posted September 24, 2012 07:56 AM            

quote:

---

It's very seldom accurate. We all know this.

---

Indeed.

Who among us would like to return to 2009? The question floated in recent weeks by the talking heads "are you better off today"? is pretty darn silly. Yes, the recovery has been slow; and who didn't predict that? Everything having to do with stability was in the toilet. The filibuster rules needed to be changed, and the Dem's didn't change them- because hey, who knows if they might want to use super majority in future..

I ask again, who would like to return to 2009? Not me.

History confirms Harry Truman’s observation, “to live like a Republican, vote like a Democrat”

AG has posted reams of historical, empirical data confirming the Truman quote.

posted September 24, 2012 07:57 AM            

Ernest Partridge, Co-Editor
"The Crisis Papers."
August 16, 2004

Note: While I have many Republican friends, none are named “Whitney.” This letter is for all my Republican friends in general, and none in particular. It is also for all Republicans with whom I am not personally acquainted, who are willing to pause and reflect upon the condition of their party and their country, and then upon their consequent duty as citizens of the United States.

Dear Whitney,

At no time in my memory, or yours, I suspect, has the rivalry between the two major parties been more mean-spirited and poisonous.

And yet, despite our separate party affiliations, we remain close friends as we have for all the decades since high school. Moreover, I see no reason for this to change, nor, I trust, do you..

Surely you know that I have never regarded you as a fascist, just as I know that you have never thought of me as a traitor. Yet these are the kinds of labels that are routinely hurled by one fringe of our respective parties against the other.

Such mutual incivility is more than acutely unpleasant, it strikes at the foundation of our republic. Thus it falls upon cooler heads, such as ours, to reject the insult and abuse, and to restore the calm civic dialog and mutual respect that is the foundation of a just and secure political order.

Sadly, much more is required if we are to restore our republic to its former health and vigor. For our country and its founding political principles are gravely endangered by a radicalism that has taken control of all branches of our government as well as our mass media.

This means that it has, regretfully, taken control of the Republican Party – your party. It is thus imperative that moderates, such as yourself, take back their party.

I suspect that this stark accusation might put you on the defensive. If you feel that the Democrats also pose a threat to our republic, I invite you to present your case and I promise to consider it carefully. But first, please hear me out,

Our respective political differences manifest more than contrasting political philosophies. These differences issue from contrasting professional perspectives, career choices, family backgrounds, social contacts, and even religious commitments. Though different, our perspectives on life and politics may be more complementary and compatible, rather than exclusive.

I chose an academic career. You opted to join your father’s small manufacturing enterprise. So we encountered government differently. The taxpayers furnished my salary, while government imposed environmental and work safety regulations on your company.

I joined the California Teachers Association – a union. You were management, at the other side of the bargaining table.

In my professional life, I had the privilege of teaching foreign students, corresponding with scholars abroad, and frequently traveling overseas to international conferences. You had to deal with the problem of competition with foreign goods.

As a philosopher, my convictions strayed from the religious faith of my childhood. You have remained steadfast in your religious convictions. So, of course, we have different views on the relationship of church and state.

We have adopted different attitudes toward government, labor relations, foreign policy, and so forth. Almost inevitably, you have allied yourself with the Republicans, and I have supported the Democrats – albeit often reluctantly, as “the lesser of the evils.”

Our political differences have been a constant topic of conversation between us over the years, occasionally heated, but never placing our friendship in any great peril. You see, we are both moderates. And while, in our arguments, our attention was understandably focused upon our differences, we took little notice of our common ground of commitment and belief.

You correctly describe yourself as a “Conservative.” I am willing to be called a “liberal,” despite the recent disparagement of that once honorable label. However, because of the abuse of that word, I prefer to call myself a “progressive.” “Conventional wisdom” treats “conservative” and “liberal” as opposing point of view. I prefer to see them as complementary. Thus an authentic conservative and a liberal can hold a great deal in common.

For example:

We both revere our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Accordingly, we believe that “to secure these rights" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, governments are instituted among men.”

Along with the founders of our republic, we share a suspicion of “big government” and thus endorse the protection of our “inalienable rights” as articulated in the Bill of Rights.

We both believe that our elected leaders have a bond of honor to the citizens which requires that these leaders deal candidly, openly and honestly with the people.

We both prize freedom, though you are more inclined to interpret freedom in economic terms, while my attention is directed to freedom of inquiry and expression.

With Jefferson, we both believe that a free press and the open competition of ideas are the life blood of a democracy.

With Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Monroe, we eschew “foreign entanglements” and disavow any imperial ambitions for our country.

