We are the 99%

November 22, 2008

The President Elect



The Transcript.

22 comments:

John K. said...

John K: Blah, blah, blah and more blah. Govt jobs are not real jobs. They are make work. Same think you did in 4th grade. Perfect for liberals, not so good for the economy.

John K. said...

John K: Hey left wing kooks, turn off your furnaces. Stop heating your homes with natural gas or coal fired electrical plants. Stop polluting the environment. Use cow dung instead. Or just freeze. LOL LOL LMAO Some global warming we are having this November eh. 18 degrees. LMAO LOL LOL I bet Gore ain't cold. LOL LOL

kimber45 said...

johnk,

When will you be old enough to get a job, and become a productive member of society?

Conservative Mountaineer said...

From American Thinker...
The AP reports that Barack Obama's economic plan "aims for 2.5 million new jobs by 2011." In other words, he hopes to do almost as well as President George W. Bush did.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/ces/#tables, employees on non-farm payrolls numbered 131,785,000 in 2000 and 137,623,000 in 2007 (the last year of available data). That is an average of 834,000 new jobs per year, even through the 2001 recession, 9/11 and Katrina. If we use a base year of 2003 instead, at 129,999,000 jobs, the average number of new jobs per year was 1,906,000.

By my count, 2011 is three years from now. Given Bush's rate of job creation, there would be 2,502,000 to 5,708,000 new jobs created by 2011.

According to the AP, Obama said,
"We have acted boldly, bravely, and above all, together. That is the chance our new beginning now offers us, and that is the challenge we must rise to in the days to come. It is time to act. As the next president of the United States, I will."

Apparently, it is time to act boldly, bravely and together to match George W. Bush's performance through recession, the worst terrorist attacks in our history, and the worst natural disaster in our history.

For the record, George W. Bush did twice as well as that from 2003 to 2007, when both houses of Congress had Republican majorities. You didn't read that in the Times.

Conservative Mountaineer said...

Geez, facts from the BLS can be a little pesky...

John K. said...

John K: Still haven't been to respond intelligently to any of my posts eh Kimber? Well not to fear, the union thugs protect the jobs of those unqualified to really do actual work. LMAO You shuold be fine. LOL

John K. said...

John K: Hussein Obama, the man-god, promises Govt jobs. Doing make work. Just like the old WPA under FDR. Need the leaves raked on a hiking trail, how about cleaning up Girty's run? Trash picked up inner city neighborhoods, call the Obama Hoodies. Bush created real jobs in the private sector. Hussein Obama promises to create govt jobs paid with our tax dollars. LMAO So let it be written, so let it be done. The man-god has spoken.

John K. said...

John K: How are those wind farms doing these days. The gears freeze up in all this global warming? 18 degrees on Nov 20th. I hope Ed is riding his bike to work. LMAO

Conservative Mountaineer said...

Also...

Let's see, "The One" went from "creating 5 million jobs" in the campaign, to "creating 2-1/2 million new jobs" to "creating or saving 2-1/2 million jobs".

Keep lowering the bar, obama...

kimber45 said...

'eer,

Interesting that you begin with 2000, even though GW didn't take office until Jan, 2001.

Just for nostalgia's sake, let's look at Bill Clinton's job creation numbers: From 1993 to 2000, the economy averaged a net gain of 218,000 jobs per month.

Over the years from 2001 to 2007, GW averaged a net gain of 69,000 jobs per month.

If we give GW the benefit of the doubt, and start with nonfarm payrolls at their lowest, using 2003-2007, his average net gain was 127,000 per month.

As far as your projections for Obama and his 2.5 million new jobs by 2011.....He'll take office in Jan., 2009.

Amusing that you'd use 2008 as your starting point, and, if it were, that 2.5 million new jobs would work out to 69,000/month. True, it would be on a par with GW's numbers, sad as they were.

But, there are only, what, 38 days of 2008 left? And GW's still president for all of them.

How about we start Obama's job creation clock out in 2009, given that he won't even take office for another 58 days, give or take?

By that basis, 2.5M / 24 months = 104,000/month. Given the current crisis, those job creation numbers would be pure gold.

Would you agree?

EdHeath said...

Gee, it's not like we need some people to work on the bridges, around here and all over the rest of the country. It's not like it would be a good idea to get people to put up solar panel arrays and wind farms.

