It's the Economy, stupid - Languishing & Lingering after the Great Recession

Nope, most of the federal tax is being used for things like the general fund, the deficit, leaking undergound tanks, and the once again the budget.
The biggest jumps were all under Republican presidents.
Now most states have their own taxes but if they're like Jersey they steal the money meant for the roads to balance the budget.

Federal Gas Tax Passes Another Milestone: What Is The Future? - Forbes

 

Ace.... a significant factor is the loss of jobs in the public sector since 2010, when Republican governors and legislators made it their mission to balance budgets on the back of teachers, police/fire, prison workers, etc. while providing tax cuts to the wealthiest and to corporations.

While total private sector jobs has increased by more than 2-1/2 million over the last year, states cut over 1 million education workers (another 300,00+ local education workers) in the same period .

Why are red states balancing their budgets on the backs of teachers?

I also agree on the infrastructure funding, where the need right now is critical and where in the past, such funding has always been bipartisan and proven to create jobs.
--- merged: May 6, 2014 at 11:48 AM ---
BTW, I also think it is just a bit disengenous for Republicans to start referencing the alternative (U5 and U6) unemployment numbers to attempt to make a case that the recovery is weaker than the official U3 would indicate. The U3 rate has been the official rate since Carter, but you guys like the change the rules in the middle of the game.

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

Every measure of unemployment is down (including U5 and U6) since Obama took office. You can expand this chart back to the Bush years if you would like to see the specifics. U6 now at 12,3 percent was over 17 percent in Jan 09.

 

Then those Republican Presidents failed. If we can find them I posted my disappointment with Bush on domestic economic policy, believing he basicially supported too much government spending, and I was absolutely opposed to his initial financial bailout plan. In fact, there was a clear conflict of interest, with his Treasury Secretary being a former Goldman Sachs CEO and the plan he drafted basically placing Goldman first in line to get there assess covered!

And,

I will say this President has failed in the area of domestic economic policy! His failures are not just failures, they are loaded with hypocrisy. I kind of expected Bush to be pro-tax cut, pro-oil, proactive militarily, etc - Obama was anti-all those things only to do more for big business than any other recent President. Examples include - GM, big banks, health insurance, GE
--- merged: May 6, 2014 at 4:58 PM ---

What option did they have? Raise taxes during the great recession?

Or, let's really look at what happened and what was predicted. Increased Federal money went to states as short-term fixes. The short-term fixes did not work.

I agree private sector job growth is trending in the right direction. The reason it took so long was the uncertainty created by the folks in DC. Now that the rules of Obamacare, debt limit, Federal Budget, taxes, global warming regulations, etc. are becoming less of an uncertainty business is more comfortable with business projections and hiring. If we had a laser focus starting in 2008 the economy would be in a trend of strong growth. Even today, we are getting the reports of downward revisions of the first quarter GDP - growth was negative. We may actually be in another recession ( the reporting has a tail or there is a lag in the data).

There are several factors in play - do you seriously want to go through them?

Didn't was pass a special bill on this a few years ago - targeting "shovel ready jobs"? Is infrastructure funding turning into a cliche? I was in the DC area, last month - I saw plenty of infrastructure spending in DC - I doubt there was a major road traveled without some form of construction somewhere along the road.

The difference is in the spike in those leaving the work force. The U3 unemployment number has become less meaningful - read transcripts of Janet Yellen the new Fed Chair - does she have any credibility on the subject in your view? She has been asked about this many times.

Here’s what Janet Yellen’s economic ‘macro dashboard’ looks like | AEIdeas
--- merged: May 6, 2014 at 5:31 PM ---

Let data speak for itself.

Jobs increase by 288,000 in April. Unemployment rate falls to 6.3%. But labor force falls sharply

I can not agree to a coincidental correlation. At best I can a agree there are other factors in play, not the current President's fault.

My point is not that the circumstances are the same, but that Canada solved a challenging and complicated problem in a manner resulting in a system most Canadian are happy with.

I am not sure I understand the difference, but if you call it political will I can live with that.

That is the clear role of leadership. If we all agreed, if we were all programed to come to the same conclusion, why would we need leadership?

The political climate will change when courageous people make it change. Look at all major historical change in this country - at the core we always have needed a few people with the courage and conviction to force change. Again, I see Obama holding the passive view you present - it is not what I want in a President. I can follow a leader, even when I disagree. I can not follow when an appointed leader lacks conviction.

If we get into the details, I would support a basic plan for all citizens with them having the option to purchase supplemental plans in the free market. To me this is not hybrid it is a free market type system on top of a single payer plan. If this is what Canada has I would not consider it a hybrid.

I would never expect (public or private) a plan to cover everything - no questions. There will always be some form of a death panel.

