Obama's solution to the failing economy:

[LunarRay]

(...) I do not see a snowballs chance in hell that the current status quo changes anytime soon, so imho we be fucked.

My preamble would be: The term 'Ceteris Paribus' although often omitted from the comments made by our leading Economists it is firmly implanted in their thinking. The Economist is trained to know how far and in what doorways any kind of single effect has on all other aspects of both the Macro and Micro Economy. But, this is only true to the extent you can look at a static economy and not the dynamic one that really exists... So we deal with probabilities and people and their psychology along with the structure. We know that an open carbon fire won't melt steel but if you get enough huffing and puffing and a closed place you can and do melt steel with a carbon fire... We, however, can't seem to decide if there is huffing and puffing or simply sleeping bellows.

Congress and the Executive are not favorably motivated to enact law that will not further their own objectives which seemingly ought to be the same in this recession... They each have the brightest and most dedicated Economists at their side but still only partially do anything.
The irony is that to do nothing is better than doing the wrong something. And to let Big Business take the lead, although probably better in the long run, it don't get themselves reelected.

The one thing they can do that will also move us toward a reasonable goal of energy independence is to invest in our Green Infrastructure. If that could be isolated we'd see the payback occur over a ten year period. There are probably other such kinds of investments we can entertain but War is not one of them...
A simple move like bringing our troops back from various locale puts that money in our economy but we continue to lag in that area..
The bit about taxing the rich is psychobabble fed to the lower and middle class for votes... As long as we tax to about 18% GDP I and Buffet and Congress ought to be happy but some want the rich to suffer and that don't really put a dent in the dollar need.

Isolate or move toward that is my want... but that is not the Agenda both sides seem to want... Maybe Paul does but not the folks in charge.

So.... Business will provide what the demand needs are... if and only if it makes sense to do so... and it don't at the moment so, yeah... we be ummmmmm in for an E ticket ride on a G ticket price. IMO

 

[Darwin333]

The one thing they can do that will also move us toward a reasonable goal of energy independence is to invest in our Green Infrastructure. If that could be isolated we'd see the payback occur over a ten year period.

I agree with almost all you posted but wanted to specifically reply to the above. Let me start by saying that I own my own business in the solar power market so I have a good bit of knowledge in the area of renewables.

The absolute biggest thing that we need to do in order to make renewable power a reality is to completely rebuild our absurdly old power grid. The best estimates on the cost to do that is a bit north of a trillion dollars. That is why I stated in this thread (I believe in a reply to you) that I would've liked to have seen the entire stimulus package go towards a new grid. It would have created a ton of great paying jobs and at the end of it we would have a major piece of infrastructure to show for it that all by itself would save money and resources.

Without that new grid "distributed energy" is almost impossible. We have tons of available rooftops that do nothing but cost money right now that could be offsetting our power needs but even when we do put solar on them the power companies can not rely on that power because of our grid. They still have to burn the same amount of whatever it is they are burning for our electricity even though the owner of the panels does save money on his power bill.

With that said, we are still going to use a metric fuckload of oil over the next 20 years and as long as our suppliers are in extremely unstable regions we have no choice but to keep our military there to protect our energy supply. Why do you think we care about the Middle East? We really don't but we do absolutely need the energy that they export to us and we are forced into protecting it since the region is so unstable.

If I had my way we would be doing "drill baby drill" (with a few common sense regulations added) to provide our short and medium term needs as well as investing in green infrastructure at the exact same time to start phasing out our need for fossil fuels. The one thing that I do know to be absolutely true is that one without the other is impossible at this point and this is coming from a guy who makes a living off of green energy.

 

[LunarRay]

I agree with almost all you posted but wanted to specifically reply to the above. Let me start by saying that I own my own business in the solar power market so I have a good bit of knowledge in the area of renewables.

The absolute biggest thing that we need to do in order to make renewable power a reality is to completely rebuild our absurdly old power grid. The best estimates on the cost to do that is a bit north of a trillion dollars. That is why I stated in this thread (I believe in a reply to you) that I would've liked to have seen the entire stimulus package go towards a new grid. It would have created a ton of great paying jobs and at the end of it we would have a major piece of infrastructure to show for it that all by itself would save money and resources.

