Chuck Sheketoff of the Oregon Center for Public Policy put an amusing post up on Blue Oregon today twitting Greg Walden for his somewhat inconsistent stance on unemployment benefits.
“Remarkably, Congress went on a July 4th vacation unable to muster the votes necessary to extend unemployment insurance benefits,” Sheketoff writes. “I’ll let Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon’s 2nd District explain why extending unemployment benefits is vital when a sustained economic recovery has yet to take hold: ‘Unemployment insurance provides targeted and effective economic stimulus. These critical benefits increase consumer spending in the hardest-hit areas and sustain and strengthen economic recovery.’”
But Walden made that statement back in 2002, and apparently his views have changed in the eight years since. A bill extending unemployment benefits passed the House just before the July 4 recess, with 270 congresscritters voting yes (including Oregon’s four Democratic members) to 153 voting no, including Walden. (The bill unfortunately stalled in the Senate thanks to the threat of a filibuster.)
Walden’s “nay” came even though his district is one of the hardest-hit by the recession, with a jobless rate of 11.5% in May, almost two points higher than the national rate. “In June 2010, 2,994 Oregonians in Walden’s 2nd District filed new claims for regular unemployment insurance benefits,” Sheketoff comments. “That’s unsurprisingly 19% of all new claims in Oregon.”
“As noted by the old Rep. Walden, shutting off unemployment benefits before the economy is firmly on its feet harms the unemployed and the businesses in communities where they live,” Sheketoff continues, quoting a 2003 statement by Walden: “While there are many signs that the president’s policies and the economic stimulus bills passed by Congress are beginning to turn the economy around, it’s essential that we maintain a strong safety net for dislocated workers until new jobs are created.”
What’s different now? Well, in 2003 there was a Republican president and Republicans controlled Congress, whereas now we have a Democratic president and Democrats hold majorities in both houses.
If one wanted to be a cynic one might suspect that Walden and his fellow Republicans want the economy to remain in the crapper until the November congressional elections to make Democrats look bad. But I don’t want to be a cynic, so I won’t suspect that.
Set as favorite
Share
Email this
Comments
(28)
written by Greg Vernon , July 09, 2010
Unemployment insurance is turning into another taxpayer sponsored welfare program. Why work if you can stay home and do drugs, get fat and clip coupons?
..., Low-rated comment [Show]
written by aaychbee'em critic , July 09, 2010
HBM, you a cynic? Never. I won't hear of it.
Perhaps the change has something to do with the several number of extensions of benefits now versus 2003. It's now up to what, about 7 years.
Perhaps the change has something to do with the today's national debt and deficit now versus 2003.
Perhaps the change has something to do with, given today's deficits, the Republicans wanted the Dems to reduce spending somewhere else to offset this. Of course the first thing that would come up would be defense or national security.
Perhaps if you had done a little more than just scratch the surface, you could have explained some of this in your blog. I seems that most of your stuff comes from Blue Oregon or Jeff Mapes.
Do you really think that extending unemployement benefits will help the economy and Obama by November? Of course not. So if Walden was "cynical" and purely political, only wanting to garner more votes, he would of voted for the unemployment benefits and still receive the "benefit" from Obama's disastrous handling of the economy (and the spill, and the borders, and on and on). Perhaps he voted for what he believed was right given the facts on the ground.....a novel concept among liberals.
Perhaps the change has something to do with the several number of extensions of benefits now versus 2003. It's now up to what, about 7 years.
Perhaps the change has something to do with the today's national debt and deficit now versus 2003.
Perhaps the change has something to do with, given today's deficits, the Republicans wanted the Dems to reduce spending somewhere else to offset this. Of course the first thing that would come up would be defense or national security.
Perhaps if you had done a little more than just scratch the surface, you could have explained some of this in your blog. I seems that most of your stuff comes from Blue Oregon or Jeff Mapes.
