During a recent town meeting held by Rep. Waters (D-CA) questioned, "We don't know what the strategy is. We don't know why on this trip that he's in the United States now, he's not in any black communities." President Obama has been on a Midwest bus tour to hold several town hall meetings on the state of the economy in predominately white communities. As a matter of fact if you look at the pictures from the tour one would be hard pressed to find any minorities at all.
President Obama is not dumb as he realizes that if he is going to get re-elected in 2012 he needs the white vote that appears to be slipping away from him. Note to Rep. Waters, President Obama has neglected the black community because he knows you'd never vote against him in the next election. Are you ready to vote for a guy that has enacted policies that has driven up unemployment in the black community to 15.9%? Or are you going to take President Obama up on his offer he made to Diane Sawyer?
While Detroit burns President Obama is going on vacation in Martha's Vineyard among the elite's of America. Prior to ending the bus tour President Obama has stated he will be announcing his plan to get America back to work after Labor Day weekend; we have waited over two years for this so what is a few more weeks? But I digress, as the Congressional Black Caucus is growing frustrated with President Obama and his choice of locations on the bus tour. In case Rep. Water missed it I will say it again: The strategy employed by the bus tour is to engage the White vote that polls show is slipping away while assuming that blacks will vote for re-election no matter what he does.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm curious, what policies does the president have power over that drive employment? Most economists agree that the president has very little real power over the economy except for confidence levels amongst voters.
ReplyDeleteThe truth likely is that blacks have higher unemployment, not because of presidential policies, but because of lack of education. Only about 11% of blacks have an education higher than high school compared to whites who have 33% with a BA/BS or more.
Couple that fact with the unemployment rates based upon education level and you see why blacks are more impacted by the recession than whites. (HS or less is >10.5% unemployment, vs <5.4% for those with college degree or greater)
How is this something Obama's policies could have addressed in this community or the country at large? Was he supposed to magically wave a wand and fix 250 years of racial inequality in this country?
And I'm not going to get into a 'blacks did this to themselves' argument because I agree, they need to take ownership.
So again, which policies did Obama enact that drove this situation? Or for that matter, Bush, or Clinton? What policies has ANY president enacted that could dramatically affect the jobs market and economy in this country?
He doesn't need the white vote to win, he needs the independent vote to win. Just like the last two elections, won by getting the independents.
ReplyDeleteChris, he is in fact losing support even among some black voters. I agree that it may be assumed that blacks will vote for him, however, he needs to be concerned that blacks will instead of not voting for him, may not vote for anyone at all in the next election. He needs the independent vote AND the black vote to win, as 96% of blacks who voted, voted for him. As to Truman's point, blacks do indeed need to take ownership over our situations, however that does not in anyway negate the fact that discriminatory practices and socio-economic and judicial policies have not been the major contributing factor to plight of blacks up to now, and I will not allow the "take ownership" argument to be used to excuse the racist policies and practices that have been levied at blacks for centuries in the U.S.. How about NAFTA Chris..
ReplyDeleteYou make it seem like the President hasn't done anything in 2 years. He's done plenty, you just don't agree with it.
ReplyDeleteDo you really think the President isn't doing anything while on vacation? Where would you prefer he take vacation?
Truman
ReplyDeleteThe President drives the agenda especially when his party is control of it. I agree he has no direct power of the legislation passed but he does when he signs it. The agenda that President Obama is detailing is not one that gives confidence to businesses to hire, expand or know what future expenses will be. One of the largests unknowns is Obamacare and what the true costs will be to businesses of all sizes.
Anonymous
President Obama does need the white vote to win and many of those votes will come from independents. I'd be intrigued to know how many blacks label themselves as independents. I bet that the vast majority of blacks vote Democrat with a small portion voting for Republcans. I think the last election blacks voted for Obama 96%.
Streightdope
I agree with you that we have a number of racist policies in government. Not sure NAFTA falls under that. I do think that NAFTA was led to an increase of production jobs leaving the United States. Part of this is why we needed to bailout GM and Chrsyler because if we would have allowed both companies to go through banruptcy court the Union pension fund would have been put in danger of major change. Instead we bailout the Unions and punished investors that either bought stock or bonds. Why hasn't President Obama addressed NAFTA?
