Double-Digit Unemployment Is Obama's No. 1 Challenge

For the first time in more than a quarter century, unemployment in the United States has reached double digits.

That's bad economic news for America, which has now been shedding jobs for 22 consecutive months.

That's bad social news for the Americans who are out of work, for their families and for their communities, especially when we consider data that tells us 35 percent of jobless men and women have been looking for work for more than six months.

And that's bad political news for President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress, who continue to make the mistake of treating unemployment as an afterthought rather than the most serious issue facing the nation.

Now that the United States has an official double-digit unemployment rate, the Obama administration and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate need to adjust approaches in order to make job creation their primary focus.

To do otherwise is to risk political disaster in 2010.

That may sound like an overarching statement.

But the president and his allies face an overarching challenge.

Not since 1983, when Ronald Reagan was in his first term, has the jobless rate gone over 10 percent. And in 1983, the unemployment rate was on a downward trajectory, while in 2009 it is rising.

Indeed, unemployment is rising faster than Obama aides, key members of Congress or top economists anticipated. Many had held out hope that the rate of increase would be slowed sufficiently to keep the official figure in single digits -- thus avoiding the psychological wallop that that comes with the headline that say "one in 10 Americans are out of work."

With the release of federal figures for the month of October, however, official unemployment now stands at 10.2 percent.

The official figure does not include millions of Americans who have given up looking for work in the midst of the deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression, and millions more who are underemployed. Factoring in those numbers, the real unemployment rate is closer to 17.5 percent.

But the official figure is bad enough.

When the federal government acknowledges the "one-in-10" reality, people get scared, and rightly so.

Modeling by social scientists confirms what we instinctually know: As unemployment rises, the reality gets closer to home and even those who are employed start to fret.

The fretting can have a serious impact on the economy.

It can also have a serious impact on politics.

In New Jersey, a state that Barack Obama won easily in 2008, Democrats lost the governorship in 2009. What was the top issue on the off-year election day according to exit polls? Jobs and the economy. Thirty-one percent of voters ranked the issue as the most pressing, compared with just 18 percent who cited health care.

In Virginia, another state where Obama won easily in 2008, the Democratic nominee for governor lost in a landslide this year. A remarkable 83 percent of voters told exit pollsters they were worried about "jobs and the economy". Roughly half of voters said it was their top concern, while barely half pointed to health care.

This does not mean that the president and his congressional allies should abandon the push for health care reform. Obama is right that, in the long term, health care reform is essential to economic progress; America cannot continue to steer more and more of its GDP into the accounts of profiteering insurance companies and expect to experience meaningful growth in employment or prosperity.

But a singular or even dominant focus on health care -- or any project other than job creation and retention -- is now politically dangerous.

It is not just in New Jersey or Virginia where economic fears related to job losses rank as the top issue. Those are merely the states where a formal political measure was taken this fall.

If anything, the rising unemployment rate is an even bigger issue in states such as Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania, where Obama won in 2008 and where Democrats grabbed House and Senate seats from the Republicans at a fast clip in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles.

Concerns about the economy powered those Democratic advances in 2006 and 2008. Indeed, the top issue that correlated with Democratic wins in House and Senate races was not the war in Iraq, health care, social policy or generalized anger with George Bush. It was opposition to free-trade policies that are now broadly blamed for shuttering factories and outsourcing jobs.

The November 3, 2009, off-year elections were a mixed bag for Democrats, mainly because in many instances around the country the Republicans were either at war with one another or more generally struggling to get their act together.

But in New Jersey and especially in Virginia, where Republican candidates in high-profile races focused tightly on economic issues and job creation, they won.

That is the reality of 2009.

The reality of the 2010 congressional elections that will define the second half of Barack Obama's first term has yet to be determined.

But one thing is certain: If unemployment continues to rise, it will be the only issue in key congressional districts and states across the country next year. Nothing else that the president or his congressional allies talk about will matter.

For economic, social and politic reasons, Democrats need to remake themselves as the party of jobs. If this requires a new stimulus plan with more money for job-creating infrastructure and development programs, Democrats cannot afford to be cautious. If this requires a radical alteration in trade policies and the abandonment of the absurd strategy for bailing out GM and Chrysler -- which calls for shuttering more than two dozen plants across the United States – Democrats cannot afford to hesitate.

Of course, corporate Republicans and the faux Republicans of the Democratic Leadership Council will scream about the expense and about the rejection of the economic orthodoxies of Alan Greenspan and the other jokers who got us in this mess. But if Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their compatriots listen to the counsel of the cautious as unemployment hits 12, 13 or 14 percent, they will fail the American people doubly.

The first failure will be a social one. If unemployment is allowed to rise into the mid-teens, families and communities across this country will experience a human crisis of daunting proportions.

The second failure will be a political one. High unemployment will remake the electoral landscape into an "Alice-in-Wonderland" fantasyland. Republicans who (assisted by some notable Democratic allies) laid the foundations of the current crisis -- with misguided tax breaks for the rich, warped spending priorities and fundamentally-flawed trade policies -- will be able to position themselves as pro-jobs populists. And Democrats will be stuck defending an indefensible status quo. That's a guaranteed loser for Obama and his congressional allies, who will see their House and Senate majorities slashed if not obliterated by an understandably angry electorate.

Comments (170)

1. JOBS ARE ONLY AVAILABLE IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.MAY BE LATER ON IRAN.

   Posted by Dastu11 at 11/06/2009 @ 10:37am

2. This is why Obama is a one-term president. You would think a man of his background would understand that jobs are the key to a happy, safe America. But maybe you forget that while going to Harvard.

   It's sad to see a man of such promise fail to see the reality being faced by millions and millions and millions and millions of Americans.

   Posted by Citizen54 at 11/06/2009 @ 11:32am

3. So Mr Nichols, after reading your recommendation, it seems you are suggesting that Obama increase the deficit to 3 trillion or more.

   If a 2 trillion dollar deficit seems an almost insurmountable hurdle to reverse, what will be the chances of 3 or 4 trillion dollar deficits?

   Posted by antisocialist at 11/06/2009 @ 11:33am

4. Even the unemployed still get to vote in this country (last time I checked).

   Posted by eyore at 11/06/2009 @ 11:49am

5. "...is now the top issue in America. The White House and congressional Dems must recognize this or face serious setbacks politically."

   One termer in the Carter model coming up...

   Here is where Carter, the dems and now Obama fall on their collectivist faces...

   Government does not create jobs, except govt jobs, which are not jobs per say, but expenditures of moneys already earned by the private sector and sent to Washington..the "paychecks" govt hands out are someone elses wealth used now for services.....

   Private sector creates jobs, and govt can help or hinder the private job creation process by getting out of the way or by enahncing conditions that move a company to take risks in order to grow.

   This cabal has done neither and has in fact hurt the economy more than Bush....3.2% grow last quarter was in govt ...not private sector...

   and next year 10.2 % unemplolyment will look good....

   Posted by YourJomamma at 11/06/2009 @ 11:52am

6. One termer in the Carter model coming up...

   Posted by YourJomamma at 11/06/2009 @ 11:52am

   Don't forget, President Reagan had worse to contend with, and inflation too at the start of his first term. A decade or so later, news reports were about prosperity and budget surpluses. If President Obama can fix things like he did, he may be on the road to a second term, and he has the power to do it too, considering that his party controls Congress.

   Posted by Mistral at 11/06/2009 @ 12:08pm

7. Too bad Obama won't push congress to curb government spending, and lower taxes across the board. Allow americans to keep more of their money and utilize it as WE see fit, not how the government sees fit.

   But he won't. I actually think Obama wants to marginalize the US economy to help pave the way for global governance based on collectivism. You know, so we can be "rescued" by the World Bank and the UN.

   Congress won't lower taxes and spur recovery until we vote out the collectivists. I think if we continue as we are, inflation will destroy our liberty. Which, I fear, is actually the plan.

   Posted by freiheit1 at 11/06/2009 @ 12:08pm

8. Congress won't lower taxes and spur recovery until we vote out the collectivists. I think if we continue as we are, inflation will destroy our liberty. Which, I fear, is actually the plan.

   Posted by freiheit1 at 11/06/2009 @ 12:08pm

   You are 100% correct Frei

   The toxic derivatives are still on the books. The rise in the stock market is a facade. The 10 plus trillion dollar giveaway by the Federal Reserve has nearly sealed the death of our system. And that is compounded by the 2 trillion dollar deficit.

   There is no job recovery possible given the steps that Obama and the Dems have undertaken. Only if most jobs become govt jobs (which it seems is part of their plan) will we see any job growth. And that all leads to their incremental approach with healthcare and debt to a socialist transformation of the govt.

   Posted by antisocialist at 11/06/2009 @ 12:17pm

9. Posted by Mistral at 11/06/2009 @ 12:08pm

   As you said, "If President Obama can fix things like Reagan did, he may be on the road to a second term, and he has the power to do it too, considering that his party controls Congress."

   I had to chuckle because first off, Obama won't do a thing Reagan did to spart the greatest economic growth in our history.

   But, let's say Obama did do what Reagan did. He'd sure get my vote for a second term!

   Posted by freiheit1 at 11/06/2009 @ 12:18pm

10. Posted by antisocialist at 11/06/2009 @ 12:17pm

    Thank you sir. The good news is millions of us can see that clear as day. The bad news is millions don't. Millions see the government as their nanny. What a tragedy for all of us.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/06/2009 @ 12:25pm

11. Nichols:

    "For the first time in more than a quarter century, unemployment in the United States has reached double digits. That's bad economic news for America... That's bad social news for Americans out of work...And that's bad political news for President Barack Obama and the Democrats..."

    And Dreyfuss today:

    "Launched to great expectations -- the appointment of George Mitchell, Obama's Cairo declaration that the plight of the Palestinians is intolerable -- it is now in complete disarray. It is, without doubt, the first major defeat for Obama's hope-and-change foreign policy. Here's how it unraveled [see Dreyfuss Report]....

    [closing paragraph] Abbas said that he was "surprised" -- bitterly angry and really pissed off, is more accurate, I am sure -- by Clinton's comments on Israel's settlements policy. And Clinton, asked about Abbas' move, delivered an insouciant fuck-you to Abbas: "We talked about his own political future. I look forward to working with President Abbas in any new capacity."

    End quote.

    As I (along with a multitude of others) have been trying to say for months, Barack Obama's presidency is rapidly devolving into an abject failure, and worse, it's contributing mightily to the conditions of a perfect storm style unprecendented disaster in this nation's history.

    My posts here have vacillated between cajoling and whip cracking but the outcome has been essentially the same. The left remains unfocused, disorganized, and basically impotent to effect any useful pressure on this monumentally inept administration.

    What the hell are these imbeciles waiting for?