Do you really think that extending unemployement benefits will help the economy and Obama by November? Of course not. So if Walden was "cynical" and purely political, only wanting to garner more votes, he would of voted for the unemployment benefits and still receive the "benefit" from Obama's disastrous handling of the economy (and the spill, and the borders, and on and on). Perhaps he voted for what he believed was right given the facts on the ground.....a novel concept among liberals.
written by John Philo , July 09, 2010
The difference now vs. then is the current regime is not stimulating the economy. Jobs need to come from the private sector for true economic recovery and the only jobs being created now are government jobs. The small business taxes pay for those government jobs and when you raise taxes on business they are not going to be able to hire people. There is no confidence in Obama's ability from the business community.
written by Ross , July 09, 2010
entitlement programs are the reason that we are going in the wrong direction. In order to pay for those unemployment benefits, it needs to be taken from the private sector. When the private sector has less, they need to find ways to cut their own costs i.e. lay people off and cut wages. When that happens, more people are put in line to collect unemployment benefits.
Saying yes to continuing unemployment benefits is a way for a career politician to say "look at what I'm doing to help- now vote for me" but it puts this country in an even deeper hole than we are already in and is the wrong way to recovery.
We need to cut spending, not ramp it up.
Peter Schiff was right!
Saying yes to continuing unemployment benefits is a way for a career politician to say "look at what I'm doing to help- now vote for me" but it puts this country in an even deeper hole than we are already in and is the wrong way to recovery.
We need to cut spending, not ramp it up.
Peter Schiff was right!
written by Matt F , July 09, 2010
There is no getting out of this mess for some years still.
Everyone will have to pay. Just those with jobs will not have to suffer like those without jobs. The foreclosures on house's are beginning to edge up. And there is no end in sight. Check the numbers 15 percent unemployment in Deschutes County lets say thats just 15 thousand people. And if you looked at all employment opportunities there might be about 500 new jobs available each month. Though most of those you will need experience. It's going to be a tough row to hoe for many people.
Everyone will have to pay. Just those with jobs will not have to suffer like those without jobs. The foreclosures on house's are beginning to edge up. And there is no end in sight. Check the numbers 15 percent unemployment in Deschutes County lets say thats just 15 thousand people. And if you looked at all employment opportunities there might be about 500 new jobs available each month. Though most of those you will need experience. It's going to be a tough row to hoe for many people.
written by aaychbee'em critic , July 09, 2010
HBM: "First the right-wingers managed to abolish welfare (AFDC)...";
That was Clinton vowing to "change welfare as we know it" which he managed to do in between Lewinskys.
HBM: "I'd like to see all these smug, self-satisfied conservatives go without a job or other income for a few months -- it might wipe the smirk off their faces."
Unemployment for a few months is one thing. Receiving benefits for almost two years (99 weeks)is something else. In general, if someone: 1) has saved some $$ to tide them over; 2) presents himself/herself well in an interview; 3) conveys a positive attitude; 4) willing to take a job that perhaps does not neatly fit their background or salary demands; 4) realizes that finding a job is a job in itself; and 5) knows that ultimately they are responsible for their own success; I believe that person will find a job in any economy. Doesn't matter if they are conservative or liberal, although my hunch is that the above describes more conservatives than others.
So I reject your premise, HBM, that "these smug, self-satisfied conservatives go without a job or other income for a few months" because I don't believe they would allow themselves to go without a job for very long.
That was Clinton vowing to "change welfare as we know it" which he managed to do in between Lewinskys.
HBM: "I'd like to see all these smug, self-satisfied conservatives go without a job or other income for a few months -- it might wipe the smirk off their faces."
Unemployment for a few months is one thing. Receiving benefits for almost two years (99 weeks)is something else. In general, if someone: 1) has saved some $$ to tide them over; 2) presents himself/herself well in an interview; 3) conveys a positive attitude; 4) willing to take a job that perhaps does not neatly fit their background or salary demands; 4) realizes that finding a job is a job in itself; and 5) knows that ultimately they are responsible for their own success; I believe that person will find a job in any economy. Doesn't matter if they are conservative or liberal, although my hunch is that the above describes more conservatives than others.
