The Dems controlled the entire federal gov for over a year and then had majority control for the past 3 years and you are blaming this on the repubs?

How sad you and the libs should take responsibility and admit what utter failures your party has been over the past several years.. I could see how you could blame it on the repubs if you had stabilized the economy but its gotten far worse since Obama has taken over..

This is why the dems will lose next year, because of the blame game.. Everyone has lost respect for the liberals because you cant take responsibility.. So enjoy..

In fractional reserve banking and interest based economy, deflation cannot be prevented after credit inflation runs it's course. Our problems are not about what we are doing today, but they are about what we have already done for many decades. An entire nation cannot borrow non-stop and inflate the money supply, then invest in granite counter tops and then hope that all will be fine when the pay back time arrives. The cause is in place. Effect will follow. Google for "DEFLATIONARY CRASH" to understand the mechanics of deflation.

With a deflating money supply, bubble level salaries and prices cannot be sustained.

No doubt about it, Obama has done NOTHING to lead us out of this mess in the past three years - so we need to re-elect him in 2012 because it is all Bush's fault - to include INEPT actions as the POTUS to lead us out of it.

Um, news flash, ITS BOTH THEIR FAULT. Please get your head out of your ass in thinking that one party or the other shares the major blame. This freight train has been building speed for decades and we are just now feeling the brunt of it.

Republicans and Democrats have both been avoiding fixing the major holes in our country for years and years and now everyone is looking for the scape goat. I say at this point I DON'T GIVE A FLYING #$@# WHO'S FAULT IT IS JUST FIX IT!

Do we have to talk about "this" again? Media? There is no recession?

We are in a deep Depression by all counts of all American people. No jobs, equal NO money to spend---14,000,000 or more out of work. People living in tents as homes--giving their only investment.

Who believes this Propaganda sent out by the Government?.

I thought I lived in the United States, not Russia, nor Venezuela.

The truth beholds that when there is no "mon" there is no FUN!

Get real and accept the fact that most Americans are hanging by a thin thread in the monetary department of their poor, and unprosperous lives. Extended Unemployment checks for how long? Years!

Two classes of people now. The very Rich and the very poor--get used to it; America has changed. We are no longer the Leaders of the World, with the lowering the Bond (credit) rating one notch--other countries do not respect America as before.

We are second class citizens and being treated that way.

Lies, lies, and more lies---"my dog believes this article".

What an idiot you are!!!! Excuse me... but the GOP senate refused to do anything other than vote no... seems you forgot that one.... would not let 40 votes for anything... and yo can see it coming home to roost.... the best you can throw at Obama is Romney?.... good luck on that one!!!

Um thats where the Presidents leadership skills are supposed to come in and force the two sides to work together..

Um, news flash, ITS BOTH THEIR FAULT. Please get your head out of your ass in thinking that one party or the other shares the major blame. This freight train has been building speed for decades and we are just now feeling the brunt of it.

I agree with you and so do lot of others, thats why the gop establishment have been losing election after election to the newbies.. I havent noticed the same with the dems however..

the best you can throw at Obama is Romney?

I highly doubt Perry or Romney will win the primary, they are old news... Im thinking Cain or Ron Paul.. Doesnt matter who runs against Obama though, because this time he has a record.. Its going to be a ABO election, anyone but Obama..

All they have to do is air a commercial of Obamas this is the future of America speech at Solyndra, then the glass cracks and it turns dark and a solemn voice says do you want 4 more years of corruption?

NWO. A two party duopoly that exists only to serve the banks. While everyone argues left vs right, both parties serve the Central Banking System of the Federal Reserve. ONE is their theme, not sovereignty.

Ahhh! I just adore twisted statistics! It makes me all warm and fuzzy, knowing that manipulation of numbers is almost as easy as manipulation of the populace.

I'm seriously beginning to believe that most people are easily manipulated. Pawns. We're all corporate pawns. Just remember, folks: Avarice will always take precedence over populace.

Sad, but true.

Economies have always gone up and down. Cultures will tear themselves apart pointing fingers and politicians will leverage the fear and envy to further their own soulless plans. And if the next boom uptick happens soon enough and enough people get their money, all will be fine again. Or, as history shows, if bad times go on long enough, people will turn on one another and start a downward spiral who's bottom is in no one's interest. But *everyone* is petty and greedy and that is just how it goes until a psychopath gets really grandiose plans and pulls the trigger on some mega death and then were back to the dark ages and reading about how amidst an age of the greatest material wealth and comfort ever in the history of man it wasn't "fare" so it all had to be torn down.

Maybe it's time these "economists" reevaluate thier definition of a recession/depression.

If you base it on gains on Wall Street...we're probably not in a recession.

Unfortunately that's only good for the bankers and investors. The rest of us see the unemployment, our dimishing paychecks and the costs of gas, food, electricity, phone service and everything else under the sun skyrocketing.

This jobs bill is a joke in itself as well. Oversized government has put us here and has not gotten us out. We need less government involvement across the board.

Regardless of what the Politicos in DC, and the high priests of Wall Street say,

This recession will not be over until people get back to work, period.

The US and Europe's printing machines will not be able to keep replacing people's salaries( of the unemployed) all around the world, by printing new money every month.

Sweat equity thru intellectual or physical work ( Jobs ) is the only medicine to cure this cancer, not Big Corporations, nor investors hoarding money out of circulation in order not to pay taxes or salaries.

They have become ( Corporations , Investors and crooked Politicians) victims of their own monetary fantasies.

Reduction in "standard of living"?? Perhaps, it has inflated beyond reality in the first place. What we are seeing now is more in touch with reality. Consumption-based economy can only sustain so long.... And if it is a debt-fueled consumption - it never was sustainable.

Joe:

Start with Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the United States Treasury. He sure has a murky past; what is he doing making plans to get the Economy going again.

He has been a main stumbling block in the Obama Administration preventing progress in the Economic Advisory Dept.

Geithner and Eric Holder; 2 people who are getting in the way of America's progression, giving horrible advice to President Obama---

Geithner could "kill" Obama's re election. "It's the Economy Stupid" again theme..

To Hawaii2,

I would go as far back as Alan Greenspan.

The so called " Maestro " relayed on big monetary conglomerates self policing, what a naive and disastrous concept.

I`m not surprised by this news, i`ve always suspected that the recession never ended the government has been bull@!$%#ting us to avoid a general panic if they told us the truth, this is much worse than a recession.

The rich continue to make record profits while the common man has taken a full 10% loss in income over the last 3 years. the mayans said something big was in store for 2012 it looks like a major world economic collapse might be in store for 2012.

Obama's propaganda ministry, the MSM, is still trying to convince us that the recession ended by dutifully pushing the Regime's manipulated numbers. Unfortunately for them, more Americans are seeing through the Regime's lies every day.

Hawaii2

Joe:

Start with Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the United States Treasury. He sure has a murky past; what is he doing making plans to get the Economy going again.

He has been a main stumbling block in the Obama Administration preventing progress in the Economic Advisory Dept.

Geithner and Eric Holder; 2 people who are getting in the way of America's progression, giving horrible advice to President Obama---

Geithner could "kill" Obama's re election. "It's the Economy Stupid" again theme..

How Geithner still has a job, and is still out of jail, are mysteries.

He's trampling the constitution in regards to the actions of the Treasury department in the last few months in regards to marijuana.

• Forcing Colorado banks to close accounts of legal marijuana businesses
• Disallowing legitimate businesses to take tax exemptions
• Medical marijuana patients can no longer possess firearms (yes, the ATF legal department is under the Department of the Treasury)

Not to mention his obvious loyalty to the IMF and Goldman Sachs before the taxpayers. When we were faced with the debt ceiling not increasing, Geithner was going to withhold SS checks and military pay before withholding interest payments to the Fed.

Holder is no better, picking and choosing which parts of US law he wishes to uphold....while violating other parts (Fast and Furious).

But before stating they are giving terrible advice to Obama, you have to look at who is giving them advice and direction...that would be their boss....who is Obama.

Jackie wrote:

Reduction in "standard of living"?? Perhaps, it has inflated beyond reality in the first place. What we are seeing now is more in touch with reality. Consumption-based economy can only sustain so long.... And if it is a debt-fueled consumption - it never was sustainable.

This is the most important thing stated in this thread thusfar. All this talk about which political party to blame (or both of them) is secondary to the fact that we, the people, need to take responsibility for the mess we too have created by perpetuating this culture of consumerism.

The advent of credit cards, going out to eat all the time, shopping malls, SUVs, the idea that every single person can own a home that is far too big for them (and far beyond their income), everyone being entitled to receiving a bachelors degree, etc, is what has really promulgated these issues in our country (and even the world to some extent because all of these raw materials to fund consumerism have to come from some place).

America needs to return to embrace some of its founding roots: sensibility and not living beyond one's means. It's time for us to start being okay with living in apartments or smaller homes, not thinking that scooters are "lame", living much closer to our jobs instead of "supercommuting", stop feeding into this "credit ratings" b.s., not inflating the college education degrees, embracing trade skills, learning how to do hard work and not griping about it every 4 seconds, not buying a $300 cell phone with a $120 cell phone coverage plan when you are barely paying for your electric bill, etc.

We, the people, have far more power than elected officials and corporations. We have our pocket books, which is what they're after. Self-control and sensibility will dictate the market far more than who we elect and who we regulate (both of which are still important, mind you, but secondary to us acting proper with our incomes and mentalities).

Did the media mean to say the Recession has ended for the wealthy only? Naturally the Republicans would like to see the Recession remain in order to keep the public in check, force low wages while supplying ridiculously overly generous benefits to the CEO's and their Board Members(called "Corporate Slavery"), to provide another excuse for blaming Obama, take over the Country, keep the economy down until they take over D.C., and a firm hold on the tax loopholes and benefits for only their wealthy elite , take away all benefits from the middle class, poor, elderly, and disabled, and controlling as to who votes by cutting back the amount of voting days and redistricting in their favor. We're tired of paying the wealthy taxes with our low wages.

Joe, I do believe you are on to something in regards to Geithner. I have to do some looking around to find it, but, I read an article a while back where the writer was saying that Geithner had looted the Central Bank in New York when he was still the head of it, something to the tune of trillions of dollars.

I wonder if Republicans and Democrats sit in a room each week and say you take the blame this week, ok but then your up for two weeks in a row..Not resolving their differences creates more problems.

You and the rest who think like you are just IDIOTS! "Nuff said!

"You and the rest who think like you are just IDIOTS! "Nuff said!"

Anyone who calls others idiots has no room to talk. The next time the morals train and the respect bus leaves their stations, try being on time, and you won't get left behind.

The recession has end ended, keep trying to convince middle class America of that, 16 million unemployed, incomes collapsing, foreclosures rising, 7.5 trillion bail outs and no move in the unemployment, food stuff rising, do they really believe Americans are that dumb.

"do they really believe Americans are that dumb"

In a word.............yes. The fact of this isn't hard to see, because they keep on doing it.

The recession IS over.

The economy has simply readjusted and this is the new economic good times. The result of Free Trade is not cheaper goods at Wal-Mart. It started with the loss of our jobs, and now is in it's next phase. US workers have to compete globally against people from China and other countries. Meaning competitive wages when compared to what people China make. And similar benefits.

This is simply the result of Washington sending our jobs overseas. Bush wrote it, Clinton signed it, the republicans backed it, and Obama just added to it with the signing of S. Korea, Columbia and Panama Free Trade Agreements, supported by GE and Caterpillar.

I'm sure for the benefit of the Wall Street protesters.

Free Trade is NEVER free. In fact, it comes with the cost of our economy, and way of life!

Okay, I'm confused, since when can we cure a recession over the weekend??

Both parties are responsible and it goes back decades. The deficit goes back to George Washington. This cannot be fixed overnight. Anyone who thinks it can has been watching way too much "reality" tv.

Both parties have many millionaires with corporate ties and you can bet they are not going to impact their own bottom line. The president has tried , with good proposals, to get things going in the right direction. CONGRESS has blocked anything that has been brought to the table. It matters not who is in the oval office- if congress has an agenda, things will only go that way. Period. We never got out of the recession of 2000/2001. It has just escalated to a full blown depression.

It's exactly what Americans know, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

Hey guys. Quit collapsing posts just because you don't agree with what the poster is saying. We read them anyway. So both views are seen by all. It just shows how immature you are. If you want to join a discussion, you have to hear both sides! You don't have to agree, but you have to listen.

oooops , we should have asked obama to explain what his change was going to be.

Joe:

Excellent, precise account of Timothy Geithner. Eric Holder isn't far behind in being caught up in the Fast and Furious Campaign with supplying guns/Mexico/drug cartels.--

Obama will not fire these 2, because it will once again, make Obama look bad.

Obama does not make his "own" decisions. He is incapable and heavily relies on anyone's advice; people who have been helpful to him. It was a payback when he took these 2 on board--

All Politicians do this, except some are "clean".

Between June 2009, when the recession officially ended, and June 2011, inflation-adjusted median household income fell 6.7 percent, to $49,909....

Hmm, about what a public school teacher makes around here with a Master's degree and over 10 years of experience.

Just an observation.

I'm with Mr. Farber, who's quoted in the article as saying:

“As a labor economist, I do not think the recession has ended,” Mr. Farber said. “Job losers are having more trouble than ever before finding full-time jobs.”

Absolutely! This is nowhere near over... Add to that the constant influx of graduates looking for work, and who will likely know more advanced technologies (requiring less training time) and the fact that, in order to be employed, they'll take a little less pay, and you've got a lot of competition for laid-off folks.

Mr. Farber added that this downturn was “fundamentally different” from most previous ones. Historically, other economists say, financial crises and debt-caused bubbles have led to deeper, more protracted downturns.

And this is due to the misguided thought that government can "stimulate" the economy via deficit spending...

You don't spend what you don't have. Apparently, that concept, as well as the fact that economies are cyclical are alien concepts to this and many previous administrations.

Okay, I'm confused, since when can we cure a recession over the weekend??

Since the god king said it was so.....remember "the economy has turned a corner...."

remember it is all about the optics, the visual, and the re-election......

replytoj001

It makes me laugh every time I heard someone say 'the recession is over.' Tell that to the unemployed for months to years. We have food banks and shelters demanding food and bed donations. There are articles about the rise in homeless children attending schools. Everything costs more. Foreclosures are up.

And the recession is over?

When the economy grows at a lesser rate than population growth, I dont call that a growing economy hehe. Yes, you are right, it is easy to manipulate statistics.

Another reason for the drop in household incomes is the large number of illegals taking jobs in this country. The illegals not only work for less money, often less than the legal minimum wage, but their presence in the labor market also depresses wages for legal Americans. If Congress would implement mandatory E-Verify and enforce strict penalties on companies that knowingly hire illegals, we would see our economy turn around in no time. In addition, getting rid of the illegals who cost the state and federal governments a fortune in benefits while paying little to nothing in, we could make a significant dent in the budget deficit as well.

Gees.. .here we are with that old saw again... tell that to the farmers in Alabama who cannot get anyone to harvest their rotting crops in the field.....

J S in S D... Do we blame the migrant worker, or the employer that hires them, or the consumer that insists on purchasing affordable durables, food, service, etc.

In this situation the government is not enforcing the law for the over-all betterment of the U.S. economy. Too many people looking the other way.

Start by holding the 'boss' accountable for not paying a livable wage, and passing that expense on to the consumer.

This does a perfect job at underlining the protests in NYC and the rest of the country. Frequently nicknamed 99ers as in a the representation of the bottom 99 % of the populous.

According to wall-street jargon and financial speak this may not qualify as a mathematical recession. Clearly the people disagree, insufficient jobs, education is LOOSING value, lack of education qualifies you for the streets. This is not the America of our parents, hard work and school alone are not enough any longer. In this america, you require connections. It is an america controlled by a politico legal elite. The connection to the bottom is becoming thinner and thinner.

I would suggest that this is the beginning of a political movement, we have had a tea party movement composed mostly of social conservatives. I would like to think that this could be even bigger. It was slow in the coming, however, already has gained union support. College students and unemployed are joining the protests. There appears to be a more then significant popular will to fight for change. Perhaps it is about time to for a 3rd party one that actually unites the unorganized protesters and and puts forth a political agenda embodying support for the middle class, restructures our tax code, and stays silent on social issues. This is not the time to be divided by social issues, it is time to restore the american middle class.

