This is great news. I think President Obama deserves credit for bringing us back from near economic collapse when GWB was in office.

yea yea im working some overtime!!!!!!!!!!!!

How many people were employed when G.W. Bush was in office?

How many of those same people were laid off when obama took office?

Let's just hope it continues, and we don't see the oil companies raising prices because we are looking a little better. We all need to work together to get through this and this includes big business.

Bottom line is that the American worker needs to face the fact that he/she will have to work for less pay and benefits in order to remain competitive in today's global economy. The sooner they face this fact, the better off they will be.

THANKS news media. Why don't you just pretend as if it wasn't only for the past summer that you've incessantly been printing doom and gloom articles. Which face of you should I believe?

marlen - You are either an idiot or ignorant, because ignoring the facts is what you are doing to think Obama did anything positive for the economy.

It's kind of difficult for Obama to do anything with the Republicans abusing the filibuster.

I give Obama credit where it's due, our Foreign Policy is terrific, not perfect (drones, and killing American's are a big issue that I think deserves a lot of criticism.), but we're more respected in the world then ever. SoS Hilary Clinton also deserves massive, MASSIVE credit.

But domestically? I give Obama the thumbs up just because he hasn't walked up to every Republican senator and said:

"Mr. Republican, please stop trying to hurt our country just for a vote."

Listen up media:

Pick a side and stick with it. You flip flop on the issue nearly every day. Seriously, yesterday, the older people were feeling it the most and there was a big chance and going into a "second" recession. Today it's all peachy keen, coming up roses blah blah blah.

Perhaps one of you out there could really be a journalist and do some research and find out what the real story is without listening to the government or your boss.

LOL. Yup. Amazing how on one day everything is in the crapper and the next day everything is fixed! I guess that's why the term "spin" is used to describe it, eh? ;-)

Beev. Probably so, although this has no bearing on the article.

Longhair, I got laid of a couple weeks after Obama came into office, along with 50% of the company where I worked. It was January 31, 2009. The decision to lay us off was made several months before that. Obviously the timing had nothing to do with Obama. I was also laid off in April of 2007. At that time, the entire division where I worked was closed. Clearly that also had nothing to do with Obama. During the first several months of Obama's presidency, job losses numbered over 700,000 a month. Clearly, those losses had nothing to do with Obama as his policies had not had time to take effect. After those horrible several months, job losses stabilized and have remained stable since. It's a deep hole our country has fallen into and it may take a decade to dig back out. But at least the major blood loss has been stopped.

A jobless rate stuck above 9% for 5 straight months, yeah try 20

somebefuddledperson --

Pick a side and stick with it.

You have neatly encapsulated exactly what is wrong with most people's expectations of the media. The media should not pick a side.
Nor should it be read with such prejudices, although that may be asking too much of people. If you have doubts regarding statements reported on usually these can be followed up and traced to their source then you can make an informed judgement regarding the reliability of said statements.

After decades of excesses the bill came due and it fell in the lap of the administration to fix. If not for the bailouts the entire economy would have collapsed and unemployment would be at 50%. My only beef is" why can we chop away at education and keep funneling cash to defense contractors, yet under-tax.

Any good news is met with a scowl by the right.

I wish we would quit blaming, or crediting, one president or another with our economic condition. The problems that resulted in the tech bubble, and then the real estate bubble, began long before Bush was in office, and it was democrats in Congress that refused (can you say the Party of No here?) to do anything to reform the structural mess that had been created. Obama has done no good for our economy either, and has made things harder for business, not easier. But it's not his fault either.

Obama is just the potato in the exhaust pipe, but it's the voters that put him there.

Hal-2824511

I don't think somebefuddledperson was implying that the media should always be saying "doom and gloom" or always "things are great", but rather that they should be a little less extreme/sensational with the interpretation that they cram into their headline. The good numbers don't change anything for a fair number of Americans, but it's still good news.

This is great news. I think President Obama deserves credit for bringing us back from near economic collapse when GWB was in office.

If we give Obama credit for this one quarter of moderate growth then he has to also take credit for at least some of the past quarters that under performed and had relatively no growth. It has been years since Bush was in office and even longer since Republicans controlled the Congresses, so the question has to be do Democrats take any responsiblity for the current state of the country?

Rick - it must be amazing to have two mouths on one face.

Flash - you seem like you might be young. 3 years is not a very long time in terms of economic ebb and flow. It's usually the right railing against 'gimme now' generation kiddies, yet it seems like they too have contracted the immediate gratification disease.

mike-1125760

It is possible the article isn't so much about the economy as a whole as it is about the indicators. When you really read and comprehend the articles you may find that they are really about different things. You must go further that the headline. And to truly understand the news you must actually put some work into it.

For instance, you may read the article and get the gist, but still not understand what the "personal consumption price index" is all about. You may need to go and read about that to understand it's roal as an indicator.

Strictly reporting the facts/news doesn't drive up viewership / advertising revenues. We the people are directly responsible for the sensationalism of the news media - if the general public didn't respond to the sensationalized news stream then we'd still be in the Walter Cronkite era of profesional journalism (instead of the Rupert Murdochera for marketed journalism).

It's kind of difficult for Obama to do anything with the Republicans abusing the filibuster

If that was true, obama would not be signing an Executive Order to buy votes from people with student debts.

Well, if Obama's bailouts are responsible for the recovery, then I guess you have to say Bush's bailouts also helped. Or, vice versa. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

The democrats controlled congress the majority of the time during the economic collapse. Reality is the President takes credit or responsibility regardless of who controls congress.

Upon passing Reagan's last economic bill, he said it would set the economy up to have a surplus in the early 1990's. Who was in office then and took credit for the surpluses (even if though the surpluses were actually done by cooking the books)?

Nothing is as black and white at the average American voter thinks it is....

Thank you President Obama for your programs and efforts, otherwise we would be in the Bush II depression for years to come. We need to get back to a conservative America with a surplus budget again like in the Clinton era.

@ Rich-281385

and it was democrats in Congress that refused (can you say the Party of No here?) to do anything to reform the structural mess that had been created.

That mess was created by Phil Gramm and his merry band of Republicans with their deregulation bills (the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) passed by the Republican controlled congress. The accusation that the Democrats stopped any reform of the structure that caused the economic crisis is just pointing fingers at an attempt to divert the responsibility from themselves. Read this article and maybe it will enlighten you but really I doubt it.

http://losangeles.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/the-subprime-mess-and-phil-gramm-an-experiment-in-deregulation.aspx

It's kind of difficult for Obama to do anything with the Republicans abusing the filibuster

Since a lot of you want to blame Republicans it might interest you that since Republicans only recently took control of the House it might be their policies andtheir blocking of Obama policies that have helped the economy to grow faster then expected for the first time since Obama took office. If you look at history you will see Clintons Boom years were also the years Republicans controlled the House. Maybe America has finally figured out the right political mix, Republican House and Senate, Democrat in the white house.

Larry,

That mess was created by Phil Gramm and his merry band of Republicans with their deregulation bills passed by congress with a veto proof majority in 1999. The accusation that the Democrats stopped any reform of the structure that caused the economic crisis is just pointing fingers at an attempt to divert the responsibility from themselves. Read this article and maybe it will enlighten you but really I doubt it.

John McCain along with several other Republicans tried to pass regulations on Freddie and Fannie and they were blocked by Democrats and scolded by Barnie Franks on how solid these entities were. Google this and you will see everyone knew what Freddie and Fannie were doing and Democrats backed it because it got them huge campaign donations along with them saying they were helping the poor get housing. These vines won't let me post the link but a simple google search of "democrats vote against Freddie and Fannie Regulation" will give you all the true facts.

Longhair -

If that was true, obama would not be signing an Executive Order to buy votes from people with student debts.

If republicans can buy votes giving tax subsidies to oil companies that have earned over 40% extra profit in this quarter, if they can give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires why can't Obama buy some vote by giving a break to poor students burdened with back breaking loans - the same loans that used to be held by the government at a 2% interest before the corporate loving middle class hating republicans changed the laws and gave those loans to private banks who are now charging upwards of 8% on those same loans....

I think Obama should buy some more votes by giving free welfare and other such social sops to everyody who can vote democrat so that next year when we have a majority we can take care of the country and its finances without interference from you rightie Aholes :-)

50% tax rate for those earning over am illion dollars - anybody ? Let's make it happen !!!! Obama - please buy some more votes !!!!

Longhair

How many people were employed when G.W. Bush was in office?

How many of those same people were laid off when obama took office?

Your idiocy doesn't play any more.

I know you just HATE looking back at Bush, but since YOU brought it up (BTW, you DO know Bush was Republican, don't you?)....

Regarding debt: Bush started 2 wars, created Homeland Security, signed in Medicaid, and cut taxes to all WITHOUT FUNDING ONE THING! His "Bush Debt Train", which cannot stop on a dime, will last decades... Thank You Mr. Bush!