    Obama was supported by The Nation magazine because he has a gift for uplifting speeches, yet he refuses to raise his voice to rally the populace to his side.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/06/2009 @ 12:37pm

12. The frustration is like watching the (potentially) greatest player to play the game, stand at the plate against an aging Pedro Martinez with his 88 mph fastball while taking strikes right down the heart of the plate and refusing to lift his bat off of his shoulder.

    People need to not just get angry, we should be furious at this point.

    SWING THE DAMN BAT OBAMA!

    I hear the chants from the crowd now: "Barack Hoo-VER Obama, Barack Hoo-VER Obama...."

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/06/2009 @ 12:37pm

13. Don't forget, President Reagan had worse to contend with, and inflation too at the start of his first term. A decade or so later, news reports were about prosperity and budget surpluses. If President Obama can fix things like he did, he may be on the road to a second term, and he has the power to do it too, considering that his party controls Congress.

    Posted by Mistral at 11/06/2009 @ 12:08pm

    In order to do what Reagan did, one must first be inclined to follow Reagan's political and economic model.

    Neither Obama or the people he has surrounded himself with understand or like anything about supply side economics, the Laffer Curve, etc.

    They are all "demand side" economists, believing that the government can jumpstart growth with spending. Problem is, their spending is derived from political considerations instead of economic ones. Reagan/Bush type tax cuts just stop taking money out of the economy, allowing smarter, more market oriented citizens to invest it intelligently.

    Democrats appear to prefer "tax rebates" tax rebates to "reward" approved behavior. Get a tankless water heater or a metal roof on your house, get a tax rebate. Buy a hybrid, get a tax rebate. A carrot and stick approach rather than the "here's your own money, do with it what you want" approach Republicans more often use.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/06/2009 @ 12:37pm

14. Don't forget, President Reagan had worse to contend with, and inflation too at the start of his first term. A decade or so later, news reports were about prosperity and budget surpluses. If President Obama can fix things like he did, he may be on the road to a second term, and he has the power to do it too, considering that his party controls Congress.

    Posted by Mistral at 11/06/2009 @ 12:08pm

    In order to do what Reagan did, one must first be inclined to follow Reagan's political and economic model.

    Neither Obama or the people he has surrounded himself with understand or like anything about supply side economics, the Laffer Curve, etc.

    They are all "demand side" economists, believing that the government can jumpstart growth with spending. Problem is, their spending is derived from political considerations instead of economic ones. Reagan/Bush type tax cuts just stop taking money out of the economy, allowing smarter, more market oriented citizens to invest it intelligently.

    Democrats appear to prefer "tax rebates" tax rebates to "reward" approved behavior. Get a tankless water heater or a metal roof on your house, get a tax rebate. Buy a hybrid, get a tax rebate. A carrot and stick approach rather than the "here's your own money, do with it what you want" approach Republicans more often use.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/06/2009 @ 12:37pm

15. Of course, if we would JUST give Exxon-Mobil and Steve Forbes-types billions of dollars in tax cuts....unemployment would fall like a rock.

    There would be MILLIONs of new jobs....as.....writers for "Forbes" and gas station attendents, I guess...or ...er...something?

    Posted by Mask at 11/06/2009 @ 12:38pm

16. Why do you assume that the Democrats want to fix the job situation? France seems to work nicely with perpetual 10%+ unemployment. It makes the masses more grateful for the nanny state. Obama will indeed transform our society!

    Posted by sntauri at 11/06/2009 @ 1:13pm

17. Of course, if we would JUST give Exxon-Mobil and Steve Forbes-types billions of dollars in tax cuts....unemployment would fall like a rock.

    There would be MILLIONs of new jobs....as.....writers for "Forbes" and gas station attendents, I guess...or ...er...something?

    Posted by Mask at 11/06/2009 @ 12:38pm

    Well, taking $787 billion out of the economy and plugging it back in through politically targetted spending projects sure has brought all those jobs back, hasn't it?

    Yes, I think across the board tax cuts would send a signal to the private sector that they will have more money to hire people, or invest. Even to rich people. They are the ones who actually start businesses and hire people, right? Wouldn't it make sense to allow them as much money as possible TO start businesses and hire people?

    Certainly moreso than, "Hey, as long as you are working on a government contract, here's some dough!"

    Those aren't real jobs because they did not come from a real demand from the market. Tax cuts allow the market to generate demand. Government spending creates an artificial, unasked-for demand.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/06/2009 @ 1:29pm

18. Of course, if we would JUST give Exxon-Mobil and Steve Forbes-types billions of dollars in tax cuts....unemployment would fall like a rock.

    There would be MILLIONs of new jobs....as.....writers for "Forbes" and gas station attendents, I guess...or ...er...something?

    Posted by Mask at 11/06/2009 @ 12:38pm

    Well, taking $787 billion out of the economy and plugging it back in through politically targetted spending projects sure has brought all those jobs back, hasn't it?

    Yes, I think across the board tax cuts would send a signal to the private sector that they will have more money to hire people, or invest. Even to rich people. They are the ones who actually start businesses and hire people, right? Wouldn't it make sense to allow them as much money as possible TO start businesses and hire people?

    Certainly moreso than, "Hey, as long as you are working on a government contract, here's some dough!"

    Those aren't real jobs because they did not come from a real demand from the market. Tax cuts allow the market to generate demand. Government spending creates an artificial, unasked-for demand.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/06/2009 @ 1:29pm

19. NICHOLS..."And that's bad political news for President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress, who continue to make the mistake of treating unemployment as an afterthought rather than the most serious issue facing the nation."

    Where have you been? Obama was warned repeatedly that his stimulus bill wouldn't create jobs. Cap and Trade is a jobs killer. Health Care reform is a jobs killer. His own economics adviser, Christine Romer, stated that most of the effects of the "porkulus" bill have already taken place. Yet, that $787 billion boondoogle was toooo important to read and had to be signed immediately.

    The smart democrats see the storm clouds gathering. The dumb ones are either ignoring them and/or discounting them. Looks like the dems have only one more year as a majority party.

    Posted by fram at 11/06/2009 @ 1:56pm

20. Hmmmm. There are always positions available in the armed services for those who'd like to travel to exotic places, meet interesting people and kill them.

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/06/2009 @ 2:01pm

21. NICHOLS: ".....Obama and the Democrats...continue to make the mistake of treating unemployment as an afterthought rather than the most serious issue facing the nation....Indeed, unemployment is rising faster than Obama aides, key members of Congress or top economists anticipated."

    Nichols is slowy but surely, weaning off of the Kool-aid. Still, none of you Libs will come right out and admit that the lengthy missteps of BHO in decision-making, in off-the-cuff remarks, selection/monitoring of his advisers, insanely lobbying for the Olympics, etc....are likely the simple fact he just ain't all that smart!

    He knows how to talk it up based on what his handlers writes for the Teleprompter to suit the photo-op occasions, but he doesn't have the capacity to sift through the various talking points and actually focus on the People's Main Business: "It's the Economy, Stupid (as in Magic)!"

    Isn't it amazing for all that Ivy-League heavyweights Magic gathered around him, little old HAPPY here is far, far more anticipative? They should fire everyone of the `Economists' and just come looking for me; I will be a whole lot cheaper.....just 10 gold bars from Fort Knox will do!

    Posted by Happy at 11/06/2009 @ 2:05pm

22. What a shame the US government can't act with the same celerity as it does to finance and justify the barbarism of Israel for causes such as health care and economic recovery in its own backyard.

    http://www.progressive.org/wx110409.html

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/06/2009 @ 2:09pm

23. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/06/2009 @ 1:29pm

    Curious, ballpark estimate...

    we give Exxon-Mobil $5 Billion in tax cuts....how many new jobs on the tankers or in the boardroom with Rex Tillerson......900,000....a million?

    Posted by Mask at 11/06/2009 @ 2:09pm

24. NICHOLS: "Republicans who (assisted by some notable Democratic allies) laid the foundations of the current crisis -- with misguided tax breaks for the rich, warped spending priorities and fundamentally-flawed trade policies -- will be able to position themselves as pro-jobs populists"

    This is where you're still HOPELESS!

    If today, you tell the People that we're going to do a Reagan Redux and that 30 years later, everything will blow up, but there will be ~30 years of growth and jobs, want to guess how many will say: "Hell, YES!"

    Reaganomics wasn't the problem, it was Congressional spending and meddling in markets & ill-advised financial rescues that built up ever bigger risk-takings by WS Players and Joe Consumers!

    Posted by Happy at 11/06/2009 @ 2:11pm

25. Only a FRACTION of the stimulus money has been spent, and over the course of the next two years the results on job creation will be apparent to everyone.

    Nonetheless, NICHOLS has a point that more stimulus may be needed, especially infrastructure spending.

    Posted by Metteyya at 11/06/2009 @ 2:11pm

26. Rush was right again. This man-child is in over his head. WAY over his head.

    Posted by fram at 11/06/2009 @ 2:12pm

27. Poppycock!

    Even the most Mao worshiping liberal should be able to understand basic household finance, because even people living as dirty hippies in teepees have expenses.

    Everyone knows that the best way to fix a budget deficit is to cut your income. So, let's pretend that 9 trillion dollars is $9,000 of credit card debt, and I make $25,000 a year.

    Now, it is clear as the G-d's Good Word as laid out in the Holy Bible that the best way to eliminate that $9,000 debt is to cut your $25,000 annual income to $20,000. Even better if you can get it down to $15,000.

    If you do that, then the money you were previously making will go to other people. They will turn around and spend that money, which you could not cause you were up to your ears in debt, probably because you are a dirty, collectivist hippy. That will drive down interest rates, raise your boss's profits and then, you'll get a raise. Maybe making as much as $30,000.

    That may sound absolutely crazy. You may believe that cutting your salary means more money in your boss's pocket that will never make it back to you, and if anything, you'll have to take on more debt to cover your basic needs. But, that's because you've been bamboozled by the communists. If you understood the invisible hand of the market, you would know that cuts are the way to go.

    You have got to trim the fat. I've seen my share of diets in my day, and let me tell you the best way to trim fat is with a hacksaw. Whether it's your arm, Medicare, or if you are wooing the ladies, the best way to go about it is an enthusiastic display with a hack saw. I have heard that shooting yourself or your friends in the face can be equally effective, but I haven't tried it myself.

    You want to fix jobs? Start a war! If we learned nothing from World War II is that nothing solves unemployment problems like a good old fashioned war. The Founding Fathers always said that the Tree of Liberty must be watered with blood. Muslim blood or the blood of the unemployed, it's all the same really. Nothing quite makes you feel as alive as dying. I've been dying for decades and I would recommend it to anyone.

    Posted by antis0cialist at 11/06/2009 @ 2:17pm

28. Only a FRACTION of the stimulus money has been spent, and over the course of the next two years the results on job creation will be apparent to everyone.

    Posted by Metteyya at 11/06/2009 @ 2:11pm

    That's not what Christine Romer said.