Despite our religious differences, we both endorse the “traditional values” that are taught by all the great world religions: tolerance, mercy, charity, compassion, moderation, peacemaking.

We both reject sudden social change through violence or the radical imposition of alien ideologies.

These are all, let us note, “conservative” values, which we learned together from the outstanding public school teachers that taught us history and civics. These values have stood the test of time, and may serve us well today. Neither of us are at all inclined to abolish these principles.

The differences between “conservatism” and “liberalism” are grounded in perspective and in emphases – again, not necessarily in conflict.

Webster’s dictionary defines “conservatism” as “The practice of preserving what is established; disposition to oppose change in established institutions and methods.”

The liberal looks forward to an improvement of the human condition. The best expression that comes to my mind is that of Edward Kennedy, at the funeral of his brother, Robert F. Kennedy:

"My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life, to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it... As he said many times, in many parts of this nation, to those he touched and who sought to touch him: "Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not."

The liberal, then, is a “meliorist” – one who endorses worthy values and institutions received from the past, and who recognizes suffering and injustice in the present which he strives to ease and rectify for the future.

What deserves most to be preserved from the past, and improved in the future? In the specific answer to these questions reside the divergences of our political opinions. But in the general content of these received principles and future aspirations, we are united. It is that concurrence which has bound our nation together.

Until now.

For now I must urge you to look directly and soberly upon your Party. With the aforementioned principles of conservatism firmly in your mind, ask yourself: Does the Republican Party of today embody your conservative convictions? Do those public figures who so readily describe themselves as “conservative” authentically fit that label? Where your Party is leading our country, do you truly wish to follow?

For consider:

Can you, as a defender of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, support the Patriot Act, and the fact that under its provisions, at least three of your fellow citizens, and possibly more, are today incarcerated without charge, without access to counsel, with no prospect of a trial and release – all this in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth articles of the Bill of Rights?

Can you support an Administration that assumed power through election fraud, the disfranchisement of thousands of our fellow citizens, the violent disruption of official vote counting, and an arbitrary and incoherent ruling by five partisan judges?

In the coming presidential election, 30% of the votes will be cast with “touch-screen” machines that leave no audit trail – meaning that the votes can not be verified? As a Democrat, I am further troubled by the knowledge that the manufacturers of these machines are avowed supporters of George Bush, and that the software is “proprietary,” which means secret. I know you to be a patriot first and a Republican second, so you must be concerned about this possible violation of the sacred right to vote, even though – perhaps especially because – it may benefit your Party.

Can you, as an opponent of “foreign entanglements” support a war of aggression, launched under demonstrably false pretenses, and provoking a world-wide hostility toward the United States administration? Are you even more troubled by casual talk by the neo-conservatives of pending invasions of Iran and Syria?

As a Christian, do you truly believe that this Administration can justify the loss of a thousand American lives, and at least 10,000 Iraqi civilians – numbers that are fated to increase as this war continues?

Can you sanction the torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib and “detainees” at Guantánamo, in clear violation of international law and treaties as well as Christian morality? Do you really believe that full responsibility for these atrocities falls solely upon the enlisted personnel directly involved?

Can you, as a conservative, approve of a federal deficit this year of half a trillion dollars and several trillion dollars over the next several years, causing an unbearable financial burden upon the generations that follow?

Don’t you agree that the economic productivity of this country should be shared fairly among its people? If so, can you believe that the American economy can continue much longer upon this course of increasing deficits, the outsourcing of jobs, decreased wages and benefits, loss of consumer confidence and disposable income? How long to you suppose that the American people will put up with this injustice? And as John F. Kennedy said, “those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable.”

Conservatives insist upon responsibility and accountability. Can you then allow exceptions by such well-placed individuals such as Ken Lay, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove? Are you not troubled by the disappearance of over two billion dollars of taxpayers’ money into the pockets of corrupt individuals – cash appropriated to the Halliburton Corporation and intended for the reconstruction of Iraq?

As a conservative who believes in free markets and free enterprise, are you not concerned about the growth of monopolistic cartels and conglomerates which stifle and absorb competitors (e.g., Microsoft). Are you troubled by the fact that virtually all broadcast media in the United States are owned and controlled by six corporations, and that the corporation- friendly Federal Communications Commission has ruled in favor of still greater media market concentration? Are you aware of the devastation that WalMart has caused to small town “free enterprise” business throughout the country?

If conservatives believe in limited government, then can you, as a conservative, accept without protest, government surveillance of your book purchases and your e-mail? Is it the business of the government to interfere with a woman’s control over her own body?

