United States Heading towards a Depression?

Now you're getting it.. See also Obama. See also Democrat. See also Liberal.

That it will. Wow breeze, you're learning...

 

Have not heard much from the Wisconsinite - how he might be voting in August. I guess for the Democrats there is not much to worry about and are already 1/3 over the Finish line.

Any guesses for the six Republicans? and what about Walker......next year.

 

$ soon to be turned to a value of no more than a piece of paper on which it is printed. This is the fate of every paper currency,its value is no more than the paper itself. Print as many as you want. The only sustainable form of money is what contains value in itself.

 

August? Breeze, we voted here last November. Duh...

 

Well wait till November 2012 to vote again......the same if you happen to move to Ohio.

 

Uh, why? We just voted and changed the entire balance of power.

Since that short time we've managed to remove collective bargaining, all but kill unions in our state, have balanced the budget, reopened our welcome centers, created jobs, and made Wisconsin a great place to live again.

When we vote in 2012 it will be to do the same to the rest of the country.

Pay careful attention young man; Wisconsin is going to be the model for saving the Federal Government.

 

Amongst die-hard conservatives I'm branded a liberal. Amongst die-hard liberals I'm branded a conservative. In my experience, an extremist needs you to agree with each and every position. Disagreeing with just one brands you as "the other side".

But it's always relative. Reminds me of an old story: A freshman Democrat Congressman is asking a veteran Democrat Congressman, "Are the Republicans the enemy"? The veteran replies, "No, son, the Republicans are the opposition. The Senate is the enemy!"

I blame the President for the present partisan climate. That is what leadership is all about. That lack of leadership took down G.H.W. Bush (I changed from Democrat to Republican then) , and it was that leadership that got President Clinton re-elected with a Republican House and Senate.

I was optimistic about Obama, up until that televised health care meeting with the two parties that Obama chaired. For the first time, I saw a lack of leadership that frightened me.

Yes, but the jobs eventually came back. As I pointed out before, that was the reason for the graph - to show that the jobs came back. The graph was about showing how the jobs rebounded. It's been three years now of a ~9% unemployment rate and 16% real unemployment which begs the question, WHAT IS DIFFERENT NOW? The job loss is middle class. Can these jobs rebound, or is this a permanent shift in the unemployment in the USA?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the only marketable skill that the majority of middle-class people have to offer is their labor. Imagine that you are a hard-working guy without a college diploma and average computer skills. Now, look at the wants-ads for your community. What jobs are you qualified for? Five years ago there were ads for stock clerks, warehouse workers, drivers, assembly line technicians. Those jobs are gone.

Thousands of factories and tens of millions of U.S. jobs are now overseas. Both parties are complicit, including Obama and Bush, because foreign interests with powerful lobbyists with virtually unlimited sources of cash will work like mad to keep the trade imbalance unbalanced. In the past three months, Obama has spent 31 days giving speeches at fund-raisers. Right-wing extremists can point fingers, but unfortunately that is the political reality of his job and anyone who doesn't think that a corporation that donates hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaign doesn't want anything in return is living in fantasy land. Those donors want to keep their cheap overseas manufacturing and if Obama doesn't protect that, he won't get re-elected. so, what should Obama do? What can he do? Save the economy and lose re-election (assuming Obama runs for re-election)?

Right now there are potential donors looking to see if Obama kept his promises to the people that gave him money in 2008. That's not Obama, that's the system. It's true, we really do have the best government money can buy and the next President will probably have to do the same things - UNLESS that President has his own established power base that owe him/her (of course, Obama has none).

Remember the 2008 Democratic primaries? I really liked Mrs. Clinton and I can tell you exactly when her campaign experienced trouble. It was when she started saying that we need to address the trade imbalance, we need to start imposing import tariffs to prevent manufacturing jobs from going overseas or the middle class will shrivel and die. Brave words, and totally true. But shortly after that she began dropping in the polls and losing primaries.

I blame Obama because this is a time for bravery and leadership, but I see him just trying getting along. I don't want to blame Obama, I want leadership from Obama and I absolutely don't see it from him. That leadership is needed to keep partisanship to a minimum. I just don't see it from him. And I absolutely don't expect him to do anything as brave as impose import tariffs to prevent more jobs bleeding out overseas.

The 90's had the internet boom. President Clinton did something very brave - he left it alone. He resisted the urge to impose regulations and taxes on internet commerce. It's not fair to compare the 90's to the last decade.

Lower taxes may or may not create jobs, but higher taxes destroy jobs.

Assuming you are right, what will Washington do with our taxes? The Pelosi House already spent $3 trillion, and when I tried to get funding for a project I found out it was all insider money. What a fucking waste of taxpayer dollars.

Steve Wynn is an experienced businessman. His opinion has more value than most.

