PDA

View Full Version : Why The Obama Plan Is Working



Gayle in MD
04-10-2010, 09:40 AM
http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/10_16/b4174028669540.htm

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why the Obama Plan Is Working
Polls say the economy is heading in the wrong direction. Markets say it's back on track. This time, the markets are right
By Mike Dorning

It's never easy to separate politics from policy, and the past 18 months have only increased the degree of difficulty. The U.S. has been through a historic financial crisis followed by a historic election and a series of historic federal gambles—from bailing out AIG and GM to passing a $787 billion stimulus and a $940 billion health-care reform bill. All that risk has made policy more complicated and politics more fraught ("You lie," "Babykiller").

A Bloomberg national poll in March found that Americans, by an almost 2-to-1 margin, believe the economy has gotten worse rather than better during the past year. The Market begs to differ. While President Obama's overall job approval rating has fallen to a new low of 44%, according to a CBS News Poll, down five points from late March, the judgment of the financial indexes has turned resoundingly positive. The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index is up more than 74% from its recessionary low in March 2009. Corporate bonds have been rallying for a year. Commodity prices have surged. International currency markets have been bullish on the dollar for months, raising it by almost 10% since Nov. 25 against a basket of six major currencies. Housing prices have stabilized. Mortgage rates are low. "We've had a phenomenal run in asset classes across the board," says Dan Greenhaus, chief economic strategist for Miller Tabak + Co., an institutional trading firm in New York. "If Obama was a Republican, we would hear a never-ending drumbeat of news stories about markets voting in favor of the President."

Little more than a year ago, financial markets were in turmoil, major auto companies were on the verge of collapse and economists such as Paul Krugman were worried about the U.S. slumbering through a Japan-like Lost Decade. While no one would claim that all the pain is past or the danger gone, the economy is growing again, jumping to a 5.6% annualized growth rate in the fourth quarter of 2009 as businesses finally restocked their inventories. The consensus view now calls for 3% growth this year, significantly higher than the 2.1 % estimate for 2010 that economists surveyed by Bloomberg News saw coming when Obama first moved into the Oval Office. The U.S. manufacturing sector has expanded for eight straight months, the Business Roundtable's measure of CEO optimism reached its highest level since early 2006, and in March the economy added 162,000 jobs—more than it had during any month in the past three years. "There is more business confidence out there," says Boeing (BA) CEO Jim McNerney. "This Administration deserves significant credit."

It is worth stepping back to consider, in cool-headed policy terms, how all of this came to be—and whether the Obama team's approach amounts to a set of successful emergency measures or a new economic philosophy: Obamanomics.

For most of the past two decades, the reigning economic approach in Democratic circles has been Rubinomics, a set of priorities fashioned in the 1990s by Bill Clinton's Treasury Secretary, Robert E. Rubin, the former co-chairman of Goldman Sachs (GS). Broadly, Rubinomics was a three-legged stool consisting of restrained government spending, lower budget deficits, and open trade, which were meant in combination to reassure financial markets, keep capital flowing, and thus put the country on a path to prosperity.

On the surface, Obamanomics couldn't be more different. The Administration racked up record deficits as it pursued a $787 billion fiscal stimulus on top of the $700 billion bailout fund for banks and carmakers. Obama has done close to nothing to expand free trade. And while Clinton pleased the markets with a moderate, probusiness image, Obama has riled Wall Street with occasional bursts of populist rhetoric, such as his slamming of "fat cat bankers" on 60 Minutes last December.

The rallying markets haven't been bothered by these differences, largely because of their context. Martin Baily, who was a chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton Administration, says he suspects Rubin and the rest of the Clinton economic team would have made similar decisions—on bailouts, fiscal stimulus, and deficit spending—had they faced a crisis of similar magnitude. "I think we would have gone the same way," he says. The Obama team, he continues, navigated the financial crisis while never losing sight of the importance of private enterprise and private markets (a point Obama stressed in his Feb. 9 interview with Bloomberg BusinessWeek). "A lot of people on the left were urging them to nationalize banks. Instead they injected capital, and now they're pulling capital out. That looks more like Rubinomics than a set of socialist or left-wing economic policies." The Obama economic team looks a lot like Rubin's, too; three of its most prominent members—Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, National Economic Council Chairman Larry Summers, and White House budget director Peter Orszag—are Rubin protégés.