Regarding war: He started the Afghan war with all our support, then (oops) decided to take his eye off the target to address his own interests and started one of the costliest and least warranted war in the history of this nation... never coming close to finishing either one of them. Obama, on the other hand, has accomplished 3 times the results with 1,000 times less money and lives... I'll let you fill in the details.

Regarding economics: Bush had good reasons to call for a temporary tax cut after our economy went flat due to 9/11. But did he have to spend like a drunken sailor? Did he have to ignore calls to fund his spending? Did he have to ignore the fact that tax cuts work as a one-time bump, but NOT as a long-term strategy? Did he have to virtually decimate regulations in his attempts to "let the economy work", only to trash the economy because we weren't paying attention? And the "Bush Economic Train" has just as much momentum as his "Debt Train" and will be around our necks for decades. Obama, on the other hand, got one stimulus through early (screwed up by mismanaged states), but was blocked by the Republicans from that point on. We will never know where we could have been had the Republicans at least compromised...

Okay, okay... Bush was kind of a nice guy. Cheney was an a$$, but Bush was tolerable.

Have a great day!

Clinton's boom years happened right after he and the Democrat controlled congress raised taxes. The economy took a very positive upswing after that. It might be pointed out that the economy started to collapse after the Bush tax cuts so any talk of the tax cuts helping the economy is not a proven fact. In fact the unemployment rate increased after the Bush tax cuts. Check it out for yourself by googling the unemployment and yaking note of the unemployment rate after the June 2001 tax cuts were enacted.

I have concerns as to whether or not anyone in congress or washington is paying attention to our economy or the problems of this country faces because of big business or whatever.

befuddled: no wonder you are. This is a report on stats from the Commerce Department. of course, if you want to insist that's a "side" for the media to pick, have at it, but at least try to understand the difference between opinion and fact.

Derek: see above. You two really need to understand what you're reading. hint: just because you don't LIKE what's printed doesn't mean it isn't true or is "propaganda".

"As a result, consumer spending, which accounts for about 70 percent of U.S. economic activity"

Perhaps the author should get updated. Government spending now accounts for about 47% of GDP, which means that private 'consumer spending' is only about 53% of GDP now - thanks to the huge increases in spending under Obama. It was about 35% between 1998 through 2008.

Lets look at the economy for a minute. They are basing this on the money spent by us right. Okay so more money was spent but why was more money spent, well how many of you do the shopping for your family every week or every 2 weeks? Have you noticed that the prices are going up every time you to the store? I shop for the 2 us and have noticed this and it is not just the food, it is everything, stop and compare your bills and you will see what I am talking about. I did not talk any classes on economy but of course if every one has to spend more to live it is going look like the economy is getting better isn't it. Awe the numbers game again and we all know what the government does with numbers don't we. All I am saying if the price goes up we spend more money and it gives a false read, I could be wrong but I believe at this point this admin will do anything to make itself to look good. As always just my opinion.

Whew, I am so glad this was printed because our company numbers look pretty dismal for this quarter. Maybe the numbers are a lie and the news is right.

Woot! Hel-lo 12000! Happy Day!

Can someone say holiday spending?

Oh goody! The economy has progressed from moribund to merely pi** poor!

Roy Wilson--

Just went to the Department of Commerce website to view the gross domestic product third quarter 2011 advance estimate report and the numbers check out. I'm thinking these are the latest figures since the report has todays date on it.

I must disagree with what marlen wrote. Why should it always be the hard working poor employees who take a cut? The CEOs and rich are getting like a 20% raise per year, BUT IT'S THE POOR WHO SHOULD ACCEPT LOWER PAY TO BE COMPETITIVE? SCREW THAT!

Interesting: 20% unemployment/underemployment combined, THREE YEARS after a near trillion dollar "stimulus" bill was rammed through Congress (that Biden said we COULD NOT WAIT ON to keep unemployment from going above 8%), and you liberal Obama sheep think we are on the path to great recovery, huh?

Yeah, once again we see the DNC main stream liberal media protecting the man they created and elected and didn't vet properly with propaganda like this. And all you Democrat liberals blaming Bush need to be reminded that it was your beloved DEMOCRATS that ran Congress (BOTH chambers) after the 2006 mid-terms to 2011 when America finally fired Nanny Pelosi & Co. as the majority of the House.

Larry,

Clinton's boom years happened right after he and the Democrat controlled congress raised taxes. The economy took a very positive upswing after that.

It might be pointed out that the economy started to collapse after the Bush tax cuts so any talk of the tax cuts helping the economy is not a proven fact. In fact the unemployment rate increased after the Bush tax cuts.

Wow, how misinformed are you. First of all Bush had just like Obama inherited a recession when he took office in 2001 and passed the first round of tax cuts to try and help pull the economy out of that recession. You say look at what happened to the economy after June 2001 but did you forget about September 2001 and the largest attack on American soil, you think that might of played a role in the bad economy. The official Recession if you google it ended in NOVEMBER 2001 only months after the tax cuts. Although the Recession officially ended (after only 8 months) Growth was slow and unemployment continued to rise until 2003 when what a coincidence his other tax cuts were passed and jobs started being added at a faster pace bringing the unemployment levels down. If raising taxes helps the economy then why did Obama and the democrats EXTEND the Bush Tax cuts?

As for the Bill Clinton claim, yes the economy did grow after the tax increases, From 1993 through 1996, real gross domestic product grew at an average annual rate of 3.2 percent, employment rose by 11.6 million jobs, average hourly wages grew by 0.8 percent, and market capitalization rose by 78 percent in real terms. But then you have the Capital Gains tax cut and In 1997, Congress passed and Clinton signed (despite initial opposition) a modest capital-gains-tax cut, one that would be worth about $30 billion in today's dollars after four years. Yet from 1997 through 2000, a period when the expansion should have shown its age, real GDP growth averaged 4.2 percent a year, 11.5 million more jobs were created, and real wages grew 6.5 percent. Oh, and the stock market doubled. Also for the first time and years the government had a surplus.

This is great news! Until next month when the estimates are corrected down when the administration doesn't think anyone will notice! That seems to be the trend with this administration, sell the public rainbows and miracles, only to have them exposed a week or a month later with the truth!

Flash6

On a crisp day in November 2012 the American people will pull this SCAB (Obama) off and begin to heal & rebuild again.

=================

It's good to see a rethugli-cant with a sense of humor. Sorry but with the current crop of clowns you are fielding even a weak economy won't get Obama kicked out of office.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

10tacle----you need a refresher course in how our Congress works. Though the Dems have a majority in the Senate your precious rethugli-cants have blocked everything this administration has tried to do. It's nice to see positive growth, which has happened since mid 2009, in spite of everything Mitch McConnell and the rest of his followers have done.

During the Bush years, we saw much higher consumer sentiment, higher revenues, much lower unemployment, a much lower gross public debt, and much lower deficits. Bush inherited a recession from Clinton after the DotCom bubble with many job losses in the technology sector. Think back when the Nasdaq was over 5,000. It is nowhere near that level today. However, job creation was minimal and the types of jobs were service related not paying very well. And herein lies the big problem going forward.

Back a few weeks ago, a laid off worker from a closed GE plant that made the incandescent lightbulbs was interviewed. As I recall he made over 30/hr. That would put his salary around 60,000. So he would be our middle class factory worker. I would put his age around 40. Equally I would say he was not very well educated and I don't mean to be flip here.

I just went to a GE site that was offering new jobs in KY. The salary range was 18-28/hr. So the man above will likely NEVER see the salary he once earned. No company is going to hire somebody at the top of the pay scale. So at best he might see 25/hr, or he would be weeded out based on his high salary and the fact that his skill sets. My point is that at one time manufacturing needed bodies. They eventually had to pay more for those bodies, but it wasn't so much the skills, but just the need for humans.

So in the name of the green movement, the above jobs were lost that were high paying with good benefits, and replaced by green servicing jobs and some manufacturing jobs that pay half that wage. We should think about curtailing products that are still profitable looking at the far reaching effects on communities.

Just a few comments on various posts, above...

Roy, I suspect your numbers are correct (as usual), however, doesn't this just point out how far down consumer spending is right now and that DEMAND, not regulations or taxes, is the real reason for our lack of recovery?

10tacle, your post has quit a few of the "pundit tactics" in it... can't compare your 20% combined number with the 8% unemployed only number...

And the context of the 8% was that economists had estimated 10% and the stimulus would drop whatever it was by 2%...

I looked pretty carefully and didn't see anyone claim a "great recovery". But, while I'm here, the recovery could be much better with Republican support instead of blocking tactics.

And why do you insist on blaming Congress for Bush's bunglings while holding Obama singly responsible for not fixing his bunglings to your satisfaction?... just wondering

If raising taxes helps the economy then why did Obama and the democrats EXTEND the Bush Tax cuts?

LogicRequired

Why? Because the Republicans refused to extend unemployment unless Obama signed the tax extension.

Holy s---, man... that was only a few years ago. How bad is your memory? I suggest you go to the doctor and get screened for early signs of Alzheimer's, because you obviously have a severe issue remembering important facts.

Hey Republicans, next month we are going to see an increase in retail hiring... for the holiday season.

