The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Kind of odd, I guess. . .

From his STOTU until Wednesday of last week, we kept getting mildly encouraging reports of job growth from the administration.  In fact there was an article that hit on Wednesday claiming that administration advisors were expecting a slight decrease in unemployment by the end of the year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/business/economy/obama-advisers-offer-rosier-jobs-outlook.html?_r=3&ref=todayspaper

Then came thursday when preliminary excerpts of the presidents budget (to be released today) hit the media.   All of a sudden the White House issued a statement lowering expectations.
http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-issue-jobless-forecast-disavows-133307929.html

Among the details released was an explantation that the budget cuts in the document were offset with spending increases, and the rabid use of the new Obamaesque term "Revenue Increases" were only associated with the Bush Tax Cuts expiring.

At 2,403 pages long, the document is two and a half times as big as the bible.  The circular references are so complex that the document has a 1,079 page long appendix requiring the skills of a competent legal cipher to comprehend.  The administration did supply this "heat map" to help figure out spending http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget

Elimination of the tax cuts drops the deficit, but new spending promises that it shoots right back up.  Very non-realistic receipt estimates for 2012 onward are still not enough to hide the fact that this thing is another horrible joke cloaked in a ream of paper to hide the punchline.

                          2010       2011       2012       2013       2014       2015       2016       2017       2018       2019       2020

Receipts               2,163     2,174      2,627      3,003      3,333      3,583     3,819       4,042      4,257      4,473      4,686

Outlays                3,456     3,819      3,729      3,771      3,977       4,190     4,468      4,669      4,876       5,154     5,422

Deficit                 1,293     1,645      1,101         768         645         607        649        627         619          681        735

We really deserve more than this.  Don't we?

So we will essentially add almost 2/3 more spending from 2010 to 2020?  What's the extra cost?  Healthcare?  Have we ever had a ten year period like this where outlays increased by 160%, other than war time?

Fortunately, I believe we will have someone else guiding this ship by next January, and hopefully they can steer it away from that iceberg on the horizon.  If predictions I heard over the weekend on gas prices are correct, the consumer economy is getting ready to take another hit and I don't see how he can possibly get re-elected.

Yes. Between 1981 and 1991, federal outlays went from around $700 billion to $1.3 trillion.  Between 1991 and 2001, outlays went up from $1.3 trillion to $1.8 trillion. Between 2001 and the beginning of Obama's term, outlays increased from $1.3 trillion to right about $3 trillion, or 230% in 8 years.

As shocking as those numbers seem, they weren't actually all that bad relative to GDP, which accounts for inflation. Even Bush only managed to push up federal outlays by less than 2% of GDP. Thanks to depressed GDP and high unemployment leading to higher than normal spending on entitlements, we had outlays as a percentage of GDP shoot up 5%, then drop back to 24% of GDP last year as the stimulus wound down.

Last time we had a jump like that all in one whack was back in the late 50s.

I'd love to see the projections for GDP up to 2020.  I don't' see GDP growing at that rate as slow as the economy is recovering.

So, does the Republican controlled House have a finger in this? Wait until 2013 to find out?

Too much black art involved in that, especially with the Eurozone situation as it is. If they manage to pull their heads out of their asses and take a look at what the past couple of years' worth of austerity have gotten them, optimistic GDP projections may not be all that optimistic. If they keep going down this self-destructive path, a stagnant economy may be the least of our worries.

I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see 2-5% a year GDP growth, even with continued less than stellar job growth. Not that the raw jobs numbers are all that bad; the problem is the hole our betters threw us into is very deep, so even pretty good job growth leaves us over half a decade away from getting back to full(ish) employment.

They presented their budget last year.  70 pages with a 3 page appendix. 

Oh, and much of Gassy's growth in spending comes from Social Security, for what it's worth. Damn boomers.  ;D

I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked(!) that Gaspar would twist the facts to try to make the claim that Obama is somehow responsible for demographic trends and inflation causing a rise in spending. Spending that even his own party isn't willing to come out against except at the edges.

Also, Gassy, what is your obsession with page count. Do you not believe that there are things in this world which are complex or do you just have something against reading?

I have nothing against necessary verbosity, but when you present complexity for the primary purpose of hiding the truth, then I guess I do have a problem with it.  The president claimed that his new plan would reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next 10 years, but just like the Obamacare bill, when you actually look at the numbers, that doesn't add up.  Then when you try to figure out why, you find that he's counting the measures already included in the Budget Control Act from last August.  

