Granted the 1/2 million job loss is an estimate, but probably a conservative estimate.

Who would hire those workers? Ford has increased profits by CUTTING expenses....not by significantly increasing production or output.

I guess they could move to Tennessee or Alabama and work for Honda or Toyota (even if both were also temporarily cutting US production). Of course, they couldnt sell their house in Detroit because of the depressed housing market.

And, then with the overall decreased output of a significantly smaller US auto industry...that means other companies/factories producing auto parts would produce less and as a result face layoffs....and more trickle down, dealerships closing across the country if you reduce the Big Three to the Big One.

As to those empty factories? What company could buy or lease without credit?

And much the same applies to TARP and the bank/financial institutions bail-out.

Without the TARP bank bail outs, credit dries up completely because remaining banks can only leverage so much credit.

What that would have meant is that tens of thousands of small businesses or businesses looking to start-up, just maintain existing operations, or expand would have lost access to existing and/or new lines of credit....to pay employees, buy inventory, etc.

More jobs lost.

IMO, the risk to the economy was too great to do nothing. Perhaps you were willing to take the risk (would those jobs really be lost? .....who knows if those jobs wouldnt be lost anyway?), but I am sure glad we didnt. Its not that I like it, but rather that I thought it was necessary to stabilize what at the time was a very fragile economy.

There are no guarantees, but I still havent seen a better alternative. "Who knows" and "What if" certainly dont offer more or better assurances of economic stability and recovery.

Here is an interesting piece on where OUR stimulus money is going.

However ...
Then again...
Link
I'd like more of this money to go toward building and expanding the factories here in the US. I'm sure that would also lead to more innovation and greater competition.

Great job at over sight Dems. Really great. Not.

Who said it was the D's fault? I think part of this was the concessions that the Chinese made. There is more to this.

They are in charge of the taxpayers dollars in this "stimulus" economy. How about that great job with CIT Group? We lost 2.3 billion dollars of tax payers money in that deal.

There has been NO stimulus funds committed to this project. From the WSJ story:
Democrats, as well as Republicans have opposed providng stimulus funds.

This is a private-joint venture between US and Chinese companies.

From The Economist.
KAL's cartoon
Oct 29th 2009

Why won't Obama give you a job?
The White House thinks the stimulus is working, and it doesn't want you on its payroll

Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 8, 2009

continues:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110601900.html

And another view.

There are folks out there who... aren't as good at journalism as Jayson Blair.

Yep.

A simplistic view for ideological simpletons who dont understand or are unwilling to acknowledge the concept that work provides value well above and beyond just dividing dollars spent by jobs created.

For 7 years the pubes couldn't oversee the trillions being poured into Iraq and Afghanistan. Now you speak up? Fail.

Nope, win. I wasn't here 7 years ago.

You're six? :eek:

One ends up just wondering why the 250K per capita shouldn't simply be transferred to each of those capita -- if, say, you wanted to buy some votes.

And Redux, how does it not leave you vulnerable to being charged a simpleton yourself when you leave out the apostrophe? Tw's appalling copyediting is already enough for one site without additions from you.

No, simplistic is expecting the public sector to increase the wealth or to be a jobs agency. That simply never happens -- government is part of the administrative overhead, not the wealth engine. Economists understand this, Democrats presently ignore it. Dumb.

P.S.: Anyone else think Mister Jobless in the pic looks an awful lot like a rear view of Michael Moore? UG

Rewriting history again, UG?

It was Democratic programs from the New Deal and labor legislation of the 30s that ended the depression; the post-WWII programs that invested in education, built the nation's current infrastructure, underwrote the infant technology and bio-med industries, funded the aerospace industry; the civil rights legislation of the 60s that was instrumental in the creation of a Black middle class.....all of which not only created more personal wealth, but fueled the economic engine of which you speak.

Economists understood this.

Republicans and Libertarians are still in denial.

Rewriting history again, Redux?

