Skip to main content

Here's an updated look at Pelosi aide Karina Newton's famous chart on job growth under President Bush and the Republicans versus President Obama and the Democrats, focusing this time exclusively on private sector jobs:

Private Sector Recovery from Bush-Republican Recession

My point here isn't to say the everything is okay in the economy. It obviously isn't. Even though we gained 83,000 private sector jobs last month, we lost over 200,000 overall thanks to the loss of Census Bureau employment.

But when Republicans decry the latest jobs report, as they surely will, remember that they are decrying the loss of government jobs. And even though they love to say that government jobs aren't real jobs, their outrage over this jobs report is their way of admitting they were wrong about that.

The thing is, it's the Republicans that have blocked Democrats at every stage in our efforts to accelerate this recovery. Ever since Bush left office and the Republicans lost power, things have been heading in the right direction. But it's true, the recovery needs to move more quickly, and the biggest thing slowing us down are the Republicans who are getting in the way, blocking Democratic efforts to extend unemployment benefits and deliver aid to states struggling to keep public servants employed.

Democrats can and should take credit for the recovery that we've had even while recognizing that it's not enough. We need more of what's gotten us this far, not less. And the Republicans are fighting that every step of the way.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 08:54 AM PDT.


Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Great observation: (6+ / 0-)

    Ever since Bush left office and the Republicans lost power, things have been heading in the right direction.

    The Republican brand: "Consequences, schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich"

    by D in Northern Virginia on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 08:55:40 AM PDT

  •  democrats should be our friends (9+ / 0-)
    they should be forcing the house and senate to remain in session until the republicans learn what no really means.  Starving children, homeless veterans, do I need to go on?

    If the Senate especially does not go into session and remain in session their entire recess, don't be surprised to see huge losses.  

    They have an opportunity of a lifetime with this election to make gains in the make the Joe Liebermans insignificant again.  

    Keep the senate in session, make the republicans sweat.  Let them filibuster.  Sit back and let them go and go and go.

    Republicans===the party of the 1% rich people in America. Or in other words..The Party of NO!

    by jalapeno on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 08:57:43 AM PDT

  •  Well said Jed (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    4Freedom, rainmanjr

    If we could get some honesty out of our spineless Democrats and some journalism out of our media, the Republicans would really be in between a rock and a hard place.

    But even if we could trap Republicans in the corner they've put themselves in, the job picture is still crap and needs to improve.

  •  Hmmm. Shaky, Jed. (4+ / 0-)

    I'd love to buy into this narrative.  But the fact is, the teabaggers aren't that stupid as to get caught in that net.

    They go straight for "The stimulus hasn't worked from the beginning" and skip all of the micro minutae this report offers.

    Believe me ... when Rush gives them the talking points for Monday (Tuesday if its a holiday) ... it won't include making the mistake of crying about the loss of government jobs.

    They may be stupid...and they may be crazy...but they're not...


    ...without writers.

    "The term 'Sloppy Joe' takes on new meaning...once your tribe descends into cannibalism." - Stephen Colbert

    by Detroit Mark on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:00:21 AM PDT

  •  David Leonhardt in the NYTimes (7+ / 0-)

    "economy needs help."

    That's what this jobs report means.  We've got to pass that second stimulus, now.

  •  Bikini Graph (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    litho, Dragon5616

    ...not the boring "chart".

    Here we are now Entertain us I feel stupid and contagious

    by Scarce on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:01:06 AM PDT

  •  As Good as that is (3+ / 0-)

    The upswing does not make up for the loss of jobs, and there is that ever present risk of a double dip recession.  Austerity and cat-food commissions will only make this worse, we need a second stimulus and unemployment extensions NOW.  What better time is there to use the nuclear option and finally end minority rule in the Senate?

    We all went to heaven in a little rowboat, and there was nothing to fear and nothing to doubt. --Radiohead

    by Tzimisce on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:03:07 AM PDT

    •  Yes But We Also Need Not to Have a Republican (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      legislature next year.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:12:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well it is a cross-roads (0+ / 0-)

        Either pass meaningful legislation to help with joblessness (which can only be done without the help of Republicans and Blue Dogs) or lose many seats in the upcoming election.  The only option I see is to end or radically change the filibuster rules.

        We all went to heaven in a little rowboat, and there was nothing to fear and nothing to doubt. --Radiohead

        by Tzimisce on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:17:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The bikini is coming untied on the right side? nt (5+ / 0-)

    January 20, 2009: Oxygen returns.

    by quiet in NC on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:03:31 AM PDT

  •  the Republican plan (9+ / 0-)

    In my lifetime is the following:

    1)Screw up the economy
    2)Lose enough elections to blame Democrats
    3)Block any attempt to fix what they broke
    4)Regain power by blaming Dems for not fixing it.

    Lather, rinse repeat.
    Hopefully the voters won't fall for it again.

    The  best way to win this election is to force every Republican to say what they will do if they are elected.