Senator Jeff Sessions worked the numbers this morning and the total deficit reduction is actually only $273 billion after you remove the double dipping, and take in consideration the following:

· It does not count the cost of replacing the $1.2 trillion sequester (spending reduction plus interest savings) required under current law. This is plainly true because the president eliminates the reductions required by the law that he signed and replaces it with tax increases. Then he fails to score the cost of repeal, a monumental deception.

· It counts the inevitable winding down of the war costs in Afghanistan—all of which is borrowed—as $1 trillion in spending reduction; and

· It buries the $522 billion cost of freezing the Medicare physician update in the baseline, without identifying any source of funds to pay for it.

So in actuality it only reduces the deficit by $273 billion over ten years and, by his own estimates, increases the gross debt by approximately $11 trillion, on top of nearly $5 trillion that’s already accumulated during his first three years in office.  Deception accounts for $3.7 trillion of the president’s deficit reduction, and the production of a 2,400+ page bill guarantees that it could never be passed because it is an unworkable document.

http://budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=a21e7c09-1737-4f05-8b2d-6a2344380ce0&SK=92A349710AB51DAFCF593323726F1D5A

I know that it is your greatest joy to defend President Obama, but how can you defend this?

So, with the release of his budget we also get another "youth program". . .

From the makers of AttackWatch, we bring you TRUTH TEAM!

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7204/6871917077_3f34bdeed2.jpg)
http://www.barackobama.com/truth-team/

Now I'm just confused as to who people need to be reported to?

So what you're saying is spending cuts aren't actually spending cuts unless they're cuts for the welfare queens? And your next gem ridicules the idea that our national discourse should be based on facts, not lies.

Where you readin that?

I'm saying that you can't count things twice.  You also can't count the savings triggered by the automatic sequester, then eliminate those requirements, then add "revenue increases," to replace the sequester then count those revenue increases a second time.  Nor can you count the elimination of future borrowing as savings in real budget numbers.  

I made no comment about the source or direction of any of the "revenue enhancements" nor did I comment on the source of any of the cuts.  I only made comment on the deception, and the need to build monumental confusion and complexity in order to hide that deception from the American People.  

It's just getting old.  He is well aware that no congress will ever consider a 2,400 page budget layout that is as senseless as the English instructions printed on a Chinese lawnmower. He's just banking (rightly so) on the FACT that the Congress won't consider this budget and he can continue to campaign on a do-nothing congress as his one and only real issue.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Lhxz08kYBT8#![/youtube]



USA you must pay, you must pay! lol

Now the fun stuff is beginning to surface about the President's budget.

On page 1,318 he gets rid of the DC voucher program established in 2004 to allow students at failing DC schools to receive vouchers for private schools. The success of this program was so remarkable that over 500 more kids are applying now than there is room for.
http://dcscholarships.org/elements/file/OSP/Program%20Data/DC%20OSP%20Fact%20Sheet%20-%20SY%202011-12.pdf

The Department of Education's own study found that kids who were selected to get the scholarship ended up 3 months ahead of their peers in reading, were happier with their school, and had higher graduation rates. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20094050/pdf/20094050.pdf

Here's the kicker. . .The vouchers cost the government $8,000 per student (the average cost of private schools) compared to the $18,000 cost per student to educate them in the failing DC Public system.  Page 1,318 kills this program, gives an additional $36 million to the DC school system and then says it will save $20 million through some magic math. :D

Why would he do this???  Easy, this is Boehner's favorite pet program.  He uses it as an example of how we can improve the education system for children all over the country.  It is also the absolute "Nemisis" program for the teacher's unions.  The success and bright futures of these 1,615 students burns like a hot brand onto the backsides of the union bosses.  So the president is willing to pay 3 times as much to force these kids back into a failing system, just so that this program can no longer be used as an example of educational success.

Can you cite any of this?  I don't see validation of your claims in the links you provided.

The DC school system is all one needs to take a look to dispute the claim that more money is the solution to educational problems.  They are at or very near the top in spending per pupil.  They are at or near the bottom on student outcomes.

That's ok, I read to my kids every night, so I'm used to it.

The first link to the program is only five pages and the numbers can be found on the first two bullet points.  It will require you to subtract 1,558 from 1,014.  I can provide that number if the math is too difficult.

If you turn to section xxv of the DOE study and review the 3 Year Key Outcomes section you will find the additional data showing:

Students who entered the Program in grades K-8 (81 percent of the impact sample) scored an average of 5.2 scale score points higher in reading (ES = .15) or 2.9 months of additional learning if they were offered a scholarship compared to not being offered a scholarship and 6.0 scale score points higher (ES = .17) or 3.3 months of additional learning if they used their scholarship compared to not being offered a scholarship.

Sorry for the blue, but it turns Hoss on.