I think this all started with our unfair trade agreements. Just like Ross Perot said the giant sucking sound is our jobs leaving the country. We only have ourselfs to blame for buying import goods and services and not supported our own workers.

One reason pay has stagnated is that many people who lost their jobs in the recession — and remained out of work for months — have taken pay cuts in order to be hired again. In a separate study, Henry S. Farber, an economics professor at Princeton, found that people who lost jobs in the recession and later found work again made an average of 17.5 percent less than they had in their old jobs.

that is mostly because the jobs these people had are gone. someone on or off unemployment will take anything that makes them more money than unemployment, even if it is significantly less than their previous job, that is no longer available. i also think if the government gave the same deal to Americans as they did for illegals in paying a portion of wages to farmers, the farmers would actually hire Americans to do the jobs.

same old tabe tennis game going on, nothing has changed. recession is over/never ended... from my pov it never endednothing has been done for small buisness incentives to feel secure enough to hire, just more shovel ready jobs for the unions.... this only burdens the economy when the bill hits the people still able to pay income tax.

I voted for Ross Perot, people told me I was naive. Free trade has basically taken the wealth of the middle class and shipped it to poorer countries. I have no sympathy for Alabama farmers who can't get their crops in without illegals, pay a living wage and you will have 5 applicants for each position. How long does it take to pick a tomato? Greed, Greed, Greed.

I also voted for Ross Perot, in fact that was the last time I voted in a presidential election. He was right about NAFTA. How`s that great sucking sound working out for y`all?

Who are these geniuses that are saying that the recession is over? I would like to see what kind of math they are using to come up with that statement.

Housing market is at the same level or worse since the 1930's.

Unemployment is rampant.

Schools and other institutions are getting slashed, etc.

Goes to s show that these people live in another world.

The problem with Perot was he wasn't good looking, we wasn't articulate and had zero skills in bamboozal. He told the truth which at the time was scary but none the less true. And the American people didn't want to hear it, they weren't used to hearing the truth and that is still true today.

Politics today is like a game. Like my Cincinnati Bengal. That's my team and I will go see them if I have to wear a papaerbag over my head. Win at all costs even if means the nation crumbles to it's knees. That is the attitude of many voters these days.

Obama's propaganda ministry, the MSM, is still trying to convince us that the recession ended by dutifully pushing the Regime's manipulated numbers. Unfortunately for them, more Americans are seeing through the Regime's lies every day.

I've gone from recession to depression. No hope, no change. Things just keep getting worse.

It's kind of like government basing inflation on certain prices. If one item causes more inflation, the government takes it off the list so their projected numbers can be met.

Obama's propaganda ministry, the MSM, is still trying to convince us that the recession ended by dutifully pushing the Regime's manipulated numbers. Unfortunately for them, more Americans are seeing through the Regime's lies every day.

But will people vote the "regime" and allof the underlings out?

replytoj001

What is One Term Allowed (the movement) all about? What are the objectives?

Overturn The Community Reinvestment Act and bring about sane risk
based banking, loan approvals based on ability to repay, and avoid the pitfall
of approving loans only to create a future problem for the taxpayer.

Outlaw Political Action Committees

Prosecute the current members of Congress for crimes already committed (Jefferson for taking bribes and others for tax evasion) and prosecute others if they took bribes in return for selling their vote to special interest in detriment to the well being of America (bribes from AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc. to vote for reckless banking and low credit standards, etc.)

Bring back Glass Steagle for any bank insured by government funds. If the government is going to insure your bank deposits, then the bank should not be allowed to speculate in risky derivatives and credit default swaps and ollateralized Debt obligations. And if a business fails, let it fail. Do not allow the government to step in and prop it up. Let it fail and let the well run businesses pick up the assets for cents on the dollar and become large, more competitive well run businesses.

Securities Ratings - Pass legislation that will require any rating agency that rates
securities to be held financially accountable for the ratings given. Since the current rating system is one in which there is no accountability because the ratings are simply an opinion (this is the legal defense against being sued) , then stop allowing opinions to be attached to a security and start requiring an audited opinion to be attached to the security complete with exposure for liability if the security rating was negligent or inflated. Make it a criminal act to issue an opinion on a security without being licensed to do so, just like we have made it a criminal act to practice medicine and other professions without being licensed, and require
special purpose liability insurance for ratings agencies as a requirement of being licensed. Require the Federal Reserve to hold all such insurance policies. And finally, change the rating metrics from AAA, AAB, etc. (a really goofy rating metric in a digital world) to a rating of 1-1 to 100-100 representing the percent
probability that a debt will be repaid in full and on time. A rating of 98-70 would indicate a 98% probability of eventual full payment with a 70% probability that payment would occur on time. This is called transparency.

Bring about voter reform – namely only registered voters in the jurisdiction (federal, state, or local) of the election can make campaign contributions to a candidate or to a political party. No more PAC funds from out of state mucking
up the election results of a candidate in a different state. No more contributions from PAC’s (outlaw PAC’s altogether), unions, or corporations. They can’t vote, so they should not be allowed to make a campaign contribution. Only registered voters can make contributions. Failing to verify the contribution against an official "for election use" registered voter list and accepting the campaign funds will result in the disqualification of the candidate doing this. If you can’t vet your funds, you are not smart enough to serve in office, so you are disqualified for accepting improper funds. Any contributions that can not be reliably connected to the official "for election use" registered voter list will be immediately turned over to a special government fund used to reduce the debt of that jurisdiction whether federal, state, or local. This would include contributions made using prepaid credit cards (this one was for you Mr. Obama). All contributions that can not be traced to a legitimate registered voter will be used to curtail debt and will not be
refundable to the contributor.

Eliminate the GSE’s of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac altogether. Create new GSE’s, one for each federal reserve bank, with each new GSE serving under the direction of and reporting to the federal reserve bank president. Every GSE would have a balance sheet limit of 400 billion dollars. Every federal reserve president would pledge his federal reserve bank to stand behind any security instruments created by the GSE he controlled. Credit practices, management practices, audit practices, etc. would be the responsibility of the federal reserve president, who would have total authority over the GSE including firing and hiring of anagement.
Every federal reserve bank president would report to the chairman of the
federal reserve and the chairman would report to congress. The Chairman of the federal reserve would be hired by the Senate, and approved by the Supreme Court – a body that is removed from the politics of the moment. The president would not be involved in the selection of the chairman at all.

Cut the size of government by eliminating or downsizing drastically
the Departments of:

Labor, Energy, Commerce, Homeland Security, and Eliminate the
Department of Education

Cut taxes. Cut taxes. Cut taxes.

Cut Congressional Pay. Abolish all automatic pay raises for Congress and put in a pay system that adjusts pay to the trailing three year average wage of constituents, capped at 2 times the average wage of the congressman’s constituents. Want higher Congressional pay? Then raise the standard of living of the people you serve. Congress is using the argument of poor performance to knock down the compensation of private sector management based on poor performance. Since there is no body of management that has done a worse job then congress, we should adjust their pay accordingly. Why should Congress be any different?

Bring about Term limits of one term allowed and take away retirement plans and other special benefit plans from Congress. What is good enough for the people is good enough for the Congress. Do this retro-actively. After all, Congress has
already set the example of retro-active legislation. Let’s use it effectively.

Dismantle the socialist programs that are destroying discretionary incomes once and for all, and create regional and local specialized welfare institutions to provide better care at lower cost while providing employment opportunities in construction and day to day operations of these institutions. If the government is going
to take care of its citizens, then at least do it in an economically efficient
manner.

Allow school vouchers which allow the parent to choose where the
voucher is spent including at retail stores for supplies or anywhere else the
parent wants to spend the voucher if the full voucher is not spent on the
schooling itself. Yes, this will be the end of government dominated public school, but so what. It is not like the government has done a great job or anything. Let private schools flourish without the redundancy of expense and let everyone have access to a quality education and let competition bring up the standards.

Change the income tax code to a much simpler tax collection process
by taxing spending, not earnings. Eliminate personal income taxes altogether other than the tax on spending. Eliminate the Tax code which is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth plan that has been codified. Eliminate Corporate Income taxes as well. Simply pay your tax when you buy something whether business or an individual.

The movement is One Term Allowed

The mission is to fire congress entirely and replace it with a group elected for one term only. We must do this soon as the voting block is already so close to being
controlled by government handouts that in a few more election cycles we may
lose control for good.

A recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth. People are complaining about the definition of a word they don't know the meaning of.

What has happened is class warfare. There is a new standard of living for the middle class. Tax cuts for the rich and corporations, budget cuts for everyone else.

Or rather complaining about the meaning of a word they don't know the definition of. Caught it.

The recession ended technically because companies themselves were able to make money. But with all of the outsourcing and hoarding of money by the top 5% or so, there hasn't been enough circulation of US currency throughout the public.

This is why they're protesting Wall St. If capitalism is going to work, people need to have money to spend. If these morons keep looking for ways to keep it for themselves, they'll have no one to whom they can sell their products , the idea of a singular currency and the concept of the US Dollar will become increasingly worthless, and our economy cannot grow or recover.

They can cry and bitch and moan about "class warfare" (which they're waging against the rest of society themselves, anyway), but when the richest 5% are sitting on a bank account full of worthless dollar bills and end up being as poor as everyone else, they're going to be thankful that someone tried to show them how their greed is choking the life out of our economy.

Excellent comment dEd Grimley that hits the target dead center for our economic woes.

Did the media mean to say the Recession has ended for the wealthy only? Naturally the Republicans would like to see the Recession remain in order to keep the public in check, force low wages while supplying ridiculously overly generous benefits to the CEO's and their Board Members(called "Corporate Slavery"), to provide another excuse for blaming Obama, take over the Country, keep the economy down until they take over D.C., and a firm hold on the tax loopholes and benefits for only their wealthy elite , take away all benefits from the middle class, poor, elderly, and disabled, and controlling as to who votes by cutting back the amount of voting days and redistricting in their favor. We're tired of paying the taxes for the wealthy with our low wages.

Glenn,

I like some of your "One Term Allowed" suggestions, but a few really trample on the First Amendment. I would suggest that if OTA wants serious respect, it should reconsider:

Campaign contributions and PACs. They're legal because they are central to the First Amendment right to free association, speech, and to petition the government for redress of grievances. Take away the ability for people to combine their resources together and you've pretty much silenced them. By the way, you might also note that the restrictions on jurisdiction would outlaw most of what the political parties do.

The suggestion about making the rating agencies responsible for bad ratings would be impossible to enforce. First, if you did, you would turn the ratings agencies into bond insurers. That's not their business. But suppose you did make them responsible. OK, if a AAA rated security fails, then they're responsible. What if that rate a security AA and it fails? Then what? Are they liable for the full value? What if they rate it B or C? You see the problem, right?

Finally, no matter how much you dislike Congress, surely you don't want it made up only of people who can afford to work for peanuts, do you? (Yes, I know that many are well-off, but not all are.) For myself, I want people who wouldn't think of working for a mediocre salary.

Glen-

you are a moron.

What socialist programs? You don't know much about socialism do you?

We have social programs designed to help old and poor, Should we start throwing them on street? I can go only but it would be waste of my time. stop watching FOX

Everyone should listen to the President and stop the whining and complaining, after all this IS the change we can believe in - get used to it.

We say we believe in a fre market economy. Do we? If we do, why isn't a college education valued according to the worth of a degree in the marketplace? Kids are going to some private schools and paying astronomical costs, of their own free will, but degrees from many of those schools are not tranalating into jobs commensurate with that level of education.

Yes, attendance is voluntary. But, what are your chances if you have no degree? Public institutions of higher learning cannot accomodate everyone, so even though they offer a generally lower cost, they are not always available.

The price of education is paralleling what happened in the housing market. High costs, then loss of value. Thus, paying a premium price for something that no longer has a premium value.If a college education is now the equivalent of a high school diploma, then the cost of that education should refelct that fact.

Hi Economan,

I dont believe the first ammendment gives the right to organizations to fund a particular person or party. Sure, you can free associate, speak, and petition for redress, but why must money be involved in these matters. For example, if PAC money from a particular corporation is given to a potential candidate, what does the funder expect in return? And if the contributor is say, for example only, Merck Pharm.- who has the money to counter the PAC contribution? Whereas you have a single entity providing PAC money you would need thousand upon thousand of people to form enough money to counter lobby. This to me is legalized bribery, nothing more.

Let me say I understand your point but I don't believe to founders thought they would have bidding wars on campaigns and elections.

The full 9.8 percent drop in income from the start of the recession to this June appears to be the largest in several decades, according to other Census Bureau data. Gordon W. Green Jr., who wrote the report with John F. Coder, called the decline “a significant reduction in the American standard of living.”

For there to be a winner, there must be a loser; and for Asia to rise, someone must decline. Unfortunately, it's us.

The recession IS over.

The economy has simply readjusted and this is the new economic good times. The result of Free Trade is not cheaper goods at Wal-Mart. It started with the loss of our jobs, and now is in it's next phase. US workers have to compete globally against people from China and other countries. Meaning competitive wages when compared to what people China make. And similar benefits.

This is simply the result of Washington sending our jobs overseas. Bush wrote it, Clinton signed it, the republicans backed it, and Obama just added to it with the signing of S. Korea, Columbia and Panama Free Trade Agreements, supported by GE and Caterpillar.

I'm sure for the benefit of the Wall Street protesters.

Free Trade is NEVER free. In fact, it comes with the cost of our economy, and way of life!

Sally, be reasonable.

Dismantle the socialist programs that are destroying discretionary incomes once and for all, and create regional and local specialized welfare institutions to provide better care at lower cost while providing employment opportunities in construction and day to day operations of these institutions. If the government is going
to take care of its citizens, then at least do it in an economically efficient
manner.

A bit vague there Glen? I did not see cut the military on your Tea Party wish list.

Let me see ... we came out of a recession in '09, and now (it is FEARED!) we are going back into a recession. I know several people with grad degrees who are unemployed ("overqualified") or who took significant pay cuts just to get another job. Been in the grocery store lately and looked at the price of basic food staples?

Yeah, right ... I'm buying what these think-tank economists are selling. Wonder how much these guys get paid to tell us this b.s. about our economy? I bet more than my friend with a master's degree, who took a 50% pay cut just to have a job!

Miker,

I believe the Founding Fathers were as aware of "money" in politics as are we. They were far less "democratic" than we are, too. They designed the Constitution to protect themselves not just from the government, but from government run by the everyday rabble.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that "money" is speech. As was noted in Colonial days, freedom of the press belongs to he who owns the press. I would also point out that corporations are nothing more than like-minded people banding together for a common cause - the essence of the First Amendment.

As for considering contributions to be legalized bribery, I think that's a little harsh. I get your point, but let me ask you this: Suppose you were a Congressman. Would your vote be for sale? Remember, you don't get to keep the campaign contributions; all you can use them for is campaigning.

I'd like to think that most people would not be for sale. Of course, if someone helps your campaign (a lot), you're likely to at least listen to and consider what he has to say, right?

I have another (minority) belief. That is that campaign contributions follow the candidate, not the other way around. Steve Forbes spent $60 million of his own money in 2000 and barely got a handful of delegates to the Republican convention. Elections aren't bought so easily.

Not that anyone has asked me to run the country, but if I did, I'd get rid of all limits on campaign spending. As the Founding Fathers noted, the antidote to "bad" speech is more speech. I think they had it about right.

Economan,

I agree that the First Amendment gives individuals and groups the right to express their support for their favorite political candidates, including directly funding their own adds via TV, radio, billboards, etc. However, when that "support" results in the giving of money directly to political campaigns, where that amount of money is often extremely large and comes from "anonymous" sources when laundered through politically motivated organizations courtesy of our SCOTUS, then I don't agree that the First amendment applies, and have to ask: Exactly what is the difference between an excessively large "campaign contribution" and a "bribe"? Perhaps you could give us a very clear cut, definitive explanation of the difference, and if you can, I will gladly use it the next time I get stopped for speeding and offer a $20 bill to the police officer as an expression of my First Amendment rights.