How would you address the current economic situation, Mountaineer? You John K.?

Conservative Mountaineer said...

I would not have a probpem with infrastructure improvemtns under 1 condition - Repeal or suspensjion of the Davis-Bacon Act. Fair enough?

As for wind/solar, etc., why not nuclear? No greenhouse gases, safe for the environment, cheaper than any other form of energy production. If the left were intellectually honest, they would.. aaaah, never mind.

As for the current economic crisis, I was (and still am) against the bail-out package, I would let many companies go under (some companies are menat to die), GM and Chrysler should enter Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Instead of Rangel's $500-$700B stimulas package, how about a tax cut of 15%-20% for both individual and Corporate taxpayers, a further reduction in capital gains tax from 15% to 10% and an increase in the amount of capital losses allowable for deduction from the (long standing and non-inflation adjusted) $3,000/year to $25,000 a year or more?

The advantage of tax cuts would get money into more people's pockets faster WITHOUT the overhead "take" of a stimulus package.

Makes a lot more sense than "make work" projects or throwing money at non-producers.

Conservative Mountaineer said...

From a post at FreeRepublic.com with respect to the $500-$700B stimulus package that is now being supported by Pelosi (couldn't have said it better)...

One maxim I think is true is that you cannot stimulate confidence. IOW, once a certain level of shock and fear is internalized, almost any amount of direct stimulus the government can accomplish is *felt* as nickle-and-diming.

To have gas prices drop to $1.50, or to get a check for $2,000 from the gubmint, just isn’t going to take away the shock of seeing one’s 401(k) lose 30, 40 or 50% of its value in a matter of weeks-—and knowing darn well that it could take DECADES to get that back, if ever.

Moreover, this maybe-depression is very different from anything in the past because it encompasses very large moral hazards. At every turn of government intervention, there is the problem that the “fix” is rewarding the gamblers and deadbeats and those who played by the rules are getting slapped in the face.

If the “fix” undermines the market morality (e.g., that those who play by the rules generally win) by providing windfalls to those who gambled or punted, there will come a time when good and decent people will have no choice but to conclude that doing the “right thing” is no longer doing the “wise or financially survivable thing.”

If that point is reached, we have a fundamental change that will be forever.

All that said, one of the approaches that might work, and might be amenable to schemes that don’t reward the deadbeats, is MASSIVE TAX RELIEF for those who play by the rules.

For example, instead of mortgage bailouts to deadbeats, how about doubling or tripling the mortgage interest deduction for those paying their mortgage and living in their home?

How about a credit for credit card interest for those who are current on their bill for the entire tax year? That would reward the people who don’t default and encourage spending.

How about loan modification for those who are current-—to make monthly payments easier without the lender losing a dime, e.g., reamortization over 40 years?

How about stop giving a hiring preference to those on welfare and let people who were supporting themselves compete fairly for what jobs there are in this economy?

How about increasing the deduction for dependents for people who actually pay income taxes?

These are some examples of ways the government could “spend” money and give it to the people who can, by their good choices, keep this country afloat.


Me>>> No, instead we'll probale get a package that, once again, throws moneys at the non-producers who pay no taxes and have access to food stamps and a multitiude of other government programs that do not count as "income" (even though it IS income)... those that cashed out their homes for the SUV, the vacation, the toys (screw them, they gambled and lost)... those who maxed out their credit cards for "bling" and toys (ditto)... those that lived beyond their means.

I'm not heartless. I'm sure there are a number of people that got blindsided by this downturn.. a downturn that was caused by reckless fiscal policies encouraged (mostly) by politicians such as Frank and Dodd (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac)... issue 0% down and/or 125% mortgages to deadbeats, illegals, etc... people who had NO 'effin business being approved. None.

You asked. You got. You leftists want to refute? Or do you want to continue name-calling and positing "feelings"? I deal in facts.

kimber45 said...

con 'eer,

Wasn't it the Bush Administration, and its cronies in Congress, who promoted "the Ownership Society," and pointed to all the home sales that were, of course, fostered by those mortgages that you, now, ridicule?

I think that Lehman, Merrill, et al, promoted the origination of all that "subprime" lending, and Countrywide, et al, responded, becaause of they wanted the fat fees that went with those securities and underlying loans.

What do you think? That the poor investment bankers and mortgage brokers were forced by evil Democrats to make all that money for themselves?

kimber45 said...