Why don't you use quotes that support your claims.  Not a reason to be an donkey again because you don't like to support your stories.

I did.  It just requires someone to actually open the supporting links. 

Still missing quite a bit of your claims.

It's tough to take your word on here sometimes.

Very interesting, after this was reported, now there is quite a debate on the accuracy of the numbers.  It turns out that the census figures for per pupil spending for DC Public Schools is incomplete.  Using their own numbers Andrew Coulson found that they are actually spending $28,170 per pupil for k-12.  If you subtract special needs education it's about $23,000 per pupil.
http://wac.0873.edgecastcdn.net/800873/blog/wp-content/uploads/Coulson-DC-Ed-Spending-FY2009-Budget.xls
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/dc-vouchers-solved-generous-severance-for-displaced-workers/

You can get two years at Holland Hall for one at the DC Gun & Knife Club.

Sounds like the cost is a moving target.  When I compiled info during the debate over the Oklahoma education funding bill last year or whenever it was, DC was reporting about $18,000 per student for the '09 school year, I think it was.  Sounds like the DC education unions got their Obama money!

That's according to the Census numbers.  The actual audited enrollment is much lower.

I just ran the numbers, and if the president is successful in killing the voucher system and adding the $36 million to the DC schools, it will change the per student spending from $28,169.91 to $28,954.95 a difference of 685.04 per student and return around 1,400 successful students back into failing systems. Super!

Oh, more money is the solution, but perhaps it's not the school system that needs it. ;)

Reminds me of an X-Files tagline sometimes...

"Deceive, inveigle, obfuscate"....

Maybe they could pay the parents of deficient students to start giving a smile.  8)

I think improving DC residents' employment opportunities and working to reduce the ghettoization of the poor would probably help more than giving them cash benefits.

Gallop is reporting today that we are back on an unemployment upswing. We are back at 9%.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152753/Unemployment-Increases-Mid-February.aspx

Of course that is still based on the heavily massaged U-3 unemployment statistic, a number that has simply been rendered useless because they are subtracting the number of people leaving the workforce.   

If we ignore the U-3 and just look at the total numbers of people abandoning the workforce, we get a nasty picture.  Things actually got worse when the recession ended back in June of 2009.  A total of 36.3 percent of working age americans are no longer in the workforce.

(http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/UploadedPhotos/MediumResolution/f7ab96e9-46cc-4d95-922b-2d3b79086301.jpg)

The Republican Study Committee?

Come on Townie, are you surprised?

Shouldn't you measure trending?

(http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ywvibw45ceihmtydrxlxgg.gif)

I can imagine the meeting that produced that graph. It must have been 14 young republicans who don't grasp the concept of retirement or child labor laws. If you take out all the kids and all the retirees, you get an expected labor force participation rate lower than it actually is. Apparently there are still 16 year olds out there with jobs, despite what the media has been saying. Either that or half of all Social Security recipients also have jobs.

Plus, as is the case EVERY January, I'm guessing some of that little UE spike is from seasonal workers being let go.

Careful you guys don't end up with a group nosebleed from tripping all over that pesky graph.

Funny when you guys say stuff like that.

I heard you titter.

Very important that Democrats get their narrative correct for this election.  The president and many others have been talking about "Jobs" and pushing the "America is back" message.  That's the wrong direction for them.  It puts them in a very weak position.

The concept of middle class expansion and "fairness" is still by far the strongest position they could possibly take.  They need to say as far away from discussions of economic recovery, growth, and progress as possible.

It will be a big mistake for Democrats if they stray away from the "fairness" theme.  The president simply has no other ammo that resonates with his constituency.   The fairness thing also offers the best defense against the Republicans who can successfully mount an attack on economic issues but have very little interest in pandering to the more emotional issues.

The next few months will be very interesting because energy costs, if not managed, are going to start to erode the small economic gains we have experienced.   I think if the president is wise, he will become more OWS-like in his message and abandon any real economic message.





 

Or they could stay low and allow the republicans to bury themselves.

Problem for us is our state would get buried with them.

But I thought the message was that higher gas prices were a sure sign the economy has recovered and that unemployment was low?

That floating on Arizona winds these days?

No, just comments from 'talking heads' that this is the belief of those in charge in DC.

Not Iran?

http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/barbour-says-obama-cheers-for-higher-gas-prices/ (http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/barbour-says-obama-cheers-for-higher-gas-prices/)

Ah, anti-obama-ites are saying that.

Story's a bit strange.  Was Barbour still thinking of running that late in 2011?

I don't think it's intensional.  That would indicate leadership.  It's simply the chaotic result of continued uncertainty and instability nurtured by a lack of leadership.  More and more intensions with fewer and fewer results.

