So, When Is Obama Going To Save All Those Jobs?

Unemployment up to 9.4%

Link

Not that this has anything to do with Obama but historically, decreases in unemployment have a tendency to lag behind other indicators of economic recovery such as Gross Domestic Product and corporate earnings. So I wouldn't expect to see umemployment to start dropping until GDP and earnings start improving to the point that employers feel comfortable to start hiring again.

Exactly. It's going to take a little while before we start seeing some results. Lots of damage has been done. It can't all be turned around in a matter of a couple of months.

gringaloca wrote:

Exactly. It's going to take a little while before we start seeing some results. Lots of damage has been done. It can't all be turned around in a matter of a couple of months.

Actually, based upon the economic numbers I am hearing, I would not be surprised to see GDP and earnings start recoving around Fall or Winter. It appears we are in the trough (whatever it is called when you hit the bottom) which means the recovery is coming assuming this recession is following all historic economic cycles ie. recovery/growth to the peak to recession to the trough and repeat.

More failed policy on jobs... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzFih9eyezA&feature=channel

At least a little good news for the young crowd..

Link

Lucas McCain wrote:

More failed policy on jobs... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzFih9eyezA&feature=channel

Fox News...

Lucas McCain wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090702/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy

You beat me to it...9.5% as of this morning. I guess he still will be making campaign type speeches for press conferences and claim the "stimulus" is actually working he along with everyone else is finding out it is a failure. . "Obama the Great" has "perfected" so many things that he doesn't even know what is being done.

You all are right. Five months is DEFINITELY enought time to completely turn things around.

Just a slow down would be nice.. Or any indicators that it's not going to get worse.. I know it takes more than a few months but the jobless rate keeps rolling up...

Annie Oakley wrote:

You all are right. Five months is DEFINITELY enought time to completely turn things around.

I know. They refer to him as messiah-like and complain about it but then expect him to walk on water and make miracles happen over-night.

Once again, good point Annie.

PS Gas prices have gone down again. Last time I looked it was around 2.30. Couldn't find the old thread about it. Just thought it was worth mentioning.

Hard to afford gas at any price if you don't have a job..

Annie Oakley wrote:

You all are right. Five months is DEFINITELY enought time to completely turn things around.

I understand your point and I could possibly agree if the problem would have maybe grown just a little or even slowed down. I fully realize that the deficit was bad when "the chosen one" took over BUT....Four times in just six months what it was under eight years of Bush (that he was greatly criticized for) is ridicoulous! I was not pleased with Bush's handling of the economy either but Obama is working on bankrupting the country and the "cap an tax" bill is in progess...that going through along with what he has already "stimulated' just may finish the job.
This man (Obama) is imo in way over his head and doesn't know what to do when someone actually questions him and is not bowing to his every word and claiming it as the gospel . I believe that Obama is finding out the United States of America is just maybe a little bigger and more complicated than organizing a community on the south side of Chicago and Oprah Winfrey can't help sell his line of bull now . My opinion is that he needs to quit campaining and reallize that he won the election and needs to stop spinning everything negative back to Bush (he wasn't running against Bush anyway )

At any rate, I certainly don't have all the answers or do I claim to. I don't think that anyone on this board does. I just point out things that I disagree and/or agree with

There are some things that I agree with what Obama has done.............

) Stem cell research.......as long as he sticks by his word and puts strict regulations on how it is used I think that it could possily help with some diseases like M.S., ALS, Altshimer's, cancer research, etc.. What I am against is if some wako scientist would want to start using it for cloning, using stem cell reasearceh for a reason for abortion/murder (same thing) and that kind of "playing God" thinking, if that should start I hope the whole program would be cancelled immediately.

) I agreed with how he handled the "pirate situation" in killng the worthless terrorist thugs and rescuing our men.

