Ok. . . This is terrifying.

[Gaspar]

It wasn't the time or extension or no extension.  It WAS that they did not act.

And of course I wouldn't expect it to be understood.  That is obvious.


Interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal today.  Even THEY are beginning to get a glimmer.  Of course, they have always known, but now too many people are "joining the club".  Instead of 0.1% wealthy, we are talking 2% to 5%. 

Bad for the old rich.  So when the 5% that spend 38% of the money in this economy slow down - look out, bad news!!  It just means that all that woefully lamented spending by Obama on his vacations is actually doing good for the rest of us, if not the 2%'ers or the 5%'ers.

http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/110258/us-economy-is-increasingly-tied-to-the-rich

Hey, I think it's good that the President and his family keeps taking lavish vacations.  Watching them "tour" on TV offers hope to the people.  It gives us a sense that everything is going to be alright.  Michelle's trip to Spain cost us $400,000, but that's nothing compared to the hope it gave the American public.  My daughter saw her on TV last week and asked if she was a princess.

In hard times it's important that our leaders pose a semblance of normalcy.  The President is simply taking it a step further.  Sure, the massive machine necessary for transporting and safeguarding the Obamas is expensive, but each time he travels he is creating or saving jobs in hotels, spas and golf courses around the world.  The Air Force One 747 costs between $50,000 and $60,000 an hour to operate, but each time it touches down in a new exotic location, hundreds of peasants spring into action securing passage, preparing meals, and polishing golf carts.  These are jobs.  These are the jobs that Joe Biden was talking about. This is stimulus.

[Townsend]

Hey, I think it's good that the President and his family keeps taking lavish vacations.  Watching them "tour" on TV offers hope to the people.  It gives us a sense that everything is going to be alright.  Michelle's trip to Spain cost us $400,000, but that's nothing compared to the hope it gave the American public.  My daughter saw her on TV last week and asked if she was a princess.

In hard times it's important that our leaders pose a semblance of normalcy.  The President is simply taking it a step further.  Sure, the massive machine necessary for transporting and safeguarding the Obamas is expensive, but each time he travels he is creating or saving jobs in hotels, spas and golf courses around the world.  The Air Force One 747 costs between $50,000 and $60,000 an hour to operate, but each time it touches down in a new exotic location, hundreds of peasants spring into action securing passage, preparing meals, and polishing golf carts.  These are jobs.  These are the jobs that Joe Biden was talking about. This is stimulus.

This is a common complaint for every presidency.  How many trips is too many?  If they go on some trip, is it too expensive?  If they don't go, why didn't they care enough?

The vacations?  Please.  How many does each exec take while in office?

How much does it cost us to fly the legislative branch all over Hell and back?

The Spain vacation was just a simple thing for the news/entertainment shows to grab hold of and work us into a frenzy.

As far as cost and stupidity though...small potatoes.

[Gaspar]

This is a common complaint for every presidency.  How many trips is too many?  If they go on some trip, is it too expensive?  If they don't go, why didn't they care enough?

The vacations?  Please.  How many does each exec take while in office?

How much does it cost us to fly the legislative branch all over Hell and back?

The Spain vacation was just a simple thing for the news/entertainment shows to grab hold of and work us into a frenzy.

As far as cost and stupidity though...small potatoes.

I agree.  I think it's great.  After Texas this week, they are going to hit Martha's Vineyard for 10 days.  Two golf games scheduled at Mink Meadows and Island Cove.  The job of President is the roughest I can imagine.  I think they deserve a break. 

I personally love golf. Wish I got more chances to play.  My dad is retired and plays about 50 rounds a year. . .Slightly more than the President.

[Townsend]

I agree.  I think it's great. 

Well super.  It's nice to see such a positive outlook on everything for you.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I will wait right up to the point where Obama has taken OVER 3 years of vacation out of 8.  At that point, I will be bitching about him as much as Bush II.

That is over 1.5 years of vacation out of 4 years of his Presidency.  In the not too distant future, we will reach the point where it will be physically impossible for Obama to get the full 1.5 years that Bush did out of 4.  Will have to see if there is another 4, but at the pace he is going, there is no way to match Bush.

37% of the time being on vacation!!  What a wonderful life that would be!!

[Conan71]

In this day and age, you can run the country from anywhere.  I doubt President Obama goes an hour or two without being advised of some crisis or issue.  It's a hard job and probably the most stressful on the face of the planet.  Well, no, I take that back, I'd say a soldier hunkered down with bullets flying over his or her head is probably the most stressful, but I digress.  At any rate, I think we can all agree that POTUS would be a difficult job.

This is my problem with all the lavish vacations: in times where spending is at record levels, ostensibly from the fiscal mis-management of the previous administration, what sort of example is the current President setting?  Remember, President Bush was too aloof, spent too much time at his ranch and mismanaged the economy to the depths it's become so that we must spend billions in stimulus to bring it back from the brink.