Conservatives uphold the rule of law. Can you then condone the arbitrary violation of laws by the President and members of his administration – including the Presidential Records Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the law forbidding the “outing” of covert CIA agents and organizations? (See "When the Law Goes Flat").

If these trends and conditions trouble you, then you are in agreement with this liberal, for we both find in this list a violation of our shared political and economic convictions.

For this reason, I refuse to describe the ideology and policies of the controlling faction of your party as “conservative.” Far better to describe it as “right-wing,” “radical right” or “regressive.”

Consider next, the corruption of our politics. The right wing has repudiated our tradition of civic friendship, as self-identified “liberals,” such as myself, are accused of “treason” by Ann Coulter. Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Viet Nam, is labeled as “unpatriotic.” John McCain’s years as a POW are turned against him and his family is slandered. John Kerry’s medals, duly awarded by the Navy, are proclaimed as fraudulent. Liberal policies are condemned, not merely as erroneous or misguided, but as “evil.” Politics today has become “warfare by other means,” wherein it is not enough to defeat one’s opponents in a fair election; the opponent must be destroyed. Witness the attacks on the Clintons, and on John McCain in the South Carolina primary of 2000. And now once again, against John Kerry and John Edwards in the current campaign.

Thus our once-united national community is being split into warring factions as we forget our common loyalties and lose the capacity to act in common purpose.

There may be among your fellow Republicans, individuals who would respond, “spare me all this ideological Choctaw. My politics is guided by my self-interest, and it is clear to me that Republican policies are best for my investments, my business, and my personal prosperity.” Surely such a consideration is at least an ingredient of the Republican case.

However, on close examination, even the appeal to self-interest fails the radical right. Be honest, now: would you trade your investment portfolio today with the one you had when Bill Clinton left office? Don’t you feel at least a little anxious about the direction of the Bush economy – with ever increasing unemployment, ever-decreasing consumer confidence and disposable income, interest in the national debt soon to become the largest item in the federal budget, and half of that national debt owed to foreign creditors? In point of fact, throughout the twentieth century, the stock market has performed better under Democratic presidents and congresses. . History confirms Harry Truman’s observation, “to live like a Republican, vote like a Democrat”.

It is not difficult to understand why the self-interest even of the wealthy is best served under Democratic administrations. Democrats along with moderate Republicans believe that a flourishing economy is the result of cooperative teamwork functioning according to fair and explicit rules and regulations – teamwork among investors, entrepreneurs, educators, researchers, workers, and yes, government. The right wing, on the other hand, takes a short-sighted and self-defeating view of “self-interest,” whereby society is a jungle, a frontier, where the ruthless and self-serving individuals are best fit to survive. Thus the liberal is more inclined to think of morality in social terms, as justice, fairness, compassion, tolerance, equal opportunity. The radical right defines morality more as an inventory of individual virtues: chastity and fidelity, sobriety, piety. (See my On Civic Friendship and Consumer or Citizen?)

In sum, a gang of radical dogmatists have captured the Republican party. Consequently,

This is no longer the party of Abraham Lincoln who urged “malice toward none and charity for all.”

This is no longer the party of Theodore Roosevelt, who waged political war against the “malefactors of great wealth."

This is no longer the party of Dwight D. Eisenhower who warned us of the “military-industrial complex” and who lamented that "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. “

Face it, my friend: your party has deserted you and your fellow moderates. All worthy content has been drained from this party, and all that remains is the empty shell with the name, “Republican,” and the false attribution of the word “conservative.”

If you are to take back your party, you must paradoxically leave it for a brief season. Clearly, the moderates can not now wrest control of the party from the radicals – certainly, not before the November election which, if Bush wins a second term, will solidify the radical right control of our government for another generation.

If moderate republicanism is to revive, the radicals must be repudiated and thrown out of power in this election. To accomplish this, you and your fellow moderates must form an alliance with the moderate Democrats – with whom, I submit, you share a significant inventory of political ideals and policies. You differ with these Democrats primarily in name – and “what’s in a name?”

When I reflect upon the political landscape today, and upon the dilemma faced by moderate Republicans such as yourself, I am reminded of the closing scene in the magnificent war drama, “The Bridge on the River Kwai.” Col. Nicholson (Alec Guinness), the commander of the British prisoners of war, becomes so personally invested in the project of building the bridge, that he forgets that he is assisting the enemy. Seeing the explosive charges set by the Allied saboteurs to destroy the bridge, he rushes down to the river to save the bridge and, upon encountering the British and American commandos, is suddenly shocked into a recognition of his authentic loyalties and duties. “My God,” he says, “what have I done?”