    "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan

    by atlliberal on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:03:37 AM PDT

  •  All is well. Don't worry. Look at this chart! (7+ / 0-)


    it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

    by Addison on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:06:04 AM PDT

  •  Political suicide to run on "Recovery". (13+ / 0-)
    Democrats were elected on the "horse" of the Great Recession and should be riding that horse through the 2010 election. Claiming "We saved the economy" as Biden did was political suicide.

    No one is feeling "saved".

    We are in the greatest economic crisis in the last 100 years.

    It is due to GOP policy of Reaganomics, deficits, deregulation and lobbyists.

    It will take us years to save the US from Reaganomics disaster.

    Democrats should be charging ahead, killing filibuster, more stimulus, taxing the rich, taxing oil to help working Americans and America recover from Reaganomics.

    Democrats should be saying we might not make it. That the GOP's body blows to US economy are severe.

    Selling a "recovery" that no but the wealthiest in American is benefiting from is political suicide.

  •  A problem is that the Democrats... (14+ / 0-)

    ...have not been seeking to deliver aid to states struggling to keep public servants employed. Republicans ARE being obstructionist, their economic policies in the Cheney-Bush years were awful, Obama inherited this mess. All true. But the Democrats have been lethargic on the jobs front. Stimulus spending's effect on GROWTH is no over, and its overall effect is rapidly rapidly fading. The jobs summit of last December - with all the good ideas put forth then - has been forgotten. Next month ANOTHER 200,000 or so Census jobs will be lost.

    This is a serious situation, for the 7.9 million lost jobs since December 2007, for the 14.6 million officially out of work, for the 15 million underemployed, for many of the 652,000 who left the job force last month, for the 6.8 million who have been unemployed for six months or more, and, finally, for Democratic incumbents in districts with high unemployment.

    We need a better message than we've been delivering.

    Haley Barbour: "No one has more to lose in this deal than BP."

    by Meteor Blades on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:10:05 AM PDT

    •  I wonder what percentage of Americans, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Meteor Blades, goinsouth, farbuska

      watching the TV news, have even the faintest glimmer of understanding of the contradiction that the number of jobs supposedly goes way down--and so does the unemployment rate!

      That 652,000 number is incredibly ominous.

    •  The Dems Deliver the Message They Intend (8+ / 0-)

      They're a conservative party, they don't approve of all that New Deal crap.

      If a better message is needed, WE have to figure a way to make contact with the Americans, and start pushing it somehow ourselves. That's what the radical right did 40-30 years ago via direct mail and the physical and airwaves pulpits.

      Blogging to move the media has worked out about the same as congressional progressives lobbying to move the blue dogs.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:16:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sadly all correct. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Paul Goodman, politicjock, farbuska

        Democrats don't believe in the New Deal, but they most certainly do believe in the VooDoo of Ronnie's trickle down.

        Taxation of wealth is the answer to all of this.

        Make the wealthy suffer, a tiny bit and the economy rebounds. But today's Democratic Party is loathe to do that.

        James Carville emerges from the conflagration, riding a burning alligator.

        by shpilk on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:21:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well the problem is supply side worked (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shpilk, goinsouth, farbuska

          It increased the amount of money the supply side had.  Meanwhile we had aggressive and I would say an evil assault on the "demand" side in the form of lost wages, lost jobs, and a besieged and now endangered Middle Class.  No demand, except for the predatory products of a ruling elite.

          Taxing to recoup some of those incredible gains would be a start, but we also need to at least past EFCA and perhaps do more to put labor and the other 90% of Americans in a stronger position in this economy.

          We all went to heaven in a little rowboat, and there was nothing to fear and nothing to doubt. --Radiohead

          by Tzimisce on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:25:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I was speaking about "We" not in the sense... (0+ / 0-)

        ...of we Democrats, but in the sense of we progressives. But I agree with you.

        Haley Barbour: "No one has more to lose in this deal than BP."

        by Meteor Blades on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:40:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  the problem isn't our message (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        its our policy. Which has been lousy, for all the reasons Meteor Blades listed. The stimulus was way too small.

        Our 'message' should be in the form of lower unemployment. If people don't feel confident in their checkbook, they won't feel confident in their president.

    •  Apparently... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Meteor Blades, Brooke In Seattle

      ...the jobs of teachers and police officers and health department workers aren't as important, somehow, in the job gain/loss algorithm they're currently calculating.

      And saving (easily save-able) jobs is put on the backburner while trying to create new ones, many times more expensive, is (half-heartedly) pursued.

      You've got to get currently unemployed people making RVs and tractors in Indiana or you've failed, I guess.  

      it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

      by Addison on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:27:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  well.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Nobody is buying into the "saved" jobs line so it's a losing bet.  And the public is outraged about the pay of public sector workers. Particularly places like Chicago where the teachers union is not willing to do a pay freeze for one year, so 2500 teachers will be out of work.  Not good publicity for the cause.  