A common attempt by Demoncrats to rewrite history while they ignore the facts of the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's:

(To long to post here)

http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html

snip

http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html

EDITORIAL
continues:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...us-dishonesty/

I agree the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had bi-partisan support, with majorities of both parties supporting the legislation, and Southern Democrats voting against it.

However, it would never have happened w/o a Democrat (LBJ) in the White House.

Eisenhower had the opportunity to lead such an initiative and chose not to do so and did little or nothing to address the issue. This was after Truman desegregated the military, the first step towards more comprehensive civil rights.

I would add that with the most recent reauthorization of the act in 1990, every vote against it was Republican.

All I am pointing out is that you can't rewrite history and you should be careful to draw to many comparisons between the Democratic party of old and the Democratic party of the last two decades.

FDR was a racist. The list of racist Dems is long and solid.

But not a long and solid as the 'pubics. Their's is as long and solid as the turd I dump after a 3 day food fest without fiber.

Maybe you should change your name to Scatvet.

And then the south went repubican, and the rolls reversed. Now they oppose affirmative action and they categorize welfare recipients as "welfare queens".

Fixed that for you. ;)

Every civil rights bill since the 30s has had the support of the majority of Democrats, and through the 60s, a majority of Republicans as well.

Since the late 60s, it is a completely different picture.

No you didn't fix anything. You can't rewrite history.

Every civil rights bill has been introduced by a Democrat and has had the support of a majority of Democrats.

What part of that don't you understand?

History shows that Democrats fought to expand slavery, were the source of the KKK, fought to prevent freedom of slaves as well as fought the passage of the 13th Amendment and 15th Amendment.

They fought against the civil rights laws of the 1860's, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks.

The KKK became the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party to lynch and terrorize Republicans-black and white. Democrats passed those discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws and fought every piece of civil rights legislation from the 1860’s to the 1960’s. Shamefully, Democrats fought against anti-lynching laws, and when the Democrats regained control of Congress in 1892, they passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws enacted by Republicans.

Strange how history is hard to change....

You can change the words...you can't change the numbers....Democrats introduced and 2/3 of Democrats in Congress supported the first civil rights act.

The 1964 act:

153 Democrats (63%) for and 91 against in the House.....7 southern Democrats voted for it and zero southern Republicans voted for it.....94% of northern Democrats voted for it as opposed to 85% of northern Republicans.

46 Democrats (69%) for and 21 against in the Senate....1 southern Democrat voted for it and zero southern Republicans voted for it....98% of northern Democrats voted for it as opposed to 84% of northern Republicans.

Majority of Democrats in both cases.

What part of 2/3 in your fuzzy math does not equal a majority?

And history shows that all the southern framers of the Constitution were slave-owners.

So what? Both parties have checkered pasts. Do you really believe the Republican party of today resembles the Republican party of Lincoln?

Your straw man has little meaning in terms of 20th century movements that helped establish the Black middle class.

Some pretty interesting reading about the claims of both parties concerning civil rights starting on page 454.

http://books.google.com/books?id=NFw...age&q=&f=false

Your right, it has to do with percentages of Dems and percentages of Repbs and as those numbers changed over the years from 1866 to present, there were periods where the majority of one over the other was in issue, not the actual numbers.

Never said it did. I was not talking about the Republickins. Just the party in power and disputing your points that the Dems have historically lead the way on any of the issues you made to UG. You were wrong.

Democrats introduced and led the fight for the New Deal programs (cut unemployment in half and nearly doubled the GDP in the first two years), the Taft-Hartley Act, the GI Bill, the Interstate Highway System (under a Republican president), significant federal funding of the very early tech industry, the creation of the US space program, and yes, the Civil Rights Act.

All of these heavily funded federal Democratic programs (the Taft-Hartley and Civil Rights Act the least in terms of federal funding, but significant in terms of jobs) created job opportunities and contributed to personal economic growth for a burgeoning middle class and fueled the economic engine of the country.

