I Am So Proud of Our President

And still Obama's record of adding jobs in the private sector for 26 straight months can't compete with George Bush's record of losing 750,000 jobs a month on his way out of office. And Romney wants to go back to Bush's policies. No thanks!

 

Some Democrats just want to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic.

 

I just said to Andy yesterday, after he apologised to Vladd for shortening his post in a response, that I don't see anything wrong with the practice...within reason. Keeping the intention of the comment intact is important while editing a post. Withholding critical information, included in the original comment but not in the edited one, is misleading... it's a misrepresentation of fact.

So, it's not entirely unexpected ...just bad form

 

That's why I cross things out instead of deleting them. That way people know what I'm referring to and can read the rest if they choose.

The extreme Right-wingers we have here would rather use the Breitbart/O'Keefe technique of changing the original text to mean the opposite and there are no shortage of examples of them doing it.

Heck, their top choice old Mittens does it in campaign Ads. Lying and distortion comes as easy to them as breathing. Mittens took an Obama speech and took out the fact that he was quoting John McCain and attributed the sentence to Obama. They just don't care about the truth as long as the agenda can be achieved. A sad agenda of lies and deceit designed to rally the hardcore far Right wing-nuts and just plain old stupid people.

 

I am no expert but, yes, I believe deficit spending can be a good thing in the right situation.

However, you have to have 1. an expectation that things will turn around before you go completely under (Hi Greece!) and 2 when you have good times, you have to have drastically reduced deficit spending and payed your debt back down to manageable levels.

We have fundamental problems in this country (and in the world) that I believe make it unlikely that 1 is going to happen. And we never did number 2 in the decades of prosperity we have had before this recession started. In fact, because we have never really done number 2 (during Clinton we did it a little but that was an aberration in our recent history and quickly negated), it has left us with even less wiggle room for number 1.

I think we are much more likely to go the route of Greece than we are to keep trying to spend out way out of the inevitable pain. I remember it used to be said that we were leaving a massive debt for our Grandchildren. Anyone believe that now? That albatross is ours. We have become the grandchildren.

 

"Thanks, grandma! Thanks, grandpa! We'd put you in a home, but thanks to you we can't afford it! ...So eat your gruel and stop complaining..."

I was watchig some c-span earlier today. Ryan (R-Wis) was chairman of some committee discussing economic issues with three people, a rightie, a leftie, and a neut. The neut made an interesting comment about Canada's issues from 15 to 20 years ago, how they were in a similar situation as we are in now, and how they got out of it. Basically, they eliminated tax loopholes for big business and raised taxes a bit...and their economy began to grow.

Obviously, there was more to it than that, so I'll have to look more into it ...to determine exactly what the situation was and exactly how they turned their economy around... but on the surface, their approach is pretty much what I've been thinking is needed here too. Another benefit of what happened in Canada was a smaller government, in relation to GDP, if I remember right.

All in all, I'd say it's worth a second look, maybe Canada's example can be used in the U.S. to stabilize our own economy ...and reduce the government at the same time. The hurdles are that big business and Congress are pretty tight, and Congress needs to want to act, something they have no interest in doing lately.

What a bitter pill that would be to swallow... Canada providing the U.S. with a solution lol "Hey, you hosers...this is what you do, eh?"

 

We are still in a economic depression down here in Florida and the only reason why it isn't showing as badly as the Great Depression, at least regionally down here, is debt is being floated by debt as well as all of the free services being passed out which is only causing more debt. Shame no one studied history in Washington and saw that creating jobs on a massive level and jobs that range from planting trees, building dams to public art were the steps in the right direction.

 

Well...

We could cut our deficit in half if we only spent 24 billion on our military like Canada can. That is not realistic, of course, but anyone who thinks over 700 billion dollars in military spending per year is sustainable is deluding themselves, IMO. Same with those who think we can keep all those 'temporary' tax cuts forever.

 

Employment rates for new college graduates have fallen sharply in the last two years, as have starting salaries for those who can find work. What’s more, only half of the jobs landed by these new graduates even require a college degree, reviving debates about whether higher education is “worth it” after all.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/business/economy/19grads.html?_r=1

Be interesting if the youth vote from last election will even turn out this time since their false messiah falied them.

 

Creating jobs like planting trees, building dams, etc. is definitely something I'd support.

I made a comment long ago, to David I think, about how funding for communities has a net benefit. People need work, and would be willing to do meanial tasks, like picking garbage off the sides of roads, cleaning parks, etc. for minimum wage. Those wages then get spent locally, growing the local economy. It can be self-sustaining, and can create additional jobs, but an initial investment (along with proper management) needs to be introduced to get the ball rolling.

 

Yep, I was trying to remember what other cuts Canada made, and defense was a biggie, cut by 10% a year if I remember right. I don't see Congress loving that idea, but defense spending should lessen after we pull out of Afghanistan...though we'll still be giving them billions a year. If I heard right, the Pentagon appears to understand the need for some downsizing...so maybe they'll be on board for something similar in the U.S. ...after the pull-out of course.

