Click to see the beacon journal online
Homes   Jobs   Cars   Shopping
All Da King's Men -- Community Blog

Previous post:

Next post:

Heading In The Right Direction ?

by Da King on August 25, 2010

in economics,housing,jobs,natonal debt,recession,taxes,Uncategorized,White House administration

Housing sales fell 27% last month, the biggest drop in 15 years. The official unemployment rate is 9.5% (the real unemployment rate is over 16%, and may be much higher), and weekly unemployment claims rose to their highest level since last november. This year's federal deficit is expected to be $1.3 trillion, the second trillion+ dollar deficit in a row. The country is over $13.2 trillion in debt, the largest dollar debt in American history by far, and it is growing by leaps and bounds. The CBO calculated that President Obama's budgets will add $9.5 trillion to the debt over a decade, over twice as much as any previous admiistration. Most of the states are broke. We are drowning future generations in staggering debt, and we still have $55 trillion in unfunded future entitlement liabilities to deal with, plus ObamaCare looming on the horizon to drastically increase Medicaid spending. The Democrats are looking to impose the largest tax increase in history at the end of the year, during a very weak economy, the weakest in nearly 30 years. Then Obama wants to impose Cap-And-Trade to drive up everyone's energy bills, to "skyrocket" the price of electricity, as Obama said himself. It's almost as if he intends to ruin us. The Democrats are throwing one overhand right after another into the face of our economic futures.

Everybody agrees Obama's stimulus plan didn't have it's intended effect. The White House claimed the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%, and the Gaffemaster General, VP Joe Biden, said in this "recovery summer," we'd be adding 500,000 jobs per month by now. Clearly, the stimulus didn't come close to those numbers, but borrowing $800 billion to throw around did have some effect. Nobody could spend that much stimulus money with NO result, not even Obama and the Dumbocrats. The problem is, almost all of the stimulus spending only has a temporary effect. When the artificial borrowed stimulus bump runs out at the end of the year, we'll face our ACTUAL economic state (and we'll be another trillion deeper in debt to boot). With economists forecasting flat growth or even a double dip recession THIS year, what will happen when the stimulus funds run out ? Some even think we're in a depression, and point out some comparisons between the Great Depression and now. Not surprisingly, investors are growing wary of the stock market.

The government is running out of avoidance tricks. We can't put interest rates much lower, we can't keep borrowing money to artificially prop us up, and the fed can't print more money to escape reality.

Recovery summer has become recovery bummer, and recovery future is looking more like future shock, when the irresponsibility of these insane fiscal policies (which are actually a lack of fiscal policy) will have to be faced. As they say, "you can run, but you can't hide." We can't hide from our fiscal sins forever. We can only run temporarily, as Obama is doing now. Soon, we'll be out of breath from running, and big bad Mr. Reality will catch up to us. That will be the moment the full weight of our fiscal folly descends down upon us.

All this news led Gaffy Biden to say yesterday,, "no doubt we're heading in the right direction."

Really, Joe ? Then just what in the hell would be the wrong direction ? Mass suicide via poisoned Kool-Aid, or what ? Gaffy must come from the Jim Jones school of economics. Jones wanted to create a socialist paradise on earth too. It didn't work out quite as planned.

Not that I'm pessimistic or anything. I do have a solution – counterfeiting. Print your own money. That will work, and if you get busted, to paraphrase the great economist Thomas Sowell, just tell the feds you weren't counterfeiting, you were engaging in monetary policy. That's what the Federal Reserve calls it when they print money backed by nothing.

Alternately, we could get Congress to start behaving responsibly, but what are the chances of that ?

  • averagejoe5

    "It's almost as if he intends to ruin us." The sentence is correct. It has a different meaning and verbage the liberal language. It means they want you to rely on the govt as Christians rely on God for their sustenance. They want to be able to dole out the riches (or non-riches) as they see fit. Communism at it's best. They will crush all of the classes in the name of fairness and equality and then they will take over as desired.

    To even suggest we are on the right path is ludacris. THey need to be embarassed in Washington. Just like Strickland running for governor for a second term. This guy isn't embarrassed at the job he's done and is so full of himself that he thinks he deserves to stay on the payroll as our gov? He is a big joke. He is worse than Taft.

    King they have different values than us. They think they are doing a good job no matter how screwed up the country is becoming. Because it isn't about the "We the People" it is about them getting rich and giving our hard earned money to the groups of their chouce and to remain in office. Your last line is the funniest I have ever heard.

