If you haven’t read it yet, the latest employment situation report points to an economy that is stalled:
Nonfarm payroll employment edged up in March (+88,000), and the unemployment rate was little changed at 7.6 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment grew in professional and business services and in health care but declined in retail trade.
Both the number of unemployed persons, at 11.7 million, and the unemployment rate, at 7.6 percent, were little changed in March. (See table A-1.)
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (6.9 percent), adult women (7.0 percent), teenagers (24.2 percent), whites (6.7 percent), blacks (13.3 percent), and Hispanics (9.2 percent) showed little or no change in March. The jobless rate for Asians was 5.0 percent (not seasonally adjusted), little changed from a year earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)
In March, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed at 4.6 million. These individuals accounted for 39.6 percent of the unemployed. (See table A-12.)
The civilian labor force declined by 496,000 over the month, and the labor force participation rate decreased by 0.2 percentage point to 63.3 percent. The employment-population ratio, at 58.5 percent, changed little. (See table A-1.)
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) fell by 350,000 over the month to 7.6 million. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job. (See table A-8.)
To rephrase this if it weren’t for workers leaving the workforce the unemployment rate would be increasing rather than staying the same.
For the problem with the employment situation to be explained by demographics, more older workers would need to be leaving the workforce than is the case.
For the problem with the employment situation to be explained by technology, the productivity gains due to technological change would need to be more recent than is the case.
To me it really looks like the “capital strike” of 1937. Why invest? You can do better by rent-seeking with a lot less risk. When rent-seeking is the business model, the only employment that increases is of lobbyists.
So we didn’t add enough jobs to cover the regular additions to the workforce, but somehow the UE rates dropped as though we had added 300,000 jobs.
Here’s a bit from a CNBC report:
What a great economy. And this is the economy that Reynolds and steve and the President’s paid flacks in the White House tell me is so fucking good.
For the problem with the employment situation to be explained by demographics, more older workers would need to be leaving the workforce than is the case.
Older workers (55+) are the only groups who have seen their participation rates increase since 2007.
I haven’t run the actual numbers but I think it’s mathematically possible for workers 55 to 65 to continue to work in greater numbers than previously or than anticipated for that age cohort while their labor force participation decreases and contributes to an overall decrease in the LFPR. I don’t think that’s what’s happening but I suspect it’s mathematically possible.
It is possible, and it is probably happening. It is not happening to the point that participation rates among 55 and UNDER workers are dropping too, which has been observed. According to the analyses I’ve seen (and that includes stuff that had been done years ago) demographics could only account for about a third of the drop in participation rates – and most of those older analyses were NOT projecting increases in older workforce participation, which has been observed. (By observed, I mean both statistically and by eyeballs. A lot of visible minimum wage jobs are now held by old farts – you know, guys bagging groceries are Whole Foods.) And it obviously doesn’t mean squat to people like me who have dropped out, or are deemed to have dropped out, well before being eligible to get member benefits from AARP.
“What a great economy. And this is the economy that Reynolds and steve and the President’s paid flacks in the White House tell me is so fucking good.”
Nope. I have been saying we are in a balance sheet recession and it will take a long time to recover. We financed growth over the last 30 years with a huge run up in credit. We cant do that anymore. I am pretty pessimistic. The only potential strength I see is the pent up demand for housing and what appears to be some strength in that area. Commercial still seems awfully weak and, IIRC, inventories are still high.
Steve
Nope. I have been saying we are in a balance sheet recession and it will take a long time to recover.
You voted for THIS, steve. What is Obama doing to repair balance sheets? Running up a trillion dollars a year in deficit spending? That’ll help! Hell, he isn’t even transferring private debt to the public, he’s telling people to go out and take on more debt!
Own it. This is what you REWARDED with your vote, this is what you voted for MORE OF. 496.000 people dropping out of the workforce in a month because the economy is in the toilet, and this is what YOU wanted MORE OF. Own it, you worthless fuck, OWN it.
“I have been saying we are in a balance sheet recession and it will take a long time to recover. We financed growth over the last 30 years with a huge run up in credit.”
steve – we agree on this. But are you willing to acknowledge the corollary, that the mother of all balance sheets – The US Govt – is wildly out of whack?
