August 6, 2010

"The tepid job creation figure comes as the White House economic team is in transition."

"Christina Romer is leaving her post as chair of the Council of Economic Advisers. Budget director Peter Orszag recently departed."

192 comments:

SteveR said...

"Tepid" is actually making it look better than it is.

Clyde said...

Romer was clearly out of her depth. While she might have had some skill in policy wonkery (although she never displayed any), she just did not have the gravitas to be a spokesperson for the regime's economic policies. You just couldn't look at her and get the feeling that she knew what she was talking about. And in the end, that intuition was correct.

AllenS said...

Rats

Sinking Ship

Fred4Pres said...

They do not want the blame.

Clyde said...

Recovery Summer!
Catch the Wave!

__________________

Cowabunga!

wv: obignal. Probably something like the opposite of the Bat Signal. Calls the Joker instead.

Calypso Facto said...

SteveR: tepid=>torpid=>morbid

wv:bytoxia. "A pox on both your houses."

gk1 said...

The timing is off on this resignation. Aren't they supposed to dump this news Friday afternoon instead of Wednesday? Did someone hit the "send" button too soon?

Scott said...

@Calypso Facto: LOL

The Obama administration doesn't really need economic advisors. When you're engaging in breathtaking, mind boggling levels of new spending on social entitlements, economic advisors are just killjoys.

rhhardin said...

The math involved isn't really hard enough to fall under the women and math rule.

It may just be a snit of some kind.

Mick said...

Economists???!!!! HAHAHAHAHA
These idiot Keynesians have no clue. That includes Krugman (Nobel winner? Snicker) and Stiglitz from the IMF. They all got their Econ degrees from a Cracker Jacks box. We have reached Debt Saturation. That means that any more debt added to the system is even more of a drain on the economy. Recovery??!! There's no recovery. We have reached a point where the Marginal Productivity of Debt is negative, i.e every dollar the government borrows takes away 15 cents from the economy. They keep looking for inflation, when the real issue coming down the pike is DEFLATION. M3 money supply is crashing, Consumer Credit is crashing. No Velocity of money. This is all abetted by a negligent press who choose to ignore all negative data, and try to spin anything positive in order to protect the Usurper (Obama Sr. was NEVER a Citizen or legal resident). The times that are coming will bring America (and the world) to it's knees, and hopefully will affect change to our monetary syatem, i.e. get rid of the Fed (they are no more Federal than FedEx), that cabal of Private banker debt masters that are given free reign to create our money from debt, on which we pay interest (why do you think they are called Reserve NOTES). Bernanke and Geithner are committing Generational Theft.

jr565 said...

The tepid job loss is "Unexpected".
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Seriously, what were all the critics saying about the stimulus package? Primarily that it provide little to no actual stimulus. So now every time there's a job report it's an "Unexpected" job loss.
No, it's an Expected job loss. Which is why socialist lite morons should not be running this countries economy.

The Drill SGT said...

she just did not have the gravitas to be a spokesperson for the regime's economic policies

aka, she got tired of lying...

while not being listened to by Obama.

whether she had a good idea or not, she kept losing out on policy to Summers, yet had to front the policies that Obama took from Summers.

lose lose for her

back to Beserkly

Hoosier Daddy said...

I read about this this from the Drudge link to National Journal. I perused a few of the comments and was laughing out loud when I saw so many who thought Krugman should replace her.

Quaestor said...

Somebody who ought to transitioned -- Robin Gibbs. When asked at a press briefing if there were any concerns about how Michelle Obama's Costa del Sol vacation was being viewed by the public Gibbs replied "The First Lady is on a private trip. She is a private citizen and is the mother of a daughter on a private trip. I think I'd leave it at that."

What flagrant bullshit! I don't know who to more ashamed of, the White House for its mega-chutzpah, or the press corps for meekly accepting that fetid load.

former law student said...

Speaing of job creation, did anyone else see the NYT article this week on legal work being outsourced to India? English-speakers, educated in the common law, billing rate 1/3 that in the US -- what's not to like?

GMay said...

HD said: "I read about this this from the Drudge link to National Journal. I perused a few of the comments and was laughing out loud when I saw so many who thought Krugman should replace her."

Hoosier,

I read through some of those too. You have to wade through the progressive bullshit comments for awhile before you get to the loads of people who are living in reality.

The last 2/3rds of the comment thread are people either pointing out why Krugman is a bad idea, or just making fun of them.

Scott M said...

Who's giving odds that one Rham I. Emanuel is going to resign after the butt-whuppin' fast approaching in November?

Honestly, it looks to me like they've been laying the groundwork for his departure, graceful or not, for months now.

The Drill SGT said...

Althouse, though your quote is interesting, it misses the 2 main points that should come from the news.

1. 71k of private job creation isn't tepid, it's "losing ground". The economy needs to create 100k of jobs each month to keep up with natural population growth. The hole we're in keeps getting deeper.

look at it this way. simplistic math. We have lost 8.5 million jobs since the recession started. 100k/month is steady state. we did 71k this month. if job creation was more than DOUBLE the current rate at say 150k a month (a net of 50k/m over steady state), we'd still need 170 MONTHS to work out of that 8.5 million job hole.

14 years to get back to 2007 employment, worse if you factor in population compounding since 2007

2. The second and huge point was in para 3. Cheer or not over your tepid June 71k. the truth is always in the footnotes.

Payrolls actually fell 221,000 during the month instead of the previously reported decline of 125,000.

Tepid?

frigid is more like it.

Scott M said...

Speaing of job creation, did anyone else see the NYT article this week on legal work being outsourced to India? English-speakers, educated in the common law, billing rate 1/3 that in the US -- what's not to like?

I've not looked into this in detail yet, but I was discussing this with a friend who's a salesman at a GM dealership. He said they are going to build a new $500 million plant...in Mexico. As you say, FLS, what's not to like?

GMay said...

"...legal work being outsourced to India? English-speakers, educated in the common law, billing rate 1/3 that in the US -- what's not to like?"

I wonder if they all have names like Tom, Bob, and Mike like Indian CS guys have been given.

Quaestor said...

Scott M wrote: "I was discussing this with a friend who's a salesman at a GM dealership. He said they are going to build a new $500 million plant..."

$500 million mostly from the pocket of the taxpayer.

wv: mismsa - a frustrated Japanese novelist who committed seppuku because of his unpronounceable name.

bagoh20 said...

Deciding that retirement is not for me, I'm preparing to buy a business and take the leap right into the face of a growing storm of fiscal stupidity. At least it should be easy to find people who want a job, and that's one of my main motivations. But, customers have to come first and our current leaders have those people scared to death, so nobody wins. Thanks Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, etc. Keep stabbing at the only people who can help you out of this. Brilliant, articulate, clean and the most transparent ever. Yipeeeee!

The Crack Emcee said...

They're not "in transition" - they're running for cover.

Now's the time for the American people to take off their belts and start whipping them in the street.

The Drill SGT said...

Scott M wrote: "I was discussing this with a friend who's a salesman at a GM dealership. He said they are going to build a new $500 million plant..."

$500 million mostly from the pocket of the taxpayer.


Am I to assume that the real owners of GM (e.g. Obama and the UAW) will insist that the Mexican Plant will be under UAW representation? at "fair wages" with 5000 pages of work rules?

I don't think so...

rdkraus said...

Luckily, "...the White House economic team is in transition."

This only means it will be more difficult for them to "quickly" do more damage with more "programs."

GMay said...

Ace's new co-blogger has a great post up about this subject.

AJ Lynch said...

We are getting a laugh at the incompetence of Obama and his brilliant Team of Rivals. But it is a little sad because people really are hurting due to this incompetence [and the incompetence of several admins before him].

They have f-ed up the economy and come close to bankrupting the country.

bagoh20 said...

I am willing to trade one illegal immigrant family with anchor baby for every DC politician who wants to get out of the country ahead of the guillotines. Trading a bigger anchor for a smaller one and avoiding a messy "transistion."