  • walter

    this from CounterPunch……

    "Putting People Back to Work
    How Would You Spend a Trillion Dollars?
    By STANLEY HELLER

    Wall Street and the entire U.S. corporate economy have been brought back from the precipice by $13 trillion in subsidies and guarantees. Profits have recovered nicely. And with all this money the corporate world has done zilch when it comes to jobs. The Washington Post reports that non-bank companies are sitting on $1.8 trillion in cash. What they don’t keep in the money market they’re using to buy back their own stock or to gobble up other companies like the digesting of Connecticut’s New Alliance Bank by First Niagara Bank. Bloomberg business news notes that “more productive” companies are buying up less productive ones and that means it might be efficient to fire “employees” at the companies that have been consumed."

    as far as the Bush tax cuts…….Bush tax cuts +stimulus= very little, therefore Bush tax cuts + 0 stimulus < very little

    how's the math?

  • walter
  • N. E. Frye

    We've been importing labor and exporting jobs for – how long?

    Walter's at it again.

    Right back at you Walter. http://www.cleveland.com/interact/

    http://www2.lib.virginia.edu/askalibrarian/referenceemail/

  • barackem

    I don't believe that Obama wants to ruin us. He just wants us to follow a sustainable path.

    Of course there are two ways to do that. Innovate and expand capacity or conserve what we currently have.

    We are almost two years into this presidency. We have spent trillions of dollars of our children's future on political payback with almost no new 21st century infrastructure to show for it. If we didn't use that money to raise our vision by now, can anyone honestly believe it will happen in the next two years? Or six?

    There has been no serious discussion about expanding energy capacity. Where I live, we are still holding back large solar projects that have already been on the drawing board for years to protect one or another turtle or rat. We aren't building new dams to increase water and power capacity. Instead we are tearing existing dams down. The water that we do have that at one time was used to create lush valleys of agriculture that fed the nation and converted massive amounts of co2 to oxygen has been diverted into the ocean to help a minnow reproduce. Has anyone even heard anything about adding nuclear energy production since the election?

    One would think by listening to some of those in charge that we are close to using up the earth's resources. They fail to mention that from where we sit, it is 4000 miles to the center of the earth, with metals, minerals, and other resources every foot of the way. The deepest hole that has ever been dug ( a hole 10 inches wide) is 7 1/2 miles deep. We have literally only scratched the surface on resources. The reason we have not gone deeper? It gets hot. Very, very hot as we dig into the earth. We live on a fireball. We have endless wind and sun. We have at least hundreds of years worth of coal and oil, a fuel that many now believe is an abiotic resource created from magma that will continue to replenish indefinitely. Our honorable leaders seem incapable of expanding water resources even though the earth's surface is covered by almost 70% water. Yes, but it takes energy to convert that water and we are running out of energy. Oh, yeah. We already covered that. But what about the turtle or the minnow or the rat? Does it matter that science has already figured out ways to bring back many extinct species and is on the precipice of creating billions more designer species to order?

    We have two ways to go. A free enterprise system that feeds the human spirit and unleashes technological advancement that changed the course of humankind in our lifetime or a powerful federal government that strong arms people to limit use of existing developed resources.

    Many in America look at Cuba and other 19th century economies as the example we need to follow. Limited production and limited use. Central command and control for the good of all. Free people in free markets create wealth. Individual wealth creates individual power and opportunity. Greater production, greater use. No good.

    People should know by now the side this president is on. We can't put our faith in the private sector. Energy prices must necessarily skyrocket to limit our expansion. We can't even eat all we want (unless we are in the ruling class), let alone produce enough power, water, medicine, housing etc. to sustain billions of people.

    Hope and change has finally come. It's about time our Messiah arrived to protect us from all of that yucky development.

  • camackey

    Yes the two times we had conservative laize-faire government for over 15 years in the 20th Century we have had a depression. The two eras are 1919 thru 1933 and 1981 through 2010. What type of government has the Reagan revolution brought to America? Less restrictive, Less efficient, unable to think of a way to help Americans than a tax cut designed to give the top 1% the biggest bang for thier bucks. King, from the Bush tax cuts I received approximately $40 per paycheck or $1000 per year. From the monies that had to be borrowed to finance those tax cuts myself and my children received a bill for $1500 dollars yearly payable in 10 years. Again how do those tax cuts pay for thenselves. VooDoo economics possibly?

  • barackem

    Exporting jobs can be to our benefit if we replace the lost jobs and reap the benefit of cheaper products at the same time. We need to do a better job of encouraging entrepreneurship, skill retraining, etc. Instead of having a president who tells new grads to pass on wealth creation, he should be encouraging kids to make and save money, print some business cards, and put their dreams and aspirations to work so they can provide a product or service for their neighbors, hire employees, and contribute to an expanding free market system.