I honestly have not seen nor heard anything out of President Obama which indicates that he truly has a grasp of what the average American is up against in terms of their concerns for keeping or finding a job and how we will ever pay down this debt.  "This administration will not rest" rings hollow when the appearance is that the administration is always off to it's next great globe-trotting adventure.  

Do I expect him to stay holed up in the White House 24/7 until things improve for everyone.  No I don't, but I think galavanting about like a celebrity at this point in time is a huge PR mistake unless he's only interested in being a one term President.  I have a feeling this will be used against him in the '12 election.

Where do trillion $$ deficits come from anyhow?  $500K here, $750K there, $1mm over there....  It's all relevant.  It bothers me when people say: "It's only a billion dollars"

[heironymouspasparagus]

Just a gut feel is telling me that IF he does run again (and I think he might not), he definitely is a one-termer.  I would like to see John McCain run again.  I would vote for him.  Even if he did the "Stupid" again...you know who...Sarah.  Hopefully he learned from that experience and would not bow to the pressure.  Perhaps Joe Lieberman for VP?

As you suspect, Obama has no clue.  He is in way over his head, as was George.  George just got drunk and gave massages to foreign heads of state to cope.  Obama takes trips.  Who is to say which is better/worse?

The debt will never be paid down.  A truly epic collapse with occur first.

Here is a very interesting discussion about our persistent unemployment this time around.  Part of the problem goes to our headlong rush to cheapen labor in this country (my interpretation) - partly by shipping jobs overseas.  Partly by moving from Detroit to Tennessee.  Unintended consequences.  The jobs just don't exist anymore (remember the buggy whip makers?), and are not likely to come back any time soon.  The chickens are not 'coming home to roost', they are already here!

Interesting note, that even though RWRE is spewing about how unemployment is keeping people on the dole rather than looking for work, that is only about 1% of the situation, according to a SERIOUS analysis of the situation.  It is a pleasant surprise to see the Wall Street Journal to again be engaged in a serious discussion of reality!  (Did Rupert look away this week??)

http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/110277/some-firms-struggle-to-hire-despite-high-unemployment

[Gaspar]

As you suspect, Obama has no clue.  He is in way over his head, as was George.  George just got drunk and gave massages to foreign heads of state to cope.  Obama takes trips.  Who is to say which is better/worse?

The debt will never be paid down.  A truly epic collapse with occur first.

You have an excellent point.  We are trying to shore up a collapsed bubble by pumping more air into it.  Markets need to fail sometimes.  Companies need to go out of business.  The voids are quickly filled by new business.  It is simply part of the cyclical health of an enterprise system. 

If the government had not intervened in the first place (Fanny & Freddy) in an effort to buy votes, the destructive seeds would not have sprouted.

By electing a leader with no leadership skills or economic experience, we set ourselves up for disaster.  We traded "agenda" for executive ability, and the deliverables were simply "agenda items" and more debt.  Stimulus was squandered and it's meaning forever redefined.

We are past the point where we can control this thing.  We can print money like mad, and soften the impact, but unless private industry gets some indication that more poor decision making is not on the horizon, our path is set.

[Conan71]

You have an excellent point.  We are trying to shore up a collapsed bubble by pumping more air into it.  Markets need to fail sometimes.  Companies need to go out of business.  The voids are quickly filled by new business.  It is simply part of the cyclical health of an enterprise system. 

If the government had not intervened in the first place (Fanny & Freddy) in an effort to buy votes, the destructive seeds would not have sprouted.

By electing a leader with no leadership skills or economic experience, we set ourselves up for disaster.  We traded "agenda" for executive ability, and the deliverables were simply "agenda items" and more debt.  Stimulus was squandered and it's meaning forever redefined.

We are past the point where we can control this thing.  We can print money like mad, and soften the impact, but unless private industry gets some indication that more poor decision making is not on the horizon, our path is set.

Some popular thought seems to blame the actions President Bush used to stem the slowdown or recession of '01 ultimately with the mess we are in now.  If he would have not passed the tax cuts and taken other measures and had a cataclysm at that point, do you think it might have been a softer crash than the what we've experienced over the last two years?  If we would have reined in the banks, passed far tougher restrictions on home lending, and gotten oversight on default swaps at that time, I've wondered what shape we would be in now.  No one wanted to put the brakes on since we had seen great growth over the previous 7-8 years, but it might not have been a bad idea with the hindsight we have now.

[we vs us]

Your graphic of the day, courtesy of the Economist:



"THE quarterly results season that is drawing to a close has revealed that corporate profits are back within a whisker of the all-time highs achieved before the downturn in late 2008. American profits are already back to 11% of GDP. Corporate America is reaping the rewards from cutting costs, especially in capital investment and labour, through an unpleasant mix of redundancies, reduced hours and lower pay. The great squeeze cannot go on forever, of course, but it shows no sign of slackening. Figures released on Friday August 6th show the unemployment rate remained steady at 9.5% in July, but non-farm payroll employment fell by 131,000, some 65,000 more than expected. The great decoupling of profits from jobs could last for a long time."