) I am glad that he stayed with the same plan/time table of Bush on the pull out of trops in Iraq. (even though Obama claimed to be against it when he was a senator )

) I would list condemming Iran on their actions against their own people for questioning/protesting the election that was obviously illegal and the citizens wanting better. I said "would" bc it was too late and believe that it took Hillary Clinton to have him do it and God knows he is not going to give Hillary any credit....Michelle wouldn't be happy about that and "if momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy"

(there may be others I agree with, I just can't think of any right now )

Although, I disagree with BHO's proposed solutions to the current problems, I will not go as far as to blame the increase in unemployment since the inauguration on him. Regardless of plans, it takes more than 4 months to stop the tumble we're in. I still think the rate will go double digit.

I know of five people in my family or are close friends that lost jobs before Christmas. Two of them have since found work, one not in his original field and one on a temporary basis. I did hear that temp jobs were on the rise and that that was an impending sign of improvement (can't remember where, though).

Annie Oakley wrote:

I know of five people in my family or are close friends that lost jobs before Christmas. Two of them have since found work, one not in his original field and one on a temporary basis. I did hear that temp jobs were on the rise and that that was an impending sign of improvement (can't remember where, though).

Yeah, I've read something similar that says you can tell how well things are going by the amount of temp jobs. There for a while they didn't have anything. It's starting to pick up. I don't expect to start seeing real improvement until next year.

More lost jobs if cap and trade passes.. I know the result of the measure will be a huge windfall for the government making them billions of dollars, I just can't imagine Obama pushing is personal agenda to the point where he drives even more jobs out of America..

Lost Jobs

The net job losses from S. 2191 are estimated by Charles River Associates to be 1.2 million to 2.3 million by 2015.[9] Some of these jobs will be lost for good, due to the impact of higher energy costs on economic activity. Others, chiefly in the manufacturing sector, will be sent overseas. In the very likely event that S. 2191 significantly raises domestic manufacturing costs and that developing nations refuse to impose similar restrictions, the American economy could experience a substantial outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to those nations with lower energy costs.

I think they should throw out the whole thing and start over. It's too weak. The clunkers program lets you trade in your gas hog for a car that gets 21 MPG. That's stupid. Not good enough. MPG should be much higher in order to qualify but I'm just happy they are finally doing something. People who care about the environment will take whatever they get considering we've been ignored for the past eight years.

Quote :

There is a tremendous amount of disinformation regarding the significance of the proposed energy bill that is flooding the media and making its way to DU. The core of the disinformation campaign is the lack of understanding regarding what cap and trade actually is. The GOP and their fossil fuel financiers are intent on conflating the devastation caused by unregulated derivatives on Wall Street with the use of this well understood and proven mechanism that focuses market forces on social problems caused by corporations wanting to avoid paying for for the external damage caused by their business practices.

CAP AND TRADE WORKS WHEN SITUATION IS APPROPRIATE - CARBON EMISSIONS ARE AN APPROPRIATE USE.

CAP AND TRADE IS WELL UNDERSTOOD.

CAP AND TRADE IS TRANSPARENT.

CAP AND TRADE IS NOTHING LIKE THE FINANCIAL DERIVATIVE MARKET.

The only way cap and trade isn't successful is if it is applied piecemeal by the states. As long as it is a federal program, it will achieve the desired results of directing private capital towards non-carbon emitting technologies and infrastructure.

The goals in the bill are weaker than some would like, but those goals are nonetheless real and substantial. I'm a renewable energy and carbon management policy analyst, so I have a somewhat different take on this than many. One thing that positively influences my interpretation of what the bill will do is that I understand the biggest barrier to moving away from carbon fuels is the energy system that has developed in a haphazard, non-planned fashion over the past 100 years. IT is an intricate network of technologies, laws and regulations that is designed to facilitate centrally generated power produced by extremely inexpensive fossil fuels. This system has had no place for technologies that weren't streamlined to fit the operating paradigm of central control.