Anonymous
Please name me one thing the President has done to improve unemployment, give confidence to the markets, create jobs or increase GDP? As for vacation, I could care less. Actually it may be better for the United States if he did stay on vacation since he couldn't sign legislation that would increase spending and put us further in debt.
We all know why President Obama is waiting til after Labor Day to announce his plan to get American back to work; that way it cannot be vetted in town hall meetings that Congress is having right now.
Extend the tax cuts. Or does that not doing anything you mentioned?
ReplyDeleteYou could care less about the vacation but yet you not only feel the need to mention it, but call him out as an elitist in doing so. Interesting. How much legislation is he going to pass with Congress in recess? Nice sound argument.
Many have argued that the extending the tax cuts has not created jobs. I still see unemployment above 9%. I only mention the vacation because I wonder why wait until afterwards to announce the plan to get America back to work. Why not announce prior to going on vacation and give some hope and confidence to the market and the economy? You correct nor did I assert that any Legislation would be passed during the recess because that would be the nature of the recess. By putting forth his plan now, while in recess, can allow Congress to ask those they represent what they think either through town halls or at state fairs.
ReplyDeleteBut that's not what you have argued in the past. You've argued that lower taxes create jobs so by your own argument, he has done something
ReplyDeleteSure, unemployment is at 9% but, since we don't know what it would be at if other changes were made or none at all, that doesn't mean much. Many have argued that what he has done has kept unemployment lower than what it could have been. Others have argued that even larger stimulus was necessary.
The bush tax cuts have already done their job creation. By passing along the cuts that were about to expire is ensured no new jobs would be lost. The trouble business owners face, which I am one, is uncertainty of Obamacare and future tax hykes. If we repeal obamacare, which the courts may do for us, and ensure business owners of no new taxes we will see job growth again.
ReplyDeleteGreat point second Anon. There are a lot of uncertain's facing job creators.
ReplyDeleteAs to the other Anon - I know I have argued the case for tax cuts in the past as a job creator. There is a window and after that we get diminishing returns. The threat of not continuing the Bush tax cuts was future layoffs and stem the tide of future job creation - although minimal now. I wouldn't tout the extension of Bush tax cuts as a great feat by President Obama.
I'd like to see us really discuss the true unemployment numbers as they are much higher. But I digress. Any benefit that the extension of Bush era tax cuts may have are wiped out because of Obamacare and the threat of future tax hykes.
I didn't say it was a great feat, but an example. And a may isn't much of an argument against.
ReplyDeleteIs the world economy declining, flat or growing?
Can you point me to the Republican jobs plan?
Days of Vacation for last 3 presidents in their first 2 years in office.
ReplyDeleteObama - 61
Bush - 180
Clinton - 28
So, you're complaining that Obama took vacation during an economic recession. But I have yet to hear you rail against how Bush took 6 MONTHS of vacation in his first 2 years. Never mind that we were in a smaller recession in 2001 and 9/11 happened during that timeframe.
Gimme a break and stop calling yourself 'non-partisan' because this parroting of the GOP talking points screams otherwise Viper.
And as to why businesses aren't investing the 3 TRILLION dollars in cash they're sitting on - it's not uncertainty - it's demand. A business won't invest in a factory if the products that this factory would produce have no buyers. A business won't buy inventory if they don't think they can sell it.
The middle class are 2/3 of the economy in the US by creating demand through consumer spending. The fastest way to create demand in this country is to extend the middle class payroll tax holiday that is currently going on - but the GOP is planning on fighting it because it will "increase the deficit".
Nevermind that they fought tooth and nail to extend the tax cuts for the rich last year. Where are all the jobs that those tax cuts were supposed to create through the investments the rich would make?
Oh that's right - those jobs are in China because investors aren't investing here when the ROI in china is higher. I'm so glad we gave the rich tax breaks to invest overseas.
That trickle down economics is working as well as ever - which is to say it's not working at all. Supply side economics only works when demand is high - but the GOP can't seem to wrap their head around that fact and they've convinced kowtowing yes-men like you that they're right.
Well done for totting the party water - I'm glad to see you're a faithful beast of burden for them.
"If we repeal obamacare, which the courts may do for us, and ensure business owners of no new taxes we will see job growth again."
ReplyDeleteIf you're a business owner, I fear for your employees. Corporate taxes are at their lowest in decades, and growth still isn't occuring. Why is that if what you say is true? Uncertainty? Really?!?