So I reject your premise, HBM, that "these smug, self-satisfied conservatives go without a job or other income for a few months" because I don't believe they would allow themselves to go without a job for very long.
written by H. Bruce Miller , July 09, 2010
"The difference now vs. then is the current regime is not stimulating the economy."
And how was the Bush regime "stimulating the economy," John?
I'll give you the answer: by encouraging a real estate bubble that allowed consumers to keep spending a little longer by borrowing against the (often illusory) equity in their homes.
If any of you try to claim the Bush administration didn't encourage and applaud the bubble I'll pull some quotes with Bush and other Republicans bragging about the "ownership society" they were creating and how home ownership was at an all-time high, thus supposedly "proving" that their economic policies were great.
Funny how the CON-servatives have forgotten all about that in the last two years or so.
I don't hold Democrats blameless. The US has had a bubble economy at least since the 1990s. We had the dot-com bubble under Clinton and the real estate bubble under Bush. But the real estate bubble was much bigger and more widespread, and therefore the effects were worse when it popped.
"Perhaps the change has something to do with the today's national debt and deficit now versus 2003."
Funny how the CON-servatives didn't give a rip about the deficit when Bush Baby was running it up with needless tax cuts for the rich and a needless trillion-dollar war. Suddenly, now there's a Democrat in the White House, the deficit becomes a huge concern for them.
You CONS are SO transparent.
And now you will all pile on and vote this comment down so it will become invisible. You can't refute the arguments so you try to stifle them.
As I said -- totally transparent. And quite pathetic.
And how was the Bush regime "stimulating the economy," John?
I'll give you the answer: by encouraging a real estate bubble that allowed consumers to keep spending a little longer by borrowing against the (often illusory) equity in their homes.
If any of you try to claim the Bush administration didn't encourage and applaud the bubble I'll pull some quotes with Bush and other Republicans bragging about the "ownership society" they were creating and how home ownership was at an all-time high, thus supposedly "proving" that their economic policies were great.
Funny how the CON-servatives have forgotten all about that in the last two years or so.
I don't hold Democrats blameless. The US has had a bubble economy at least since the 1990s. We had the dot-com bubble under Clinton and the real estate bubble under Bush. But the real estate bubble was much bigger and more widespread, and therefore the effects were worse when it popped.
"Perhaps the change has something to do with the today's national debt and deficit now versus 2003."
Funny how the CON-servatives didn't give a rip about the deficit when Bush Baby was running it up with needless tax cuts for the rich and a needless trillion-dollar war. Suddenly, now there's a Democrat in the White House, the deficit becomes a huge concern for them.
You CONS are SO transparent.
And now you will all pile on and vote this comment down so it will become invisible. You can't refute the arguments so you try to stifle them.
As I said -- totally transparent. And quite pathetic.
written by Winston on Truth , July 09, 2010
If Oregon legislators and the leftist Governor would eliminate all criminal illegal aliens in the State there'd likely be significantly fewer unemployed legal citizens. Oregon legislator and the governor need to follow the Arizona governor's action by creating strength in law to eradicate illegal future democrats from roles of receiving social justice welfare payments.
written by H. Bruce Miller , July 10, 2010
"In general, if someone: 1) has saved some $$ to tide them over; 2) presents himself/herself well in an interview; 3) conveys a positive attitude; 4) willing to take a job that perhaps does not neatly fit their background or salary demands; 4) realizes that finding a job is a job in itself; and 5) knows that ultimately they are responsible for their own success; I believe that person will find a job in any economy."
What you "believe" doesn't carry any weight with me; I want to see some facts. Why don't you quit your job (if you have one) so you can test your theory? If you quit, of course, you won't be able to collect unemployment, but if your theory is correct you won't need it.
"Doesn't matter if they are conservative or liberal, although my hunch is that the above describes more conservatives than others."
Ah yes, conservatives are industrious, thrifty, hard-working and successful, while liberals are lazy bums who just want to sit around on their asses, get high and suckle at the public teat. Where have I heard that before?