While the Administration's call for a consumer financial protection agency has aroused opposition from banks, Obama's regulatory reform plan largely leaves the financial industry's structure intact and ignores proposals to break up large financial institutions, unlike the reforms pursued after the Crash of 1929. Amid an uproar over bonuses at government-assisted banks, Obama for the most part chose to respect private employment contracts.

In short, Obama's instincts during the crisis were exceedingly Rubin-esque. Even the $787 billion stimulus package, while large by historical standards, didn't reach the scale called for by many liberal economists, including the chairman of his own Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, who initially advocated spending more than $1 trillion. Today, Romer doesn't shy away from comparisons to the last Democratic Administration, but she also makes no grand claims about a new economic philosophy. What unites Rubinomics and Obamanomics, she says, "is the focus on results, the pragmatism of what's right for the economy. We each took the policy that was appropriate at the time."

The similarities go deeper. Like Clinton, Obama has tried to reduce income inequality. Clinton's 1993 deficit-reduction plan raised income tax rates for high-income families to 39.6%; Obama plans to return the top rate to the Clinton-era level. He also raised Medicare taxes for individuals earning over $200,000 to finance his health plan. Clinton aided the working poor with the Earned Income Tax Credit; Obama is doing the same with insurance subsidies in his health plan. A national health plan was an aspiration of both Presidents. Baily argues that the Obama approach is "at least in principle closer to Rubinomics than was the Clinton plan. [Obama's team] is trying to use market incentives to raise the quality and lower the cost, and that looks like Rubinomics."

Any comparison must take into account the vastly different circumstances each Administration confronted. Clinton entered office as the end of the Cold War generated a peace dividend, then rode the tech boom—and the tax-revenue-generating stock options that came with the runup in tech stock prices— to a balanced budget. Obama inherited two wars and the scariest financial crisis since the Great Depression. Clinton's deference to the bond market was necessary because long-term interest rates were high—above 7% on 30-year Treasury bonds—when he took office. Interest rates have been the least of Obama's concerns, with yields below 3% when he took office and the Fed effectively keeping short-term rates at zero.

Despite a budget deficit that is projected at $1.5 trillion this year, Obama wants to move the country toward the kind of fiscal balance it enjoyed fleetingly in the Clinton era, though his budget plans falls short of that. He recognizes that the federal debt load is unsupportable. Alan Greenspan—the tacit ally of Clinton and Rubin in the 1990s—warned last month that a recent uptick in yields on 10-year Treasury notes might signal a surge in long-term interest rates driven by investor anxiety over the budget shortfall.

Economic stabilization has not been Obama's handiwork alone. In the months before he took office, President George W. Bush and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson halted a market free fall with the bank bailout. Obama's stimulus complemented the Federal Reserve's aggressive monetary easing. To build a floor for housing prices, the Fed intervened to support mortgage markets and the White House pledged unlimited financial backing for mortgage giants Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE), and rolled out tax credits for home buyers and mortgage modification programs to stave off foreclosures. It's the entire package that has made the difference.

"When you take it all together, the response was massive, unprecedented, and ultimately successful," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com (MCO). Even Obama critics like Phil Swagel, assistant Treasury secretary for economic policy under George W. Bush, acknowledge that White House policies have been successful. "They could have done a better job" by spending more of the stimulus on corporate tax cuts to boost hiring and investment, says Swagel, now an economics professor at Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business. "But their economic policies, including the stimulus, have helped move the economy in the right direction."

While jobs have been slow to return, the country has experienced "an incredible productivity boom" that strengthens the economy for an expansion, says Greenhaus of Miller Tabak. Labor productivity, or worker output per hour, grew at a 6.9% annual pace in the fourth quarter, capping the biggest one-year gain since 2002. Over the long run, productivity growth is what raises living standards. Corporate profits also have been rising, up 8% in the fourth quarter, putting businesses on a sounder financial foundation to invest and hire as customers return.

The public, alas, does not see the signs of life that economists do, as the downbeat views in the Bloomberg poll demonstrate. And as long as job security remains a concern, it's easy to understand why psychology may trump data. Among those who own stocks, bonds, or mutual funds, only 3 out of 10 say the value of their portfolio has risen since a year ago, according to the poll—a near-impossibility given the size and breadth of the market gains.