        We're better off running against what life is like with Republican leadership. We don't have too much to hang out hat on, economy wise.

        •  yeah, the public sector finally gets to the point (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Meteor Blades

          where the private sector used to be, and everyone howls. Teachers I guess should go back to working in one-room little red school houses, which they clean and maintain, carry an oak stick for discipline ( no need for expensive vice principals )and be fired every five years as they once were when their salaries got too high, or when they got pregnant. And to make them even more affordable, let's do Teach For America one better and dispense with the requirement of even a college degree. And teachers should put a little money away each year so as not to burden the state with a long term pension. They could invest their money in stocks...right? It's amazing the shit the public will swallow when they are on their asses and the powers that be convince them that the cause of their suffering is their overpaid public servants who live next door....but it's sorta working for the fat man in NJ, didn't know about Il...and Andy Cuomo's spooning the same shit in NY in his campaign speeches, so is Paterson.

    •  Also political suicide..... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Pretty much every newscast, at least in IL, is painting public servants as overpaid and whiny.  The message is out that public-sector workers have extremely low unemployment, while private sector ones are drowning.  I'm afraid any more money sent to states is going to be looked VERY poorly by the general population.

      •  you think if people hear (0+ / 0-)

        "no cuts necessary at the school district due to the second stimulus package" they will cringe? Some of the best publicity the first stimulus got was when universities, schools and other populat institutions announced that they would not have the make the cuts they had been planning on.

        •  not 2009 anymore (0+ / 0-)

          The tide has changed since the money went out last time to save teachers jobs.  The RIGHT hasn't even really had to try that hard.  It's just been public blunders on the part of the teachers unions.  IN Chicago, they pretty much turned the entire state against teachers when they wouldn't accept a pay freeze for one year.

          This doesn't go over well when your state is among the most likely to default AND you have double digit unemployment.

          •  ok, so then IL could choose to starve them (0+ / 0-)

            but not cut the other services that can't be as hated as the goddamnawful IL school system. The stimulus still looks good.

            Though it's all a stupid hypothetical though because Obama dropped the ball and there's never going to be another stimulus, at least not anytime soon.

          •  If they take a pay freeze.... (0+ / 0-)

            would it be ok then to open their contracts up during good times and give them an unscheduled raise? Yeah, i didn't think so....

            •  Contract or not.... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              That's the unions argument, and it's a valid one, that their contract was in place.  The problem is that the general public doesn't seem to care.  People don't have contracts for their employment with scheduled raises.  

              You're dealing with an irrational public.  You can explain all day that a contract was in place.  They see it as a worthy sacrifice to forgo a raise for a year when you're employed by the state which is practically bankrupt.

              But even so, the money isn't coming from the states that the districts were promised.  So it's not a game of chicken...people are either taking pay freezes or getting fired.  

              •  I know, I see it here in NJ (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                but understand, the pay freezes that some districts agreed to here did not save any jobs. The pay freeze argument is being used to help villify the unions; the amount of money saved from pay freezes, at least in NJ, could not save the jobs. Once our local examined it, and the board would not promise to save jobs if we voted for a pay freeze, then we said fuck you we will keep what we've got. You explain to parents why they have to pay for more services. And I am in a town that was dragged through the mud because the union refused to take a pay freeze; it was all over the radio ( right wing radio, the only kind in the metro area )but what was not mentioned is that the union did indeed entertain a pay freeze, but got bupkiss in return.

                •  yeah (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Dirtandiron, leftangler

                  If they didn't promise to save jobs, then I wouldn't go for it either personally.  But if I'm the unions, my number 1 job is protecting my teachers so I'd do what it takes to keep them employed.  But again, it's a poker game.

                  I know in IL the teachers union has the option of freezes or firings.  But they are holding out hope for increased state fundings.  We'll see.

          •  In the district where my wife works... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

   a supervisor of teachers (and has essentially the same contract as they), there have been no pay raises in six years. Nevertheless, furloughs and layoffs are being handed out anyway. And, still, some people are complaining about their cushy circumstances.

            Haley Barbour: "No one has more to lose in this deal than BP."

            by Meteor Blades on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 10:44:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Don't forget where jobs came under Bush (5+ / 0-)

    See the link for the complete story:

    From the NY Times Feb 9, 2008:

    It is not exactly a distinction that he had in mind, but seven years into his presidency, George W. Bush is in line to be the first president since World War II to preside over an economy in which federal government employment rose more rapidly than employment in the private sector.

    That is not because federal government jobs have risen at an unusually rapid rate over the last seven years — although the increase did reverse a substantial decline under Mr. Bush’s most recent predecessor, Bill Clinton.