As I said above, I think people have caught on for the most part, and any discussion of results if futile, so the president will be well served to turn all of his energies toward a conversation about fairness.

There is not a segment of the American public that he has helped to become more independent or stable or successful.  His strongest message metrics will be seen in an agenda of fairness.  He can't push the notion of prosperity and independence so he is relegated to a platform of equal missery and simple survival, where the 99% can live out their years in the new society free of the evils of ambition or the burdons of individual responsibility.

Now we all know that that's a grand exaggeration, but that is the message that will resonate with the most dominance to his constituents.  Does anyone see any strength in pushing a different narrative?

Is there anything you don't blame on Obama? You seem to think his real name is Yahweh, given how you expect him to snap his fingers and give us low oil prices or whatever.

Your post is so disconnected from reality that I really am beginning to get concerned.

I encourage you to share your opinion.  Do you think he has a more powerful message to run on than the "fairness"  or middle class expansion mantra?  Should he continue to push the positive recovery theme or the "America is back" theme?  Should he focus on his jobs progress?

I mean, it comes down to focus on class or focus on growth.  What do you think will generate more support from his base?

What does it matter to you really?  No matter what, you'll find some fault in it.

You go on these little Gaspar mind trips and sputter anti-Obama's.  You'll say things like "You're right!" and then babble on about something else until someone shows you're wrong.  Then you move onto another thread and start all over.

My comment was mostly sarcasm, but when you look at market numbers the DOW, NASDAQ, and S&P are approximatley where they were three years ago, oil is at $109/bbl (it was $160/bbl then and the price per gallon here has gone up $.47/gal in the last nine days) but unemployment has remained at ~9%, and prices for food have gone up recently as well. What I want to know is, where are the jobs at? Granted there are improvements, but has there really been the job creations we were promised? And I'm not refering to any of the short term "stimulus" crap we were promised, I'm refering to long term jobs improving.

Yet you still follow me around to lend empty criticism.  Perhaps i'm on the right track, perhaps not, but unless others provide a different prospective there is no constructive discourse. I find it interesting that you can even be critical of my ability to respect and at times agree with the opinions of others.  Perhaps if you were to offer a logical prospective or opinion rather than flinging spit-wads, we could both learn from each other.

It looks like Carville and Greenberg are also advising the administration to stay away from touting a message of economic recovery.  They want him to stick with the class/fairness mantra also.

http://www.democracycorps.com/wp-content/files/February-Economic-Messaging-Memo.pdf

What for?  Your entire political discourse is nothing but "spit wads".  You start these with nowhere to go with them.

I call you out when you do it and you claim I'm just attacking you.  I'm asking you to stop them and come up with something else to get through your day.

Your political drop offs are tedious.  All are anti-administration until someone crushes your posts.  Then you tell them they are right and say they are an intelligent poster.  I assume you're doing this to make yourself somehow feel superior.

If you're so concerned about how people look at you regarding politics, try harder.

I think that you might have more luck in your predictions if you understood who Obama's base is. As long as you think he's part of the Red menace or that lefties actually care for him, you will continue to misunderstand the politics.

dbacks, we've been on a mostly positive trajectory for a long time now (since the stimulus spending got into full swing, actually). The problem is that the job losses in 2008 were so massive that even with what would normally be considered reasonably good job growth it will take the better part of a decade to reach full employment again. And what improvement there is is being held back by continuing job losses in state & local governments, school systems, and the like as states continue to cut back because of low revenue.

Add that to the economy being weighed down by the austerity in Europe ruining most European economies, it's freakin' amazing that we're seeing the gains we're seeing.

Employment numbers for 2011:
                  |                                 |                               |
                   |              Level              |    Over-the-month change        |
                   |---------------------------------|---------------------------------|
     Year and month|    As    |          |           |    As    |          |           |
                   |previously|    As    | Difference|previously|    As    | Difference|
                   |published |  revised |           |published |  revised |           |
    _______________|__________|__________|___________|__________|__________|___________|
                   |          |          |           |          |          |           |
         2011      |          |          |           |          |          |           |
               |          |            |        |           |      |           |
    January........|  130,328 | 130,456  |   128     |    68    |   110    |    42     |
    February.......|  130,563 | 130,676  |   113     |   235    |   220    |   -15     |
    March..........|  130,757 | 130,922  |   165     |   194    |   246    |    52     |
    April..........|  130,974 | 131,173  |   199     |   217    |   251    |    34     |
    May............|  131,027 | 131,227  |   200     |    53    |    54    |     1     |
    June...........|  131,047 | 131,311  |   264     |    20    |    84    |    64     |
    July...........|  131,174 | 131,407  |   233     |   127    |    96    |   -31     |
    August.........|  131,278 | 131,492  |   214     |   104    |    85    |   -19     |
    September......|  131,488 | 131,694  |   206     |   210    |   202    |    -8     |
    October........|  131,600 | 131,806  |   206     |   112    |   112    |     0     |
    November.......|  131,700 | 131,963  |   263     |   100    |   157    |    57     |
    December (p)...|  131,900 | 132,166  |   266     |   200    |   203    |     3     |
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm)

Looks pretty damn flat to me.

