Market Currents
"The private sector is doing fine." Pres. Obama later clarified his odd remark - private sector...
-
Saturday, June 9, 2012, 8:15 AM ET"The private sector is doing fine." Pres. Obama later clarified his odd remark - private sector jobs remain 4.6M below their Jan. 2008 peak - but noted their relative strength vs. public sector job growth shows it has "not been the biggest drag on the economy." His point was that the loss of public sector jobs, down ~600K in three years, is a problem "the federal government could, with 100% certainty, fix."
Other date
Latest Macro Articles
This news story has 19 comments:
Let’s look at the facts. During the democrats iron fisted rule of Congress from, Jan 2007-2011, 6.4 million jobs were lost. Under the Obama regime over 300,00 jobs have been lost.
Fact 1: Jan 2007 146,033,000 employed Democrats seize Congress
Fact 2: Jan 2009 142,201,000 employed
Fact 3: Feb 2009 141,687,000 employed Stimulus passed
Fact 4: April 2012 141,865,000 employed
http://bit.ly/MVzjsr
But here is the $64,000 question, if what really matters at the end is to help the poor, does bad economics helps or hurts them?
Terry: This has been the weakest post-recession jobs recovery in over 30 years. During President Obama's last 3.5 years he increased federal debt by approximately $4 trillion dollars (an unprecedented amount over a 3.5 year period). I'm glad all that money was well spent because our economy is booming now! haha. Not to mention all of his proposed government regulation which is causing companies to hit the brakes on hiring new workers. After companies cleaned house and fired so many people in late 2008 through mid-2009 it would be difficult not to have positive job growth in 2010 and 2011. Looks like his "strategies", if you can even call them that, aren't working.
http://bit.ly/LwOIOt
http://bit.ly/Mjq6ai
http://bit.ly/MVnWAV
Just ask the Soviet Union.
Why not hire everybody, eliminate all taxes and simply print unlimited money to pay all these newly employed (non-productive) government workers? Think of the stimulus that would provide.
NOT.
All references to Austerity should be replaced with "Living within your means." That used to be thought of as a good thing.
No.
If I am wrong then please prove it WITHOUT assigning blame to Bush.
(This is the quandary that vexes "progressives")
During the Bush years that unemployment rate was 7.3%.
Thanks President Obama...for nothing.
It doesn't really bother me that he slipped and made a mistake saying the private sector is doing fine. But what is very telling is that he views the fact that some states have acted financially responsibly as being the problem.
And if the President was really paying attention, when he speaks of the government cuts - he'd point out that a decent percentage of them are done to keep paying outsized pensions and benefits to the public unions. But I guess that doesn't play to the "base".
And remember...
Every government "job" lost is another several hundred thousand dollars that people get to keep and spend as they choose.
Now THAT is TRUE stimulus.
Obama has NEVER had to make payroll in his life, has NEVER been an entrepreneur, has NEVER embraced capitalism and is on record bad mouthing free enterprise.
Incomes haven't risen because of the expansion of government bureaucracy and the job destruction policies of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and, of course, Mr. Hussein.
Bush was a better president than Barry O. There is no proof otherwise.
And I'd say that both Bush and Obama are mediocre Presidents.
What we need is leadership. We have to fix Social Security - the retirement part is actually fairly "easy", it just requires making choices. The disability part will be tougher politically because cuts and reforms will be called "hateful", etc etc.
We have to fix the tax code - so that there aren't things like carried interest - totally tax sheltered vehicles - benefits for companies doing various things that don't benefit the USA, etc etc.
We have to totally reorganize and downsize our federal bureaucracy. And we have to adjust downward compensation for government employees and the politicians. Its public service - service implies sacrifice. Politicians and their direct staffs should NEVER receive pensions or lifetime benefits. Government employees should be responsible for their own retirement plans results - whether its 401K or union managed pensions.
Government bureaucracy should be focused on regulation of food, medicine, water, air, ground. That means that a lot of rollbacks of current regulations that simply add costs to business (and reward certain groups and people).
Then we can tackle the really tough item - health care.
Until we get some leadership with a backbone and a brain we are just going to continue to stagnate as a country - which is an apt summary of the past 12 years IMO. Not a nice thing to say or admit, but others are catching up with us and thats just the simple truth.