Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's not get hung up on the definition of economic recovery or two quarters of growth. Look at the bigger picture and the direction Obama is taking our country. Not so rosy, is it?
??
The definition is the definition and if there is growth there is growth. Things aren't great but they sure are better.
Companies have realized they can make more with less so they aren't hiring except when there is a desperate need and even then they are looking to hire someone with multiple skill sets yet are not willing to pay the market value for said employee.
If a company is more profitable than before yet employs less people what is their incentive to hire people?
I think the unique conditions of this 'Great Recession' (imploded housing market coast to coast, deep unemployment, and depressed consumer demand for the lower 99%) all point toward a U shaped recovery. Namely, that we will have a long period of bouncing along the bottom, especially until housing stabilizes, followed by a recovery. The rapid recoveries in smaller recessions did not have the massive housing debt anchor we have now. That said, after four years in the tank and an epic housing crash (real estate can never go down? How about 34% coast to coast!), we are starting to see signs of recovery. They are everywhere. However, I don't think we will be out of the woods until 2014 or later. Just the nature of a very big beast, and no president can fix it.
Last edited by Fiddlehead; 03-30-2012 at 10:26 AM..
Let's not get hung up on the definition of economic recovery or two quarters of growth. Look at the bigger picture and the direction Obama is taking our country. Not so rosy, is it?
Let's cut the baldfaced lies, ok? Obama had nothing to do with this recession. I am not pinning it on Bush either, at least singly. It was Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, probably Reagan, both houses of congress, stupid, corrupt banks, self-serving realtors and mortgage professionals, and greedy, stupid consumers that got us in this mess. Trying to pin it on Obama is just plain sleazy.
Given the hand he has been dealt, he has done pretty well, and we are in recovery.
Last edited by Fiddlehead; 03-30-2012 at 10:25 AM..
Romney is a true 1%'er, but Obama is trying his best to catch up.
"What Obama has been doing is spearheading an intensified assault on the working class. He has escalated the attack on working class living standards that has been underway for more than three decades, focusing on a drastic and permanent reduction in wages and benefits.
Obama’s forced restructuring of General Motors and Chrysler in 2009 ushered in a wave of wage- and benefit-cutting throughout the private sector. The bailout of the auto giants was predicated on the agreement of the United Auto Workers union to impose a 50 percent wage cut and the gutting of pensions and benefits for all newly hired workers. This set a new benchmark of $12-$15 an hour for US auto workers, previously among the highest paid manufacturing workers in the world, reducing wages to near-poverty levels.
US manufacturing labor costs per unit of output in 2010 were 13 percent lower than a decade earlier.
If a portion of the manufacturing jobs that were previously moved to China and other low-wage havens are being brought back to the US, it is because the wages they pay have plummeted so far and the differential has so dramatically narrowed that the corporations can make higher profits by exploiting their “own” workers than by going overseas. As the CEO of GE Consumer & Industrial, James Campbell, told the New York Times last month, “making things in America is as viable as making things any place” because domestic labor costs are now “significantly less, with the competitive wages” now accepted by American workers.
The overall result of the Obama recovery, besides the impoverishment of ever wider layers of the working class, is a further staggering growth of social inequality. One stark metric of the decline in the social position of the American working class is the fact that in the third quarter of 2011, the share of the US gross domestic product going to corporate profits was at its highest (10.3 percent) since the 1960s, and the share going to wages was at its lowest (45.3 percent) on record.
The 1934 rebound saw strong income gains for the bottom 90 percent of earners and a decline for the super-rich (the top 0.01 percent). The year 2010, saw the opposite. The income of the super-rich ($23.8 million on average) rose by 21.5 percent over the previous year, while that of the bottom 90 percent fell by 0.4 percent.
National income rose overall in 2010, but all of the gains went to the top 10 percent. Just 15,600 super-rich households pocketed an astonishing 37 percent of the entire national gain.
Let's not get hung up on the definition of economic recovery or two quarters of growth. Look at the bigger picture and the direction Obama is taking our country. Not so rosy, is it?
Sure it is.
In other words, just ignore all facts, like today's report that consumer spending is up, and just bash Obama without thinking. Emphasis on WITHOUT THINKING.
Let's cut the baldfaced lies, ok? Obama had nothing to do with this recession. I am not pinning it on Bush either, at least singly. It was Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, probably Reagan, both houses of congress, stupid, corrupt banks, self-serving realtors and mortgage professionals, and greedy, stupid consumers that got us in this mess. Trying to pin it on Obama is just plain sleazy.
Given the hand he has been dealt, he has done pretty well, and we are in recovery.
The economy was doing great under Clinton - but things turned south soon after GW took the reins. Meanwhile, Obama has done nothing to right the ship - except throw trillions in Fed debt at the problem, giving the appearance of some sort of 'recovery'.
The economy has been growing for several straight quarters, as someone has undoubtedly already pointed out. So your post is blatently false.
"But under Obamanomics, the problem has gotten much worse and this can be seen in the unevenness of the recovery:
Liberal economist Emmanuel Saez produced a study on income inequality that showed the top 1% capturing 93% of the wealth created in the first year of the recovery. The figure was 65% during the Bush administration.
1. So this isn't exactly an endorsement of the Obama recovery is it? I mean, for 99 percent of Americans there has been no recovery, according to Saez.
In other news, Wall Street paid its employees more than $40 billion in bonuses the past two years."
If that is so I guess we better not let anyone like GW take over. I expect Ronmey would save his cronies arses even if it cost the rest of us everything. I figure Saintrorum will just prey for better days or just start the "Last Great War for God."
So, basically, two years of economic growth is "the biggest slump since the Great Depression". And never mind the fact that the alternative is the group that effectively caused the Great Recession, and that would love to imitate FDR's 1936 strategy, which immediately increased unemployment.
Yeah, sorry, the OP is based on fantasy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