What we KNOW is that a differently designed system can meet our needs just as well as the old system. The moves of the Obama administration and this Congressional proposal are designed to open up the regulatory process in a way that shifts the focus from one dedicated to central energy generation by fossil fuels to one oriented around dispersed generation and advanced energy management. It goes a long way towards eliminating the institutional and systemic obstacles that made investment in alternative energy technologies undesirable from a market viewpoint and instead shifts that flow of private money looking for safe secure investments to the technologies of tomorrow.

I read the targets incorporated in the bill and wish they were stronger, but if the shift in capital flow works as I think it will, those targets will become increasingly less significant as market driven economic forces accumulate against the technologies that are poisoning the planet and starve them of the lifeblood of capital investment.

Some people say that the energy costs to individuals will skyrocket - but the estimate most accepted is an increase in energy cost for the average family of $175 per year. That is significant to some people in our country, but those who are in the lower income brackets are provided for in the legislation. I have no sympathy for those who make more and just don't want to pay an extra couple of bucks a month. The current system is problematic in the financial sense because energy prices are almost completely dependent on fuel prices. We all know the volatility experienced by interruptions in those fuel supplies, don't we? If prices do rise as predicted, what will we get for that increase? Over time we will get price stability. Since virtually all of renewable energy costs are in the initial capital investment the price is predictable for decades. In the long run, I have to believe that the percentage of my income that goes to meet my energy needs will decline.

Anyway, I wanted to give a general response to the hysteria that is inundating us all. Here is an EPA website that discusses past uses of cap and trade to give you a better sense of what is happening.
http://www.epa.gov/captrade /

As regards the clunkers program, just because you CAN trade in your car for one that only gets 21 mpg, that doesn't mean that's what they will do. My Focus gets 35 mpg and is a very popular vehicle. If my old car had been just a little worse, I would have qualified for the $4500. Then I could have bought my car AND completed some house renovation. Now, the renovation is on hold until I can build up some more funds.

Annie Oakley wrote:

As regards the clunkers program, just because you CAN trade in your car for one that only gets 21 mpg, that doesn't mean that's what they will do. My Focus gets 35 mpg and is a very popular vehicle. If my old car had been just a little worse, I would have qualified for the $4500. Then I could have bought my car AND completed some house renovation. Now, the renovation is on hold until I can build up some more funds.

I'm actually considering taking out a small home equity loan and fixing up our guest house so we can rent it. It needs some drywall work, a little bathroom installed and some work on the ceiling in the living room. I'm thinking we could rent it out to a contractor because it's perfect for a single person or a couple without kids looking for a country hideaway. Any income we can get right now would be helpful. I wonder how much it would cost to put in a shower stall, toilet and sink. Something really tiny. And I think we can actually put in a pit (like at a campground) under the toilet instead of an actual septic system if it's done correctly. Right now the house just has an outhouse and I know most people won't go for that especially when it's freezing outside. lol.

The 175.00 figure is not accurate... The true cost.. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1879526/the_true_cost_of_cap_and_trade.html

Lucas McCain wrote:

The 175.00 figure is not accurate... The true cost.. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1879526/the_true_cost_of_cap_and_trade.html

Right now NOBODY knows the true cost, there is just a lot of guessing. Can't call it a fact yet Lucas. It hasn't even passed yet.

I don't think Obama should be "guessing" on Americas future.. But that's the lefts way.. Just pass a bill and if it doesn't go well make the tax payers take care of it...

Lucas McCain wrote:

I don't think Obama should be "guessing" on Americas future.. But that's the lefts way.. Just pass a bill and if it doesn't go well make the tax payers take care of it...

Kinda like Bush guessing that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, guessing that Saddam was involved in 9-11, guessing that Hurricane Katrina wouldn't breach the levies, guessing that our economy wouldn't collapse if he drove us into the debt hole, etc...

Pretending like republicans don't guess and have never put this country on the line over a hunch is pretty laughable at this stage.