Without that new grid "distributed energy" is almost impossible. We have tons of available rooftops that do nothing but cost money right now that could be offsetting our power needs but even when we do put solar on them the power companies can not rely on that power because of our grid. They still have to burn the same amount of whatever it is they are burning for our electricity even though the owner of the panels does save money on his power bill.

With that said, we are still going to use a metric fuckload of oil over the next 20 years and as long as our suppliers are in extremely unstable regions we have no choice but to keep our military there to protect our energy supply. Why do you think we care about the Middle East? We really don't but we do absolutely need the energy that they export to us and we are forced into protecting it since the region is so unstable.

If I had my way we would be doing "drill baby drill" (with a few common sense regulations added) to provide our short and medium term needs as well as investing in green infrastructure at the exact same time to start phasing out our need for fossil fuels. The one thing that I do know to be absolutely true is that one without the other is impossible at this point and this is coming from a guy who makes a living off of green energy.

After I left Digital I went to work at a much smaller firm, Engineering and Construction... The Engineering (electrical and mechanical) focus was Energy stuff for SDG&E and other power companies. I know a bit... not much... about the hard side of green energy stuff... I'm a Numbers person... so not too much at all... other than cost.

To re-grid I'd have estimated a bit closer to two trillion... but, it can be done sector by sector so the investment can be over time and involve all the power suppliers.

People scoff at transformers blowing up and forget ships sink... while nuclear can devastate the spotted owl population. To say Solar only works where the sun shines forgets about batteries and all the new gadgets developed... The sun heats crap and that can be used to turn turbines but I like Solar stuff for the areas where it is best suited and wind where it fits and wave motion in areas far from Kansas ... 🙂 We will have to go in that direction sooner or later and the Grid does need being sorted out.... now, imo.

Our city council was met with a desire by SDG&E to surcharge Solar... because folks wouldn't incur much KW from them... hehehehehehe We'd even feed the grid and they don't like that either. San Onofre is down... all the nuke production is off line and they complain about feeding the grid as they 'brown out' areas.... Simply amazing.

It used to be an eight year payback for the typical home to put solar on the roof... I'm in Solana Beach and actually a block from the ocean so overcast occurs but solar works then too. It ought to be mandatory for new home construction... I don't know how many panels a 5000 square foot house would need but it should be part of the cost to build, at least here...


As far as the oil goes we buy from Saudi and they buy our cars and jets and stuff so we do have a vested interest in the area. What I don't get is our continued support of places we 'own'...like Iraq and Kuwait.

We spent a few dollars killing all those people and their infrastructure so they own me oil... I want it... Why we let it go is because we're still waiting for those flowers Bush said the people were gonna give us.. ok... I want them too.

Drilling in the US... Ok... drill and sell it to China while still maintaining our balance of trade with the other partners who do have oil.

In the meantime let's debt finance the grid and get it going... we need it and we need the energy and the jobs created multiplies the effect and there it is...

 

[sactoking]

Interesting, what area is that?

Nevada

How many of those positions have either below market rates of pay or unrealistic position requirements.

A job that starts at $40k and maxes out in 20 years at $70k based on step raises is not going to get a $55k person to come in at $45. Gov rules that say a person can not advance more than 2 grades at a time which prevents a $55k start. Benefits and security do not add up to 20% loss

The position requirements/pay reasonableness varies by department. There are definitely some departments that are way below the norm. The problem is we are #1 in unemployment so even though the entry level is below market:
a) it's more than unemployment; and
b) the upper levels are competitive
It's not a skills problem either. We are hurting most for low-skill admin jobs, the state has a paid admin training program to prepare candidates, and we still can't get enough.

How in the world is the state even functioning with all those unfilled positions? <sarcasm>

Notwithstanding your sarcasm, that's actually a good question. We have one of the 5 lowest state employee per capita ratios in the nation and the other 4 states (CA, TX, NY, PA, FL) have 5x the population we do. Compared to other mid/small states like Utah we could double our state employee # and still be below average. Service isn't always great, but somehow we're making it work and we're not sure how.

Baloney. I know exactly how that system works.

Those managers aren't even LOOKING for people, because they're saving the money to make their departmental budgets. All this bullshit about not having enough qualified people is just that - total bullshit. They talk about 'vacant positions', but if they were to fill them they'd be so far past budget they'd have to cut them.

It's just like when government agencies talk about slashing headcount. They don't necessarily mean they are firing people - they're removing headcount-required-to-operate. Or, in other words, they're removing positions that aren't even filled.