So, in closing, I must ask you: Wherein is your ultimate loyalty? To your party or to your country? If you reflect soberly on what has become of your party, on the full import of the crisis facing our country, and upon you duty as a conservative and as a patriot, I am confident that you will arrive at wise and just conclusion.

Your friend and compatriot,

posted September 24, 2012 03:29 PM            

Obviously too, not many want to return to 2009 and the infestation of the White House by O'Bomber. If American voters had known in 2008 what they know about O'Bomber now, he couldn't have been elected dog catcher of Podunk.

Indeed most Americans would gladly return to the administration of George W Bush and Barack Hussein O'Bomber would kill for the jobs numbers, the deficit numbers, the National Debt numbers, the government revenue numbers, the budget as a percentage of US GDP numbers and the Middle East stability of a real President of the United States..George W Bush.

Too bad Barack O'Bomber is just a presidential impersonator and not a real president.

The economic outlook is not brightening. O'Bomber isn't intellectually capable of grasping free market principles and we're not going down Marxist Road with O'Bomber and his merry little band of Socialist Comrades.

posted September 25, 2012 11:03 PM            

The economy is obviously NOT BRIGHTENING. It's WORSENING, by the day and another credit downgrade proves my point...not yours.

posted September 26, 2012 12:11 PM            

Household Incomes Fall In Aug., Off 8.2% Under Obama
Wed, Sep 26 2012
By JOHN MERLINE

posted October 02, 2012 11:11 AM            

As Good As It Gets?
Growth of 1.7% isn't what Team Obama promised four years ago

Bob Schieffer: "The fact is, unemployment is up. It is higher than when [President Obama] came to office, the economy is still in the dump. Some people say that is reason enough to make a change."

Bill Clinton: "It is if you believe that we could have been fully healed in four years. I don't know a single serious economist who believes that as much damage as we had could have been healed."

CBS's "Face the Nation," September 23, 2012

Well, let's see. We can think of several serious people who said we could heal the economy in four years. There's Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Christina Romer, Jared Bernstein, Mark Zandi, and, most importantly, President Obama himself.

Mr. Obama told Americans in 2009 that if he did not turn around the economy in three years his Presidency would be "a one-term proposition." Joe Biden said three years ago that the $830 billion economic stimulus was working beyond his "wildest dreams" and he famously promised several months after the Obama stimulus was enacted that Americans would enjoy a "summer of recovery." That was more than three years ago.

In early 2009 soon-to-be White House economists Ms. Romer and Mr. Bernstein promised Congress that the stimulus would hold the unemployment rate below 7% and that by now it would be 5.6%. Instead the rate is 8.1%. The latest Census Bureau report says there are nearly seven million fewer full-time, year-round workers today than in 2007. The labor participation rate is the lowest since 1981.

So it has gone with nearly every prediction the President has made about where the economy would be today. Mr. Obama promised that the deficit would be cut in half in four years, but the fiscal 2012 deficit (estimated to be above $1 trillion) will be twice the 2008 deficit ($458 billion).

Mr. Obama said that his health-care plan would "cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year," but premiums for employer-sponsored family coverage have gone up $2,370 since 2009, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

He said that the linchpin for a growing economy would be renewable energy investment, and he promised to "create five million new jobs in solar, wind, geothermal" energy. Mr. Obama did invest some $9 billion in green energy, but his job estimate was off by at least a factor of 10 and today many solar and wind industry firms are fighting bankruptcy. The growth in domestic U.S. energy production that he now takes credit for has come almost entirely from the fossil fuels his Administration has done so much to obstruct.

There's nothing unusual about candidates making grandiose promises that don't come true. And it's a White House tradition to blame one's predecessor when things don't get better. (Usually these Presidents end up one-termers.)

The bad faith wasn't then. It's now. Mr. Obama really believed that government spending would unleash a robust recovery in employment and housing—an "economy built to last." Now that this hasn't happened and with the Congressional Budget Office predicting a possible recession for 2013, Team Obama claims these woeful results were the best that could have been expected.

The problem with this line is that every President who has inherited a recession in modern times has done better. (See nearby table.) Under Mr. Obama, measured on the basis of jobs, GDP growth and incomes, this has been by far the meekest recovery from the past 10 recessions.

When George W. Bush was elected, he inherited a mild recession from Mr. Clinton amid the bursting of the dot-com bubble, some $7 trillion of wealth eviscerated. Nine months later came the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Yet by 2003 the economy was growing by more than 3% and eight million jobs were created over the next four years.

The Administration and its acolytes claim that the nature of the 2008 financial collapse was different from past recessions, and that it can take up to a decade to restore growth after such a financial crisis. Economist Michael Bordo rebuts that claim with historical economic evidence nearby.