And, con 'eer, you posted a dubious analysis from somebody at American Thinker. Other than that, you've used the opinion of somebody at Free Republic.

You "deal in facts," you say?

Really?

EdHeath said...

So, 'eer, *not* fair enough to suspend or repeal Davis Bacon. And, nuclear *may* be safe enough, but it seems to me solar and wind can/could be scaled, starting small and built on. Plus, adding nuclear plants is adding lots of nice, fat terrorist targets, that the previous administration refused to protect. But it looks like Obama may well add some nuclear power plants. As for the comment about the left not being intellectually honest ... conservatives/libertarians calling the left intellectually dishonest is very much like the pot calling the kettle black.

It sounds to me very much like you want to help the rich at the expense of the poor. Especially the comment about literally discriminating against people on welfare. As for calling people in trouble over mortgage/home equity loans "deadbeats" (talk about a fucking pejorative term), who was it who sold them those mortgages/loans? Who lied to them about the terms of the loans? Not Barney Frank or Chris Dodd, who had nothing to do with the issuance of loans (nor did Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, who only buy up qualified loans after they have been issued, and by qualified I mean money down and reasonable terms). Would you care to go after the unregulated mortgage stores and banks that refused to do due diligence and were not called on it by the Bush administration first? You worry about the moral hazard of helping people who were lied to while you want to reward the rich. Don’t lecture me about intellectual honesty.

jaywillie said...

You deal in facts, Con'eer?

And yet you're quoting from Free Republic.

Isn't it funny how all these wingers cite their winger sources as "unbiased?"

Fillippelli the (Wannabe) Cook said...

CM sounds a lot like one of the other non John K. wingnuts who used to frequent this blog (in that he can form full sentences, among other things). Any $$ on which one it is?

A. Clinger (as in guns and bibles) said...

Kimber,
If Obama grows the economy by 107 thousand jobs a month it WILL BE pure gold and I will take back everything negative I have ever said about the man. Even though…. It will only bring the employment back up to the Bush’s high water mark of 138,078,000 set December, 2007, which as we all well remember was the worst economic time, before now, in American history. Or are you telling me he is going to create 2.5 million NEW jobs so that in January of 2011 the employment will be 140,578,000? I will go so far as to kiss your ass with a smile come January 20th, 2011 if he hasn’t LOST 107,000 jobs a month down to 134,399,000. If the stimulus is $700 billion, that works out to $280,000 per job. That’s not change that’s real money. I thought he was going to bring change, not just some more failed economic policies. Oh I know the change, he is going to redefine work to include receiving welfare. My job is to get welfare payments!!! I’m working!!! I feel good!!! Now that is change I can believe in.

EdHeath said...

My understanding is that the economy, in a normal but not exceptional growth situation, would add about 150,000 jobs a month anyway. That basically covers population growth. Still, we are headed further into a recession, so there may be negative job growth for some time. Or job growth will flatline, because Obama may put some people to work for the government, repairing our infrastructure (roads, bridges, schools) or adding to our energy infrastructure (wires, solar, wind, possibly nuclear). Those wages will add to our debt in the short term, but the gamble is that in the long term we are making new industry possible with investments in the infrastructure. So too with new or improved current tax credits for education, we will loose government revenue in the short term, but hopefully have a more productive and therefore better paid workforce in the future. This approach may not add jobs quickly, at least not jobs in the private sector. But it should pay off in the long run.

kimber45 said...

clinger,

You do sound a little bitter, after all.

Bridges that can't carry the weight that they were designed for. Roads that need repaired or improved to carry the traffic that they can carry. Locks and dams that need repaired or upgraded to facilitate low-cost river transport. We've got them all, and we've been ignoring them in budgets for years and years.

Obama wants to put money into the infrastructure. Lots of money, but, after years of neglect, it's necessary spending. In the short view, jobs will be created doing the work, and supporting it. But, in the longer term, US businesses will benefit from easier access for suppliers to factories and offices, and easier transport of products out from those factories and offices.

What's not to like?

jaywillie said...

Con'eer,

Do you have your own thoughts or do you just post others?

And this is priceless: "Bush created real jobs in the private sector."

Really? Well, if he did, their gone now.

And Clinger - please stop pulling economic theory out of your ass, 'cause you're economic "theories" stink.