It's like another game people play: we're short on good teachers, but someone with a masters degree in engineering isn't allowed to teach math or physics because they don't have an education degree.

Well, you'd be wrong here. We had a hiring freeze to address the budget issue. All non-essential jobs were frozen and each essential job had to be justified to the Governor for re-hire. That ended a year ago, we're on open hire now, and we can't get qualified applicants even with the highest unemployment rate in the nation. Our tax department can't find auditors qualified to do mining audits so they had to "borrow" auditors from gaming control to do them. My department can't find qualified admin candidates even though we have a training program designed to put people into the system. When we have an opening sometimes we get have to wait weeks before we get an applicant. My department has some of the highest pay grades in the state for front-line skilled work and we can't get qualified people.

 

[werepossum]

After I left Digital I went to work at a much smaller firm, Engineering and Construction... The Engineering (electrical and mechanical) focus was Energy stuff for SDG&E and other power companies. I know a bit... not much... about the hard side of green energy stuff... I'm a Numbers person... so not too much at all... other than cost.

To re-grid I'd have estimated a bit closer to two trillion... but, it can be done sector by sector so the investment can be over time and involve all the power suppliers.

People scoff at transformers blowing up and forget ships sink... while nuclear can devastate the spotted owl population. To say Solar only works where the sun shines forgets about batteries and all the new gadgets developed... The sun heats crap and that can be used to turn turbines but I like Solar stuff for the areas where it is best suited and wind where it fits and wave motion in areas far from Kansas ... 🙂 We will have to go in that direction sooner or later and the Grid does need being sorted out.... now, imo.

Our city council was met with a desire by SDG&E to surcharge Solar... because folks wouldn't incur much KW from them... hehehehehehe We'd even feed the grid and they don't like that either. San Onofre is down... all the nuke production is off line and they complain about feeding the grid as they 'brown out' areas.... Simply amazing.

It used to be an eight year payback for the typical home to put solar on the roof... I'm in Solana Beach and actually a block from the ocean so overcast occurs but solar works then too. It ought to be mandatory for new home construction... I don't know how many panels a 5000 square foot house would need but it should be part of the cost to build, at least here...


As far as the oil goes we buy from Saudi and they buy our cars and jets and stuff so we do have a vested interest in the area. What I don't get is our continued support of places we 'own'...like Iraq and Kuwait.

We spent a few dollars killing all those people and their infrastructure so they own me oil... I want it... Why we let it go is because we're still waiting for those flowers Bush said the people were gonna give us.. ok... I want them too.

Drilling in the US... Ok... drill and sell it to China while still maintaining our balance of trade with the other partners who do have oil.

In the meantime let's debt finance the grid and get it going... we need it and we need the energy and the jobs created multiplies the effect and there it is...

I too like point of use solar, but every time I've run payback calculations without considering the federal and/or state subsidies it's longer than the projected life of the product even before considering time cost of money. Efficiency is good enough today for most residential and small business applications, but we need massive reductions in cost before we can make it mandatory. We can't subsidize our way to prosperity. I'll let Darwin address the cost today; my calculations are generally based on installed solar costs furnished by clients and by my own research for client's possible home use, and I don't think I've run one in three years so I may be considerably off on costs. (A lot of architects are quite liberal and would like to be off the grid, and others build houses where bringing in conventional grid power is quite expensive.) The only thing we're doing with point-of-use solar today are commercial projects where the size requires review and stamping by a licensed professional engineer, but I can tell you that those shut down absolutely when the subsidy money runs out as the subsidies are in my experience half to two-thirds of the total cost.

One real potential in solar for new housing would be the Chinese roof, a clever ancient invention making an over-roof or false roof open at eaves and peak which places the actual building envelope roof in the shade. As the sun hits the over-roof, the heat transferred through it warms the air between the two roofs, expanding it. That causes this air to begin to rise, and that convection current effectively removes the heat from solar gain rather than allowing it to transfer into the attic inside the building envelope. Nowadays it's seldom seen as it's easier to just buy air conditioning and electricity, but if one makes a solid panel of (or mounting) solar cells which is open at eaves and peak, it can serve the secondary purpose of limiting solar gain into the house, giving a double bang for the buck in net-cooling climates. Also, solar feeds power into the grid during peak usage; if that solar is point of use in commercial and industrial districts, the load in those districts can be served at least partially from within those districts, eliminating that portion of the load on the grid (with its attendant transmission losses) as well as on generation.