In reality, the biggest difference between this recovery and others hasn't been the nature of the crisis, but the nature of the policy prescriptions. Mr. Obama's chief anti-recession idea was a near trillion-dollar leap of faith in the Keynesian "multiplier" effect of government spending. It was the same approach that didn't work in the 1930s, didn't work in the 1970s, didn't work in 2008, and didn't work in such other nations as Japan. It didn't work again in 2009.

Ronald Reagan also inherited an economy loaded with problems. The stock market had been flat for 12 years, inflation rates neared 14%, and mortgage rates almost 20%. The recession he endured in 1981-82 to cure inflation sent unemployment to 10.8%, higher than Mr. Obama's peak of 10%. But the business and jobs recovery by early 1983 was rapid and lasted seven years.

Reagan used tax-rate cuts, disinflationary monetary policy and deregulation to reignite growth—more or less the opposite of the Obama policy mix. Liberals tried to explain the Reagan boom that they said would never happen by arguing that there was nothing unusual about the growth spurt after such a deep recession. So why didn't that happen this time?

When campaigning to be President in 1960, John F. Kennedy denounced slow growth under Eisenhower and Nixon and said "We can do bettah." Growth was 7.2% in 1959 and 2.5% in 1960. Since the recession ended under Mr. Obama, growth has been 2.4% in 2010, 1.8% in 2011 and, after Thursday's downward revision for the second quarter, 1.7% in 2012.

posted October 15, 2012 11:26 PM            

For Every Person Added to Labor Force, 10 Added to Those Not in Labor Force
Oct 15, 2012
DANIEL HALPER

A new chart from the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee details the fact that, since January 2009, for every person added to the labor force, 10 have been added to those not in the labor force. Here's a chart showing the dwindling labor force:

"For Every 1 Person Added To Labor Force Since January 2009," the chart reads, "10 People Added To Those Not In Labor Force."

That is, in nearly the four years, since President Obama took office in January 2009, only 827,000 people have been added to the labor force, while during that same time period, 8,208,000 have been added to those not in the labor force.

The chart relies on data available from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.

"The numbers represented in the chart are a measure of growth from January 2009 through September 2012," the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee explains. "The data is sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Current Population Survey, a sample of 60,000 households conducted by personal and telephone interviews. Basic labor force data are gathered monthly. The labor force consists of all people aged 16 and over either employed or actively seeking work. It does not include discouraged workers, people who have retired, or those on welfare or disability who are no longer looking for work. The 'not in the labor force' group is defined as the total civilian non-institutional population minus the labor force."

Since January 2009, the labor force has grown by 0.54 percent, or 827,000 people (from 154,236,000 to 155,063,000). Those not in the labor force grew by 10.2 percent during the same period (8,208,000 people), from 80,502,000 to 88,710,000. In other words, for every one person added to the labor force of the United States since January 2009, the size of the U.S. population not in the labor force grew by 10 people.

And the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee concludes, "These figures reveal several troubling trends: That the jobs market is not keeping pace with U.S. population growth; that not enough younger Americans are joining the labor force to account for retirement among an ageing population; and that a large number of workers have become so discouraged that they simply stopped looking for work and left the labor force entirely. These factors pose serious fiscal challenges for the United States. A historically low labor force participation rate—together with an ageing population and a record number of people drawing federal welfare benefits—puts severe strain on the federal budget in both the near and long term."

posted October 16, 2012 12:46 PM            

Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, estimates that half of the decline in the labor force participation rate “can be traced to an aging population.” The calculation above also ignores the fact that a higher share of young people are going to college, and are staying out of the work force temporarily while they improve their skills.

Because of these factors, it’s hard to know what the “right” labor force participation rate should be right now. It should probably be higher than the 63.6 percent recorded for September — since there are indeed a lot of discouraged workers out there who want to work but have given up looking — but we don’t know precisely how much higher. http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/the-real-unemployment.html

posted October 16, 2012 01:52 PM              

the bailouts to the banks was a BIG MISTAKE. HUGE...but the conservatives never mention that little piece of business because it reflects badly on the republicans, even more so than our current govt.

the current govt is ALSO to blame. they have done very little to redress this BIG MISTAKE.

in iceland no bank bailouts were provided. in fact the bankers went to jail. and iceland, though hit hard at the time, is doing better than most of us now.
http://www.businessinsider.com/olafur-ragnur-grimsson-iceland-2012-4#ixzz29TcC1YsL

it was very interesting to hear them acknowledge that the IMF had probably learned more from this experience with Iceland than Iceland had learned from the IMF. It has made the IMF reconsider some of their orthodox stances on what should be the proper economic and financial response to a crisis on this nature.

interestingly the IMF has recently come out to say that "austerity measures" appear to have been the WRONG TACTIC to deal effectively with the situation so many countries have found themselves in..

