Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama Bouncing Back, According to Multiple Pollsters (131 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yeah, go ahead and celebrate, but the numbers are (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lockewasright

    fluff compared to the pain of the growing jobless with very disappointing performance of the Administration in the are of job creation.
    Teacherken and Bob Hebert are not so excited:

    Herbert offers us some grim statistics:

    ....  15 million officially unemployed

    ....  1.3 jobless for more than 6 months

    ....  13% of Latinos and 15% of Blacks,  

    and

    I asked in my title to Remember how we got here.   We lived through 8 years of a massive transfer of wealth from the middle and working classes to the wealthy, in the forms of unpaid for tax breaks for the wealthy, in unregulated financial markets that repeatedly destroyed the life savings of hard-working people.  It did not start with the collapse of Lehman Brothers a year ago.  That was not the warning signal.  Think back to the collapse of Enron.  Think of what we learned about how that company had manipulated the energy market in California to the point where it cost Gray Davis his governorship and gave the state Arnie as his replacement.  

    And so on.

    But yeah, we should celebrate our successes. Just want more help for the jobless, but not old petrol economy shove ready, new sustainable jobs.

    •  I see two different issues when I look at the (0+ / 0-)

      economy.  Whether it is recovering (just to collapse again and not provide the middle class with any gains anyway) and whether it is sustainable.

      Politically, good news regarding our next short lived recovery is...well... good news.  However, it's not really what I want.  We need to restructure ours to be an economy that benefits the middle class and creates sustainable jobs that don't get offshored. (hint: green energy economy)  I don't confuse one with the other.  I also don't see my desire for the second issue as a good reason to ignore positive data regarding the first issue.

      Some around here are obsessed with doing so.

      Picture a bright blue ball just spinnin' spinnin' free. It's dizzy with possibility.

      by lockewasright on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 09:17:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Like what you write, just keeps coming back (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lockewasright

        up to me that we are spending lots of money to climb back up the ladder of economic success, only to find it up against the wrong wall.

        So what does good news mean? Recovery? Recovery to the Bush years level of success? Clinton years?

        JeromeaParis: "Unprecedented Prosperity

        We keep on being told that the current crisis should not lead to a paradigm change, because, while it lasted, the financial services-led growth led to unprecedented prosperity for all.

        Can we please kill once and for all that myth? As the most recent census numbers show, real median household incomes have been stagnant over the past 10 years. Either the prosperity did not exist, or it was not shared. Either way, the vast majority of people never saw it.

        Sorry for the down tone...

        •  For all? Really?! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          divineorder

          We keep on being told that the current crisis should not lead to a paradigm change, because, while it lasted, the financial services-led growth led to unprecedented prosperity for all.

          Recovery (GDP growth and small gains in employment/wages) means good political fortunes for the dems because they will claim credit (and maybe be deserving too.  We did do the stimulus afterall), but ever since that B movie actor and illegal arms dealer started this reverse Robin Hood economic policy and then it got coupled with the freemarket/deregulation fetish we have been on an unsustainable path that leaves the middle class destitute and also leaves a consumer driven economy with consumers too damn broke to do enough consuming.

          "For all" my arse!  We need to overhaul the system.  Perhaps the president is right and we need to go into recovery first (stop the bleeding), but the overhaul has to come or it'll all just be part of a redundant cycle.

          Picture a bright blue ball just spinnin' spinnin' free. It's dizzy with possibility.

          by lockewasright on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 09:44:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I read the stimulus package (6+ / 0-)

      in great detail.

      There was about $90 Billion in green spending in it.  It is the largest single green expenditure in human history. It was not big enough for me (I would have doubled it) but I don't think Obama gets enough credit for the amount that is in there.

      I am not optimistic about the economy in general, but there are a coupld of numbers that suggest that it isn't getting worse, and that may be helping Obama.

      The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

      by fladem on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 09:21:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  One more thing about the stim package (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        askew, jj32, Matt Z, PorridgeGun

        Most of the spending is designed for 2010. Knowing that jobs are usually the lagging factor in any recovery, it was a smart thing to do.

        "Where all Obama's people to help him with this now? He is like Michael Jordan on a VERY, VERY, VERY bad team". - Bill Maher.

        by blackwaterdog on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 09:26:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Pres speech to AFL CIO was instructive, and (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Superribbie

          I loved the fact he embraced the unions. Such a change from Bush Admin.
          http://www.post-gazette.com/...
          Read Hebert for balance

          Consider this: Some 9.4 million new jobs would have to be created to get us back to the level of employment at the time that the recession began in December 2007. But last month, we lost 216,000 jobs. If the recession technically ends soon and we get to a point where some modest number of jobs are created — say, 100,000 or 150,000 a month — the politicians and the business commentators will celebrate like it’s New Year’s.

          But think about how puny that level of job creation really is in an environment that needs nearly 10 million jobs just to get us back to the lean years of the George W. Bush administration.

          I want the President's numbers to go back up. His economic team should focus more on job creation. IMHO

    •  I keep pointing out. (0+ / 0-)

      The question is whether the economy has started to grow again.
      And that is a real question; the jury is still out on that one. OTOH, that it is even a sensible question is an improvement from the last quarter.

      Nobody is claiming that we have recovered. Nobody. So posting: "You say that the recvery has begun, but really, we haven't recovered yet," says more about your reading skills than about thepost you are replying to.

      If "con" is the antonym of "pro," what is teh antonym of "progress"?

      by Frank Palmer on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 09:42:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Heh. My reading skills? Nice attack, bubba. Wrong (0+ / 0-)

        "No one is claiming we are have recovered."

        And I did not say anyone had, asswipe.

        I am just interested in redefining how we will know what recovery is, what the indicators will be.

        Like what lockwasright wrote above:

        Perhaps the president is right and we need to go into recovery first (stop the bleeding), but the overhaul has to come or it'll all just be part of a redundant cycle.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site