Heckuva Job Barack!

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by R.Perez, Apr 2, 2010.

  1. R.Perez macrumors 6502

    R.Perez

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #1
  2. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #2
    Oh dear. How will ItN spin this into a bad thing?

    The Republicans in that clip certainly couldn't do it. They sounded ridiculous in that clip complaining about it.

    Even with the census job numbers added in the mix, it's still encouraging. There have been two big turnaround points now: one where Obama stopped the job losses from getting bigger and actually saw the job loss numbers start to shrink, and now one where jobs are actually being added.

    Ezra Klein makes an interesting point, that as jobs pick up the unemployment rate may rise a bit, because discouraged workers will actually start looking again. (I expect the subtleties of that will completely escape some people here.)
     
  3. IntheNet macrumors regular

    IntheNet

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    #3
    Regrettably unemployment rate remains 9.7%... Americans are not fooled by government throwing our money around... private industry is still hurting... the recession remains! Porkulus stimulus did nothing...

    Job Market Picks Up, but Slowly
    APRIL 3, 2010
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...9532892137828.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories
    "The economic recovery so far remains heavily reliant on government support, which is visible in the jobs numbers. Hiring for the decennial census is expected to add hundreds of thousands of temporary jobs in the coming months. Other forms of government intervention also remain crucial. The housing sector's boost is being driven in part by tax breaks and extensive government support for the mortgage market. And last year's $787 billion stimulus is temporarily preventing even deeper job losses in fields from construction to education."
     
  4. macfan881 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    #4
    Like the last stimulus by bush did :rolleyes:
     
  5. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #5
    Isn't that what happens in a recession/depression? The job figures show that the stimulus is starting to work.

    What's the alternative? Cut all government intervention completely, pull the rug out from under both industry and people, and watch the job numbers start to plunge again?
     
  6. CaptMurdock macrumors 6502a

    CaptMurdock

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    #6
    Because, of course, people in government jobs don't buy groceries, which would certainly keep Albertson's afloat...

    Anybody besides me smell the distinctive scent of right-wing desperation?
     
  7. R.Perez thread starter macrumors 6502

    R.Perez

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #7
    I would take a government job in a heartbeat.

    They usually pay relatively well, a little less than the private sector but...

    you get much better benefits, health care, pension etc.. and you get job security.
     
  8. R.Perez thread starter macrumors 6502

    R.Perez

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #8
    I'd like to add, while Bush was in Office we shed something like 3.5 million jobs. For some reason people the expected the job losses to turn positive the day after Obama was sworn in. Frankly it's ludicrous on its face.

    Even companies that were doing well shed jobs for the sake "efficiency". Tax cuts would of made no difference in the job market whatsoever.

    Well I take that back, if we gave some large companies tax cuts they would probably open another factory in CHINA! :eek: :rolleyes:
     
  9. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #9
    I think the reason ITN quotes people like he does here, with only a few words or a phrase left, is because that's ALL HE READS.
     
  10. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #10
    As somebody who's had several government jobs, I can tell you there isn't all that much security. Government offices are always under pressure to cut wherever they can.

    Of course my jobs have been on the more local level. But even on the federal level, unless you're a functionary, you can be gone with a simple change of administration.
     
  11. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #11
    There is a threshold where unemployment will not continue, you realize this correct? Obama's original projections of our peak unemployment have already been surpassed.
     
  12. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #12
    He wasn't predicting that unemployment couldn't go past that, but that the efforts of stimulating the economy would start to work and level off unemployment under 10%. Unemployment continued to worsen, and ended up going over 10% before rebounding to where it is today.

    Are you suggesting that 9.7% is the threshold of where unemployment must cease? If so, do you have any basis for that? If not, then why don't you just admit it's a good thing to stop the bleeding.

    (edit) By the way, when Clinton took office and things started to get better and better, I remember lots on the right claiming that it was a delayed response from the Bush I policies. Why aren't there people on the right claiming that the great times in the last year were a delayed response of the Bush II policies? I wonder.
     
  13. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #13
    Actually Obama said if we passed the crap stimulus bill unemployment would not go over 8%, not 10%. I do believe 10% is around the threshold where the bleeding stops regardless, I also believe that the current policies extending unemployment is another reason our rates continue to be so high, a year on unemployment is sufficient to find another job.

    Recessions in an economy are natural, thats why you don't spend from the coffers during the good times such as Bush did in the front of his term. Clinton was simply president during a good economic boom and didn't go crazy with the spending like Bush did, Clinton did very little to stimulate our boom during the time.
     
  14. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #14
    I've heard a few people credit Bush II.

    GOP economic talking points 101: When the economy collapses under a republican president, it's the fault of the previous Democratic president, and when the economy is improving under a Democratic president, it's thanks to the policies of the last republican president, because economic policy takes awhile to have any effect. But, when the economy collapses under a Democratic president or improves under a republican president, it's because of that president because economic policy has immediate effects :rolleyes:
     
  15. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #15
    During the great depression, unemployment rose to 24.9%, and that was a depression that hadn't been preceded by a mass exodus of jobs to foreign soil. 10% is no where near the threshold. It could get a lot worse. http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20030124ar03p1.htm

    I know your POV on job hunting, so I'll just say that it is not always that easy to get a job. The more highly educated you are or the more established your family is, the harder it becomes.

    Try finding a job when your license prohibits you from moving to a different state, and the economy has thrown thousands of other more highly qualified people into the job seeking pool. A corporate attorney lost his job, moved his family from chicago to southern illinois, for a job that paid less than a manager at family video.

    It is rough out there.

    By the way, nice revisionist history. Bush didn't spend too much, he cut taxes for the wealthy, and then he spent too much. He campaigned on giving back the surplus Clinton had developed, and then when economy started to go south, and then 9/11 he argued that cuts would foster the economy and raise money. Absolutely stupid fiscal policy, but that's Reaganomics for you.

    Clinton cut spending dramatically compared to Bush I, and then when he raised spending, the debt went down. His policies stimulated much of the economy, and allowed for a lot of growth. Yes, there was a tech boom, but that wasn't the only part of the economy growing.

    Take a look at spending vs. debt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms)

    (edit)
    ---------------------- Spending Debt GDP
    1978-2005 Democratic 9.9% 4.2% 12.6%
    1978-2005 Republican 12.1% 36.4% 10.7%
     
  16. MattSepeta macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #16
    Not surprised...

    You would probably join a union too :rolleyes:

    [​IMG]

    You mean we pay them relatively well. And by relatively well, I mean more.

    Funny how the civil servants "earn" more than their masters...
     
  17. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #17
    You realize that the private sector includes a lot of minimum wage, no benefit, part time employees that dramatically reduce the averages. Compare job to job, and the state people make good wages, but they are not overpaid. To suggest otherwise is wrong.

    Private attorney at a city firm makes about $160,000 the first year out of law school. An attorney working for the state can't make that after 25 years of service.

    Compare the salary of executive assistants. How about laborers. The state doesn't hire all that many McDonalds burger flippers, as teh state doesn't serve many burgers.

    (edit) To be fair, the Feds apparently pay well. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm There is an interesting PDF linked in the story that breaks it down job by job.

    From same article
     

Share This Page