As far as drill baby drill, I'm all for it if we can add a 10% to 20% tax on oil, imported or domestic, and use that money to subsidize more point of use solar and to start building a smart grid. We should realize though that the existing grid is fine for adding solar to unused roof tops, we just add a meter that runs backwards when generating. The main use of the smart grid will be to bill electricity at a premium during peak hours and at a discount during low use hours. Since peak hours determine the minimum size of the grid and are usually the most expensive (and often dirtiest) source of generation, reducing peak energy has multiple payoffs. Time-weighted electricity will help force point of use solar, time shifting such as ice plant refrigeration and load scheduling/load shedding, and programmable thermostats that lower cooling and heating power when homes aren't occupied.

 

[Fern]

Hire more government workers!

Obama said late Friday it is "absolutely clear" that the U.S. economy is "not doing fine." He also said there has been some "good momentum" in the private sector but Congress needs to act to help boost jobs in the public sector.

In addition to his comments about the private sector during a morning White House press conference, he said the weaknesses in the U.S. economy have to do with state and local government.

"If Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is how do we help state and local governments,” the president said.

If that's his strategy for this election, because this election will be about the economy and nothing else, then there is hope for Romney after all.
​

While Obama is taking a lot of grief for these remarks, I even heard Chris Matthews criticize them, I think it's clear case of pandering to a specific and rather large segment of voters:

1. Unions. IIRC state/local govt employees are the biggest segment of union employees. I suspect these remarks (more money to state/local govt jobs) are meant to show union support after the Wisc debacle.

2. State/local govt employees are a pretty good sized number of (potential) voters. Promising more federal money to avoid layoffs in their sector could be expected to result in govt employee votes, no matter their ideology. Jobs > ideology.

I heard David Axelrod this weekend again emphasize how more govt jobs (police, firemen etc) are necessary for an economic boost.

I'm less sure this is Obama showing his ideological tendencies, and thinking it's more 'real politic'.

Might be a smart ploy, then again might not be.

Fern

 

[Smoblikat]

 

[werepossum]

😀 What could go wrong?

 

[Pulsar]

I don't think you get it. The reason we are supposedly recovering is the exact same reason we got into a recession in the first place.

Huh?

I think you need to go back and re-read my message. Perhaps I wasn't clear.

People like to throw the term 'Austerity' measures around. Essentially that term carries with it a sense of temporary-ness. It implies that once the economy recovers, we can ease the measures and go back to where we are.

I'm pointing out that the idea of that is incorrect. The economic reality of now is that we have already recovered, and the myopic growth you're seeing is actually not myopic. That's the rate of growth we're going to continue to see under our current economic system. There is no 'recovery' in the future. We've sent away to many jobs, to much wealth-creation, and too much money.

So when people say we shouldn't implement 'Austerity' measures, I disagree. Essentially they are saying we should keep the workers on to help the recovery. But the recovery doesn't exist, and all we're really doing by keeping the workers on it running our checkbook even further into the red.

This economy is the new reality folks. There isn't a better one just around the corner.

 

[werepossum]

Huh?

I think you need to go back and re-read my message. Perhaps I wasn't clear.

People like to throw the term 'Austerity' measures around. Essentially that term carries with it a sense of temporary-ness. It implies that once the economy recovers, we can ease the measures and go back to where we are.

I'm pointing out that the idea of that is incorrect. The economic reality of now is that we have already recovered, and the myopic growth you're seeing is actually not myopic. That's the rate of growth we're going to continue to see under our current economic system. There is no 'recovery' in the future. We've sent away to many jobs, to much wealth-creation, and too much money.

So when people say we shouldn't implement 'Austerity' measures, I disagree. Essentially they are saying we should keep the workers on to help the recovery. But the recovery doesn't exist, and all we're really doing by keeping the workers on it running our checkbook even further into the red.

This economy is the new reality folks. There isn't a better one just around the corner.

I pretty much agree. While I'd definitely prefer Romney, I think the difference in growth between President Romney and President Obama 2.0 is probably much nearer a 1% race than a 10% race. It might even be closer to a 0.1% race. I'd only add that keeping the workers on the dole is really the only practical idea we have. The right wants to cut taxes, allowing job providers to create more jobs, but until the world economy stabilizes and improves no job provider is going to create any jobs that don't have a virtually guaranteed short term payoff - and the underlying economics still favor creating those jobs offshore. The left wants to spend more money to allow consumers to create more demand, but most consumer goods are manufactured offshore so much of that stimulus flows right out of the country. Well, that and grow government at all levels. Bottom line, no nation can long prosper consuming more than it produces.