The early stages of an economic rebound do not bring political safe haven for Presidents. (Just ask George H.W. Bush, who won a war against Iraq only to lose reelection a year after the 1990-91 recession ended.) Obama, however, may now have reached a pivot point with the economy finally beginning to add jobs. "He can make great strides in short order," says Steven Jarding, a former Democratic campaign strategist who is now a lecturer at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. "Any indicator he can build on is a good thing. He'll be able to focus all his energy and attention to say, 'Here's what happened this year in the economy.'"

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>With seven months to go before midterm elections, and more than two years before Obama reaches his own reelection day, there's still time for the President's policies to swing to his political advantage. Again, follow the money: Consumer spending has been rising for five straight months. That may not last, but it suggests Obama is already on the right track with voters' wallets. If the Clinton Administration is a trustworthy precedent—and job growth continues—their hearts and minds could follow. </span>
Dorning is a reporter at Bloomberg News.

</div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

ugotda7
04-10-2010, 10:10 AM
A Liberal Guide to Debating Conservatives
Mar 31, 2010 Author Scot Cerullo

Liberals have long since learned that debating Conservatives can be a challenging endeavor, since Conservatives have a penchant for fortifying their arguments with facts, statistics, history and other elements that create convincing and thoughtful arguments.

Not to worry. The following are several tips Liberals can use right away to begin defeating Conservatives in every debate, every time.

Lib Tip # 1: Drop the Race Card: The moment your Conservative opponent begins crafting a cogent, air-tight argument buttressed in fact, drop the race card. This technique is designed to stifle further discussion, impugns your opponent and puts him on the defensive. Often, this is enough of a distraction to direct attention away from your lack of qualitative, quantitative evidence.

Lib Tip # 2: Impugn the Source: When debating a Conservative, content is less important than character. When your Conservative opponent states a compelling argument, do not address the argument and instead attack the Conservative personally. Since we are all sinners, it shouldn’t take long to find something wrong with your opponent. Use it.

Lib Tip # 3: Social Justice Trumps Logic: Argue every issue from a “Social Justice” or “Moral” high-ground. The Conservative will attempt to show that your ideas are unworkable, unsustainable or downright illogical. Don’t worry about any of that. Just stay on message by arguing from the moral, social justice perspective.

Lib Tip # 4: Exploit the Weakest Link: Define your opponent by his weakest link. If 10,000 Tea Partiers hold a rally, and one guy has a placard that is inappropriate, that is all you need to characterize the entire group as radical, racist militants. See how that works? It’s simple and fun and, most importantly, deflects all those awkward facts and articulate points away from the discussion and leaves the Conservative in a defensive mode.

Lib Tip # 5: Use “New Speak”: If health care is not a right according to the Constitution, and you want it to be a right, claim it is and then raise your voice. Raising your voice is always the best course of action in lieu of a good argument. Redefine words to suit your needs, and always be on guard for any stray, powerful fact or statistic the Conservative may use to support their position.

Lib Tip # 6: State the Opposite of what you believe: If you are in favor of taking money from producers and giving it to non-producers, that’s fine, but make sure your wording is a bit more obtuse than that. Try saying you are in favor of moral and social justice, and characterize everyone who earns a good living as somehow having won the lottery in life, and all those who want as being desperately hard-working folks who have an almost allergic reaction to hand-outs. Never imply or point out in any way that people can change their situation simply by making better decisions.

Lib Tip # 7: Define America by it’s Errors, not its Successes: Taking a cue from Lib Tip # 4, it is important to characterize America by it’s errors in judgement and misdeeds. It is critical that you completely overlook the good things America has done, and the manner in which it has beaten back one dictatorship after another. In fact, you must go to some lengths to divert people from the notion that without America, the world would be a far more dangerous, hostile, sad place. So talk about Indians and Slaves.

Lib Tip # 8: Blame talk radio and FOX news for fanning hate and racism: Avoid at all costs the fact that both talk radio and FOX news stand in defiant refutation of an otherwise fully agreeable media that presents only one template, a liberal template. Also, attempt to divert attention should someone ask why Conservative Talk Radio and FOX news is growing exponentially, while traditional, liberal media is closing offices, thinning their employees and running deficits like, you know, the government.