But it's now Obama's responsibility, true?

 

True, but it was his party that was in control at the time. They controlled both houses of congress, and the direction of the fed and fannie/freddie (the sole cause of the entire financial collapse as the housing industry is concerned).

See also, Barney Frank, his lover, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, etc., etc...

 

The House republicans voted to raise the Debt limit by 2.1 Trillion dollars, thankfully the Democrats have voted in the majority to stop their effort in the Senate.

------------------

answer: the Republican senators facing recalls were targeted for supporting Walker's proposal......


Good for you, and now you can do it again......and in Ohio as well.

Look Mia, the money is in your favor - "buy it once, buy it twice".

 

Breeze, you do realize that there are only 8 senators being recalled. And none of them are being recalled because of dereliction of duty. They are being recalled because Democrats where not happy with the outcome of the November elections.

You see, when a democrat loses an election instead of accepting the results and voting again the next time around they seek to change the results by unseating representatives chosen by and elected by the majority.

Backwards, I know.

There are in fact several democrats being recalled in Wisconsin as well. Those being recalled (unlike the republicans) where not recently elected, but rather are being recalled for dereliction of duty. More specifically they fled the state of Wisconsin and their duties for almost 2 months. There's a difference between recalling someone who failed to do their job and recalling someone because you are not happy they got elected.

As to being "targeted". No one senator was "targeted" for supporting Walker. If that were the case, more would have been petitioned for recall. They were targeted to try to unseat a Republican majority in the state, something we've not seen in my lifetime.

And look, the state's turning around as a result. Democrats need to unseat six Senators just to break even. The likelihood of that happening is slim to none. Wisconsin's going to be a right to work state before the years out.

Hell, Walker has accomplished more in Wisconsin than Obama has in mere months. And that includes balancing a budget and fixing a shortfall and all but eliminating our deficit. All the while, creating jobs, becoming friendly to business and welcoming tourists back into our state.

 

Well, the Democrat won his initiative decisively so obviously was within his rights which the Republicans could have challenged in court otherwise but chose recall for the same reason, a grievance the Democrats chose for the Republicans.

I read your post however Arnold Schwarzenegger became Governor of California under the same circumstances employed by Republicans in that state using the same tactic.

A citizens initiative / recall is unusual and difficult to employ much less be successful with. It just shows the extent of duplicity some people will not tolerate and have the means to use in response.

I believe the six Republicans are voted on next so their fate most likely will be the initiatives outcome.

And Ohio also is voting where the Legislation is now delayed till the vote is tabulated.

Mia, you are for Democracy????

 

No, Arnold Schwarzenegger became Governor of California because Gray Davis' inaction plunged California into an economic crisis so bad he completely lost control of the government.

I'm not.

Here's a quiz: What form of government is the USA (hint: we're not a democracy)?

UPDATE: Wow. Obama just gave a terrific speech. He showed real balls, blamed both parties. I feel like he read my previous post here.

 

The report blames a lack of oversight by federal agencies for misuse of funds......

Just why oversight by federal agencies is an anathema to the Republican party may not just be their misguided Policies and Principles sleeved as self employment / enrichment but in fact their dependency on the Special Interests that are the contractors of the above missuses for the financing of their political agenda they are unwilling to divulge in public as their political contributers, a wise decision.....the 5-4 Supreme Court.

The Republicans have redefined "public financing" as the publics Treasury being used to finance unsupervised allocations of funds to their supporters for the purpose of campaign contributions.

Nothing new just a repeat History lesson for the unfortunate tax paying citizens.

 

The GOP has artificially created this debt ceiling crisis that may well drive the American economy into disaster. It has to be one of the most irresponsible destructive things ever developed by an American political party. Osama bin Laden is probably both laughing in his grave and simultaneously thinking he made a terrible decision: If he really wanted to destroy the US he should have been a tea partier.

Since 1962 the debt ceiling has been raised 72 times. Its not a political issue. Except now.

When congress passes a tax cut or issues new spending it essentially is taking the steps to raise the debt ceiling. Its moved monies needed to pay existing debt into a new category...or it cuts out govt revenues needed to pay existing debt. Its not the debt ceiling that is the issue; its the actions that lead up to it.

Under George Bush the debt ceiling was raised from just under $6 trillion to just under $10 trillion. George Bush also promised to get rid of US govt. debt. During the period when Bush raised the debt ceiling he had support on it from Boehner, Rep Cantor, Senator's McConnell and Kyl....the House and Senate leaders who are spearheding the so-called negotiations.

One thing that will almost certainly occur is a drop in prices of US debt obligations which will drive interest rates higher. As US interest rates rise so too will all private debt...especially all variable rate debt. It will end up costing everyone everywhere more money.