Now will that increase occur because taxes go down in November and December? Or is it a little thing called DEMAND?

According to Repubs, taxes are the sole driver of employment... so taxes will be going down for 2 months, right?

Hi Larry,

I don't mind that you give all credit to one party and all blame to another. The world needs partisans, I suppose. But what I do mind, and what we should all mind, is your idea that raising taxes somehow improves an economy. Raising taxes for a specific reason might help improve the economy...infrastructure could be one case, war another (though war itself harms the economy, it's the peace that follows that does us well). But if your goal is to merely take money from one person in order to give to another then you've done nothing positive for the economy.

This might satisfy your moral goals, and I would still disagree with you there, but you should seperate your moral quest for social justice, if you have one, from the concept of economic progress. One, frankly, must occur at the expense of the other. For my part I prefer an America where the most people have the most opportunity to create for themselves the best life possible, and that for the others, the sad cases of failure, that we be left to our own moral consciences about how to best help them. In no way does taking a dollar from you, one you would spend or save (invest) to give to someone else improve the economy. In fact, in a perfect world (which doesn't exist) the best you could claim is that no economic damage was done.

This is another spin from the Obama media supporters to sugar coat the failure of Obamanomic unable to teke us out of the ditch. 2.5 is nothing. Our economy should be growing at 6.5 % at market prices in order to have a REAL growth of the minimum of 3.5 % . It means $900 billion more.

Hi former GOP,

I don't know where you got the idea that republicans think the sole driver of employment is taxation, but no one I've ever heard says what you claim. Higher taxation would induce lower hiring as the marginal cost of employing a person increases, and lower taxation would produce the opposite result ALL OTHER THINGS EQUAL. But when are all other things equal? How about never.

Lower rates of employment are the result of many factors, taxation being just one. And, imo, not the largest single factor either. Regulation plays a huge role. Legal risks play a role. The cost of money plays a role. Educational failure, or success, plays a role. Consumer demand plays a huge role. It might seem smart to you to dismiss your opponent's arguments by caricaturing them but it only proves you haven't thought out your own position well.

Lets say I own a car lot and in the past my average was selling 10 cars a month. However, for the past couple of years, I've averaged like two cars a month. Very bad. However, last month I had three buyers instead of two. Still WELL below what I used to do when things were normal, but nonetheless a little less dismal than last month. That's what I see here... The media would trumpet my car lot as "Sales up 33% over last month! The recession is over!"

Things are bad and the underlying indicators are not good. Unemployment is still up. People are still losing their homes. Europe's economy is as shaky as ours. Terrorism is still a threat. So consumers spent a little more? Okay. Some months I spend more than others. Even the article said it wasn't enough to make a dent in umemployment (or anything else). I think the media feels like they need to play cheerleader to bolster Obama's re-election chances. "If we can just get people believing everything is okay, maybe they will start spending more and it will help."

I don't know where you got the idea that republicans think the sole driver of employment is taxation, but no one I've ever heard says what you claim.

Rich

That would be the countless... literally, I lost count... conservatives on this vine, making that claim.

Then there is Bachmann, Cantor, Boehner, Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, Palin... ok, I really don't have time to list them all. Just watch Fox News and you will hear it.

But when are all other things equal? How about never.

I will agree with you here, all things are NEVER equal... so the mere idea that tax cuts create jobs is laughable. DEMAND creates jobs. That is why retailers hire more in holiday seasons. That is why Disney World and Disney Land hire more in summer months.

That is why newspapers, record stores, video rental stores, and bookstores have lost jobs that will NEVER come back... because of lack of demand. There are no customers for those industries. Tax cuts, complete deregulation, free-reign to pollute, corporate bailouts, NONE of that will bring any of those jobs back. Because when it comes down to it, customers and DEMAND creates employment. It doesn't matter what your tax rate, or regulations are... if you don't have customers, you don't have a job.

Think about it. Let's say we do what Republicans want and cut all business taxes, then we remove all regulations and let them pollute the f--- out of the world, then we give them our money as subsidies. Do you think those changes will bring music record stores back, and people will just stop getting music online? What about video stores? Will we suddenly go back to driving to Blockbuster instead of streaming it to our home? Will that save bookstores, even though tablets and eReaders are gaining popularity? Will that return us to getting a physical newspaper, restoring all those jobs, instead of getting news online? Will that eliminate the do-it-yourself check-out stands at grocery stores, and restore those lost clerk jobs? Will that cause us to go back to auto line-workers, instead of robots building cars?

Former-GOP So I can't sell a product because no one will buy it at what I'm asking for it. The price I put on the product is based on my cost to produce it, cover overhead, etc. I get a big tax cut from the government. Recalculating my overhead, I determine I can lower the price of the product. Suddenly consumers start buying it, i.e. there is demand for it, so I have to hire more people to keep up with demand.

Cause and effect....

Same concept could apply to regulatory compliance that drives up the product price.

fomer-GOP,

Your right that it was attached to unemployment extensions and that is how they got some Democrats in congress to go along with it, but Obama was kind of different story, although I will admitt his answer changed day to day.

Why? Because the Republicans refused to extend unemployment unless Obama signed the tax extension

Holy s---, man... that was only a few years ago. How bad is your memory? I suggest you go to the doctor and get screened for early signs of Alzheimer's, because you obviously have a severe issue remembering important facts.

Obama's Words

Obama sat down for an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, and was conveyed a simple request from Elkhart resident Scott Ferguson: “Explain how raising taxes on anyone during a deep recession is going to help with the economy.”

Obama agreed with Ferguson’s premise – raising taxes in a recession is a bad idea. “First of all, he’s right. Normally, you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes. So I guess what I’d say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don’t raise taxes in a recession. We haven’t raised taxes in a recession.”

Todd reminded Obama that he had promised to raise taxes on “some of the wealthiest” Americans

Obama responded by reiterating his opposition to tax hikes during a recession and making an argument about timing. “We have not proposed a tax hike for the wealthy that would take effect in the middle of a recession. Even the proposals that have come out of Congress – which by the way were different from the proposals I put forward – still wouldn’t kick in until after the recession was over. So he’s absolutely right, the last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession because that would just suck up – take more demand out of the economy and put business further in a hole.”

So I can't sell a product because no one will buy it at what I'm asking for it. The price I put on the product is based on my cost to produce it, cover overhead, etc. I get a big tax cut from the government. Recalculating my overhead, I determine I can lower the price of the product. Suddenly consumers start buying it, i.e. there is demand for it, so I have to hire more people to keep up with demand.

hs321

That is based on the assumption that prices are determined SOLELY based on overhead cost and NOT market value... or any other factor.

But your same logic can be applied to the reason we should NOT increase taxes on the middle and lower class. They have less money to buy, thus less demand, less people are hired to meet this smaller demand... cause and effect.

But the Republican party wants to increase taxes on the middle and lower class, and decrease them on the rich.

Or we can use that logic with jobs. If we increase lay-offs and put MORE people out of work (cutting government jobs), we decrease the amount of people with disposable income to buy products. They have less money to buy, thus less demand, less people are hired to meet this smaller demand... cause and effect.

But the Republican party wants to lay-off government workers and increase unemployment.

At least we can agree that reduced demand is bad, and increased demand is necessary. But your own logic dictates that you have to recognize Republican plans as demand-killers.

And stop with the regulatory bullsh--. If a business owner can not be successful without polluting the f--- out of everything, then that business man is a FAILURE and should not be in business. Millions of people are capable of running successful businesses and NOT polluting. The failure to be successful without polluting is a personal failure... and as a society, we are not responsible to cater to the needs of every moron businessman who fails at life. Remember personal responsibility? Well that applies to businessmen too.

Woweee....another feel good article.

Wait a minute.....the MAIN PROBLEMS with Mr. Obama getting re-elected is the ECONOMY and UNEMPLOYMENT.

On one day, the Economy is in the tank and then, miraculously, the Economy is picking up steam.

On another day, the Unemployment rate will be going down because of Mr. Obama's domestic agenda, and the next day, the Unemployment rate has NOT CHANGED.

The Bottom Line: the media is programmed to meet Mr. Obama's campaign re-election rhetoric.

Hal-2824511 "Roy Wilson--Just went to the Department of Commerce website to view the gross domestic product third quarter 2011 advance estimate report and the numbers check out. I'm thinking these are the latest figures since the report has todays date on it."

I didn't question the growth figures, just the comment about the private sector accounting for 70% of GDP, when it's actually only about 53% now that the government has dramatically increased its spending under Obama.

hs321 - except that once a company is a certain size all they do is pass the savings on to shareholders (because they are the important ones) and the actual price doesn't change much. Or the excutives give themselves bonuses with the extra dough and again the consumers get nothing. You are living under the fiction of the altruistic businessman who frankly is rarely found in real life. A PERFECT example is the airlines who did not lower prices for those weeks that they had no federal tax and just profited the extra income.