 

Leaving Reagan (a different false messiah ) out of it... I understood at a very early age that upper education's benefits are limited by circumstances beyond our control, that they are susceptable to down-turns on the economic front, and were therefore over-rated.

Not that it doesn't have a lot of up-sides...it does, and is far better than not having it...but IMO, it's over-hyped, the jobs waiting for graduates is more of a crap-shoot than any real guarantee of success.

Without higher education though, a person can expect a much more difficult life...a life always on the edge.

Higher education, when it works for someone, is well worth the costs involved with attaining it. Even when it doesn't provide the job expected, it usually provides better access to whatever lower-paying jobs are available...not counting meanial labor like day-laborers or jobs where employers prefer someone who desperately needs work and isn't likely to quit.

Believe me, I wish I had been able to afford more college...life on the edge sucks lol

 

"Hell Day" for BO (borrowed that from Drudge):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...0023931752902.html?mod=WSJ_Home_largeHeadline

It's such a shame we all have to pay for BO's folly...If we had elected anyone else in '08 we would be past all of this now & well on the road to recovery!!

 

Perhaps Comrade Obama will just indefinitely detain (http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/NDAA) the Republican and Independent voters this fall to ensure a victory in November by voters like this one:

 

This nation needs another Ronnie.

 

Singular? How about a whole string of them?

 

Under Reagan, my family (that was living on the edge) slipped a little closer to that edge, but thankfuly we were teenagers by that time and could find menial work like mowing lawns, shoveling snow and paper routes. That helped offset some of the food assistance that was reduced during Reagan's terms.

But your question had more to do with higher education and the jobs available to graduates than the treatment of the poor, and that's something I'm less familiar with. The economy is the biggest factor in availability of jobs, and I do know a bit about that aspect. But first, to college:

I believe a college degree was quite easier to attain financially in the 80s, some 25 to 30 years ago. Taking inflation into account, which has probably halved the value of a dollar since then, I wonder if it was cheaper for anything back then or now.

I'm guessing back then, since inflation works for the benefit of businesses, and not consumers. I also get the sense there were more jobs available for graduates back then (as a rate of graduates and not the number of graduates), but I can't say that is an accurate statement since I really don't know the figures.

I do know government assistance for college has dwindled over that time period, putting more burden on students today than in the past, and that is an issue. It's also true that jobs are more scarce today, but that is to be expected after the single worst recession since the 1930s.

The effects of the recession have a long-lasting effect on the economy, likely no less than a decade to recover...likely double that before we stop worrying about it, and go about our day whistling and thinking happy thoughts. Until then, most large businesses will be too scared to do any significant investing or spending, they feel it's too risky, and that ultimately means less jobs available.

The good news is that we are about three years out of the worst part of the recession...and at a point where stabilization can occur...where businesses occasionally peek their heads out and look around a bit, but I'd say it'll still be a few years before they decide to actually leave their building and go for a walk...spending some of that cash they've been hoarding. When they start doing that, jobs start becoming available.

Now, I don't mean to anger you here, but Ronnie wouldn't make much of a difference in today's economic climate. Sure, he could loosen regulations and offer incentives... to convince some of those businesses to come out of their shells... but they'd only be out long enough to cash those corporate welfare checks and stuff 'em into their accounts, before returning to their buildings to wait for the next check. Few substantive jobs would be created, and the nation's debt would increase.

Ronnie could reduce spending for social programs, but that ultimately stalls an economy, since it's the people on the edge that spend every cent they make...lower the amount of money they have to spend means lowering the amount of money sustaining the economy, causing a stall. People on the edge don't hoard money like big business does, they can't afford to.

Ronnie might lower taxes...but if I remember right, taxes are pretty damn low, maybe lower than they have ever been...so I doubt there's much more lowering that can be done that will still allow the government to operate...aside from corporate taxes, something I'm less familiar with but understand that others consider it as an option that is feasable.

What else would Ronnie do? What else could he do? I'm not trying to burst your bubble on the hero worship thing, but really...what do you think he could do that would actually work in today's economy? From my point of view, there's very little that he could do that might help, and a great many things he could do that might make it worse.

From my perspective, time is the biggest factor here...aside from policy, and I don't see any policy of Reagan's that would speed up the recovery in any subtantial way. Reduced spending is a desirable option, notably in defense...something Reagan would abhor. Elimination of subsidies for big businesses is also an option, but big business and Congress are intertwined in a way that prevents those subsidies from even being considered as an option... not that Congress is even functional at the moment. Again, I doubt Reagan would push for those reductions in subsidies, but if he did... do you think Congress would act? I don't.

 

That's the idea!! You should work instead of relying on assistance when you can (& obviously you could).

 

Hey, RLM! That's another great new avatar! Keep up the good work!

 

Until the man learns to talk civilly, ........