For there to be a winner, there must be a loser; and for Asia to rise, someone must decline. Unfortunately, it's us.

Yes, and this is truly a foreign policy trade fiasco by Western nations. America as bad as any. One party stresses the virtues of a global free market, the other stresses the virtues of government stimuli. Have a quick read below to see how, together, these have created jobs ($250/month, in Thailand on the heels of Vejjajiva's martial law with military troops in the streets due to wage protests) at GM (a bailout [loan] recipient)...

asiancorrespondent.com/40261/monthly-wages-for-manufacturing-workers-in-thailand-now-lower-than-in-china

(and as the Bangkok article implies, if you simply subtract out the government stimuli party, the other party will still have Ford doing the same $250/month in Thailand)

When the shift is over, those Thai workers don't ever walk through the door of our American small businesses... and consider how much discretionary goods/services $250/month buys... Thai, American, or otherwise. Four or five breadwinners in each household to simply survive. Much the same story with India's $1K/month white collar job and its discretionary income. Waiting for the third world pay increases to fill the gap is not a short-term solution. There are 5 billion at/below that level...

epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_20071114

Is this temporary? No, it is permanent, unless we change our foreign policies...

thehackettgroup.com/about/alerts/alerts_2010/alert_12022010.jsp

...the future is $1K/month salaries, if we sit on our hands and wait like good little sheeple.

lmao here. Tell that to all the 9.2 % unemployed Americans and the businesses that are going under here in America.

The people aren't stupid, and the recession is far from being over.

Yeah: "A bit vague there Glen? I did not see cut the military on your Tea Party wish list."

===========

.........Yeah, I didn't see anything there about one of the biggest entitlements our country has - the Farm Subsidy. It goes mostly to the self-sufficient, small government "red" states, with Iowa being the largest recipient (the state where all our current crop of GOP presidential hopefuls go to kick off their campaigns, you won't see any of them talking about ending that entitlement, on the other hand, who needs SS or Medicare).

Excerpt from Wikipedia:

Farm subsidies

First introduced to help small farmers during the Great Depression, federal farm aid has grown to include tax loopholes, direct payments, price guarantees, insurance programs and low-interest loans.

Last year, these programs cost the federal government $15 billion. And if no changes are made, the average yearly cost over the next 10 years will remain about the same, says the Congressional Budget Office. From 1995 to 2009, federal farm subsidies cost about a quarter of a trillion dollars, says the Environmental Working Group, which tracks farm subsidies.

And rather than benefiting small farmers, almost 75% of the agricultural subsidies go to the largest 10% of U.S. farms, the EWG estimates. Among the recipients is Pilgrim's Pride (PPC, news). (Find a complete list of recipient here).

Farm subsidies have the direct effect of transferring income from the general tax payers to farm owners. The justification for this transfer and its effects are complex and often controversial.

"Most of these are welfare payments," says Brookings
Institution tax expert Bill Frenzel, a former advisor to Presidents Bill Clinton
and George W. Bush on trade and tax matters, "(And)
the extra rub there is they go to large farm producers."

A large reason why agricultural policy has favored farmers over the course of United States history is because farmers tend to have favorable proportional political representation in government. The United States Senate tends to grant more power per person to inhabitants of rural states. Also, because the United States House of Representatives is re-apportioned only every 10 years by the United States Census, and population tends to shift from rural to urban areas, farmers are often left with greater proportional power until the re-apportionment is complete.

Also, the majority of agricultural policy research is funded by the USDA. Some economists believe this creates an incentive for government intervention to persist because, among other considerations, the USDA will most likely not fund research criticizing its own activities.

...Seta, we've simply perfected the bleeding of America by including $100K white collar jobs. Technology improvements of this last decade have accelerated offshoring immensely. People can share data in real time between continents. To the point where my US-based design team communicates with other continents live over WebEx and Skype. And I can browse files on their hard drives in India as easily as the files on my own PC on my desk. Ten years ago, that would have been done by phone and FedEx. I mentioned my US-based design team. Yes, but it is half the size it was in 2004... management replaced them with others in cheap Eastern Europe (almost as cheap as India, but better business skills).

Economan

In 1971, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act which permitted Political Action Committees to make larger contributions to Congressional candidates than allowed by law for individuals. Prior to this "reform" that was not the case. Just why do you think congress voted to allow PAC's the ability to bundle unlimited funds and give those funds to members of congress seeking re-election if not to create political dynasties at the expense of diminishing your voice in the process. And all congress has to do to get those PAC funds is vote the way the PAC wants them to vote. In short, what congress setup was a farmers market to sell their votes to the PAC's and special interests.

Oddly enough, the early 1970's was about the time when trade agreements ran amok, when policy got skewed to the global corporations, when even Sears was caught paying illegal kickbacks to Japanese manufacturers of electronics (Nixon administration) and we did nothing about it, and it was about the early 1970's that we started losing industry after industry to bad trade deals that were being enacted by congress, bought and paid for by the PAC's and special interests.

I will debate historical fact with anyone on this blog. I am prepared to do so. What I know of history tells the story of how we planted the seeds for a corrupt congress and our own economic demise in the 1970's, and those seeds have been well fertilized and cared for ever since. And look where we are now.

People that want to blame Obama or Bush, have it all wrong. Congress makes the deals, congress spends the money, and fixing congress is the answer.

And to you Maksim80

First, stop the name calling. It has not worked for Obama and will not work for you. If you don't like the message, then debate the message, but stop trying to destroy the messenger. That is a very low brow tendency and one that has no place in a free society. I will say that this tactic did in fact work for Hitler and the Brown shirts, but that was a long time ago and ended up costing them dearly because when you stifle the free and open exchange of ideas with such tactics, you limit the quantity and quality of ideas to be considered and will always end up with bad policy decisions, which we have done in this country for far too long.

So stop the name calling if you can, and if you can't well, then go ahead and act like a child if you must.

Seta,

You could make the same/better argument without interjecting the racial hatred.

It's not the fault of the Chinese or Japanese for selling the US consumer goods. They are doing exactly what they should be doing. Taking advantage of the US Economy that was given to them on a silver platter by Washington, before our politicians figure it out and start protecting jobs through Tariffs.

Fair Trade vs. Free Trade. Bring the jobs back!

I agree in full. This new tactic of blaming our trading partners (rather than congress admitting that they have really screwed things up) sounds all too much like the first salvo of a trade war.

The only thing dumber than running our economy into the ground with too much government, too much socialized living expenses, lopsided trade agreements designed for the US to fail, and too much taxation and debt to pay for these errors of management, would be for congress and the other elected and appointed "leadership" to start a trade war when we already have so many our of work. Do I think the government is dumb enough to do this? Yes, sadly I do.

Once again I'm seeing numerous comments closed by the community due to nothing more than disagreement.

If you disagree with someones opinions and/or beliefs, that's fine; It's your prerogative. But collapsing comments because you think others' ideas are wrong or "just stupid" is juvenile at best, and is not conducive to honest, cordial discourse. This practice precludes others from reading comments in their entirety.

Disagreement is the prime motivation for cordial debate. Seems like maybe some people can't stand the thought of opinions differing from their own and choose to abuse the reporting [!] button. I have nothing but contempt for those whom do.

A few points:

1) the recession never ended for the middle and lower socio-economic classes. Every single stat points to the lack of an end except the US govt's and the Wall Streeters. It may have taken a very short breather, but it seems to be gaining momentum again -in a negative direction. A major Belgian bank was taken over by the govt today, so tell me why that makes the stock market rise here? Who's buying that stock to make it climb?

2) The "Occupy Wall Street" protesters seemed to be an unruly group of disenchanted Americans with no organized purpose. So everyone pooh poohed them off as nothing. Then the middle class joined in (i.e. unions, teachers, gov't workers ect), and the politicians started paying attention. The middle class is also the majority of the voting class, so now this "group" of protestors must be patronized by the media and the politicians. I'd like to remind (or inform you if you are young) you that students protested the Vietnam War for years. Nothing happened until the middle class voter had had enough and started complaining. The U.S. pulled out when that happened, just to get the voters off the politicians backs.

3) The Tea Party was not a "socially conservative" group. It was and still is a fiscally conservative group. Or at least it started out that way. It's original purpose was less government and lower taxes by default of that action. Some socially conservative politicians claimed membership, so the media rewrote the original intent. I'm not sure that it has moved from that point, but the main stream media says it has so it must be true. Right? By the way, notice that that group got waylaid by the new one in media coverage.

4) The only thing the rich fear is loss of their money. The only thing politicians fear is loss of their rich supporters money and the votes they can buy with it. If the majority of Americans want change, then they must stop whining and take action. Stop buying the stuff the rich people sell unless it is a necessity of life. Try to make the latter American produced, made, owned. An iPhone5 is not a necessity. Don't put your money in the stock market. I know the "financial advisors" repeatedly tell you it takes at least 7 to 10 years to make money, but the fact of the matter is, the rich are making money off of you and there's seldom any left for you. I know, if you had bought Apple stock in 1997, you'd be rich, but very few are aware of that inside info ahead of time. Again the rich get the money. LEt them play with each other awhile.

AS for the politicians, they are entrenched on both sides. They are beholden to the rich who finance their campaigns, not the people. We're just the idiots that following the one with the most glitz (money). Almost, if not all, all will have to be voted out. A new majority must be put in. I don't mean a new party in power, I mean a whole new group from both parties. The few entrenched that remain can keep digging until the entrenchement is deep enough to be his/her grave. The new ones have to cooperate and compromise.

5) We, the American people, must also relearn to respect differing points of view and come to a compromise that is beneficial to the most people. We need to stop shouting insults at each other and blaming the other side for all that ails us. We have let this current fiasco of a government occur, and it has taken many years to get here. It will take at least a few to really get out, too. Pay attention to your rep, and what he or she is voting for. Check their history. I think you find, that no matter which party they said they were, that they've been voting for the rich all along. If you want change, it must be a joint effort else it will only get worse.

I would say keeping wars going on in two country's is what is truly benefiting this country. Our tax dollars are hard at work destroying and building new infrastructure AT OTHER COUNTRY'S, BRAVO!

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what is wrong with our economy. If I had the physical ability to organize a protest and make demands at Wall St, this would be my number 1 priority.

The Corporate Military Complex is going to be the death of this nation! Those millions of tax dollars being spent there everyday should be used to build THIS NATION and improve OUR OWN ECONOMY!

Say no, to war and say yes, to jobs!

Middle class America is angry because it was bad decisions by our government, Big Business, financial institutions, and the Fed that led to the great recession. Yet, here were are coming out of it, and those institutions are smelling like roses with their $billions, and yet those who suffered are still left behind with less. All of this at a time when Big Business says it shouldnt be taxed more, and tax loopholes shouldnt be closes. The have a lot of nerve. Can't believe anyone believes the GOTPers and their Big Business puppetmasters.

Yet one more attempt to promote the lie that the recession is over. These "recession over" declarations pop up every once in a while when someone discovers a new way to twist some statistics to make it appear so. Meanwhile, as evident to pretty much everyone, nothing has changed.

The only thing dumber ... would be for congress and the other elected and appointed "leadership"to start a trade war when we already have so many our of work

Glenn,

In all due respect, such an argument sounds a bit like European history circa 1939. If we sit quietly and not offend, 'they' will leave us alone. Each passing year we will be in a weaker economic condition. More technology exported, less skilled workers in America. The speed of current technology advances creates obsolescence in half the time it did 15 years ago (even the most basic of concepts, printed books has become influnced by devices like the Kindle).

I truly wish we had a choice of whether to stop/slow this technology drain or not. But we as a nation find ourselves at truly a major crossroads -- either just another third world country where 1% hold the wealth, or retain our middle class society.

The rich get richer, the middle class is disappearing, and the gap between the rich and the poor widens.

And they say that socialism causes a shift in wealth!? I think an unfair tax rate system causes a shift in wealth.

Kev Bitz

Gees.. .here we are with that old saw again... tell that to the farmers in Alabama who cannot get anyone to harvest their rotting crops in the field.....

Try making those Alabama Farmers pay minimum wage, or at least more than $10 a DAY! THATS why they cant get workers.

free trade is causing the shift of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy.why pay a living wage to an american when you can hire a chinese worker for a dollar an hour.its why youre seeing protests in many cities right now.our government isnt representing us anymore it represents only the rich.end free trade/job exporting now and get rid of these politicians that forget us as soon as theyre elected

Eric....get off your Liberal bandwagon....the Recession IS NOT OVER.

johnQcitizen.....

1. "why pay a living wage to an american when you can hire a chinese worker for a dollar an hour."

Tell that to Mr. Obama's Jobs Czar (CEO GE) who has shipped more jobs to China than probably any other U.S. company, and just recently shipped GE's Health Care division to China, and this TURKEY is supposed to create jobs in the U.S. Get the FACTS before spewing your Class Warfare propaganda.

2. "get rid of these politicians that forget us as soon as theyre elected."

Tell that to Mr. Obama who has focused only on election paybacks to his campaign donors, special interest groups, and close friends (i.e., Stimulus, Omnibus, Cash for Clunkers, Cash for Appliances, Weatherization Program, Solyndra, Stimulus #2, etc.). Get the FACTS first, then target comments to the appropriate person.

it is class warfare.its the government and the rich verses the rest of us.who favors job exporting.the government and the rich.neither party represents us.the protests your seeing around the country are proof your lies arent working.its not republican verses democrate.its class warfare the rich verses the rest of us.be afraid were gathering for war

lost your job?lost your home?have you been free trade/job exported?want to do something positive.join us in your city centers protesting a congress that represents only the rich.fight back

Citizen John.

The Rich understand that a health middle class is needed for a healthy economy.

The Aristocrats, the ones like Buffet that pay taxes at 17% because the bulk of their money is taxed at a capital gains rate, 15% don't care.

And they are the ones in step with both parties in Washington that claim to represent the middle class, and their jobs.

I voted for Obama, and was very disappointed to find that he was no better than the Republicans at keeping jobs in this country. I can't wait to hear him argue for all the new jobs that will be created via exports, justifying his signing of the S. Korea, Panama and Columbia Free Trade agreement.

Has anyone stopped to think that the reason that most corporations are not hiring is that it makes President Obama look bad? This is the goal of the GOP/TP party.....you can bet that if a Republican gets elected to be President, all of a sudden, the jobs will flow like wine!! There's a reason why big corporations are sitting on their profits and not hiring.....and we know that reason! The Republicans want President Obama to be a one-term president because they are AFRAID of him....and we're AFRAID of what they would do in his stead!!

I didn't realize the recession was over, or that I was better off. I guess I need the lefty Dems to persuade me of that. Sory, I'm not one of your sheeple, you can't convince me, Dems.

Didi, I've had that very thought. Astute observation and extrapolative thought processes do not seem to be the forte of most people.

This will be the downfall of our country.

z

Didi - It is much more basic thinking than any such plan. Rather, this is bottom line profit. The employment pressure is global... only the cheapest need apply. Today, if you are talking about a senior mgmt position, that is still often an American. If you have an very unique skill (like physics) found nowhere else in the world, that is still often an American. However, if it is a skill that can be found in India, China, Vietnam, Thailand, etc. (like general computer science, accounting), then they will always pay them and not a Western worker (at a fraction, such as $250/month or even $150/month)...

khamerlogue.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/abandoning-china-in-search-of-cheap-labor-businesses-turn-to-viet-nam/

...and the pressure is constant regardless of the location...

bangkokpost.com/news/local/250791/cheap-foreign-labour-driving-down-thai-wages

JohnQCitizen...Well let's see now. Bain Consulting, Mitty's billion dollar company crashed more small US businesses and sent jobs offshore for profit. So...Yep. Another Republican is what this country needs.

Course now, there's always Big Oil Pretty Boi Perry who can't utter a single sentence that doesn't include the word "Texas". Too bad he's pretty closed mouthed about that $27 billion shortfall in his state. Yep. Just what we need another big talking, braggart blowhard big spender Republican.

If the only candidates Republicans know how to put in office are raggedy relic businessmen, that's not saying much for their Republican base.