 

[LunarRay]

I too like point of use solar, but every time I've run payback calculations without considering the federal and/or state subsidies it's longer than the projected life of the product even before considering time cost of money. Efficiency is good enough today for most residential and small business applications, but we need massive reductions in cost before we can make it mandatory. We can't subsidize our way to prosperity. I'll let Darwin address the cost today; my calculations are generally based on installed solar costs furnished by clients and by my own research for client's possible home use, and I don't think I've run one in three years so I may be considerably off on costs. (A lot of architects are quite liberal and would like to be off the grid, and others build houses where bringing in conventional grid power is quite expensive.) The only thing we're doing with point-of-use solar today are commercial projects where the size requires review and stamping by a licensed professional engineer, but I can tell you that those shut down absolutely when the subsidy money runs out as the subsidies are in my experience half to two-thirds of the total cost.

Quite a bit of cost is in the installation. My 'mandatory' bit reduces that cost dramatically because I'm talking about new construction mandates. There would be some incremental framing, electrical and maybe if coupled with parabolic water heating device for pools etc.. Plumbing... The various trades wouldn't add that much cost.

There is another aspect to Solar and Green in general. I'm of the opinion that there are reasons beyond the cost benefit to go green even if those costs are greater to go Green. I like the idea of being a bit independent of the utilities and what may occur if issues in the Mid East boil over. I'm not a fan of using coal but that is getting cleaner and if it gets totally or almost totally clean then I'd like that option for areas otherwise not Green enabled to the same extent as I am. I'd rather see us diminish our balance of payments with China and those folks using our oil. I don't think we contribute too much to Global Warming as say China so I don't concern myself too much or I should say it doesn't drive my Green Wagon... I'd like electric cars to have Solar charging stations and for CNG or even LNG for all bus and truck use although not really all that Green you can't breathe there in LA and other places like that.
IOW, There are places where some kind of Green stuff has a greater utility than another and we should implement some logical use where it does make sense... But, for the grid...we Need it now...

The Construction side is actually Polymers Designs Solutions... Infrastructure repair and like that.. PDS is A, B, C this and that licensed and that includes Solar installation which as you say follows the pay back scenario in terms of volume.
It seems to follow the happenings in the Mid East pretty much... Folks get a bit neurotic over having their Mr. Coffee regardless...

I want to make clear that I don't support specific Green in areas where it don't make sense. So a composite effort is what I'm after and a complete Grid development.

I'd also like to see more research money pumped into the University system in this regard too. We send lots to study the mating habits of squirrels when I don't give a dam if they went extinct...

 

[Jhhnn]

Huh?

I think you need to go back and re-read my message. Perhaps I wasn't clear.

People like to throw the term 'Austerity' measures around. Essentially that term carries with it a sense of temporary-ness. It implies that once the economy recovers, we can ease the measures and go back to where we are.

I'm pointing out that the idea of that is incorrect. The economic reality of now is that we have already recovered, and the myopic growth you're seeing is actually not myopic. That's the rate of growth we're going to continue to see under our current economic system. There is no 'recovery' in the future. We've sent away to many jobs, to much wealth-creation, and too much money.

So when people say we shouldn't implement 'Austerity' measures, I disagree. Essentially they are saying we should keep the workers on to help the recovery. But the recovery doesn't exist, and all we're really doing by keeping the workers on it running our checkbook even further into the red.

This economy is the new reality folks. There isn't a better one just around the corner.

Money hasn't been "sent away" so much as it's been sent to those at the top o' the heap. In the process, wealth creation among the middle & working class has been stifled. And I's not so much that jobs have been sent away, but that they've been disappeared In productivity increases & automation.

A much larger share of national income accrues to those who own rather than those who work over the last 30 years. The top .1% of taxpayers now take in about the same % of income that the whole 1% earned in 1980, and the top 1% share has basically doubled. That's an income distribution curve approaching the third world, and all that comes with it. The only reason it seems reasonable is that this country is still extremely wealthy.