That we have expanded the public sector beyond all ability to finance it? That it is in most part inneffective?
It has been posited that the Pentagon’s budget can be cut by as much as 50%. I’m agnostic, because I’m not a military expert. But I am an expert in private company budgets. In 25 years I’ve seen only one company tied down so tight on costs we didn’t have one suggestion. Not one. We bought it. The cost trick was not in play. All the rest? 10% – 30%, at least. And these are private companies with a profit motive.
So does someone want to tell me we can’t cut the government budget, in absolute dollars, by 5%-10%-30%????
Balls.
Every time you pull the voting lever for a Barack Obama, you are perpetuating the problem. Look in the mirror and ask some questions.
ice
Take a deep breath. You and I have had our issues, before I really understood your constraints vis-a-vis employment. And I apologize for not really understanding it.
steve is a good guy. I see your blood boiling now. He just has a worldview. I think his worldview is wrong. So do you. But, in fact, I think he is open to debate. Let’s make the case, piece by piece. It is becoming more obvious as time passes. Obama is a zero. The media can cover for him only so long. With the passage of time even those who don’t pay much attention finally get it.
Que Michael: Drew is a racist.
Drew, steve voted for it being acceptable for there to be tens of millions of people out of work when they want to work.
steve voted for decreasing median wages, meaning increased poverty for tens of millions more.
steve voted for the war on savers while hypocritically claiming that debt is that problem.
steve voted for turning this country into a Third World country with hundreds of millions of peasants and a few big men in charge.
steve voted for these things knowingly, because they’ve been happening at an increasing pace over the last several years.
That is evil, and pure contempt for everyone that isn’t one of the elect. I’m sure as one of the people they will reluctantly tolerate you don’t find them all that bad. But I’m on the wrong end of the “Who? Whom?” formulation, so forgive me for calling them the evil little shits that they are.
Think of it as evidence-based politics, Drew, and you will understand my point of view.
They knew what they were voting for, and didn’t have one single complaint about it. Did you catch any of the lefties saying that someone ought to challenge Barry in the primaries last year? No? Did you notice any of the lefties criticizing Barry at all last year? No? All they did was talk about what a horrible human being Mitt Romney was. No criticism was too much for Romney, no criticism of Obama was too small that they wouldn’t shout down the criticism with cries of racism and classism and Nazism and so on.
They got WHO they wanted to do WHAT they wanted. Everything that’s happening, especially the ruination of tens of millions of their fellow citizens, is something they want. Observe what they do, Drew, and ignore what they say. Seriously, as a thought exercise, just try thinking about what steve says he believes versus what he votes for WITHOUT CRITICISM.
He believes its a balance sheet recession? Then why did he vote for a President that wants everyone to borrow more money (for student loans, for housing, etc.)? Why does he support the policies the President supports, policies that destroy savers? Why does he support policies that take money out of people’s paychecks (for healthcare, for higher taxes) reducing their ability to pay off debts? Where’s the support for, say, reforming bankruptcy laws? Couldn’t have that, the current laws are something VEEP Brain-dead Joe pushed through in his Senate days, couldn’t dream of changing anything.
steve says Bush’s deficits were so criminal he can never vote for a Republican again. Obama’s are so much worse, yet he hasn’t made a peep of complaint about it.
He says he wants a non-interventionist President. This President helped overthrow an allied government in favor of one that is openly hostile, and has gotten us involved in wars in FOUR different countries in the meantime. (At least four, I am probably missing something.) Did steve not notice that Obama assassinated the government of Libya and helped carve a piece off of Mali for al Qaeda inspired terrorists? Did he not notice that we’ve been sticking our nose into Syria’s business, incidentally pissing off China and Russia? Did he not notice that Obama has been conducting open warfare in Pakistan? Obama has pissed off three nuclear powers (four if you count NKorea) while intervening all over the place. Where’s the criticism?
Not to mention Obama’s ongoing misadventures with NKorea. The Nobel Peace Prize winner has fucked up a 60 year-old armistice on the Korean peninsula. I guess steve just hates Austin, Texas.