100,000 jobs a month is generally considered good. And as I mentioned, the numbers are being depressed quite significantly by continuing job losses in state & local government to the tune of about 20,000 workers a month since the recession "ended".

It's not one or the other, growth or fairness.  Obama is putting the two together, and emphasizing (rightly, IMO) that a fairer playing field widens opportunity and increases chances for growth.  He will make the argument that fairness is integral to recovery, and I think that message is resonating much more strongly than it used to, even a year or two ago.

Romney -- or whomever -- will have a hard time turning that around and arguing the opposite.  Actually, Romney ESPECIALLY will have a hard time arguing the opposite.  There's nothing better than a mouthpiece for the 1% who is actually a card carrying member of the 1%. And, as we've established -- regardless of the actual popularity of the Occupy movement, it has succeeded admirably in putting a specific frame around our political conversation. 

Re: energy costs, etc -- yep, that's one of a gajillion possible pitfalls in the year ahead.  Possible catastrophes for Obama's re-election include a collapse of the euro, the Iranian nuclear situation spiralling out of control in any number of ways, gas prices, food prices, the economy slowing just for the heck of it.  And if Occupy has a helluva springtime like they're planning, that could play into it too.  And those are only the major things on the front burners.  There's a bunch of stuff simmering in the background that would just as bad (hard landing in China, anyone?). 

And finally:  you're the only person here using "fairness" as a pseudo-socialist codeword.  When most of the rest of us use the word in conjunction with the economy, it's not about giving free smile to freeloaders, it's about helping people who were and are decent folks through a tough time not of their making.  It's also a recognition that the American Dream is out of whack and has been for maybe decades now, and that that isn't right.  The pushback you're seeing on this board, I think, stems from what seems like your inability to see that fairness isn't about confiscating your hard earned money but is about doing your neighbors a decent turn.

 

Might be better off sticking to something he's decent at...BBQ comes to mind.

That's exactly what I'm saying.  President Obama needs to stay on message with the Fairness mantra.  It's going to be very hard, especially with the growth and mobilization of the OWS crowd for Romney/Gingerich/whoever to fight that.  If he strays more toward touting economic recovery or jobs, he gives his opponent something more to work with.

I think it's also very important that the OWS movement grow and continue to make headlines.  We've seen a decline, perhaps due to media fatigue, in coverage of Occupy protests.  These are what the right sees as "Obama's Children" and what the left views as examples of economic inequality.  If the movement dies or the kids go back to mom's basement, the president loses a crutial example of the class inequality he needs to visually promote the Fairness theme.

I think Greenburg and Carville hit it right on the head because their polling shows that the majority of voters are very negative on the economy.  A continued "blame Bush" strategy is out of the question, and a mixed message is irresponsible because it produces a mixed response.  As I said before, he needs a strong singular message that resonates with the majority of his base and a significant percentage of independents, and "fairness" is that message.

http://www.democracycorps.com/wp-content/files/February-Economic-Messaging-Memo.pdf

It fits with the historical precedents too. . .

Yes, in bizzaro-world, the President has handled the economy poorly. This, despite the fact that we're doing better than most other major economies.

Nate, I do believe you've just penned Gas's new nickname....

Bizzaro.

LOL.

It doesn't matter if it's bizzaro or reality, it matters how the voters perceive it, and according to polling, the voters do not perceive positive economic results for the President's actions.

You didn't address the statement though.  But why is that not surprising.   ::)

Hoss,
We are discussing messaging and voter perception.  We are the strongest economy in the world, despite the fact that we now owe more per-capita than even Greece.  Just because we continue to be strong is no excuse for poor economic leadership.  Beyond that, we are discussing PERCEPTION and republicans, democrats and independents perceive little or no economic progress according to polling.  

Now, that may change, and campaign messaging may succeed in changing that, but at this point that message has very weak resonation compared with the strong identification that democrats and independents have with the fairness messages.  