This is not clear to me. Let me ask a question in the form of a hypercritical:

Assume you are either public or private, in authority to make a decision. The patient is going to die, but spending $1 million will extend life for 1 hour.

Would you authorize spending the money?
Would you authorize the patient or the patient's family to spend their own money or money through a purchased supplement of some type?

Would the answers be the same realizing that regardless of the money needed resources would not be available to others?
What factors do you consider in making the decision.

I will state my view. I would not authorize the spending or the use of the resources (unless the use of the resources would not have an impact on others, which would not be likely) - in a system built on a public foundation. In a private system I would cede there is no public sector involvement at all. In a hybrid system I have no idea how the decision would be made in a consistently fair manner.

 

Ace, thank you for acknowledging the fact that the 07 recession, the "great recession," was much deeper than the previous two mild recessions.

Yes to states raising taxes on the top 1 percent (or at least not cutting taxes)...it is called a balanced approach.

Within four months of stimulus money being expended, the economy started adding jobs again and has for every quarter (perhaps with one or two exceptions) for the last 4+ years

The original stimulus bill (1/3 grants, 1/3 tax breaks for small business and middle income, 1/3 social program extension - UI, SNAP..) had very little infrastructure spending. Republican senators blocked the major infrastructure bill that followed in 2011, despite the widespread consensus that it would bring a 2:1 return on the cost through significant increase in jobs.

See above. Yellen also explained why the 09 recession was "greater" than previous mild recessions.

The longer term problem is that the Republicans have offered nothing to deal with the need to restructure the economy other than more of the same failed supply side policies.

We should be investing in education, infrastructure, R&D/technology development (clean energy, medical, etc), and, more importantly, on workforce development and training )or retraining) workers so that they have the skills for 21st century jobs.

 

What the Fed has done has been unprecedented. The consequences have yet to be fully experienced. Generations from now they will study what happened like we study the Great Depression - mistakes were made then and I suspect mistakes have been ad are being made now. We could have avoided the Great Depression and/or shortened its duration - the "great recession" was caused. I argue caused by public policy makers, including the housing crisis. I don't dispute the "great recession" - I actively question what we are doing about it. I can not look at this through rose colored glasses simply because Obama may be a well intentioned, nice guy.

Republican have no power to get legislation enacted, Republicans are in the position of responding to the agenda of the Democrats. I don't understand what you expect of a minority party that does not have the WH.
--- merged: May 7, 2014 at 7:29 PM ---

Assuming you are still discussing the 800,000 who left the labor force, let's take a step back, away from the details in numbers. According to the Speaker, on many occasions, on of the stated goals of the ACA was to free people from being force to work because of health insurance. To me the data shows a degree of success. Is this what we dispute?

My first response to data like the above is that when we have periods of explosive innovation, i.e. the dawn of the industrial age, the dawn of the information age, we will see greater income disparity as innovators reap disproportionate profits from their work and this dissipates over time in competitive environments. My premise is there is a pattern, a cycle. Perhaps one day I will ask for a government grant to prove my premise - perhaps qualify for a Nobel Prize in economics. Remember you read about it here first.

 

Again, I am glad you agree that the 07 recession was far greater than previous mild recessions. Most economists that I have heard are in agreement that the action by the Fed, along with the stimulus program, were the best possible response...preventing further tanking of the economy and 4+ years of steady (albeit slow) economic growth (and jobs)...certainly better than the a failed supply sided policy.

And your revisionist history of the great depression is nothing more than looking through ideological glasses.

One only need look at Ryan's annual budget proposals and Republican demands for slashing the budget in the name of debt reduction w/o regard to the impact on individuals and the economy to have a pretty good sense of their policies.

Rehashing and repackaging Reagan policies -- supply side economics, slashing social programs and R&D and eliminating most regulations -- is not a strategy that addresses the need to better compete in a global 21st century economy. Where are their proposals for education reform, workforce development (training/retraining), investment in technology innovation and ANYTHING that would contribute to economic growth, particularly to the benefit of the middle class, rather than the top one percent?

 

Yes, 800,000 might have 'left' the workforce. But according to that retirement investment advertisement, 10,000 baby boomers are retiring every single day now. That is 300,000 right there. Now, if they are financially prepared for retirement, that is another issue. How many of those are women who want to raise their family and stay at home instead of work? How many are people like me, who if I did lose my job, I would take a well deserved vacation for the next year at least?

Now, the long term unemployed and the unemployable are a big problem. There are a bunch of other problems in society and government to deal with in order to get the people who want a job, but are crushed by the inefficient job searching process to find the right job. Saving up money when you do have a job comes in very handy during periods of unemployment and reducing expenses when dealing with huge corporations and oil companies is the best way to save.