It would be cool to see how Chicago political tactics work against the Mexican style.

Scott said...

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." --Marx, Groucho

GMay said...

bagoh said: "Deciding that retirement is not for me, I'm preparing to buy a business and take the leap right into the face of a growing storm of fiscal stupidity."

I'm with ya brother. I'm trying to get 200k financing right now. Should know something soon.

I figure even if I go belly up, what with the rumors about the latest bailout, I got nothing to worry about, right?

Right?

AllenS said...

We just need a bigger stimulus, that's all. Something like 20 trillion-gazillion more dollars. Then, watch out! Oh, and repeal the evil Bush tax cuts.

CharlesVegas said...

No comment on Drudge's Obama+Giannoulias picture this morning? The wrist says it all.

The Drill SGT said...

CharlesVegas said...
No comment on Drudge's Obama+Giannoulias picture this morning? The wrist says it all.


The wrist is a secret code to gays?

I saw it earlier and thought

Chicago+crooks+lying politicans = that's news?

bagoh20 said...

"I'm with ya brother. I'm trying to get 200k financing right now. Should know something soon."

It's a great time to be a buyer of just about anything, if you can get the money. The problem is the anti-business mindset in Washington is absolutely unprecedented and terrifying to those who want to invest and hire people. I can't believe the bald stupidity of it.

I know some people are hurting, but they need jobs, not unemployment checks. I have been trying to hire back people I previously had to lay off. They refuse to come back to work until their unemployment runs out. I don't blame them - they are getting a better offer and I'm paying them one way or another, or at least we all are. Brilliant.

GMay said...

"The problem is the anti-business mindset in Washington is absolutely unprecedented and terrifying to those who want to invest and hire people. I can't believe the bald stupidity of it."

Tell me about it. Holy shit the lenders are circling the wagons! If only mortgage lenders had this same approach, we wouldn't be in this predicament.

"I know some people are hurting, but they need jobs, not unemployment checks."

Yup. I have a three point plan mainly to increase the profitability over the next year, but my secondary reason is that hopefully I can offer at least one or two other people a job over a handout.

I got tired of bitching about it on the internet and decided to try to do something real.

AJ Lynch said...

I have to admit I noticed the wrist too in that pic and thought wtf!

John said...

But didn't you guys hear about Michelle Obama's great vacation? Clearly things are pretty good for some people.

Hoosier Daddy said...

The First Lady is on a private trip. She is a private citizen and is the mother of a daughter on a private trip. I think I'd leave it at that."

I'm asking because I don't honestly know but is that even a true statement? Is the First Lady a private citizen? Because if she's out galaventing on the taxpayer dime, I don't think that qualifies as being a private citizen.

Also, I don't begrudge them taking vacations but I have to say that the papparazzi blitz over this and the 'oh look how wonderful she looks' is so politically tone deaf considering the current state of the economy makes me wonder how even the most ardent supporter isn't throwing up a little bit in thier mouth.

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bagoh20 said...

"I got tired of bitching about it on the internet and decided to try to do something real."

That's how prosperity has always happened. People take chances and plant something. The damned thing wants to grow, just leave the gardener alone and let him care for it. Pretty soon everyone wants to be a gardener. It's not Harvard economics, it's common sense. But they don't teach that at Harvard I guess.

That's an idea though. A doctorate program in common sense. That WOULD be a fine qualification for President.

John said...

"Also, I don't begrudge them taking vacations"

You should. This is a woman who ran around the country during the election talking about how awful and mean the country was. And this is a couple who constantly remind the country how we need to spread the wealth around and how at some point, which they of course will decide, you have enough money.

Carter was an insufferable scold, but he lived a pretty modest life and at least tried to live up to his scolding. The Obamas are just repulsive. They are the most tacky neveau riche imaginable and honestly seem to believe that rules and taste only apply to little people.

bagoh20 said...

"Also, I don't begrudge them taking vacations"

"“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK...” B. Obama

Leadership, and global at that!

John said...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1300852/Anger-mounts-Michelle-Obamas-150k-holiday--footed-U-S-taxpayer.html

Oddly the British papers cover Queen Michelle. The state coordinated in America can only talk about her fabulous arms.

The Drill SGT said...

"Also, I don't begrudge them taking vacations"

The point at which the "lifestyles of the rich and famous federal freeloaders" went from absurd to obscene was when the family dog got his own private executive jet to go on vacation.

- leave him home,
- take him on AF1,
- fly him up on one of the several USAF C-17's that must have gone up earliers with the limos and signal company

his own G3?

garage mahal said...

Somebody said something nice about Michelle Obama. Whaaaa! *pouty lip*

former law student said...

Drill Sgt:

Here's the straight poop on Bo according to the St. Petersburg Times:

So, Bo did indeed arrive in a separate jet, but he traveled on a government-owned plane with government staffers who didn't fit in the small Gulfstream G3 that the First Family had to take because of the physical limitations of the Trenton airport runway.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/22/blog-posting/bloggers-claim-bo-flies-his-own-plane/

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." --Marx, Groucho

Groucho the comedian and witty wordsmith? Or a different Groucho Marx? Say it aloud -- it flows like a car going over railroad ties.

I would believe Philo T. Farnsworth said it, but not Groucho.

edutcher said...

She wasn't supposed to leave until December. In the Westerns, this is the snapped twig/sneeze/rattling pan that precedes the stampede.

Scott M said...

Who's giving odds that one Rham I. Emanuel is going to resign after the butt-whuppin' fast approaching in November?

What was the name of his book again?

Hoosier Daddy said...

The First Lady is on a private trip. She is a private citizen and is the mother of a daughter on a private trip. I think I'd leave it at that."

I'm asking because I don't honestly know but is that even a true statement? Is the First Lady a private citizen? Because if she's out galaventing on the taxpayer dime, I don't think that qualifies as being a private citizen.


Funny, Nancy Reagan was a public citizen in the eyes of the Establishment media.

Scott M said...

I would believe Philo T. Farnsworth said it, but not Groucho.

FLS, go check out some of those old recordings. Not only was he a brilliant dialog writer, but he was a genius-level wordsmith off the cuff. One of my greatest inspirations back when I was on the air.

former law student said...

The only published source I could find attributing that quote to Groucho also attributed Georges Clemenceau's quote regarding military justice to him.

The politics quote just is too clunky and verbose to have come out of Groucho's mouth. In the absence of a sourced attribution, I can't accept it as a Groucho quote.

Fen said...

"...as the White House economic team is in transition"

DHOTUS needs another scapegoat to carry him this month.

The Drill SGT said...

FLS,

I stand corrected, though needing more than 15 aides at your side while on vacation is a bit much as well.

so if the first plane sits 19 (family plus 15) and there were lots of staff in the second with Bo and the body man, isn't that excessive?

25 aides perhaps?

ricpic said...

What job creation? To quote Rush: the economy is on life support.

AJ Lynch said...

FLS:

The St. Petersburg Times is just about the most far left paper in the country. I take their fact-checking with a grain of salt but you are certainly free to use your preferred Democratic news subsidiaries.

Quaestor said...

Scott M wrote regarding Groucho Marx: "One of my greatest inspirations back when I was on the air."

"Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted..."
Groucho Marx

wv: abloco - The totally insane exercise and weight-loss product!

Original Mike said...

Perhaps Laura "A dollar in tax cuts is a dollar taken out of the economy" d'Andrea Tyson is available.

Original Mike said...

I think she was fired. I believe she recently published a paper in which she showed that tax increases are a significant drag on the economy.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I stand corrected, though needing more than 15 aides at your side while on vacation is a bit much as well.

To be honest, and its not just the First Family, but the level of 'staffing' that our elected officials have seems a bit exhorbiant. It was awhile ago I remember reading about the anthrax attack at the Capitol and the reference to Daschele's staff of 40 and I thought, a Senator from a state with less than a million people has a staff of 40???