    Anyone who thinks we must eliminate jobs by importing inexpensive products that allow even the poor in this country to buy basic needs are as wrong as those who thought that women entering the workforce would take jobs from men. Instead, it created more consumers, an expanded market, and wealthier nation.

  • http://obamahousing.blogspot.com/ Coda

    I hear that at a global level maybe the Obama stimulus plan for housing didn't work out well in that it didn't stimulate the economy in the way that it was intended. Still, I would argue that it has had a beneficial effect on home buyers, and may yet have consequences not yet seen.

  • http://obamahousing.blogspot.com/ Coda

    I hear that at a global level maybe the Obama stimulus plan for housing didn't work out well in that it didn't stimulate the economy in the way that it was intended. Still, I would argue that it has had a beneficial effect on home buyers, and may yet have consequences not yet seen.
    I blog about how the First Time Home Buyer's credit has affected on individual at obamahousing.blogspot.com

  • N. E. Frye

    Yeah, Barrackem, ( Exporting jobs can be to our benefit if we replace the lost jobs and reap the benefit of cheaper products at the same time.") I think I read that book somewhere too. The trouble with economists is they tend to assume away anything that conflicts with their pronouncements. It's theoretically possible, but you should capitalize the 'IF'. What has to happen and is there a good reason to believe it most probably will happen?

  • Andrea

    enough of the spin Da King!
    The economy might not be where we like it but he turned things around .
    The stimulus plan did work as intended. And that is the FACT – cant you stick to them ?
    http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/economic-outlook.htm

    http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/08/24/the-stimulus-programs-are-working-just-maybe-not-for-you/

  • Andrea

    3.3 million jobs were created by the stimulus bill
    how many were produced by the Bush tax cuts ?

    I read some where it cost us 800, 000 per job -for the Bush tax cuts – perhaps you can do a comparison for us ? So we can see which really worked.

  • Da King

    Andrea,
    You should stop listening to talking points and start looking at facts.

    We have LOST 2.5 million jobs since the stimulus bill passed. You can verify the number by looking at the Bureau Of Labor Statistics website.

    The average unemployment rate under Bush was 5.2%, and that included two recessions. After the 2003 tax cuts, unemployment went from 6.0% to 4.6% (close to full employment), until the financial crisis hit in 2008, which is unrelated to the tax cuts. I'd say those tax cuts did create jobs.

    http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

  • Da King

    I included 10 supporting links to backup my words, and it was the White House who said if the stimulus passed, unemployment wouldn't rise above 8% and we'd be creating 250,000-500,000 jobs by now. No spin from me. Maybe you should ask the White House about spin.

  • Da King

    I didn't think it was possible to have a worse governor than Taft, until Strickland showed up. Are you jazzed about the new high speed rail line that nobody will use ?

  • Da King

    Tax cuts don't always pay for themselves, though it's actually government spending that must be paid for, not tax cuts. It was the large spending increase that caused the Bush deficits.

    What tax cuts do is stimulate the economy, and they CAN result in more revenue too, as follows:

    The unemployment rate dropped after the 2003 Bush tax cuts, until the financial crisis hit (which was NOT the result of laissez-faire policies. It was the result of government intervention in the mortgage market in order to increase home ownership.) More jobs means more taxpayers, which means more government revenue. The proof ? From 2003-2007, unemployment went from 6.0% to 4.6% under Bush. During the same time period, with tax rates LOWERED, government revenue GREW from $1.78 trillion to $2.56 trillion. Following that, the housing market crashed and we went into recession, which was unrelated to the tax cuts.

    The basic economic truth is this – low tax rates help the economy, and high tax rates harm the economy.

    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

  • The Reverend

    Wow. Wrong on all counts.

    Tax cuts do not need to be paid for…even though the largest portion of future projected deficits are because of the Bush tax cuts.

    If tax cuts, primarily benefitting the wealthiest, stimulate the economy….then you have to tell me why the deepest tax cuts for the weathiest in American history under W fell flat on it's face when it came to, you know, stimulating the economy?

    And what the hell? The financial crisis was not the fault of laissez-faire economics? Really? Again, if that is true, why in the hell did Alan Greenspan say it WAS the fault of laissez-faire economics? Why did Greenspan say that, though he believed in the doctrine of laissez-faire all his life, he had been mistaken?

    Finally, as you strike out on three straight pitches……the Clinton era "higher taxes" resulted in 20 million new jobs and an economic boom. How in the hell, then, did those higher taxes simultaneously also harm the economy?