The problem of runaway national debt is real. But cutting government spending too quickly will do more harm than good, according to a new paper from the International Monetary Fund.

The report, published in the new issue of Finance & Development, the IMF's quarterly magazine, argues that moving too rapidly to enact so-called austerity measures -- in other words, taking steps to shore up national finances and bring down debt by cutting spending and raising taxes -- will hurt income in the short term and worsen unemployment in the long term.

posted October 17, 2012 11:48 AM            

US housing construction up 15 percent in September
US housing construction up 15 percent in September to 4-year high, building permits also up
By Martin Crutsinger, AP Economics Writer | Associated Press – 2 hours 19 minutes ago..

..

WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. builders started construction on single-family homes and apartments in September at the fastest rate since July 2008, a further indication that the housing recovery is strengthening.

The Commerce Department said Wednesday that builders broke ground on homes at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 872,000 in September. That's an increase of 15 percent from the August level.

Applications for building permits, a good sign of future construction, jumped nearly 12 percent to an annual rate of 894,000, also the highest since July 2008.

The strength in September came from both single-family construction, which rose 11 percent, and apartments, which increased 25.1 percent.

Construction activity is now 82.5 percent higher than the recession low hit in April 2009. Activity is still well below the roughly 1.5 million rate that is consistent with healthier markets.

Still, the surge in construction suggests builders believe the housing rebound is durable.

Builder confidence reached at a six-year high this month, according to a survey by the National Association of Home Builders. The group's index of builder sentiment rose to a reading of 41. While that's still below the level of 50 that signals a healthy market, it has steadily climbed over the past year from a reading of 17.

Sales of new and previously owned homes have been slowly improving this year, and home prices are starting to show consistent gains.

Record-low mortgage have encouraged more people to buy. And the Federal Reserve's aggressive policies could push long-term interest rates even lower, making home-buying affordable for the foreseeable future.

Housing is expected to keep improving next year. But many economists say economic growth will stay muted until companies step up hiring and consumers start spending more.

Though new homes represent less than 20 percent of the housing sales market, they have an outsize impact on the economy. Each home built creates an average of three jobs for a year and generates about $90,000 in tax revenue, according to data from the home builders group.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-housing-construction-15-percent-123835498.html

posted October 17, 2012 01:27 PM              

this may seem a failure to some, but then a lot of people have no idea how well even the lower margins of this country have it compared to most of the world.

posted October 17, 2012 03:53 PM            

What is this, Marxist Math again?

Oh, and then there's this bit of economic "Brightening" news.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics FORGOT TO COUNT CALIFORNIA in their statistics and issued a phony report. Very convenient!

Jobless Claims Number Doesn't Include California
Mike Flynn
11 Oct 2012

I didn't buy into the idea last week that the Labor Department "cooked the books" on the September jobs report. If you were going to go to the trouble of fixing the numbers, wouldn't you come up with good numbers for both parts of the report? The household survey, upon which the unemployment numbers is based, is historically very volatile. Its suggestion of 800k new jobs in the month is obviously an outlier. Even if you accept the number at face value, an oddly precise 2/3rds of these jobs were part-time. You don't build a recovery on part-time jobs.

But, today, I admit, I'm starting to wonder. This morning the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that initial claims for unemployment benefits, i.e. jobless claims, fell a staggering 30k to 339k for the week. It's the lowest level of claims since January 2008! Analysts had expected the number to remain essentially unchanged at around 370k, where it's been pretty much for more than a year.

The media, of course, swooned at the news. NPR bellowed the report through my car speakers this morning and I swear I could hear high-fiving in the background of their studio. You would think we'd posted double-digit growth in GDP for the way the media greeted the news. The long-stalled economic recovery had appeared on the horizon at preciously the moment Obama needed it to.

Except, um, it turns out that number wasn't right. They forgot to include CALIFORNIA, the most populous and economically depressed state in the country. A source at the Labor Department brushed aside the omission by saying that, sometimes, if a state office is under-manned they don't complete all the jobless claims in time to report them to BLS.

In other words, the dog ate their homework.

I have long marveled at the slow-march disintegration of the once Golden State, but has the state really become so utterly dysfunctional that it can not process jobless claims in a timely fashion?

More importantly, shouldn't BLS have noted this somehow? Shouldn't there have been a big neon asterisk at the top of their press release? Billions of dollars move in the market on reaction to these reports. Should we really have to wait hours into the trading day to find out the numbers don't include the biggest state in the country?