To calm my anger I assumed it was a typo.

The Drill SGT said...

FLS,

now here's a link back at you.

It ought to put to rest that Summer of Recovery Feava:

Note that all of the other post WWII recessions bounce back by 18 months. Obama and his Economic wiz team promised us that the Porkulus would bounce us back, instead it and the other policies have put business growth into the dumper.

as I said up post, more than 14 years at current rates to get back to 2007 employment numbers.

Mick said...

AJ Lynch said...
"We are getting a laugh at the incompetence of Obama and his brilliant Team of Rivals. But it is a little sad because people really are hurting due to this incompetence [and the incompetence of several admins before him].

They have f-ed up the economy and come close to bankrupting the country."


This is no "accident". Obama means to do exactly what he is doing. He has been installed by the World Governance Debt Masters to put the final touches on the destruction of US Sovereignty.
He is the perfect candidate, since he, as a Non Natural Born Usurper (his father was NEVER a citizen), lacks the allegiance and attachment to country that they were looking for. In due time.....

Scott M said...

I think she was fired. I believe she recently published a paper in which she showed that tax increases are a significant drag on the economy.

I thought I remembered reading about that recently too. In any case, it didn't help when she declared the recession over and another White House adviser said flatly that it was not...within the same couple days, if memory serves.

Big Mike said...

How did we get from turmoil among the White House economic advisors to worrying about Michelle Obama's vacation?

FWIW I believe that the First Family has taken more days of vacation in the past 18 months than I've taken in the past decade, but I get that by counting the lengthy Christmas vacation in Hawaii that the President-elect took in Hawaii after the election. I count it because he knew -- or he claimed to know as part of his campaign positions -- about the urgency of our economic difficulties, and yet he didn't spend that time huddled with economists trying to develop a strategy that he could roll out during his inauguration speech. Indeed, he seems to have delegated his entire stimulus strategy to apair of economic illiterates like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, a strategy that resulted in the loss of millions of jobs.

I just survived a round of downsizing, and don't know what will happen with the next, so getting somebody in the White House and up on Capitol Hill who get that the stuff they've tried so far is counter-productive is not an academic issue for me.

Scott M said...

@Hoosier

To be honest, and its not just the First Family, but the level of 'staffing' that our elected officials have seems a bit exhorbiant. It was awhile ago I remember reading about the anthrax attack at the Capitol and the reference to Daschele's staff of 40 and I thought, a Senator from a state with less than a million people has a staff of 40???

Does anyone know who pays for the staffing for members of Congress? Do they fork it over themselves? Do their states foot the bill?

I've long assumed each state paid for their member's apartments/offices/staffs in DC, so I've long thought the first step in cutting down on the waste is to make the members pay for it themselves over a certain, fair amount.

Of course, they're in charge of deciding what that amount is so...

Alex said...

Can we outsource the NY Times to India?

Alex said...

How's the "Recovery Summer" coming along?

former law student said...

The Bo story sounded too much like the FDR-Fala story (Fala the Scottish terrier supposedly left in the Aleutians while accompanying FDR; FDR supposedly sent a destroyer to pick him up) to be true.

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/attack.ram

Hoosier Daddy said...

How did we get from turmoil among the White House economic advisors to worrying about Michelle Obama's vacation?

It's all part of that interconnected web that's DC politics :-)

former law student said...

Everything I can buy in the store (that's not edible) was made in China, so I'm not surprised at the amount of unemployment. With both manufacturing and services outsourced to Third World countries for cost reasons, the biggest sector of the economy must be government.

If you have kids, encourage them to learn to cut and style hair.

The Drill SGT said...

Does anyone know who pays for the staffing for members of Congress? Do they fork it over themselves? Do their states foot the bill?

The Feds

As I understand it, each House determines its own budget and staffing ratios.

Now that 40 may have been referring to more than 1 group of folks.

Each Senator gets a personnel budget. They have some guidelines about top and bottom salaries, but are free within their budget to set numbers and salaries.

as an aside, McCain paid his women staffers more than his men and more than Obama, who paid the males higher.

anyway, it works out to 10-15 staff for each Senator, both for DC and the home offices.

Now you also need to factor in committe staff, who in theory arent peronsal staff, but the majority party staff, clearly are at the beck and call of individual chairpersons.

lastly, and this is where your 40 is vague, Senators in leadership slots have additional staff and budgets.

all on the Federal dime

Scott M said...

Scott, the problem isn't my debating style, it's what the men around me have become:

Wimps. Pushovers. People who just want a non-existent "peace" as others run over you.


That's exactly the problem. None of the men here are "around" you. The written word, in blog form, is woefully inadequate to convey manliness in whatever form you want to show it. A real man doesn't say much, after all, but let's his actions speak for themselves. That's why a blog is almost 180 degrees away from projecting machismo.

Hell, I even agree that our society is pushing for supreme pussification of males. On the bright side, I don't think it's going to work. As the boomers shuffle of their mortal coils, that bullshit will start to go the way of the dinos. I can see it in my son's (19) age group quite clearly. They do still suffer from society in general's outlook on men/father/husbands (hint, look no further than the next commercial break on TV), but they are becoming fine young men in spite of that. Their sons, my grandsons, will be far, far, better off because of it.

All I'm saying, in regards to this, a blog, is that bitching about such pussification by hurling insults and using copious amounts of capital letters doesn't win any battles and can end up contributing to losing wars.

Because I Said So said...

"The departure of the rodents came as the Titanic was in a state of transition"

lemondog said...

They keep looking for inflation, when the real issue coming down the pike is DEFLATION. M3 money supply is crashing, Consumer Credit is crashing. No Velocity of money

And yet they keep pumping.

The Return of the $1,000 Down Mortgage

re: Romer returning to teaching. Those that can't do, etc.

bagoh20 said...

"If you have kids, encourage them to learn to cut and style hair."

Another reason we need more gays and less dirty hippies - haircut market stimulus.

traditionalguy said...

This is strange to see the government and media start to admit even a small truth about the shrinking economy. It is hopeless everwhere EXCEPT in the 150 mile radius from Washington DC where it is booming. That is the only place still pumped full of hope...they own or service the Federal Government Job Machine spending borrowed money. What recession? It is a rumor only in that corridor.

AJ Lynch said...

Trad Guy:

Most of the American people now know the IDEA of Big Govt is dead and has bankrupted us. Many pols are still in a state of denial though.

What's left is for the American people to demand the REALITY of big govt be killed for good because the pols will try to shuck and jive and keep it breathing.

Anglelyne said...

First, can we have a round of applause for GMay and bagoh20 for not giving up on conductin' bidness despite everything?

fls: Speaing of job creation, did anyone else see the NYT article this week on legal work being outsourced to India? English-speakers, educated in the common law, billing rate 1/3 that in the US -- what's not to like?

If you like that, you'll love this: U.S. To Train 3,000 Offshore IT Workers. Beautiful. First tax breaks for offshoring, and now direct subsidies. (At least the offshoring of law jobs, afaik, doesn't involve that. Wouldn't surprise me at all, though.)

"Despite President Obama's pledge to retain more hi-tech jobs in the U.S., a federal agency run by a hand-picked Obama appointee has launched a $36 million program to train workers, including 3,000 specialists in IT and related functions, in South Asia.

"UPDATE: InformationWeek has learned that USAID just launched a similar campaign in Armenia."

Be sure to check the comments for the patronizing response from USAID to the irate citizen.

wv: witical. Witty with the criticism.

jr565 said...

From Michelle Obama before the election:

Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.


Can we please go back to our uninvolved uninformed lives yet? back when the unemployment level was around 4%? If Barack is going to require us to work, how about implement policies that will cause job creation instead of "necessarily causing coal companies to go out of business"? (even though he hasn't yet implemented that policy it's on his destruction of the economy to do list).

Alex said...

If you have kids, encourage them to learn to cut and style hair.

