Economic Stimulus.. Where are the jobs?

[Sstashmoo]

Just as someone else put it a while back about "priming the pump" in reference to a mass infusion of cash into the public sector [[Stimulus) to get things rolling again, And I said it was a wasted effort until trade was addressed, I was right.


Our "pumping" system has a huge leak on the suction side, and that leak Ladies and Gentlemen [[you too Cheddar), is trade.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_221852.html



""WASHINGTON — Republicans concerned about the Obama administration's big spending on economic stimulus, energy and health care are asking, "Where are the jobs?"
"The president and Democrats in Congress claim this spending binge is necessary to put Americans back to work," House Republican Leader John Boehner said Saturday in the Republican radio and Internet address. "They promised unemployment would not rise above 8 percent if their trillion-dollar stimulus was passed.
The administration was wrong, Boehner said. "Unemployment has soared above 9 percent. And now the president admits that unemployment will soon reach double digits.
"After all of this spending, after all of this borrowing from China, the Middle East, our children and our grandchildren, where are the jobs?" he said.""

""Since President Barack Obama's stimulus plan to trigger job creation was passed, the economy has shed 1.6 million jobs. The administration has focused instead on its estimate that the stimulus has created or saved 150,000 jobs.""

We've lost 10 times more jobs than they have created. I wonder if those jobs were created like Bush's in his first term by the upstart collection agencies.

[gazhekwe]

I agree that we must start making things or finding some other way to put money in middle class tradespeople's pockets. It doesn't do much good to tell people they need to train for the jobs of tomorrow when no one has any idea what they may be or when they might be plentiful enough to make a difference. Also, we still need people who know how to design and build things and support for same.

[lilpup]

The guy's been in office less than six months and you expect him to turn around a ship that's been gaining momentum in the wrong direction for almost 30 years.

[mjs]

The guy's been in office less than six months and you expect him to turn around a ship that's been gaining momentum in the wrong direction for almost 30 years.

Wow. The Republicans really won seven and a half Presidential elections in a row!

[Papasito]

The guy's been in office less than six months and you expect him to turn around a ship that's been gaining momentum in the wrong direction for almost 30 years.

He said he had a plan when he was running for office.
He pushed and passed the stimulus
No excuses

[Sstashmoo]

How many economic stimulus plans have we had in the last few years? They don't work when the conditions still exist that caused the slow down in the first place. 6 months is 180 days. I still see Chinese goods flowing in unabated, Nafta has continued on virtually untouched. The two key issues ailing our economy. He only has about a year left to really do anything because he'll spend the last two years of his Presidency running for office again. So when do they plan on doing something about our most important issues? I mean I could have borrowed a Trillion dollars and gave it away, no skill or talent there. The unemployment rate is just skyrocketing, and they seem more worried about building the country's infrastructure. Am I the only the one that thinks they have their priorities badly aligned?

[Lorax]

How many economic stimulus plans have we had in the last few years? They don't work when the conditions still exist that caused the slow down in the first place. 6 months is 180 days. I still see Chinese goods flowing in unabated, Nafta has continued on virtually untouched. The two key issues ailing our economy. He only has about a year left to really do anything because he'll spend the last two years of his Presidency running for office again. So when do they plan on doing something about our most important issues? I mean I could have borrowed a Trillion dollars and gave it away, no skill or talent there. The unemployment rate is just skyrocketing, and they seem more worried about building the country's infrastructure. Am I the only the one that thinks they have their priorities badly aligned?

Problem is, economic stimulus packages don't work when Rethugnican propose and pass them. Did Tush's 600 bucks really do that much to help you? It was ruse into buying loyalty to the fascist brand.

Building the country's infrastructure creates jobs. The problem with this, is there was not enough stimulus for infrastructure allotted.

Obama's stimulus is really too little, too late. There will be some benefit, but until the banks are natioalized and forced to start lending again, rather than holding parties and dumping millions on their totalatarian CEO's, then little will change.

Now that most of the banks have had their bacon saved, what money they have left will be used to shore up their bottom lines. Corporations will benefit most from lending going forward, individuals are screwed again.

[mjs]

So, comrade, now that we are on the verge of socializing American's health, you also wish we nationalize their finances? Shall we also set their gasoline prices or is it time to nationalize their oil companies?

[Lorax]

So, comrade, now that we are on the verge of socializing American's health, you also wish we nationalize their finances? Shall we also set their gasoline prices or is it time to nationalize their oil companies?

Well, Comrade, now that you bring it up, yeah, it would be a great idea. It works well in Venezuela where CITGO is the nationalized oil company, and gas, I last heard is 85 cents a gallon.

It'a amazing how people fall in love with corporations who could care less whether you live or die. Then the CEO worship is another thing which I will never understand, no matter how long I live.

Socialized health care is the gold standard in all industrialized nations except ours. All of these other nations have some form of socialized medicine, and it works just fine, thank you very much.

We already have a socialized Social Security Administration, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Socialized medicine for all is the natural next step. And it's long overdue.

[mjs]

There will be some benefit, but until the banks are natioalized and forced to start lending again, rather than holding parties and dumping millions on their totalatarian CEO's, then little will change.

When I look up the definition of totalitarian, I'm confused as to how the rest of your post doesn't show support for totalitarianism, but they didn't have a listing for "totalatarian" or "natioalized". Do they mean something different?

1. Of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures. [[as censorship and terrorism)

2. Completely regulated by the state especially as an aid to national mobilization in an emergency.

[mjs]

Please, move back to Venezuela so the rest of us evil Americans can enjoy the American way of life. Were you the one that recommended Chavez give Obama that book? It seems he read it.

[Lorax]

Please, move back to Venezuela so the rest of us evil Americans can enjoy the American way of life. Were you the one that recommended Chavez give Obama that book? It seems he read it.