You delusional right wing nuts are so misinformed that you actually believe that Bush inherited a recession. The employment was at a 4.2% rate when Bush took office on Jan 2001 and by the middle of the year it was still at 4.5%. Republicans had control of both houses of congress. After the Republicans pushed through Bush's tax cut in June 2001 the unemployment steadily increased to 5.7% by the end of the year. If you call that a recession then Obama inherited a depression from Bush. He would have given anything if the unemployment would only had gone to 5.7% by the end of his first year.

The claims get get so ridiculous from those on the right that Sessions actually made the claim that the revenue actually increased for the first three years after the Bush tax cuts which FactCheck,org debunked. In fact revenue not only declined but Bush's budget got bigger which increased the deficit even more.

Which brings up another thing that is hypocritical of the right wing nuts is their constant complaining of spending by Obama when their idol Bush spent borrowed money and nearly doubled the deficit while leaving Obama with the cost of two wars and the obligation to pay the interest on the borrowed money Bush spent.

Moral of story is that right wing nuts are delusional and liars.

Another point is that if Bush had not nearly destroyed the economy the deficit today would not be as bad and the tax cuts could have been allowed to expire which would have decreased the deficit. The stimulus would not have been necessary to stop the downward spiral of the economy and less people would have been out of work, The moral of the story is that the Republicans screwed up the economy and are blocking everything Obama is trying to do to get it back up.

Hi again former-GOP,

Most every conservative will explain to you that taxation matters where job creation is the goal, but no one, and you can cite no one, says it is the only thing that matters. This is part of the problem we have--people trying to caricature one another rather than speak to an honest perspective. For instance, when have conservatives argued for no regulations, no environmental protections, no...whatever? Not even libertarians argue for these things. But each, to a varying degree, wants them reduced or placed at a more appropriate governmental level. Not every regulation needs to be done in DC.

If you raise taxes (as liberals claim to want to do on certain sectors), and if you increase regulatory scope and depth (as liberals are doing), and if you increase the legal risks for doing business (the Democratic Party IS the Party of No when it comes to legal reform), and so on, then I don't think most people who aren't rabidly partisan will conclude you are pro-growth. We can debate how much regulation is appropriate, or how much taxation is needed, but to argue Republicans or conservatives want no taxes or no regulations or no laws is just phoney, and, frankly, it is beneath you.

I think we should have LESS federal taxation, but I also think we should have less done by the feds. I want less federal regulation too, in almost every category as well, but not because we don't need some regulations. I think my state, despite it being California (I know admitting this weakens my case about local wisdom), can do a better job and do it at lower cost. That said there are some federal regulations we ought to have, particularly regarding interstate environmental issues. I can go on about this, but will it matter if all you read is that we should eliminate all taxes, or eliminate all regulations, or eliminate all of anything? Can we find any common ground on which to move forward, or are we constantly going to purposely misinterpret our political adversaries so that we can support "our" side?

Larry,

Calm down.

If you call that a recession

When you have negative growth it is called a recession, we don't get to pick and choose what is called a recession, that is what a quarter with negative growth is called. The Recession that took place under Bush was the result of the dot com bubble which took place before Bush was in office. Just like the housing bubble happened before Obama was in office, not blaming one party or the other just that is what took place. Yes unemployment went up after Bush's tax cut but again remember we were in a recession that according to the government started in March2001 and ended in November 2001, and don't forget that 9/11 happened which also had a horrible impact on the economy. If you look at a tax revenue chart revenues went up after the Bush tax cut in 2003 because the economy started to turn around, the higher deficits were from to much government spending which I will agree with you Republicans spent to much. But with that in Mind what Bush and the Republicans added to the deficit is nothing compared to the last four years. Bottom line is you can raise taxes all you want, it won't cover the deficits projected. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on our debt have costs that will take up our entire budget even if we got rid of everything else. Taxing the rich 100% wouldn't give you enough money to cover the next 6 months of deficits.

LMarcT "Roy, I suspect your numbers are correct (as usual), however, doesn't this just point out how far down consumer spending is right now and that DEMAND, not regulations or taxes, is the real reason for our lack of recovery?"

Good question. I just ran the numbers, and private consumer spending increased in every year for the last 20 years, except for 2009, so it does not appear to be related to lower consumer spending, but dramatically higher government expenditures. Consumer spending for 2011 (est) is still higher than 2008.

Increased regulations always cause a drop in economic production and jobs, and there was a record 81,000 pages of regulations in 2009, so we shouldn't be surprised that there has not been much economic growth. While we all want clean water and air and a safe environment, I doubt that we needed such a dramatic increase in regulations at a time when businesses were struggling to survive.

Hi Sasha,

There is not such thing as an altruistic businessman, and we shouldn't want one. Businesses exist to earn profits, not to give you what you want because you want it. Those airlines you wrote about charged what the market would bear. It's the same with baggage fees. Food fees. If you don't want to pay it, and enough people like you exist, then they will lower their prices. It has nothing to do with shareholders or CEO pay, it has everything to do with what customers are willing to pay.

Looked at another way...it's the consumer that sets the prices. That's a lot of power when you consider it. It's an easy proof as well: If firms set prices then they would not fluctuate much, and certainly not fluctuate towards the lower end. Nope, if they can raise prices they will, and they should! The same is true with workers and wages. If you can get more money for what you do you will, and you should. Why, ever, leave money on the table?

Longhair "How many people were employed when G.W. Bush was in office?How many of those same people were laid off when obama took office?"

The average number of people employed in 2000 (Clinton's last year) was 136,891,000.

The average number of people employed in 2008 (Bush's last year) was 145,362,000.

The average number of people employed in 2010 (Obama's second year) was 139,064,000.

Here's the government's Bureau of Labor Statistics site to verify - look at Employed - Total for each year;

http:www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat.pdf

This is going exactly as the model predicts for the extension of the Bush tax cuts at the end of 2010. Please refer to my post here (#1.44 from August). Hiring grew then leveled off. Once the new hires were comfortable with their new income source, they started spending. The economy grew.

Next up, businesses will feel better about their own situations and another round of hiring will commence -- that is unless they are threatened with higher taxes again. As I noted all very predictable results of the extension of the Bush tax cuts.

One should also note that this rise in GDP is well after nearly all of the near trillion dollars of failed boondoggle "stimulus" has been spent. We don't need more of that kind of failure.

Didn't the President tell us this wouldn't/couldn't happen unless his jobs plan was immediately passed? So how did this happen?

"Didn't the President tell us this wouldn't/couldn't happen unless his jobs plan was immediately passed? So how did this happen?" - Dan H

Right on Dan. I mean how is the President supposed to ram his agenda down our throats without some made up looming catastrophe to "underestimate"?!?

Also, where are all the people who wanted to string up the Tea Party reps for "ruining" the economy during the debt "crisis"? If the Tea Party's actions affected the economy so much and the economy grew at a faster pace, shouldn't the Tea Party get credit? I have a feeling I'll be waiting a while for that or I'll get some sort of BS rationalization of "It grew in spite of the TP"..."It grew in spite of the extension of the Bush tax cuts"..."It grew in spite of the conservative ideas that were finally implemented at the end of 2010 after being blocked for 2 1/2 years of failed agenda by the Dems". At some point even a liberal can't believe that, unicorns or no unicorns.

"There is not such thing as an altruistic businessman..." - Rich

I'm not sure you're going far enough. Many would say there's not such a thing as even an altruistic human being. As soon as giving away your excess feels good, you're no longer being altruistic.

Speaking of altruism, funny how these altruistic Occupy Wall Streeters now suddenly want the benefit of not having to pay the thousands of dollars of student loans they took out. On my dime no less.

They didn't ask for loan forgivness ... it was offered.

There is a difference; Its not like they sent lobbyist to congress and "donated" to the reelection of a bunch GOPper party bosses to see of they could come to the aid of strangers, needing to keep regulations away from Health insurance, Coal or other industries getting record profits - during recession, while the majority of workers a wonder how cold will they let their homes become, before letting the kids turn on the heater.

"They didn't ask for loan forgivness ... it was offered." - Beoweulf

Really??? Offered by who???

Try keeping up dude. Nothing's been offered to any group regarding loan forgiveness. If there has, please feel free to correct me with documentation. Until then I'll just listen to the crickets.

I can see no logic, no sensible reason behind the party of fear and obstructionism, being credited for any thing more or less than the self destruction they bring upon themselves. Mr. so called logic, get your head out of the sand !

Hi Beoweolf,

Their demand for loan forgiveness is one of the thirteen planks of their so-called platform. As these are very organized and union-sponsored protests, I think it's fair to say they have plenty of lobbyists in DC, and are often able to call the president directly, asking for these freebies.

It's a bad plan, no matter how you slice it. Just as we should not have bailed out insurance and banking and auto firms, we should not bail out individuals simply because they made a mistake and spent too much to get the crappy education they have. In a sense, their over-payment IS their education.

A more important question should be asked of all of these bail outs...If every bad decision is going to fixed by the nanny state, then will more, or less, people be making bad decisions? That is, is this good public policy or just a way for our "leaders" to fleece us while buying votes?