Lib Tip # 9: Government is Good: Insist that a massive expansion of government is a good thing. Assert that it is our patriotic duty to pay ever more in taxes so that a centralized government comprised of east and west coast Liberal elites can decide what is best for the unwashed masses, since it would be sheer lunacy to allow individuals the right to make decisions for themselves. If you run into problems, see Tips 1-8.

Lib Tip # 10: Assign Blame away from Yourself: Always assign blame to the other guy, preferably a Conservative. This may require rewriting history so that people may one day believe that Reagan did NOT usher in 25 years of prosperity, or it may require still more retooling of the content of public school text books. But over time we’ll get there.

Remember: The ends justify the means. No matter how cruel and violating the means may be, if it results in a mediocre society where all citizens ultimately suck off the the government for their most meager needs, it will all be worthwhile.

There is of course the small matter of where all the money for all these programs will come from. Right now, they come from spirited entrepreneurs, dreamers with drive and other people whose passion poses a direct threat to the new world we want to usher in.

But first things first. Learn the ten tips to squelch free speech, hurt your opponent with the intellectual equivelant of a kick to the groin and avoid facts, statistics and studies altogether, as those will get you in trouble.

Good luck Liberals! Battle on and remember what Dennis Prager said: The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen. Oh wait, no. You don’t want to remember that. My bad. Here, try this: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Yeah, that’s the one. Whew!

cushioncrawler
04-10-2010, 04:28 PM
Obamanomix works very well in praktis -- but unfortunately for the usofa it fails in theory.
madMac.

pooltchr
04-10-2010, 05:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obamanomix works very well in praktis -- but unfortunately for the usofa it fails in theory.
madMac. </div></div>

It doesn't work in theory
It doesn't work in practice
It hasn't worked throughout history

Steve

sack316
04-10-2010, 06:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the Clinton Administration is a trustworthy precedent—<span style='font-size: 20pt'>and job growth continues</span>—their hearts and minds could follow.

</div></div>

I don't recall the job growth part, yet. Seems there is a slowing in job losses, yes. But we'll need job growth first before we can continue job growth. Otherwise the article is perfectly fine... were it based on what is actually happening. The potential is there for such an article to eventually be written, but right now that seems more like counting chickens before they are hatched.

Sack-- will be competing with lots of smart NASA folks for jobs pretty soon too...

pooltchr
04-10-2010, 06:40 PM
That's because there hasn't been any job growth. What we are seeing is a slowing of job losses. The unemployment figures don't give an accurate picture of the situation, since many who lost jobs in the last 18 months are either still unemployed, working part time, or have taken jobs that resulted in significant pay cuts.

In order to stabalize the economy, we not only need to slow or stop the layoffs, but more importantly, create new jobs. That just hasn't been happening.

Steve

LWW
04-11-2010, 04:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What we are seeing is a slowing of job losses.

Steve </div></div>

We aren't even seeing that.

If one eliminates the faux jobs associated with the census, nothing has improved at all.

LWW

Gayle in MD
04-11-2010, 10:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the Clinton Administration is a trustworthy precedent—<span style='font-size: 20pt'>and job growth continues</span>—their hearts and minds could follow.

</div></div>

I don't recall the job growth part, yet. Seems there is a slowing in job losses, yes. But we'll need job growth first before we can continue job growth. Otherwise the article is perfectly fine... were it based on what is actually happening. The potential is there for such an article to eventually be written, but right now that seems more like counting chickens before they are hatched.

Sack-- will be competing with lots of smart NASA folks for jobs pretty soon too... </div></div>

We ARE beginning to show job growth.

G.

sack316
04-11-2010, 10:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

We ARE beginning to show job growth.

G. </div></div>

OK, meaningful job growth would have been a more appropriate term for me to use.

Jobs were added overall. But the private sector (where it will count) shed another 23,000 jobs in March... it was projected to add 40,000.

Census hires contributed a nice chunk of job "growth", which is extremely temporary.

Unemployment held at 9.7%. Long term unemployment grew by 414,000. Underemployment edged up from 19.8% to 20.3%. Wages dropped by 0.1%.

Again, job losses have certainly slowed... and technically jobs have increased (but the permanent vs. temporary factor needs to be taken into consideration). It is too soon to call in "growth" just yet.