Interestingly enough, nine of the top 10 states in median household income went for Obama in 2008; the lone exception was Alaska. And nine of the states in the bottom 10 went for McCain; the sole exception was New Mexico. (Source: US Census Bureau) How does that square with your theory?
What you "believe" doesn't carry any weight with me; I want to see some facts. Why don't you quit your job (if you have one) so you can test your theory? If you quit, of course, you won't be able to collect unemployment, but if your theory is correct you won't need it.
"Doesn't matter if they are conservative or liberal, although my hunch is that the above describes more conservatives than others."
Ah yes, conservatives are industrious, thrifty, hard-working and successful, while liberals are lazy bums who just want to sit around on their asses, get high and suckle at the public teat. Where have I heard that before?
Interestingly enough, nine of the top 10 states in median household income went for Obama in 2008; the lone exception was Alaska. And nine of the states in the bottom 10 went for McCain; the sole exception was New Mexico. (Source: US Census Bureau) How does that square with your theory?
written by Ross , July 10, 2010
why didn't my last comment get posted?
did it just make too much sense?
censorship at it's finest- there's plenty more where that came from.
did it just make too much sense?
censorship at it's finest- there's plenty more where that came from.
written by Weekly Reader , July 10, 2010
People, c'mon.
Govt health care, cap-n-trade and amnesty...er comprehensive immigration reform will save the economy. Obama said so. If you dont believe it, just close your eyes and listen to some folk songs.
Govt health care, cap-n-trade and amnesty...er comprehensive immigration reform will save the economy. Obama said so. If you dont believe it, just close your eyes and listen to some folk songs.
written by aaychbee'em critic , July 10, 2010
HBM: "What you "believe" doesn't carry any weight with me; I want to see some facts".
Gee-willikers, HBM, if facts were a prerequisite of this blog, someone other than you would have to write it. You drub anyone whose beliefs are different than yours then typically cite some left-wing blog (Blue Oregon) or person (Jeff Mapes; political blogger at the Oregonian) as the end-all for legitimacy. As Jack Nicholson said as Colonel Jessep, "You want the facts? You can't handle the facts."
HBM: "Why don't you quit your job (if you have one) so you can test your theory?"
FYI, I know what it's like to lose a good job. I ended up starting my own business as a result and its the best thing that has happened to me. Never needed unemployment, but I don't be-grudge anyone who does. Its purpose is to tide you over for several weeks/months and that is fine. But 99 weeks of it (2 years = 104 weeks) seems a little much.
HBM: "liberals are lazy bums who just want to sit around on their asses, get high and suckle at the public teat. Where have I heard that before"?
Probably from your parents when you were a protester in college (perhaps on a six year plan).
HBM: "Interestingly enough, nine of the top 10 states in median household income went for Obama in 2008;"
Ask them how that "Hope and Change" is working out now. In those top ten states are NJ, MA, VA, and HI all of which have recently repudiated the Hope and Change boondoggle in recent elections. All went Republican, now didn't they, HBM, with many more to come this fall. Or as Bill Murray put it in that award winning film, Stripes, "That's a fact, Jack."
Gee-willikers, HBM, if facts were a prerequisite of this blog, someone other than you would have to write it. You drub anyone whose beliefs are different than yours then typically cite some left-wing blog (Blue Oregon) or person (Jeff Mapes; political blogger at the Oregonian) as the end-all for legitimacy. As Jack Nicholson said as Colonel Jessep, "You want the facts? You can't handle the facts."
HBM: "Why don't you quit your job (if you have one) so you can test your theory?"
FYI, I know what it's like to lose a good job. I ended up starting my own business as a result and its the best thing that has happened to me. Never needed unemployment, but I don't be-grudge anyone who does. Its purpose is to tide you over for several weeks/months and that is fine. But 99 weeks of it (2 years = 104 weeks) seems a little much.
HBM: "liberals are lazy bums who just want to sit around on their asses, get high and suckle at the public teat. Where have I heard that before"?