It reminds me of the great Marion Barry line when he was Mayor of DC: crime in DC isn't that bad if you don't count the murders.

So, we had the lowest number of jobless claims in over four years... if you don't count the claims from the biggest state with one of the highest unemployment rates.

I hadn't realized that the Keystone Kops took over leadership at BLS. Very convenient that all these aberrations are potentially helpful to Obama. A bit too convenient.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-G overnment/2012/10/11/bls-fail-jobless-claims-number-doesnt-include-california?goback=.gde_4400754_member_174356456

posted December 18, 2012 01:55 PM            

Optimism About Chinese Growth Reaches Survey High

NEW YORK & LONDON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

Confidence in a recovering global economy is extending into 2013 as investor fears surrounding the fiscal cliff eased, according to the BofA Merrill Lynch Fund Manager Survey for December.

A net 40 percent of investors believe the global economy will strengthen in the year ahead, a rise of six percentage points month-on-month and double the reading two months ago. The number of investors viewing the U.S. fiscal cliff as the biggest tail risk has fallen to 47 percent, down from 54 percent in November. Despite this fall, however, the fiscal cliff remains the number one worry.

Emerging markets are the preferred region for the panel. Optimism about China’s economy has reached the highest level recorded by this survey. A net 67 percent of the regional survey respondents say China’s economy will strengthen in the coming year, up from a net 51 percent in November. A net 38 percent of asset allocators are overweight emerging market equities, double the level of September’s survey.

“The bulls are back in China, while policy makers elsewhere put bears onto the back foot. If the bulls are to claim a decisive victory, we need hard evidence that the economy is reaccelerating,” Michael Hartnett, chief investment strategist at BofA Merrill Lynch Global Research said. “Growth expectations and positioning are converging to mid-range levels, but many still think earnings expectations are too high. When these concerns subside, it’s likely that cheap valuations of European stocks will attract global fund managers,” said John Bilton, European investment strategist.

The number of asset allocators overweight U.S. equities has fallen since November. But allocations to the eurozone are outweighing U.S. allocations for the first time since November 2010. The net percentage of asset allocators overweight eurozone equities has risen to seven, up from a net 1 percent in November. In terms of sector, investors have maintained a broadly “risk on” stance – allocations to cyclical sectors Consumer Discretionary and Industrials have increased, and the market is firmly overweight both. But the number one sector remains Pharmaceuticals.

Third successive month of rising sentiment towards corporate profits

The outlook for corporate performance has improved for the third successive month and more investors are calling for companies to raise capital expenditure. A net 11 percent of investors believe profits will improve in the coming 12 months – a 22-point swing from October when a net 11 percent were forecasting lower profits.

Pessimism about corporate margins has lessened for the third successive month. The proportion of investors predicting worsening margins has fallen to a net 27 percent, down from a net 33 percent a month ago and a net 44 percent in October. Similarly, December’s survey shows reduced skepticism over corporates’ ability to deliver double-digit profit growth. A net 37 percent believes global corporate earnings growth will be less than 10 percent, down from a net 52 percent in November.

A net 64 percent of the panel believes that companies around the world are under-investing, the highest reading in the history of the survey and an increase from a net 59 percent month-on-month. Investors are less worried about dividends and buybacks – the proportion saying that payouts are too low has fallen to net 28 percent from a net 34 percent.

Emerging market corporates have consolidated their position as the panel’s favorite. A net 38 percent of investors say that Global Emerging Market equities have the best outlook for corporate profits in the coming year, up from a net 32 percent in November.

Japan sentiment rises at home and globally

Global investors’ caution towards Japan has eased, while domestic optimism has strengthened. The proportion of global asset allocators underweight Japanese equities has fallen to a net 20 percent, down from a net 34 percent a month ago.

A net 17 percent of the global panel would like to underweight Japanese equities in the coming year, but that’s less than the net 30 percent taking that view in November. A net 90 percent of Japanese investors expect the economy to strengthen in the coming year, compared with a net 18 percent in November, while a net 81 percent is forecasting improved earnings in the coming 12 months.

Liquidity conditions improve

Investors say that liquidity conditions are at their best since May of this year. The proportion of respondents rating liquidity conditions as “positive” rose to a net 23 percent, up from a net 13 percent in November. This marks the third successive month of improving liquidity ratings and follows efforts to support market liquidity by central banks, including recent rounds of quantitative easing by the Fed.

Survey of Fund Managers

posted November 09, 2013 08:22 AM            

And here we thought Barry Sorrento..aka Barack Hussein O'Bomber is supposed to be president...of THE UNITED STATES!