    You need to keep up.

    Posted by fram at 11/06/2009 @ 2:18pm

29. Now that the United States has an official double-digit unemployment rate, the Obama administration and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate need to adjust approaches in order to make job creation their primary focus.

    To do otherwise is to risk political disaster in 2010.

    *********

    Does that mean abandon healthcare refore?

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/06/2009 @ 2:25pm

30. Posted by Metteyya at 11/06/2009 @ 2:11pm

    That's not what Christine Romer said.

    You need to keep up.

    Posted by fram at 11/06/2009 @ 2:18pm

    Metteyya and Nichols are doing fine....it's because of them, we know Magic is going down! They will double down on what has proven NOT to work!

    Posted by Happy at 11/06/2009 @ 2:25pm

31. Posted by antis0cialist at 11/06/2009 @ 2:17pm

    Hey coward, why don't you be adult enough to post on your own instead of being a wimp who is too immature to represent themself.

    Better yet, come out to my place so we can have a nice little "talk".

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/06/2009 @ 2:32pm

32. I still don't understand why so many lefties and progressives can't see Obama as being nothing more than another wind machine at the top of a plutocracy. Your faith is so amateurish and childish when it comes to erecting and glorifying national gods, and this fact is never more clear than when the hero du jour is enthusiastically reviled and butchered when the mob finally realizes he's actually no different than the previous butchered hero whose crimes and deceits he swore to cure and undo. The Republic has been fading for 30 years, its spring and summer are gone. Harping and kvetching here is the limit of your power, and its clear that nobody on this blog has the cojones to do anything more. It is hilarious but tragic that millions of American Supermen, so assured of their superiority and righteousness, could be so ignorant (and indolent) to believe that a simple vote for 'change' would be sufficient to change course and drive away the clouds. The US has always raised the Jolly Roger to the heavens, giving the devil an alibi by placing the gun in God's hand. Walk the plank or become a pirate. It's that simple.

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/06/2009 @ 2:32pm

33. Citizen Carrier and various right wingers on this list said things like: "Don't forget, President Reagan had worse to contend with, and inflation too at the start of his first term. A decade or so later, news reports were about prosperity and budget surpluses."

    WTF kind of BS is this? Reagan and GHWB ran up huge deficits! It was the Clinton administration who got got deficits down and eventually created a surplus. And they did that partly with a tax increase, not by tax cuts. The right wingers always want to cut taxes, and for most of us, they are right. But the rich need their taxes increased, dramatically. We have to get that money back in circulation.

    Posted by DavidSpero at 11/06/2009 @ 2:48pm

34. Those aren't real jobs because they did not come from a real demand from the market.

    by Citizen_Carrier at 11/06/2009 @ 1:29pm...

    Obama knows this... and it is part of the reason why reticence has been shown towards jobs projects. This is not to minimize the importance of our current 'jobs' crisis... but our current jobs crisis has been in the making for decades... as has the financial market's 'mix-up'...

    ...but the point is... these are two different problems, and they must be solved in a distinct order... using separate distinctions and techniques.

    The last administration was the 'game changer'...

    The world has changed so much in the last eight years... and Bush was asleep at the wheel with his vengeful dreams.... his oily profiteering... Cheney's mercenary state funded 'conquests'... and this country was only too glad to go along with them...

    ...just like we did when Reagan offered us deficit sparked corporatism and deregulation.

    We the People must begin to lead again...

    ...and Obama is basing his Presidency on this because he was legitimately and democratically elected.

    So... after towing our 'hulk' of an economy into the shop to get it road worthy again... it having been 'joy ridden' into a smoking wreck on the roadside... we can start thinking about tuning it up.

    We are facing down a new direction for America... and we're late in getting started. The last eight years have been ardently wrong minded... economically naive... militarily imprecise... industrially unrealistic... and domestically parasitic.

    Jobs... are our future. We can't afford to be wrong about either.

    Posted by ttr at 11/06/2009 @ 2:48pm

35. Posted by antis0cialist at 11/06/2009 @ 2:17p

    brilliant

    best post of the day

    Posted by darladoon at 11/06/2009 @ 2:53pm

36. Any time a job is cut, it hurts the economy as a whole, because those jobs provide the disposable income that support it. You can argue economic philosophy forever, but those are the facts. For business types, it means there is nobody out there to buy your products or services. It means you go broke! Having a philosophy is no substitute for thinking.

    Posted by pjcasey at 11/06/2009 @ 2:59pm

37. For economic, social and politic reasons, Democrats need to remake themselves as the party of jobs.

    **********

    You mean they have to become Republicans?

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/06/2009 @ 3:02pm

38. For economic, social and politic reasons, Democrats need to remake themselves as the party of jobs.

    **********

    I guess if Hillary had won and Bill was back in the WH Americans would associate Democrats with certain kinds of jobs.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/06/2009 @ 3:05pm

39. "You mean they have to become Republicans?"

    whoa, slow down there darin. republicans don't want to do anything. and when things get worse, you blame obama for not doing enough, even though YOUR philosophy is......to do nothing.

    you can't have it both ways. either obama lays off the "free market" or he......SPENDS MONEY.

    and whenever obama spends money, you say he's making things worse. and if he doesn't spend any money, watch how much worse things will get.

    the private sector ain't doing shit right now, darin. only the government is. and the reason the private sector ain't doing shit right now has NOTHING to do with the government.

    it has to do with GEORGE W. BUSH.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/06/2009 @ 3:10pm

40. tell us, darin, how does obama create jobs, if you don't want him to.......spend money?

    Posted by darladoon at 11/06/2009 @ 3:11pm

41. But, let's say Obama did do what Reagan did. He'd sure get my vote for a second term!

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/06/2009 @ 12:18pm

    Step 1) Bust a union.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/06/2009 @ 3:13pm

42. But, let's say Obama did do what Reagan did. He'd sure get my vote for a second term!

    2) Turn Central America into a playground for terrorists/bone orchard.

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/06/2009 @ 3:24pm

43. ....It was the Clinton administration who got got deficits down and eventually created a surplus. And they did that partly with a tax increase, not by tax cuts....

    Posted by DavidSpero at 11/06/2009 @ 2:48pm

    Nice try, no cigars!

    Clinton did it the old fashioned, capitalist way.....through ECONOMIC GROWTH, even while some of it was hype (ie, dot-com Boom)!

    Same thing Bush `43 did to dramatically increase Fed Revenues....unfortunately, his lack of fiscal discipline led to more spending than the record-level of Fed Revenues!

    Posted by Happy at 11/06/2009 @ 3:28pm

44. Posted by antis0cialist at 11/06/2009 @ 2:17pm

    You may think you are funny, but what real business people do is to cut prices and make it up in volume.

    If I make a 10% margin selling a million units at $100 (60% fixed cost and 40% variable), and I cut my price to $90. The idiot would say, "Your margin is zero".

    The reason that is wrong is becuase once my fixed costs are covered, I'm making a % margin on sales above 1 million.

    If I can generate just 20% more sales, I'll have a total profit of $10.8 million instead of $10 million.

    I know number probably seem like voodoo to you, but it works.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/06/2009 @ 3:32pm

45. Well, if HC passes, we'll need a couple of million or more HC professionals hired. That should make a dent.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/06/2009 @ 3:33pm

46. Any time a job is cut, it hurts the economy as a whole, because those jobs provide the disposable income that support it. You can argue economic philosophy forever, but those are the facts. For business types, it means there is nobody out there to buy your products or services. It means you go broke! Having a philosophy is no substitute for thinking.

    Posted by pjcasey at 11/06/2009 @ 2:59pm

    When buggy whip manufacturers lost their jobs because Ford made the horse and buggy obsolete, did that hurt the economy?

    When people who treat small pox lost their jobs because small pox was eradicated, did that hurt the economy?

    When people who dig ditches by hand lost their jobs because they were replaced by a backhoe, did that hurt the economy?

    Anytime a change creates a more efficient allocation of labor, that is, the same amount of labor produces more goods and services, the economy benefits. This requires people to lose their jobs.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/06/2009 @ 3:42pm

47. chimichenga, you are a hoot! :)

    are you also antis0cialist?

    Posted by BlackFrancis at 11/06/2009 @ 3:47pm

48. If so, well done!

    Posted by BlackFrancis at 11/06/2009 @ 3:49pm

49. --Clinton did it the old fashioned, capitalist way.....through ECONOMIC GROWTH...--

    by Happy at 11/06/2009 @ 3:28pm...

    Partially, yes... partially no.

    Clinton also 'engineered' capital growth... by doing it the 'new fashioned', capitalist way... by DEREGULATING the very institutions that could be viewed as too big to fail... encouraging behavior that only they could take advantage of... and passing it off as 'good conservative policy'... to the very people who's children will still be paying for their yachts and summer homes...

    Hocus Pocus... lost our focus

    The cookie jar's awry

    Money makers... hedging fakers

    Milked the ledgers dry.

    Posted by ttr at 11/06/2009 @ 3:53pm

50. Posted by fram at 11/06/2009 @ 2:18pm

    She obviously mis-spoke (or is setting the stage for another round) - most of the stimulus money has NOT been spent!

    Posted by Metteyya at 11/06/2009 @ 3:57pm

51. Speaking of a hoot, this is one:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB10001424052748704013004574517603592213342.html

    The Madness of Queen Nancy

    By JOHN FUND

    It's one thing to be serene under fire, it's another to be delusional.

    More than a few Democrats in Congress are perplexed and worried that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is insisting on ramming through a 1,900-page health care bill on Saturday, just days after her party took heavy losses in Tuesday's elections. "It reminds me of Major Nicholson, the obsessed British major in the film 'Bridge on the River Kwai,'" one Democrat told me. "She is fixated on finishing her health care bridge even as she's lost sight of where it's going and what damage it could cause to her own troops."

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/06/2009 @ 3:59pm

52. "More than a few Democrats in Congress are perplexed and worried that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is insisting on ramming through a 1,900-page health care bill on Saturday"

    names of those "more than a few Democrats in Congress"? i would appreciate that, darin.

    btw, how is voting on a bill considered "ramming through"?

    Posted by darladoon at 11/06/2009 @ 4:05pm

53. "one Democrat told me"

    can said Democrat indentify himself/herself? what is this Democrat so afraid of that he/she has to hide behind anonymity?