Probably from your parents when you were a protester in college (perhaps on a six year plan).
HBM: "Interestingly enough, nine of the top 10 states in median household income went for Obama in 2008;"
Ask them how that "Hope and Change" is working out now. In those top ten states are NJ, MA, VA, and HI all of which have recently repudiated the Hope and Change boondoggle in recent elections. All went Republican, now didn't they, HBM, with many more to come this fall. Or as Bill Murray put it in that award winning film, Stripes, "That's a fact, Jack."
written by H. Bruce Miller , July 11, 2010
Ross: Our publisher, Aaron Switzer, moderates it. Why don't you call him at the Source's office and share your opinion of him -- if you've got the balls?
Comments that are made on Friday, Saturday and Sunday often don't appear until Monday because Aaron has better things to do with his weekends than hover over his computer waiting for you to submit your immortal prose.
Comments that are made on Friday, Saturday and Sunday often don't appear until Monday because Aaron has better things to do with his weekends than hover over his computer waiting for you to submit your immortal prose.
written by Stephen Cramer , July 12, 2010
Depending on the source, during the Bush 43 administration, anywhere from 2 million to 5 million jobs were 'created.' The first six years had a Republican President and Congress and the appropriate conservative tax and spending policies. This means an anemic 20,000 to 50,000 jobs a month on the average. Maybe this sounds like the Holy Grail to some people, but during the Clinton years, the same sources claim that between 17 million and 24 million jobs were created.
At the same time, most reputable sources agree that the jobs created during the Clinton tears were better paying.
Now for the spinning
At the same time, most reputable sources agree that the jobs created during the Clinton tears were better paying.
Now for the spinning
written by Ross , July 12, 2010
funny how he finds "better things to do" when points are made against your silliness.
you couldn't be further in the clouds.
you couldn't be further in the clouds.
written by Stephen Cramer , July 12, 2010
'Unemployment for a few months is one thing. Receiving benefits for almost two years (99 weeks)is something else. In general, if someone: 1) has saved some $$ to tide them over; 2) presents himself/herself well in an interview; 3) conveys a positive attitude; 4) willing to take a job that perhaps does not neatly fit their background or salary demands; 4) realizes that finding a job is a job in itself; and 5) knows that ultimately they are responsible for their own success; I believe that person will find a job in any economy. Doesn't matter if they are conservative or liberal, although my hunch is that the above describes more conservatives than others. '
Spoken Like a true dogmatic. Try selling that to most of the people looking for work.
Absolutely and arrogantly idiotic.
I guess the Great Depression was a figament of the collective imagination, too.
Spoken Like a true dogmatic. Try selling that to most of the people looking for work.
Absolutely and arrogantly idiotic.
I guess the Great Depression was a figament of the collective imagination, too.
written by aaychbee'em critic , July 13, 2010
Cramer, you made more sense when you were on Seinfeld.
As for the 17MM to 24MM Clinton era jobs created by a Republican congress (you cite no source and thus it is a "belief" and not a fact; watch out, HBM will kick your ass for that), the dot.com bubble took care of most of those.
You claim I'm "Absolutely and arrogantly idiotic." To those who don't believe they have the power within themselves to be able to improve their situation or lot in life wherever that may be, then perhaps so. Unlike you however, I think we have that capability. And if we need financial help, then fine, it is there and should be used for a reasonable time.
Much of the opposition to the extension is because it is not paid for. Why isn't the left-over pork from the stimulus package used? It's there by the billions. That was suggested and rejected by the Dems. Makes no sense. It's an obamanation.
As for the 17MM to 24MM Clinton era jobs created by a Republican congress (you cite no source and thus it is a "belief" and not a fact; watch out, HBM will kick your ass for that), the dot.com bubble took care of most of those.
You claim I'm "Absolutely and arrogantly idiotic." To those who don't believe they have the power within themselves to be able to improve their situation or lot in life wherever that may be, then perhaps so. Unlike you however, I think we have that capability. And if we need financial help, then fine, it is there and should be used for a reasonable time.