I think your perception is flawed on this one Gaspar. This poll came out last week...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/us/politics/economic-gains-give-lift-to-obama-in-poll.html?pagewanted=all

Here is a snippet..."In what could be a turning point, the percentage of people who said they believed the economic outlook was improving is now greater, by double digits, than the percentage of those who said they believed it was getting worse, a reversal from a low point in September, when pessimists outnumbered optimists by more than three to one."

People are becoming more optomistic about the economy in general. Just because you are Debbie Downer doesn't make the rest of us pessimistic.

Facts.

They're a bi***...

I am curious as to why that is not having an effect on the reception of his message.  It must be tough for him.  Should he listened to the democrat pollsters and push forward with a fairness and class envy mantra or should he continue to tout economic recovery?

I think the above NYT poll is an accurate snapshot, and with the upswing in Wall Street earnings recently, it depicts a very rosy point in time.  The problem is that energy prices may have a profound effect on that perception, and for some strange reason the NYT polling and Democrat polling do not match up. 

I'm not sure what methodology I would trust, are you?

If I were the President, gaspar would be the last person I would take campaign advice from.

What, pray tell, can a president do about "fairness"?  He's already extended unemployment benefits to historical extremes.  We have good welfare programs in place which assist with food, medical care, housing, and a meager stipend for those temporarily- and pathologically downtrodden.

What's been out of whack for the American dream the last few decades?  College drop-outs and people from the most at-risk families are perfectly capable of and are of earning $50K + per year.  What do you propose a president is really capable of doing as a "rising tide to lift all ships" outside of outright confiscation of wealth and redistribution of it?

Along the lines of extended U/E benefits, I'm know of several people who are using this cushion as long as they can to avoid taking a job they really don't care for.  Each of them has said to me they have had offers, one wants to travel a little more first, another didn't want to work in a call center, yet another is worried about having "hot" urinalysis screens, and another is doing really well making cash doing piece-work while still collecting a check from the government that he does not need to get by.

Certainly not everyone who is getting U/E benefits is gaming the system, but if you extend it out too far, you create dependence or you simply show it's an option to not have to get back to work much sooner than if they had not extended it out.  I suspect if they cut the benefit time you'd see unemployment dropping at a much quicker rate.

His results don't seem to mirror that of two other presidents who came in during difficult economic times: Reagan & Bush II.

FWIW, I predict high fuel prices will have crushed any substantive gains if they persist well through the summer.

He will do both because in his mind and the mind of a good portion of the electorate, fairness and recovery are intertwined.  

Yet in reality, the two are more mutually-exclusive than you think.  Generally "fairness" issues like the Affordable Healthcare Act, the threat of higher taxes, and more regulation means companies are a whole lot more unsure/indifferent about hiring.  That's not spin, that's reality in the business world.  Instead of attacking unemployment as his first mode of business, President Obama spent a year and a half still campaigning against Bush policies and pushing healthcare reform.

Unless there is a way to change the subject or to cast blame elsewhere. That's why I think that the fairness mantra and a cultivated support from the OWS crowd has the most promice.  If executed correctly the president may be able to use the 1% hobgoblin as his new Bush.  If he can create a narrative where all of his efforts to promote economic recovery failed because of a fortunate few not paying their fair share, and the continued actions of banksters then he may be able to charm the snake again.

It would be an amazing trick, but I think it just might work.  The only things that Republicans can offer is the theoretical promise of economic recovery.  They are ill-equipped to do battle against a class war, because independents view them as members and/or collaborators with the upper-class. . .and besides, they would be unwise to take on the fairness mantle anyway.  Romney dipped his foot in the pool the other day when he mentioned "The 1%" and it resulted in ridicule and face-palm.

It's tough to beat an incumbent president, and impossible to beat one if he has a majority support from independents.  At this point, independents are more receptive to messages of economic equality then they are to someone telling them that the economy has recovered. . .especially when they are still looking for a job!  Even if we use the imaginary 9% unemployment number, if president Obama can pull that 9% of all independents into his corner by telling them "it's not your fault" rather than "Why don't you have a job?" then he has won the election (it is assumed he will get at least 40% of the independent vote anyway).

He isn't going to pull this newly-minted independent into his corner ;)

WSJ book review of "This Time is Different," (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574459001609215112.html) by Reinhart and Rogoff, a survey of 800+ years of economic cycles.

I agree that HCR was done out of order, but then I think that one of Obama's biggest failings was his initial underestimation of the severity of the recession.  I'm not sure he initially felt as much urgency as he should've.  The composition and size of ARRA also indicates that, as well.

We're probably never going to agree on how best to apply taxes and regulation, especially in the current environment.  I still think that businesses not hiring has MUCH more to do with a lack of demand than with regulation or higher taxes.  It's not fear that's keeping businesses in check, it's that no one's buying to support further investment.  But even that's beginning to be untrue.  My industry and your industry both are seeing all kinds of positive indicators.  Pent up demand and all that.  And it's slowly helping the employment numbers.

