That's six straight months of job losses we've experienced now. Good thing the architect of Bush's re-election campaign has come on board to run John McCain's campaign so the candidate can "focus on jobs for a solid week." Because more of the same is the best way out of our problems.
« Big Sky | Main | A Public Service Academy? »
Six Straight
03 Jul 2008 09:55 am
Comments (23)
Let me guess: The solution is more tax cuts.
You misunderstand.
...focus on jobs for a solid week means that McCain wants everyone to have a job just for one solid week and no more.
That means a fifty-fold increase in employment.
Sounds OK to me.
The solution is more tax cuts.
Silly. Obviously the best way to improve the jobs situation is a gigantic tax raise and to pull out of NAFTA.
This petulant hyper-partisanship is getting old. I suppose Bush is responsible for the rising global demand for oil, and that this campaign architect was the one that gave him the idea. The Federal Reserve has a greater impact on the economy than the President; only an idiot would babble on about how bringing on a President's campaign architect will fail to solve economic problems.
"Obviously the best way to improve the jobs situation is a gigantic tax raise and to pull out of NAFTA."
Nah. Obviously the key is to just borrow more money and then give it to people to spend. And if you run out of money, just print more.
putting aside al's erstwhile misrepresentations, the real point is: there is no solution. that's the genius of bush league economics.
now, by no solution i do not mean that in the long term the economy is doomed.
i do mean that a very painful period of readjustment is already baked in the cake just to cover from the economic dislocations that have resulted from mindless pursuit of tax cuts without offsetting spending cuts uber alles. there is no policy to make that better magically; all will require time and pain.
and yes, taxes will need to be higher....
"Perfection is our goal," he said to members of McCain's staff yesterday morning. "It will never be obtained, but excellence is our standard and it will be reached every day."
Loser.
I suppose Bush is responsible for the rising global demand for oil, and that this campaign architect was the one that gave him the idea.
President Bush could have easily spent the past seven years investing hundreds of billions of dollars into building an infrastructure that was less dependent on oil. Instead, he invaded Iraq, spent vast sums on subsidies for oil companies, reoriented the Department of Transportation to make it harder for states and localities to build mass transit, etc.
Rab writes:
"This petulant hyper-partisanship is getting old. I suppose Bush is responsible for the rising global demand for oil, and that this campaign architect was the one that gave him the idea. The Federal Reserve has a greater impact on the economy than the President; only an idiot would babble on about how bringing on a President's campaign architect will fail to solve economic problems."
Let's deconstruct these apparently rational, but actually inane points one by one.
1. Bush isn't responsible for the global demand for oil.
True, BUT:
--The dollar has declined by 40% in 6 years due to his policies, including financing a war on IOUs, something that has never been done before. 6 years ago a Euro was worth about 87 cents. Now it's worth $1.58. Only stupid people, like journalists, don't understand that's a major part of the price run up.
For goodness sake, I now have my contractors in Canada imposing a 35% currency uplift on their prices. That has NEVER occurred before, and they aren't any better off relative to oil supply than the US.
2. This campaign architect was the one that gave him the idea.
Well, who knows exactly which miscreants are behind Bush's ppolicies? What we do know is that Bush cut taxes on the wealthy and paid for a war with IOUs that my children will pay. We know he consciously gutted the financial regulatory apparatus --causing the first bank (Bear Stearns) run of my life time. We do know that he was perfectly happy with an economy that produced great profits for the rich, and bubba for anyone else. He apparently wasn't aware that such economies are difficult to sustain. And he ran on a campaign based upon lies and fear.
Personally, I am not surprised McCain hired this guy. Unlike Hagel, he has given up any actual effort to genuinely BE the honest man he presents himself as.
3. The Federal Reserve has more power
Not clear. They certainly have more immediate power on interest rates, which is not trivial. However, the long term foundation of the economy is far more under the President's purview. An educated and healthy workforce is certainly his arena --Bush and the Republicans have trashed loans for the ever rising coast of college or a technical education. There is no government support for apprenticeship programs. Etc.
In addition, the size of the defecit --which, in microeconomics, is classed as negative savings, certainly affects how much money is put into productive R&D, plant building in the US, etc.
It turns out the problem underlying falling investment in real US R&D and production is NOT that the rich don't have enough money --tax cuts don't seem to have fixed it.
So Rab, old pal, before you start calling people names, try to do a little analysis. Otherwise, you just sound like the typical blustering neo-con.
Rab writes:
"This petulant hyper-partisanship is getting old. I suppose Bush is responsible for the rising global demand for oil, and that this campaign architect was the one that gave him the idea. The Federal Reserve has a greater impact on the economy than the President; only an idiot would babble on about how bringing on a President's campaign architect will fail to solve economic problems."
Let's deconstruct these apparently rational, but actually inane points one by one.