Remember when automation, efficiency, & offshoring were sold to us on the basis of more leisure & cheaper goods? Sounded great, huh? Just one catch- we haven't figured out how to distribute the rewards very well, how the nation as a whole can reap the rewards rather than just the ownership class.

Leisure isn't leisure when you don't have a job, and the price of goods doesn't matter when you're broke. If we can't reverse the income trends established under 30 years of Reaganomics, we'll end up as Lords & serfs, with few in between.

We have, of course, gone to great lengths to disguise that, with enormous cumulative deficits, tax cuts, more credit, EITC (which is really a subsidy to low-pay employers) along with a lot of wedge issue politics from the Right wing, the perps of it all.

We still have choices- we can assert ownership of sorts via taxes, or wait for things to get bad enough to cause extreme civil unrest. We can assert the rights of the people in a democracy as was done under the New Deal.

Jobs? Private industry isn't creating jobs other than in the short run sometimes, but rather eliminating them systematically. We have this model of prosperity that depends entirely on growth, and when that doesn't happen, only the wealthy prosper. It's happening today, and they're trying to increase their advantage with hard money.

There's no better time to be rich than when everybody else is broke, and Repubs are striving mightily to make that happen.

 

[Incorruptible]

Money hasn't been "sent away" so much as it's been sent to those at the top o' the heap. In the process, wealth creation among the middle & working class has been stifled. And I's not so much that jobs have been sent away, but that they've been disappeared In productivity increases & automation.

A much larger share of national income accrues to those who own rather than those who work over the last 30 years. The top .1% of taxpayers now take in about the same % of income that the whole 1% earned in 1980, and the top 1% share has basically doubled. That's an income distribution curve approaching the third world, and all that comes with it. The only reason it seems reasonable is that this country is still extremely wealthy.

Remember when automation, efficiency, & offshoring were sold to us on the basis of more leisure & cheaper goods? Sounded great, huh? Just one catch- we haven't figured out how to distribute the rewards very well, how the nation as a whole can reap the rewards rather than just the ownership class.

Leisure isn't leisure when you don't have a job, and the price of goods doesn't matter when you're broke. If we can't reverse the income trends established under 30 years of Reaganomics, we'll end up as Lords & serfs, with few in between.

We have, of course, gone to great lengths to disguise that, with enormous cumulative deficits, tax cuts, more credit, EITC (which is really a subsidy to low-pay employers) along with a lot of wedge issue politics from the Right wing, the perps of it all.

We still have choices- we can assert ownership of sorts via taxes, or wait for things to get bad enough to cause extreme civil unrest. We can assert the rights of the people in a democracy as was done under the New Deal.

Jobs? Private industry isn't creating jobs other than in the short run sometimes, but rather eliminating them systematically. We have this model of prosperity that depends entirely on growth, and when that doesn't happen, only the wealthy prosper. It's happening today, and they're trying to increase their advantage with hard money.

There's no better time to be rich than when everybody else is broke, and Repubs are striving mightily to make that happen.

Democrats and Republicans are screwing over the middle class, the Democrats care too much about the poor and the republicans about the rich. The New Deal was horrible and is not what the US needs

 

[Jhhnn]

Democrats and Republicans are screwing over the middle class, the Democrats care too much about the poor and the republicans about the rich. The New Deal was horrible and is not what the US needs

Yeh- Social security is evil, along with banking regulations, agricultural stabilization, the SEC, fair labor standards and so forth. The WPA & CCC didn't put millions to work creating infrastructure serving us to this day. The REA & the TVA never did anybody any good. The FHA didn't invent the self amortizing mortgage, either, the basis of home ownership for the last 70 years.

It was all just an evil socialist plot.

 

[Incorruptible]

Yeh- Social security is evil, along with banking regulations, agricultural stabilization, the SEC, fair labor standards and so forth. The WPA & CCC didn't put millions to work creating infrastructure serving us to this day. The REA & the TVA never did anybody any good. The FHA didn't invent the self amortizing mortgage, either, the basis of home ownership for the last 70 years.

It was all just an evil socialist plot.

That has nothing to do with what I said but whatever makes you feel better

 

[Jhhnn]

That has nothing to do with what I said but whatever makes you feel better

How short is your attention span, anyway? Can you forget what you said even in your immediately previous post?