You're in a tight spot, then.  You get two viable options to influence the national direction, and a myriad of ways to waste your vote.  You can choose whoever the GOP person is, Obama, or the green party or the libertarians or the Communist party or yadda yadda yadda.  Since we're not a parliamentary system, being an indy and not affiliated just diminishes your ability to influence things.

I don't see how he could have underestimated it.  There were plenty of indicators prior to taking the oath, like the parts of the bail-outs which were approved in the waining months of the Bush administration and the tanking stock market.  I realize there's always going to be some policy lag as a new administration has to get oriented and make the transition.

Companies are learning to do more with less.  Less workforce and less on hand inventory.  Manufacturers I deal with who used to keep deep inventory now either keep enough units on hand to anticipate and satisfy the needs of one to two weeks volume or 2-4 weeks ARO on delivery.  That's not really something an administration can change, outside of requiring a company to have x-amount of people on payroll as a ratio to gross sales or profits. 

There's also a lot of reporting on the recent increase in corporate profits and efficiency without huge increases in employment, and it's almost all pointing to increased automation.  In so many sectors of the economy, computers are making it easier for 5 people to do the work of 10.  There's always been a measure of fanciful talk about "when the robots come to take our jobs," but that's part of what we're seeing, too. 

And if that's the case then we're in a macro situation that radically reshapes the 20th century social contract, which among other things relies on the continued employment of a majority of adults as the avenue to societal well being.  If the jobs just simply aren't there for people to get, then we have to rethink the economic value of a person separate from the value of his work. 

And re: Obama -- I agree with you overall that he should've focused more on the economy, though he did send ARRA out the door ASAP in 2009 (HCR wasn't until 2010), and did have some economic measures in place before HCR took up all the air in the room.  I also think we have (a minor) benefit in hindsight, but you're right, he could've done much more in the first couple of years. 

Well. . .then their's this. . .

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M1EtS_mvYAE[/youtube]
I hope the president is getting his campaign advice from someone other than Jessie.

“Say, it’s an honor to be a food stamp president. Food stamps feed the hungry. Food stamps save the children. Food stamps help the farmer. Food stamps help the truck driver. Food stamps help the warehouse. Food stamps help the store. Food stamps hire people and feed people. Food stamps save people from starvation and malnutrition,” says Jackson. “Whenever you attack feeding the hungry, you undermine the moral authority of our faith. Give President Barack Obama a big hand. Show your love. Show your appreciation.”

"And food $tamp$ keep poverty pimps advocate$ for the permanent undercla$$ like me relevant and help fill my coffer$ with millions of dollars er many ble$$ings."

Rev. Je$$e Jack$on

Wasn't it Nancy Pelosi who said unemployment benefits are great for the economy?  Just gotta love the reach-around logic it takes to be deeply liberal.

Sorry guys, Jackson is right on that one. Everybody would be happier with a better economy, but since it's where it is, it's good we have food stamps to help keep people from starving in the street. Attacking the President over SNAP isn't very bright or very Christian.

No one in their right mind believes food stamps are inherently evil.

Just seems like such an incredibly low achievement to be proud of.  It's not like President Obama invented SNAP.  It's a symbol of a protracted down economy- whether or not it's partially, wholly, or not at all the fault of his policies he gets the blame and legacy.  I'm not too sure there are any presidents who would like to be remembered as the "Food Stamp President".  Not such a shining legacy to look back on.

Yep, "Let them eat cake" is not a good policy.

Leave "them" wanting a bit more is probably OK.

If there had been Food Stamps then, would FDR have been the "Food Stamp President"?

He left a legacy of entitlements that I'm sure he'd even be horrified to see what they have metastasized into.

Nah. He'd be happy they had successfully fended off the red menace. That was the entire point, after all. You think (most) rich people implement socialist programs for no reason? It's actually an incredibly interesting story how most of the trade unions were initially very close to CPUSA and how much support CPUSA had in the 30s. Folks like Roosevelt saw the writing on the wall and realized that if they kept treating their workers like crap that they'd upend the entire system.

The next 20 years will be similarly interesting, in that it will become less and less possible to have full employment in this country due to increased automation. How we react to that change will define us for quite some time. Will we give people busy work? Will we pay them to stay at home? Will we let them starve in the streets? The writing is on the wall, but nobody seems very interested in looking.