    Instead, it is because job gains in the private sector were modest even after the economy recovered from the 2001 recession. In 2005, private sector employment rose 2 percent, the best annual growth rate during the Bush administration, but the rate fell to 1.4 percent in 2006 and 0.7 percent in 2007. In contrast, in six of the eight Clinton years growth was above 2 percent.

    the fact that you're right is nothing more than interesting

    by Egg on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:10:17 AM PDT

  •  That Can Be Made Into Bumper Sticker (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jaywillie, Vicky, Greasy Grant

    Clicky enlarge.

    Bit of a stretch but might be useful. God knows we won't see it in campaigns.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:11:07 AM PDT

    •  Don't you see the obvious flaw though? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      scott t, eean

      There are 3 reasons you can't use a graphic like this.....

      1. WE were in control of congress from 2006 on.
      1. You'll never be able to convince people that job losses wouldn't have slowed if you let the cycle take it's course.
      1. Less bad isn't a good idea to run on.  
      •  #1 we were in control of Congress from 2007 on (0+ / 0-)

        The recession began in the fall of 2007.  The policies that contributed to it went into effect long before that.  And Bush's Ownership society was a MAJOR contributing factor.

        #2 It might be a difficult sell, but that doesn't make it any less true.  Economists contribute the stimulus to aiding growth.  Just because ppl are reluctant to believe that doesn't make it less true.

        #3 Less bad?  How about on the right path though more measures are needed?

        •  yeah but... (0+ / 0-)

          #1 The recession began in Dec 2007 officially.  But if you ask joe schmoe on the street, they are more likely to think things got bad during the financial meltdown or Oct 2008.  Things didn't FEEL that bad until then.

          #2 It's a losing battle.  You can't point to monthly job numbers and say the economy is doing better because  job loss has slowed.  The opposition can easily produce a chart that shows the increasing number of unemployeds since we've been in power.

          •  I get what you're saying (0+ / 0-)

            I was just offering some counters.  Consider it a rhetorical exercise. ")

          •  Blaming Republicans is never a losing battle (0+ / 0-)

            Especially when things are clearly their fault.

            Recent Marist poll:

            "Do you think the current economic conditions are mostly something President Obama inherited or are they mostly a result of his own policies?"

            Inherited: 62%
            Result of own policies: 28%
            Unsure: 10%

            People will keep on believing that, because it's obviously true, unless Democrats themselves seem to stop believing it and become unwilling to say it.

            •  true (0+ / 0-)

              I agree that going after republicans is the best bet.  However.....

              I think the public knows that it was Bush's fault.  Frankly, I can't even believe that 28% think it's a result of his started prior to him getting into office!  

              The question is, how do you think obama has handled it? And I think that's the one that matters more.  

              •  He has handled it well (0+ / 0-)

                Look, he got a stimulus passed, that created around 3 million jobs, and we've gone from losing over 700k jobs a month, to where a year later we're creating jobs. Meanwhile, he also got health care reform passed, and did it in a way that lowers the long term deficit.

                Congress, I think has done less well.  They got that much passed, but most places where all of that could have been better, it was really congress at fault more than Obama.  

                I do think Democrats need to do more, but we're not going to get it easily if people really believe that what has been done so far hasn't worked.  It's worked well enough that we could use more of the same.

                If we can go from -700k per month to +100k, then surely we can do more and get to +400k per month, which would get us back to around full employment in 2 years time.

                But graphs like the above are exactly what we need for people to understand that.  Clearly it shows that something has been accomplished, and we just need to continue that trend.

                •  Well.... (0+ / 0-)

                  There's a problem though. Because huge job losses are common in every recession, followed by leveling off, followed by creation.  The problem for Obama, is that creation is coming very slowly and the elections are coming VERY quickly.  I think it's a hard sell, personally, to explain to people that the slow down in job loss is different than its' been in other recessions.

                  Congress has done a good job getting HCR passed despite BIG odds against them.  But let's be honest here, the US public DOES NOT believe that it will lower the deficit.  And honestly, I don't know many progressives that believe that either.  Unfortunately for us, the deficit became a big issue this year.  

      •  Come on (0+ / 0-)

        It's plain as day that job losses wouldn't have slowed if we did nothing.  The fact is things reversed dramatically almost to the very day the stimulus went into effect.

        Stop treating people like they are stupid.

        Voters will understand those facts, and this chart does a good job of helping to make it clear.

  •  This Chart (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    and all of the republican's comments which don't help the american people, should be hung around their necks like a dirty toilet seat...  The visual would make great ad's......

    The man who knows and knows he knows not is a wise man

    by OpherGopher on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:14:39 AM PDT

  •  25% surtax on all stock transactions, (7+ / 0-)

    means tested for those with incomes over $1M,
    15% for those over $500K
    10% for those over $200K

    Start with that.
    Take that money, and start a public works program to:

    improve building insulation

    change out lighting to low energy styles

    plant, harvest and process "non-food" starch and oil bearing plants to produce ethanol and biodiesel

    ramp up and fund the PACE program

    James Carville emerges from the conflagration, riding a burning alligator.

    by shpilk on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:15:04 AM PDT

  •  It's getting disingenuous (8+ / 0-)

    to keep blaming Bush for everything. Democrats were in control of congress for the past 4 years. We controlled the money, regulating power, and budgeting. Bush was a good whipping boy for a time and now the time is up. We need to start fixing and stand behind our fixes. If we don't, the Reps will in November.