Well it's uncertainty that's for sure, but not about regulation or taxes - it's uncertainty about demand. I won't hire an employee if their productivity is wasted by not having consumers.
Demand is what is missing from this economy - and giving more money to the "job creators" as Viper so elloquently uses the talking point instead of saying "rich" won't change demand.
The rich create 3% of all demand in this country. The middle class create 84%. If you're going to give tax cuts in a demand starved economy, giving them to the rich is about as counter productive as anything could be. But hey, let's try trickle down economics a bit more - I'm sure in time we can supply ourselves out of this demand recession.
Yeah - great economic theory there. Where'd you learn it - Normandale CC or perhaps on Rush Limbaugh?
Truman
ReplyDeletePlease tell me where I indicated that I was complaining about President Obama taking a vacation?
"While Detroit burns President Obama is going on vacation in Martha's Vineyard among the elite's of America."
ReplyDeleteOr are you going to tell me that this was a supportive statement from you about his vacationing?
PS - Nice to see you ignored the substance of my posts about economics and how the ideology of the GOP for how to fix this is dead wrong and instead focused on a trivial portion of my commentary.
ReplyDeleteI gotta say, I wonder sometimes why I post here. I end up defending a president I don't like because your attacks are unwarranted against ANY president. (Does a president EVER really get a vacation?) Not to mention that any substantive (albeit scathing) post I make is ignored in favor of talking points, fluffery and nonsense.
Interesting that you claim past tax cuts during the Bush years grew jobs when job growth was pretty much zero during the 00s and that started at the beginning of the decade.
ReplyDeletehttp://seekingalpha.com/article/180738-u-s-job-growth-in-the-lost-decade
@Anon,
ReplyDeleteEven if, for argument sake, we say those tax cuts DID grow jobs - that growth is over with. The benefit is long since gone. So what do we gain by leaving those tax cuts when the capital being created by them is being invested overseas and NOT in the US because A) the US economy does not currently require investment to maintain it's current growth profile and B) because the US economy is not starved for investment capital - it's starved for demand.
Given those two facts, even if those tax cuts DID grow jobs in the past - they won't now simply because investment isn't the issue, demand is.
And as I stated, the top 1% generate 3% of the demand. Admittedly, that's a lot of demand for the % of people with a 3:1 return per capita. But the impact, in the grand scheme of things, is immaterial. A 3% impact to demand today would be a drop of water in Lake Superior. We need massive growth in demand and that requires middle class spending.
A tax cut on the middle class has the single largest overall impact on demand because the middle class will spend that money on living triggering the multiplier effect for that spending.
That would grow jobs by growing demand which creates investment which creates jobs. But the GOP is currently fighting the extension of the payroll tax holiday due to an assertion that it grows the deficit. But they won't cut the tax cuts for the rich (err. job creators sorry Viper) because they might invest in the US someday and maybe we'll get to see the table scraps from that investment.
Personally, I'm not in favor of more wealth concentration at the top 1% while the rest of american collapses into poverty just so the GOP can maintain their benevolent benefactors at the expense of us all.
Truman
ReplyDeleteI asked the question as I did because I was on the small screen and writing a post from the blackberry is just not all that fun not to mention time consuming.
The article that Anon posted I am eager to read because, as you pointed out as well, that the Bush tax cuts already created the vast majority of the jobs its going to create. The reason to keep the cuts in place is to prevent further job erosion. It is true that companies need more demand for their products and consumerism needs to re-emerge for us to get out of this recession.
And I did not contend that my "while Detriot burns..." comment to be supportive or unsupportive of President Obama's choice to take a vacation now. Rather my point was more to where his vacation is. While the people of Detriot are struggling to stay afloat, our President is busy rubbing elbows with top 1%. Now I know that the President is still working because no President truly goes on vacation. It's a PR and imagine deal.
So what is a fitting place for the President to vacation? What's funny is everyone I've talked to doesn't care where he vacations and he's deserved a vacation like that. Plus, I'm sure it's a lot easier for the secret service to go there since they've been there numerous times. It's as much safety as image or PR.
ReplyDeleteTo complain about where he's going is cheap politics and the people aren't buying it, and I've read folks on the right and left claim that, and is irrelevant.
