(And anyone else who wants to think seriously about our economic problems.)
Last Sunday, I watched Mak discuss whether Obama can win re-election with our current high unemployment. In the discussion, Mak, and the people he interviewed and cited, used the most common measure of unemployment, the seasonally adjusted population survey, which found an unemployment rate of 8.2 percent, in June.
But there is good reason to think that measure understates our unemployment problems, as you can see from this graph:
(Graph by way of Greg Mankiw, who labels it: "Monitoring the So-called Recovery".)
Millions of people who were in the labor force have dropped out, and are now not even looking for work. If they were, our unemployment rate would be greater than 10 percent. This is not a novel or disputed point — although it may not be headline news on our local TV stations.
When I watched that program, I couldn't help but think that Mak — a former Democratic aide — might do better programs, if he exposed himself to more Republicans.
Do I have any partisan points to make about that graph? Just one. Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, took control of Congress in January 2007. If, like me, you think Congress has at least as much to do with the course of the economy as the president, then you will find that significant.
(There's a long, and mildly technical, discussion of measures of unemployment in this Wikipedia article.)
Posted by Jim Miller at July 19, 2012 10:27 AM | Email ThisWash. gains 10,200 jobs in June
Washington state saw continued job growth last month, and the unemployment rate remained unchanged at 8.3 percent.
BUT....later in the article...
More than 4,500 unemployed workers ran out of unemployment benefits last month. Since extended benefits were activated in July 2008, more than 101,000 people have exhausted their benefits.
Kinda says it all...101,000 off the roles in the last four years. Pay attention Mak.
Posted by: Diogenes on July 19, 2012 11:09 AMThere is some hope. Many unemployed begin to seriously look for work when the unemployments benefits expire. It seems that many prefer working to being on the full dole.
.
When Obama says things like "the private sector is doing fine" and attempts to discredit small business owners of all their hard work (as if businesses just came out of nowhere), he had completely disqualified himself from the office of president---and shows what a top-down view of the world he has. He's all wrong for this country. Try Cuba instead, Mr. Prez.
Posted by: Michele on July 19, 2012 02:16 PMIt's the E C O N O M Y, stupid.
Have you seen the most recent polls on confidence in President Downgrade's ability to handle the economy?
Have you seen the polls on the class war he's waging?
Have you seen the polls on the Bain attacks?
It's the E C O N O M Y, stupid.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on July 19, 2012 05:06 PMThey are carrying water for the Democratic Party, as is usual.
Posted by: Attila on July 19, 2012 07:33 PMWhat specific programs were enacted by the Democrats in 2007 - 2008, sailed through the Republican senate, and was signed into law by George W. Bush that pushed the country into the decline it now finds itself in?
I find it disingenuous that a 'serious thinker' on the economy (like yourself) has only this one teensy little partisan observation to make - that after 30 years of Republican led deregulation, etc..., that the Democratic Congress in 2007 - 2008 caused the economic chaos we now endure.
Please, Jim, maybe your regular gaggle of fellow travelers can swallow that one, but not anyone with a memory that extends beyond the current list of RNC talking points.
I'm sure he'll be making a correction soon. Or maybe he has some examples of causative actions Congress took in 2007 that he forgot to include in his original post. Let's give him some time.
Posted by: scottd on July 20, 2012 10:13 AMI always like it when Pudge chooses to comment on a Jim Miller post, because when you contradict Pudge here, it won't get erased.
Pudge's cowardly redactions on his own posts seem like the actions of a little dictator and it's his type of behavior that gives conservatives a bad name.
Posted by: dorky dorkman on July 20, 2012 11:21 AMPosted by: It Takes a Village to Convene a Grand Jury on July 20, 2012 11:31 AM
You know, I've been waiting for the same kind of thing with regards to Bush. People have been blaming Bush for the crash without being able to point out exactly what he did that caused it. I think this is a case of "shoe on the other foot" arguments.
And for your information, Dorky, The senate was controlled by the Democrats since the beginning of 2007.
So, if we use the logic of Obama, there is no way we can blame the recession on Bush. See, with only on half of 1/3 of the seat of government, and for only 1/2 of his term, the Republicans have managed to completely dominate the government and prevent Obama for instituting the policies he needed to fix the economy. The Dems had both houses and the presidency, for the first 2 years, and so fully owned both the legislative and the executive branches. What do they own? What do they own when having the executive and half the legislative?