So much for the largesse trickling down.

[Gaspar]

Some popular thought seems to blame the actions President Bush used to stem the slowdown or recession of '01 ultimately with the mess we are in now.  If he would have not passed the tax cuts and taken other measures and had a cataclysm at that point, do you think it might have been a softer crash than the what we've experienced over the last two years?  If we would have reined in the banks, passed far tougher restrictions on home lending, and gotten oversight on default swaps at that time, I've wondered what shape we would be in now.  No one wanted to put the brakes on since we had seen great growth over the previous 7-8 years, but it might not have been a bad idea with the hindsight we have now.

Absolutely!  On all counts.
Bush should have been more vocal in his alarm at the Freddy/Fanny problem.  There were in excess of 17 addresses to congress on the eminent failure of the system that went unheeded.  He should have taken it directly to the American People.  It would have made him unpopular, but would have shed some light causing the roaches to scatter.

At the time I was working in the development field and everyone knew a disaster was pending.  You can't continue to sell $300,000 homes with nothing down to people who don't qualify.  When my wife and I purchased our last home we "qualified" $400,000.  I had to explain to my wife that just because the bank says you qualify doesn't mean that's reality.  We purchased at $188,000, but many of our friends around the country went for the gold.

Our generation has not had to learn the lessons of the past.  Most of us are too young to have much connection to the disasters of the Carter years, and we've skated since Reagan policies shot economic growth through the roof.  I think it may be good that we are learning this lesson now.

[Conan71]

Your graphic of the day, courtesy of the Economist:



"THE quarterly results season that is drawing to a close has revealed that corporate profits are back within a whisker of the all-time highs achieved before the downturn in late 2008. American profits are already back to 11% of GDP. Corporate America is reaping the rewards from cutting costs, especially in capital investment and labour, through an unpleasant mix of redundancies, reduced hours and lower pay. The great squeeze cannot go on forever, of course, but it shows no sign of slackening. Figures released on Friday August 6th show the unemployment rate remained steady at 9.5% in July, but non-farm payroll employment fell by 131,000, some 65,000 more than expected. The great decoupling of profits from jobs could last for a long time."

So much for the largesse trickling down.

No real surprise.  The workforce has been thinned out to sustainable levels.

Sounds as if companies are making profits at reduced sales and production levels via cost-cutting measures.  If they hired more people without an increase in sales, chances are their profits would fall.  Business 101 stuff here.

[TURobY]

No real surprise.  The workforce has been thinned out to sustainable levels.

I would strongly disagree that the workforce is a sustainable levels. Most workers that I've spoken with agree that the workforce was cut to a skeleton crew and that most workers are carrying the load of multiple people. Therefore, productivity output per worker increased and allowed those cost-cutting savings to emerge. However, most working people that I've talked to also agree that the number of workers versus productivity output is not sustainable. You are starting to see workplace burnout, and the nation's productivity output is going to be negatively affected very soon unless we start hiring more workers.

[Hoss]

I would strongly disagree that the workforce is a sustainable levels. Most workers that I've spoken with agree that the workforce was cut to a skeleton crew and that most workers are carrying the load of multiple people. Therefore, productivity output per worker increased and allowed those cost-cutting savings to emerge. However, most working people that I've talked to also agree that the number of workers versus productivity output is not sustainable. You are starting to see workplace burnout, and the nation's productivity output is going to be negatively affected very soon unless we start hiring more workers.

I do know that where I work, in my department, back in 2007 we had a crew of eight.  As of this day, we're down to five, and we're easily doing twice the work that we were doing in 2007.  I know my workload has increased substantially.

[Conan71]

I would strongly disagree that the workforce is a sustainable levels. Most workers that I've spoken with agree that the workforce was cut to a skeleton crew and that most workers are carrying the load of multiple people. Therefore, productivity output per worker increased and allowed those cost-cutting savings to emerge. However, most working people that I've talked to also agree that the number of workers versus productivity output is not sustainable. You are starting to see workplace burnout, and the nation's productivity output is going to be negatively affected very soon unless we start hiring more workers.

It's sustainable to maintain profit objectives and stay in business.  Those that burn out and quit will be replaced by the pool of 9.5% who aren't working now.  Those who have jobs right now should be expecting to work harder as it's not an ideal climate to be searching for a job right now, so workers will have to take less than their ideal working conditions in some cases.  Truly good management will recognize when it's time to bring in more help to take some stress off the existing employees, if individuals and teams can't meet project or product delivery deadlines. 

I know that sounds cold and callous, but let's assume that orders increase and therefore production increases.  Based on an increase in work flow it's assumed that everyone would still maintain their existing pace and additional people are brought in to cover additional tasks or overflow.  Still no guarantee that the pressure on each individual is lessened.  I'm feeling the over-work burden somewhat right now, but I'm finding it preferable to having no work at all.