Ummm and what money will the customers have to pay for a haircut? America is rapidly headed towards banana republic status with an ultra rich and everyone else dirt poor.

lemondog said...

re: tepid, just wait for the multi-2000+ page legislations (O'Care, Financial reg) kick in each with its burgeoning layers of bureaucracies.

Govt hog heaven. Taxpayer be-damned.

AlphaLiberal said...

Congratulations to Republicans for kneecapping the American economy to their political benefit.

The stimulus was too small for the job. That was clear, that is what liberals and other Democrats and humans said at the time.

Republicans and con Dems succeeded in getting it cut and in getting one-third of it in unproductive tax cuts. The fucked it up like they fucked up the economy leading into the Bush Recession.

You can hear the glee from Republicans for America's economic misfortunes. They have no plan besides returning to bush economic policies which failed so miserably.

The Republican game will fail. betting on America's failure is a losing proposition.

lemondog said...

If you have kids, encourage them to learn to cut and style hair.

Enroll them in Schools for Future Bureaucrats of America.

There's gotta be a government subsidies available.

c3 said...

Instructions re:Stimulus

Lather, Rinse, Repeat

And while repeating mutter words such as:

inherited, Wall Street Greed, excessive profits

Preferably with sneer and while shaking fist.

When done, go out and make a speech

Alex said...

AL - tell me your Rx for bringing the high-paying jobs back to America. Other then ending tax benefits for outsourcing that is. We can't have that as Harry Reid wont' even allow a vote on it.

bagoh20 said...

"...that is what liberals and other Democrats and humans said at the time. "

At least we agree that Democrats and humans are not the same thing.

Scott M said...

That was clear, that is what liberals and other Democrats and humans said at the time.

It's not clear at all as there's plenty of debate on the issue. Further, I have significant doubts that Al Franken is human.

betting on America's failure is a losing proposition.

Is that a lesson learned from the Democrats since 2004? That's exactly what they were doing. Loudly. Overtly. Repetitively.

While you're schooling us, AL, please explain why GM is building a $500M plant IN MEXICO when Detroit is dying on the vine. Then explain why the administration is spending $36M is to train IT people in Asia.

All of this while unemployment continues its creep.

Mr Lonely said...

nice blog.. have a view of my blog when free.. http://www.lonelyreload.blogspot.com .. do leave me some comment / guide if can.. if interested can follow my blog...

Alex said...

* end all tax benefits for outsourcing

* initiate big new tariffs

* put a 10-year ban on American corporations building factories overseas

* spend $100 billion on job training for the chronically unemployed and underemployed

Neither the Democrats or Republicans are even talking about this!

Big Mike said...

@Alpha, you've been reading Krugman again?

Is there a point where you realize that the alleged "stimulus" is the reason why we are looking at what the economists euphemisticly call an "L-shaped recovery" (synonym: "jobless recovery"). Because most people have already come to understand that that very thing, and the aircraft is closing its doors and getting ready to push back from the gate.

Republicans voted "no" because the stimulus was wrongly targeted, and was a bad idea. How did you expect us to vote when presented with a bad idea to vote on?

AllenS said...

AL, I'll bet that when Bush had deficit spending, you didn't call for him to spend more. Did you?

What do you do for a living?

Original Mike said...

"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."

I was aware of this quote, but never really studied it carefully until now. My God, how presumptuous.

"Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."

Barack's problem is that too many of us are not uninformed.

AllenS said...

"Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, involved, employed."

bagoh20 said...

As an employer of Americans in the manufacturing sector, I can tell you that the biggest exporter of jobs and resultant unemployment is government regulation.

If I wasn't philosophically opposed to it, I could start a factory, hire people and produce product in many foreign countries with less hassle and more help than I can in my own community - even if that country is on the other side of the world and speaks a foreign language. The wage difference isn't even needed to justify it, and is usually negated by transportation and quality costs.

That's our problem. We should be the most business friendly nation on earth by a wide margin, and we were at one time. We now trail some communists nations in this regard.

It's a ridiculous situation at the bottom of a 50 year slippery slope, that is currently getting slipperier. All that time, liberals scoffed at the slippery slope arguments and we kept slipping. It sucks being at the bottom of the slope now.

AlphaLiberal said...

Addressing several zombie arguments:

a) Under George W Bush, the Republicans blamed Bill Clinton for the economy and deficits for years.

b) "Saint" Ronald Reagan blamed Jimmy Carter for the unemployment which grew under his watch, into his second term!

c) The stimulus was too small given the contraction in the private sector in Bush's final year. It was whittled down under conservative demands and threats of Legislative inaction.

d) TARP was George Bush's program.

e) Perhaps we can agree that Obama's HAMP program has been a clusterfuck. they would not take on the banks and allow cramdowns and they have not served people because Freddie Mac screwed it up.

AllenS said...

What do you do for a living Alpha?

Rialby said...

On a somewhat unrelated point - when are we going to see the pictures of First Lady Shelley in her bikini so we can all judge if she's maintaining an ideal weight as per her new "you're a fat ass and we're asking for your sacrifice" program?

traditionalguy said...

The current outlook is no recovery ever. That means two things. We lose our on the job trained expertice in all things productive. If we wanted to produce no trained workers would be available 1) and the Education Bubble must bust next because no jobs means no student loan re-payment causing teachers pay to be cut in half. Thanks a lot Karl Marx and all of his liberal true believers.

bagoh20 said...

"Barack Obama will require you to work."

Life already does that. The question is will you stay the hell out of my way, and then let me keep the money I earn.

jeff said...

"The stimulus was too small given the contraction in the private sector in Bush's final year. It was whittled down under conservative demands and threats of Legislative inaction."

Genius. Should have been even more money to bail out states and public jobs. In fact, why not a stimulus of $350 trillion? Make every American a millionaire. That big enough for you?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Everything I can buy in the store (that's not edible) was made in China, so I'm not surprised at the amount of unemployment.

They don't have Union shops and delux benefit packages in China; they can manufacture items at pennies on the dollar to US goods.

FYI: Don't eat things that are made in China as they also don't have much in the way of oversight on their products.

Plumber and auto mechanic. Hard to outsource those jobs.

AllenS said...

What do you do for a living Alpha? Are you embarrassed to tell?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Funny, Nancy Reagan was a public enemy in the eyes of the Establishment media.


Fixed that for you.

bagoh20 said...

Paying attention to politics is very bad for the entrepreneurial spirit lately. I need to stop it, or I may go Gault, which is not my style.

From now on, I think I'll only read "the sartorialist", and look at Ann's photos; surrounding myself with trivia and beauty when not at the grindstone.

This is what will happen while I'm in wonderland:

1) November will devastate the Democrats.
2) The economy will get dramatically worse after January 2011.
3) The shallow electorate, and media of course, will blame the new (Republican) Congress.
4) Repeat until revolution brings brave new world.

Calypso Facto said...

Until the US backs off the highest corporate taxes in the world, businesses that can make things elsewhere aren't going to want to invest here.

Michael said...

Alpha: What DO you do for a living?

Paul Zrimsek said...

If it's still Bush's economy then Obama can't require me to work in it. Neener, neener, neener!

garage mahal said...

Bush handed a smoothly tuned and well oiled machine off to Obama. That's how I remember it.

Scott M said...

Bush handed a smoothly tuned and well oiled machine off to Obama. That's how I remember it.

...about as factually correct as any other GM post.

Jim said...

bagoh -

I'm going to have to differ with you on the prospects for the economy in 2011. I'm actually very optimistic.

The PRIMARY reason that the economy hasn't rebounded is due to the uncertainty created by the Democratic legislative agenda.

If the Republicans take back the House, then all that is gone. There will be no cap-n-trade. No card check. No more multi-billion dollar bailouts of profligate states.

Once the lame-duck session ends (depending on what they do/don't accomplish), I think a lot of businesses will get off the sidelines and start investing and hiring as a result.