Contrast that with 2007 and 2008 when the Republicans had only the executive and the Dems had both houses. If Obama claims he can't get anything done when the Republicans have only the House, what can be said about Bush's ability to get anything done when he had neither house? Or is it that the Dems in the congress were complicit in the financial crash?
Posted by: Eyago on July 20, 2012 11:37 AMNow that he has lost the house, NOW he brings it up? It's totally phoney, b/c not even the democrats want to do it. They proved it by their own actions.
Posted by: Michele on July 20, 2012 11:47 AMI had hoped someone would bring that up. And, as Paul Harvey used to say, here's the rest of the story:
Google: Republican filibusters in 2007 -- About 455,000 results (0.29 seconds)
Republican Obstructionism Breaks Congressional Record -- 2007
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/20/republican-obstructionism_n_77704.html
Senate tied in knots by filibusters -- 2007
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2007/07/20/18218/senate-tied-in-knots-by-filibusters.html
GOP FILIBUSTERS -- 2007
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_09/012097.php
And your point was?
Posted by: dorky dorkman on July 20, 2012 12:23 PMPosted by: Michele on July 20, 2012 12:24 PM
And your remark is exactly why many Democrats really wanted a Hillary Clinton administration. There is no compromising with today's Republicans (and she had learned that the hard way) any more.
You are right. Obama should have run roughshod over Republicans when he had the chance.
Posted by: dorky dorkman on July 20, 2012 12:28 PMAND YET -- When there is something that is clearly YOUR SIDE'S FAULT, you are like a circus escape artist in your attempts to evade responsibility.
A pox on you and your entire house.
Posted by: dorky dorkman on July 20, 2012 12:33 PMMy point was:
Dorky: What specific programs were enacted by the Democrats in 2007 - 2008, sailed through the Republican senate...
It was not a republican Senate.
Since I caught you, you had to shift the goal posts and make a whole different claim as if that were your point all along.
That pretty much destroys any credibility you have.
Now is Jay to tell you what you didn't win...
Posted by: Eyago on July 20, 2012 01:07 PMTWS: Why didn't they vote when you could have pushed this bill through and had it signed into law?Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on July 20, 2012 01:09 PM
REID: Next question.
Are you trying to hold the Democrats responsible for the Republican filibusters?
You're warped. Your argument is patently ridiculous and has no merit. I don't see anyone chiming in to support you. You know why? Because they don't want to make themselves appear as ridiculous as you do.
Posted by: dorky dorkman on July 20, 2012 01:15 PMOur problem is that they have us over a barrel. They're bad -- but you are worse.
Democrats and progressives are supposed to be like Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich -- but instead we are stuck with triangulating little Medici's who are out for themselves alone.
Then again, you are stuck with idiots like Dave Reichert.
Posted by: dorky dorkman on July 20, 2012 01:25 PMYou don't get it do you? You made a comment, I addressed your comment and showed that it was wrong and now you attack me for not addressing your goalpost-shifting comment that you threw up as a distraction.
There is nothing in my argument that is patently ridiculous.
I do not think you know what a "lie" is. If I never actually make a statement regarding a topic, I can't be a liar.
And it seems you have now devolved to name calling because you were proven incorrect and I am not taking your bait.
Boo hoo. GO back to middle school. That seems a more appropriate venue for your antics.
Posted by: Eyago on July 20, 2012 01:26 PMOn the contrary, that's about all they have left. That and distortion, deflection and hysteria.
I'm grateful when loud lefty's expose themselves for who they are.
I'm grateful when loud lefty's define themselves.
It gives them nowhere to hide.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on July 20, 2012 01:35 PMI do get it. What I don't get is why you don't credit me with the intelligence to lead you into boldly remarking that there was a senate majority of Democrats at that time.
My intention was to bring up the filibuster problem at that point and also the fact that Bush had promised to veto any Democratic legislation that made it through the filibuster gauntlet.
I guess the unprecedented use of the filibuster by Republicans in 2007 was just a 'distraction'.
But actually, Eyago, there was only 48 Democratic senators in 2007. Democrats had an only an operational majority because the two independent senators caucused with the Democrats for organizational purposes.