Hi T L Trude,

And yet I am not fearful, but realistic, and not obstructionist, but unwilling to help you place a noose, economic or otherwise, around my neck. I like capitalism. I like liberty. I like a constitutionally constrained federal government. Perhaps these things are anathema to you. But, since you seem to support those ideas that are opposite mine, is it not possible that you are the fearful obstrcutionist?

Rich these words were not sent to you. But i'll be honest I've been a Republican all of my life. Served on the city board, representative to the county convention, sent to the state as an alternate. BUT I find the party has gone overboard and I can't see myself with them again.

Hi T L,

You wrote about a party which I belong to. I think that makes it fair game. In any case, in what way have republicans gone overboard? Without putting that into context it's anyone's guess what you mean.

Rich: They have sold out to the corporate rich fat cats and have forgotten the rest of us. Yes both parties are party to the greed and speculation of the controling class. They cry "class warfare" and only magnify that they consider themselves to be a special class. What happened to the we and the us? Why does it have to be us or them? What we give to others is what we give to ourselves, this will never change, it's the gospel truth ! We all sink or swim or drown together. If we don't prosper all, then the truth is no-one is prospered !

Hi T L,

I would dearly love to have seen more light, and less heat, in your reply. I don't know how it would break down, but I think most large firms in the USA want, and will gladly accept, a large intrusive federal government. Of the two parties one party promises more government than the other, but both promise too much. So I don't know who these corporate fat cats you write about are, and I don't know how republicans have sold out to them but democrats are less culpable.

I also have no idea what you mean by crying class warfare while considering themselves to be a special class. Do liberals not explain to you how you need to live with less so that the environment can survive while flying in on private jets to do so? See, I'm not sure your point at all. If it's that our political system is flawed, well...sure. It is working as designed, which is with flaws. What is the alternative? One party? Citizens as serfs to the state? Benevolent dictators?

If the "we" and the "us" means that I must go your way else we part enemies then I have to argue an alternative point. You are the problem. Our nation was not designed to operate this way. Our constitution virtually dictates that our government will be inefficient, at best. Today in various cities are people demanding more free stuff for themselves. If I oppose them, if I support personal responsibility, then who is it you consider to be right? There is no "we" or "us" with the Occupy people. You must choose. If you choose to be with them, to give them what they want, then we must be opponents. And if you choose to not be with them, to not give to them what they want, then we must be allies.

We do not all sink or swim together. We only sink or swim together if we continue to ignore our constitution and pretend that we can live well beyond our means by stealing the future wealth of our heirs. Our nation, and capitalism itself, thrives on the creative destruction that is omnipresent where freedom exists, and when you seek to eliminate failure as an option you will, axiomatically, eliminate the very reason the USA became so great in the first place.

The first and last I heard of any student loan forgivness plan was a mention from President Obama a couple of days ago. It was not at that time, an actionable item - merely a proposal. I had not heard anything else about it - until one of the GOPper instigator said it was being demanded by the "Occupy" group.

That seems a bit general, since just a few days ago - when asked about "demands" a member of the NYC contingent offered an ambigous, rambling reply which ended on the note that they were staying until something happened.

No "plan" just a bunch of people tired of the squeaky wheels getting the grease and the public taking it in the shorts - dry.

How do "They" make demands when there is no "They" leadership?

Thou dost protest too much.

The authorities Wished there were a leadership; 'cause then they would have a target - someone to either blame or reward.

If you think you know what "Occupy" wants, then you are talking to or listening to the wrong people... whoever this authority is - he is just as trustworthy as are the "shared wealth spam" emails from Nigeria are real.

Rich: I like your honesty and your reason. We are not so very far apart as it may seem. I would only add that we need to go back to the moral ground we started this Nation on in the first place. I think both parties are to blame for their divisive, separatistic, selfish, idiological behaviour. We seem to war against one-another instead of serving each other and working with each other. Community means we have common responsibilities for one another and to each other, including those of individuals. Yes and it must be required from our representatives, if it will ever be required by the people. Character matters more than ever if we will ever survive as a Nation.

@Longhair

If that was true, obama would not be signing an Executive Order to buy votes from people with student debts.

Executive Orders are exactly that: EXECUTIVE ORDERS. Anything that is not an executive power - and trust me, there are many things that are and aren't - must be put through Congress.

If Obama could do anything he wanted, that'd make him a TYRANT.

There are many great resources available online to help you understand our American political system.

Since a lot of you want to blame Republicans it might interest you that since Republicans only recently took control of the House it might be their policies andtheir blocking of Obama policies that have helped the economy to grow faster then expected for the first time since Obama took office. If you look at history you will see Clintons Boom years were also the years Republicans controlled the House. Maybe America has finally figured out the right political mix, Republican House and Senate, Democrat in the white house.

I don't like the idea of 'blaming' republicans. It sounds like I'm bashing them for everything. I'm being specific here.

I'm discussing.

What I am discussing, is that the Senate Republicans are blocking Obama on EVERYTHING. Let's not forget, their #1 goal for America right now is NOT jobs. It is NOT recovery. It is making sure that Obama is a One Term President.

They are using the filibuster to block all chances at progress that are beyond his executive scope of power, and then blame him when the country doesn't get better. And there are people out there who eat this up.

How on earth is this logical, or ethical? Selling out our President and our Economy for votes?

Hi Andy,

Is it possible, since we are just discussing issues, that republicans in the Senate (the House too to be fair) can both want as political goals to defeat Obama AND want to improve the economy so that jobs for millions now out of work can be found? I guess, to put it another way, is Obama's economic plan the ONLY way for our economy to move forward, let alone the best way?

Now, it seems logical to me that the opposition party, democrats when Bush was president, also wanted him to be a one term president. Same as when Bush 41 was president, and they succeeded as well. It is always the case, ALWAYS, that the opposition party wants the president to serve one term and no more. What is illogical is to think, ever, that this is not logical or ethical.

I think that all that President Obama has done, domestically so far anyhow, is badly conceived and has been and will continue to be an epic failure. Churchill said it first, but it is a fact that trying to spend your way into prosperity is the same as standing in a bucket and trying to lift yourself by the handle. Governments are never good, and for many reasons, at producing the best economic conditions. So republicans want to do less, to spend less, and you think this is to sell out Obama for votes, but this is what conservatives believe will work, and has worked, every time it's been tried.

One simple question for you...What progress that translates into economic growth have the republicans blocked?

Hi Andy,

Is it possible, since we are just discussing issues, that republicans in the Senate (the House too to be fair) can both want as political goals to defeat Obama AND want to improve the economy so that jobs for millions now out of work can be found? I guess, to put it another way, is Obama's economic plan the ONLY way for our economy to move forward, let alone the best way?

Now, it seems logical to me that the opposition party, democrats when Bush was president, also wanted him to be a one term president. Same as when Bush 41 was president, and they succeeded as well. It is always the case, ALWAYS, that the opposition party wants the president to serve one term and no more. What is illogical is to think, ever, that this is not logical or ethical.

I think that all that President Obama has done, domestically so far anyhow, is badly conceived and has been and will continue to be an epic failure. Churchill said it first, but it is a fact that trying to spend your way into prosperity is the same as standing in a bucket and trying to lift yourself by the handle. Governments are never good, and for many reasons, at producing the best economic conditions. So republicans want to do less, to spend less, and you think this is to sell out Obama for votes, but this is what conservatives believe will work, and has worked, every time it's been tried.

One simple question for you...What progress that translates into economic growth have the republicans blocked?

Hi there,

I wanted to let you know that I did read your statement, but decided not to respond, and dismiss it because I realized that the language you were using was not of someone looking for discussion, but rather a debate/fight. IE: "Opposition" Vs "Friendly Opposition." "Epic failure" "Governments are never good" the list goes on.

I apologize for dismissing you.

Business is up in my sector and there are plenty of people in my region of the country (NE) sure spending --whether or not your own partiular household is out of the recession--doesn't mean everyone in the country isn't seeing any improvement...

Same here. Everyone that had been laid off has since been rehired, or replaced. Everyone in the factory has been doing overtime for months.

There are lots of places with a long way to go. But in many places (like here) the worst is behind us.

Not to be a downer, david-1861417, but maybe the problem is you. That's my best guess, seeing as "the whole world is crazy."

My department increased engineering headcount by 15% in the last few months. Our business is growing and we are all very busy and really needed those new people.

My sentiments exactly! I'm certainly not joining them in drinking the Kool-aid!

Let me guess guys you all voted for Obama.



Let me guess guys you all voted for Obama.

If voting for Obama somehow means that your employer is doing well and things are looking positive - as you seem to indicate - then maybe more people should? Lol. Seriously, wtf is the point you are trying to make?

Actually I voted for McCain, even though I had strong misgivings after he chose that bimbo as his running mate. I used to think of McCain as a moderate, and I always supported his fight for campaign finance reform -- addressing the root cause of the biggest problem in our political system, the influence of big money that corrupts even the most noble-minded politicians.