Yes, bipartisan efforts of both Dems and Repubs contributed to personal economic opportunities for a growing middle class and fueled the economic engine of the country. Not just a single party.

One party has to lead in order to implement change....it doesnt happen in a vacuum.

These are all programs that UG and many Republicans and Libertarians now criticize as "big government" and "tax and spend"...the fact is, those programs made a difference to, and had a positive impact on, millions of Americans.

Another historical falsehood. You really drink the koolaid don't you.

If you say....your're the man! :thumb:

Its pointless to take this any further.

"One party has to lead in order to implement change" :lol2:

Right.

Change is self-motivated...it just happens without any stimulation or leadership.

:shock:

You want cheese with that?

Now I understand how we got into the Iraq War.

It just sorta happened on its own.

Wow! Really? Tell me about that. I haven't heard about it.

Simply put . . .

It's Bush's fault

The way I figure it was that Buddy, the Bush WH dog found a scrap of paper on the floor of the Oval Office one night....snuck out and raced down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol and dropped it into the bill hopper when no one was looking (helpful illustration):

http://kids.clerk.house.gov/images/c...l-4-hopper.jpg

Once in the hopper, the innocuous scrap of paper transformed itself into a resolution to invade Iraq....and hopped out of the hopper, snuck onto the private underground train system for members of Congress and made its way to the appropriate Committee rooms.

Whereupon, it marked itself up, made its way to the floor of the House and voted electronically for itself....then scurried across the rotunda and made its way to the floor of the Senate and passed itself by unanimous consent of one.

Bush and the Republican leaders of Congress had nothing to do with it. :headshake

:p

Oooops.

The Bush dog was Barney, not Buddy.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6HX1Uz6eHQ...y-20040908.jpg

The little rascal still should have been impeached for that escapade..despite that innocent "who me?" look!

The White House job lie string continues to be pulled...

continues:
http://www.boston.com/business/artic..._review_finds/

The article also says they "saved" many more jobs though.
I dunno about this saved vs. created business.

I doubt anyone could dispute the "saved" angle, although it would be hard pressed to measure it compared to the oft measured monthly job "loss" reports which are measured. And if you are one of the millions who have lost jobs this year I am not sure it would carry much weight if you were still unemployed. I am more surprised they would try to get away with such a ruse after all the BS from the last Admin. As if no one would be looking.

Just one more indication that the Democratic Party thinks we're only as smart as they are. Or perhaps are less so.

No thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the majority party.

Unemployment remains above 10%, what a legacy.

Legacy's are not judged after nine months....or Bush's legacy would have been as a post-9//11 "healer and uniter" who brought the country together at a time of national crisis.

The legacy didnt quite turn out that way.

Damm right about that! :lol2:

More big brother government.

Federal oversight of subways proposed

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...402459_pf.html

At what cost to the public? Is there any evidence to suggest that oversight will significantly reduce accidents?

How would one expect to collect that evidence, without first doing some oversight?

I am guessing, but in most transportation accidents the Fed Transportation and Safety Administration usually investigate. I would think they would have a pretty good trail. Why not strenghten the existing systems rather than have the Federal Government get involved at much greater cost. To what end?

Well for one thing we can create more boards and committees. Oh and we can appoint more Czars. Job creation baby.

Yea, make government bigger! and then when it gets really big we can lay them off. What a plan.

Dear God, vote these people out of office. Not only are they betraying the public trust, they can't even lie well enough to escape detection for more than about twenty minutes. Malicious and incompetent.

While there are flashes of occasional shrewdness or potential shrewdness on the foreign-policy front, that's a mighty few bright spots in a record of just-ain't-got-it that will exceed the Clintons. Whom I also did not vote for. I am consistently wise, and Redux continues to have nothing real to believe in, or base his values upon.

I agree with all of that, UG, only you're 14 months late in posting it. :p