I personally can't wait to expand my business if Republicans are in a position to put an end to this legislative nightmare. If, for whatever reason, it doesn't happen: then I, like pretty much every other businessman I know, will just wait it out until 2013.

Big Mike said...

@garage, the economy Bush handed off to Obama was pretty much the same as the economy that Clinton handed off to him.

c3 said...

Everything I can buy in the store (that's not edible) was made in China, so I'm not surprised at the amount of unemployment. With both manufacturing and services outsourced to Third World countries for cost reasons, the biggest sector of the economy must be government.

If you have kids, encourage them to learn to cut and style hair.


Graph here (2007 data). Please note that the top sector "Finance, insurance..." and the 5th largest sector "Education, healthcare..." are now experience a "whole new world of regulation" and might be just a tid bit anxious about the future and therefore reluctant at this time to add new jobs.

Unintended consequences.

Jim said...

big mike -

And the big difference between Bush and Obama is how they handled the economic downturn. Obama spent $1 trillion on political cronyism and bailing out public sector unions while Bush gave it back in tax cuts to let people decide for themselves how to best spend it.

The results speak for themselves.

Big Mike said...

@Jim, I couldn't have said it better.

Scott M said...

@Jim

If the Republicans take back the House, then all that is gone. There will be no cap-n-trade. No card check. No more multi-billion dollar bailouts of profligate states.

Once the lame-duck session ends (depending on what they do/don't accomplish), I think a lot of businesses will get off the sidelines and start investing and hiring as a result.


I agree that if it's as big an ass-whuppin' as it seems to be shaping up, businesses will start releasing all that pent up frustration and start investing/expanding again. That doesn't mean the economy will rev right up because suppliers are only half the equation. Consumer spending/confidence has got to come back too. I hope that a change in Congress will facilitate that to some degree, but I'm skeptical. I'm also skeptical that simply have Republicans in charge is going to be a sea-change. They didn't do a bang-up job the last time they were running the show. I'm hoping the general attitude of the polity will reign them in this time.

@Big Mike

the economy Bush handed off to Obama was pretty much the same as the economy that Clinton handed off to him.

Do you really believe this, or is this overt Alphabait?

By the way, AlphaLiberal, what do you do for a living?

garage mahal said...

@garage, the economy Bush handed off to Obama was pretty much the same as the economy that Clinton handed off to him.

Except Clinton created more jobs than any administration in history, and George Bush had the least amount of jobs created of any administration. 23 million vs 3 million. Even Jimmah Carter created 10 million jobs in 4 years. I'm sure there is an explanation for this though.

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

What does Alpha do for a living?

WV: squabal

I kid you not...

AllenS said...

garage,

Do you mean to tell me that there were 23 million people out of work, and then Clinton found all of them jobs?

Scott M said...

@Garage

I find it disingenuous to compare Clinton's economic performance to anything other than another American president that was presiding over a technological revolution. Otherwise, the comparison fails before it starts.

Clinton had the good sense to govern from the middle and, for the most part (aside from a couple glaring examples) stayed out of a bursting private sector's way.

Scott M said...

I will give you this, though, Garage. Clinton had the good sense to name as his VP the guy that would eventually invent the internet, which would go on to drive the economic tsunami.

garage mahal said...

So Clinton was lucky. I guess that's an explanation. Clinton also left money in the till when he left, Bush, well you know.....didn't.

rick said...

Ignorance is Bliss said...
"Funny, Nancy Reagan was a public enemy in the eyes of the Establishment media."

It would appear to me that Obama is becoming public enema number one in the eyes (or rears) of the citizenry.

BTW ...AL, What do you do for a living?

Big Mike said...

@Scott, it's partially Alpha bait -- you've seen through me, alas.

(Though I did catch garage in an utter non sequitor, not that that's so hard to do.)

But the reality is that Bush did take office with a recession underway -- something that the press tried to pooh pooh at the time -- and his response was the famous Bush Tax Cut that liberals hate so much. The recession he inherited was, presumably as a consequence, longer but much shallower than most.

I am certain that Obama's legislative agenda in general, and the non-stimulating stimulus in particular, took what would have been a rough recession under any circumstances and turned it into a nightmare.

Calypso Facto said...

Garage said: "Except Clinton created more jobs than any administration in history"

Which is why Pres. Obama is secretly hoping for a Republican Congress come November like Clinton had. Then O can join Michelle overseas and talk all the leftist crap he wants while a Republican Congress goes to work getting government's boot of the private sector's neck.

家唐銘 said...

宇宙萬物中,沒有比人的存在更值得驚訝的!是怎樣的緣份讓我能在分享你的心情~~............................................................

bagoh20 said...

The economy Obama inherited was passed on from Bush, but it was not in any way a Conservative run economy. Dems had the congress since 2006. Bush was a lame duck since then, and thus, this is a 4 year running Dem economy. Even before that, it may been Repubs in one or even both branches, but they were not conservatives, including Bush. Thus we have the result of liberal policy, not conservative.

It's liberal policy to make some (the rich and responsible) pay for the irresponsibility and poor decisions of others, which leads to less motivation in both groups. That is the county's overriding primary problem that leads to all the others killing prosperity, and it's a direct result of liberal policy, regardless of which party brings it.

Paul Zrimsek said...

And that's just the number of jobs Clinton created. If you add in the number he saved, you probably end up with more jobs than there are workers!

AllenS said...

If you don't feel up to it today, Alpha on answering what you do for a living. No problem. We'll wait until you show up again.

It would be nice to know. That way, we'd be able to understand where you're coming from when talking about jobs, the economy, and what a rotten fucker Bush was.

Original Mike said...

"And that's just the number of jobs Clinton created. If you add in the number he saved, you probably end up with more jobs than there are workers!"

Easily explained by the fact that some workers have more than one job.

bagoh20 said...

Garage, you really think American Prsidents do things like "create jobs" and "leave money in the till?"

If that were true, why would any President choose not to be such a hero. It's his legacy after all. Nobody, should be able to talk such men out of blowing that.

Maybe something more is at work than which politician gets the top spot in a nation of 300 million people for a few years.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I guess that's an explanation. Clinton also left money in the till when he left,

No he did not. There was no actual surplus. This is an internet lie and a tiresome left talking point that is repeated endlessly and it is UNTRUE.

There was a "projected" surplus that never came to fruition because we had the internet/tech crash that bled profits that they were counting on for the surplus from the system.

The deficit DID go down under Clinton to a low of 17.91 billion. It was NEVER EVER a surplus.

"Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration"

The US Treasury data confirms that there was not a surplus. The NATIONAL Debt figures went up during Clinton.

In addition we were in a wartime situation after 9-11 and the deficts would naturally grow in that situation.

If you are going to try to argue economics, it might help if you had some basic rudimentary understanding of Public Debt, National Debt, deficits and projected deficits and projected income.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

In addition to not having a surplus the figures were manipulated by taking certain items out of the equation by calling them "off budget".

So if I decide that I don't want to declare my house payment and car payment as part of my budget....off budget.....hot damn!! I have a surplus!!

Geeze just look at the surplus I have if I don't count those other pesky bills.
woo hoo!!. Unfortunately. Government accounting like this doesn't work in the real world.

Just wishing it were true (Clinton surplus) doesn't make it so.

tooclass said...

Man, it never gets old seeing the right wingers go as nuts on Obama as the left wingers did on Bush. Another funny thing is conservatives excusing Bush's shitty policies by explaining that he wasn't actually conservative. Newsflash: THEY ARE ALL IDIOTS! Bachman is no more or less an idiot than Pelosi. Jon Kyle is no more or less an idiot than Harry Reid. Next terrorist attack is going to seriously pull this country apart and it's not going to be pretty.

Methadras said...