    •  It'd Actually be HONEST to Blame Both Bush and (6+ / 0-)

      REAGAN, because they both really ARE still to blame.

      But the Democrats don't want to reverse the Reagan policies we still have.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:19:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama lobbied for the Bailouts as a Senator (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      scott t, farbuska, factscount

      and a candidate.

      Remember when McCain "suspended" his campaign? That was the time, if you cannot recall.

      Obama owns the Bailout along with Bush.

      It was a bad call, and now the price will be paid at the ballot box.

      For the elite there are no material problems, only PR problems. Time for a new elite.

      by Paul Goodman on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:35:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  um no (0+ / 0-)

        Its amazing how people think this way. The bailout saved our asses. It was implemented in a peculiar Republican way: the Government probably should be profiting a lot more then it is now that banks are doing fine.

        But on the whole it was good policy and an unusual display of leadership by Bush.

    •  Yeah (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      scott t, factscount

      It's a total losing argument when we've been in control of congress for 4 years.  The public knows we're running washington and have the numbers, it's a losing argument to keep blaming republicans.  They are what they are, people know that.

      But looking for a scape goat, when we have none, is not helping us.  We need to keep our head down and move forward.

  •  Republican ask "Where are the jobs"? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    acerimusdux, jaywillie, tr GW

    But they do so cynically, and do nothing to solve the problem.

    This is faux populism, just like they blame illegal immigrants for "taking our jobs".

    It's enough to generate anger and outrage and cynicism and fear and frustration and hopelessness and desperation.

    And all those things are good for the GOP brand.

    Full Disclosure: I am not Ben Leming. But I think he's pretty cool.

    by Benintn on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:17:40 AM PDT

    •  I'm also asking it based on simple math (4+ / 0-)

      To create 10 million jobs at $50,000 per job requires an expenditure of 500 billion.

      Look at the money shoveled in to the maw of the Big Banks, the TARP alone was 770 billion, not to mention the trillions in funny money from the Federal Reserve.

      All I'm saying is that we should have let the Big Banks implode and picked up the pieces with FDR style outlays.

      Now the question really is "Where are the jobs?"

      For the elite there are no material problems, only PR problems. Time for a new elite.

      by Paul Goodman on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:33:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm with you. (0+ / 0-)

        I hear you and agree with your point.

        When we put worries about inflation ahead of the needs of working families, we're not doing it right.

        Bernanke needs to do his job much, much better.

        Full Disclosure: I am not Ben Leming. But I think he's pretty cool.

        by Benintn on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 02:10:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Our idiot governor is cutting state jobs (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    and providing a blueprint for other states-- "if that Democrat can do it, so can we."

    Not the time to do it.  How about raising taxes on millionaires?

  •  how can we blame the Republicans for blocking (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    acerimusdux, scott t

    our attempts at recovery, when the stimulus package was about as big as Obama originally asked for? True the stimulus-punch got watered-down with tax cuts. But Obama just didn't go before the American people and ask for the 2-3 trillion  stimulus that it would've taken to bring back employment and create a true healthy recovery that everyone could have confidence in.

  •  If gov. jobs aren't real jobs (5+ / 0-)

    then I guess all the Republicans should resign immediately, considering their job is a government job!

  •  This same chart (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, eean

    appears for the nth time in Ezra Klein's blog, but with the added trend line for unemployment over the same period. That's a truly depressing sight, clearly showing that unemployment rates will remain high for a very long time.

    Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person. -Jan Edwards

    by SoCalSal on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:27:33 AM PDT

  •  that chart is a joke...temporary jobs...wait till (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    scott t

    taxes skyrocket next year...and the bush tax cuts will see a huge net loss jobs number in 2011. Don't get mad..just wait and see.

  •  We can see that double dip coming (6+ / 0-)

    Myths of Austerity

    by Paul Krugman

    "When I was young and naïve, I believed that important people took positions based on careful consideration of the options. Now I know better. Much of what Serious People believe rests on prejudices, not analysis. And these prejudices are subject to fads and fashions."

  •  double dip (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Worldwide deficit hawks will destroy the economy--I had an economics professor 45 years ago tell me this will happen after his generation has died.  The point being you have to have survived a depression to realize stimulus is a must/deficits are good.

    •  Sorry, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the economy already was destroyed.

      Was it austerity? Of a kind.

      It was the destruction of the purchasing power of the working class by a coordinated pincer attack from the "left" and "right" of the political spectrum.

      However, which government hasn't been running deficit to disguise* this fact?

      Now it's too late.

      * as in lie, deceit, conspiracy; you were the target of the lie by the way...