1. Bush isn't responsible for the global demand for oil.
True, BUT:
--The dollar has declined by 40% in 6 years due to his policies, including financing a war on IOUs, something that has never been done before. 6 years ago a Euro was worth about 87 cents. Now it's worth $1.58. Only stupid people, like journalists, don't understand that's a major part of the price run up.
For goodness sake, I now have my contractors in Canada imposing a 35% currency uplift on their prices. That has NEVER occurred before, and they aren't any better off relative to oil supply than the US.
2. This campaign architect was the one that gave him the idea.
Well, who knows exactly which miscreants are behind Bush's policies? What we do know is that Bush cut taxes on the wealthy and paid for a war with IOUs that my children will pay. We know he consciously gutted the financial regulatory apparatus --causing the first bank (Bear Stearns) run of my life time. We do know that he was perfectly happy with an economy that produced great profits for the rich, and bubba for anyone else. He apparently wasn't aware that such economies are difficult to sustain. And he ran on a campaign based upon lies and fear.
Personally, I am not surprised McCain hired this guy. Unlike Hagel, he has given up any actual effort to genuinely BE the honest man he presents himself as.
3. The Federal Reserve has more power
Not clear. They certainly have more immediate power on interest rates, which is not trivial. However, the long term foundation of the economy is far more under the President's purview. An educated and healthy workforce is certainly his arena --Bush and the Republicans have trashed loans for the ever rising coast of college or a technical education. There is no government support for apprenticeship programs. Etc.
In addition, the size of the defecit --which, in microeconomics, is classed as negative savings, certainly affects how much money is put into productive R&D, plant building in the US, etc.
It turns out the problem underlying falling investment in real US R&D and production is NOT that the rich don't have enough money --tax cuts don't seem to have fixed it.
So Rab, old pal, before you start calling people names, try to do a little analysis. Otherwise, you just sound like the typical blustering neo-con.
Rab writes:
"This petulant hyper-partisanship is getting old. I suppose Bush is responsible for the rising global demand for oil, and that this campaign architect was the one that gave him the idea. The Federal Reserve has a greater impact on the economy than the President; only an idiot would babble on about how bringing on a President's campaign architect will fail to solve economic problems."
Let's deconstruct these apparently rational, but actually inane points one by one.
1. Bush isn't responsible for the global demand for oil.
True, BUT:
--The dollar has declined by 40% in 6 years due to his policies, including financing a war on IOUs, something that has never been done before. 6 years ago a Euro was worth about 87 cents. Now it's worth $1.58. Only stupid people, like journalists, don't understand that's a major part of the price run up.
For goodness sake, I now have my contractors in Canada imposing a 35% currency uplift on their prices. That has NEVER occurred before, and they aren't any better off relative to oil supply than the US.
2. This campaign architect was the one that gave him the idea.
Well, who knows exactly which miscreants are behind Bush's policies? What we do know is that Bush cut taxes on the wealthy and paid for a war with IOUs that my children will pay. We know he consciously gutted the financial regulatory apparatus --causing the first bank (Bear Stearns) run of my life time. We do know that he was perfectly happy with an economy that produced great profits for the rich, and bubba for anyone else. He apparently wasn't aware that such economies are difficult to sustain. And he ran on a campaign based upon lies and fear.
Personally, I am not surprised McCain hired this guy. Unlike Hagel, he has given up any actual effort to genuinely BE the honest man he presents himself as.
3. The Federal Reserve has more power
Not clear. They certainly have more immediate power on interest rates, which is not trivial. However, the long term foundation of the economy is far more under the President's purview. An educated and healthy workforce is certainly his arena --Bush and the Republicans have trashed loans for the ever rising coast of college or a technical education. There is no government support for apprenticeship programs. Etc.
In addition, the size of the deficit --which, in microeconomics, is classed as negative savings, certainly affects how much money is put into productive R&D, plant building in the US, etc.
It turns out the problem underlying falling investment in real US R&D and production is NOT that the rich don't have enough money --tax cuts don't seem to have fixed it.
So Rab, old pal, before you start calling people names, try to do a little analysis. Otherwise, you just sound like the typical blustering neo-con.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 11:46 AM
Note to Tim Connor--Good points.
Also, before hitting "Post" a second time, it's a good idea to open a new browser window and reload the page to check if the comment was in fact added.
Matt, You cannot both knock the (stupid, in my view) conventional wisdom that how successfully one campaigns is a good model for how one will govern, and push the idea that one's non-policy-advising campaign staff are indicative of how one will govern. Your two posts now saying, McCain's using Bush's campaign strategist so he will govern like Bush (not that he won't in many ways - just it's nothing to do with the damn campaign strategists) are making you Part of the Problem.
Matt, You cannot both knock the (stupid, in my view) conventional wisdom that how successfully one campaigns is a good model for how one will govern, and push the idea that one's non-policy-advising campaign staff are indicative of how one will govern. Your two posts now saying, McCain's using Bush's campaign strategist so he will govern like Bush (not that he won't in many ways - just it's nothing to do with the damn campaign strategists) are making you Part of the Problem.