Again, in the face of capitalistic economics, their tired attempts at central government economics has clearly failed and failed again. Why do these fools not use history as the guide by which to conduct their economic policies? This notion of making the economic system fair or unfair isn't the question, but rather what is in the best interest of letting citizens determine their economic fate, while minimizing the impact that government extols on the citizens as a function of it's interests? Clearly there is a place for government to have a vested interest in the well being of it's citizens and economy, but unfortunately that has been interpreted at least by these amateurs as a means to control production and to shift wealth where they believe it will benefit the least. They have no clue what an economy is, they have no clue how to deal with it, they and congress as well for a long time have taken the tact that it is better to spend then to cut because their political futures trump the future of the country. That is as plain as day and really, anyone who would deny this is on the same level of understanding as they are.

AllenS said...

Next terrorist attack is going to seriously pull this country apart and it's not going to be pretty.

Why would that be?

Scott M said...

@Methandras

I might be inclined to agree with your point except for one glaring, obvious epic fail. You forgot to ask AlphaLiberal what he/she does for a living.

Lem said...

I got a laugh when I heard Obama saying (to paraphrase) 'Bush's guys drove the economy into the ditch and now they want the keys back'.

Sure we want the keys back.. you had over 18 months to dig it out and all you managed is to sink it further.. very soon gravity (deflation) is going to take over and hurl us all over the precipice (debt.. bankruptcy)

You bet your ass we want the keys back!

Lem said...

BTW a commercial using Obama's derisive words in the background and a car in a ditch with the driver stupidly digging the car further into the ditch..

lets just say it doesnt take a genius.

Paul Zrimsek said...

So Obama's still cooling his heels in the Office of the President-Elect?

For all our disagreements about the Bush administration, I would have the thought the one thing we would all be able to agree on is that it lasted 8 years. If Bush owns the August 2010 economy, then Clinton must have owned the August 2002 economy.

The next time we get a presidential candidate who only considers himself responsible for solving the problems he caused personally, I hope he tells us before we go ahead and elect him.

former law student said...

Until the US backs off the highest corporate taxes in the world

While the nominal rate might be the highest, the effective rate puts the US right in the pack.

Let's look at a profitable company that still does the bulk of its manufacturing in the US:

From Intel's 2009 10-K
Income before taxes/Provision for taxes:

2009: 5704/1335
2008: 7686/2394
2007: 9116/2190

Which shows effective tax rates of 23.4%, 31.1%, and 24.0%; respectively.

c3 said...

Addressing several zombie arguments:

...blah blah blah Bush, the Republicans blah blah blah Bush blah blah blah Bush's program. blah blah blah

Perhaps we can agree that Obama's


Now that there is a fine example of how to reach across the aisle and see consensus.

former law student said...

the figures were manipulated by taking certain items out of the equation by calling them "off budget".

Deplorable yes, but wasn't getting rid of Saddam Hussein worth whatever it cost? A mere eight years later the war is finally over.

former law student said...

"Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration"


The last Clinton budget? Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Bush's tax rate cuts went into effect July 1 2001. His administration sent out 95 million tax rebate checks, $300 for individuals, and $600 for married couples.* None of this caca was in the last Clinton budget.

*The last rebate checks went out September 28.

Alex said...

Why should liberals "reach across the aisle" to Republicans who are insane and evil?

Insane = Sharon Angle, Sarah Palin
Evil = Fred Thompson, John Boehner

There is a political tsunami coming that is gonna crush the Rethugs for good.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Income before taxes/Provision for taxes:

2009: 5704/1335
2008: 7686/2394
2007: 9116/2190



You notice that their income is getting less and less as well?

Provision for taxes does not necessarily equate to actual taxes. Your little chart also doesn't indicate if they are setting aside provisional taxes for just corporate income taxes or other taxes.

The US Corporate tax rate is higher than any of those figures ( about 35% depending on the level of income) which tells us that INTEL may have made some other provisions for taxes or has moved some of its operations into lower tax venues or may have a carry forward tax loss.

Lots of reasons. I don't think your chart tells us what you think it does.

Scott M said...

I don't think your chart tells us what you think it does.

Inego: You keep using that word...

former law student said...

Your little chart also doesn't indicate if they are setting aside provisional taxes for just corporate income taxes or other taxes.


I presume a financial maven like dbq can both find Intel's 10-K on the web and read a balance sheet.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The last Clinton budget? Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

You do understand the difference between a FY (fiscal year) budget and mid year budgetary adjustments?

Clinton's budget for the fiscal year that ended in Sept of 2001 and was made before George Bush was elected in 2000.

Obama's last fiscal year budget will be made (hopefully) well before his sucessor.


None of this caca was in the last Clinton budget.


I never said it was. I said that the last Clinton budget projected a larger deficit than the previous years and that the Clinton budget for that fiscal year 2000-2001 was devised BEFORE GW Bush was elected.

vw: froke....we are so fucking broke

Lem said...

from the wikipedia Debt deflation.. tell me if this sounds familiar.

In Fisher's formulation of debt deflation, when the debt bubble bursts the following sequence of events occurs:

Assuming, accordingly, that, at some point of time, a state of over-indebtedness exists, this will tend to lead to liquidation, through the alarm either of debtors or creditors or both. Then we may deduce the following chain of consequences in nine links:

1 Debt liquidation leads to distress selling and to
2 Contraction of deposit currency, as bank loans are paid off, and to a slowing down of velocity of circulation. This contraction of deposits and of their velocity, precipitated by distress selling, causes
3 A fall in the level of prices, in other words, a swelling of the dollar. Assuming, as above stated, that this fall of prices is not interfered with by reflation or otherwise, there must be
4 A still greater fall in the net worths of business, precipitating bankruptcies and
5 A like fall in profits, which in a "capitalistic," that is, a private-profit society, leads the concerns which are running at a loss to make
6 A reduction in output, in trade and in employment of labor. These losses, bankruptcies and unemployment, lead to
7 Pessimism and loss of confidence, which in turn lead to
8 Hoarding and slowing down still more the velocity of circulation.
The above eight changes cause
9 Complicated disturbances in the rates of interest, in particular, a fall in the nominal, or money, rates and a rise in the real, or commodity, rates of interest.
—(Fisher 1933)


Add to this the uncertainty.. check that, the certainty that Obamacare will affect business expenses exacerbating point no 6-
A reduction in output, in trade and in employment of labor.

Add to that the roll back of the Bush tax cuts affecting small business.. Obama is going to raise taxes at the worst possible time.

Add to that the specter of cap and trade.

Calypso Facto said...

fls: you want to compare the (potentially) realized rate of one cherry-picked US company that benefits from a cozy relationship with government (including over $100,000 in R&E credits each year) to the stated nominal rate of foreign countries? Wow.

But thanks for picking Intel as an example, since their corporate statement on tax policy makes the EXACT SAME POINT I did.

bagoh20 said...

fls said: "I presume a financial maven like dbq can both find Intel's 10-K on the web and read a balance sheet."

One f'n company's financials to disprove that the tax rate doesn't mean what it means for the rest of the country? I'm persuaded.

Bruce Hayden said...

The stimulus was too small for the job. That was clear, that is what liberals and other Democrats and humans said at the time.

You are living in a dream world where Econ 101 and its simplistic Keynesian assumptions actually works. It doesn't. It didn't even work during the 1930s when we were in a supposed liquidity trap.

The simple reality is that spending money paying off all your political debts to major constituents has never, and cannot, get us out of a recession. What has repeatedly worked is tax cuts without spending increases. Instead, this Administration and Congress are implementing massive spending coupled with massive tax increases.

Calypso Facto said...

Oops. $100,000 = $100,000,000

Bruce Hayden said...

The PRIMARY reason that the economy hasn't rebounded is due to the uncertainty created by the Democratic legislative agenda.

If the Republicans take back the House, then all that is gone. There will be no cap-n-trade. No card check. No more multi-billion dollar bailouts of profligate states
.

Except that we are still facing massive tax increases that are unlikely to be rolled back until Obama is booted from the Presidency.

AllenS said...

AlphaLiberal's last attempt at employment.

El Pollo Real said...