      For the elite there are no material problems, only PR problems. Time for a new elite.

      by Paul Goodman on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:52:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "too late" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        It's never too late to modify the future--unless you're dead.  Assuming the US is still around 10 years from now, corrective measures are possible--necessary--and available.  Throwing up your hands because Bush screwed us royally, means 2008 was a waste of time.

  •  Jed, this is an OUTSTANDING analysis... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    acerimusdux, jaywillie

    Good form!

  •  Free Slogan For Dems (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    acerimusdux, farbuska

    Here's my open source ad campaign:

    President Obama & The Democratic Congress

    Right on the economy
    Right for America
    Right for you

    This Election Day, keep what works to keep America working

    The Modern GOP: A holy pwned subsidiary of the Tea Party.

    by The Lone Apple on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:48:45 AM PDT

  •  "We need more of what's gotten us this far.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paul Goodman, farbuska

    "We need more of what's gotten us this far, not less."

    What's gotten us this far (a stalemate with depression) is massive Federal Reserve intervention in the markets (primarily banking and housing) to the tune of 10 trillion dollars without reforming and accounting for the debt crisis.  Any fool, Republican or Democrat can be Sidney Pollack with monetary policy as see what sticks.

    If you want more from this policy I suggest you read up on debt saturation:

    Back in the early 1960s a dollar of new debt added almost a dollar to the nation’s output of goods and services. As more debt enters the system the productivity gained by new debt diminishes. This produced a path that was following a diminishing line targeting ZERO in the year 2015. This meant that we could expect that each new dollar of debt added in the year 2015 would add NOTHING to our productivity.

    Then a funny thing happened along the way. Macroeconomic DEBT SATURATION occurred causing a phase transition with our debt relationship. This is because total income can no longer support total debt. In the third quarter of 2009 each dollar of debt added produced NEGATIVE 15 cents of productivity, and at the end of 2009, each dollar of new debt now SUBTRACTS 45 cents from GDP! - Joe Weisenthal

    •  huh? (0+ / 0-)

      Your quote is just a series of statements with no justification for the completely counter-intuitive idea that people working won't help the economy.

      •  The arrogance of "huh?" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        come out to real America and talk to real people.

        This is what they suspect: the recovery was phony.

        Obama could have employed 10 million workers at 50,000$ per worker for a paltry 500 billion (the cost of the war).


        For the elite there are no material problems, only PR problems. Time for a new elite.

        by Paul Goodman on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:58:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not approaching the diarist's assumptions (0+ / 0-)

        from the employment angle.
        10 trillion can and did put/keep people working.  Of course it did.
        The comment is about how productive/counterproductive borrowing to pump resources into a failed financial system is i.e. Japan in the '90's.

        •  of course there is a limit to stimulus spending (0+ / 0-)

          as shown by Japan. It really helps if the stimulus spending is for projects that actually helps, and theres only so many of those.

          ...but we are no where near that. And erring on the side of too much stimulus is the way to go, especially given how cheap the money is.

    •  Off by a factor of 10 (0+ / 0-)

      The Fed did not intervene with anywhere near $10 trillion.  They've got about $1 trillion in mortgage backed securities, which will probably make a profit.  And that's pretty much offset by about $1 trillion in excess reserves in the banking system on deposit with the Fed, so it's not even getting out into the economy.  They have about $70 billion invested in AIG.

      That's it.  There hasn't been any massive amounts of dollars pumped into the economy by the Fed.  They made some loans which were repaid, but it never amounted to more than about $1T at any time.

      •  Actually 10 trillion is the conservative quote. (0+ / 0-)

        12 trillion is the figure you'll read most often in the accounting:

        Sources: Federal Reserve, Treasury, FDIC, CBO, White House Note: Figures as of November 16, 2009:

        And that information doesn't include subsequent AIG bailouts since 11/16/09.

        But who is the White House and the Federal Reserve, and the Treasury, FDIC,CBO as sources to show $12 trillion.

        Wet you are.

        •  That's just wrong (0+ / 0-)

          What you are citing there are maximum amounts authorized, much of which was never used.  And you are quoting totals, not just Fed.

          The fact is most of what the Fed did was make short term loans.  So they were able to re-lend the same dollars over and over.  The total of those loans is near $4 trillion, but at no one time had the Fed expanded it's balance sheet by more than $1.6 trillion.  At the beginning of the crisis, their balance sheet was over $0.8 trillion, and it never exceeded $2.4 trillion.  

          And at the moment, most of that $1.6 trillion expansion is sitting in over $1T in excess reserves, shoring up bank balance sheets, but not really doing anything for the broader economy.

          The Joe Weisenthal article you cite is a lot of foolishness.  There is some correlation between debt and GDP, but he interprets this as though changes in debt are the only thing that impacts GDP.  All the chart really shows is that debt levels were growing faster than GDP.  Especially foolish is the statement there that "each dollar of new debt now SUBTRACTS 45 cents from GDP".  Uh, no, the ratio is now negative because we are in a recession, and GDP is now negative.

