.

The Obama Legacy - Week 199

The news media has been telling us about the new jobs created, but not about the existing jobs being lost. These are the number of layoffs, bankruptcies and companies that have gone out of business.

After the election last week, I've had some people tell me that they supported Barack Obama because of all the jobs he has created. It then occurred to me that the news media has been telling us about the new jobs created but not about the existing jobs being lost. In order to provide the other side of the job market equation These are the number of layoffs, bankruptcies and companies that have gone out of business.

This is week 199 of Barack Obama's Presidency

68 Companies announced layoffs

20,996 people were laid off

80 Companies went out of business

11 Companies went into bankruptcy

 

November 2012 (Month to date)

127 Companies announced layoffs

100,255 people were laid off

313 Companies went out of business

41 Companies went into bankruptcy

 

The Obama Legacy - Week 199

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

David Nolta November 21, 2012 at 01:09 AM
Rich A, You give me hope. Or you increase my hope, because I am a congenitally hopeful person. A country is only invested in its future to the extent that its citizens are invested. And most invested of all--most subject to both the benefits and the sacrifices--should be our elected representatives. What happened to the FDR's AND the Eisenhowers, who understood the concept of the country's sufferings as their own???
Mike Long November 21, 2012 at 01:09 AM
First did Marco Rubio use poor judgement and did he pander? Let's go all the way back to the actual transcript of the interview to determine what was asked and what was answered. http://www.gq.com/news-politics/politics/201212/marco-rubio-interview-gq-december-2012?currentPage=2 GQ: How old do you think the Earth is? Marco Rubio: I'm not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries. He pointed out how irrelevent and off topic the question was and that he was not qualified to answer it. This is not an ignorant or pandering answer. It was a logical answer to an illogical question.
Mike Long November 21, 2012 at 01:12 AM
The second component of the comment is the question itself. When you look at the questions that were asked in the order they were asked it is not hard to come to the conclusion that this particular question was a setup. It was designed to be a gotcha question. His answer to an absurd question was going to be spun in a negative way. The question was completely out of the blue and totally irrelevant to anything else being discussed. It is the interviewer that should be taken to task for his poor performance and lack of journalistic standards. Go read the questions by the interviewer in the order they were asked and you will see the absolute absurdity of the question along with the obvious bias in portions of the other questions.
Linda Worthy November 21, 2012 at 02:51 AM
In spite of all the whining from Republicans, the economy continues to improve. "The latest evidence came in reports Monday that sales of previously occupied homes rose solidly in October and that builders are more confident than at any other time in 6½ years. New home sales and home-price indexes have reached multiyear highs. And Lowe’s Cos. on Monday reported a surge in net income, a sign that home improvement retailers are benefiting. Helping drive the housing rebound is growing confidence among builders. An index of builder sentiment compiled by the National Association of Home Builders/Wells Fargo rose to 46 this month, up from 41 in October. It was the highest reading since May 2006." http://tinyurl.com/bep2eet
Kelly Roney November 21, 2012 at 04:25 PM
Sure, FindBalance, that's why Europe's finance sector melted down at exactly the same time - because the Community Reinvestment Act, passed in the 1970s, suddenly went into force for the entire developed world. The finance sector, unburdened by Bush era enforcement of even the inadequate regulations already on the books, brought about the meltdown. They took the risks they took because they could make money fraudulently hiding the risks and leaving others holding the bag.
Kelly Roney November 21, 2012 at 04:27 PM
FindB, you obviously don't know how the EITC works. To get it, you have to be working, and it only goes away gradually, as you improve your income. You thought the whole government was too stupid to think of your simplistic objections? Really, Democrats aren't in the business of giving money away just to make us feel better. We actually want people to have jobs.
FindBalance November 21, 2012 at 05:19 PM
Kelly, you conveniently ingore the Dems part int he meltdown, both directly and oversight-wise. The following paragraph you wrote is so incorrect in everything it states: "The finance sector, unburdened by Bush era enforcement of even the inadequate regulations already on the books, brought about the meltdown. They took the risks they took because they could make money fraudulently hiding the risks and leaving others holding the bag" 1. Bush era enforcement is blaming Bush and R policies. This is gross mischaracterization because this responsibility lies with the House and Senate Finance committees, which were chaired by Frank and Dodd for a number of years leading up to the meltdown. The SEC also did not do their job, and that organization doesn’t change from administration to administration 2. They took risks because Frank pushed for easily accessible, cheap money, backed by Fannie and Freddie – that *purely* Democrat policy took all the risk away from the banks 3. They did not hide anything, let alone do it fraudulently. If they had, why are people not in jail? Even Obama did not put anyone in jail.
FindBalance November 21, 2012 at 05:26 PM