Since I've never lived in Venezuela, it seems somehow strange to move back.

Who said Americans were evil? Not me. That was you, Sparky.

Most Rethugnicans have read "Mein Kampf" as well, but does that make them Nazis?

If Chavez or Osama Bin Laden gave me a book to read, I would probably read it, rather than act like a Rethugnican knuckledragger and toss it back at him.

That's because I'm intellectually curious, not some psycophantic zealot.

[Lorax]

When I look up the definition of totalitarian, I'm confused as to how the rest of your post doesn't show support for totalitarianism, but they didn't have a listing for "totalatarian" or "natioalized". Do they mean something different?

1. Of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures. [[as censorship and terrorism)

2. Completely regulated by the state especially as an aid to national mobilization in an emergency.

Yeah, child, I got you on "Aynn Rand" which is even more of a mistake since you were taking a direct quote.

I type at 70 wpm, so at least I have a good excuse.

[ccbatson]

It is so sadly simple that it astounds me how intelligent liberals can be so easily duped. Real jobs, come from real business and prosperity which means free trade and enterprise ONLY. Everything else is a waste of time AT BEST, and an accelerator of the problem more realistically.

[ccbatson]

Lilpup...you understand that the executive branch is one branch of government, and not the one that writes laws, don't you?

Obama doesn't get that concept at all [[like you Lilpup), he directs legislators as to what they should do, and pressures the judicial system to legislate [[with liberal bias) from the bench.

[Sstashmoo]

Nationalize the banks? You mean like our government running them? You know they are almost eleven trillion dollars in debt, right? They haven't had a balanced budget in at least 30 years, unless you want to cite the book-cooking of the Clinton era. Several programs like SS they screwed up are mathematically impossible to sustain. Businesses need to stay in the private sector with regulation.

""It'a amazing how people fall in love with corporations who could care less whether you live or die. ""

You claim you have a business, then you would have no complaints with the Government coming in and taking over?

[Sstashmoo]

Ok this is getting too bizarre.

[ccbatson]

Obama is, in fact a liberal fascist in the truest sense. Proof, his own words will suffice. Start with the definition of fascism and apply it to Obama...bingo.

[ccbatson]

Lorax, I was about to take you seriously for a moment, but then I recalled that in another thread you just claimed that capitalism is the root of our economic troubles...and all your credibility went bye bye.

[Lorax]

Lorax, I was about to take you seriously for a moment, but then I recalled that in another thread you just claimed that capitalism is the root of our economic troubles...and all your credibility went bye bye.

Capitalism is the root of the problem. When it is unregulated, and allowed to operate with impunity.

You need to stop reading only sound bites, and read the qualifiers that go with the statements.

This is Fox Noise trick, they love to pull out a few words of a statement, making it look black and white, when there are shades of gray- the qualifiers.

This reduces the dialogue to sound bites, which is intellectually dishonest.

[oladub]

Lorax, my thoughts on definitions. The English language being what it is, words mean different things to different people. "Fascism" is a particularly problematic word. When I mean it as a synonym for "corporatism" I use it with an adjective, economic fascism = corporatism; a collusion of big business and big government. e.g. Bush's Wall Street Bailout. Mussolini and Hitler's brands of fascism began as economic fascism. Other people use fascism as a synonym for Nazism with suggestions of gas chambers. Others just use it to mean 'bad'.

'Authoritarianism' or 'autocracy' are sometimes better words to describe what many of us do not like about fascism and communism. They are both economically authoritarian and autocratic. One is an especially autocratic version of socialism. Under socialism, the government owns means of production such as banks and auto companies. The other is, as previously stated, a collusion of government and business control although the businesses are nominally independent entities.

I prefer at least a two dimensional map showing Democrats to be more socially libertarian and economically authoritarian and Republicans more socially authoritarian while being a little more economically libertarian.

I wouldn't declare Sweden to be socialist. Sweden has more socialist institutions than we do but it also is the home of capitalist Ingvar Kamprad the fourth richest man in the world.

[jiminnm]

Two things for you oladub.

First, I think your date of July 2010 may be too generous. After all, there are a fair number of people who believe that Bush could have acted to stop 9/11 [[8 months after his inaugaration). If so, why give Obama any longer?

Second, the problem with everyone throwing terms around is that their actual definitions get lost. Capitalism, socialism and communism are forms of economic systems dealing with who owns and/or controls the means to supply goods and services. Democracies [[in various forms) and other types of representative-based systems, facism, totalitarianism, monarchies, etc. are forms of governance. In theory, any type of economic can exist under any type of governance. Although, in practice, those societies with communism as their economic system have tended to be totalitarian.

Labeling folks as only left or right, or only Dem or Repub, is equally nonsensical, as a minority of people hold to that status on all issues. It makes it easy to call others names [[as many here do), but it doean't add anything to the discussion.

[Detroitej72]

Labeling folks as only left or right, or only Dem or Repub, is equally nonsensical, as a minority of people hold to that status on all issues. It makes it easy to call others names [[as many here do), but it doean't add anything to the discussion.

That is a major problem with people. Both sides engage in this stupid name calling, but the right seems to have it down to a science, if only because of all the blowhards on AM radio and Fox News.

One of America's biggest problems today is this great divide between the two camps. Until we come together and stop the foolish finger pointing and name calling, don't expect much of the SOP to change for the better.

[ccbatson]

If fascism and communism are on a continuum [[they are not necessarily, however, for sake of argument), and socialism is a milder form of communism [[on a continuum with it, which is true), then socialism necessarily leads to fascism.

Your logic, not mine.

[ccbatson]

We were founded as a socialist democracy?? That is insane...we fought a revolution to get away from that kind of system.