The entire thing is a disaster in the making artificially created by a rabid political group of ultra right wing conservatives. This guy said he saw it develop before his eyes back on February 28

If there is a group of people more aligned with Osama bin Laden and interested in destroying the US economy I can't think of it.

 

earlpearl - I think your argument is on the money.

 

I can. LINK

When gold is no longer considered money by those who have taken charge of the economic future of the country, it is "lights out". History proves it. You are right about it not being a political issue since both sides have been involved in piling on the debt on the back of working Americans.

 

Thoughtful comments, Corwin, IMHO. I thought I'd copy the whole thing. I disagree with you on some things which I'll speak to after the citation.

Corwin: I think the 90's saw job growth in the technology world from enhancements and change in computerization and specifically communications not the Internet. At the end of the 90's the first internet boom took off, true. But there was far greater inestment, business and employment in communications industries in that same period that the first internet boom occurred. It was the end of about a 25 year boom in communications with the last part of that decade dedicated to laying endless cable and "connecting the last mile". That ate up enormous funds, created enormous jobs, and was an economic bust as usage of bandwidth didn't get anywhere's near even an iota of the total investment in expanding hard access.

IMHO the current internet expansion and especially through wireless and web and data stored in the "cloud" is actually cutting employment and cutting costs. You needed a lot more personnel and manpower to run a lan or wan versus what you can get out of the cloud. Its astounding to me...and relatively cheap.

I looked at that graph differently than you. Admittedly total jobs came back after each recession on the graph. But they were not the same jobs....they were new jobs. Lets face it, people in the typewriter business that lost their jobs didn't get new typewriter jobs. They had to go elsewhere.

Again, what struck me from the graph was how overall job growth was dramatically slower than in preceding years. That was a regular pattern and increasingly so toward more recent times.

We are in a very bad period right now. For every comment about higher taxes killing jobs even dramatically more apparent is that cutting govt spending is dramatically killing and crushing jobs. Over the last some months essentially meager increases in employment are highlighted by very very significant job loss on the govt side. Its rampant in states and communities. Cutting govt spending cuts jobs!!!! Its a fact. Its every bit as true and probably more so than cutting taxes.

As to the $3 trillion Obama program. 1/3 of it was tax cuts. Before that Bush had a tax cut program as we stared right into the recession. Neither of those tax cut programs did squat to stave off the recession.

I'm sick of the singular focus of the right wing on taxes. Its simply one component of overall economics. Again, just compare the 1990's and the last decade. 1990's had lots higher taxes and lots more growth. 2000's had lots lower taxes and essentially no growth.

I always go back to demand. Demand drives business. Its the fundamental. We have abt 9% official unemployment plus some big number of unofficial and/or underemployment. That is huge. That is something in the range of 20+ million workers not working or making lots lots less than they could or did before the recession. That might relate to 60-80 million Americans in total when you factor in families.

That is an enormous cut in national demand. Its gigantic.

Lastly let me speak to the tax issue from my own experience and that of people I knew in my industry (commercial RE) and other sales people. High taxes had NO impact on me, or my peers. At my peak I was working in an environment where I was basically hitting 50% marginal taxes every year (39.6% fed plus about 10% state.) Seemed freaking high.

Didn't matter though. Demand for my services was great. Every time I made a new dollar I kept $0.50. It was wonderful extra money. If I had stopped working because "taxes were too high" I would have made no extra money. That is freakin stupid. Nobody does that. It was the exact same for lots of people I knew and businesses I knew.

Just before that streak I lived through the commercial real estate recession that first hit me in 1989. There was no demand for my services. There was no money to be made. Nobody had answers. Our niche in the economy had collapsed. That niche collapsed nationwide. Fortunately I had savings investments and some other income....and could putter through some minimal brokerage activity.

I'd much prefer to work and pay high taxes or any taxes than to not work at all and have no money.

 

we need to start imposing import tariffs to prevent manufacturing jobs from going overseas....

The above does not sound like Hillary, the imposing import tariffs but maybe so.

HC fell in trouble in the very beginning by being stymied in Iowa and considered skipping the Iowa primary altogether. Iowa for some reason saw a Hillary they did not like and Clinton never fully recovered.

The next few days may fortell the future for Obama - if not, the other indicator to his future will be his "fund raising" and whether he still maintains the same momentum of the 08 campaign - if he keeps on track for his goal of 1 billion dollars the Oracles will be hard pressed to find someone else.

 

$1b for an election campaign....that's a lot of money. If he were to pay down some of the ddebt with that and work on a true people's campaign where everyone VOLUNTEERS to do the work, then he'd be a politician to respect. An incredible amount just to get elected. What does that buy?

 

$1 billion is the new penny when it comes to the current administration. They just keep moving the decimal point.