  • The Reverend

    Your errors are beginning to calcify, aren't they? Like arthritis.

    Andrea is correct…..the CBO states that somewhere between 1.7 and 3.3 million were saved or created by the stimulus. So, instead of those 2.5 million job losses…..without the stimulus, those losses would have been upwards of 5 million.

    Proving that the stimulus did what it was intended to do…..plug the Bush hole in the crumbling laissez-faire dyke.

  • B

    I guess you're saying it could be worse.

  • barackem

    Apparently, the more the government spends, the better off we are. That is especially true if we ignore our children and grandchildren's credit card bill. And if we believe that the private sector doesn't react to what the government does or question why trillions of dollars of real, private money is looking for cover on the sidelines right now. Or why a trillion in borrowed money that creates one temporary job for every $200,000 added to the debt is better than multi trillions invested in the private sector that creates one permanent job for every $30,000 invested, adding nothing to our children's debt.

    We know it is bad for whoever is in power when they have to ignore standard indicators and make up new ones to try to explain their results. But the results are predictable and easily explained. It might be different if we had something to show in 21st century infrastructure for the trillions stolen from our kids if added to private sector reinvestment. Instead this is the result of a blowhard government trying to take the place of a free market economy. Sadly, America is paying the price for the economic education of the Obama team.

  • Da King

    How can you deny the truth about tax cuts right after I presented you with the proof of how they helped the economy during the Bush years ? I guess you must then believe high tax rates help the economy. Time for an Economics 101 class, Rev.

    And I've repeatedly pointed out the government interventionist policies that led to the financial crisis. If you've ignored all my proof so far, there's no reason for me to go into it again.

    As for the Clinton era, he raised taxes in 1993, and he cut taxes in 1997. Economic growth was far greater after his tax cuts (and the budget was nearly balanced as well after the tax cuts). Thanks for reinforcing my point. I didn't strike out, I hit a homer.

    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/03/tax-cuts-not-the-clinton-tax-hike-produced-the-1990s-boom

  • Da King

    I think Obama believes government service is the way to go. He has shown few signs that he understands how wealth creation, and thus job creation, works. It's a common malady among lefties. They seem to think it all comes from the government.

  • B

    I just noticed, you're saying "It could be worse" AND "Its Bush's fault."

    Two for Two!

  • Da King

    Reverend,
    The mere fact that you quote the government by saying the stimulus created or "saved" between 1.7 million and 3.3 million jobs is clear proof that the government can't quantify that number. What we can quantify is the cost – over $800 billion. That's a lot of money to spend for a TEMPORARY job boost, even if it did keep unemployment a point or two lower. What happens next year after the stimulus money wears off ? Do we spend another trillion, then another trillion the year after that, or what ? I know some left-wingers actually want to do that, but it's insane fiscal policy.

    And even if the rosiest scenario is true, and the stimulus created or saved 3 million jobs, that is a pretty pathetic bang for our buck. It comes out to about $267,000 spent for every job created or saved. In what universe is that efficient or cost effective ? Not this one.

  • Da King

    B,
    You just summarized the Democrats entire election strategy for this fall – It could be worse and it's all Bush's fault. The Dems are going to get smoked.

  • barackem

    I wouldn't give credit that the stimulus bill did keep unemployment a point or two lower. How many REAL jobs were NOT created due to this government takeover? Most recessions with job losses bounce back with robust job growth to make up for lost recession demand. In normal cycles, people who didn't buy a car or new furniture or clothes, etc. etc. during the recession create additional demand as we come out of the recession. Not this time. There are too many people unemployed to break the cycle. Why would any sane business hire even though they are sitting on huge profits when the nation's leadership spent their first term shoving a 2500 page health care bill down our throats along with another 2500 page regulatory bill while ignoring business explanations for not hiring. Instead they demonized business, and used every opportunity to tell kids not make money. They have promised higher taxes on job producers, higher taxes on investment, extreme EPA rule changes to punish co2 creation, and skyrocketing energy prices. They use their power to bully enemies and reward friends. These people are fools, through and through. Until we get some sense that this attempt to turn America into a Cuban paradise is over, there will be no bounce back.

  • barackem

    N.E. Frye, we are in a battle for the soul of this nation. We haven't always been a welfare state. Early government intervention involved jobs programs so that people wouldn't develop dependency. Social Security Insurance started as a minor program that took only 2% of paychecks. Benefits weren't paid until the age of 65 even though the average life expectancy at the time was about 60. We really didn't ramp up social welfare programs until the 'Great Society' program. Even at that time, most of the increase was meant as a temporary effort, ie. a war on poverty to be won by ensuring that every child in a poor neighborhood had the basics to once and for all time eliminate pockets of poverty.