Much of the opposition to the extension is because it is not paid for. Why isn't the left-over pork from the stimulus package used? It's there by the billions. That was suggested and rejected by the Dems. Makes no sense. It's an obamanation.
written by Ross , July 13, 2010
Cut spending? Stop devaluing our money? Encourage savings? How are these ideas at all radical or right-wing. You should stop reading Krugman and start realizing that Keynesian economics is nothing more than a pipe dream to ween the US off real money and onto Arcade tokens so that our politicians can drop money into the Pentagon/SEC/Goldman/Homeland Security/Department of Education/Medicare/Fannie Mae without ever having to increase a dime of taxes. But thats okay though right? We need to have infinite black holes of social welfare, no matter what expense to people to who save their money or don’t live beyond their means…..right?
The problem with Bruce's argument is that he doesn't take the time to think about the negative consequences that stem from the policy that he wants to enforce. If your solution is to delay the elephant sized issues, they only get bigger and uglier.
At some point, we are going to have to take our medicine.
The problem with Bruce's argument is that he doesn't take the time to think about the negative consequences that stem from the policy that he wants to enforce. If your solution is to delay the elephant sized issues, they only get bigger and uglier.
At some point, we are going to have to take our medicine.
written by H. Bruce Miller , July 13, 2010
Ross: Incredible as it may seem, the solar system does not revolve around you, and neither does the Source.
critic:
"Probably from your parents when you were a protester in college (perhaps on a six year plan)."
Very clever. In fact when I was in college I was a Goldwater Republican. Then I graduated, entered the real world and discovered that conservative ideology is full of crap. (BTW I went to college on the usual four-year plan, with a full scholarship.)
"As for the 17MM to 24MM Clinton era jobs ... the dot.com bubble took care of most of those."
I will admit that the prosperity of the Clinton years was built on the dot-com bubble if you will admit that the prosperity of the Bush II years was built on the real estate bubble. Actually, though, the dot-come bubble was a minor one compared with the real estate bubble in terms of the number of people affected.
critic:
"Probably from your parents when you were a protester in college (perhaps on a six year plan)."
Very clever. In fact when I was in college I was a Goldwater Republican. Then I graduated, entered the real world and discovered that conservative ideology is full of crap. (BTW I went to college on the usual four-year plan, with a full scholarship.)
"As for the 17MM to 24MM Clinton era jobs ... the dot.com bubble took care of most of those."
I will admit that the prosperity of the Clinton years was built on the dot-com bubble if you will admit that the prosperity of the Bush II years was built on the real estate bubble. Actually, though, the dot-come bubble was a minor one compared with the real estate bubble in terms of the number of people affected.
written by Stephen Cramer , July 13, 2010
Critic
Cramer--Sienfeld--man, great, high humor, chuckle, chuckle--high humor!!
Because the sources for job growth in Clinton and Bush years widely vary I decided not to bother listing sources--such as the NY Times and WSJ. But hot shot internet researchers such as yourself will have no problem finding out the numbers quoted are the range most widely accepted by people of all stripes. HB already mentioned the real estate bubble and the collapse of the job market under Bush--which seemed to have been left out of your posting.
Not paid for? When did Conservatives and Republicans ever worry about paying for things--like 'tax cuts' and Mideast wars? Seems that business has no problem getting the dole--probably because of that 'trickle down' thingy, right?
The numbers I posted are, of course, estimates. They were made by the best and brightest across the political spectrum. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. Those numbers are not beliefs, however.
The contention that extended unemployment is the fault of the unemployed, however, is a belief. Is it founded in reality? Go out and talk to the unemployed at the unemployment office. Talk to the employers who have cut their staff and are struggling to stay alive.
Here's a belief for you: if someone is willing to work unlimited hours at any job for free, there will be an unlimited demand for their services. Instant employment. Won't pay the bills, though.
".. do you, Mr. Jones?'
Cramer--Sienfeld--man, great, high humor, chuckle, chuckle--high humor!!