So. I am right and you are wrong. Don't try any of that 'goalpost changing' stuff that you accused me of.
Just admit it. Iam 100% right and you are 100% wrong.
Posted by: dorky dorkman on July 20, 2012 01:58 PMWhat specific policies did Bush enact that messed up the economy and how did they mess it up? I've heard lots of people throw around the accusation that Bush messed up the economy but they never provide any details.
Posted by: Ken on July 20, 2012 02:36 PMI wish SP would give us an Ignore button so I wouldn't see his stupidly inaccurate posts.
Posted by: It Takes a Village to Convene a Grand Jury on July 20, 2012 02:38 PMBut actually, Eyago, there was only 48 Democratic senators in 2007. Democrats had an only an operational majority because the two independent senators caucused with the Democrats for organizational purposes.
Exactly, Sanders and Lieberman caucused withe the Democrats which gave them control on the senate and they held the chairmanships. Thus it was not a Republican controlled senate as you claimed.
I guess the unprecedented use of the filibuster by Republicans in 2007 was just a 'distraction'.
I guess you don't read your own listed articles or maybe your reading comprehension is lacking. Or maybe you just see what you want to see.
"You can almost argue that the Republicans learned form the Democrats when they were filibustering Republican judges effectively," Brian Darling, director of U.S. Senate Relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told The Huffington Post. "[Reid] should not bring up such controversial pieces of legislation... any measure that puts conditions on the way the war is fought is going to be filibustered by Republicans. So bringing it up again and again without extended session shows the Democratic leadership is not really committed to passing these measures, just in making statements."
And yet, for all the political back-and-forth over who is to blame, the Campaign for America's Future report underscores what many consider a far more worrisome issue facing government. The proliferation of the filibuster, political observers argue, is simply, and sadly, a modern political reality.
"There is a tendency when you lose power to hunker down," Stu Rothenberg, editor of the non-partisan Rothenberg Political Report, told The Huffington Post. "Even the study notes that the previous record was in the 107th Congress. This is the 110th. Meaning it is a development. This is not the Republicans doing something totally out of the blue. This is how the Senate now works where the minority party increasingly feels like it has got its back up against the wall."
But to the point, you have made no connection between the failure of the economy and the specific actions of the republicans in congress. AN increase in filibusters only points to partisan bickering. As the article states, Reid pushed specific measures multiple times which got filibustered each time. You might count that against republicans, but one could also fault democrats for pushing partisan bills that they knew would never reach cloture and were never meant to be a consensus piece of legislature. It's a case of "it takes two to tango."
You have to do better than simply show filibuster counts do say it is all the fault of one party.
Also none of the types of legislation cited by the article is related at all to the economic issues, so you have not made your point there either.
100% right? Really, are you 12? Maybe I should ask the moderators to install an age verification system.
lol, and Obamacare WASN'T 'running roughshod over republicans"? That was a totally partisan vote. And the democrats ran roughshod on the entire country with it. Nobody but democrats wanted it. "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it." At least dems and Rs agreed at that time that no one wanted to raise taxes.
...you aren't getting it; democrats didn't want to raise taxes. They would have done it then, if they'd wanted to. Now they can't. So all their bluster about it now is completely fake. They are essentially publicly claiming to want something they in fact DON'T want. It's ridiculous.
Posted by: Michele on July 20, 2012 03:09 PMI believe the Dimocrats were itching (in 2007- '08) to raise marginal tax rates to levels not seen since the 1950's, but they recalled all too well the lesson George HW Bush learned when he uttered his now infamous, "Read my lips..." quotation. So instead they chose to print/borrow $7T to thow at the indolent idiot class in trade for their votes.
Posted by: Saltherring on July 20, 2012 04:23 PMIt's time to clean up another democrat mess.
The answer to fixing this economy is MORE taxes. That'll raise revenue. Posted by: T-S (Joanie) on July 20, 2012 05:24 PM
What does that comment have to do with the topic of this post other than to strike out at Pudge ?
No, raising revenue with only result in MORE imbecilic DEMOCRAT party spending, not towards improving the economy (apparently you're not a history teacher). Being an "educator", you should have enough intelligence to spot the trends of the party you blindly vote for only because your union has dictated that you do so.
