Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Time to knock off the Tea -- back to coffee America

Here's a nice start:




25 comments:

Rich Kasten said...

I couldn't figure out - there were no footnotes - does this include or not include the made up jobs from the stimulus?

Anonymous said...

How does the chart compare to the numbers of people employed? Of course, the trend will go this way, because there are less jobs to lose. I think most Tea Party people can figure that one out. This chart was made for the "sheeples" - note the source.

Mpeterson said...

No news is good news, eh?

John Jost said...

Anonymous said...

"How does the chart compare to the numbers of people employed? Of course, the trend will go this way, because there are less jobs to lose."

Concentrate, genius: compare the first red line with the last; then compare the first blue line with the last. Is that the way the "numbers of people employed" have fluctuated?

What's in your tea? Must be pretty good, I want some.

Grant said...

Footnotes:

Just look at the outside evaluations of the stimulus. Perhaps the best-known economic research firms are IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s Economy.com. They all estimate that the bill has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far and that its ultimate impact will be roughly 2.5 million jobs. The Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency, considers these estimates to be conservative.

Sen. Pickup Truck (R) disagrees, natch.

Rich Kasten said...

John,

What anonymous was pointing out is that there is, for all intents and purposes, only a finite number of jobs to lose (no real jobs being created). So you will not see a plateau at the end of that finite number, it will decrease - just as it increased to get to that number.

PaulyW said...

It's a pretty chart if you think it has any meaning...but how about we ask how many jobs have been added due to stimulus? This chart indicates there are fewer losses, not gains. People are not going back to work. We must do something about the people that lost jobs to get back to work. Building bridges and roads does not add workers, and only pads the pockets of the roadbuilders. They don't create jobs, only fulfill a service at the request of government. I have never seen a roadbuilder create a highway and hope that somebody uses his services. Putting small business back to work is what drives this economy.

The Admin fails to point out that the congress started this mess 2 years prior to the current POTUS being sworn in. Relaxed housing mortgage rules were the work of the Dem congress and when the bubble burst the resulting loss of jobs were the result. The blame game no longer works......

Mpeterson said...

Ahh right. 2 years. So it was W's fault -- along with his poodles in Congress. Just what we've been saying for the last 8 years.

Anonymous said...

Economically Bush was a mess, but he also tried to have a liberal perspective on spending while trying to maintain a conservative perspective on taxes.

Everything W did as president, financially, Obama has pushed to further even more. It's bad judgement to pretend like Obama's economic policies are any different than Ws were.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Mark,

Are you sure that isn't a global temperature chart? (Thank you very much, I'll be here all night.)

Seriously, what you are missing is that Obama's own jobs chart is WORSE than predicted with stimulis than the job loss Obama predicted WITHOUT stimulus.

Your focus should be on the $800 billion porkulus pack that is extending the pain (and perhaps the biggest disaster piece of legislation from D.C., ever!) of this reccession, and putting us in an eternal sea of government debt.

Rich Kasten said...

Grant,

If those were real jobs don't you think there would have been an impact on the unemployment rate - I looked at that graph and I am not seeing it...

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=Unemployment+Rate

Mpeterson said...

In some ways I have to agree with you Anonymous... what we've seen so far is largely a continuation of W's policies. We actually haven't seen much of Obama's economic policy yet -- they've been too busy cleaning up the mess left by the previous tenants. One of the reasons I voted for him was that he promised a return to PAYGO budgeting and to seriously attack the deficit. It'll be interesting to watch the Democrats turn on him when he does.

Mpeterson said...

The other thing I'm enjoying is watching my local so-called conservative correspondents go off on Obama when recent fiscal policies -- and the programs to remediate the disaster they caused -- all have the support of big business.

You guys aren't conservatives, you're just irritable. :)

PaulyW said...

He has yet to show us a PAYGO plan. He has not delivered on anything. We just keep raising the debt ceiling and spending money on worthless projects. It takes reduced spending by cutting programs, and the current congress and Pres just can't resist to spend more. We don't have anymore to give.

Rich Kasten said...

Mark,

Can you explain what the support of some big businesses has to do with my conservatism? Many of the big businesses that have endorsed the plans have had the most to gain from stimulus dollars and/or bail outs. Inherently, that removes any illusion of true free-enterprise and minimal governmental interference.

Mpeterson said...

Sure Rich,

They're using your political convictions to make money.

Distance Relative said...

"true free-enterprise and minimal governmental interference."

if this is your definition of conservatism (and I think it's a good one). Let's cut the crap here.

the bloating, bad behavior, and government handouts for big business
and these multi-national conglomerates WOULD NOT EXIST without an ideology of "true free-enterprise and minimal governmental interference."
And also, its the other way around as far as the handouts and bailouts and such:
business conglomerates don't ask, they just take.
Thank god for that minimal governmental interference,hey?

Rich Kasten said...

Wow Mark, could your response have any less meaning or substance?

Seems as though they are profiting from your political convictions - like bailouts, etc.

Mpeterson said...

Sorry about that Rich, but I thought that writing it out in crayola for you -- in big letters and smaller words -- would have been condescending toward you.

Rich Kasten said...

I guess you really can't argue on substance Mark.

Distant Relative - exactly - Take it a step further though - if they are bloated, and bad behaving (i.e. GM, Chrysler, AIG, etc., etc.,) let them fail with no bailouts. Its really pretty simple.

Mpeterson said...

Well Rich, that's because substance doesn't always work on you. :)

Rich Kasten said...

There it is! No substance in an argument so make it personal. You made that jump quicker than I anticipated. Ah well, the substantive debates we had during my visits here were fun while they lasted.

Mpeterson said...

I'm sorry Rich, that was just tit for tat... you complained about substance first. :)

The relationship between big business and your "conservatism" is that the big corporations currently pulling the strings in both political parties typically paint themselves as defenders of the kind of 'free markets' that are appealing to "conservatives" these days. In this way they appropriate the flag to rally 'conservative' voters to defend legislation and deregulation, say, that serves their own profits while at the same time failing to actually embody true "conservative" principles.

What's fascinating to me is the degree to which "conservatives" continue to support the interests of these corporations when corporate economics are tuned to erode the financial position of conservatives and liberals alike.

Which is what I thought I'd implied in the comment "they're using your politics to make money".

Rich Kasten said...

Ok, now we are getting somewhere.

First, making money is not a bad thing - profits are good, not bad. It is part of free-enterprise, supply and demand, capitalism.

Second - yes some companies play both sides. I for one, try not to patronize those companies that one minute claim the government is killing them, but in the next breath have their hand out for the next buyout or stimulus check. I will never buy a Chrysler or GM (but that's ok, I am a Honda guy - 220,000 miles on my 95 Civic.) I have been able to shield my 401k, and IRA from banks that have explicitly taken buyout funds. Also part of free-enterprise, supply and demand, capitalism.

Mpeterson said...

Rich -- you and I will have to start our own political party because on both of these points, we completely agree.

(Although my 91 Honda only made it to 190,000 before it stopped passing emissions... :^) )