          However, we do know that monetary policy loses effectiveness as inflation and interest rates get lower, and inflation and interest rates were falling for that time period.  So one could argue that the long term trend of decline in the ratio shown there is related to the declining effectiveness of monetary policy.  This would be another reason why we need more fiscal policy. With inflation and interest rates near zero, debt expansion has almost no impact on growth.

          •  Finance is all about capacity. (0+ / 0-)

            12 trillion American dollars in liquidity, guarantees, bailouts, conversion, access to credit, however you need to call it - it was leveraged in service of the banking,housing, and auto industry.  It is a form of resource not available to other economic efforts.  That is a balance sheet that has very real world consequences.

            You still want to argue when faced with the hard copy.  FROM THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF.

            You need to quibble about today's current snap shot of the balance sheets showing "PROFITS" and "paybacks" and other shenanigans like the suspension of accounting standards,  when if fact you've completely missed the macro point:  The commitment of the tax based resources of generations ahead (currently to the tune of $12,000,000,000,000) has been proffered to our banks forevermore.

            You need to make this a complicated affair that only our Geithners' and Summers' can understand the wisdom of and whittle down the impact of what has been applied in the name of my grandchildren and their grandchildren so that the Blankfiends of today's world can go on ruining this nation and world.

            You are still quite wet in the face of well sourced facts.  

            •  Your not getting it. (0+ / 0-)

              I didn't dispute any facts from the government.  The link you provided is fine, I'm just not sure you understand it.  Next to the column labeled commitments is a column labeled disbursements, which shows how much was actually used (loaned) to shore up credit markets.  The total for the Fed there says $1.5T.

              As for commitments,  you are claiming they were "forevermore", when most of them have already expired.  The loans are mostly paid off, the books are closed on them.  Liquidity was provided when there was a credit crisis, and that was over awhile ago.

              The Fed balance sheet is here:

              What is still on there now is about $1.5 trillion in various assets that wouldn't normally be on there.  The bulk of that is in nearly $1.3 trillion in mortgage backed securities and federal agency debt.  And the offset for that on the liabilities side is almost $1.3 trillion in reserve balances and deposits other than reserve balances, also not normally there.    

              In other words, this is practically an accounting trick to make bank balance sheets look better.  In the end, it won't cost taxpayers a dime, but it won't do a damn thing for the economy either.

              The macro point you are missing is, the banks are doing well enough now, but something really needs to be done for the rest of the economy.  Wall Street is fine; Main Street is suffering from the recession. We have a deflationary environment, with very low interest rates, and the government needs to do something to get some money to Main Street, preferably by creating jobs.

              The mythical debt crisis you are going on about is a distraction from that.  The structural deficit is only about 3% of potential GDP, and public debt is only about 53% of potential GDP.  And even that would be less without that $1.3 trillion accounting trick from the FED: those securities as they retire can be used to pay off debt.

              •  Commitments are the enchilada. (0+ / 0-)

                You don't understand finance.  It's not about what was spent, it's about what was available. The fact of those facts is the taxpayer was put on the hook for $12,000,000,000,000.  And that is $12,000,000,000,000 that could not be made available for other economic pursuits.
                But don't be dismayed though because most people don't understand this basic fact of finance.  It separates the uber wealthy from the common folk.
                It took that $12 trillion commitment to temporarily convince the markets that everything would be A-Ok from here on in.  So the balance sheets fluctuate to show profit and paybacks (on paper only) for the bailout but in fact that $12 trillion (and much more in the future) still stands.  Think of it as a reservoir.  And it is accounted for, you just can't believe your lying eyes with what I sourced.

                •  Uh, no. (0+ / 0-)

                  Clearly you know nothing about economics or finance.  If you want to understand those subjects, maybe you should try getting an actual education in them.  Instead you are here linking to ridiculous sources that would not have fooled anyone with any knowledge even of the basics.  So stop pretending like you have some kind of expertise.

                  You started out claiming a "massive Fed intervention", and are now falling back on a figure that includes a lot that is not the responsibility of the Fed.  You point to "committed" amounts, which as of your link from 11/2009 shows $6.4T for the Fed, and claim they are forevermore, committing resources of generations ahead,  when in fact the current "committed" total from the Fed is under $2T, and the current disbursed amount is about $1.4T (and at no time was more than $1.6T).  When the program ends, the commitment is no more. (A much more up to date table is here)

                  And at this point, the only Fed disbursements outstanding that are really at some risk is about $120B combined between the AIG and Bear Stearns bailouts.  The rest of the roughly $1.4T outstanding is all invested in government guaranteed mortgage bonds.

                  But the main problem is you have no understanding of monetary policy.  The Fed providing short term liquidity to stabilize financial markets is not costing taxpayers a dime.  The Fed is making short term loans, many overnight loans, and in this case some loans for as long as a few months (such as the purchases of 3 month commercial paper), and you are talking as though future generations will have to pay them.  They are already paid off. Those special lending programs are already shut down.