If there were such a thing as a Republican moderate running, he or she might get my vote. But if the GOP nominates one of these lunatics like Perry or Cain or Bachman, I will be voting for Obama. Maybe Romney might have a shot at winning my vote, but I'm still undecided on that. If the election were held today, I would vote for Obama over any of the current GOP field.

It is unpopular to say so, but Obama has done a good job during the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. If things had gone differently, we could be in the midst of another 1933, and instead of 9.1% unemployment, we could be sitting here with 25% unemployment, and instead of a Dow that has recovered most of it's 2008-2009 losses, it could still be stuck in the basement.

Go ahead and flame me, but regardless of what happens in next year's election, I believe that history will judge Obama as a great president, under whose watch the economy slowly recovered from a near complete collapse, rather than tumbling into Great Depression 2.0.

Super! With this article and a couple of anecdotal post I can just go ahead and ignore the unemployment numbers and the housing numbers! Happy times are here again!

azdad48,

I remember how everyone told me that McCain was a moderate and would attract the independents and we needed to nominate him to have a chance. He got slaughtered, it wasn't ever really close. The only time he was even in the running was after he announced Palin as his running mate. I also remember how Bush was never going to win after a popular Clinton presidency running against Gore. Bush I was told was a far right extremist who would never get the independents. So you will have to excuse me if I don't take any of you and the other experts advice on who the nominee should be. I would rather lose with Cain then get 4 moderate years of continued government expansion with Romney. Even Bush was moderate with all his spending, Medicare prescription drug plan, campaign finance reform, no child left behind, he was hardly ever conservative and look where that got us.

LogicRequired: I don't understand why you are angry that the American economy appears to be improving? Why is that? Do you want to see the recession continue or grow worse? What is it with you??!!??

Hi TJefferson,

I hope that represents your name and not a president you admired, for he would not appreciate the slander. I am hopeful that our economy will improve more, and more consistently, over the next several years. But I think we've done nothing, still, to fix our foundational problems--our economy will grow at sub-par rates because we are borrowing from the future to live beyond our means today. And one day, I don't know when exactly--no one does--this bill will need to be paid. The steep decline in our heirs' standards of living will be our fault, and I'm not to happy about it.

2.5%, if it matters to you, is a paltry recovery rate for the GDP. 6% or more would be respectable. But 2.5% isn't complete garbage either, we just have to take it in context. Much of it is based upon continued borrowing (a very bad way, your namesake would agree, to fuel an expansion), and the government continues to constrain GDP growth by trying to "manage" us out of the RE crisis we continue to be in. We've still not found the pricing floor, new construction is still in the toilet as a result, and consumer confidence is still far below where we need it for demand to take off. But you can celebrate.

Bread and circuses, bread and circuses.

Shuklack, my point which actually is quite clear is that unemployment is above 9% and has been for 20 consecutive months and they're trying to tell us things are rosy on the job front, everyone is working here. please

Rich: What do you mean Jefferson wouldn't appreciate the slander? You might try reading some of his letters sometime. Jefferson was quite good at it!

The role of government has changed dramatically since the 18th century. We have encountered two industrial revolutions that placed enormous demands for a regulatory government. If you disagree with the need for such a role, then you might tell me how you think lassiez faire capitalism would have resolved the problems of our social order. As a matter of fact, you might focus on explaining why progressivism emerged in our democratic society, if the social Darwinist politico-economic theory of the latter 19th and early 20th centuries was so good.

I do agree with you that a 2.5 recovery rate has not moved us out of a recession, but still, it is much better than a 2.5 rate in the opposite direction. We're not out of the woods yet, but we're not losing 800,000 jobs a month as we were in early 2009, and the Dow is over 12,000 today---up from 6,600 in 2009. So, specifically what would you have done in 2009 to turn things around. Don't give me the worn out BS to cut spending and limit government. Tell me as exactly as you can what spending you would have cut and what parts of government you would have eliminated, and then, tell me why GB didn't do that between 2001 and 2009.

Hey TJefferson,

No, I think he would not have appreciated your slander of him. That isn't to say he didn't enjoy the rhetorical slam of others.

It's funny to me that you want to know what to do after the stuff hits the fan, but not what I'd have done to prevent it, as if it is merely fate that we will have these kinds of bubbles. But this particular bubble, the one doing so much damage still, was induced by bad public policy. Private greed is always present, bad public policy need not be. Still you ask a question.

If it was possible, and Bush did try but he failed with democrats in Congress, I'd have altered Fannie and Freddie to limit their portfolios of higher risk paper. Without a secondary market consumer for it, less of it would have been written. In 2008, rather than pick 2009, I would have offered both a moratorium on new regulations of any kind, and a repeal of all regulations that had not met their pre-adoption promises. That is, did they cost more than planned or deliver less than promised, or both?

Second, I'd have tried to radically reform the tax code to both simplify it and to eliminate all federal tax categories but for personal income. Yes, no more business tax, the tax which my liberal friends love to delude themselves into thinking they do not pay it one way or another. It seems to me that voters who know with precision the cost of the government they want will easily be wiser inside the voting booth than those just guessing at their share of the costs.

Third, I think that a major reform of the legal industry is required. This is too complex to get into one paragraph, so I'll leave it like this for now.

Fourth, I'd get the federal government out of education in every respect EXCEPT for those educational costs associated with federal employees. For too many people, sadly, the amount we spend on education is far more than they will ever repay in taxes--it's a bad business decision really. By getting the feds out of it entirely the states could save many billions just in the costs of compliance, billions that could either be cut from budgets or shifted to actual classroom benefit. Does anyone really still believe that the feds are wiser than the rest of us in creating a beneficial classroom experience?

Fifth, and lastly for now, but not at all last, we need to end corporate welfare entirely. Just like bad public policy induced mortgage lenders to loan money to bad risks, which led to the massive RE bubble we are still suffering from, governmental welfare to corporations leads to the wrong products being produced, which are sold at the wrong prices. We wouldn't have millions of pounds of cheese in storage, for instance, had the market been allowed to operate. Yes, some dairy farmers would have failed--too inefficient or too debt-ridden or too...you name it--but those that were left behind would be stronger. And we'd not be continuing to pay for the ;east among them.

Of course your "side" might be right. It might be true that subsidy and control and regulation and more will save us, but the problem with this kind of thinking is painfully obvious. If our own individual actions are not able to regulate our capitalistic system, then how is it possible that oue own individual delegation of this task will? What are the odds that everyone you elect, or support for regulatory office, is smarter and wiser than you, but that you are not smart or wise enough to know it?

Hi TJefferson,

Even with that long of a post I failed to answer all your questions. Your last was useful though. Bush 43 didn't do these things because we have a federal government that isn't led by a dictator, but even if it was I'm not sure Bush 43 would see things my way. Democrats obstructed Bush too, don't you agree? And isn't this, usually, a good thing?

I've been noticing positive signs too. I went to the mall the other day for the first time in months. Nearly all of the closed stores have been reopened as new businesses, A couple of gas stations that have been closed for a year or two near the mall are now open as stores of one kind or another. With the holidays just ahead, I'm optimistic about the next quarter.

By the way, when did malls stop having bookstores and music stores?? What is the point if there is no Waldenbooks or Sam Goody to browse? Sorry, off-topic, but I miss bookstores.

Music is now online.

Number of people that actually read is way down, so no bookstore, very sad

its not that the number of people that read is way down. the new kindles and other online downloadable readers is why bookstores are having a hard time. the paper book is now a thing of the past.

Yesonaflattax: No on a flat tax. And this reader, like many I know, loves reading on my I-Pad.

The market value of domestically produced goods and services increased this past quarter of the year, at a rate equivalent to 2.5% over an entire year

"Trickle down" huh? Interesting. How do you suggest they do that?

Ask a Republican. The entire "trickle down" idea came from them.

The concept of trickle down was around at least as early as the Great Depression.

John F. Kennedy's ideas on sound economic policies were very similar to Reagan's.

"The highest marginal tax rate continued at an oppressive 91% until President Kennedy acted to reduce it as part of his platform. As a result of the JFK’s tax cuts, unemployment dropped from a four-year average of 5.8% prior to the cuts to a four-year average of 3.9% afterward. And perhaps counterintuitive to many people, the income tax reductions actually increased government tax receipts: government tax revenue grew at an average annual rate of 9.2% during the four-year average after the tax reductions compared to an average annual rate of 2.6% in the four-year period prior to the reductions."

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/16082

If you don't like trickle down economics, then you have no option but disapprove of Kennedy's economic policies.

Instead of complaining because there is no trickle down from the rich, why don't try doing for yourselves for a change...you know, go out and start your own biusiness or something?

I think the economy is getting better. Why, just the other day I was approached by a rather "plain looking prostitute" in a walmart parking lot. Her proposition was $60.00 bucks for 30 mins. 2 months ago, the younger and better looking were offering an hour for $40.00 or 30 mins for $15.00. These women always know when more money is circulating.

Mac....LOL!!! You have to come up with a really good name for your concept of trickle down economics.

hs321: Cream in ample volume for all, with cost appropriate to discretionary spending capabilities.

i have a hard time trusting the numbers

Two days a go they said consumer confidence was at an all time low, so which is it?