The Good News: on the broad measure of unemployment, U6, including people working part time because they cannot obtain full time work and unemployed who are "marginally" attached ... its only been 5 months out of the last 6.
The Bad News: broad unemployment is now 9.9% ... up from its lowest point in the "recovery" of 7.9% for December 2006, and even further up from the lowest broad unemployment in the Clinton recovery, 6.8% in October 2000.
"President Bush could have easily spent the past seven years investing hundreds of billions of dollars into building an infrastructure that was less dependent on oil. Instead, he invaded Iraq, spent vast sums on subsidies for oil companies, reoriented the Department of Transportation to make it harder for states and localities to build mass transit, etc."
I am not sure much could have been done (let alone the expenditure of hundreds of billion) to substantially reduce oil dependence over the past 8 years and I think the effects of any such interventions would be marginal, but I take your point. Bush sucked. I called your post petulant and hyper partisan because it suggested a causal relationship between the position of campaign strategist and Bush's policies. The campaign manager was not SecTrans or SecDef. I think McCain's an idiot, but that doesn't mean he is an idiot in the same way as Bush, much less that hiring a campaign architect suggests he is the same.
"The dollar has declined by 40% in 6 years due to his policies, including financing a war on IOUs, something that has never been done before. 6 years ago a Euro was worth about 87 cents. Now it's worth $1.58. Only stupid people, like journalists, don't understand that's a major part of the price run up."
Bush was irresponsible. Cutting taxes then increase spending dramatically on Iraq weakened U.S. currency. Keep in mind, though, that gas was under $1 a gallon ten years ago; now it's at or above $4. U.S. currency hasn't devalued that much; most of the price run-up is attributable to increased demand, with currency devaluation a contributing but not primary causal factor. It is fine to blame Bush for not helping the problem, as Matt does in his response. The causal link to some campaign architect is weak, and this analysis ignores (for partisan reasons)the primary cause of the increase in the price of oil.
"We know he consciously gutted the financial regulatory apparatus --causing the first bank (Bear Stearns) run of my life time. We do know that he was perfectly happy with an economy that produced great profits for the rich, and bubba for anyone else. He apparently wasn't aware that such economies are difficult to sustain. And he ran on a campaign based upon lies and fear."
Look, you may not be into facts, but if you were alive in the 80's, you were alive for the S&L loan crisis - far more severe than the Bear Sterns debacle. Please point my to a detailed account of Bush personally gutting the regulatory apparatus. As far as I can tell you are just repeating gassy talking points when you say 'great profits for the rich' and 'such economies are difficult to sustain'. Every economy is difficult to sustain; the economy always changes. Do you blame Clinton for the dot-com bust and all of the accounting scandals that came quickly after he left office? I suppose every politican runs on 'lies' and 'fear', and if that is a consoling narrative for you, I guess it's easier than believing voters disagreed with you about the merits of the candidates.
"Bush and the Republicans have trashed loans for the ever rising coast of college or a technical education. There is no government support for apprenticeship programs. Etc."
I don't think reducing subsidies for student loans is always and everywhere a bad idea. Many have argued, to my mind persuasively, that one of the reasons the cost of college keeps rising so dramatically is that the easy availability of loans means institutions can continually raise tuition at a ridiculously fast pace with impunity. In short, college might be more affordable if student loan money were not so readily available. I have no idea why you brought this up on this thread, though.
re: Obviously the best way to improve the jobs situation is a gigantic tax raise and to pull out of NAFTA.
Pulling out NAFTA would not bring back any jobs (and would mightily piss off the Canadians, our biggest trading partner). Please recall that the 90s, when NAFTA was enacted, saw a jobs boom-- and that most of our trade-related job losses involve China, which is not part of NAFTA.
Meh. I really don't hold the president responsible for economic cycles. Bush didn't do anything right to earn the good economy he had in 2002-06, and he didn't do anything wrong to get the bad economy of 07-08. I'd rather hold him responsible for foreign policy fuck-ups, which are in his control.
Re: financing a war on IOUs, something that has never been done befor
Actually that's been pretty common in history overall. Most wars resulted in the running up of the national debt. Of course they were not also accompanied by tax decreases either.
rab: "I think McCain's an idiot, but that doesn't mean he is an idiot in the same way as Bush, much less that hiring a campaign architect suggests he is the same."
That's a great set of slogans for McCain:
McCain - new idiocy, same corruption.
McCain - a new stupid war.
McCain - A new arrogant *sshole.
Comments closed July 17, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
If Cindy McCain (heir to the Duff Beer fortune) would just fire all the illegals she has maintaining her eight or nine houses and replace them with American citizens, she could probably single-handedly drop the unemployment rate by a good half percent.
Posted by lampwick | July 3, 2008 10:22 AM