The President is busy spending time with his family while still working most of the day. I hardly doubt it's an overwhelmingly social outing.
It's funny how you complained about where he vacationed while defending you weren't complaining about where he vacationed.
My reasoning for even referencing the vacation aspect is the image and PR issue that he now raises for his campaign staff. Personally, if he wants to rub elbows with top 1% I hope that some fiscal responsibility can rub off on him.
ReplyDeleteTruman
ReplyDeleteNot sure why you slam community college. Some of our bright inventors never even went to college. As for me, I did go to college and did get my masters in business administration. My business has demand, we are running on overtime, we are making money but if I expand my business beyond the 98 employees I have it opens me to several unknowns with Obamacare hanging in the wings and the possible increase in taxes on businesses in general.
What business have you run? What payroll have you had to meet?
Anon - I looked at the graph and naturally the decade was a wash. Tax cuts would have been a net positive in job growth if we didn't have two wars, housing bubble, and a financial fiasco. Take that time out the decade did produce jobs.
ReplyDeleteAnd what from that chart so naturally allowed you to conclude that?
ReplyDeleteSeriously? The job creation crashes after 2008. Do you deny the fact that we had a housing bubble, a financial meltdown and were fighting two wars?
ReplyDeleteThat's seriously how you read it? It's flat 00-5, with contraction in 03 and 04, grows slightly for a few years and then comes back down to where it was earlier in the decade. And it's significantly below prior decades throughout the decade.
ReplyDeleteI don't deny those things at all. What I do deny is that we can naturally conclude what you do based solely on the graph. That all might be the cause, but there's been no facts brought forth to support it.
Have we not fought wars before and added jobs? Because that job growth in the 40s is pretty striking, isn't it?
"The reason to keep the cuts in place is to prevent further job erosion."
ReplyDeleteWrong, that's not how the supply side of economics works buddy.
The tax cuts to the rich were to spur investment - that's their stated purpose. By your admission that investment HAS ALREADY HAPPENED with no new growth coming. Therefore, if no new investment growth is occuring, the reason for having those tax cuts has long since gone. This is further buttressed by the fact that this money WILL NOT CREATE DEMAND as I showed above and that corporations are flush with capital and don't require outside investors to fund growth.
So if you want to truly grow jobs and "prevent further job erosion" shift that wasted upper class tax cut to the middle class where it would spur spending, driving consumer demand up which triggers the multiplier effect causing corporate investment to meet demand which creates jobs which in turn creates more demand as new workers begin spending.
So again, how does extending the Bush tax cuts favor anyone but the wealthy since they will invest those savings overseas where the ROI is higher and there's less risk due to our stagnant economy? How is that a smart move when we could tax them, shift the cut to the middle class and trigger jobs growth which would in turn offset the need to tax the rich by creating more jobs which creates more tax revenues which REDUCES THE DEFICIT?
Shocking I know, but it's not that complex of economics. But it can't happen in today's political climate because Fox news and the GOP and their talking bobbleheads will call it class warfare and socialism.
And people like you will carry that water for them to the masses - so that we can all drown in their BS.
Anonymous - you realize the growth in jobs in the 40's was largely due to men going off to war and women entering the workforce, right? The number of laid off people starting in 2008 through the end of the decade was something not seen since the Great Depression, you realize that too right? To start the decade off we had the tech bubble and Y2K scare that caused a decrease in jobs.
ReplyDeleteTruman - yes, we have seen the significant growth from the tax cuts prior to the crash of the markets of 2008. Ask business owners, not talking the big corporations, but business owners that are directly impacted by a change in tax rates. A study came out yesterday that already stated that 1 in 10 Fortune 500 companies are looking to shed their health care benefits once the exchanges are set up with 1 in 5 small business looking to do the same thing.
Who are the wealthy? What definition are you or we working from? We don't need to increase taxe rates to get people back to work. We need an environment where business is encouraged to hire more people because demand is starting to come back already. Durable Goods orders increased again.
I notice you dodged the other Anonymous post about running a business too.
"Truman - yes, we have seen the significant growth from the tax cuts prior to the crash of the markets of 2008."
ReplyDeleteWHAT? GWB added a net of 1.1M jobs between 2001 and 2009 with a starting point of 132.469M in 2001 and ending his first term FLAT at 132.453M. Now when were those tax cuts enacted again? 2001 & 2003 right? SO WHERE ARE THE JOBS?