So, let me tell the scum sucking Marxist Socialist Progressive twits; Barack doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about the AMERICAN ECONOMY..or much of anything else.

After 5 years of Barack's utter failure in every metric of presidential governance, there are millions fewer Americans working then when Barack began infesting the White House in 2009.

This is what Progressive morons equate with "economic success". But in the real world, if there was a real President in the White House and another nation was doing to America what Barack has done and is doing to America economically...the bombers would fly. Barack is making war on America, Americans and the US economy. And the usual suspect Socialist Progressive is proud that GLOBAL GROWTH is thought to be "bullish" by some "fund managers" who couldn't find their own as$es with both hands. I'm really impressed.

Whopping 932,000 Americans Drop Out Of Labor Force In October; Participation Rate Drops To Fresh 35 Year Low
Tyler Durden
11/08/2013

The only two charts that matter from today's distorted nonfarm payrolls report.

First, the labor force participation rate, which plunged from 63.2% to 62.8% - the lowest since 1978!

But more importantly, the number of people not in the labor force exploded by nearly 1 million, or 932,000 to be exact, in just the month of October, to a record 91.5 million Americans! This was the third highest monthly increase in people falling out of the labor force in US history.

posted November 11, 2013 08:16 AM            

But, your problem is that you don't understand terminology. Those federal employees who got sent home were not kicked out of the American workforce. They were not fired and they were not laid off so they don't count..as not being in the workforce.

Further, you should have a closer look at that graph. When you do, you'll see your little Marxist Messiah O'Bomber has engineered a decline in the labor participation rate that tracks almost straight down on the graph since 2009.

posted November 11, 2013 06:55 PM            

Meanwhile the private sector has been adding jobs.

Today, on Veterans Day, many unemployed (and employed) veterans and military had their foodstamps cut again...along with the Walmart workers who are paid so little that the taxpayer has to subsidize their tables while their employer continue to increase their profits.

posted November 12, 2013 02:08 PM            

There are 14,000 MORE Federal jobs as of today according to this article: http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/has-government-employment-really-increased-under-obama/

However, Cat's post wasn't limited to the Federal government.

quote:

---

I repeat, the heaviest job losses have been govt jobs, some federal, many state and local..

---

On the other hand, total government employment — federal plus state and local — has fallen significantly under President Obama after rising significantly under President Bush. Here’s the picture:

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/has-government-employment-really-increased-under-obama/

posted November 12, 2013 03:33 PM            

Actually, what I said is correct..by your own admission acoustic.

"There are 14,000 MORE Federal jobs as of today according to this article: http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/has-government-employment-really-increased-under-obama/

posted November 12, 2013 11:42 PM            

As usual, you lose again acoustic. Your unbroken string of losses remains intact.

On the other hand, there's several million fewer people working in the private sector under the O'Bomber economy.

The entire premise of this thread is fatally flawed..."Outlook for 2011 economy is brightening".

posted November 13, 2013 08:06 AM            

(CNSNews.com) The percentage of American civilians 16 or older who have a job or are actively seeking one dropped to a 35-year low in October, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In September, the labor force participation rate was 63.2 percent, but in October it dropped to 62.8 percent—the lowest it has been since February 1978, when Jimmy Carter was president.

The labor force, according to BLS, is that part of the civilian noninstitutional population that either has a job or has actively sought one in the last four weeks. The civilian noninstitutional population consists of people 16 or older, who are not on active-duty in the military or in an institution.

At no time during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton or George W. Bush, did such a small percentage of the civilian non-institutional population either hold a job or at least actively seek one.

The BLS has been calculating the national labor force participation rate since 1948. From that year until 2000, when labor force participation peaked at 67.3 percent, the percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population that either held a job or was seeking one generally was on the rise. Since 2000, the percentage has been trending down.

When President Barack Obama took office in January 2009, the labor force participation rate was 65.7 percent. By the beginning of 2013, the start of Obama’s second term, it had dropped to 63.6 percent. Since this January, it has continued to decline, hitting a 35-year low of 62.8 percent in October.

When someone drops out of the labor force and ceases to actively seek a job, they are no longer counted as “unemployed.” The BLS counts as “unemployed” only those who have actively sought a job in the last four weeks. The unemployment rate is the percentage of people in the labor force who did not have a job in the last four weeks but were actively seeking one.

People in the civilian noninstitutional population who did not have a job and did not actively seek one in the last four weeks are considered “not in the labor force.” The number of Americans not in the labor force has climbed by 11,034,000 since Obama took office, rising from 80,507,000 in January 2009 to 91,541,000 in October.