    Posted by darladoon at 11/06/2009 @ 4:06pm

54. Is anybody planning to see the movie "Precious" this weekend?

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/06/2009 @ 4:08pm

55. One termer in the Carter model coming up...

    Posted by YourJomamma at 11/06/2009 @ 11:52am | ignore this person | warn this person

    possible, especially if something out of control pops up and the people suffer sever amnesia - definately possible...

    then if obama gets voted out of office and two of the world's leading oil suppliers get into a knock down drag out war and begin undercutting each other's oil prices to afford to keep slaughtering each other like iran and iraq did throughout the 80's, creating an artificial and temporary cheap fossil fuel glut which fuels a grasshopper style boom economy...

    history COULD indeed repeat itself and obama will be lampooned as was jimmy carter for decades by rightwing and satano-aynrando ideologues - until, of course the artificial and temporary glut ends, driving fuel prices and therefore everything else produced or provided up in price and then...

    the hard core ideologues will continue to lampoon him in the face of the obvious reality that had we adopted and stuck to the ant-like policies of silly ol' jimmy carter, we may not have experienced the giddy heights of economic irresponsibility, but would also not suffer from the same once the party is over...

    but keep the wishful thinking up. right or not i'm sure its comforting to fantasize about the destruction of the enemy even at the cost of the welfare of the country...

    because as always, despite our comforting delusions, the most dangerous enemy always has been and always will be domestic, not foriegn.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/06/2009 @ 4:11pm

56. Democrats are between a rock and a hard place: face the wrath of Queen Nancy or face the wrath of voters. Nancy is from ultra liberal San Fran. She has complete job security. The rest of the Dems don't.

    And facing the wrath of Nancy is why they won't give their names.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/06/2009 @ 4:15pm

57. ibbleblibble, it's funny, but carter was actually the conservative, and reagan was the hardcore junkie.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/06/2009 @ 4:16pm

58. darin,

    so the "wrath of voters" would come from......support of a public option which a majority of voters want?

    interesting, if totally warped, thought.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/06/2009 @ 4:21pm

59. darin,

    how do you create jobs w/out spending money?

    btw, anyone hear about the guy who had a heart attack at the capitol tea protest yesterday? he was rescued by socialized medicine.....(the capitol rescue team is government-funded)....

    irony

    Posted by darladoon at 11/06/2009 @ 4:22pm

60. btw, how is voting on a bill considered "ramming through"?

    Posted by darladoon at 11/06/2009 @ 4:05pm

    That's right. I remember that was exactly your attitude about our "rush to war" in Iraq too. Haha, just kidding!

    Seriously darladoon, aren't you even a little suspicious of "your" politicians. Or do you really think Pelosi's got your back? Did her vote for the Iraq war and subsequent treatment of Cindy Sheehan have any impact on your trust of her at all?

    Where in the world does your trust in politicians come from????

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/06/2009 @ 4:43pm

61. "Seriously darladoon, aren't you even a little suspicious of "your" politicians. Or do you really think Pelosi's got your back?"

    fyi, i voted for sheehan.

    "Where in the world does your trust in politicians come from????"

    you've set up a straw man argument. just because i argue that pelosi's bill does not represent a "ramming through" does not necessarily mean that i always trust nancy pelosi.

    i want single-payer. but on the other hand, what pelosi is doing is not "ramming through".....votes are votes.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/06/2009 @ 4:49pm

62. so the "wrath of voters" would come from......support of a public option which a majority of voters want?

    interesting, if totally warped, thought.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/06/2009 @ 4:21pm

    That's just it; voters don't want it. If you word the question just right you can fool them into saying, "yes", but if you say, do you want a $2 trillion govt program, they say "no".

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/06/2009 @ 4:50pm

63. Anybody NOT on the Left, thinks that the increase in the Min. Wage a few months back helped Teen employment?......I didn't think so!

    Teens suffer record unemployment

    The jobless rate for teens stands at an all-time high of 27.6% as opportunities for young workers dwindle.

    NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Americans of all ages are being hurt by the weak job market, but the nation's teens are in a particularly bad spot.

    The unemployment rate for teenagers in the labor force soared to 27.6% in October, up 1.8 percentage points from the month before and hitting a third straight record high, the Labor Department said Friday....

    Posted by Happy at 11/06/2009 @ 4:54pm

64. "If you word the question just right you can fool them into saying, "yes", but if you say, do you want a $2 trillion govt program, they say "no""

    yeah right, and the pollsters who phrase the question "properly" (aka from a right wing perspective) aren't "fooling" voters at all. it's just "straight talk," right?

    i mean, just look at your idiotic question: "do you want a 2 trillion dollar government program?"

    yup, that's "straight talk" from darin the cheetoh eater

    Posted by darladoon at 11/06/2009 @ 4:56pm

65. Darin the Big Fat Troll at 11/06/2009 @3:42pm

    No dice troll. Transferring people from well paid production jobs into the service economy whether by automation, "efficiency" or outsourcing, amounts to the same thing, a lower standard of living for most.

    When I owned my shop & there were community layoffs in the work force, the remaining individuals at an effected company didn't make up losses in my customer base by purchasing twice as much.

    Disruption in a customer base even if relatively short lived can cause losses hard to make up. People move on & usually not into communities suffering layoffs & terminations. If they stay, their often reduced wages go to the mortgage brokers & banks.

    Posted by Sorelish at 11/06/2009 @ 4:57pm

66. Not to worry, folks, not to worry.

    In the immortal words of Dick "Draftdodger" Cheney, deficits don't matter:

    http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dick_Cheney_Budget_+_Economy.htm

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/06/2009 @ 5:10pm

67. Step 1) Bust a union.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/06/2009 @ 3:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    There ya go. Go after that whopping 13% or so of employed Americans who actually still belong to a labor union and thereby make a wage of sorts.

    Yup, that'll fix 'er.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/06/2009 @ 5:19pm

68. i want single-payer. but on the other hand, what pelosi is doing is not "ramming through".....votes are votes.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/06/2009 @ 4:49pm

    [Sigh]

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/06/2009 @ 5:50pm

69. Posted by freiheit1 at 11/06/2009 @ 5:50pm

    in other words, freheit cannot concede that:

    a) i made a good point

    b) he made a bad point

    Posted by darladoon at 11/06/2009 @ 5:55pm

70. No Darla, in other words I'm disappointed that you can't tell the difference between the dream of "single payer" and the reality of what politicians would actually do with that kind of power, that's all.

    I know you are smarter than that. I just can't understand the root of your gullible faith in politicians. Don't you see they are owned by the very plutocracy that you think they will marginalize on behalf of "the people"?

    Our fight over health care insurance is classic hegelian dialectic. It is about power, their power, not us!

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/06/2009 @ 6:04pm

71. Posted by antis0cialist at 11/06/2009 @ 2:17pm

    Perhaps you're confusing personal income with personal expenses? When dealing with credit card debt (or any type of debt, but credit card especially) there is bound to be a large amount of compound interest. The only way to minimize that is to pay off as much of the balance as possible as soon as possible, and reducing your annual income by $10,000 is clearly going to hinder most people's ability to pay off said debt.

    Posted by nkurland at 11/06/2009 @ 6:05pm

72. freiheit, you are completely setting up a straw man here.....

    you are essentially arguing that our elected representatives can never be trusted. ok.

    but, what about those millions of americans who are w/out health insurance?

    oh, i see, you put your trust in health insurance companies!

    Posted by darladoon at 11/06/2009 @ 6:07pm

73. Wow,The Bush tax cuts have done what for the economy?Let's start a war, that will jump start the economy, Well Santi what should we do with the two headed monster we have going right now?Tell Your friends the Chinese that we are stopping those silly incursions and forget about the trillions we have borrowed?The Mao worshiping free traders are jumping for "what"?We don't want to make something,anything here?Why not,will it cost us 2 more dollars to buy it?Oh boy,maybe Walmart would buy 3,000,000 of them to "show"everyone how much they care. Seriously folks, when are we as Americans going to come to the conclusion that making things is good.It is better than just consuming. We bought the Bill Clinton free trade charade and it has helped push America to the brink. Wall Street and it's money players do nothing for America. The health care debate should be this,how much theft will Americans accept. I don't accept the stance that insurance profits are 3-5%. The chairman of their corporate board has $60 million in stock,it was in the Trib. on Tuesday.How much is enough. Reagan ,who the conservatives love was the President who gave in to the money lusters. He started the downfall of America.Even though he was an actor through WW2 he should have known better. He was around during the Depression so he again should have known better. Unfortunately he sold out and the circumstances have been disastrous for America. The largest gulf of financial inequity in the free world. What has the top 1/10th of a percent done? From what I have observed they have shrugged. If that is Reagan's legacy the conservatives should all pack up their laptops and get Ann Coulter's web site on and communicate with her and the disciples.

    Posted by whatozz at 11/06/2009 @ 6:08pm

74. A nearly 2000 page bill? I saw Pelosi pledge to us she'd have it posted for 72 hours before a vote.

    Turns out that was a lie too.

    Face it, you don't even want to read it. You trust it is fine and a step in the direction YOU think this country should go, right?

    That's the only reason you can't agree that Pelosi is "ramming" this through. You don't CARE.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/06/2009 @ 6:10pm

75. Okay, let me get this straight... Obama and McCain signed TARP, which was a gift of nearly 1000 million of OUR dollars directly to the cartel of Wall Street banks virtually without oversight...

    ...and your knickers are in a twist because the chairman of an insurance company's board got 60 million in stock???

    What is the matter with you?!

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/06/2009 @ 6:16pm

76. "Okay, let me get this straight... Obama and McCain signed TARP, which was a gift of nearly 1000 million of OUR dollars directly to the cartel of Wall Street banks virtually without oversight... ...and your knickers are in a twist because the chairman of an insurance company's board got 60 million in stock?"

    these two events are unrelated. they have nothing to do with each other.

    and you have lost complete grasp of our debate, freiheit.

    i was making a specific point, to which you responded with multiple straw men.

    you know that i am opposed to bailing out wall street banks.

    i am also opposed, however, to health insurance providers enriching themselves by denying coverage to people.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/06/2009 @ 6:21pm

77. i am also opposed, however, to health insurance providers enriching themselves by denying coverage to people.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/06/2009 @ 6:21pm

    No strawman about it Darla. I'm contending you are nuts to think our Congress has the the ability to oversee the health insurance industry.

    You are oblivious to the fact this is all about the government and the insurance companies colluding against the best interests of lil' ol' you and me. Just the way government and Wall Street colluded in 1913 with the birth of the Fed.

    I wish you'd open your eyes.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/06/2009 @ 6:27pm

78. "I'm contending you are nuts to think our Congress has the the ability to oversee the health insurance industry"

    they do have the ability to oversee the health insurance industry, they just don't do a very good job of it. and that's because the health insurance industry crafts the legislation, spends millions of lobbyists, etc.

    but, again: congress has to do something to lower costs. if you are opposed to that, then what is YOUR solution?

    whether congress are untrustworthy is a completely different debate.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/06/2009 @ 6:35pm

79. "You are oblivious to the fact this is all about the government and the insurance companies colluding against the best interests of lil' ol' you and me"

    whereas before, it was all about the insurance companies working in our best interest?

    that's where you need to open YOUR eyes.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/06/2009 @ 6:36pm

80. Get the government out of the way. Allow health insurance competition across state lines. (I bet you can't even explain the rationale for those state laws, can you Darla?)