Didi/Madison.

To think that corporations are all together, from Human Resources to the CEO's to prevent hiring simply to outs Obama is insane.

Corporations are in business to make money. They will invest their resources, best they know how to accomplish that goal. The money will not sit in a cash position simply because companies, in general want a new president. Regardless of party.

If a corporation perceives one party better for their self interests than another, they will donate to one campaign or another. But to hold the money in cash, in hopes that it will bring down a presidency is not realistic.

@CommonSense-909609 -- Government statistics, like a lot of government policies, were created by Wall Street for the benefit of Wall Street. The recession on Wall Street ended when the Treasury and the Fed began pumping money into the banks (and financial markets).

That 'free' money along with the subsidized redistribution of equity from Main Street to Wall Street has allowed the 1% to prosper. The success of the 1% is being sustained with bailouts, 'business friendly' subsidies, and 'investor' favoritism built into the tax code. The 1% are not earning their success - it is being given to them.

But the 'free' money is not really free. The cost of that 'free' money given to Wall Street is higher inflation, stagnant wages, and anemic job creation. Main Street is paying the price for Wall Street's success ...

cdahl...Sorry to burst your innocence platform. Ever hear of corporation lobbyists? How many former politicians can you name who worked for huge corporations before they were elected? How many of them are now right back in the saddle helping those same corporations as their chief lobbyists?

Built into every single corporation budget is the cost of lobbying. And just what do you suppose that lobbying is all about if not to get the politicians they want who will do their bidding?

Why do you think the Tea Party was organized by 2 billionaires and one former senator?

Has anyone stopped to think that the reason that most corporations are not hiring is that it makes President Obama look bad?

Does anyone over the age of 5 want to lose everything they've worked their whole lives for to make someone "look bad?" It says something about the maturity level of the liberal "they're just out to get Obama" crowd when they say completely stupid things like this. True, there might be some politicians who would be perfectly happy to watch other people lose everything they have if it means re-election for themselves, but those who have everything to lose? People and companies? Absolutely not. At this point, anyone who isn't broke, and any business still in business, is holding onto cash reserves because they're not idiots. No one is going to hire employees they don't need because business is still down; no one is going to hire employees they won't be able to pay four months from now if business doesn't improve (and who seriously believes that it will); no one wants to hire employees when they have no idea how much they, as an employer, are going to have to shell out per employee in the ever-murky Obamacare debacle over the next year or two. Contary to liberal belief, businesses are not in business to benefit employees - they are in business to make money and until it makes financial sense to hire (ie, more people buying their goods and services, requiring more staff to service the increased need), they're not going to hire. End of story.

Until people start buying products and services, no one is going to step up hiring. Yes, there is a chicken-and-egg problem - how to get enough recovery to get an improvement in business, and thus stimulate hiring. Unfortunately for us, we have Obama in charge while we're trying to figure out this puzzle.

Every day I have a worse opinion of Obama, and it was pretty low to begin with. Even so, I have a vested interest in him succeeding. I don't have another time and place to live my life. I have everything to gain if everything turns out rainbows and unicorns under Obama. I am not "hoping that he fails" but I am frustrated that people were foolish enough to vote for someone who was poorly suited to the presidency in good times and completely unable to handle the unusually challenging conditions that we are currently presented with. Unfortunately, he has taken a decline and mucked it up beyond all repair or rescue.

@ Ewent,

I'll agree with you there, and if you reread my statement I'm trying to say that corporations do not sit on "piles of cash" simply to increase US economic pressure and put another party into office, as Didi was trying to state. They are better off following the lead of big oil, contributing $50,000 and getting Billions back in tax incentives. Neither side has a respectable reputation for taking campaign cash. The only reason each side gives the money is for a result that make the contributor better off.

I for one will not let either party get off Scott-free The Democrats are just as guilty as the Republicans. Both parties put their self-preservation interests in front of the good of the nation.

Nor was I trying to make the point that large corporations are innocent. They are in business to maximize profits. And keeping money in a cash account does not meet that goal.

cdahl...Those piles of cash total $13 trillion in offshore taxfree havens. I don't blame the conceptual government as much as I do individual politicians in bed with corporations.

Most of our government workers are far more trustworthy than the foreign workers government contractors are hiring to supply the government with "smaller government". That's one aspect no one considered.

We can have the smallest government possible. It just won't be Americans doing government jobs. It will private contractors raking in huge profits by selling off contracted government work to foreign laborers.

I've worked for 3 Fortune 50 Corporations. I never saw a single CEO who didn't make the final chief decisions. Therefore, corporations are to blame for the decisions they make just as we are expected to be responsible for the decisions we make. The difference is that most individual Americans consider the common good of their country, not the common good of their bank accounts as do corporations.

Very true Ewent, very true.

I'm all for cutting government where it makes sense, but to cut just to hire an outside foreign contractor, insane. And it is more than obvious for me to state that today's CEO's controlling large public companies are in it for their own ego and self economic wealth. It is why they line the boards to side with their decisions.

The same way they try to line up politicians. And with some it's working all to well.

cdahl...The dirty little secret most of us don't ever hear about goes on in the corporate boardrooms. This is where they really cut American jobs. And all they have to do is send a few well-positioned hacks with lots of corporate money to countries like China, India, Mexico and Thailand to sign off on labor contracts and it's what they like to call it a "done deal".

If I wanted to speak to a US government agent in India, I'd move to India. I want to pick up a phone, call a government agency and know it's an American worker taking my personal information. Not someone in a foreign country earning so little they'd sell that private information to the highest bidder.

Same old story, if an illegal can take a persons job there are reasons for that, 1 they complain to much, 2 they are lazy, 3 they are plain stupid, 4 always makes excuses for their own failure, Get educated instead of singing the same old tune ......

Ewent,

You'd be amazed at how easy it is for some people to come up to me at tradeshows or other business functions and discuss how it would be in my best interest to shut down lines and move them overseas. The translation is that I can make even more money.

Of course it comes with the cost of eliminating jobs of those pesky workers. I mean, all they do is bring everything they have to the job every day, families to our family events a couple of times per year and offer new ideas to improve our product offerings.

I just can't believe that some of those people say it with a straight face.

Roadhouse Blues,

To answer your first question, regardless of its size, a contribution is not a bribe unless there is a quid pro quo.

To use your analogy about the police, a campaign contribution would be like making a large donation to the Policeman's Benevolent Society or the Police Athletic League (provided there is nothing asked in return).

Now, if one goes to his representative and says "I see there's a vote on a bill that I really would like to have passed and I have a $20 bill in my hand (or a large check, to be realistic)" and you make it clear that the contribution is in return for a favorable vote, that's a bribe.

I don't believe that much of that happens. I do believe that certain people and organizations give large amounts of money to help insure the election of like-minded candidates - that's the essence of republican government. Others give money just so that they can have access to their reps. After all, a U.S. Representative represents over 600,000 citizens. There is no way they can consult with all of them.

I happen to be an individual who thinks money in politics is a good thing. It's about all that stops the bottom 51% from demanding and receiving a law that confiscates the wealth of the top 49% and gives it to them.

That said, I'm also opposed to big government. Powerful government always favors the powerful. The fewer favors the government can bestow on us, the better. As it is, they buy our votes with our own money.

By the way, you don't believe that your vote is "bought" by those large donors, do you? It's just the stupid people, right?

Glenn,

Just why do you think congress voted to allow PAC's the ability to bundle unlimited funds and give those funds to members of congress seeking re-election if not to create political dynasties at the expense of diminishing your voice in the process

I think the campaign "reform" laws were incumbent protection and re-election laws. They LIMIT what their opponents can raise. I say let the money flow.

As for debating history, I believe there's been corruption far longer than we've been around. From Ecclesiastes, "There's nothing new under the sun."

MtMike, in a heart beat. I find it highly insulting the way they come up with this information, then put it out to the public as though we are suppose to buy into it with no questions asked, lock, stock and barrel. Yep, we are known as the stupid American public in their book.

ABout 30% of the people I know in KY have lost their jobs in the last 3 years. About half them found new jobs. ALL make less on their new job than their last. And remeber, 15% don't have any job and are LOOKING HARD for one.

This is typical of the administration, a declaration by the POTUS makes it so.

Okay, I'm confused, since when can we cure a recession over the weekend??

Mac-101

ABout 30% of the people I know in KY have lost their jobs in the last 3 years. About half them found new jobs. ALL make less on their new job than their last. And remeber, 15% don't have any job and are LOOKING HARD for one

========

..........This is not a recent problem in this country. I and thousands of my fellow engineers got forced out of our jobs in 2001. At first I found some temporary, part time jobs, and finally, 5 years ago, I got a full time job, which I still have. HOwever, in terms of 2001 dollars, I only make about 25% of what I used to get. Still, I consider myself lucky to have that, as you say, 15% are still looking hard for work. I think of this when I see some of the clueless mouth breathers complaining that the Wall Street protestors should go get a job.....great advice...now just thell them where, certainly not where you live.

Blues, ya combine the 15% looking hard for jobs with the 30% who will not take a job and we got a hole lot of people out of work and not paying taxes.

Add to that the price of gas, utilities and Food climbing, it sure puts a squeeze on even those who were strong middle class. Look at the vacation numbers. I bet upper grade restaurants are hurting. I don't know, the last vacation I took was in 1976 and I eat at a Ryans once. LOL!

One of the most common business practices is to layoff hundreds of employees and then rehire at lower salaries. Why? Bigger profits when payroll is halved. More profits to put into "investments". This generally is a tactic used when too much "profit" has been spent on high risk investments and there's a shortfall.

The biggest corporations have been doing this since the 1980's. Just not in the massive proportions it has been done in the last 10 years. Now, the excuse is "global eonomy"and "global trade".

The biggest US corporations are too big to fail and always do. The biggest US corporations take on high risk and play as close to the vest as they can in hopes of the one single big time infusion of "profit". And this my fellow Americans is what comes out of our Ivy league institutions and passes for financial genius?

I know a kid who has a summer lemonade stand who has better financial management sense then these hotchas.

I think my bank account missed the memo or newsflash that the recession is over. What a crock of complete crap. Our government is full of the biggest liars to walk the face of this earth. AND... if those damn farmers would pay actual livable wages, people would take the jobs. I am sure that most people are making more on unemployment than those farmers are paying. THAT is why they hire the illegals because they can pay them dirt cheap and make more money for themselves. I blame the Americans who hire them first and foremost for this crap. Can't blame them for taking a job (well we can and do), but our own people are screwing us and we are letting them. Maybe now people in Alabama will actually start paying decent wages and hopefully all these other bleeding heart states will follow suit. ONLY THEN will we see some improvement.

Monkeysnana: I have to agree with you; however, if the farmers have to actually pay a decent wage for an American to pick their crops....how much more do you think the consumer would have to pay to purchase the crop? I don't know about you, but food prices are going up relatively quickly as it is. And, most Americans wouldn't last long picking crops in the field....for ANY amount of money. Unfortunately, we just aren't as motivated to do that kind of work....even for a decent wage! It's the sad truth!

Didi...Food prices are going up because of import and duty costs. Most fruits and vegetables are imported from foreign countries. It's the reason I only buy from my local farmers. I know where their crops come from. I don't mind paying a little more to have the full assurance of safety that what I buy is not contaminated in some foreign country that has no environmental regulations.

So, even though these foreign goods cost more, they are not as safe and if the US begins to demand stricter environmental regulations from foreign suppliers, the costs will be even higher.

You can't sustain life on 50K a year? You must live in a very high cost of living area.

PutAmericaFirst. 50K x .35 = 17,500 Tax.. Now, try supporting a family on 32.5K in any city U.S.A. It ain't gonna happen..

One man with courage is a majority. It's time we stand with our fellow Americans, and give Washington something to worry about come election time. There is nothing more they can take from us.

Dude, you seriously need an education in tax rates.

Error #1: applying 35% to an income of 50,000. The 35% doesn't kick in until a taxable household income of $379,181.

Error #2: failure to apply the rates in a marginal manner. You don't apply the highest rate to the entire income, you apply it marginally, in levels.

I'm going to assume that the $50K in income is taxable income after appropriate deductions and that our taxpayer is filing as a head of household. In that case, the first $12,150 of income would be taxed at a rate of 10%, the next $34,100 would be taxed at a rate of 15%, and the remaining $3,650 would be taxed at 25%. The overall federal tax burden would be $7,242.00, not $17,500.

On my own, I live on a (borrowed) income of just under 12000 a year. I think I'm in like...40k debt now? Psh I don't care. The day I turned 18, I was forced to sign a renters lease while living with my dad and then soon after forced to break that lease, as we were unable to pay our rent. It went on my credit report, and that was the day I stopped having credit. Now any poor sucker who wants to extend credit to me is gonna get it.

Life is great, huh? Of course in return for my current income I have to keep my grades up at the Uni. However, between my health issues and this economy...the future looks so bleak I don't even want to study. I guess thats a kind of 'economic depression' huh? haha....

Raymond, not that I do not agree but you have your math wrong =\

You do not take the 35% out of the annual pay, you take the 65% that you have left over to find what you keep:

50,000 · 0.65 = 32,500

Or you do what you did but then subtract the answer from the annual salary:

50,000 - 17,500 = 32,500

Still, like you said 32,500 is about enough for two people to live on in a medium sized house, assuming they were renting which more people should do and dry up the mortgage business. Would be pushing it with larger families.

For a single person though you could live comfortably on that.

Mary Beth in AK Why did you assume Raymond's "Tax" was only FIT? Maybe he's in a state with an income tax. Ever buy gasoline? Ever buy anything? Sales tax. Pay for utilities or phone service? How about property taxes? If you rent, you are paying property taxes indirectly through the owner of the property. Just did a quick google check. Lots of lists of taxes...200 on one list.

Also found a study in 1992 said people in the sixties paid an average of less than 30% of their income in taxes (all taxes). At the time of the study, Americans were averaging 40% of income for all taxes. If they lived in the city, paid 50%. Today, do you think the taxing agencies (government, etc...) are taxing less than in the '90s?

Raymond, your estimate of Tax is too low.

Having lived in different parts of the country, I can tell you that the cost of living from one region to another is radically different.

In the rural south, a family can get by on less than $50,000 a year easily because the cost of living in these areas is very low. For example, in rural Kentucky one can get a very nice 3 BR, 1.5 bath house for around $80,000. Also, property taxes are virtually non-existent. A similar apartment can be rented for around $500 a month. So, a person in this income bracket would be considered upper middle class.

On the other hand, in the Eastern Seaboard/Northeast if your household income is $50,000 you are lower middle class, living paycheck to paycheck, one disaster away from being poor and homeless. That same 3 BR, 1.5 bath house would be more like $200,000 in the far suburbs to $350,000 close to the city. Also, with HIGH property taxes, a few hundred bucks every month get tacked onto your mortgage. For apartments - rent is $800 a month for a crappy apartment in the hood, $1300 for a small apartment in the nice community, and $1800+ if you need something larger or closer to the city.

So, please keep in mind the huge extremes when you consider that $50,000 +/- is the average income in the US.

You cannot sustain a life on 50k a year

$50k a year? Cannot sustain life????

Yes you an live on $50k a year, I have done it. I watched my spending, determined the difference between want, need, and desire on different products and services.

So yes you can.

The protesters are right. We have to support them

No the protester are wrong....they do not even know what they want. What do they want?

Support them? Sorry, I have a job and do not support them, I disagree with them. The want to destroy Wall Street and corporations...ok....and then what?

replytoj001

Yes you an live on $50k a year, I have done it. I watched my spending, determined the difference between want, need, and desire on different products and services.

How many children did you have? What was the cost of living in your area (including food and utilities, state taxes, etc., not just housing)? Did you have any unexpected expenses, like expensive home repairs or major illness? Yes, it's possible for one person to live on $50K a year, but for a family of four or more, it's very hard to make ends meet.