                  You claim Fed short term liquidity programs helped only the banking, housing, and auto industries, and was thus funds were not available to other economic efforts, when in fact businesses of all kinds rely on the availability of short term credit, not only from banks, but in money markets and commercial paper markets.  And the facilities used to stabilize those markets helped virtually every kind of economic enterprise imaginable.

                  You are claiming that this "commitment" total could have been available for other pursuits, as though it were coming out of a budget somewhere.  No, the Fed can just create the money they need by crediting a reserve account, and the money isn't spent, it is simply exchanged for other financial assets.  

                  You claim that the Fed's profits on it's loans involve some kind of shenanigans, and are somehow "paper only", but it's plain and simple.  Short term secured loans were made, and were paid back with interest, generating a small profit.  End of story.  This is true of 6 programs, totaling over $4.15 T of your $6.4T Fed commitments, all now shut down, with 0 commitments left, 0 currently at risk (AMLF,  CPFF, MMIFF, TALF, TSLF, and TAF).

                  Just because you are confused by some of this, you are projecting. The Fed stabilized financial markets, preventing a financial panic, and it didn't cost taxpayers a dime.  And even the AIG bailout may not, as even the AIG investment is currently showing a profit if they are able to sell the assets at fair market value.  It's not that difficult to understand.

                  So I just don't see a good argument there against intervention to support the economy, when needed, and I especially see no argument there against fiscal policy (which would not really involve the Fed).

                  •  Well... (0+ / 0-)

                    I would hardly call the Federal Government (CBO, the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve etc.) "ridiculous".  You can accuse me of anything you need to to reinforce your worldview but you're not entitled to your own "facts".

                    And $12,000,000,000,000 is the generally accepted figure around the financial world.

                  •  Your foundation (0+ / 0-)

                    is based on this one simplistic statement:

                    ...the Fed can just create the money they need by crediting a reserve account, and the money isn't spent, it is simply exchanged for other financial assets.

                    There is where you can re-examine your worldview - financial and otherwise.

                    Yes the fed can do exactly what you describe above, but as they say there is no such thing as a free lunch.  The end result of this ongoing commitment to flood the monetary system at these levels is ultimately unsustainable deficits and hyper inflation all in the service of Wall St. not Main street.  A stealth de facto devaluation of the currency through grotesque and out-of-control national debt will wipe trillions out of pension values and destitution for savers to continue the pumps to bailout bondholders and bank balance sheets.

                    You are of the persuasion to believe in the pixie dust of fiat currency will work its magic and deliver us by merely throwing electronic zero's at the problem and we are "poof!" back to 2007.

                    I pity the ignorance.

                  •  Look at this way: (0+ / 0-)

                    $12,000,000,000,000 is the permanent baseline go forward as signaled to the rest of the real financial world - however it fluctuates in the nether-book keeping dimensional space time continuum.

                    And ultimately the U.S. citizen is on the hook by crook or otherwise to that tune.

                    That's the simplest I can boil it down for you.

  •  Fear has been used as a weapon (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    against progress.  The Rethugs, DINO's and their corporate overlords have been really effective in scaring people about the dreaded decifit. Scared to the point of voting to lose their own homes, jobs, benefits to avoid the prospect of the deficit number getting larger.  It is way easier to scare people than to unscare them.  It appeals to me to try to educate but I realize that is only very slowly effective.  I hate it when the more effective choice is to scare the sheeple back the other way when they stray too near real danger.  

    I was wise enough to never grow up while fooling most people into believing I had. - Margaret Mead

    by fayea on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 10:23:05 AM PDT

  •  Dems message should be: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "This is where the American Recovery and Reinvesment Act was signed (with no Republicans voting in favor)."

    [note massive turnaround in monthly private job change over the next 15 months]

    "This is where Democrats felt the economy needed an extra boost to maintain the recovery momentum, and have since had multiple job bill versions filibustered by the Republican senators."

    [note stagnation in the private job growth starting May 2010]

    There is nothing else that needs said. The "Republicans are fighting the recovery tooth and nail because it is an election year and they can't let the Dems look good" meme will resonate with voters.

  •  Seems this chart should be an ad (0+ / 0-)
    Display this one to show the significant and stark progress/turnaround that has occurred in just two years under Dems. Then show what it could have been had GOP not worked to fight every step of the way (use initially proposed stimulus $$ plus other job creation bills and $$ reduced and/or blocked by GOP). Then show what it would have been with no stimulus to show what the last two years would have looked like under GOP rule).
  •  650,000 gave up looking for work! (0+ / 0-)

    Sounds like Obama is instilling a lot of confidence into our country!

    How come Obama and Congress get a pass for their deficit spending on this site, but Bush didn't?

    by Raviohli on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 03:12:37 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site