Because the sources for job growth in Clinton and Bush years widely vary I decided not to bother listing sources--such as the NY Times and WSJ. But hot shot internet researchers such as yourself will have no problem finding out the numbers quoted are the range most widely accepted by people of all stripes. HB already mentioned the real estate bubble and the collapse of the job market under Bush--which seemed to have been left out of your posting.
Not paid for? When did Conservatives and Republicans ever worry about paying for things--like 'tax cuts' and Mideast wars? Seems that business has no problem getting the dole--probably because of that 'trickle down' thingy, right?
The numbers I posted are, of course, estimates. They were made by the best and brightest across the political spectrum. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. Those numbers are not beliefs, however.
The contention that extended unemployment is the fault of the unemployed, however, is a belief. Is it founded in reality? Go out and talk to the unemployed at the unemployment office. Talk to the employers who have cut their staff and are struggling to stay alive.
Here's a belief for you: if someone is willing to work unlimited hours at any job for free, there will be an unlimited demand for their services. Instant employment. Won't pay the bills, though.
".. do you, Mr. Jones?'
written by Ross , July 13, 2010
if you didn't like Bush, you should be appalled by Obama.
He's made the same mistakes Bush made, only he upped the ante X5.
If you think Bush/Greenspan are at fault for a real estate bubble, you are right. If you think Obama/Bernanke are doing whatever they can to "keep the RE party going" with artificially low interest rates and gov't subsidized incentives to keep buying homes (Homebuyer Tax Credit)- you are correct. Obama is temporarily delaying our problems with a bigger mess and uglier future as a negative consequence. Obama is even bringing bubblenomics into even more sectors like auto by even more gov't incentives (cash for clunkers) that only artificially pushed demand up, encouraged MORE irrational spending by the consumer, and now has left the auto industry reeling (see today's numbers).
If you could spend and borrow your way out of a spending and borrowing PROBLEM, we wouldn't have any problems, would we??
we need to QUIT spending, and START saving and producing.
as individuals, families, towns/cities, states, and country.
it will be painful- yes. but not as painful as the path we are taking now.
He's made the same mistakes Bush made, only he upped the ante X5.
If you think Bush/Greenspan are at fault for a real estate bubble, you are right. If you think Obama/Bernanke are doing whatever they can to "keep the RE party going" with artificially low interest rates and gov't subsidized incentives to keep buying homes (Homebuyer Tax Credit)- you are correct. Obama is temporarily delaying our problems with a bigger mess and uglier future as a negative consequence. Obama is even bringing bubblenomics into even more sectors like auto by even more gov't incentives (cash for clunkers) that only artificially pushed demand up, encouraged MORE irrational spending by the consumer, and now has left the auto industry reeling (see today's numbers).
If you could spend and borrow your way out of a spending and borrowing PROBLEM, we wouldn't have any problems, would we??
we need to QUIT spending, and START saving and producing.
as individuals, families, towns/cities, states, and country.
it will be painful- yes. but not as painful as the path we are taking now.
written by aaychbee'em critic , July 13, 2010
Cramer, you need to read "Who Moved my Cheese."
Cramer: "Because the sources for job growth in Clinton and Bush years widely vary I decided not to bother listing sources--such as the NY Times and WSJ."
Um, Cramer, the source these places go to is the US Dept of Labor (www.dol.gov). Try it. It's easy to look up. Go see for yourself and report back to us.
"The numbers I posted are, of course, estimates. They were made by the best and brightest across the political spectrum."
Yes, yes, of course. If you say so, it must be true. The great Cramer has so declared. You are as pompous, pandering, and conceited as I am arrogant.
Cramer: "Because the sources for job growth in Clinton and Bush years widely vary I decided not to bother listing sources--such as the NY Times and WSJ."
Um, Cramer, the source these places go to is the US Dept of Labor (www.dol.gov). Try it. It's easy to look up. Go see for yourself and report back to us.
"The numbers I posted are, of course, estimates. They were made by the best and brightest across the political spectrum."