Let’s see, what else does steve SAY he wants? Healthcare reform! He supported a horrible bill because he claims, counter to all history, that the US Congress will slowly improve the laws until they’re great! Yeah, right. He says that he supports Medicare cuts – like the ones from 1997. Yeah, right.
All these things he SAYS he supports, all these things he doesn’t support where it matters.
Ignore what they say, Drew, observe what they do. It’s an edifying experience.
Ice- I also said that I prioritize foreign policy. Keeping the neocons out of power, or at least minimizing their influence is important. The costs of bad foreign policy run into the trillions of dollars and also cost thousands of lives. Romney’s foreign policy advisors were too heavily composed of Bush retreads. Our war in Iraq never made any sense, but I do know it was a war that the neocons wanted even before Bush held office. I know they want a war with Iran. I dont want people who believe in the Ledeen Principle.
On domestic policy I dont think either party has a good answer for increasing growth in the short term. The answer was to not finance everything with debt. Now we have to pay it off. There are some long term answers.
Drew- Our future spending, which really means our medical spending, needs to be cut. I am sure we could cut some now. I also know that neither party has tried. I am concerned that if we put the GOP back in control they will do what they have always done, cut taxes and do nothing about spending. They have also shown little or no interest in health care, except to add to spending to buy votes. When I think they are serious about some kind of plan I will voted for a GOP POTUS again. Meanwhile, I will continue to donate to and vote for our GOP congressman. We know him and meet with him on a regular basis. I have friends who have known him much longer. I dont agree with him on everything, but he seems to be a decent, ethical kind of guy. Guess I am part of the problem, voting for a divided govt.
Steve
The media can cover for him only so long.
How long is that? Pravda covered for Stalin until he was dead. So were tens of millions of others, but so what, they deserved it for the glorification of the Worker’s Paradise and the cause of world socialism. You really think this media isn’t going to cover for Obama until he’s dead? What the fuck is it going to take for them to stop covering for him? If the NKoreans nuke Austin Texas later today, you can be goddamned certain the headline in the NYTimes tomorrow will be “Kim Jong Un Obliterates Texan city – George W. Bush policies faulted”.
The answer was to not finance everything with debt. Now we have to pay it off.
Bullshit. Savings are cratering again as people keep raiding what they’ve saved to get by. Your President and party want more people to buy more things with debt. That is what you are SUPPORTING.
From MarketWatch:
Feb. consumer credit jumps by most in 6 months
Yeah, thank God the President is trying to lead us out of this balance sheet recession.
Ice- You should stick to domestic policy. The problems in Mali are longstanding. You naively assume we can dictate who remains in power in other countries. While I was not thrilled about Libya, I also think that sometimes you need to honor your commitment to your allies. When other countries have sent soldiers to die for your cause, even if that cause was wrong, sometimes you need to support their efforts also. I also think it matters that if you want to become involved, that you do so with some level of competence.
If you were paying attention you would notice that the neocons want us to invade Syria. If Romney were in office, they would be running our foreign policy again. How would you describe our relations with Russia when they ran foreign policy?
No one has an answer for North Korea. Look at a map sometime and you can, I hope, figure it out. Pakistan? Really? We have mucked with their internal politics for years. We were sending drones there when Bush was president. If McCAin or Romney had won we would still be using them there. If I am making a decision on voting, and I dont like drones, I have no option.
Finally, this is the internet. We take sides and argue. I suspect most of us, I do , hold more nuanced positions than we convey in short blog answers. I find Obama disappointing in many ways. I wish we had a better choice. We didnt get one in the last election.
Steve
I am concerned that if we put the GOP back in control they will do what they have always done, cut taxes and do nothing about spending. They have also shown little or no interest in health care, except to add to spending to buy votes.
The “doing nothing about spending,” is greatly endorsed from the left side of the aisle. When republicans have over-spent I don’t recall a dem pounding the table and saying “enough!” anytime in the recent past. In fact when deals have been made, like in the Reagan years, it was the dems who renigned on their spending cut part of the deal.