 

According to the Speaker at the time the bill passed, one intent was to give people the option to leave the workforce rather than be forced to work because of the need for a group health insurance policy through an employer. In direct answer to your question, yes.

More broadly, this issue, one of incentives to work or not work comes up frequently in social welfare programs. My position is that people generally make what they believe to be rational choices. A rational short-term choice is often in conflict with a rational long-term choice. Incentives can easily be set up to convince people to make what they believe are rational short-term choices - in essence encouraging poor long-term decisions. Example, a single mother without the capacity to care for a child can be encouraged to keep the child rather than giving the child up for adoption based on social welfare - resulting in a sub-standard life for the child and mother - where if the mother gave the child up for adoption, got an education, got a good job, child goes to a good home, gets a good education, etc. , a cycle of poverty can be broken. In the short-term the social welfare to keep mother and child together may appear to be a strong rational choice. Is it in the long-term? Given 50 years of a failed war on poverty, I argue our social welfare approach in these circumstances have failed and has lead to or encouraged people into making the wrong choices. In other example I can point to incentives that encourage people into make better choices. My bias is to long-term thinking and what is best in the long-term. Many do not share my bias.
--- merged: May 14, 2014 at 8:27 AM ---

"Most economists" - that is vague. If we poll most carpenters presented with the same problem, most would agree, perhaps simply because they all view the problem the same way - doesn't mean they would be right! At some point in the future the financial crisis will be objectively studied - today is not that day.

Can you be specific? What the hell are you talking about. Or are we simply playing a game. How is this - your revisionist history of the French Revolution is totally absurd. O.k., now what?
--- merged: May 14, 2014 at 8:29 AM ---

Oh, is it an issue of importance or not?

 

50 years?
First off I refuse to call it a war. If it was a war we would apply the same budget we use for the freaking military and it doesn't even come to 5%.
Second Johnson got a couple years of his term at full funding and then Nixon took over who promptly rolled back funding.
The attempt to battle poverty in this country has been halfassed and pisspoor ever since LBJ announced it.
I respected Clinton but didn't vote for him the second time based on welfare 'reform'.
It was a terrible mess and has led to major problems that we are seeing the results of now.
If this country went to a European model of support of the dole, if nothing else we wouldn't have kids going to bed hungry.

 

I readily admit that I am not nearly as intelligent on this topic as the rest of you appear to be, and I only scanned through what most of you have written in the past. So, with that in mind, realize that what follows are the ramblings of an "ignorant" person who has not fully studied before attempting to recite the Gettysburg Address.
It seems to me that the issues at hand in this country, both financial and political, are the resultant from the policy makers in both worlds attempting to maintain their "personal" interests. We have an issue with hording in this country. We all know how the economy is supposed to work; people get jobs, people buy things, businesses make money, and the businesses hire more people. Government is the same; a law is presented to the House for consideration, it's good for the economy/people/governance/foreign policy, pass it up to Senate, pass it to the president for signature, BAM new law. This is simple 1+1+1+1=4 stuff that a four year old can figure out. The problem is that the businesses are too concerned about maintaining their corporate salaries and satisfying shareholders to take the money they are making to increase the work force. The politicians in office now are more concerned about pushing for their individual or group ideals/incomes to allow a decent bill to pass without tacking on amendments to the benefit of private interests. I don't think you can blame a president for what happens during his presidency when the members from the opposing party publicly state that it is their full intention to work against him to prove that he was the wrong person for the office. Sorry about that, wrong board.
I believe that the financial system (stock market) in this country has become a corruptive influence on how businesses and individuals handle finances. I look at stock "values" such as IBM or Apple and wonder how many shares would you actually need to own to get a positive return on the investment at the end of the year without selling stock? We have system based on algorithms that I will never understand that determine the value of a fraction of a percent of ownership that some yahoo in Fargo has in a company. On the most basic of scales it makes sense you pay money to X and you own a piece of the pie, got it. Where I lose my shit, figuratively, is when you look at the scale of it all. Look at the number of uninformed knuckle-dragging reprobates like me jumping on to the interwebs, purchasing/managing their money on sites like Scotts, Etrade, or whatever other companies there are, and they fuck up the economy because they hit the wrong button. I know that is exaggeration, it is meant to be. All in all, our finances are screwed because companies seem to have forgotten that in order to increase profits that need to increase purchase spending power. You have to feed the machine instead of diverting extra cash into individual pockets.
I was going to rant about the political system and its flaws, but I'm getting tired and this is the wrong board. SO, in summary, blame your parents for creating the antigovernment movement in the 60s and for fostering distrust in how the government works. This has lead those taking power in feeling they can abuse said power for their own benefit because that is what politicians are supposed to do. They have screwed up our health care, finances, social security funds, and our government... Thanks mom and dad.