Which is why Pres. Obama is secretly hoping for a Republican Congress come November like Clinton had. Then O can join Michelle overseas and talk all the leftist crap he wants while a Republican Congress goes to work getting government's boot of the private sector's neck.

Not a worst case scenario. I would like to see some much needed restoration to the balance of powers. This presumes a House and Senate in Republican hands, hopefully strong enough to override any Presidental vetos.

The Dems just took effective charge of SCOTUS-enough is enough.

bagoh20 said...

If, as virtually all agree, jobs are the problem and the best at fixing that is small business growth, then what is the worst policy possible right now?

1)Raise taxes on small business owners - Check

2)Force up the cost of hiring people (obamacare & card check) - Check

3)Increase the costs of production for every, but only American business (cap and trade) - Check

4)Demonize successful business and businessmen every time you open your mouth - Check, Check, Check

It's a good start, if you don't have clue.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I presume a financial maven like dbq can both find Intel's 10-K on the web and read a balance sheet.

First of all, your figures are from the INTC Income Statement which is not the same at all as a Balance Sheet or a Cash Flow Statement.

They show some considerable changes in deferred taxes on their 2009 balance sheet compared to 2008

2009
DTCredit 555
DTDebt 278
Deferred Taxes 277

2008
DTCredit 46
DTDebt 777
Deferred Taxes (731)

These figures will skew the amount of taxes actually paid due to acelerated depreciation and other factors.

http://www.centrec.com/resources/Articles/FinAnalysisFarmRanches/DeferredTaxes.pdf In case you would care to read about deferred income taxes.


INTC deferred income taxes on the cash flow statement from 2009 on the left to 2006 on the right.
271 (790) (443) (325)

It seems that they had some significant negative figures in the cash flow of income taxes ending in 2008. Along with a pretty large negative in the accounts receivable and accounts payable with a big increase in inventories in 2009.

Your little chart doesn't tell us what you think it does.

My info from Thomson Reuters reports. Not Yahoo Finance.

Fen said...

AlphaLibtard: The stimulus was too small for the job... blah blah Bush... blah blah racist...blah

Yes, we've all seen the talking points from MediaMatters and the NYTs.

Whats more interesting to me is that you can spew this bullshit with a straight face.

You're either so insulated from reality that you dont have the first clue, or you're simply a corrupt partisan shill.

I hope you're just a shill. No one could be so stupid...?

Lem said...

Think of the so called "stimulus" as the gulf oil leak.

The slick effect was overestimated.. just like the stimulus.

The Gulf is very big, and so is our economy.

bagoh20 said...

"I hope you're just a shill. No one could be so stupid...?"

The bell curve does have outliers.

Fen said...

So Clinton was lucky. I guess that's an explanation.

Peace Dividend.

Squandered while Al Queda plotted 9-11.

Maybe if Clinton had spent less time molesting the staff and more time fixing Frannie/Freddie, more time in recognition of the growing security threat we faced...we wouldn't be fighting two wars and hemorrhaging jobs. And of 401ks wouldn't have been diluted to pay reparations to inner city blacks via risky home loans.

Oh thats right, Clinton bragged that he left behing "ticking time bombs" to hamstring the Bush administration.

3000 dead. Nice job Bill.

Lem said...

You make a good point Fen..

After 9/11 I never heard Bush 43 say these attacks are the result of my predecessors security mismanagement.. let alone name Clinton by name.

If I'm wrong I want a video or at least a link from a reputable source!

Fen said...

After 9/11 I never heard Bush 43 say these attacks are the result of my predecessors security mismanagement

True. Everyone was thinking it (I work in DC) but the message discipline was fierce.

Sidebets that the Libtards will whine like hypocrites when Obama's successor complains that he/she inherited this mess from him?

former law student said...

I said that the last Clinton budget projected a larger deficit than the previous years and that the Clinton budget for that fiscal year 2000-2001 was devised BEFORE GW Bush was elected.


Where do you get this stuff? The last Clinton budget (FY2001) projected a 2001 surplus of $155 billion in 1996 dollars. GW Bush was even more bullish on the surplus; his first budget (2002)projected a 2001 surplus of $281 billion

Last Clinton budget:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy01/pdf/hist.pdf

First Bush budget:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy02/pdf/hist.pdf

former law student said...

So, dbq, what was Intel's effective corporate income tax rate for each of the last three years?

former law student said...

1)Raise taxes on the two percent of [sole proprietors] who net over $250K a year - Check

2)Force ... the cost of hiring people (obamacare> onto the employer instead of onto the taxpayer and everyone who uses healthcare - Check

former law student said...

One f'n company's financials to disprove that the tax rate doesn't mean what it means for the rest of the country? I'm persuaded.

What's your company's effective corporate income tax rate?

garage mahal said...

Clinton's surplus wasn't really a surplus, because of Social Security surplus and the borrowing against that, and whattnot. You know. His job creation wasn't really job creation, because, well, how can you even track jobs created anyhow?

And if there were jobs created or surpluses, it was because he was lucky! (or lucky to have a Republican Congress).

c3 said...

but wasn't getting rid of Saddam Hussein worth whatever it cost?

Its a fair point...
But one that Pres Bush and his admin will have to answer not Pres Clinton, though he had the same desire

(and to be far, GWB's dad had an opportunity to ?more quickly realize.)

c3 said...

Let it be duly noted:
The above is a case of saying
You DIDN'T do it too!

Fen said...

1)Raise taxes on the two percent of [sole proprietors] who net over $250K a year - Check

ie. bailout the Accounting Industry.

You do realize that when the rich are taxed more, the government gets less of their money?

Fen said...

garage: Clinton's surplus wasn't really a surplus, because of Social Security surplus and the borrowing against that, and whattnot

Lets simplify it for you, Garage: If you take a dollar out of your left pocket and place it in your right pocket, are you a dollar richer?

former law student said...

You do realize that when the rich are taxed more, the government gets less of their money?

Because while you can take away 35% of people's money, no problem, once you get up to 39% they really start to get excited?

edutcher said...

garage mahal said...

Clinton's surplus wasn't really a surplus, because of Social Security surplus and the borrowing against that, and whattnot. You know. His job creation wasn't really job creation, because, well, how can you even track jobs created anyhow?

Willie's great 'surplus', as Fen noted, was cutting defense by 40% in the name of a peace dividend (not fiscal discipline), plus Newt's welfare reform and budget measures and the expiration (which the Demos did nothing to obstruct (since that had caused the '91 recession)) of George Mitchell's tax increase on the rich. Willie left his successor Enron, DotCom, and Bin Laden.

As for creating jobs, that was the private sector.

PS The Demos have had uber-majorities in both Houses since '08. If the stimulus was too small, whose fault was it?

jr565 said...

Alpha Liberal wrote:

You can hear the glee from Republicans for America's economic misfortunes. They have no plan besides returning to bush economic policies which failed so miserably.


Alpha do you really think that the libs wanted Bush to succeed in Iraq? Do you think they expressed glee or at least an "I told you so" every time there was a bombing in Iraq? You dont think General Betrayus, or "We've lost in Iraq" etc. wasn't the libs wishing failure on his enterprise. You don't think Kerry took glee in saying "this is the worst economy since Herbert Hoover?" THey wanted Bush's tax cuts to succeed?
Give me a break.
Also, just the other day, Eric Cantor appeared on the Chris Matthews show talking about his plan that would cut more than a trillion from the deficit which was shot down by democrats. Democrats, since Obama took office have taken the attitude, as Obama expressed that "they won" and ran roughshod over the Reuplicans. Republicans complained about it on the floor of congress, and the dems basically said tough titty. Obama ignored nearly eveyr idea the republicans had for a stimulus package and went without them. HIs idea of bipartisanship is for the repubs to cave and follow his bidding. So, of course the repubs oppose him in his misguided attempt to impose european socialism on this country. The dems wanted to take the credit for health care, and the economy because they won, and now they will have to and most likely will lose during the next election cycle. But of course, it's all Bush's fault and the republicans who just said no. Well, good for the republicans for standing up for principles and not folding like tents when the dems tried to shove a trillion dollar non stimulus down their throats. It's yours alpha, now own it.
You say Bush drove the car into the ditch. Rather than driving it out of the ditch Obama poured gasoline on it and lit it on fire. So deal with it and stop crying about the republicans who keep saying no. Waaaaaah! Waaah! Dems have the presidency, and congress. They don't need republicans to pass their agenda. It's just too bad their agenda is so damn retarded.

rick said...