How about you be honest with statistics for once and not make them up as you go. This gets old disproving your statements.
"We need an environment where business is encouraged to hire more people because demand is starting to come back already."
What the hell are you talking about? Durable goods is only 1 minor indicator of demand. Try GDP growth, Consumer Confidence, etc are all flat to declining.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/consumer-confidence
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/26/gdp-us-economy-recession-growth_n_937702.html
Do you just make things up as you go?
And I didn't ignore the other Anonymous, I actually went so far as to mock them for their poor understanding of current corporate tax code as well as a limited understanding of the economic issues currently driving the recession.
Both of you keep espousing trickle down (supply side) economics. However, this is a demand recession and I've yet to see any recommendation from either of you that would increase demand by any measurable means.
In fact, YOU VIPER, have gone so far as to say that there's no need to increase demand because it's increasing on it's own.
So how about we sit back and let the rich get richer on their incredibly low effective tax rate while the middle class burns. Sound like a plan?
Truman
ReplyDeleteI understand that you understand that had we not had the housing bubble, 9/11, 2008 stock market crash, and the two wars that decade would have ended with a positive net gain much larger than 1.1M.
"I understand that you understand that had we not had the housing bubble, 9/11, 2008 stock market crash, and the two wars that decade would have ended with a positive net gain much larger than 1.1M."
ReplyDeleteWe would also not have a 14 Trillion dollar deficit and unicorns would be dancing in the streets of Hamburg. Shoulda, coulda, woulda is what I have to say to this. This is the reality of what DID happen, not what could have happened.
What did Bush or the GOP who held control of both houses of congress during this time do to avoid the housing crash, 9/11, the 2008 market crash or the 2 wars that THEY INITIATED?
Seriously, your argument is that had the Congress and the president avoided these things, we'd have done better than 1.1M net jobs?
NO SHIT!
Would you accept an argument from Obama or his ilk that had he not inherited a recession, he would have created a net positive jobs with his policies? If the answer is no, you wouldn't accept it, why should we accept this half-assed argument in defense of bad policy?
Truman if you look at the article Anonymous posted you will notice that jobs increased until Obama took office and sharply declined with Democrats firmly in control of Congress and the White House.
ReplyDeleteAs for the housing bubble - it was the Democrats belief that Freddie and Fannie was to be the bank of last resort for mortgages. Republicans attempted several times to bring it up that both institutions were insolvent but Barney Frank wouldn't give it a proper hearing in his committee.
Now, whether or not President Obama inherited a recession his Keynesian policies have failed us and we are on the cusp of another suggested stimulus package. Even those that defend Keynes acknowledge that government must have a surplus to make the model work and not borrow money that we don't have.
Except the first 4 years on that graph which show pretty much flat or a decline. Which came first, the economic crisis or Obama taking office?
ReplyDeleteI agree that we headed toward a recession as Obama was taking office the trouble is his policies have only helped to sustain low to no job growth. As for Bush, if we had not bailed out the banks or the car industry in the wake of the housing bubble the net job gain would have been a lot more.
ReplyDeleteFree market forces are still at work then and now, the degree to our ability to recover is hampered by the reach of the Federal government.
I give up. Between your use of revisionist history (we were in a recession for the 6 months prior to Obama being sworn in) and the evident lack of understanding in macro economic principles I am not seeing a point in discussing this further.
ReplyDeleteGood luck anonymous.
How would have allowing the banks and auto industry to collapse, having an impact across multiple other industries, suppliers, transport, etc., have allowed job gains in the last few years of the decade? Your talking about having mass layoffs, right? What do you think would have happened to the auto industry without the government stepping in to help? That they would have kept on humming and adding jobs, like they were? Wait . . .
ReplyDeleteFeel free to make up what you want now. I'm with Truman. It's not a discussion you want. At this point, I don't even think it's bashing the left and Obama that you want. You just have to be right. That's a dangerous mindset but good luck without.
How am I being a revisionist? Here is an article in July of 2008 that debates the topic of the when the recession started:
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/07/31/the-gdp-debate-did-a-recession-start-in-2007/
If the Auto Industry had been allowed to go through bankruptcy court they could have come out it stronger financially. We still need cars and those workers and factories would have been picked up to put to use.