The protesters do NOT want to "destroy Wall Street and corporations." They want a fair and level playing field. They want loopholes closed for corporate taxes. They want corporations to be penalized for shipping jobs overseas, not rewarded with tax breaks. They want corporate control of our government to be abolished through an amendment that overturns the Citizens United decision and makes it very clear that corporations are NOT citizens. They want campaign finance reform to make it impossible for corporations, domestic AND foreign, to buy our government and stack the political deck in their favor. They want an end to banks and businesses that are "too big to fail." They want their tax dollars used to benefit 100% of America's citizens, not just the "top" 1%. If you actually cared about anyone other than yourself, you might have figured that out.

Where I'm at, $50,000 a year is little better than a paycheck-to-paycheck existence. The bills barely get paid, and there's a lot of juggling involved---God forbid someone's car breaks down...

IMO, the recession never ended, at least no for the average person. The politicians on both sides would know this IF they bothered to talk to average people...

$50K is doable. But in my area, the real estate market never really crashed and rent is increasing. $900 a month will get you an 800 sq ft studio apartment. $1,700 a month is a two bedroom suitable for having a family in. These usually don't include much for utilities. That leaves about $12K left over for everything else. You can sustain yourself on this, however you are one car problem or injury or whatever else away from having trouble making ends meet. If you have kids, it is even harder.

Here are the ways I've found to make ends meet: cancel cable/satellite and invest in an antenna (good ones cost about 1-2 months of cable). I get about 22 stations in my semi-rural area. Trust me, after a month you won't miss whatever cable show you watch.

Cancel cell phones OR get them as low as possible with no-contract pay as you go plans. Data plans are out of the question.

Downgrade internet. Introductory DSL plans start at $20/month. Or do dial-up, yes it still exists and is usually quite cheap! Freedialup.org provides free internet access in the north east.

Take on a roommate if you have the space. This can make a huge difference in making that rent burden go down.

Other little things you can do: Transport your garbage yourself to the transfer station/dump, turn the thermostat down to 68 or lower during the winter, turn the thermostat up to 74 or higher in the summer, conserve power, cook your own meals, plan your meals, prioritize vehicle maintenance (I push oil changes out to 3K or 4K miles though 2K is recommended), turn off the tap while shampooing your hair (saves a few hundred per year for a family of 4), invest in subsidized CFL's to replace your light bulbs (don't pay more than 3/ea), and keep an eye out for sales and coupons at the grocery store.

If you do all of these things, after 3 months you should be saving a few hundred per month as long as you have no other debt obligations like student loans or credit card debt.

A single person at $50000 is doable, but family, if you have mortgage, car and kids, that not enough. Trust me, that living on peanuts. I don't know what guys babbling about.

It'll be interesting to see what happens in the next couple of decades when some of the "safe" career fields (legal, medical, scientific, etc.) start becoming automated and highly trained (and paid) people start seeing fewer jobs:

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/robot_invasion/2011/09/will_robots_steal_your_job.html

Can't live on $50.000 a year ?!!! Sure you can ! I lived on less than $30,000 a year with a wife and two kids and was comfortable, not rich mind you, but comfortable. You do it by driving used cars, not a new Beamer or Mercedes every two years. You don't give a damn about the "Joneses". You do it by eating at home and not steaks every night, eating out is a treat not a routine. You do it by getting you little hands dirty by fixing your own car when it breaks down not taking it to a shop. If you don't know how you ask friends or read how to do it in either books or on the net. You buy your clothes at Wal-Mart and not the mall. If you are careful you can even put a little back for emergencies too. If you're going to have a few drinks you do it at home not at a bar. So yes, it can be done, I've done it and know many others who have and are doing it right now. It's not luxurious and you don't have the latest electronic gadgets and toys that you don't NEED anyway, but you can get by and be comfortable and have what you do need. There is a big difference in NEEDS and WANTS. Can you have everything you want on $30,000 or less a year ? NO !, you can't have everything you WANT on $50,000 a year either, but you can darn sure have everything you need with a nice bit left over at $50,000 a year. You sometimes just have to tell the kids NO because even at $100,000 a year they'd want things you couldn't afford.

I know a helluva lot more people living on much less than $50,000 a year than I do living on more than that. And by the way I was never on welfare or food stamps. I tried for food stamps once but made too much money, so it was done all on my own. My wife stayed at home and took care of the house and kids and we did OK and the kids turned out fine and they understand the value of a dollar and how important an education is. So yes, it can be done.

God people, I do believe that Kevin (post 4.0) was being sarcastic in his complaint about the $50K, he was using it to level a complaint about the Wall Street protestors. Kevin, the protestors don't want you to support them, they want jobs and they want an end to undue influence of our government by big money interests, to the detriment of the majority of our population.

I see numbers thrown out that indicate some people haven't a clue as to what the Federal tax situation is for $50K income. Assuming a married couple, no children, they would get a standard deduction of 11,600 for 2011 and exemptions of 7,400, a total of $19K, deducted from $50K, leaves taxable income of $31K. The income tax on this is 3,816 (2010, can't find 2011, but it would be less). Assuming the entire $50K is earned income, SS and Medicare taxes of 7.65% would apply, which amounts to 3,825. Therefore, total Fed taxes are 7,641, which is 15.28% of gross income, NOT 35%. If part of the $50K is from sources other than wages, the SS and Medicare tax would be less. If add children to the mix, the income tax is lower. I have no idea how some of the people posting above got their numbers, but I don't agree with them. Now this does ignore state income tax, sales tax, etc., but that varies from state to state, you need to figure that out in your own situiation.

$50k in New York is about the equivalent of $25k in most of, say, the Midwest or South. In New York, it WOULD be pretty hard to raise a family on 50k.

dEdGrimley...I live in NJ. We get Noo Yawkah imports here all the time. Oh sure, they'll spend $500 a pop on a lunch with friends, buy those Dolce & Gabbanas at $1,000 a pair, spend $2,000 a month on a 1 bedroom apartment...and then when they get fed up they move to "Joisey".

Jokes on them. NJ has the highest property taxes in the country. I should know. Born and raised here for 64 years. So, they come to "Joisey" build a McMansion they think they can afford on 2 6-figure Noo Yawk salaries, jack property taxes on their neighbors older homes even higher and then....they realize that NJ property taxes are a killer.

Half of them keep their Noo Yawk licenses and auto insurance because they couldn't afford it in NJ. They won't work here either. Salaries are at least 15% lower than in Noo Yawk for any job.

Noo Yawkahs live waaaaaaaaaay out of their means. Take a good look at the prices of food in the Noo Yawk grocery stores. People in Joisey would never pay those prices.

If you expect your kids to go to college how do you live on $50,000 a year if a local community college tuition (not even a state university) costs $30,000 or more a year? How do you afford 6 price increases in one year for home heating oil or natural gas ? How do you afford a lousy can of tuna that doubles in price less than 2 years? Milk is higher per gallon than gasoline. How do you afford to keep your infant in milk on $50,000 a year?

And just why should anyone HAVE to live on that kind of income when Richie Rich is immune to the misery he created when he made sure HIS salary was in the hundred millions? Cut his salary. Not ours. Cut his salary and cut out the tax credits that cut his taxes while we struggle to pay ours and the hole left by his irresponsibility.

Have you ever tried to fix your own car lately? They are so computerized that you can't fix them....oh, you can change the oil yourself, but if anything else goes wrong....it's off to the dealership or a mechanic that specializes in your particular make and model!! It's ridiculous what all this hyped up technology has done to us....people can't LIVE without their IPhones, cell phones, texting, etc. It's ridiculous!!! And...we did it to ourselves. Have you ever noticed the line up when a new IPhone model comes out......who can afford these things? But, the lines are all the way around the corner, and they're mostly young people. Where do they get the money to pay for these things???

Didi...I shop around ALWAYS. You'd be amazed at how you can create greater competition. I never take my vehicle to a dealer. I get an oil change because it would cost more to take it to a recycling station every 3 months. I use oil change coupons. There are tons of coupons on the internet that will reduce the cost of most ordinary auto maintenance work.

ewent,

I don't know what you been smoking but a local community college tuition does not cost $30k a year.

I should know...... my tuition cost for a local community college last year was only $ 3400.

And as for fixing your own cars, it might have been the case with the older models but not the newer cars with highly specialized computers these days. It just makes it just more harder to get it repaired without expensive tools. And for changing oil? Its cheaper to do it yourself in your own driveway and better. And its free to recycle your own oil. Just drop it off to any oil change place, its the law for them to accept it without fees

hadenough...I don't smoke. Someone told me it stunts your growth. I'm 4'10. So I wouldn't take that chance. I just asked a 28 year old who graduated from Rutgers 2 years ago what her yearly tuition was...Sorry you lose. She told me it was close to $55,000 a year. Why do you think these kids come out of school with $200,000 in college loan debt?

The local country college in NJ costs about $30,000 a year to attend. Not $3400. By the way, you can't even send a kid in NJ to a Catholic school for that price. The only thing in the vicinity of $3400 is my $4100 school tax.

I drive a hybrid. I did my homework. I bought the Number 1 rated Best Car for 2010. I am not about to change the oil in my car when my local guy needs that $28 dollars to feed his family. Plus, he does a lot of other maintenance without charge. Checks the air filter, the cooling system and rotates my tires for an extra $10. It's a good deal all around. He keeps his small business going and I help out. I'm small business down to my littlest toe.

And in NJ, you have to pay to have the oil recycled in a proper recycling center, which for me is about 10 miles from home.

ewent

so you either pay for it at the recycling centre or you pay for it in taxes because your local sewage treatment facility must now deal with the toxins that are in that used oil, or you have to deal with it in environmental damage that it caused when you dumped it.

NO matter what, you are paying for it.

Soldier's Dad - thanks for your post. You seem to possess an attitude that's waning today. One can be rich by making more or rich by wanting less.

ewent,

Lol, are you sure about that?

College
2010-11 tuition & fees
2011-12 tuition & fees
Increase
% Increase

The College of New Jersey
$13,549
$14,187
$638
4.70%

Kean University
$9,815
$10,200
$385
3.90%

Montclair State University
$10,113
$10,646
$533
5.30%

New Jersey City University
$9,348
$10,021
$673
7.20%

New Jersey Institute of Technology
$13,370
$13,974
$604
4.50%

Ramapo College *
$11,210
$11,758
$548
4.90%

Richard Stockton College
$11,393
$11,963
$570
5.00%

Rowan University
$11,676
$12,018
$342
2.90%

Rutgers University
$12,560
$12,755
$195
1.60%

William Paterson University
$11,238
$11,464
$226
2.00%

State average
$11,427
$11,896
$469

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/press/atlantic/new-jersey-public-colleges-tuition-rises-percent-on-average/article_16656606-cac5-11e0-9c10-001cc4c03286.html

And that quoted tuition price I spend was going to a local community college not a state or private university. Big difference. And where I'm living in, a state university cost 3-4x more expensive than a local community college.

$55,000 per year tuition to go to a state university? Wtf she do? Live in a dorm room, not work, buy her books and everything else at the university's overpriced bookstore? At that price she could have just went to Harvard. Their tuition cost $ 52,650 in 2011.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/2/24/financial-aid-college-increase/

I went to a local 2 yr local community college and only cost 6800 in tuition to get a degree. My co-worker went to a private university and end up with 100k in student loans. We both make the same pay.

Sorry but you failed.

Jonathan...Not necessarily true. in NJ you don't dare dump oil into a sewer. First off, that's about as irresponsible as it needs to get. Petrochemicals contain carcinogens. Oil is a chief offender of this.

In NJ, the municipal utilities authorities are water and sewerage treatment and it costs on average $200 a month just to have potable water pumped to your home and to treat wastewater. So this isn't a tax. It's a regular quarterly utility payment.

The more water you use, the higher the cost of your quarterly water bill. The sewerage bill generally remains the same unless there is an increase and in NJ, these MCUAs always get an annual increase. This is a result of collusion between the Public Utilities Commission and electric, natural gas and the MCUAs.

NJ's state taxes in addition to property taxes that include school tax, county tax and fire and EMT taxes don't take into account the additional cost of private garbage pickup which ranges about $100 a month depending on how well you shop around for the least expensive service.

In addition, we pay half of our unemployment state taxes (employer pays the other half, 100% of our state disability and state withholding.

In NJ, you need a permit for just about anything you do whether it's replace a water heater or your roof. Those are not taxes either.

had enough...reading comprehension problems or typical need to be right? Those figures you posted? They are semester figures. Duh. No one goes to Rutgers on $13,000 a year. You can go to a community college for about $3400 a semester, depending upon the courses you take.

You really need to bone up on your reading comprehension. It was just posted in last week's Home News Tribune that the average Rutgers salary for a professor at entry level is close to $200,000 a year. You want to tell me where they get the money to pay all those salaries on $12,000 a year?

Come off the BS. One single Rutgers semester for a student studying for a BS degree cost $12,000 a year back when my engineer friend studied there 25 years ago. In fact, you can't even take a course in any major online college for $3400 a year if it's accredited and it's a 4-years degree. Get a clue, would you?

yeesh...the need to be the only voice in town sure does get boring. People who live in the boonies must have a need to make fools of themselves.

Lol, Hybrids and electric cars are way overpriced. It does not justify the high premium you pay in order to save gas. You are looking at good 10 yrs before you start saving money on that gas.

So its a better idea to bring my vehicle to a business to change my oil even though I can do it myself for cheaper? So its a good idea to get a cheaper oil with filter placed in my vehicle which I have to change again in 3000-4500 miles? For the same amount I can do it myself and put synthetic oil with very good oil filter that don't have to be changed for 5000-7000 miles. It doesn't cost anything to do maintaince check either. Jiffylube, Autozone, O'Realys and other places that sell oil and do oil changes take your used oil for free. BTW, they make money by selling used oil to get it recycled. Who the hell said they dump it in the sewers?

At your logic...... I should go out every night and eat out just to help out the small businesses. Using coupons is a no-no since it takes it out of their paychecks. Hell with my own budget eh?

There is nothing in the article that stated it's per semester. All it states is "2011-12 tuition & fees". Then its my mistake. It's tuition for the academic year 2011-12 is $22,746 for in-state tuition and $34,010 for out-of-state (non-New Jersey) residents. It's still a big jump from $ 23k to $ 55k that your friend quoted.

http://camlaw.rutgers.edu/tuition-and-financial-aid

If you still believe kids these days should go to a traditional 4 yr university instead of local community college then transfer then you're a fool. 30k a year is too much for tuition per year. $ 55k a year for a 4 yr degree in a state university? Now that is just plain dumb. Medical schools cost $ 50k a yr.

San Antonio College cost average 800 bucks per semester over here. Mine cost 1600 per semester only because of RN program. University of Texas at San Antonio cost 4k a semester. 8k for the year. And I wouldn't consider San Antonio the boonies.

How many children did you have? What was the cost of living in your area (including food and utilities, state taxes, etc., not just housing)? Did you have any unexpected expenses, like expensive home repairs or major illness? Yes, it's possible for one person to live on $50K a year, but for a family of four or more, it's very hard to make ends meet.

I was divorced and had to pay child support to my two children, as well as supporting them with the sports they were on by purchasing equipment and tournament costs, and school costs

I had to maintain my one bedroom (small) studio apartment...I went without....I struggled...I lived in the Providence, RI area......I paid federal and state taxes.....I paid my credit cards and my auto expenses..........

I struggled and I went without and I never felt sorry for myself of jealous of others....because I believed (and still do!!) in me

A family of four CAN make it if they believe in each other...........no one said it would be easy.....to rely on each other, all chip in and rely on the family, cut out all of the junk food, the cable tv, cut down to minimal cell phone plans, get rid of the X-box/Wii/PSP (whatever...) and don't worry about having the newest game, get rid of I-Pods, quit smoking, give up the fancy coffee and home brew, play some great family board games/card games instead of TV/DVDs.....

Do without air conditioning and use fans, buy generic products, turn off lights, the list goes on....cut lawns, rake leaves, shovel snow.....

I am so tired of the "no I/we can't" mentality..............get up, grow a Betty White and stop blaming everyone and everything on why things are not so great.....leave that to the god king.....he is really getting good at it.