    "Ironically, it is politicians who have already made medical insurance so expensive that many people refuse to buy it. Insurance is designed to cover risk. But politicians have mandated that insurance cover things that are not risks and that neither the buyers nor the sellers of insurance want covered.

    In various states, medical insurance must cover the costs of fertility treatments, annual checkups and other things that have nothing to do with risks. What many people most want is to be insured against the risk of having their life's savings wiped out by a catastrophic illness.

    But you cannot get insurance just for catastrophic illnesses when politicians keep piling on mandates that drive up the cost of the insurance. These are usually state mandates but the federal government is already promising more mandates on insurance companies-- which means still higher costs and higher premiums." --Thomas Sowell

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/06/2009 @ 6:43pm

81. Hey Darla, I agree the insurance companies are not working in everyone's best interest today.

    But don't you think insurance companies would be held in better check by millions of consumers with a CHOICE in coverage, or do you think they are better held in check by politicians they can easily buy and sell?

    Believe me, the insurance industry would love to have the force of the government to hide behind.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/06/2009 @ 6:47pm

82. The only way to reduce unemployment is to have a vibrant free-market economy. Two things must be present to do this: 1) The expectation of an ample and reliable supply of inexpensive power and 2) Policies that are pro business - large and small. The administration has shown no inclination to do either. The possibility of Cap and Trade hanging over the economy guarantees higher unemployment. It is a race to the November elections in 2010 (13% unemployment?).

    Posted by pyeatte at 11/06/2009 @ 7:12pm

83. Well Frei who is going to compete with them? The board chairman of United Health who just happen to be the king of the crooks. Choice ,competition are meaningless words uttered by meaningless people like you.Are billionaires out there waiting to be a competitive insurance magnate? How about other pools of money just lying around to become a competing interest? Believe you me the insurance companies have hidden behind politicians for years. So have hospital associations and the drug companies. I ask you the question,what's wrong with you?

    Posted by whatozz at 11/06/2009 @ 7:14pm

84. You know what, I actually agree with some of the things freiheitz wrote, and I totally agree with what darla wrote, why oh why can't there be ANY middle ground??? Can you imagine, sigh...... .

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/06/2009 @ 7:36pm

85. Posted by whatozz at 11/06/2009

    Right... So your solution is a government monopoly?

    Okay. I see. You're wrong, I think, but certainly not a meaningless person.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/06/2009 @ 7:49pm

86. "Right... So your solution is a government monopoly?"

    yup

    Posted by darladoon at 11/06/2009 @ 7:58pm

87. yup

    Posted by darladoon at 11/06/2009 @ 7:58pm

    [Sigh]

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/06/2009 @ 8:41pm

88. Seriously?

    I just joined The Nation now, and realized that the comments board here is flooded with free-market Freidman Chicago school wannabe freaks! Why don't you guys head over to the Cato institute website instead? Why are you here?

    Posted by str8_illin at 11/06/2009 @ 8:43pm

89. Seriously?

    I just joined The Nation now, and realized that the comments board here is flooded with free-market Freidman Chicago school wannabe freaks! Why don't you guys head over to the Cato institute website instead? Why are you here?

    Posted by str8_illin at 11/06/2009 @ 8:43pm

    Well, that's a good point, str8.

    But the deal is, our rightie/neocon/libertarian-poser friends here, it can be said, at least aren't out there doing any real damage.

    Here, they're bouncing off the nice, absorbent soft walls of those who've, essentially, heard all their bullshit before and are not buying it anyway. They wanna be "libertarians", but say who marries whom; lovers of individual liberty, yet embrace the makings of a near police-state that we are approaching; have guvmint stay "out of your life", but have a gargantuan military complex and hundreds of thirsty, expensive military installations around the globe.

    So my philosophy is--welcome it. Enjoy the posts. And, as you can see by the length and frequency of their posts, well, they don't have the TIME to do a whole lot else.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/06/2009 @ 9:07pm

90. Schnell, thank g-d, or"whoever" that their posts keep them "busy".

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/06/2009 @ 10:07pm

91. Two things will solve the whole problem all by themselves, take away corporate personhood, and don't elect any republicans. At least not until they purge their ranks of neo-cons. Without corporate personhood, Clinton would never have been compelled to sign global trade give-aways or any of those other nasty little deals that republicans love which are bringing our economy down into parity with China and India. Working dads and little old retired ladies don't show up in Washington with millions of dollars trying to convince our representatives that they need tariff-free access to economies that directly destroy our whole country's infrastructure.

    Posted by Milhaus at 11/06/2009 @ 11:46pm

92. As you said, "If President Obama can fix things like Reagan did, he may be on the road to a second term, and he has the power to do it too, considering that his party controls Congress."

    I had to chuckle because first off, Obama won't do a thing Reagan did to spart the greatest economic growth in our history.

    But, let's say Obama did do what Reagan did. He'd sure get my vote for a second term!

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/06/2009

    Oh no. The Reagan fetishists are weighing in on this one.

    Before you roll out that sacred cow, take a look at the problems we're facing and ask yourself how much can be laid at his doorstep?

    Posted by koroviev at 11/07/2009 @ 12:13am

93. TO ALL BLOGGERS HERE:

    Can you each give me your telephone number so I can plan a surprise party for BigPasture? (By party I mean pummeling him en masse with tube socks containing bars of Irish Spring soap.)

    Thanks

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/07/2009 @ 12:14am

94. Posted by chimichenga at 11/07/2009 @ 12:14am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Up to your old penitentiary homeboy tricks again eh? Did you escape or just flee to central america to avoid capture?

    Posted by BigPasture at 11/07/2009 @ 12:39am

95. She obviously mis-spoke (or is setting the stage for another round) - most of the stimulus money has NOT been spent!

    Posted by Metteyya at 11/06/2009 @ 3:57pm

    Did Christine Romer misspeak? Are you sure? Do you know something that she doesn't? She is Obama's economic adviser. Who are you advising? What are your credentials again?

    Yes, most of the stimulus has not been spent. She knows that. But she did state that most of the impact from the stimulus bill has already been felt. What's that unemployment figure again?

    Posted by fram at 11/07/2009 @ 04:42am

96. Posted by Sorelish at 11/06/2009 @ 4:57pm

    This is the difference between "macro" and "micro" economics. At issue was whether one job loss hurts the economy (the "economy" being a macro economic phenomenon.)

    Losing a job hurts the "economy" of a single individual, but that's microeconomics.

    If labor is being deployed ineficiently, firing them and forcing them to find something more productive to do helps the macroeconomic economy.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/07/2009 @ 05:32am

97. "Right... So your solution is a government monopoly?"

    yup

    Posted by darladoon at 11/06/2009 @ 7:58pm

    And the third grade class's solution is 6 hours of recess each day.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/07/2009 @ 07:30am

98. Two things will solve the whole problem all by themselves, take away corporate personhood, and don't elect any republicans.

    Posted by Milhaus at 11/06/2009 @ 11:46pm

    One thing will solve the problem: kill all the poor people then there won't be any poverty.

    Or better yet, have the rich eat the poor. Why hasn't anyone thought of that modest proposal before?

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/07/2009 @ 07:33am

99. Take a look at the article headings from Lib or Left-friendly sources this morning......on the economy, the NYT has officially passed on the mantle of the Economy to Mr. Magic, however unwillingly he wants it:

    Real Clear Politics Saturday

    Health Care Headache for House Democrats - Lisa Wangsness, Boston Globe

    Obama's Economy to Fix - Charles Blow, New York Times

    Democrats Need to Focus on the Economy - Eleanor Clift, Newsweek

    GOP Wins Have Nothing to Do With Obama - Gail Collins, New York Times

    If I Were a Democrat I Wouldn't Be Smiling - Clive Crook, The Atlantic

    Dem Strategist: WH Warning After Going on FOX - Peter Nicholas, LAT

    Green Initiative Hasn't Stimulated Jobs - Alec MacGillis, Washington Post

    Why We Need Even More Stimulus - Robert Reich, Huffington Post

    White House Has Gotten Bad at Listening - Peggy Noonan, Wall St. Journal

    Posted by Happy at 11/07/2009 @ 10:11am

100. Oh Happy, thanks for the "good" news.

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/07/2009 @ 10:13am

101. Posted by Darin the Big Fat Troll at 11/07/2009 @5:32am

     Take millions of human examples of the "micro" economy & suddenly you're talking "macro."

     There are forests not far from my front & back yards, yet I can still see the trees. From your perspective, there are only rising & descending lines on a graph; lives of individuals are reduced to numbers.

     Your outlook reminds me of the comments made by a rightie pundit recently on the health care dilemma. "Sure there are people who aren't covered, but what about the majority who are insured? Why aren't we talking about them?"

     Posted by Sorelish at 11/07/2009 @ 11:24am

102. "And the third grade class's solution is 6 hours of recess each day"

     yup, france, germany, sweden, spain, canada, new zealand: just a bunch of mindless third graders.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/07/2009 @ 11:28am

103. Stop the Unconstitutional Pelosi healthcare bill-It is tyranny against Americans AND President Obama is pushing hard for this act of tyranny to be passed today. That makes Obama complicit in an act of tyranny against American citizens.

     HR 3962 would provide for CRIMINAL PENALTIES if you don't purchase the mandatory health insurance including prison according to the non partisan Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation

     "Criminal penalties

     Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

     • Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

     • Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years."

     http://tinyurl.com/ybs74q7

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/07/2009 @ 12:30pm

104. There is no section 7203 or 7201 in H.R. 3962. It ends at 3205.

     Do a word search and you'll find "felony" only once in the bill, and you won't find "evasion" anywhere.

     The only reference to "prison" is that prisoners are not eligible under the bill, and government officials who release confidential information can be imprisoned.

     nice try antisocialist!!

     Posted by darladoon at 11/07/2009 @ 1:17pm

105. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/06/2009 @ 3:32pm

     Interesting little trick you're attempting here, Darin. I'll touch on a couple of problems.

     1. A business with 60% fixed costs and 40% variable costs is a rather unusual case. Variable costs, such as labor, take up the lion's share of business expense in most businesses. Even if you are talking about fixed assets like planes or manufacturing equipment, increased production is going to lead to increased depreciation expense.

     2. You are making a number of implicit assumptions about the product that are also unusual, that a price drop of 10% will lead to a volume increase of 20%. Can you name a single product where this is true?

     3. You are ignoring competition.

     "...what real business people do is to cut prices and make it up in volume."

     Cuts in prices leads to competitive price wars. The result is less profit for everyone. For case studies, you'd just have to look at Wal-Mart, Southwest, and others working in the value space. None of these companies cut prices to the point of increasing volume and decreasing costs that look anything like the scenario you describe.