Posted by: Rick D. on July 20, 2012 06:33 PMSo. I am right and you are wrong. Don't try any of that 'goalpost changing' stuff that you accused me of.
Just admit it. Iam (sic) 100% right and you are 100% wrong. -Posted by dorky dorkman at July 20, 2012 01:58 PM
Good grief. And we wonder why we can't get through to them with logic and facts.
I don't think that you know how the system works -- or you're just lying when you say that 49 Democratis Senators and 2 indepemdents makes for a controlling number of votes.
Posted by: dorky dorkman on July 20, 2012 10:42 PMMaybe you ARE 12 have have not had sufficient civics lessons. Sanders and Leiberman caucused with the democrats which gave them the edge. That is why Harry Reid was called MAJORITY leader.
http://usliberals.about.com/b/2007/01/04/democrats-take-tenuous-control-of-senate-firm-hold-on-house-in-110th-congress.htm
The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. Although the Democrats held fewer than 50 Senate seats, they had an operational majority because the two independent senators caucused with the Democrats for organizational purposes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress
The impact to being the majority party is...
Each party elects Senate party leaders. Floor leaders act as the party chief spokespeople. The Senate Majority Leader is responsible for controlling the agenda of the chamber by scheduling debates and votes. Each party elects an assistant leader (whip) who works to ensure that their party's senators vote as the party leadership desires.
No "control" does not mean"controlling number of votes", it means they control the agenda. They decide what gets voted on, they hold the chairmanships on all the committees which then decide which things get passed to the whole body.
Seriously, dude, learn something, you are embarrassing yourself.
Posted by: Eyago on July 20, 2012 11:51 PMYou've come up with a storyline (that is false) and you are sticking to it. What difference does it make who controls the 'agenda' if everything on that agenda is thwarted through overuse of the filibuster.
Your side is thwarting the will of the people. All Republicans ever do is start wars and cut taxes.
That's why you did not have control of the agenda.
Besides, you always come up with this stuff (like 'the agenda')as pure oppositional research. It's not something you knew of to start out with.
This whole discussion started out with you being suckered into saying that the Democrats had a majority in the Senate and therefore had control. When I brought up the filibuster, you said that, no, it was a narrowly defined discussion and you had proven thast the Democrats had the majority.
Then I decided, fine, we'll define the discussion narrowly and proved to you that you were wrong and that the Democrats did NOT have a majority (plus, you are forgetting the blue dogs). Then, all of a sudden, the discussion is broadened and you insist that the two independents mean, lterally, that the Democrats have a majority.
So, I think that everyone can see that you do not argue points in good faith, but use any pretense that you can think of to drive the discussion to your way of thinking.
The whole problem with ideologically driven conservatives like yourself is that you start out with a conclusion, and then look for any bit of information to support it -- to the exclusion of any information that would tend to discredit your notion.
To put it in terms you can readily understand, you are a fake, a liar, and a Sophist (and it's spelled Iago -- not Eyago).
Iago was a traitor.
Posted by: dorky dorkman on July 21, 2012 09:21 AMAnd dork is spelled Dork ... it means
dork
noun
1. Slang . a silly, out-of-touch person who tends to look odd or behave ridiculously around others; a social misfit: If you make me wear that, I'll look like a total dork!
Synonyms: jerk, schmo; nerd, geek.
But the most delicious part of the word 'dork', as applied to our self-proclaimed Dork, is it's WORD STORY.
I swear you couldn't have chosen a better screen name if WE had chosen it for you!
Self proclaimed Dork, you irritate me, you engender my pity, you make me aspire to new heights of mocking, but most of all you entertain me. You might want to ponder if any of those are a good thing...
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on July 21, 2012 09:57 AMBy your definition, the Republicans aren't responsible for ANYTHING ever. The GOP has never had a filibuster proof Senate, House majority, and the Presidency. So the GOP has zero responsibility for anything.
Conversely, the first two years of Obama's Administration found a filibuster-proof Democrat Senate, a Democrat majority House, and a Democrat in the White House.
So, by your logic, the GOP isn't responsible for anything, and the Democrats - by virtue of their recent total lock on the Federal Government - are responsible for everything.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 21, 2012 10:24 AMReally, you need to take a logic course. You can't keep simple things straight. Let's take it piece by piece.