Simple. We need to enact the model you, myself, Wevus, and others have talked about: contract with unemployed people collecting benefits to do needed tasks for federal, local, or state government as a condition of drawing benefits.  One of the biggest challenges facing government and private enterprise is paying for too much idleness and not enough productivity.  Be it retirement benefits, welfare, disability, or unemployment benefits.

Austerity wouldn't be such a problem in the EU right now if they had a more realistic approach to productivity vs. entitlement all these years.

While I think that will work perfectly fine for now, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that there literally won't be enough work for everyone, no matter what the state of the economy, unless we reduce hours across the board. Not yet, but I think we're getting there. They're installing robots in freakin' China now because workers there are getting "too expensive."

I am more optimistic than you.  We used to have people hand dig the ROW for railroads.  Then we had steam/power shovels.  The skill sets required will be different but I don't see perennial high unemployment.  You only propose busy work or pay to stay home or starving in the streets.  If we promise to make life easy while not being productive, we will guarantee your forecast.  There will probably be some transition difficulties but ultimately I think we will be OK.

Actually Red, most people I talk to in the industries we serve and the vendors we work with are saying everyone is doing more with less.  Fewer employees and as little inventory as they can keep without losing business to someone else with slightly deeper pockets.  Perhaps if our economy can re-invent itself in ways that can serve, enhance, or interface with the manufacturing sector which has gone overseas we might see more rapid growth.  Curious to think what the major driver of the economy would be right now were it not for inventions like the integrated circuit, silicon chips, or even the invention of the PC.

That's been our history.  Who knows what's next to absorb those skills/jobs no longer needed on a large scale.  I believe there will be something.

I find this rather odd. . .

The SNAP/Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, celebrates their success in distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps in their history.  A triumph preached from the alters of the poverty pimps  like Jessie Jackson.  Benifits for the unemployed have also been extended to historic durations and amounts, and that too is celebrated by people like Nancy Pelosi and Vallerie Jarritt as "the best economic stimulus" to help people help themselves.
 
However, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior just down the hall, asks us to "Please Do Not Feed The Animals." This is because the animals may grow dependent on handouts and not learn to take care of themselves.

Try drinking your morning coffee before posting. It will help you not make stupid comments that imply that people who work low wage jobs or are out of jobs are animals. I know you didn't mean it that way, but not everyone is inclined to be so generous.

One "aw crap" wipes out 1000 "atta boys"

Why is the psychology any different for humans than animals.  We both habituate to situations in similar ways.

If you give a person food, shelter, and other subsidies, they grow to expect that just like animals.  My point is clear.  Food stamps, and other subsidies may be a fantastic safety net, but no matter how you wish to spin it, increasing the subscription by a population on such subsidies is not economic stimulus, and WILL increase overall dependence for a very long time.

Your point is disgusting and simplistic.  People respond not only to physical needs but also to a host of emotional and intellectual and spiritual factors.  We may share animal qualities but we are very very different beasts. 

It's also worth noting that most primates are pack animals and will share feeding grounds amongst themselves.  Not a whole lot of free market action amongst lion prides on the Serengeti.

 

Did you take behavioral psych?  Learned helplessness cuts across many species.

Yep but it isn't the only consideration, and from a moral standpoint should be very far down the list in how we make decisions to govern.   Why?  Because it undercuts the rationale for every building block of society and of governance.  Why offer any sort of help doing anything if it promotes learned helplessness?  It's antithetical not only to big government but to the idea of government at all. 

I don't know of anyone who doesn't think a hand-up or temporary assistance is good.

What's moral about creating a permanent underclass?  You, more than anyone on here, seem to buy the social justice meme.  There are people who whose grandparents raised their parents on welfare and food stamps, who are now raised their own kids on food stamps, and now the third (or more) generation is raising their own family on food stamps.  I mean really, what is moral about government-sanctioned impoverishment?

I mentioned this the other day:  I personally know of four people who are not actively seeking employment until they've completely exhausted their unemployment benefits.  I don't suspect they are the only four people in Tulsa County who aren't going to put down the bong and go look for work until a lack of government-supplied resources dictates they will have to.

Allowing people to starve is immoral.  There's nothing just or moral about providing too many avenues to take the easy way out though.  JMO, I think charity was far better handled by the spiritual community and within the family.  Government, by nature, simply cannot be compassionate enough to properly administer charity and a hand-up.

I understand what you are saying, but go back and read again.  I am talking about touting such programs as stimulus or some kind of economic success.

Yes, they may be moral or spiritual successes, but to somehow spin them and example of your great economic prowess is just wrong.

. . .and no matter how you view the expansion of dependency, it is still dependency.

Nutin, but it sure helps turnout at the polls.

Correlation is not causation. There was generational poverty long before food stamps and there will be generational poverty long after food stamps.