Have a good day

replytoj001

Didi - You can go to any auto parts store and they will use a code reader to get the trouble codes when your check engine light comes on. The trouble codes tell you which sensor is reporting a problem. The friendly folks at the parts store will assist you with what to try first, usually one tries the least expensive remedy first and if that doesn't do it go up from there.

replytoj001,

The points that were brought out by the previous poster were valid. Depending on how many kids you have and where you live, you may be able to live on $50k a year, or you may not. In rural Tennessee where the cost of living is low and so are the taxes - sure you can make it on $50k a year. In Connecticutt, no way.

I've done much of the basic maintenance on my family's cars (16 of them to be exact - 4 driver's worth) over the last 8 years (pay $500-$2000 for a used "beater", fix it for a few years - avg. cost for 2-4 years $500-$2000 - depending on condition, and when it dies, replace it with another) , and the only one that was truly a "modern nightmare" was a Volvo XC-70. The basic stuff like oil changes, brake jobs, wiper motors, vent fans, belts & tensioners, power steering pumps, etc. were not much different for the 90's and 00's models than they were for the 70's and 80's models. If you can read a book (anyone who makes it through school ought to be able to), and know how basic tools work (screwdrivers, wrenches, etc.), you can do this - that's how I learned, I just read the instructions a few times in the manual and "just did it". I have had to take cars into the shop on occasion (to quote Dirty Harry - "A man's got to know his limitations...") when I ran into issues I did not have the equipment, expertise, or time to tackle (I may know how to take an engine apart and put it back together, but have neither the equipment nor the skill to do it quickly enough). It can be done. The parts may be expensive, but not as expensive as taking it to the shop every time. Any shop you take it to will buy parts from a local shop (often at a small discount, and charge you up to 50% more for the part, as well as labor costs (typically $50 - $75 per hour)- that's just business, it's how they make a profit. If you can't afford their prices, learn to do it yourself. If you made it through college, it shouldn't be too tough to learn at least some basic vehicle maintenance. It'll save you some money too.

What is truly criminal is that when the crash went down, the dow jones dropped in the toilet, yet the stock market is back up to its pre-crash levels and most of us are still struggling very hard to make ends meet.

The only thing this recession has done is it taught the rich how to make more money while employing fewer of us and while paying us less money to work longer hours.

I think they are seeing something that they have never encountered before and are trying to use the same old tactics that "worked" before. It's a receipt for disaster as we all see. To them the economy is growing. But that is because corporations are producing more with less people and lower wages. They ended the recession on the backs of the common worker group. We are now seeing
two generations (over 50 and new grads) on the dole (welfare, unemployment, etc). We can see that stock prices are on the rise in direct correlation with stimulus money. Once that money is gone those same stocks will start dropping. We have not seen the worst of this yet. It is like a rolling snowball. High inflation
is coming which is going to make it worse too.

This jobs problem has been going on for a few years now and its getting close to the time to stop focusing on the corporations ( they are gone) the government(they do not have a clue) and wishful thinking. This is the time for the tough to get going. I know there are a lot of people, educated, experienced, and with wisdom to begin thinking our way out of this mess. I know we can do it as there are examples beginning to crop up. It is in our own best interest to give up on the old ways of doing business and finding jobs and begin to develop our own. Put the thinking caps on with renewed hope, I have faith in the American working class unemployed/underemployed people out there. Necessity IS the Mother of Invention.

Both scortched earth and Nanette "hit the nail right on the head." Businesses learned they could "get by" with fewer employees. Since it is an employers market they can pay less, reduce raises and hold the threat of unemployment over employees heads so employees work longer hours with more of a work load.

So I even wonder if the tax breaks in the new jobs bill will get them to hire more people. After all, employers have cut corners and learned to function with fewer people (Also temp agencies and more part time employees with no benefits). Less payroll expenses adds to the bottom line.

scorched earth,

the stock market is back up to its pre-crash levels

Whatever are you talking about??? The DJI was over 14,000 in 2007. It's a little over 11,000 now. That means it's down more than 20% from the top - a significant bear market by any standard.

When I was job hunting last February, I found that most employers were excited to hire me at 30-60% less than what I was already getting. When I told them what I was making, they said "Good luck getting that." Actual quote from 2 hiring managers. Clearly they were hoping job seekers were desperate and willing to be paid less than what they are worth.

I still have a job (since 2000) but I have not gotten a wage increase in 5 years, and we are starting to see wage decreases. It isn't because of a fat cat employer (I work for a small business), it is the inflationary costs of doing business (and no it is not because of all the rules and regulations), phones, computers, office supplies, storage, rent, utils, insurances (all, not just health) are going up, up, up. A payroll tax decrease holiday would help us tremendously.

terriels...It's definitely long past time to start "stagnating" the salaries of the all too insulated from this recession. No CEO should be earning a hundred million a year plus perks. No other country of the world pays those kinds of salaries.

Which wouldn't even be so bad if they didn't so all that griping about the high taxes they pay. Don't they know this going in that if you earn more, your taxes are higher? Or is this more of that American Aristocracy right of privilege to earn more and pay less than someone earning a fraction of their salaries?

If they don't want to pay higher taxes, the answer is simple. Earn less. Who's stopping them?

estern53...Labor laws used to prevent employers from that practice of laying off and then hiring at lower salaries when government regulations in the 1980's mandated that any employer who hired at the outgoing employee's salary couldn't hire at a specific percentage lower than that salary.

With changes to US labor laws, the advantage is with Big Business to return that practice. That's why salaries of all but CEOs and top management are stagnated.

@ewent,

Good point!

Should the "minimum wage repeal" crowd get THEIR way, IMO the working man would really be up the ol' creek. Everybody say, "A dollar a day, that's what they pay! Yeah, boyee!"

Yes, and neither has Congress, regardless of which party had the majority. Think maybe neither party has the answers?

flbikerchick,

Right on. Both parties have had a chance to show a total lack of leadership all throughout the whole mess. They have routinely demonstrated that keeping themselves in power is more important to them. We've had bi-partisan failures in the executive and legislative branches. That people still cast blame at one particular ideology shows utter foolishness and stands as the biggest obstacle to solving any problems.

Maybe it's time to get a few "Mr. Smiths" in Washington ( a reference to the movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington").

ehaf....The Republicans took the House majority in November 2010. They don't even offer a job creation plan. They know they can't. They're stuck between a rock and hard place. If they mandate US job creation, they lose campaign funding from the biggest US fat cats.

Yesterday, on "Meet the Press," presidential hopeful, Cain, said that it was President Obama's fault that there were no jobs.....but, he never mentioned any Republican solution for the jobs and economy problems. This is the problem with the current Republican slate of candidates....they want to blame the current President for all the problems, but they don't have ANY solutions of their own. I thought, back in 2010, the Republicans had a "Promise to America," which included a jobs program.....what ever happened to that promise? The only thing they have done since they were elected is to blockade ANY idea for job creation that has been put forth by our President, and they have had NO ideas of their own. They have NOT become part of the solution....they have become part of the problem! Their ONLY goal is to get President Obama out of office, but I sincerely doubt ANY of them have a solution to the job problem OR the economy. I haven't heard any of them come up with a viable plan of their own.....just complaints about the current President and what's he's been trying to do. It's nauseating!

Didi...The same thing that happened to "contract With America", "Prosperity For America" and "Promise". It was all double talk to get elected. I am a former Republican. These guys are masters of double talk.

When they say Trickle Down. They mean Trickle Up. When they say, "Kinder, Gentler" they don't mean you and I. They mean the 1% who fund their campaigns. When they say "Mission Accomplished" they really mean "Preemptive Strike on the Economy".

See? Republican double talk. After a while, you get the hang of it. I almost laugh in a Republican's face these days when they start their double talk. I might once have fallen for it. That was BB (Before Bush).

I've been fed up with, and complaining about, both major parties for quite a few years now (they are both bought and paid for by special interest groups), and have repeatedly said we need a 3rd party, dedicated to the Middle Class and Main street if we are ever to get out of this mess. It would be great if the moderates in each party would see where we are headed, tell their respective hardliners to shove it, join together and form that 3rd party. Without this, and if the current trend of wealth redistribution from the Middle Class to the upper 3% continues, the vast majority of people, pushed to the point of being unable to feed, shelter or clothe their families properly, may become desperate enough to resort to actions that will REALLY give to cause for Eric Cantor to soil his underwear, considering the concern he shows over the mild, peaceful Wall Street protests.

Some food for thought:

“Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon
his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.” H.L. Mencken

Let me make it clear I am not advocating that this happen, just warning that it is not out of the realm of possibility. If pushed long and hard enough, people will push back. We can't continue the way we are going.

Prices drop in a depression. They don't go up. Are you seriously this dumb?

Umm prices don't drop in a depression. A depression means that money loses value and that people can't afford basic things. A depression means that there is less work out there then bodies to fill them. I love how you insult someone yet you have no understanding about what really happens during a depression.

No it doesn't. You are wrong. The Great Depression saw massive deflation. People can't afford things in a depression because they lose their jobs. Prices go down because demand falls off the charts. You are the one with no understanding, and you could easily remedy it with a little research before you spout off and display your pathetic ignorance.

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/199803/18_smiths_depression/

Hawaii & Douglas,

By the definition economists have always used, a recession is two or more consecutive quarters of negative growth. Our economy has grown since June of 2009. So, yes, the recession has been over for more than two years. The reason it still feels like a recession is because our economy has not grown by very much since then. So, YES, the recession has been over, BUT, the economy is still in trouble.

Florida Dem. A depression starts when money loses value. The cost of something may go down but you need more money to buy the product with. That is one of the key problems with Keynesian economics. The ability to inflate the value of money.

If a cost on say a ear of corn is 50 cents prior to a depression and then a depression kicks in making that same 50 cents the equivalent of 5 dollars previously and then prices drop (because a depression can't happen if the value of money increases and not decreases assuming job growth continues at a steady pace and several other factors) so that the ear of corn is now 5 cents that isn't a price drop. That means that the same ear of corn is 50 cents it is the value being artificially set to try to control monetary inflation. I strongly suggest you look past Keynesian economics and take a look at Austrian economics to see how shuffling around and artificially controlling currency may make things seem like prices are dropping but it really isn't at all, it is is a shell game that the common person pays for in the long run.

Seems the stock market means nothing to the average citizen now -- they are totally separate. 2 different classes, if you will. Wonder what that means?

I think it means the 99's are on the right track, I just hope it ins't too late to make a change back to what this country was - wonder who will fight the war on terrorism, since the middle-class can no longer afford it?

And $50 a year is not alot where I live either. (Although you can get by, is that what we all have been working toward, so our kids can - get by and exist?)

So by your definition, an ear of corn going from 50cents to 5 cents isn't a price drop? What the hell? That is the definition of deflation. You seem to be agreeing with me (now) that deflation happens in a depression, which was my original point. But somehow I'm still wrong. That is absurdly stupid.

The initial point I made that increased prices, which is what the first idiot mentioned, indicates the opposite of a depression. Food prices and gas prices going up do not indicate recession or depression, they actually indicate either economic growth and inflation.

In fact, the only indication of anything close to a depression is falling wages, which most Republicans seem to encourage and applaud, since labor costs are driven down. However, driven down so low, eventually demand dries up and then prices on commodities deflates because demand will crash.

Right now, the main problem we have is a shortage of DEMAND. Low wages and high unemployment result in a shortage of demand.

This is something that has been a problem for at least a decade now, and is more evidence that too large a gap between rich and poor is unhealthy for the economy overall. Unless our goal is to have a low-skilled, low-wage economy that can compete with China to make cheap consumer goods. I hope that isn't the objective because if we aren't able to buy that crap, I don't know who we think is going to buy it.

Re read my post. If 50 cents = 5 cents because of monetary manipulation that doesn't mean that it is a dropped price. That means that 50 cents = 5 cents. That is why a dollar today won't buy what a dollar 10 years ago could buy. It is because the value of a dollar has gone down not because commodities have decreased. You can still buy beef but if you look the price has gone up even though production has increased on beef. It is because of more money being printed taking the value of our currency even lower.

I would strongly suggest you look into economics beyond the failed Keynesian economics and look into Austrian to see why deflating a currency artificially isn't lowering prices.

You are describing INFLATION, not DEFLATION. DEFLATION occurs typically in a depression.

INFLATION is the OPPOSITE of DEFLATION. What about this is so hard for you to understand?

You are just completely getting everything wrong.

No you just choose to ignore everything but Keynesian economic policies.

Take a look at the Yen and Japan after WW2.

When the Yen first went out to the world to start paying reparations it was a valuable currency so Japan printed more of it. So it ended up costing more Yen to buy something in Japan and the value of the Yen deflated. They then stopped printing the Yen to get it to stabilize. Commodity flow stayed the same but the amount of Yen it took to purchase varied due to flux in the currency itself. A pound of rice was still a pound of rice and there wasn't less rice causing the price to rise it was the monetary standards changing which was causing the problems.

The same thing happened with the Great Depression. America was riding a great boom of prosperity thanks to credit given by the government. The government then proceeded to print more money even though there was money in circulation which caused prices to rise. However wages didn't increase with the rise in price. Work then started to dry up as there was less demand for things because of several factors. Prices didn't drop until work had become scarce because there was no demand for product yet there was still an influx of money that was over printed so the government took money back to remove it from circulation which caused the dollar to rise in value again. The price for goods didn't actually start to drop until the currency itself was regulated again. However the demand stayed the same.

Here I will make this example as easy as possible. Let's go with a loaf of bread. A loaf of bread was 5 cents. At the beginning of the depression the price rose to 15 cents because of more money being printed and the value of currency going down. There was still the same amount of bread so it wasn't because of a shortage of bread that the cost rose like it would if there was an actual shortage of bread. The government came in and pulled all the extra currency out of the market so the bread now cost 2 cents because 2 cents was worth more because there wasn't extra money floating around in the system. The bread was still just as available as before. The price didn't drop the value of the currency caused the change in price. Another way to look at it is like this.... please note I am just using figures here I am not looking up the actual gold exchange rate for that period I am just using an example.

Pre Depression 1 dollar bought one ounce of gold.

Beginning of Depression 15 dollars bought one ounce of gold.

End of Depression 75 cents bought one ounce of gold.

The amount of gold exchange stayed the same. An ounce of gold was an ounce of gold and America didn't go find some lost city of gold to devalue the currency. We still had the same amount of gold backing our dollar. Overprinting devalued the currency. That meant you needed more currency to buy an ounce of gold. They then pulled the extra currency off the market and a little bit extra to boot causing less money to be needed to buy an ounce of gold because the currency was worth more.

I don't know what else to tell you if you can't understand those examples.

Gold is not a good example. Gold was a guaranteed commodity by the government. Not a good example as all. Gold functioned as money, and was not a commodity in the usual sense.

I don't see what this has to do with economic theory or policy. You seem to have an agenda of anti-Keynesian. Fine, I don't care. The point is that you display no understanding of the distinction between inflation and deflation.

The Great Depression was characterized by a short money supply, and DEFLATION. Since currency was tied to gold, the government controlled the currency supply, and money was in short supply. As a result, prices on most items went down. The value of a dollar increased. It didn't decrease.

You seem to blatantly distort the facts to make some kind of political/economic argument that I couldn't care less about. The point is you don't understand the distinction between inflation and deflation.

Tell someone who lived in the 1930's about how prices were high in the Great Depression and they will laugh at you. What they will tell you is that prices were absurdly low, but no one had jobs or money.

Gold backed the dollar. You could go to an exchange place and change your money for an equal amount of gold. If you would like I can go talk to my 98 year old grandmother who said the exact same thing again. You are just being contrite any more and frankly I am done trying to explain basic economics to you. I would strongly suggest you go out and actually do some digging into facts and not just go by what one website tells you while ignoring both the history and the economics behind the past.

I'm not being contrite. You just don't understand the difference between inflation and deflation. Period. You don't get it.

Really? I showed examples which shows that I obviously know what I am talking about. You respond with "I'm not being contrite." Here is a little real world advice for you. Do some research on your own instead of thinking that the politicians know best. You can go down to your local community college and take a single course in economics. I think it would be a good thing.