     While your general point is correct that it is possible to lower prices and make more profit due to volume, it - more often than not - is a special case that is difficult to recognize, frequently leads to less revenue because the volume only increases by say 5%, and then you find your newly found volumes vanish when your competition cuts prices and you find yourself in a price war.

     Want additional proof? Try walking down to the CEO's office and tell him that your plan of cutting premiums to increase volume on Monday. Then, let us know if you still have a job on Tuesday.

     http://tinyurl.com/ycvnw89

     Posted by srjenkins at 11/07/2009 @ 1:57pm

106. You are right...Nichols....you would think that unemployement would be job one. However unless Obama and his staff are complete morons, which is possible, there is no way they could not have known that subsidizing some public sector jobs, police, teachers, firemen, and completly ignoring small private sector compnaies would be a total and complete failure as the republicans and many economists predicted.

     I tend to believe they knew...and like all socialist governments of the past...small business is the enemy of such a government. Why else among other things is he openly critizing the US Chamber of Congress who represents private small and large businesses throughout our nation. This is unheard of.

     Obama and his henchmen made a strategic decision to payoff their supporters with stimulus money, use the opportunity to expand government and croke the private sector while they are at it. It's an insidious administration and now even the moderate democrats are getting the picture because they too are in the cross hairs of this administration's assault on the American economy and captitalist system.

     Posted by Obamunut at 11/07/2009 @ 2:04pm

107. rebublican= IMPOTENCY!!!

     Posted by Tiger2Lover at 11/07/2009 @ 3:26pm

108. nice try antisocialist!!

     Posted by darladoon at 11/07/2009 @ 1:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Keep showing your ignorance of the health bill as it will impact the U.S.A. tax codes!

     The latest spark is a letter that Thomas Barthold, the chief of staff to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, sent Thursday to Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev.

     Given that the health-care bill written by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus contains a $1,900 fee (or excise tax) for not buying health insurance, Ensign wanted to know what would happen if an American didn't pay the penalty.

     In a handwritten letter, Barthold told Ensign that under an existing provision of the Internal Revenue Code, willful failure to pay a fine can result in being charged with a misdemeanor which could carry a penalty of up to $25,000, or up to a year in jail, or both. The handwritten letter was a follow-up to an answer that Barthold gave Ensign during Thursday's mark-up of the Baucus bill.

     Yes, Section 7203 does provide for jail time for willful non-payment of taxes….ANY taxes. So, that's not real surprising. But, is willful non-payment of taxes what we are really worried about and talking about? And shouldn't anyone who willfully chooses not to pay their taxes be subject to penalties and jail time?

     When I looked at the provisions in HR 3200 for the provisions on penalties for not purchasing health insurance I found that there is going to be which I assume is a new section in the tax code referenced above….Section 6050X. The current Internal Revenue Code of 1986 does not contain a Section 6050X.

     Posted by BigPasture at 11/07/2009 @ 3:31pm

109. Sant and DuNcE-When is the last time an associate of yours was fined by the IRS ?I know neither of you like the health care bill but again it is a doomsday defense being presented. What is worse to me is that your friend Max,who just uses the Democrat label is behind this.Santi, as a guy that is involved with insurance concerns how do you not at least think this whole health care boondoggle is starting to smell.Everything is tilted towards the insurance companies. The American people are getting" gamed"here. What "Reform" is going on in this Democratic bill that is being watered down by the Democrats? I hope it doesn't pass because by the time conservative Dems are done it will like United Health South. AARP makes the majority of it's revenue from United Health's insurance sold through it. This is like a neon sign to me about the direction of this bill. My father taught me to do the right thing and to hold my head up. This bill has the look of something a shifty eyed kid would do. The Obama Administration has to decide who it supports,corporations or the people. So far it hasn't been the people. These pronouncements of socialist doom from our righty friends are what a head fake?I am waiting for support from Pfizer and Johnson and Johnson on the health bill. Then perhaps everyone will figure out that the change agent is really Maxwell Smart in disguise.Then perhaps the American people will realize that both groups should get thrown out with the trash.

     Posted by whatozz at 11/07/2009 @ 4:19pm

110. Posted by BigPasture at 11/07/2009 @ 3:31pm |

     And what will be in this horrible 6050X?

     Language to add the Max Tax to subsection 6724(b)...

     < Sec. 6724. Waiver; definitions and special rules (a) Reasonable cause waiver No penalty shall be imposed under this part with respect to any failure if it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect. (b) PAYMENT OF PENALTY Any penalty imposed by this part shall be paid on notice and demand by the Secretary and in the same manner as tax.>

     So, if you don't pay the penalty...you have to pay the penalty.

     Ooohh...big government conspiracy, Rio.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/07/2009 @ 4:48pm

111. The stunning image of all these cons eagerly lining up to be "trickled down" upon provided a hearty laugh.

     Thanks for the comic relief, guys.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/07/2009 @ 5:00pm

112. The health care bill is being debated as we speak and I've been tuned in all day.

     I hear good points by both sides.

     I've been saying that any bill that I could support would have to include the following:

     Tort reform - it does not address tort reform

     Shoring up of Medicare and Medicaid - It strengthens Medicaid but takes away from Medicare

     Catastrophic insurance - addresses this issue

     prior condition coverage - addresses this issue

     I can not support this bill but I can recognize that there is more work to be done to write a bi-partisan bill that both sides can live with. Kill this bill.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/07/2009 @ 5:05pm

113. Job One for the Obamanation and the Demoncrats is securing their power for perpetuity at the expense of the remaining working taxpayers, not the rich!

     "Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later."

     "Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement."

     "Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients."

     "On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17 percent of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20 percent of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer."

     "Sec. 1161 (pp. 520-545) cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans (used by 20 percent of seniors). Advantage plans have warned this will result in reductions in optional benefits such as vision and dental care."

     Posted by BigPasture at 11/07/2009 @ 5:08pm

114. "Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for grants to community 'entities' with no required qualifications except having 'documented community activity and experience with community healthcare workers' to 'educate, guide, and provide experiential learning opportunities' aimed at drug abuse, poor nutrition, smoking and obesity."

     The AMA is meeting today considering the rebellion of its member desiring to WITHDRAW their support for the socialist healthcare bill. AARP can only see the dollar signs from selling their supplements to seniors who they have betrayed royally!

     Posted by BigPasture at 11/07/2009 @ 5:10pm

115. The fact of the matter is DuNcE is that this is a corporate bill.I would think you would at least recognize that but that is why I address you as such. You are so caught up in the fables of political ideology that you can't see that.This bill is corporate political marketing. It is keeping you right wingers occupied with the details as I ashamedly admit the corporate Democrats are filling their campaign coffers. The westerners led by your pal Max are robbing the train like Jesse James did.Do any of our rich Democratic Senators have the guts to call out Max,Kent,and Ben out. Where are John Kerry and Jay Rockefeller at. Enough of the "Good Old Boys club",call out these corporatists. Maybe they don't care.Wake up Tom Harkin and stand up for the people.

     Posted by whatozz at 11/07/2009 @ 6:36pm

116. Posted by BigPasture at 11/07/2009 @ 5:08pm |

     "Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers..."

     Whereas, when you purchase private health insurance, you have ultimate control of your policy and what it covers (?!)....until the insurers decide that you (and/or an entire class of people like you) are too expensive....and then it doesn't.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/07/2009 @ 8:08pm

117. Posted by BigPasture at 11/07/2009 @ 5:08pm |

     "Sec. 1161 (pp. 520-545) cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans..."

     This is the same Medicare that you and St. Ronnie want(ed) abolished, yes?

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/07/2009 @ 8:10pm

118. Posted by BigPasture at 11/07/2009 @ 5:10pm |

     "The AMA is meeting today considering the rebellion of its member desiring to WITHDRAW their support for the socialist healthcare bill."

     The AMA is manning the ramparts in preparation for defending their state-mandated monopoly.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/07/2009 @ 8:12pm

119. Posted by BigPasture at 11/07/2009 @ 5:10pm |

     You really should cite your shills...I mean *sources*, Rio...

     "Here are some important passages in the 2,000 page legislation. BETSY MCCAUGHEY Wall Street Journal"

     Interesting that the cost estimates for "families making..." is nowhere to be found in the CBO estimate...perhaps because that's NOT THEIR JOB (they're the GOV's accountants).

     But please keep quoting the FUD of a proven liar.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/07/2009 @ 8:42pm

120. Why does'nt B. Hussein start with a moratorium on legal immigration ? Perfectly logical move when you consider the fact that we are importing the unemployed. Why are we allowing 800,000 immigrants in the country each year when when the "official" unemployment rate is over 10 %. This means that we do not have enough jobs for people who are already here.

     Posted by ElliottTeesdale at 11/07/2009 @ 9:07pm

121. Interesting - no-one is addressing what these people are going to do when their benefits expire... ..There are no longer textile jobs in the United States. Shoes made in the U.S.A. ( of course Congress allows off shore manufacturers to stamp made in u.s.a. ) No longer are there electronic assembly jobs - and automobiles were "assembled in the U.S.A." Not made in the U.S.A. .. ..The politicians love the healthcare debate it stops everyong from thinking about ourselves - watching our tax dollars pay for their healthcare while telling us we can not afford it. .. ...Ask your politician - Does He Wear Imported Shoes?.? Made in the U.S.A. ?? Handmade for their feet - not off the shelve... Their clothes ?.? off the shelve - custom made ( BUT they can afford it the tax payers are paying ) .. WHEN THEIR BENEFITS END -.- WHAT WILL OUR FELLOW AMERICANS DO ?.? Go to Mexico for a job ?.? China ?.? ..The Government says we are in trouble because we stopped spending money - on imported goods / making money for WHO???? .. .....Comments are welcome for two reasons - (1) no-one reads them and (2) nothing will be done because of them.. .. Politely Put -.- Go Spit Into the Wind And See What You Get

     Posted by bbednarz at 11/08/2009 @ 07:19am

122. Posted by ElliottTeesdale at 11/07/2009 @ 9:07pm |

     Show me a former Wal-Mart greeter who is willing to pick vegetables for less-than-subsistence wages and we'll talk.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 07:40am

123. Posted by bbednarz at 11/08/2009 @ 07:19am |

     Exactly how much are YOU willing to pay for shoes that are actually "Made in the USA"? (2X? 3X?)

     Or do you suggest we pay Americans the same as Mex-i-cans and Chinese? (as the Pugs would have us do)

     Or perhaps a tariff to drive up the cost of shoes "Hecho en Mexico"? (not that Wal-Mart would let you)

     America's problem is buying "Imelda Marcos" numbers of shoes on credit instead of saving like the foreigners who made them.

