms. But these are a few examples.

[B-Man]

 

Suddenly, it’s still the economy

 

There was one good thing about getting the first red-ink GDP report in four years — it reminded everyone that Barack Obama has all but ignored the economy. Even before his declaration last year that “the private sector is doing just fine,” Obama’s attention had drifted into contraception, redefining religious practice, the Life of Julia, and all sorts of other demagogic wedge issues — while the workforce declined and the economy stagnated. Obama barely mentioned jobs in his inaugural speech last week, which included only one mention of the word “economy.” Suddenly, the Political Ghost Of James Carville arose to remind everyone that it’s still the economy.

 

The White House reacted as though they just woke up from a two-year dream to blame the Republicans, and corporate jet owners:

White House press secretary Jay Carney laid the blame for a surprise economic contraction squarely at the feet of congressional Republicans Wednesday, saying economic threats during the “fiscal cliff” negotiations had prevented important defense spending. …

Carney said economic observers were “rightly appalled” by the threat of sequestration or default to drive a debt deal, and charged that Republicans were harming the economy to the benefit of the wealthiest Americans.

“It can’t be we’ll let sequester kick in because we insist tax loopholes remain in place for corporate jet-owners,” Carney said.

 

That sounds like a great rebuttal … for 2011. John Boehner immediately reminded Carney that the sequestration idea came from Obama and the White House, not the Republicans. Today, Investors Business Daily demolishes the argument that the GDP drop was due to spending cuts, and that the problem is the acceptance of stagnation as the standard of economic excellence:

An interesting theory. Except that while the BEA says defense spending declined in Q4, overall federal spending was up $31 billion compared with Q4 2011 and up $98 billion compared with Q3 2012, according to monthly spending reports out of the Treasury Department.

And even assuming that the “huge cuts” from the sequester go through, spending this year will be about $570 billion higher than in 2008, and will consume 22.4% of GDP — a level reached only four times in the 63 years before Obama.

 

So maybe it’s the lack of adequate stimulus?

 

Perhaps, but only if you ignore the Fed’s massive ongoing pump-priming efforts, and the fact that the deficit in Q4 alone topped $292 billion — nearly double the deficit for all of 2007.

 

The lack of good excuses might explain why Obama and Co. are so desperate to put a positive spin on the numbers.

Democratic Party communications director Brad Woodhouse actually tweeted that this was “

the best-looking contraction in U.S. GDP you’ll ever see

.”

 

That’s one way of looking at it.

 

Another is that slow to non-existent growth has become the new normal thanks to Obama’s growth-choking policies, with the economy consistently underperforming expectations.

 

http://hotair.com/ar...ll-the-economy/

Edited January 31, 2013 by B-Man

[Magox]

That's the funniest part of all this, Carney blames the R's because of the looming sequestration cuts, but it was their idea to put it in there.

 

Why wasn't he pressed on this point at the briefing?

Edited January 31, 2013 by Magox