It takes time for all of the reports to come in and be evaluated.

Mark, why you don't think Republicans are unemployed too. You're a real prize!

Obviously he is indicating that if the economy makes an upturn now - it would basically ensure a victory for the incumbent - which would be bad for Republicans, since (through their own words) they have made it quite clear that Obama being a one-term prez is their #1 priority.... forget the economy.

wlee- you're a real prize I've seen your post they're all about seeing this president fail hence seeing America fail. You have no faith in the majority of Americans. Your negativity underwhelms me.

talkingtoyou, your right I just want this president to fail,as well as the economy, I also want to lose my job and all my benefits thanks for telling me what I want. Now if your interested what I want is for the rich to go back to there real tax rate, I want a pay raise at my State union job which I haven't seen in over 4 years, I think Obama's plan in Libya was a good one, I think his health plan was a bad one. I think both sides need to realize they work for us, I think neither side is really willing to negotiate and I could care less what you think of me since obviously you have nothing to add to the conversation.

wlee

You're not the first republican't to vote against his own self-interest.

Not only did it go from garage to main stream, it made Steve Jobs one of the richest capitalists in the world! Don't let his dollar a year salary fool you, Mr. Jobs was paid handsomely in stock options whose income when realized is taxed as capital gains at a much lower rate! He may have supported the Democrats but he did business like a republican!

Not to be the grammar police but I would assert that if more money was spent hiring good teachers and less on school buildings in your district, you would have been better served.

How much MORE money needs to be spent on education? The largest cities spend over twice to four times what little school districts spend. I would bet the small country school students can do readin, rightin and rithmetic better. LOL!

Spending more money doesn't equal better educated students. Take Detroit for example, they have continued to spend more and more money over the past few years. Results--> declining results in grades, lower graduation rates, and lower overall attendance. This is calculated to take in account the declining population. I'm sure other large to slightly smaller cities in the US have the same type of results. Remember the Atlanta scandal where teachers change student answewrs to get more money. Why, so they can get more money.

Not to be the grammar police

Right....You are not the grammar police...you are something else that begins with b

Some people just use this to bring others down. Why don't you use the time that you spend criticizing others in this vine doing more "educational" things...-somewhere else-

tron....Detroit is a great example of why the liberals solution, throw money at it, doesn't work.

Throw money at Detroit? The only thing with a pulse in the auto industry. You want that dead too?

the problem is alot of youths today have very little incentive to do well in school with the rising higher education costs. when they look at the costs of college they think that they will never be able to afford to go so why try hard. we need more incentives for children of today to help them with college costs if they do well in high school. only then will you see more of a change in our students efforts to do well.

im not talking about giving it away for free. we need an earned system that they can participate in. one where if you do 1 year of community service you get 1 year of college provided for you as long as you held a 3.5 or higher grade average during your high school term. you would also have to choose your major first and hold to that major to get the payed for education. the major would need to be in the sciences and business fields not basket weaving 101.

i bet you would find if you did this you would not need to dump as much money into the lower education system. that the younger students that wanted to make something of themselves would step up to the plate and bat away.

@ Robin Steele who wrote:

Not to be the grammar police but I would assert that if more money was spent hiring good teachers and less on school buildings in your district, you would have been better served

YOU POSTED THIS 2 DAYS AGO:

Our entire federal debt is the direct result of the government having long ago it
would decide what was and what was not right for Americans to do. How much of
your children's money are you willing to burn to recover a few milligrams of
moon rock?

Why are you policing ME instead of POLICING YOURSELF?

When several districts in California are spending hundreds of millions on new school buildings and not on teachers, there is a major problem. We don't need monumental school buildings we need monumental schools. The difference is in the quality of instruction, not the age of the building. Teachers deserve to earn a living wage, but they also need to be accountable for the grades of their students.

IRESPOND, I think it's appalling to think that a cut-back in funds brings down the quality of education and the scores of students. Please tell me how that works. More money certainly doesn't benefit the learning spectrum of inner-city schools. Oh, let me not forget, tenured teachers who are not performing well but are kept on is a problem that keeps being overlooked. I'm so puzzled as to why.

Excuse me Steven B: what the hell are you right wingers talking about when you say that MSNBC "spins" economic numbers? How in the hell can you "spin" a report that shows the economy grew 2.5%?

I'm waiting...

Economic grow at 2.5% is not good new for a weak economy with over 9% unemployment. It does mean that we are not currently headed back into a recession. At this growth rate we are barely creating enough new jobs to keep up the unemployment rate where it is.

lipstick just doesn't cut it for elephants, i guess

the only reason the numbers are up is because the holidays are coming, give me a break, we really AREN"T as stupid as we seem. the economy isn't going to recover for many many years and will never unless people have jobs. quit feeding us bs every other week. it doesn't make you look good, destroys any integrity you might have had and frankly just pisses everyone off because we know it isn't true. it's sad that our news lies to us as much as our government.. oh wait, you guys sleep together now.. my bad.

Uhm patricia,

I don't know when you do the bulk of your holiday shopping, but everyone in my family and circle of friends usually does it Q4 (Oct - Dec).

Dear Mark R,

I took statistics in college. Percentages can be spun to make them say whatever the creator wants them to say. For example, the unemployment rate is 9.1%. Those are the people currently receiving unemployment checks. Then there are those who are off the grid. Estimates I've seen are anywhere from an additional 6 to 10 %. Which would make the actuall unemployment rate 16 to 19 %, which is far more devastating.

Just the use of a certain phrase can change the perception by the reader. For example, "Fewer people filed for unemployment this week." They are still unemployed, they just didn't file. Or their benefits have run out. They've taken up armed robbery, maybe.

P.S. Mark R,

When you count in all the people on welfare, because they are not employed and are not paying into the system, the number may just floor you.

Glad to see some of you are doing just fine. Problem is you are disregarding what is not effecting you directly at the moment. Eventually it will slam you in the face, either with very high taxes, or unemployment, then you'll go, "Oh, I should have done something." Too late, though.

Pragmatic,

Back to school spending maybe?

I think in part its because many thnk we have hit the bottom, believing that, though improvement is minimal, it's probably not going to get any worse. They've managed to keep their job throughout the crisis and were not in a bad financial position when it started. Thus some confidence to spend, instead of save, some of the discretionary income they have.

patricia: weren't you on here this summer saying any pickup in hiring was only due to "seasonal" workers? And I'm sure you'll be back here in November and then December and January, saying any pickup in consumer spending doesn't really count (tell it to retailers).. You elephants are really, really crazy when it comes to anything that's good news aren't you...

Are you asking for the correct English version, or the version where you don't really care and you just want to make fun of others?

Just wondering.

You sir, to paraphrase one Mr O'Reilly, are a pinhead. And yes, occasionally, while I am working, eating, talking on the phone and typing, I can lose track of just what tense I am in. Since you seem to be on me like a tick, why do you not go through all 1500 posts of mine and grade them for mistakes. You may find half a dozen or so more.

You baggers only choose what article fits for you, if it's positive economic news msn is contriving the news, if it's negative news well that show that Obama is bad. Oh by the way 2006 yeah just before the sh*t hit the fan after Gramm-Biley, The Homeownship Act of 2003. And your boy Billo has no credibility here with false claims whether it's his upbringing, or i never tell people to shut-up, I could go on but I'll just refer you to Media Matters.you do remember Dubya saying now you can own the home you want with the downpayment which gets in the way of purchasing a home. You can find on youtube.

@ Robin Steele:\ who wrote:

I can lose track of just what tense I am in

There are others that can lose track as well, so please, don't be a tick yourself and throw nastigrams to others...

If you actually read carefully enough to get the primary meaning of my original post, you might have gleaned from it that my complaint is with the money wasted in the guise of education, and spent instead of things that have nothing to do with the learning process. I guess it's all about you.

1.5 million jobs Bernie? How about the 22 million jobs that were created under Clinton? When tax rates were a little higher? When the so-called "job creators" didn't have a problem creating jobs when they had to pay about 4% more in taxes. Oh, I'm sure you right-wingers are now going to ignore a booming economy under Clinton (when he left us a budget surplus) and make a comment about Monica Lewinski.

Mark, eaten ain't cheaten, I wonder if he inhaled then

Actually, Reagan borrowed heavily in order to create a temporary boom.

yada....Some accounting methods were also changed under Clinton, known in laymen's terms as 'cooking the books' to arrive at his mythical surplus.

hs321: That's why the CBO analysis is so highly regarded--they're non-partisan and work hard at it. Just because you don't like the results, doesn't mean the facts are wrong.

Under Reagan we had a 20 year boom. From this guy not so much.

AP...ROFLMAO!!! The CBO!! Seriously?!?

The CBO is only allowed to us the numbers congress gives it. Congress, Republican or Democrat, gives it the numbers that will result in the outcome they want.

Classical example: Medicare and Obamacare will be paid for.

You will serve your self well my friend not mention anything coming out of the CBO. And that goes for both parties.