    Obviously, we have seen the results that by now should be easily understood. The problem wasn't monetary poverty being passed to the next generation. It was poverty of spirit, poverty of ideas, poverty of good habits, etc. that manifested in monetary poverty. In poor neighborhoods, kids are taught that the rich are taking all the money or that it depends on who you know. In some ethnic neighborhoods, kids are taught that society hates them or that whites are taking all the money and only look out for 'their own'. It is hard for a kid to wake up with enthusiasm to take on the day in that environment.

    Any thinking person at this point can recognize that the welfare system we instituted to overcome monetary poverty not only didn't break the cycle, it created even deeper poverties of disconnection from self subsistence by utilizing upside down reward systems. People who didn't work received payment, people who did received nothing. People who had intact families received nothing, people with broken homes were rewarded. Kids who did well in school and stayed celibate got nothing, kids who dropped out and had babies 'got a paycheck'.

    It is heart breaking when I think of so many of my friends and family, many who were extremely intelligent with unlimited potential, who never got out of their subsidized apartments because they would have lost their subsidies or their Medicaid by moving to another job with more potential.

    The only way to overcome it is with a change in mindset that emphasizes financial and economic information in schools and other government institutions that start honoring business success as much as it honors sports or entertainment or government success. Rather than turning schools over to the social justice crowd, spend at least as much time showing every kid how to start a business, maybe even make it a requirement for graduation. Business is nothing more than people learning how to take care of themselves, hopefully by doing something they love doing. If we get more people creating more pies, we don't need the poverty pimps. By making business a subject that is so far removed from so many, it makes it easy for government weenies to add one regulation on top of the next without any understanding how they discourage real people from taking that first step that can grow into large companies that employ hundreds or thousands. All of those rules and regulations meant to keep those rich businesses honest do nothing but insure that only rich people can be in business.

    Cheap products allow even poor people to buy basic needs and leave most others with more disposable income that can be used to fund a small business or to build a stock portfolio. Many, if not most, service businesses require little more than $20 in business cards, a couple hundred in permits, and maybe the same in equipment. We live in an age of easy information and communication. We aren't even close to reaching anything resembling peak production in this country if the pro business, rather than pro social justice crowd, takes back our schools and the shines the light of day on the upside down notion that sharing the same pie is somehow compassionate when we are capable of so much more.

    We also have to recognize that the social programs that worked while the large baby boomer generation was working were run like a Ponzi scheme to pay for other irresponsible government spending and nothing is left now that the baby boomers are ready to retire. Can politicians actually act like adults and face the debt explosion we are facing? Who knows. If not, we will collapse no matter what we do. In the end, that may be the only way to shake the diseased wood from the tree.

  • Da King

    Well said. Obama acted like the enemy of business since day one, and then he wonders why business is reluctant. He has a lot to learn.

  • The Reverend

    And with GOP leadership, it would have been worse.

  • The Reverend

    barrackem says a lot of good stuff in his comments. However…..let's talk about this….

    "Cheap products allow even poor people to buy basic needs and leave most others with more disposable income that can be used to fund a small business or to build a stock portfolio."

    Mass American manufacturing jobs have been outsourced to make those lower prices possible and coporate bottom lines fatter.

    What's more important to national economic stability…..lower prices on Wal-Mart junk, or family-supporting jobs?

    The answer is obvious. While I don't disagree with promoting business education, etc…..starting a new business right now, when there are fewer and fewer consumers, seems foolish, at least to me.

    The fact is that it's taken 30 years to hollow out America's labor force, and thus the American consuming engine……and it will take many, many years…..presuming GOP'ers do not retake power…..to climb out of the hole dug for decades to enrich the top 3%.

    America has become a full fledged oligarchy……and all I see from conservatives is attempts to enrich those same oligarchs.

  • Da King

    Jobs are the most important thing, and they come first. When jobs come, demand rises.

    Let me ask you, Rev.

    Do you think any of Obama's policies – cap-and-trade to skyrocket energy bills, major tax hike at year's end, ObamaCare taxes on business and others, 2300-page financial regulation, etc., are actually going to help create jobs ? Or will they cause job losses ?

    I also think you may want to check on who is really promoting that oligarchy. Obama is centralizing power like nobody before him.

Previous post:

Next post:

 

© The Akron Beacon Journal • 44 E. Exchange Street, Akron, Ohio 44308

Powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).