Democrats and Republicans are screwing over the middle class, the Democrats care too much about the poor and the republicans about the rich. The New Deal was horrible and is not what the US needs

Not only that, you quoted me, and didn't even address the points made, just asserted false equivalency in the usual fashion of right wing denialists. Then you made a naked, faith based assertion wrt the New Deal, only to then claim that anything positive offered about the New Deal has nothing to do with what you said...

This stuff is only hard when you're deep in denial as to having been ideologically snakebit... or a child posting from Daddy's computer.

 

[Pulsar]

Money hasn't been "sent away" so much as it's been sent to those at the top o' the heap. In the process, wealth creation among the middle & working class has been stifled. And I's not so much that jobs have been sent away, but that they've been disappeared In productivity increases & automation.

A much larger share of national income accrues to those who own rather than those who work over the last 30 years. The top .1% of taxpayers now take in about the same % of income that the whole 1% earned in 1980, and the top 1% share has basically doubled. That's an income distribution curve approaching the third world, and all that comes with it. The only reason it seems reasonable is that this country is still extremely wealthy.

Remember when automation, efficiency, & offshoring were sold to us on the basis of more leisure & cheaper goods? Sounded great, huh? Just one catch- we haven't figured out how to distribute the rewards very well, how the nation as a whole can reap the rewards rather than just the ownership class.

Leisure isn't leisure when you don't have a job, and the price of goods doesn't matter when you're broke. If we can't reverse the income trends established under 30 years of Reaganomics, we'll end up as Lords & serfs, with few in between.

We have, of course, gone to great lengths to disguise that, with enormous cumulative deficits, tax cuts, more credit, EITC (which is really a subsidy to low-pay employers) along with a lot of wedge issue politics from the Right wing, the perps of it all.

We still have choices- we can assert ownership of sorts via taxes, or wait for things to get bad enough to cause extreme civil unrest. We can assert the rights of the people in a democracy as was done under the New Deal.

Jobs? Private industry isn't creating jobs other than in the short run sometimes, but rather eliminating them systematically. We have this model of prosperity that depends entirely on growth, and when that doesn't happen, only the wealthy prosper. It's happening today, and they're trying to increase their advantage with hard money.

There's no better time to be rich than when everybody else is broke, and Repubs are striving mightily to make that happen.

While I agree that the middle class in the United States is in trouble, I think you better rethink your idea that we haven't sent money overseas.

We're 15 trillion in debt. That money didn't just disappear.

 

[Exterous]

Argumentum ad Absurdum

Ok? Its not like that's a logical fallacy.

We need to tackle the debt, but not until after we've gotten ourselves out of this mess. Otherwise, it'll become a nasty death spiral of austerity like what Europe has now.

I think the big issue is that people do not trust any party to really cut spending in a sensible way. SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Military all need cuts/drastic reform but neither side really shows any interest in getting that done (Well, the Democrats want to take on the Military some but the GOP isn't going to let that happen.)

With that said, I think that Obama could have gotten a LOT more done to fix some of these problems especially in the early part of his term. Perhaps he wasn't aware of how bad the issues were or simply surrounded himself with the wrong advisers but at this point that is spilled milk.

I think he ended up spending far more time and energy on his health care plan than he intended and it cost him a lot of political capital. I wish he had directed his focus elsewhere first

 

[JTsyo]

Just Saying. Private sector jobs are even with Jan 2009, but we're 600,000 in the hole in the public sector.

My feeling before the big crunch was that state and local governments were bloated with workers. The lifetime cost is pretty big and states would struggle with it for years to come. We don't want to be back where we were in 2008 since we know where that leads.

 

[Fern]

-snip-

People like to throw the term 'Austerity' measures around. Essentially that term carries with it a sense of temporary-ness. It implies that once the economy recovers, we can ease the measures and go back to where we are.

I'm pointing out that the idea of that is incorrect. The economic reality of now is that we have already recovered, and the myopic growth you're seeing is actually not myopic. That's the rate of growth we're going to continue to see under our current economic system. There is no 'recovery' in the future. We've sent away to many jobs, to much wealth-creation, and too much money.

So when people say we shouldn't implement 'Austerity' measures, I disagree. Essentially they are saying we should keep the workers on to help the recovery. But the recovery doesn't exist, and all we're really doing by keeping the workers on it running our checkbook even further into the red.

This economy is the new reality folks. There isn't a better one just around the corner.

I'm afraid you may be correct. (At least until something like Intel/Windows comes along again.)