FLS said:

1)Raise taxes on the two percent of [sole proprietors] who net over $250K a year - Check

2)Force ... the cost of hiring people (obamacare> onto the employer instead of onto the taxpayer and everyone who uses healthcare - Check

When I first read this, I thought you were being sarcastic....lost my head there for a moment.

As a small business person, I can assure you that I will hire no one with the Obamacare looming. Maybe you could hire them instead.

I am going to stabilize the business for 2-3 years and then retire....screw 'em.

AC245 said...

Clinton's surplus wasn't really a surplus, because...

... the U.S. public debt never actually decreased.

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25

(1950-1999), (2000-2009)

Bruce Hayden said...

1)Raise taxes on the two percent of [sole proprietors] who net over $250K a year - Check.

Don't know how you came up with this, as the taxes of everyone paying federal income taxes, and even some who don't right now, are going up significantly at the end of the year.

Which, of course, ignores the other tax increases that we have already seen or are imminent.

Just because Obama promised to not raise taxes on anyone earning below that doesn't mean that he won't, because he already has, and will soon do so massively.

2)Force ... the cost of hiring people (obamacare> onto the employer instead of onto the taxpayer and everyone who uses healthcare - Check.

Why is this a cost of hiring someone? Because you want it to be? If I don't want to pay for someone's health care as an employer, why should I have to.

Besides that, what you ignore is that ObamaCare will invariably bend the cost curve up - worse care for more money for everyone else. You may be willing to sacrifice your quality of health care so someone who won't pay for their own will be covered, but most us would prefer to keep our own hard earned money.

jr565 said...

garage mahal wrote:
Clinton's surplus wasn't really a surplus, because of Social Security surplus and the borrowing against that, and whattnot. You know. His job creation wasn't really job creation, because, well, how can you even track jobs created anyhow?

And if there were jobs created or surpluses, it was because he was lucky! (or lucky to have a Republican Congress).

while dems take credit for Clintons economy, shouldn't they also take credit for clinton's deregulations of the banks and the repeal of the Glass Steagal act, which the demagogued republicans for during the election with their talking points about how repubs love deregulation, and we need to move away from the policies that got us into the mess.

Ok, expanding the CRA - Clinton. protecting Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac - democrats. deregulating banks - Clinton. Bush tax cuts - Bush. (ya got me on the last one - only aren't they now talking about NOT ending the tax cuts?) Sounds like a perfect trifecta of economic woe all brought about by democrat malfeasance. It sounds almost like Clinton basically created the bubble and then allowed it to pop under Bush. And dems took credit for the bubble as it was rising, and demagogued republicans when it popped. Just like they basically handed off Iraq with a containment that had all but collapsed on Bush's lap, despite previously passing the ILA (whcih again, called for regime change and transition to democracy) and then forgot all about their role and demagogued the shit out of Bush for dealing with the mess.

rick said...

If fact not only will I not hire anybody, if Bambicare is too costly, I suspect I will streamline operations and eliminate some positions. Let someone else cover their Bambicare....maybe you could FLS.

You might call these "unsaved" jobs.

jr565 said...

rick:

As a small business person, I can assure you that I will hire no one with the Obamacare looming. Maybe you could hire them instead.


Hold onto your hats. They haven't even got to Cap & Trade yet, where they will drive up costs of energy and necessarily bankrupt coal companies. (Those jobs will not be counted amongst the saved or created jobs sadly). I'm sure that might change your mind about expanding your business and hiring more people. Or maybe not.
But think about the .000001 degree temperature change we'll see in 50 years when the world will run on windmill power. You'll thank Obama then.

Revenant said...

Because while you can take away 35% of people's money, no problem, once you get up to 39% they really start to get excited?

It is universally agreed among economists that (a) there is a tax rate at which tax revenue is maximized and (b) this rate is less than 100%. How much less than 100% is an unanswered, and unanswerable, question. You sneer at the idea that it might be 35%; fine. So what do you think it is?

Anyway, the tax rate isn't 35% or 39%; that leaves out payroll tax, and state and local income tax.

Michael said...

FLS: "Because while you can take away 35% of people's money, no problem, once you get up to 39% they really start to get excited?"

No, they start to get demoralized because they have to earn at least 12 percent more to get to where they were before the tax hike. In the current deflationary environment that is a pretty big gap that has to be closed. You are aware, are you not, of the money market rates? Libor? So, I suppose in a negative way they do get, as you brightly put it, excited.

Eric said...

aka, she got tired of lying...

while not being listened to by Obama.


Romer's claim to academic fame is her argument FDR's Keynesian stuff didn't do anything to end the Great Depression, isn't it? She's been a solid team player, but at some point she must have come to the realization she's on the wrong team.

garage mahal said...

while dems take credit for Clintons economy, shouldn't they also take credit for clinton's deregulations of the banks and the repeal of the Glass Steagal act, which the demagogued republicans for during the election with their talking points about how repubs love deregulation, and we need to move away from the policies that got us into the mess.

Yea, definitely. Glass Steagal proved to be a disaster. Bank should be banks, insurance companies should insurance companies, and so on.

Bruce Hayden said...

Yea, definitely. Glass Steagal proved to be a disaster. Bank should be banks, insurance companies should insurance companies, and so on.

And, guess what? The recently financial industry regulatory "reform" bill that was supposed to fix this? It cleverly ignored and excluded the financial institutions that took advantage of this, and then grew too-big-to-fail.

Revenant said...

Yea, definitely. Glass Steagal proved to be a disaster. Bank should be banks, insurance companies should insurance companies, and so on.

Why?

Paul Zrimsek said...

Never interfere with the dawning of wisdom. It's such a tiny, tiny step from "Banks shouldn't be insurance companies" to "Governments shouldn't be insurance companies".

damikesc said...

I'd argue that Obama is doing himself a huge disservice in spinning these numbers so much.

When people start to notice that everything you say is bullshit --- and when your ONLY gift is your ability to speak --- you have effectively neutered yourself.

Adding fewer jobs than is needed to avoid increasing unemployment each month is not something to boast about.

garage mahal said...

Never interfere with the dawning of wisdom. It's such a tiny, tiny step from "Banks shouldn't be insurance companies" to "Governments shouldn't be insurance companies".

Sure, when you think, say AIG, and Medicare, you think "both require massive amounts of Federal dollars", don't you. But one is a little more honest than the other, don't you think?

Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fen said...

Because while you can take away 35% of people's money, no problem, once you get up to 39% they really start to get excited?

Your numbers are wrong, but I'll simplify it for you again:

Are you more likely to seek out an accountant if it will a) cost you 5k or b) save you 5k?

My father ran a big law firm in Dallas. He would stop working around July, play golf and do pro bono work for the rest of the year. Because those extra months of work would have put him into a higher tax bracket. It simply wasnt worth it to be productive after July.

Issob Morocco said...

The One would actually need to have people who understand free market economies and have worked in them to first qualify as an economic team. Then they could be in transition.

This is not the case with the collegiate slugs the One has surrounded himself with, none of whom has run a company or made a payroll.

Therefore the original statement is not true because these idiots don't know a thing about business and job creation. It would be like me saying I am a legal expert because I got a traffic ticket once.

Cheers!

Chet Holmes said...

I have gone through your article, I feel it is good, expecting more such articles from you, I will be visiting your website often will refer your website to my friends. Even i have found good information about Chet Holmes