Your "examples", by your own admission, were "made up". What good is that? The mechanism you initially described was INFLATION, not DEFLATION. Deflation is when the value of money increases, and prices drop. That is what happened in the Great Depression. Period. When the dollar was tied to gold, the government was UNABLE to print new money, because it didn't have the gold reserves to redeem it. That was part of the problem and the reason why we left the gold standard.

Now, we can control the money supply, and typically we have inflation, which is the mechanism you are describing. However, inflation is decidedly NOT what happened in the Great Depression.

Here is some food prices from the era leading up to the great depression. If you notice they all rose yearly. Am I making that up to? Do you need more proof? Perhaps you need to learn how to use google or bing? You keep saying I am making things up or I am wrong yet where is your proof? Frankly I am tired of your "I am right but I have no proof so I am going to try to find flaws in your argument" logic. A little education would go a long way in learning what really is inflation and how gold standards work. I truly hope you expose yourself to it. Here have some more knowledge just because I am willing to help you do your own research

Those numbers are 11+ years before the Great Depression. What is the point of that?

Your second post makes the exact same point I am making, that prices were low in the Great Depression.

The Great Depression was characterized by deflation and a shortage of money. Prices were low. The value of money rose in the Great Depression.

Inflation is when the value of money goes down, and prices go up. That did not happen in the Great Depression. There might have been inflation before the Great Depression, but there was deflation during the Great Depression.

A depression doesn't happen over night. Once again I am done arguing with you because you choose to pick and choose your "facts". I guess that explains why so many people have problems with how democrats handle financial situations because they don't understand it.

The fact is that the original poster said rising prices were a sign of a depression. That is wrong and that was my point. You initially said I was wrong, but now you actually seem to be agreeing with me.

The other point that makes your argument irrelevant is you clearly don't understand that currency was tied to gold reserves in the 1930's. That means the government was limited in its ability to use fiscal policy to increase the money supply, which is why the Great Depression was so bad. Since the value of currency was rising, if the government had been able to increase the money supply, the worst effects of the Great Depression would have been avoided. That is exactly what Bernanke, who is a scholar of the Great Depression, did to head off a depression this time around. So far, that has worked.

You seem to be claiming that increased money supply in the Great Depression caused the problem. But that is clearly wrong. How can you square a shortage of dollars in the Great Depression with an oversupply of currency? That just doesn't make any sense at all.

Inflation happens all the time without leading to a depression. Inflation is hardly a sign of an upcoming depression. For example, inflation as much worse in the 1970's and 1980's than now, and we followed high inflation with historically strong economic growth in the 1990's.

How does inflation signal a depression? I can't see any evidence it does.

Something costs more but wages stay the same means people buy less. That causes a recession.

Recession goes into depression when jobs dry up. Simple as that. The fact that you can't see how inflation is bad and doesn't cause these things I have no clue. You know why our economy did so well during the 90s? All those wonderful things like NAFTA and the Housing loan fiasco that are coming back to bite us now. Credit doesn't buy your way out of a recession it just postpones it until it becomes worse. That is what happened with the Depression because the government was backing all those loans with extra printed money. Seriously do some research.

Well, I never said anything about inflation being good or bad. Generally, the consensus seems to be that high inflation is bad, but moderate inflation is not. I would agree that inflation rising faster than wages is bad, which I think is one particular bad aspect of the economy since 2000 or so.

As for your argument about the role of government and Keynesian vs. something else, that wasn't part of the argument either. I only made the point that in the Great Depression prices went down, which is what is termed deflation. I don't hear any argument from you about that anymore.

As for the role of government, since that is obviously your real interest here, what you conveniently keep ignoring is that Keynesian policy wasn't the dominant model until after WWII. FDR implemented it before the war, but that was AFTER the market crash and AFTER the Depression began. It seems pretty silly to blame too much government spending and debt since the role of government increased AFTER the Depression began, and was much lower in the 1920's and previously.

Next, Keynesian economic principles were the dominant model in the western industrialized nations from the late 1940's until probably the 1970's and 1980's. In that time with Keynesian principles were in play, we had much faster levels of growth than we have now, and rapidly increasing prosperity. There were many reasons apart from economic policy for that. But you can hardly look at the late 1940's until the 1970's and see Keynesian principles as a failure.

By contrast, pre-Keynes includes the period from 1929 until at least 1933. Post Keynes could be said to be the 1980's until probably 2009. Both of those eras include the worst collapses of our economy in the past 100+ years. So go figure. Explain that one away.

It isn't terribly surprising that people might think that the principles that led us out of the Great Depression to rapid expansion might attract some interest after we fell away from those principles and witnessed a massive collapse.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/cause-of-great-depression.asp#axzz1afF0gcni

Need me to do more fact finding for you? The fed helped cause the Great Depression.

Well, perhaps low interest rates contributed to rapid expansion that precipitated the crash. I'm not sure what inflation rates were in the 1920's. They were likely much lower than the 1970's when the dollar wasn't redeemable in gold.

But your very article makes my point as well. The Great Depression was made worse by not increasing the money supply, and the Great Depression was characterized by a shortage of money:

In the crash of 1929, however, the Fed took the opposite course by cutting the money supply by nearly a third, thus choking off hopes of a recovery. Consequently, many banks suffering liquidity problems simply went under. The Fed's harsh reaction, while difficult to understand, may have occurred because it wished to give Wall Street some tough love by refusing to bail out careless banks, a response that it felt would only encourage more fiscal irresponsibility in the future. (For insight on the crash of 1929, see The Crash Of 1929 - Could It Happen Again?)

So, in other words, the response to our current collapse of the financial markets was to provide liquidity to keep the system going: money via TARP and the Stimulus package. You can discuss the merits of those, but the fact is we didn't have another depression. We have recovered, albeit slowly, and now have had several consecutive quarters of growth. By contrast, when the Fed cut the money supply, and there was no public-sector spending after 1929, the result was the Great Depression: deflation, astronomically high unemployment, etc.

The original crash of the markets this time was caused in part by low interest rates via the Fed, which overheated the real estate markets when combined with deregulation.

By the way, Keynesian policy is NOT monetary policy. What your article discusses is low Fed interest rates too low in the 1920's. Keynes argued for coupling private and public spending. Keynesian policies only started when FDR increased taxes on the rich and instituted public works projects, and of course military spending.

The Keynsian approach is NOT Fed monetary policy. The crash in 2008 was NOT caused by Keynsian policies. Rather the 2000's were characterized by a reliance on monetary policy: low interest rates and low taxes to stimulate growth.

A Keynsian would say that public spending should be used to get the economy moving. That wasn't Bush's response during the recession of the early 2000's. It has been Obama's policy since the 2008 crash.

So you can't say Keynsian policies precipitated either crash. Instead, Keynesian policies were the RESPONSE to the crash of 1929 and 2008.

The New Deal set lofty goals to maintain public works, full employment, and healthy wages through price, wage, and even production controls. The New Deal was loosely based on Keynesian economics, specifically on the idea that government works can stimulate the economy. Occasionally these projects were ideal, but there were just as many cases of mismanagement, political back-scratching and general waste that dogs government-run initiatives. (For related reading, see Can Keynesian Economics Reduce Boom-Bust Cycles?)

One of the most heartbreaking results of the New Deal was the destruction of excess crops to justify the artificially high prices, despite the need for cheap food. In fact, many of the agencies created by the New Deal broke up black markets selling cheap goods. This forced factory workers to stop working and generally halted the production that was needed for recovery. Even unemployment remained high because companies couldn't afford to keep large payrolls at the rates set by the government.

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/cause-of-great-depression.asp#ixzz1agteFUh9

You might want to read the article again....

If we were willing to do that, we would be able give companies that stay in the US an advantage.

good luck on finding anything made in america

sickandtired,

I agree. Good luck finding some of the basics made in America. Like a spatula. Or a shower curtain. There are some sites that can help, but you will find their selection to be much smaller than the local Wal*Mart. Sites like http://madeinusaforever.com/ and http://www.stillmadeinusa.com/

LowerMiddleClass...Spot on. I stopped buying from the big box stores 5 years ago. I shop at a small local grocery. Funny thing about that. At first the prices were about 10% higher. Now they've leveled off to almost the same as the least expensive big box store.

Every time we shop at a big box store, we are supporting foreign labor and not our own. The demand for "Made in America" is growing.

One nice thing about Americans. When the chips are down, they stand together. If you demand "made in America" more often, it becomes reality. And, when it comes to food, your own local homegrown is fresher and safer.

Look at it for what it is. All those foreclosures just returned properties bank to the banks who insured them to fail. That's why they approved them with such negligence. Now, all those foreclosed properties are turning into gigantic landports of warehousing where they can store more of the imported junk they want us to buy.

They believe in "What Goes Around Comes Around". Only when it comes to profit.

That wailing and whining over a Financial Meltdown was the biggest US scam in history. Only Big Business too intertwined with goverment could have gotten away with that.

Try buying your produce, fruits and veggies, from your local Farmer's Market of "community" market. We even purchase our eggs there, and they are far superior to those in the market (and cheaper to boot). We've even gone as far as to grow our own veggies in our meager back yard, and we're looking forward to eating those in the near future. Even without a yard, you can always grow in pots......that's what we're doing. I think our biggest expense has been the half wine barrels we use for our corn and our squash plants.....plus the soil from the local garden store. But, what we'll get back will more than cover the expense we had in getting our garden going. And, it's also fun and healthy and something the WHOLE family can do together.

Didi...I live in NJ. There are farm markets everywhere here. Most of them also sell fresh eggs with the chickens squawking away not far from the stands. Only recently NJ started allowing dairy farmers to sell milk fresh from the cows.

Yeesh...My dad was a truck farmer. We grew all our own vegetables, fruits, chickens, ducks and if we needed milk, we got it from the dairy farmer at the end of the road, along with butter and the world's freshest tasting cheese.

They are free to join the military! In fact, since they have college they would be officers. Please inform your children to fight for my oil because I don't really want to :(

One thing I'm not & that's "ill-informed". Obviously my opinion ruffled your feathers, so yes, I do believe that my opinions are of "interest" to many, including yourself. I'm not sure what economy you're living in, but most would agree that this recession is not over!

No informed person would agree to that, since a recession has a clear definition and there are no statistics out there to suggest the current economy meets that definition. The economy has been growing every quarter for some time now. That is a simple fact you are apparently unaware of. Hence, you are ill informed. Your opinion doesn't ruffle my feathers, as you put it, it just stuns me with your stupidity.

Maybe if everyone didn't get a stupid Business degree in college, they would be employed right now. If you got a "Business," "Communications," or "English" degree in college, I truly hope you suffer.

Mouty,

The definition economists have always used for a recession is two or more consecutive quarters of negative growth. So, yes, the recession actually ended in June of 2009, when the economy started growing again. However. since then the economy has only grown at a very small rate, so we still have a troubled economy and it still "feels" like a recession.

What kind of dumb-assed opinion is that? Your hope people suffer based on their degree? What the hell?

It's not a "dumb-ass opinion." It's fact. People who got real degrees in the hard sciences and engineering suffered and sacrificed through college to have a great adult working life.

People who got those retarded degrees like "Business" partied the entire time and did nothing difficult in college. Now it is their time to suffer. Engineers suffered through college, Business graduates suffer after college. Let those morons rot!

What a stupid thing to say. You are truly an idiot. I know a lot of "hard sciences" people who are struggling too, for one thing. And, moreover, other paths are not "retarded" degrees. Smart people often choose other paths than hard sciences and do quite well. I know a lot of idiots who are incompetent engineers and other scientists, who can't really function effectively.

Was going to try and be a professional historian but that worked out quite well.

most people don`t care what the official government definition of the word "recession" is. When people are making less money, paying more for everything,buying less and struggling to maintain their standard of living,etc etc then thats a recession to them.

it doesn`t really matter what the government`s definition of a recession is because the government doesn`t drive the economy, the people do. When the people lose faith in the economy they stop spending and businesses stop hiring.

statistics are easily manipulated,the statistics used to determine growth can be manipulated to make it appear that there has been some growth even if there hasn`t been any. what can`t be manipulated are the real world experiences of mainstream americans who don`t believe the recession is over.If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....

Ha ha Imoen. I have a business degree. Read the book "How come that idiot is rich and I am not." Scientists and Engineers are highly regarded professionals but they don't make the real money because they often are employees.

Business is where the money is and don't forget that they say "Time is money."

I spent almost 20 years skiing, sailing, paddling rivers and mountain biking all over the world. Lived the life of a millionaire because I still study business.

You are truly an idiot

Actually, it's a troll. Put it on ignore and direct your energies to people who want to have a rational discussion.

THANK YOU NBForrest.

Where are the fools coming from that believe the common American CARES how the GOVERNMENT defines this recession? With all of the convenient, crazy math they do to bend everything to their own agenda, it's no wonder people are giving a big "F YOU" to the people who choose to split hairs and argue that 'technically' it isn't a recession.

I suppose 99% of the population is just pulling their anger and plight out of their a$$ right?

A recession as when your neighbor is out of work, and a depression as when you are out of work.

ImoenOfTelengard -

Ordinarily I'd like to agree with you regarding choice of degree, but if you look at the government Occupational Outlook website (www.bls.gov/oco), or www.onetonline.org, they'll tell you that, by and large, many of the "engineering fields" will be experiencing "negative growth" (shrinking) over the next 10 years, and if you look at the "available jobs", many of them ask for a buisiness degree, even some of the "engineering" -type jobs want candidates to know "buisiness stuff". According to the above mentioned websites, the "big career fields" are, and will be:

Medical - (even though I'm starting to see a lot of those jobs going to part-time & on-call)

Business Related

IT/ Computer-related - (though my local unemployment counselor tells me there are way too many unemployed IT people that haven't been re-absorbed back into the workforce yet),

Low wage jobs - (server, dishwasher, room cleaners, etc.)

New/Emerging Fields - that don't have well-defined training or skills requirements yet (thus, trying to find and get a degree in these areas will not be easy).

- Those websites also seem to be indicating that many of the "traditional STEM career fields" (engineering technicians, engineers, repair, etc.) are starting to "go away" in many parts of the US. - I hope that's just another case of the govt. agencies "not knowing what they're talking about".

Imoen, you are ridiculous. Really, just because English is not important to you does not mean that other, smarter people are not interested in it. The study of plays, novels, biographies, poetry and histories might not make a huge amount of money but there is a beauty in it and not everybody is interested in living like a millionaire. I have some friends who travel the world and live very well off books they have written and they have English degrees.

In the technical financial jargon the financial wizards like to use, the recession is over. Now...face facts. That Contract With American (or was it ON America) was the beginning of a total restructuring of US labor. By implementing a Trickle Down Economy, we got exactly what they planned...the scraps they throw at us.

Suddenly, all those employees they hoodwinked into the "loyal 30 year employee award" propaganda became, "let's see if I'll hire you if you fit the template of cheapest cost to employers" routine. Trickle Down also meant if you want a job, you help pay the business expenses. So, you got exactly what they planned...pay for ALL your own benefits and help out business by cutting that cost.

Course now, the big problem remained.....What to do about salaries. Not a problem. Just whine about how much it costs to operate a business, how many taxes they pay and how that makes annual salary increases or any increases to keep pace with the cost of living (part of which they increase with their price gouging 6 times a year) impossible for anyone but them.

Not how CEO salaries in just the past 2 years are 26% higher than in 2008? Smell scammo bailout yet?

The worst thing we all did was place any trust in any CEO of any big business. We expected honesty and integrity and receive BS, BS and more BS. Now, these richie rich bois are so wealthy, they are totally immune to their part in this economic mess they and only they are responsible for.

And their answer is? Americans aren't spending and taking higher investment risks...Sure...so they can stuff their bank accounts instead of ours.

Time to get these greedheads OUT of our wallets.

FloridaDem...Wages for the top US CEOs rose 26% since 2009. Not ALL salaries are stagnated. The ones that need to be aren't and never will be unless we put teeth back into labor laws.

Well, "socially aware" capitalism is a fantasy. I'm sorry to say.