As for Bush, he mismanaged the economy, that’s for sure. But he also got a lot of criticism from his own party for doing so — unlike dems today who remain mute on the subject with Obama.
As for cutting health care costs, I heard it discussed by Obama, but certainly have not seen it. The initial cost projections for his much maligned ACA are totally off track and much higher. The regulations coming down are impossible to digest or understand. And, now we have the interjection of federal health care Navigators to the mix, supposedly 10,000 of them @ $20-48/hr, substituting in for private sector health insurance agents, paid roughtly $22/hr. Everything in the health care industry is either getting distorted, displaced by the federal government, or simply creating confusion and fear in the business community and negatively impacting any economic growth.
I just don’t understand your logic at all in this area.
When republicans have over-spent I don’t recall a dem pounding the table and saying “enough!†anytime in the recent past.
Actually should redo that statement…. dems have pounded on the table, and reputed deficits under republican administrations. However, when the dems get into power, instead of cutting them in half, like promised by candidate Obama, they explode and multiply like fiscal rabbits!
“However, when the dems get into power, instead of cutting them in half, like promised by candidate Obama, they explode and multiply like fiscal rabbits!”
See Clinton, W. Also, you prefer pro cyclical spending. I prefer countercyclical.
“The “doing nothing about spending,†is greatly endorsed from the left side of the aisle.”
If both sides will not do anything about spending, but one of them cuts taxes, for whom should you vote? Your answer should indicate whether or not you think debt is a problem.
” Everything in the health care industry is either getting distorted, displaced by the federal government, or simply creating confusion and fear”
I work in the field. I don’t see it, or at least not as you describe. Everyone knows things need to change, so things are unsettled. People are afraid reimbursements will be cut, but there really isnt any govt takeover underway.
Steve
Then you should both be happy because we’re doing both.
LOL, so true.
Steve
“Also, you prefer pro cyclical spending. I prefer countercyclical.”
And Dave’s response. I’m laughing out louder. This is a point I’ve made for years. We don’t – if you will – save for the rainy day. We spend all the time. (My inner Led Zeppelin is coming out now “I gotta girl stays drunk all the time….oh, yea, yea”….in the bars with the men who play guitars singin’ and remembering the day….”)
Moving right along. This is the issue, isn’t it? We spend all the time. And if govt spending has a multiplier, or even just a “1” effect, we’ve shot our wad already and are in hock up to our eyeballs.
Oh, so much fun!
The problems in Mali are longstanding.
No shit, Sherlock. Were those problems alleviated or exacerbated by our decision to destabilze North Africa in general and Libya in particular?
You naively assume we can dictate who remains in power in other countries.
Ahem.
While I was not thrilled about Libya, I also think that sometimes you need to honor your commitment to your allies.
By dictating who remains in power in other countries? By helping to overthrow those allies? For surely toppling the Mubarak/military government in Egypt was us choosing that an ally was to be disposed of in favor of a government that not-so-secretly hates our guts, and hates every damned last thing about our civilization – except for the money and material we keep sending their way.
When other countries have sent soldiers to die for your cause, even if that cause was wrong, sometimes you need to support their efforts also.
By providing the bulk of the effort? Our allies have provided a small fraction of the efforts elsewhere. We provided a huge amount of the effort to overthrow the Libyan regime. And that doesn’t excuse what we did to an allied government in Egypt at all. Yes, Mubarak and co. weren’t the good guys. So what? We sided with Stalin, of all people, in order to further our own ends. We could certainly stomach the usual low-grade ME dictator type by comparison.
I also think it matters that if you want to become involved, that you do so with some level of competence.
Yes, and how competent was our effort in Egypt, that has put the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of the most populace Arab country in the ME? How competent is that effort that we’re continuing to give them aide and succor?
How competent was the effort in Libya? That’s one dead Ambassador and counting, mostly because the Administration didn’t want to admit that that had completely fucked up the internal security of another nation and that it was now lawless, so that of course the Ambassador had to wander around with a lousy security detail. That’s pure skill there. Not to mention that outflow of problems in other places.