You've come up with a storyline (that is false) and you are sticking to it. What difference does it make who controls the 'agenda' if everything on that agenda is thwarted through overuse of the filibuster.
No, you made a false statement I called you on it. I also showed who had control of the executive and legislative branches over the times in question and made the point that if you can blame one party for the economy due to its control of a part of the branch, then you have to admit the responsibility of the other party when it had control.
Your bringing up the filibuster after failing to concede my points as if the filibuster was your argument from the beginning is called goalpost shifting.
Your side is thwarting the will of the people.
So, every time democrats use the filibuster they are thwarting the will of the people? Are you sure you want to make that argument?
All Republicans ever do is start wars and cut taxes.
The democrats voted overwhelmingly to start both wars under Bush. Only Obama started a conflict without the consent of Congress. Get your facts straight.
The democrats also voted for the tax cuts and to extend them. Facts, man, facts.
When I brought up the filibuster, you said that, no, it was a narrowly defined discussion and you had proven thast the Democrats had the majority.
I did not say it was a narrowly defined discussion, I said I was making a specific point about your claim that republicans had control. You shifted the argument to filibusters as if that somehow mitigated the incorrectness of your point. You made a claim, I proved it wrong, you yelled filibuster.
Regarding the filibuster, I also cited your own article to show that the filibuster is not a republican only tactic and was considered to be a result of the political climate fostered by both parties. If you want to debate that, cite some sources.
then I decided, fine, we'll define the discussion narrowly and proved to you that you were wrong and that the Democrats did NOT have a majority (plus, you are forgetting the blue dogs). Then, all of a sudden, the discussion is broadened and you insist that the two independents mean, lterally, that the Democrats have a majority.
No, I proved that the democrats controlled the senate. I never said they had a majority. Harry Reid, a democrat is called the majority leader because the independents choose to caucus with the democrats which give them control. Really, you have no leg to stand on here and have to lie about what I said to try and prove you are right.
So, I think that everyone can see that you do not argue points in good faith, but use any pretense that you can think of to drive the discussion to your way of thinking.
No, I addressed specific points, backed them up with facts. I used no pretenses. You assume that I have to talk about what YOU want to talk about. I don't. I point out your errors, and you seem to throw a hissy fit because I am not agreeing with anything you say.
The whole problem with ideologically driven conservatives like yourself is that you start out with a conclusion, and then look for any bit of information to support it -- to the exclusion of any information that would tend to discredit your notion.
Talk about projection! I actually use facts and logic to support my claims. You use name calling.
It seems you are starting with a conclusion and try to fit the facts to it. You have not provided one shred of specific evidence that anything the republicans have done has caused the economic crash. Your obsession over the filibuster is all sound and fury, signifying nothing. The fact that the filibuster is used is not evidence that it was used in such a way to harm the economy. You actually have to connect the dots to specific legislation and the impacts to the economy. Instead, you assume that since the economy is bad and the republicans use the filibuster, it is obvious that they caused the bad economy. Doesn't work that way. That's not my fault, that's just how logic works.
To put it in terms you can readily understand, you are a fake, a liar, and a Sophist
You have not demonstrated a single lie, nor established how I am fake, and you have not pointed out a singly fallacy in my arguments (I am assuming that is what you infer when using the term sophist.) Thus, you are back to name calling. Back your claims, first.
and it's spelled Iago -- not Eyago.
No, I am not Iago. I have my own name, spelled as you see it. You have no idea what my handle means and why I use it. You are simply making false assumption again as seems to be your predilection. You have assumed things about me this entire time and then formulate your accusations and insinuations based on your own inventions rather than the facts at hand.
Just so you know guys, what we're writing here - we didn't really write. I mean, we're writing it, but we couldn't have done that alone. Even though I'm alone in my home. Which isn't really mine. I mean, it is, but it's not.
*stares vacantly*
*drools*
Ha! Snort!
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on July 21, 2012 12:07 PMA sad excuse for a human being living off the government dole who claims not to be a lemming. He was probably also abused as a child. which is too bad. Time to move along here.
Posted by: KDS on July 21, 2012 12:12 PM