Sack

LWW
04-11-2010, 10:51 AM
There is little doubt that the "OBAMA PLAN" is working ... although many are in deep denial as to what the goals of the "OBAMA PLAN" actually are.

LWW

Gayle in MD
04-11-2010, 11:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

We ARE beginning to show job growth.

G. </div></div>

OK, meaningful job growth would have been a more appropriate term for me to use.

Jobs were added overall. But the private sector (where it will count) shed another 23,000 jobs in March... it was projected to add 40,000.

Census hires contributed a nice chunk of job "growth", which is extremely temporary.

Unemployment held at 9.7%. Long term unemployment grew by 414,000. Underemployment edged up from 19.8% to 20.3%. Wages dropped by 0.1%.

Again, job losses have certainly slowed... and technically jobs have increased (but the permanent vs. temporary factor needs to be taken into consideration). It is too soon to call in "growth" just yet.

Sack </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Little more than a year ago, financial markets were in turmoil, major auto companies were on the verge of collapse and economists such as Paul Krugman were worried about the U.S. slumbering through a Japan-like Lost Decade. While no one would claim that all the pain is past or the danger gone, the economy is growing again, jumping to a 5.6% annualized growth rate in the fourth quarter of 2009 as businesses finally restocked their inventories. The consensus view now calls for 3% growth this year, significantly higher than the 2.1 % estimate for 2010 that economists surveyed by Bloomberg News saw coming when Obama first moved into the Oval Office. The U.S. manufacturing sector has expanded for eight straight months, the Business Roundtable's measure of CEO optimism reached its highest level since early 2006, and in March the economy added 162,000 jobs—more than it had during any month in the past three years. "There is more business confidence out there," says Boeing (BA) CEO Jim McNerney.</span> <span style='font-size: 26pt'>"This Administration deserves significant credit." </span>
</div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">Personally, I find it amazing what this president has accomplished in the wake of the near BUSH DEPRESSION, and having inherited the disastrous, deep BUSH RECESSION! And IIRC, Bush stated that it could last as long as a decade! AT that time, many other economists agreed.

Apparently, some economists currently agree, that President Obama deserves some credit.
I heartily agree.
G.</span>

sack316
04-11-2010, 02:03 PM
you seem to confuse my "not yet" commentary with "not anything". This admin has done an admirable job of propping up things. A necessary and much needed short term solution. This is good. I will say again... what has been done is a good thing and a good job.

What is lacking is a significant impact into a long lasting growth scenario, which will need to be addressed at some point lest you will see the second dip of what many forecast (myself included) as a double dip recession. It CAN be avoided... but won't be if the meat and potatoes of our recovery is based on Government backed jobs. Well, I take that back... we CAN have full recovery with gov't backed jobs but the deficit would never be addressed that way.

Now, that isn't saying a "bad" job has been done. I think for short term "let's get some confidence back" solutions they have done a fine job. The markets reflect that, despite unemployment figures. That is quite an accomplishment in itself. But unless jobs in the private sector improve, the shine will wear off and we'll see that second dip come along (my guess as-is right now would be Q1 of 2011). A lot can change between now and then, though. I hope it does.

Sack

Gayle in MD
04-12-2010, 11:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">you seem to confuse my "not yet" commentary with "not anything". This admin has done an admirable job of propping up things. A necessary and much needed short term solution. This is good. I will say again... what has been done is a good thing and a good job.

What is lacking is a significant impact into a long lasting growth scenario, which will need to be addressed at some point lest you will see the second dip of what many forecast (myself included) as a double dip recession. It CAN be avoided... but won't be if the meat and potatoes of our recovery is based on Government backed jobs. Well, I take that back... we CAN have full recovery with gov't backed jobs but the deficit would never be addressed that way.

Now, that isn't saying a "bad" job has been done. I think for short term "let's get some confidence back" solutions they have done a fine job. The markets reflect that, despite unemployment figures. That is quite an accomplishment in itself. But unless jobs in the private sector improve, the shine will wear off and we'll see that second dip come along (my guess as-is right now would be Q1 of 2011). A lot can change between now and then, though. I hope it does.

Sack </div></div>

I hope so also, but it seems to me that this president has stated all along, that his goal is long range, and among the things he adds to that goal is a quest for renewable clean fuel, and addressing our archaic transportation system.