What needs to happen is that we need to go back to regulating financial markets like we did up until about the time Carter became president. Since the late 1970's, and especially after Reagan and Greenspan, the deregulation of financial markets has led us down the path of instability. The banks and brokers draw in as much capital as possible, suck as much as they can off the top, and do their level best to avoid any transparency so they rob investors. The more money they get to Wall Street, the more BS financial instruments they "invent" with no regulations, the more they can skim off the top to the detriment of everyone. And if they fail, they get a bailout anyhow.

"Responsible socially aware capitalism" is just liberal code for MARXIST DICTATORSHIP.

They are taking worker's desperation and manipulating the extended employment malaise to their monetary advantage.

Who? The Obuma regime? If so, I agree completely.

Exactly how do permanent poverty-level unemployment benefits "save or create" jobs? Sounds more like some cockamamy scheme to force voters into a permanent state of indebted servitude.

Ok, what is the effect of not giving "poverty-level" unemployment benefits? How exactly does paying unemployment benefits equate to a Marxist dictatorship in your fantasy world?

Do you think that, just maybe, even Ronald Reagan and and G. H. W. Bush and G. W. Bush had unemployment benefits paid out in their administrations too? Are they part of your fantasy Marxist dictatorship too? Or what?

Obama didn't exactly invent unemployment benefits, he has just encouraged them to be extended because the unemployment rate is so high. I haven't heard anyone suggest putting these workers into a permanent situation where the government pays their salaries. Have you in your fantasy world?

Ok, Robert Reich, what is the effect of giving PERMANENT "poverty-level" unemployment benefits? And, explain exactly how that policy creates jobs in your socialist utopia world?

First off, I'm not a socialist, and I don't think you have the slightest clue what socialism is.

Second, who is proposing "permanent" unemployment benefits?

Thirdly, the economy is suffering from a shortage of demand. The problem is that people have been living with stagnant wages with an increasing cost of living for so long, that only massive consumer debt has kept the economy growing. By putting money into consumers hands, along with keeping the unemployed from even more serious misery, the unemployment benefits help increase demand

If people don't have money to spend, then no one will create jobs. Businesses are sitting on lots of capital, but a shortage of demand coupled with uncertainty is slowing job growth. The low job growth means there is a large supply of desperate workers, who take whatever jobs they can find, which is causing wages to fall.

its called welfare. A culture has breeded in the form of child slavery pimping their 14 y/o daughters to get free housing and food.

"Responsible socially aware capitalism"

This is responsible, socially aware capitalism:

At the turn of the 20th Century, automakers thought the best way to maximize profit was to build a car for the rich. But Henry Ford had a different vision. He wanted to produce a car that everyday people—like the workers in his factories—could afford. With lower prices, cars would be more affordable to the general public. He also figured that if he paid his factory workers a better wage, more of his workers would be able to afford the cars they helped make. Henry Ford would make a profit by selling MORE cars.

http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/index.php?lid=692&type=student

Ford understood that the economy rested on the backs of a prosperous middle class who could afford to buy his cars. He understood that a prosperous middle class created demand for goods and services, and that a business that supplied those demands would fare far better than one which catered to a small, elite group of customers. The middle class of this country are the true job creators. As the middle class disappears, the 1%ers are doing to discover that it's their own foot they've been shooting.

No, socialism is not welfare. Socialism is ownership of means of production by the state. Not necessarily all means of production, but some means of production.

Social welfare is something that both parties believe in. Social welfare is not socialism.

Furthermore, I've never seen a serious Republican candidate talk about "ending welfare". Have you? Do you really think a Republican wants to preside over an economy where the poor are put out into the streets with nothing to eat, and nothing for the children so that they don't also lead lives of poverty? I don't think so.

Let me see a Republican propose ending welfare and then you can criticize Obama.

fbikerchick -

Maybe they think they "don't need" the US middle class to buy their products if they can sell them to the rest of the world's "new emerging economies".

Koz, what they're finding out now is that as emerging economies grow, the people who fuel those economies expect higher wages so they can buy more stuff. Outsourcing jobs to India has backfired on many companies. They end up paying as much or more for those jobs than they did in the US. And I say, they deserve it!

Henry Ford did not compete in the global economy with free trade.

fbikerchick -

Yeah, I read an article recently about how at least some companies that had sent much of their production to China are finding out that, in many areas of China, the days of cheap labor are going away, and they've pulled some jobs back to the US, but are also looking at other countries like India as well now. I guess if India's labor is too expensive, they'll find other countries like Africa or something, who knows?

Ok, and what happens when the cost of living increases anyhow as wages are stagnant or go down? That is what is happening now. What happens then?

You are the clueless asshat. You don't think that increasing wages and standard of living should be a goal of our economy? Why do we work so hard, so that our standard of living can keep going down? Get a clue.

TwistedCross is apparently one of the 1% who feels that he and his like deserve to take 40% off the top of everything, pay his lower minions (aka next 9% the next 40%, then let the rest of the 90% fight over the table scraps left, and we should be grateful to get it. It somehow doesn't enter his mind that he and his like in the top 10% do not deserve that 80% cut. You didn't earn it, through political manipulation and greed you stole it from us law abiding citizens. Well it's time to change the laws again. You guys brought it on yourselves and we will get it back.

@Marttin -

IE - we're a bunch of whiny no bodies, who think we deserve part of what someone else work for! Now you better give me some stuff!

before we get the government to take it away at gun point.. because I want it! i mean its unfair, you actually working and earning your stuff! i should get some of what you work for.. even though all i did was sit at home, posting on my blog about how un fair it all is..

is that the general drft of your argument?

Typical comments by clueless asshats: not only that, just look at the financial district todate they have been steadly raising their rates. Why, the only reason i see is that they want us to pay back the loan we gave them. Talk about getting screwed, they are doing it to us twice.

TwistedCross...Does your boss need to take home a six figure salary? You bet you sweet patoot he doesn't. He can learn to live on the same salary he expects his employees to live on. Or is it that his "privilege" means he's "entitled" to more than anyone else?

Oh and by the way, is your boss taking advantage of huge tax credits for personal or business income? Then, he's a fat liar that he's not earning a decent profit. Games over and the Gravy Train left the depot.

Show us the law that says any employer MUST, MUST, MUST pay himself 426 times what he pays his lowest paid employee.

Is there a law that limits the boss' (owner's) self paid income to 425 times his lowest paid employee?

Bill...No. There's the rub. In the faces of the employees who make that 425 times higher salary for him. No employer with any sense of integrity pays himself first before those who bring in the money he pays himself.

This is how this nasty business in Corporate America got so ugly. Americans are not stupid. They know when an employer is exploiting them solely so he can give himself the biggest share of the pie.

Business enterprise is not built upon 1 man with the highest salary who takes more out of the government and society than he puts back. Business enterprise is supposed to be a healthy exchange between labor and business so that it continues to flourish into the future.

What we have now are a bunch of beady-eyed little greedheads who don't give a damn how much they take from consumers, taxpayers or their own employees so long as they can sit back and play demi-god in an ivory tower.

An employer who pays himself and doesn't pay his employees is in trouble legally. I always make payroll, pay the utilities, services, insurances, and other expenses that are needed to keep the business open. When I can't do that, then the business is dead. But until then what's left over is mine and my partners to deal with within the law.

Why? Because it was me and my partners that put thousands of our savings and found the lenders of thousands that were needed to build the business. It was me and my partners that took no salary or distributions of profit early on to build the business. We appreciate our employees. We didn't call them "a bunch of beady-eyed little greedheads" because they were making money when we weren't.

There is nothing inherently bad about making lots of money. It's one's attitude about and stewardship of money and perhaps that nebulous "balance" that counts. After expenses, if my business could profit me 425 times $7.50 per hour, I'd take it without a shread of guilt and no less or more integrity than my minimum wage employee.

I'd still pay my required taxes, give even more to the church and charities, sponsor more overseas kids, and thank God for the blessings that have been provided especially living in a country that doesn't completely interfere with that happening in spite of some forces that are trying to convince us otherwise that making lots of money is wrong or evil or unfair.

Bill you are absolutely correct when my seasonal small business broke even this year instead of making me a nickle not one employee offered to take a paycut nor should they have but if the economy ever turns around or I am able to grow my fledgling business into something larger I'll be damned if anyone is going to tell me I can not reap the benifits as much as I reaped the hardships. If anyone in this country want's to decide how much someone else makes it is real simple start a company and you can pay whatever wage your heart desires.

ewent since I assume you are talking about CEO pay of large corporations I would like to point out that the amount of employees property and capital that a CEO is ultimately responsible for makes them demand a higher salary. If they could not be paid for that amount of responsibility why would the best at doing it ever take it on. Although the CEO is not in day to day operations and not one person makes a large corp. run, when everthing is said and done they will be held responsible for everything and with the size of some of these companies it is like being responsible for the GDP of a nation. No investor wants the guy willing to take $60,000 a year running their 1/4 Trillion dollar company.

Sammy...Yes...but the whining of a conservative is music to the ears. Especially when they realize taxpayer generosity is at an all time low. No more bailouts. No more tax credits. No more BS rich bois tears and fears of failure and poverty.

Just the sweet joy and hum of rich bois jumping out of skyscrapers when the Crash, Baby, Crash comes. And since it always does, whew I know I'll be thrilled.

Yes ewent, I suspect falling stockbrokers would make you happy. Oh, just one small problem. When the crash and depression flower, guess what? You'll be shuffling in a soup line with all the other citizen-drones. Do you suppose that might make someone else happy?

nmbg...Who but Boehner still can't come up with a job creation plan because El Whimpo El Bono is too lame ass to have any real control of the House as speaker.

Righties voted 2 times to re-elect the biggest loser president in history. Now they sit back and blame this president and call him stupid DogPatch names.

Meanwhile, no jobs creation bill forthcoming from Boehner, McConnell, Cantor or Ryan that won't make the rich richer.

Right... as you are typing from your Chinese made laptop.

I drive a Ford truck. :-) Best I can do until the US version of my mac comes out I guess.

You can thank Bush for that, he started this mess, no two ways about.

Actually it began far before Bush. It was during Carter's and Reagan's terms that the tax code started to favor the wealthy, the market was deregulated, and the national debt started to explode. If you have to blame someone, blame them. Blame, however, isn't important. We need a leader who is willing to stand up and fix these problems before we become a Chinese colony.

From the news article: "Republicans blame Mr. Obama for the slump, saying he has issued a blizzard of regulations and promised future tax increases that have hurt business and consumer confidence."

So the GOP/TPers blame Obama for enacting regulations and oversight to protect us from the excesses that created the Great Recession, and they also blame him for proposing tax increases on the wealthy.

Hmm. Other than patriotic-sounding generalities, Fox News talking points, and promoting fear and blame onto anyone that isn't like them, what plan does the radical right have to create jobs, eh? "Let the free market decide"? "Trickle down"? Eliminate "entitlements" by privatizing Social Security and Medicare to let the Insurance Industry and Wall Street control it all for their own profit agenda? Blame illegals? Eliminate Health Care Reform laws and regulations that protects us from being rejected by the Insurance Industry's infamous pre-existing medical conditions? Question the purity of individual people's Christianity? Eliminate the jobs of teachers, police, fire fighters? Take away worker's bargaining rights? Enact voter suppression laws under the guise of ID and birth certificate checks? Close public schools? Enlarge classroom sizes? Take away women's reproductive rights?

Is this the right-wing's plan to create jobs? Or to divide the nation by blaming non-conservative Americans, marginalizing the working class, disenfranchising American minority citizens, promoting fundamentalist religion, erode away our civil rights, and making the rich richer, as their economic and political solution?

So the right-wing wants to "Take Back America"? To what, when, how, and from whom? Is that their solution to improve America? Or to "purify" it? Into what?

Haha, you're all very confused. But that's why we're in this mess in the first place.

"HAVE YOUR POLITICIAN AGREE TO A POLYGRAPH TEST ON ETHICS, MORALS, CRIMINAL WRONGDOING, or acting against the best interest of the American people".....

...you did say politicians, right?

when pigs fly....when monkeys fly out of obama's butt...and ....nevermind you get the picture.

Our fine congress proves on a daily basis that they entirely too bought and paid for to make any decision, let alone the right ones.

Vote out ALL incumbents, it is the only thing left before revolution

Vote out ALL incumbents, it is the only thing left before revolution

Replacing them with more of the same does nothing. Remember Einstein's definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Voting out incumbents is meaningless unless we also impose term limits to end career politicians whose sole interest is to keep getting elected.

Term limits would be great for the economy then the one thing you could be sure of is every few years youd have a new group of egocentric people right/left trying to make their mark on the system screwing even more up.

Yeah, but they'll be illegals with college degrees.

Bill857...Well, after all you can't expect Texas to actually ever use state funds to take care of their own can you? Not when they get back $1.47 for every $1 they pay to the fed. Nice work. My state gets a lousy 62 cents for every dollar we pay. So does NY, CT and the rest of the northeastern and northwestern states.

Meanwhile, Big Oil which is the lion's share of Texas industry gets tons of tax subsidies the rest of the states are paying for. Enough with that long horn dung already.

Libs, because their lives have improved so much under the Obuma regime!

If you didn't get a crappy degree in college, the recession has been over for a long time.

The point of the article was that by economic definition, which depends on recovery in overall GDP, the recession is over BUT that recovery has not meant a return of wealth to the average household.

What you should be asking is "Where did that wealth go?"

Mary Beth - the US just keep printing money and that money is going to the place of least resistance which is outside the US. This is the redistribution of wealth that Obama supports. As a nation, we have printed money and given it to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. We didn't give that money to cities like Detroit that are deteriorating right under our noses. The surplus because of the trade deficit between the US and and China gets put into treasuries, that is held by China, that was printed by the US. The US is building up the rest of the world with inflated money printed by the Feds.

When we invest in Solar, we are again investing in China not the US since most of the production jobs are outside the US. True the installation is here in the US, but we got no benefit before those small number of jobs.

The stimulus didn't for the most part invest in the US either. It gave a 1/3 of that money as a tax break to households that either saved it or paid off debt. The savings which normally gets lent out for investment isn't happening since banks are restricted to much lending because of increased capital reserves now required by the Obama administration in order to lessen the possibility of another economic collapse.

When the market tanked back in 2008 - 2009, many individuals never got back in and missed at least improving their wealth situation. The rich did jump back in and took advantage of the quick upswing in the market. Now nobody except those betting against the market are winning because confidence is lacking due to lack of leadership in the WH and abroad. We have a global malaise because of excessive debt by many countries, individuals, coupled with a real estate decline. It will take years for all this to sort out, but the more regulations imposed the longer the recovery will be. As it is, too much happened too quick during a heightened uncertain time. The health care mess should have been tabled until the US got on better footing. We then needed health care reform to include rising costs which it did not do.

Now we have paralysis because all these bills passed by dems were never read and nobody really knew how they would be implemented and that the impact would be.

There are two major problems in our country right now.

1) - Corporate greed

2) - Republicans wanting to get rid of President Obama no matter what the cost

Someone above said we should ask where the wealth go. The answer is easy, the ones had that the most took the most.

I would think that EVERYONE that isn't a professional welfaring easy rider would want to get rid of BHO at any cost.

beeman...Got any ideas as to why the corporate welfare recipients are hot to destroy this administration with their billion dollar lobbying? Don't talk about welfare unless you are willing to admit to the billions taxpayers lose every year to the scumbuckets of Corporate America who slime the systems with their tax credits, loopholes and other BS welfare begging.

That's true, when McConnell said that their priority number one is to make this President one term President, (not jobs, not people, not unemployment), at least he was hones.

Boehner staying there with his drinking face and lying (as there is no tomorrow). Playing with our life is fun for him.

Republicans made capitalism look like SOB'sm.

GET THIS CONGRESS OF LAIRS AND NOTHING DOINGS OUT OF CONGRESS IN 2012!!! Make no more fun for them.

McConnell is a traitor to the American people.

Though Obama should be in prison, he will beg for a Presidential Pardon from Herman Cain or Mitt Romney, and more than likely get it. He should be forced to pay restitution though, or at least for the half a billion wasted at Solyndra so he could get more campaign donations for his coffers.

PEE Walker,

You would give the treasonous bush and cheney off the hook?

Yeah, and that worked so well under FDR, didn't it?!? We built a great big dam, but still didn't have any jobs when it was finished.