Yes, yes, of course. If you say so, it must be true. The great Cramer has so declared. You are as pompous, pandering, and conceited as I am arrogant.
written by Stephen Cramer , July 14, 2010
Ross
'we need to QUIT spending, and START saving and producing.
as individuals, families, towns/cities, states, and country.'
Except for the public sector, spending has pretty much ground to a halt. (Mission accomplished)
Lots of people would like to save--but that takes a job that provides an income beyond their current needs. Production--by whom and to what end? Public sector is not a manufacturer. Where in the private sector is there an incentive to produce something not in demand? If we are to stop spending and start saving, demand is diminished and production reduced and unemployment increased and spending and savings dwindle--that leads to further drops in production and.... (Mission Impossible)
The consistant demand is for cheap goods and food--and that means foreign made and raised. If we have to compete in a third world labor market that means we will have a third world economy--wealth that accumulates at the top with the rich and powerful, and the rest left to fend on their own.(Missionary Position)
Oh, wait a minute....
'it will be painful- yes.'
It will also require more than platitudes....and that means from Obama and the President's foes. A bumper sticker is not a plan.
'we need to QUIT spending, and START saving and producing.
as individuals, families, towns/cities, states, and country.'
Except for the public sector, spending has pretty much ground to a halt. (Mission accomplished)
Lots of people would like to save--but that takes a job that provides an income beyond their current needs. Production--by whom and to what end? Public sector is not a manufacturer. Where in the private sector is there an incentive to produce something not in demand? If we are to stop spending and start saving, demand is diminished and production reduced and unemployment increased and spending and savings dwindle--that leads to further drops in production and.... (Mission Impossible)
The consistant demand is for cheap goods and food--and that means foreign made and raised. If we have to compete in a third world labor market that means we will have a third world economy--wealth that accumulates at the top with the rich and powerful, and the rest left to fend on their own.(Missionary Position)
Oh, wait a minute....
'it will be painful- yes.'
It will also require more than platitudes....and that means from Obama and the President's foes. A bumper sticker is not a plan.
written by Stephen Cramer , July 16, 2010
I am reminded of the lines in Macbeth. More or less: 'a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.'
Critic
Much easier to attack than respond. DOL statistics come from a multitude of sources and the networks and newspapers sieze upon those which best support their POV. Some focus on drops in unemployment--some on increases in payroll. Statistics never lie--only the statisticians.
You have not chosen to share how the weak and lazy have responded to your plan for their employment and career track. I am sure it has worked for you. Have you taken the time to help others find the way to success and what were the results.
Without a personal attack, describe what your actions to better the situation have been and how we can join in. Obviously, the self-confidence you exude is not totally egocentric but based on real world experience. I would love to help--show me how.
If I remember correctly, your cheesy book recommendation is a condescending tome, the point of which is that all change is an opportunity and good. I don't see how that is possible. Some change is bad. Some change limits opportunity. It was relentlessly full of platitudes that look good on an inspirational poster or a bumper sticker, but don't really constitute a plan for action or living. It reminded me of 'The Secret'.
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.'
Critic
Much easier to attack than respond. DOL statistics come from a multitude of sources and the networks and newspapers sieze upon those which best support their POV. Some focus on drops in unemployment--some on increases in payroll. Statistics never lie--only the statisticians.
You have not chosen to share how the weak and lazy have responded to your plan for their employment and career track. I am sure it has worked for you. Have you taken the time to help others find the way to success and what were the results.
Without a personal attack, describe what your actions to better the situation have been and how we can join in. Obviously, the self-confidence you exude is not totally egocentric but based on real world experience. I would love to help--show me how.
If I remember correctly, your cheesy book recommendation is a condescending tome, the point of which is that all change is an opportunity and good. I don't see how that is possible. Some change is bad. Some change limits opportunity. It was relentlessly full of platitudes that look good on an inspirational poster or a bumper sticker, but don't really constitute a plan for action or living. It reminded me of 'The Secret'.