Please, tell me more about this competence thing. Bush didn’t exactly do a great job with Iraq, and Afghanistan was hopeless long before we got involved. However, by putting boots on the ground he at least admitted to the basic principle that if we break it we buy it. But with drone strikes Obama has destabilized a vast swath of the NAME region with no effort at all to try and fix things. Other than to send an Ambassador* out to get ass-raped to death whilst he ate some cookies and took a nap.
That’s true competence right there.
” For surely toppling the Mubarak/military government in Egypt was us choosing that an ally”
The Egyptians wanted to overthrow Mubarak. We couldnt tell them what to do. I guess we could have invaded. What could go wrong with that? When an unpopular, brutal dictator loses his grip, he is done. Best we can hope for is to mitigate the fallout. We send money and arms for the same reason we sent them to Mubarak, so they wont attack Israel. It would be good if you stopped thinking of Mubarak as some great ally. He was not.
“Yes, and how competent was our effort in Egypt”
Superb. We lost zero troops and spent zero dollars not trying to stop something that was going to happen anyway.
“How competent was the effort in Libya?”
We need to compare. Let’s take the effort in Iraq. 6,000 US troops dead and around 100,000 Iraqis. Somewhere between $4trillion and $6 trillion spent. I will take Libya if I have to choose. The ambassador went running on a regular basis in that city. His security detail was adequate for the first year and a half he was there. We relied too heavily on intelligence from the CIA center that was located in that city. You, like many believe that it is possible to have our ambassadors be effective and also take no risks. Doesnt work that way. Just like our troops have to take some risks, so do our State Dept workers. Could it have been handled better? Sure. We always know what to do afterwards. Mostly, it would have required spending more money, but we do have that debt thing you talk about.
“But with drone strikes Obama has destabilized a vast swath of the NAME region with no effort at all to try and fix things”
You win the internet today. You think that was a stable region? Really? That aside, you really think Romney, with the neocons running his foreign policy wouldnt have used drones? Do you even read what they say? They didnt want us to leave Iraq. They dont want us to leave Afghanistan. The drones are one of the few things they think Obama is doing right.
“Bush didn’t exactly do a great job with Iraq”
Runner up, maybe the real winner. Hard to tell. Trillions of dollars, thousands of lives, just to make Iran more secure. Good thing Bush put boots on the ground. Good thing he created an insurgency and helped AQ prosper. And you want to put the neocons back in power where once again they would, how did you put it, not exactly do a great job? Lose another 6,000 soldiers in Syria and another 6,000 in Iran. Perfect. Throw in $12 trillion that we dont have and what could be better. That you would even begin to compare Libya with Iraq is mind boggling.
Steve
There were lots of warnings about the Muslim Brotherhood and what the possible/probable outcome of this group taking charge in Egypt might be. The Obama Administration, though, seemed to ignore the warnings, supporting their rise to power.
Libya would have been better served if Obama had gotten involved with a no-fly zone at the onset of the problems, and basically not let it get out of control. This too was advised by others, and ignored by him.
When Iraq underwent it’s courageous revolution, Obama ignored that as well, and seemed to stand back as a passive observer.
Benghazi is the most glaring foreign policy, however, in his leadership — as there was none exhibited by him. The cover-up, IMO, was massive. There are numerous leaks seeping out about what was going on there. But, the MSM has turned a deaf, incurious ear to all of them. Meanwhile, survivors of the incident remain in the background, silenced. CIA personnel have been forced to sign agreements not to disclose anything. So, the whole thing has been whitewashed, with a benign report servicing the needs, of partisans such as Steve, that all was AOK there.
I could go on, but what’s the use……Those who don’t want to hear any truth that might chip away at this administration’s credibility and desirability won’t hear…..Instead, let’s go back and harp on Bush, even though many of his policies have not only been embraced by Obama, but intensified.
Neocons are pre-McGovern Democrats. They are liberal interventionists. They jumped to the Republican party because of its hawkishness, but they were not cold warriors. In the “bad ol’ days”, the major players practiced realpolitik. This was foreign policy based in reality. Today’s self-proclaimed “reality based community” does not know its ass from a hole in the ground.