     Answers welcome, Kathie Lee.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 07:49am

124. We haven't seen anything yet. We still don't still haven't mentioned the alligator in the middle of the living room. We have exported all the sweat equity of previous generations to other countries. As long as we allow nice people like Warren Buffit and Bill Gates fly their private jets to India and China, Vietnam, and India for cheap labor we will see unemployment climb to 20 percent and more. 10 percent of our citizens own 80 percent of the countries wealth and the rest of us owe a credit bill to china that our children's children will have to pay by working for Chinese government owned businesses at sub human wages. One job producing value added product supports ten other jobs. Retraining to become a Wallmart greeter doesn't replace one job making a vacuum cleaner or a car. Protectionism is a dirty word "a la idiot" Alzheimer Reagan and we still dribble along blaming excessive regulation. China controls everything and executes, puts to death, even the appearance of corruptions, we make them, legal billionaires.

     Posted by julien38 at 11/08/2009 @ 09:37am

125. Snowball (I'm not sure if I'm responding correctly, haven't been doing this very long); The point is if excess labor, both legal and illegal, ceased to be imported then the "former Walmart greeter" would be working for more than subsistance wages because wage levels, in reaction to tightening labor pools, would cause wages at the bottom to rise. These are the most vulnerable in the work force and their lives are being savaged as a side effect of our nutty immigration policies. Blacks are most severely impacted. Notice the unemplyments rate amongst young black men ?

     Posted by ElliottTeesdale at 11/08/2009 @ 12:05pm

126. I am ready to pay 5 bucks more for jeans,shoes etc. How can we possibly recover economically without job creation.No frosty, the problem is people buying period. What is going to happen when unemployment benefits run out?Where is the flow of money going to come from.Do Americans have to re learn spending habits? Yes,but with that comes less economic activity without new job creation. So how does that help us.Show me a" snowy" guy that knows the foreigners that saved the money to buy the Chinese goods on our shelves. Tell me Snowy why do you want the Chinese to dominate us economically?You don't feel a kinship with the DuNcE do you?I am tired of the fight that revolves around health care for "us".I am blown away by the conservative fight for Medicare .They have never cared about it until now when they need "senior" votes.Where were they when GWB and his pals carved holes in their drug benefits?How about when Medicare became law?If things change the conservatives will rail again against entitlements.

     Posted by whatozz at 11/08/2009 @ 12:20pm

127. .....These are the most vulnerable in the work force and their lives are being savaged as a side effect of our nutty immigration policies. Blacks are most severely impacted. Notice the unemplyments rate amongst young black men ?

     Posted by ElliottTeesdale at 11/08/2009 @ 12:05pm

     Stick around long enough, and you'll realize the law of supply/demand is invalid in the minds of Libs....they are the exact opposite of the conservative mind.

     They think borrowing huge sums, printing money & subsidizing money-losing jobs are the way to prosperity.

     They do get one thing right though, and right for a long time! Encouraging illegal immigration is one sure way to BOTH keep blacks poor AND in their place, slaves on the Libs' plantation.

     Posted by Happy at 11/08/2009 @ 1:10pm

128. Has anyone wondered why the stock market goes up with higher unemployment figures? The official unemployment rate is 10.2% the actual unemployment rate is around 17%.

     In a normaly functioning economy, even though the stock market is not an entirely accurate barometer of the economy as a whole the stock market should go down with the release of these figures. But instead it goes up. This is a sign of an economy that is way out of balance. This is the sign of economic policies that are aimed at reinflating the banking and housing bubbles at the expense of the taxpayer.

     This is a sign that capiltalists are wringing the last bit of profit out of a dead economy that is on the verge of catastrophic collapse..

     Anyway, kick back and enjoy your genetically altered comfort foods and your cable or satellite TV until the time comes when you are living in tent cities and squalor. Enjoy!

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/08/2009 @ 2:01pm

129. After all, this kind of thing can't happen in America! Right?

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/08/2009 @ 2:04pm

130. Posted by ElliottTeesdale at 11/08/2009 @ 12:05pm |

     If you really want to stop illegal immigration, target the people who are pocketing the profit from the vegetables (or the "dollar menu" items they end up in) and insure that they are hiring Americans for a living wage.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 4:08pm

131. Posted by whatozz at 11/08/2009 @ 12:20pm

     No, I have no love for businessmen who would rather take advantage of the exploited labor in China than pay Americans a fair wage to make sneakers and accept lower profit margins.

     I'm also willing to pay more to avoid aiding and abetting them and avoid the "always low prices" (...means always low wages) at Walmart.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 4:14pm

132. Posted by chaoszen at 11/08/2009 @ 2:01pm |

     The sad truth is that sh-tty economies increase per capita productivity which helps the bottom line (yessuh massa...I's be gettin' them shoes a shinin' fo yuh suh).

     All the Wall St types see is that the expenditures on labor for company X have gone down so the return on their shares will be better....this quarter.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 4:16pm

133. If you really want to stop illegal immigration,

     suppose you could. what about the estimated 15 million undocumented workers here now?

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/08/2009 @ 4:30pm

134. hint, you can't send them back. it's logistically impossible

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/08/2009 @ 4:31pm

135. Posted by emile duBois at 11/08/2009 @ 4:31pm |

     I don't want to...I'm just pointing out the lunacy of focusing on the exploited rather than the exploiters.

     I'd rather see ag workers allowed to unionize and/or paid a higher minimum wage.

     It's the dollar menu, Mickey D's, and ConAgra that need to be cut down to size.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 4:35pm

136. Snowy -You are correct,there is a price to pay for being an American.We continually are shown the"lowest price of the season" in advertising campaigns. I am probably one of the few who never has shopped at Walmart. I just saw what they were doing years ago.When small business after small business got shuttered after being unable to compete with a giant enterprise Americans should have gotten the message. With help from the advertising community the average American threw his small businessman neighbor under the bus for $100-150 savings annually.In a mechanized world,why can't American business compete in our domestic market?Illegal immigrants aren't the problem,I agree it is the employers but Droopy would argue that I suppose.

     Posted by whatozz at 11/08/2009 @ 5:27pm

137. Posted by whatozz at 11/08/2009 @ 5:27pm |

     There's a reason that only Japan Steel Works can make the reactor vessels for modern nuke reactors with a single ingot anymore.

     Don't let the union-bashing, xenophobes tell you otherwise.

     Why did we lose our manufacturing base?

     Because it was more convenient to do M&A (75% of which enterprises return less value to shareholders than the parts), outsource to foreign lands (with Clinton's help to repatriate the booty), and grind companies into dust in a race to the bottom.

     Anyone who says that unions and regulations are the problem need look no further than Germany for proof that they're whistling dixie.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 5:38pm

138. I'd rather see ag workers allowed to unionize and/or paid a higher minimum wage.

     dream on. it's a good dream, but a dream nonetheless.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/08/2009 @ 5:42pm

139. The sad truth is that sh-tty economies increase per capita productivity which helps the bottom line (yessuh massa...I's be gettin' them shoes a shinin' fo yuh suh). Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 4:16pm

     Productivity is up, as it has been for quite some time. But wages do not express this increase in productivity. Generally when productivity goes up so do wages. Not so anymore.

     We have a topsy-turvy economy where normal economic rules do not apply. This is not sustainable. And the current administration is doing nothing about regulating the out of control profit taking by the fascists. Enforcing restraints like Glass-Steagall or some legislation like it is crucial. But this administration is not looking forward to a sustainable economy. Their only concern is artificially re-inflating the failed policies of the past in order to get them through the next election.

     In my opinion, this is treasoness and unforgivable. They know better.

     And the problem is the American people are largely ignorant and would think Glass-Steagall was Steven Seagalls brother..

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/08/2009 @ 5:49pm

140. You are 100% correct.When I read about the unions destroying our economy and that people are against unions I wonder what people are reading and if they have studied history.Of course the people who union bash are running to the bank with their money.So if Walmart is our biggest retailer they are our largest private employer right?Are they a strong ally of the Chamber of Commerce?So does any one wonder about non union sentiment then.Let's follow the color of corporate money.

     Posted by whatozz at 11/08/2009 @ 5:51pm

141. For these reasons and many more, I am moving to Costa Rica next year. I'm buggin out. If I don't, I fear my sanity is at risk.

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/08/2009 @ 5:54pm

142. Posted by whatozz at 11/08/2009 @ 5:51pm |

     WalMart has pioneered the use of techniques that nicely side-step unionization of their hundreds-of-thousands-strong warehouse perma-temp army in Fontana, CA.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 6:54pm

143. dream on. it's a good dream, but a dream nonetheless. Posted by emile duBois at 11/08/2009 @ 5:42pm |

     "Dreams are the touchstones of our character." - H.D. Thoreau

     "There is nothing like a dream to create the future." - Victor Hugo

     "Every great dream begins with a dreamer. Always remember, you have within you the strength, the patience, and the passion to reach for the stars to change the world." - Harriet Tubman

     "The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die." - Ted the Lion

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 6:56pm

144. Snow, haven't shopped at walmart since 1992, and proud of it too, remember when they supposedly sold USA made?!? Yea, that seems like a lifetime ago. Sigh.... .

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/08/2009 @ 7:07pm

145. I don't know how many people shop local, but I bet its divided along repub, dem lines, I don't mind spending a few dollars more to spread the wealth around to the people who live and work in the community.

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/08/2009 @ 7:12pm

146. Remember when Walmart said it sold only products made in the U.S. The next day people went in and read the made in China labels. By the way do you know how many U.S. companies it has screwed with it's purchasing practices?It has pushed a number of companies into bankruptcy.That's okay,I think only 3 Walton family billionaires are in the top 10 wealthy Americans.

     Posted by whatozz at 11/08/2009 @ 7:59pm

147. Posted by Denise29 at 11/08/2009 @ 7:07pm |

     I've never set foot in a Walmart and never will.

     I'm afraid plenty of Dems enjoy the race-to-the-bottom of the bargain bin too...it's not just the repugnant...no company could get that big with only 40% of us.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 8:37pm

148. That is true,but what about Cosco are they any different?Both companies sell meat. As a former member of the meat business I know how much meat Cosco imports from Australia. It was an inexpensive alternative to American beef.I doubt anyone knew,did the big meat companies push for country of origin labeling?I don't shop at Cosco either but yes how many progressives do?

     Posted by whatozz at 11/08/2009 @ 8:56pm

149. Posted by whatozz at 11/08/2009 @ 8:56pm |

     If you're seriously progressive, and eat meat (is murder....tasty, tasty murder), then you know which local farm your organic beef hails from already and wouldn't think of shopping with the sheeple at CostCo.

     How many times do we need to read about PCBs / melamine / etc in Chinese products before people wake up and take the time to learn where what you're ingesting comes from?

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 9:12pm

150. You are 100% correct.When I read about the unions destroying our economy and that people are against unions I wonder what people are reading and if they have studied history.Of course the people who union bash are running to the bank with their money.So if Walmart is our biggest retailer they are our largest private employer right?Are they a strong ally of the Chamber of Commerce?So does any one wonder about non union sentiment then.Let's follow the color of corporate money.