I spoke with a friend recently, whose name I don't like to mention, and heard about a lot of those plans, some of which had to do with addressing China, which has cheated us on the global market for over a decade. We must address China's theft, before we can ever expect to level the playing field.

I also think that while he doesn't spew big ideas non stop, he gets things done, and I believe that whatever CAN be accomplished, will be accomplished, but it's not going to happen overnight.

Nice to read your revised post. It sounds far more fair to me now.

G.

cushioncrawler
04-12-2010, 04:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.....I spoke with a friend recently, whose name I don't like to mention, and heard about a lot of those plans, some of which had to do with addressing China, which has cheated us on the global market for over a decade. We must address China's theft, before we can ever expect to level the playing field.....</div></div>Gayle -- How can a country cheat???? How can this be addressed????
madMac.

Gayle in MD
04-13-2010, 10:29 AM
http://www.americanmanufacturing.org/issues/currency/

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Currency manipulation is the practice of artificially setting exchange rates by the central banks of some of the U.S. trading partners in order to gain an unfair advantage. In addition to distorting the market, it is an illegal practice under both U.S. law and international agreements.

A number of our trading partners are manipulating the currency markets to keep the U.S. dollar artificially high, and their own currencies artificially low. By exploiting the world currency markets, countries like China and Japan effectively subsidize their exports to the U.S., and place a tariff on U.S. shipments to them. This manipulation is taking place on a massive scale. By some estimates, China’s Yuan is undervalued by as much as 40 percent in comparison to the U.S. dollar.

How does this happen?

Typically currency manipulation occurs when a country fixes the exchange rate of its currency relative to the currency of another country. It can include a requirement for a fixed exchange rate or the mandatory use of a country’s central bank for foreign exchange sales. This is done to give a country an unfair competitive advantage.

The effects of China’s manipulated and subsidized currency, for example, are extensive. First, China’s currency manipulation has contributed to the dramatic increase in the U.S. bilateral trade deficit with China, which now tops $268 billion a year. China has amassed foreign exchange reserves of more than $1 trillion, far surpassing any other nation’s reserves. China’s currency manipulation also attracts foreign investment into China and away from American manufacturing facilities. This flow of investment has already cost American workers their jobs.

When countries adopt artificial exchange rates that are not based on market forces, they not only exacerbate the U.S. trade imbalance, but they create global trade imbalances.

Additionally, currency manipulation results in a sizeable difference in labor costs. This difference creates the illusion of a comparative advantage for a given country. Ultimately, currency manipulation is a subsidy that can put American manufacturers at an unfair disadvantage in the global marketplace.
</div></div>

Gayle in MD
04-13-2010, 10:57 AM
Also, if the public wants jobs, they should understand the poor record of Republicans...Bush was the worst....Carter better than both Bush's combined, and better than Ford, Nixon or Eisenhower!

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/tab/article/

President Obama hs done well to stop the Bush job loss train as early as he did. Most economicsts didn't expect us to stop losing jobs for years.

As you can see in the chart, in recent times, Job creation was best under President Bill Clinton.

Bush was the among the worst.

G.

pooltchr
04-13-2010, 05:59 PM
Anyone who admits they would never vote for anyone just because of their party affiliation, without considering the individual candidate, has no credibility with anyone when it comes to discussing politics.

Steve

ugotda7
04-13-2010, 11:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anyone who admits they would never vote for anyone just because of their party affiliation, without considering the individual candidate, has no credibility with anyone when it comes to discussing politics.

Steve </div></div>

Good point......but one sure to be lost on those blinded by ignorance.

JohnnyD
04-14-2010, 01:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the Clinton Administration is a trustworthy precedent—<span style='font-size: 20pt'>and job growth continues</span>—their hearts and minds could follow.

</div></div>

I don't recall the job growth part, yet. Seems there is a slowing in job losses, yes. But we'll need job growth first before we can continue job growth. Otherwise the article is perfectly fine... were it based on what is actually happening. The potential is there for such an article to eventually be written, but right now that seems more like counting chickens before they are hatched.

Sack-- will be competing with lots of smart NASA folks for jobs pretty soon too... </div></div>

We ARE beginning to show job growth.

G. </div></div> I pray for you also.