Fern

 

[Throckmorton]

So....we have reduced receipts exacerbating our budget problems, along with straight out overspending. The solution? Spend more on public workers.

I fully expect Obama to win the 2012 election, but, I cannot imagine how this helps him. Is he that worried about getting his base fired up he needs to resort to this??? I made a joke of it in another thread, but now I'm beginning to think he's actually serious.

One has to wonder how many states that got bailed out before by Fed bucks are coming back and saying, We didn't do our jobs and balance our budgets, we need mo dollas, mo dollas!!!

Just when one thinks they've heard it all, something new comes out....yeesh...

We don't have a spending problem... we have a demand problem. How do you create demand? Give people jobs

 

[chucky2]

We don't have a spending problem... we have a demand problem. How do you create demand? Give people jobs

So we take money from people to create jobs on the public dole, and pay these public dole people from the money we took from their private peers. Got it.

Then, when the economy theoretically turns around, these public jobs, they are cut?

Forgive me if I don't buy into this schem, er, proposal.

Chuck

 

[Jhhnn]

My feeling before the big crunch was that state and local governments were bloated with workers. The lifetime cost is pretty big and states would struggle with it for years to come. We don't want to be back where we were in 2008 since we know where that leads.

False attribution plus bonus false equivalency. It wasn't govt employment that over inflated & crashed the economy, at all, but rather the lootocracy of the financial sector.

Meanwhile, the things that state & local govt do for us are deteriorating- roads, parks, fire & police protection, paramedics- you name it. And it's not like laying off people will actually increase demand, at all.

If Righties are so worried about deficits, raise taxes, particularly on people who've benefited most from low taxes over the last 30 years. The top 1% share of income is about twice what it was in 1980, so they can probably afford to pay more to promote real growth in the economy rather than just growth in their govt bond holdings...

 

[Fern]

We don't have a spending problem... we have a demand problem. How do you create demand? Give people jobs

This a 'chicken and the egg problem'.

Give people jobs? Doing what? There is no demand for such jobs because there is no "demand" for the products or services they would be creating.

You may not realize it, but you're arguing for a tax cut (at least for the middle and lower income individuals). Presumably a tax cut puts more money in the hands of people who will spend it thus increasing demand. (Not that I am advocating that. I'm sticking with increased SBA loan programs.)

Fern

 

[werepossum]

While I agree that the middle class in the United States is in trouble, I think you better rethink your idea that we haven't sent money overseas.

We're 15 trillion in debt. That money didn't just disappear.

He's a foaming left winger, but he has a point in one respect. When we export jobs to cheap labor/low regulation nations, much of the wealth of production goes with them, but not all. At least in the short term, there is considerable extra profit which goes unevenly to stockholders. That's as it should be - they are the owners of the company after all - but the workers take a triple hit. They lose their manufacturing and manufacturing support jobs, their labor is devalued because there's the same supply but now less demand for it, and since they largely don't own significant amounts of stock, they are poorer by comparison for not having shared in the stock value growth. At least in the short term, the same mechanism that exports national wealth also shifts more of the remaining wealth toward the resource owners and less toward the workers. In moving production offshore, we're reversing the process of industrialization which gave the West its broad economic middle class as opposed to simply a small middle class of merchants. Free traders on the right want to ignore that and free traders on the left want to compensate by empowering government to seize income and redistribute it "fairly", but some way or another it will have to be addressed. The middle class will not quietly sink into gentile poverty, we have too much of an entitlement mentality. Nor, frankly, SHOULD we quietly sink into gentile poverty; that's kind of the point of having a republic, and if we've been seduced by cheap imported shit, we'll hopefully wake up and try to put our house in order. (Although I suspect that will happen only after we can no longer borrow into a semblance of prosperity.)

In the long term, we're all screwed, but the wealthy are still considerably less so since money is inherently more fungible than is labor. Their investments in US corporations may tank, but they can always invest in the foreign competitors that take them over or drive them out of business - or just loan their money to the government - and can much more easily comfortably relocate to a more friendly country than can most of us. For most of us, the long term means either living with a constantly shrinking piece of the pie, or joining the rat race to get wealthy, or climbing on the government bandwagon.

Please note that I am not accusing the wealthy of anything unethical, or coveting their wealth. I'm just pointing out that our outsourcing is primarily driven by the natural and healthy desire to maximize profits without really considering the long term effects. That certainly includes government policy as well.