After the Cold War ended, we were all supposed to forget thousands of years of human history and have a Coke. The rest of the world did not get the memo. Russia was down but not out, and China decided to try capitalism (mercantilism). Putin awoke the Russian bear from hibernation, and the Chinese realized they needed to protect their foreign interests.
President Bush, the Elder, started this kumbaya nonsense, and President Clinton went along with it. After 9/11, President Bush, the Younger, decided to go all in with this crap. Without 9/11, he would probably have been a more hawkish Clinton, but we will never know.
Mubarak was a bastard, but “he’s our bastard.” (FDR ?) He was “old school”, and he was waiting for the US to tell him to “do what you got to do”. In the reality based world, money talks. He was in power long enough to know how to deal with rabble-rousers. If he has to crack a few heads to get things done, so be it.
Gaddafi was becoming/had become our bastard. In real world foreign policy, the Pan-Am bomber was not a reason to dump him. He was a valuable asset, and he should have been covertly supported. In realpolitik, what you say is not what you do.
In Pakistan, President Bush went with democracy instead of reality, and Musharraf was shown the door. In the real world, he was keeping the rogue elements under as much control as possible. All that has changed is that the Pakistani have gone from disliking the US to hating the US.
If you do not like the dictators, you are a non-interventionist or a neocon.
” He was “old schoolâ€, and he was waiting for the US to tell him to “do what you got to doâ€. In the reality based world, money talks. He was in power long enough to know how to deal with rabble-rousers. If he has to crack a few heads to get things done, so be it.”
Mubarak lost the people, and maybe more importantly, he lost the army. They werent willing to kill unarmed civilians for him. Maybe, the army would have been willing to do so if we guaranteed we would keep funding them even if they massacred civilians or if we sent troops to help kill them. I am doubtful. The army control in Egypt is pervasive and it is heavily economic. I didnt really see them willing to lose legitimacy in the eyes of the people just to support an old dictator who wasnt going to be around much longer anyway, and lose all of the money they are making.
The problem with foreign policy realism, the policy we pursued when we supported Mubarak, is that there is no real good end game. Dictators fall, and they tend to fall ugly. It leaves us looking bad as we supported the guy who just fell. We look even worse if we support him at the end and he falls anyway. We have pretty limited influence in these countries outside of what we pay the dictator in charge. Once they start to go, we dont have the pull inside to help them.
“…Those who don’t want to hear any truth ”
I would love to hear some truth. Do you have any? I hear nonsense rooted in ignorance and repetition of right wing talking points. Massive cover ups? Absolutely. Did you know it was really the young Barack Obama who killed Vince Foster?
Steve
Sorry, got distracted yesterday by a not quote three year-old.
steve, when did relations with Russia get good? If you haven’t noticed there’s an ongoing snit right now. Not to mention all the usual stuff about Iran and other points of contention. This despite the fact that now that Obama has been re-elected he’s much more flexible for Vladimir. (For the record, the Russians have been cracking down on international groups operating in Russia again. I’d have never known, save for following some chess players on Twitter. The US press doesn’t seem to have Moscow bureaus anymore.)
That aside, you really think Romney, with the neocons running his foreign policy wouldnt have used drones?
One thing is for certain: They weren’t going to be using drones against Libya in 2011. But try this: Instead of arguing what the mythical Romney government might have done, why not discuss what your team has actually done. Did they or did they not support overthrowing a nominally allied goveernment? Did they or did they not provide most of the foreign effort to overthrow the Libyan government? Did they or did they not have a plan to ensure stability in Libya? Afterall, if you’re going to overthrow a foreign government, you might want to think about what will follow, yes? All about the competence, dontchaknow?
As for Iraq: Yeah, the Bush Administration fucked up. Look at what Obama wanted: More Saddam Hussein, with more connections to both France and Russia. Why do you lefties love the late great Saddam so much? You are congratuilatiing Obama for killing another dictator and destabilizing an entire country and doing nothing to fix the situation, but you have nothing but scorn for Bush killing Saddam, destabilizing a country and trying, however poorly, to do something about it. I guess you guys just love creating chaos above all else?
Seriously, do you support killing dictators or not? Do you support destabilizing countries or not? I can’t tell. It seems to depend entirely on whether or not your team is in power.