     Posted by whatozz at 11/08/2009 @ 5:51pm

     Unions are not the sole problem, just part of the problem.

     As I've said many times, unionism promotes mediocrity, is based upon marxism, deprives individuals of personal accomplishment, and individuality.

     Of all my employment experiences, my years in the Teamsters and UAW were the worst.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/08/2009 @ 9:46pm

151. How many times do we need to read about PCBs / melamine / etc in Chinese products before people wake up and take the time to learn where what you're ingesting comes from?

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 9:12pm

     What you do, writing video games that are surely filled with violence and gore, are far more insidiously dangerous! Ironic, the better your trade gets, the more real it appears....to induce killing highs!

     Posted by Happy at 11/08/2009 @ 10:59pm

152. Very well said.

     The remaining Obama supporters would be angry of Bush did the same things Obama is doing. People need to take the Obama Love Goggles off. He is a disaster and he isn't learning because he thinks he is doing a great job! Just like Bush.

     Obama is still listening to the same fools, Summer and Geithner, who helped create this mess. So Obama will never take on trade or reform in any real way.

     I just hope the left realizes that its Obama's terrible policies (which are Bush policies) which are dooming him. The radical right is being empowered not by racism but by Obama's failure to change.

     Posted by masher at 11/09/2009 @ 12:51am

153. As I've said many times, unionism promotes mediocrity, is based upon marxism, deprives individuals of personal accomplishment, and individuality.

     Of all my employment experiences, my years in the Teamsters and UAW were the worst.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/08/2009 @ 9:46pm

     I have been a union member most of my life, and by and large it has been some of the most rewarding time I have spent working. The worst of times was when I had no representation.

     You say unionism promotes mediocrity. In my experience it promotes pride in my job and a drive for excellence. In the Union I have some say in the preformance of my job and am not required to kiss ass or curry favor to get ahead. I can speak my mind without fear of retribution. You say unions are Marxist when unions have existed before Marx was born. And anyway a little Marxism is a good thing. There is no shame in Karl's game.

     You say unions deprive people of personal accomplishment and individuality. I say they promote these very things. Since I have some say in my working conditions, wages and benefits by bargaining for my labor I feel more in control of my own time and effort which allows me more individuality. And the personal accomplishment of knowing that I am fairly compensated for my labor.

     Without unions and the continuing struggle of the working class there would never have been a strong middle class in this country. And right now that struggle is being threatened by assholes like yourself.

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/09/2009 @ 04:25am

154. Posted by Happy at 11/08/2009 @ 10:59pm |

     Yeah, I'm sure Flower, Little Big Planet, NBA 2K10, and Gran Turismo sent Hasan over the edge.

     If you buy a game called Killzone 2, you're asking for that experience, no?

     If you buy toothpaste and get a trip to the ER though?

     And what injuries does one actually suffer (barring the occasional accidentally flying Wii controller upside one's head)?

     Ironic that you've chosen the same freedom-squashing line of attack as my least favorite CA Democrats, Leland Yee and Joe Baca!

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/09/2009 @ 07:36am

155. Santi- Go back and get your pay stubs and send the "extra" money back to the companies you worked at during the "black" period of your union life.Please stop your nonsense.Did you work in a union to get a life experience? You have spoken of your conservative upbringing and reading the editorial page at age 10. Now we are learning about the terrible time when you were a union member.Is that why you served in the military?You had to exorcise the militancy of unionism out of your body. It is too bad your mental telepathy couldn't get through to your pal Dick Cheney.It might have changed his thought process.It is too bad if some people need union representation.We as a country seem to be like you,turn your back on each other.Go preach like your pals and when the hour is up be back to the me-me crowd.Then tell us how you help new immigrants ,are the holistic medicine guy of the year,and get by on your 30 grand.Something is always left out and that makes up the next chapter.Please don't tell me in the next installment that you are Jack Higgins.

     Posted by whatozz at 11/09/2009 @ 08:26am

156. Posted by chaoszen at 11/09/2009 @ 04:25am |

     I'm sure the agricultural workers (who were specifically excluded from collective bargaining rights in the New Deal) aren't awash in the 'individuality' that Anti is touting and that their 'personal accomplishment' is quite hampered by their slave-like working conditions.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/09/2009 @ 08:51am

157. One of the greatest threats to job creation is uncertainty. Most employers are not hiring because they have no idea when the economic turnaround, supposedly already begun, will reach their industry. Additionally, the present administration has proposed, but not yet enacted, changes to the tax code, employee health insurance and energy production which are viewed by most job creators as having a negative effect without certain knowledge of just how negative.

     Business and industry can work around known and predictable negatives, but the unknown will stop them in their tracks. I am a small business owner who has reduced staff by 50% over the last two years, and am turning to technology to increase productivity. I don't pay Employer FICA on a netbook, and a very high speed scanner does not require health insurance or sick pay. The simple addition of cutting edge communications technology has insured me a productivity ratio equal to that of July 2007 without adding a single employee. Be careful what you wish for.

     Posted by Lrobb at 11/09/2009 @ 09:33am

158. Posted by Lrobb at 11/09/2009 @ 09:33am |

     Good points about uncertainty, LRobb....you've stated a major tenet of Keynesian economic theory.

     Are you claiming you wouldn't have saved the money from that employee via automation, but for the economy?

     Are you more worried about the tax code...or your lack of certainty about where your next customer will come from?

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/09/2009 @ 09:44am

159. Ironic that you've chosen the same freedom-squashing line of attack as my least favorite CA Democrats, Leland Yee and Joe Baca!

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/09/2009 @ 07:36am

     I make no "freedom-squashing line of attack" on your industry! Re-read what I penned!

     You attacked meat....and I would call "murder" of livestock as an "attack"....and cited how dangerous such meat could be.

     I didn't "attack" your freedom to write killing-heavy video games....I opined that what your games incite, is more insidious. I uphold your right to produce as violent as possible games just as I uphold the right of Hollywood to make "Saw" movies.

     It's just extremely hypocritical that just about all producers of this kind of human gore, are LIBERALS, the mouthy, sensitive, peace-and-love crowd.

     Posted by Happy at 11/09/2009 @ 09:58am

160. Snowball:

     I know precisely where my next clients are coming from. My main concern is being able to give them good, timely service. I have no worries at all about the tax code. Taxes are going up. Taxes are always going up. How far up is the question. Any competent accountant can tell me what to do to minimize their effect once their scope is known.

     Not being even slightly technical, absent the recession I would probably have hired additional administrative staff and would never have considered hiring the services of a communications consultant. Going to an IT guru was an act of complete desperation. Learning to make the technology go is one of the hardest things I have had to do since getting an MBA. When I was in college, the only thing we learned about computers was to make Christmas wreaths from IBM punch cards.

     Payroll used to take one person a full day to compute and process even with accounting software. It now takes ten minutes, and everything else in my little company is following smartly in line. Since we provide a service rendered on-site, I will never be able to outsource labor. However, that does not mean we will be hiring at any time in the forseeable future.

     Posted by Lrobb at 11/09/2009 @ 10:03am

161. Posted by Happy at 11/09/2009 @ 09:58am |

     "I make no "freedom-squashing line of attack" on your industry! Re-read what I penned!"

     Your implication that videogames cause violence is the basis of the aforementioned Dems attempts at censorship.

     Funny how people committed much violence before there were videogames...how DID they find inspiration?

     "You attacked meat....and I would call 'murder' of livestock as an 'attack'....and cited how dangerous such meat could be."

     You missed the joke...which is aimed at vegans, not you or the cattle. I love being an omnivore, not so much E. Coli poisoning.

     "I didn't 'attack' your freedom to write killing-heavy video games....I opined that what your games incite, is more insidious."

     See above; you'll get nowhere with that cart in front of your horsie.

     "I uphold your right to produce as violent as possible games just as I uphold the right of Hollywood to make "Saw" movies."

     Compare and contrast "Call of Duty" with "Flags of Our Fathers".

     And we're just giving our market what they obviously want (why else would they pony up $200-300 for a console and $60 again and again?).

     "It's just extremely hypocritical that just about all producers of this kind of human gore, are LIBERALS, the mouthy, sensitive, peace-and-love crowd."

     Hahaha....I left Blizzard Entertainment because 90% of the people working there were Pugs and Libertarians...you know not of what you speak.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/09/2009 @ 10:23am

162. 99% of poetry is written by liberals. coincidence? I think not.

     99% of creative artists are liberals. and that is as it should be.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/09/2009 @ 11:11am

163. 99% of liberal poets and other creative artists do not make enough money to feed their families, hence why governments should support the arts. Just, please, don't let liberal creative artists set economic policy or no one will be able to feed their families.

     Posted by Lrobb at 11/09/2009 @ 11:33am

164. 99% of poetry is written by liberals. coincidence? I think not.

     99% of creative artists are liberals. and that is as it should be.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/09/2009 @ 11:11am

     Because they think idealistically, not in reality.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 12:11pm

165. Auntieshithead,

     Do us all a favor and die already. Today, if you can arrange it. Thanks.

     Posted by atilla at 11/09/2009 @ 12:58pm

166. Because they think idealistically, not in reality.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 12:11pm

     If it wasn't for idealism and creativity we would go insane living in your contorted vision of what is real. Your reality consists of talking to a fairy tale God that doesn't exist on a daily basis and then backing your illusions up with a 2000 year old book that has no validity.

     I would not call that living in the reality based community. Religion is a distinctly human disease that is at the root of most of the worlds problems.

     But you can never explain that to people who suffer a psychosis. Anyone who is truly insane will never see the disease.

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/09/2009 @ 1:51pm

167. Auntieshithead, Do us all a favor and die already.

     been there, done that.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/09/2009 @ 1:56pm

168. Posted by Lrobb at 11/09/2009 @ 11:33am | ignore this person | warn this person

     you believe what you post?

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/09/2009 @ 1:57pm

169. Congratulations to John Nichols. He seems to be the only Democrat who will admit that trade policies are responsible for the collapse of demand in the economy. Now if we can get the New York Times, the Demcratically controlled congress and the White House to admit as much, we will be at the BEGINNING of a solution to our economic problems - but I'm not holding my breath.

     Posted by Buddy33 at 11/09/2009 @ 7:09pm

170. When video game makers are laying off people we have problems. If this Administration thinks a 30+% of young people being unemployed is going to help them politically we have a pile of deadwood in the Executive branch.You wonder why there is no energy in the debate? The young people that elected this President got kicked to the curb. It looks like the Democrats are kicking women to the curb now.I thought we had female Democratic Senators,Do they all whisper? Who has some money so the Administration can support them. To Katrina and company where is the progressiveness of this Administration? Where is support for this half legislation. Help light a fire under these politicians.

     Posted by whatozz at 11/10/2009 @ 4:14pm