There are a ton of jobs in Alabama after they kicked out all the illegals. I'm sick of everyone saying there are no jobs. They may not be the best paying jobs, but there are jobs.

Great, memo the generational-welfare people and get our prisoners-on holiday working.

Same here. Even including teens and young adults, everyone I know is working. The last time I personally knew an unemployed person was in 2009. Then things got better in 2010 and have stayed better ever since.

Same here.

You can't tell what's going on by these media reports, though. One day everything is "sunshine and roses", the next day it's all in the tank.

Where do you guys live? They're stealin/scrappin everything in Ky, jobs are still disappearin.

Everyone's got a job huh, tell that to the 9.1% who don't. I suggest you visit your local unemployment office maybe offer to buy them some groceries, yeah I didn't think so.

Mac-101, I live in the Phoenix area. Even construction workers here are back to work, between Intel doing one of the largest construction projects in the world right now and developers building new apartment buildings (but not so many single-family homes any more). My department at work increased our engineering staff by 15% over the last few months and we are super busy.

wlee, sure I could go down to the unemployment office and find those 9.1%. But rather than offering them groceries, I think what they really want and need is a job. There are jobs to be had, but not all of them are high-paying, unless you have the right experience. Part of the problem for some people is job-hunting skills, interviewing skills and resume-writing skills -- especially for those who haven't had to find a job in many years, the job hunting process today can be a little overwhelming. There are some organizations that offer free workshops on this stuff, and I think if I were unemployed, I would pay them a visit and see what I could learn about how things are done in the modern internet era.

Another point, in Arizona the max unemployment benefit you can collect is $240/week, no matter how much you used to make at your old job. That is powerful motivation for most people. No matter how frugal you are, you can't survive on $240/week. If I found myself unemployed and all I could find was a job that pays a lot less than I make now, it would still be a lot better than $240/week.

Azdad, I find that amasin that Phoenix is a building boom. All I read is that Cali, Florida and Arizona can't give away housing. Glad to hear it. I can swear to ya that the economy sucks in Kentucky. Peace Out.

Re: everyone i know... you and your bs lines about jobs being there and starting your own business have stopped being amusing. Get on with reality i guess you just think those jobless figures are being made so i ask for what reason? you can't answer that sanely because your rhetoric is based on some false reality.

Right doug...just listen to this whining from the right wing...

AP, if you were honest you would of said whining from both sides

Your assertions would have more weight if they didn't begin with the premise: "Where most of the items bought by consumers made in? I doubt the US of A" - and although I couldn't agree more that manufacturing on-shore should be one of our nation's highest priorities, there has been an uptick in many US manufacturing facilities in the last few quarters. Notably, automotive, aerospace, and some biomedical - and many of those goods are going overseas. It's a global economy and competition is tougher every day, we need to be retooled - both physical infrastructure and human capital. During the previous boom, our economy encouraged a lot of training in event planning and investment banking; nothing wrong with that, but we are overstocked in those disciplines ... we should have had more people pursuing engineering , technical / trade specialties, and supply chain management.

We'll here in Ky no factories are openin up and they still close about one every month month or two where I live. So manufactorin isn't a problem where your at? Gov regulation and OSHA clean air regulations are killin us here. I got about a hundred of my closer buds lose their jobs in the last 3 years. Half were able to find new jobs. Half not. No one who got new jobs are makin the money they did before. But prices MUST have increased at least 20% over the last 3 years on required goods to live. Glad to know it's just us inbreds who are hurtin. LOL!

A 100 of your closer buds?? How many buds do you have??

I got about 400 or 500 or so. I'm sure you must have more than just a couple. I hope so at least.

These are the same sweeping generalities the Republicans have been throwing around (and hiding behind) for years. What, exactly, is "Quit bankrupting America" supposed to mean? That's like saying, "Save the environment," or "Visualize world peace."

What is missing from the dialogue, and especially from the extreme Right side of the dialogue, is anything resembling a concrete, workable plan for turning all the generalizations and platitudes into reality. Long on talk, short on action has been, and still is, the Republican problem. For all the failures attributed to the Democrats, at least they have tried to get things done, albeit in a haphazard way, but the Republicans seem to hold to the philosophy that one cannot fail as long as one never tries.

Well it I got to tell ya what quit bankruptin America is ya ain't goin to believe me. But let me try with Giethner increasing the money supply by about 16 Trillion to bail out and domestic banks. This money didn't even need printing, just issued by the FED.

And then we have the about 15 Trillion dollar deficit. YA can't create money and borrow money when you get the majority of your energy and manufacturing overseas. Ain't going to work. How conservative is that? LOL!

Ya just going to ignore secure the borders, Fair Tax, Fair Trade, reduce gov regulations, JAIL people who break existing regulations, there's a lot of specifics. Just shrug your head and blame REALIST once the country collapses and you and your loved ones are hungry. LOL!

Bob: unskilled laborers are always going to struggle even in the boom times. Meanwhile, THOUSANDS of skilled jobs in this country are going begging. There's a reason so many employers beg Congress every year including this one to up the rate of Visas they can use to bring in SKILLED labor from overseas. I read of one engineering firm that had an 80% rejection rate of American applicants and they were PROVIDING the additional training needed for the jobs. Why don't you make education your favorite word. Might work for you a bit better than no.

You can have more than one job...many have and many do.

AP...Amen to that. Its amazing how many jobs in technical, engineering, science, etc. go unfilled because of lack of qualified applicants. I'm still dumbfounded every time I here about. Can't believe how our educational system failed to see the demand for this years before.

Agreed with AP and hs321 - the disturbing thing about outsourcing has been the movement of analysis and design activities overseas simply because companies cannot find enough available expertise in the US to do ti and support it. It is this loss that allows other countries to mine our knowledge and create new products in high-value markets in aerospace, medical, electronics, compute technology, software tools, and other critical areas. That's all fair, but those countries are making it an educational priority to service technology development - we aren't.

How is that a bad thing?

Good news is bad news for the teabagger crazies. They believe bad news will help the republicans win the election and they will do their best to hurt the economy through the republican congress.

Agreed. I'm just happy to see some of my neighbors get back to work.

Great post effort!

Good business will pay the National debt quicker than anything. Go Business !

effort, do you have a point

Yada, You might know how to feed your kids, but there are obviously alot of people out there who either dont know or dont care.

Yada...seriously? you're down to ranting about suggestions to "eat healthy"? That's all you got to whine about?? If that's your biggest problem, no wonder you yadayada on

EffortPA,

I have just read your partisan remarks about Michelle Obama. Her message was not political. I don't understand how you can criticize the woman for highlighting that kids should be raised on a healthier diet. A large number of American parents are killing thier children. You need to research the number of obese kids with type 2 diabetes. This disease leads to gangreen, amputations, blindness aswell as death. Maybe some parents are unaware that feeding their kids on Mountain Dew and Doughnuts is going to kill them. But hey, you carry on stuffing burgers and pizza down their throats, get one up on Michelle Obama!

You can bet your a$$ that Sarah Palin raised her kids on a healthy diet, when she wasn't flying around on a broom stick.

Dave, Sarah Palin isn't running for office. Do you still have that poster of her up in your bedroom?

Dave, Read it again. You might be wrong.

The funny part is that Liberals believe everything you say is true.

wlee: now, now...who is being kneejerk??

AP, it's just a play on previous post BTW don't try the shoe on if your afraid it's going to fit.

How come we don't get that daily killed in action in Afghanistan like we did under Bush, or the rising gas prices or the racist comments coming from the OWS movement this country has become a big joke

Are you actually watching the news? Or maybe it is onlt FOX News that is not reorting on that.

Yes Jack I do watch the news and I haven't seen any" reorting" on it. BTW genius since Obama is President ,it would according to you behoove Fox to be reporting on the dead. I'll give you time to figure that out.

Those "temporary" jobs can permanently pay down consumer debt freeing up consumer's ability to spend their money on other people in the economic chain rather than on interest to the bankers. This in turn will come back around when other people then spend their money on the person who had the temporary job which is now permanent due to the yoke of perpetual debt being lifted. The whole country needs to learn the difference between a debt fueled economy and a wage fueled economy. How can an economy be sustainable when the average consumer only has cash to spend by way of borrowing against their home instead of using cash earned through being paid enough for being productive. The banks need to be dealt out of this game. The only true job creators are those who need new gutters on their house or their teeth cleaned as in you and I and all the rest of average people.

Temporary, really? Want to tell that to the FAA controllers, or the Federal marshalls, or the FBI folks? I had no idea federal paychecks didn't count because they're "temporary".

Wonderful, more burden on the tax payers and pensions to go with them. Bigger government is not fixing the economy.

AP,

I wasn't talking about the jobs that already are in the government. I am talking about the so called stimulus jobs. Do you really know why the unemployment rate has not gone down? It's because the temporary jobs that were created are now gone and those people are back on unemployment.

obama does nothing huh? lol. www.whitehouse.gov check under legislation he's signed into law. that's a pretty impressive list of nothing..