…
For the record, I would have preferred invading Iraq, killing enough of the people in power to make a point, and putting in a dictator with the mandate to bend to our will when needed, and otherwise keep order. The ME doesn’t seem amenable to better forms of government, so go with what works.
As for Libya, Qaddafi had seemed amenable enough to our will in the last decade, so why should we have been involved at all? And we had no reason whatsoever turning over Egypt to what are at the very least hostile to our interests. But, you know, drones and (D)s make everything alright, I guess.
…
Somewhere between $4trillion and $6 trillion spent.
Really? On Iraq? Ah, I see. You are factoring in all costs out to 2050 including money spent on veteran health. Interesting way to account for the spend. How many of those veterans were going to be veterans accruing benefits anyway? Have the expected costs minus the Iraq war been calculated? Probably not.
So okay, the Iraq war cost more than the Libyan adventure, at least to us. Still, the end result are destabilized countries, yes? In areas where we don’t really want destabilized countries? But whateveer, as long as we’re doing the shit work for France and Italy it all counts as looking out for the interests of allies.
…
Really, what I find interesting is that you basically refuse to characterize anything the Obama Administration has done as anything other than a success. You will make vague noises that they got some things wrong, but you won’t mention what. This is like speaking to Reynolds about the Obama Admin. record on things like warrantless wiretaps vs. the Bush Admin. record on same. Under no circumstances will you admit that your team ever gets one goddamned thing wrong, and the other side is worse than Hitler. Typical.
Oh, and I’ll mention again that it is funny to hear you lefties crying about Bush’s deficits and not a peep about Obama’s, which are much bigger. In fact, when you bother to discuss them at all you tell us how necessary they are, and that they should be much, MUCH larger. (See Krugman, and other unpaid mouthpieces for the Administration.)
I also note that once again you are talking about stuff Bush did in 2003 as opposed to what Obama has done the last four year, two months and some number of days. You are talking about the hypotheticals of what a Romney Administration would have done as though they were facts, and will not discuss what the Obama Administration actually has done and is doing.
I will note that you are very concerned about a balance sheet recession, yet support a President who has instituted one policy after another that works AGAINST repairing balance sheets. (Aside: Hey Drew, with these kinds of interest rates would it make more sense for you to borrow money for a large purchase or cash in some of your other assets? Don’t bother answering, you’ve written about this before.)
You won. We get at least four more years of Obama policies on pretty much everything. We’re going to get an Obama Supreme Court that will make everything he wants constitutionally mandatory. (Not that the Bush appointees are doing much other than rubber-stamping his most important policies anyway. Yay for small government conservatives!) So why are you so fixated on this non-existent Romney Administration? I mean other than as a way to defend the indefensible – specifically that over 206,000 people were reported to have lost jobs last month by the Household Survey, but that the UE rates got better because 496,000 people just plain quite trying.
@steve
Neocons believe that supporting dictators is a problem and that democracy is the solution. They want the US to stop supporting dictators and to support efforts to replace the dictators – “will of the people” crap. Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Iran are connected by the desire to bring democracy to these countries. They may be more aggressive than you, but you and the neocons have the same goals.
The reality is that few people have ever had any form of self-rule. In an authoritarian government, the people are coerced or bought. What they desire does not matter much. Food, energy, and thugs ensure that the people are not lost. They do not need outside help to maintain power. When it is time for him to go, it is done through proxies. At one time, the CIA was paid to get shit done.
Mubarak’s problems began under President Bush. His administration began pushing the democracy crap – “free and fair elections”. People living under a brutal dictator want a less brutal dictator. The “yearning for freedom” crap sounds nice, but few people yearn enough to die for freedom.
In Egypt, the goal is to keep the region stable and leave Israel alone. How this is accomplished is up to the client. It may be distasteful, but it is not complicated. The US does not dictate what a country does. The US pays for a service and expects results.
In Syria, Assad has lost the people, but he is not stepping down. He must not have gotten the memo. Maybe somebody should send him a Coke and give him a hug.
The only difference between the you and the neocons is that they are now Republicans, but with the new hawkish Democrats, they may come home.