Thanks for the name calling Kelly, and for pointing out what I know and don't know. David Nolta would be proud. I do understand how EITC works, and it's a handout with no incentive to improve your own situation.. As you point out, you get less when you make more, which is really a disincentive to make more. And Dems want you to work, yes, so the govt can take more to spend more. And people to whom they give money will keep voting for them, hence keeping them in power. At first this is not destructive, but we are way past that in this state, as 1 party Power have lead to Corruption; now all that's left is for Absolute Power, which will lead to Absolute Corruption.
FindBalance November 21, 2012 at 05:37 PM
Yup, that's why there are still 23 Million people out of work.
Kelly Roney November 21, 2012 at 06:25 PM
Explain to your eager readers, Find, just how Barney Frank made his influence so irresistible to financial institutions (and we all know how innocent they are) while Congress and the Presidency were in Republican hands. Neat trick! If Frank could do that, I'm sure he could also magically subvert the European financial system. Your theory of how the meltdown happened is simply and completely ridiculous. By the way, Fannie and Freddie were very late to the party. They were the bigger suckers that Wall St. needed, but even there the motivation was profit and market share - private incentives - not mainly a public policy goal.
Aaron November 21, 2012 at 06:35 PM
Where has the economy improved? Kenya?
Kelly Roney November 21, 2012 at 06:37 PM
FindB, under your theory of incentives, all taxation would remove all incentive to improve oneself. I have no idea what tax bracket you're in, but say it's 35%. So the IRS leaves you only 65 cents out of any additional dollar you make. Since you're losing some money, according to you, you should only care about the 35 cents, not the 65 cents. Obviously wrong... You think the working poor have no incentive due to the EITC. Nonsense. The poor are a lot like you and me. They want a better life. If they can get paid another $10,000 and their EITC goes down $2,000, they're still incented to gain that income. That's why Ronald Reagan signed the EITC into law. Here's more explanation: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/family/eitc.cfm. By the way, I didn't call you a name. I said you didn't know something, which you clearly don't.
Kelly Roney November 21, 2012 at 06:42 PM
Rich, educated blue states subsidize poor, uneducated red states. Our economies are healthier, we have much higher rates of health insurance, and we have fewer social problems. We get a better quality of life. Often not a better quality of weather, though...
Kelly Roney November 21, 2012 at 06:46 PM
Wouldn't a fair comparison be with employment at the end of the Bush GDP recession, rather than before the meltdown caused by Republican policies had full effect?
Linda Worthy November 21, 2012 at 07:35 PM
The election of Barack Obama failed to usher in a post-racial US, with a new poll showing that 51 percent of Americans hold explicitly anti-black views. That figure is up from 48 percent in 2008, the year America elected its first black president. Those expressing implicit anti-black attitudes also spiked from 49 percent to 56 percent over the same four-year period, the Associated Press found in a poll released Saturday. Racial prejudice against blacks cut clearly across America’s left-right political divide, despite perceptions to the contrary. While 79 percent of Republicans willingly expressed racial prejudice when answering questions measuring explicit racism (as opposed to 32 percent among Democrats), the implicit racism test showed that a majority of Republicans (64 percent) and Democrats (55 percent) held implicit anti-black feelings. http://tinyurl.com/9nl888w
FindBalance November 21, 2012 at 07:44 PM
Again with the condescension, Kelly – you’re a real peach. And again, also, you are so off base on so much. What you are saying is that when the Dems were in the minority in 2001 and 2002, Frank had no influence; so I guess he and the other Dems in Congress just shouldn’t have shown up! But we know Barney did show up, and in 2003 when the Republicans began to take a hard look at loaning money to people who could not afford to pay it back, Barney led the charge against, bringing a letter to Bush signed by other Dems, begging them not to tighten qualification rules because that was the engine driving the economy. And I already explain how Barney made his influence so irresistible to financial institutions (I love how you demonize things that aren’t govt-controlled), but you just ignore it again. First, he pressured banks to give these loans (after all, he was a US Rep, and his mission and passion were that everyone in America own their own home), then he had Fannie/Freddie guarantee them (Wall Street didn’t ask for these guarantees, Barney handed it to them!) – no, F&F were not late to the game, Frank hid the impact to them until the very end. And you continue to ignore the fact that the House and Senate were Dem in the end years of Bush’s presidency, exactly when the financial walls came crumbling down. Yet you would have us believe the Dems were not culpable at all.
FindBalance November 21, 2012 at 07:45 PM
RE Frank “magically” subverting the European financial system – I know you’re not that stupid, Kelly, but maybe you think the readers are – the ‘EFS’ was collateral damage in the meltdown – Frank didn’t have to do anything special, the EFS was just affected when it happened. BTW Kelly, now that the election is oveer, I am looking forward to my reduction in MA income tax rate when I file for 2012, as you noted.
FindBalance November 21, 2012 at 07:50 PM
Boy, I'd love to see the questions they used to determine explicity and implicitly people's racisms; now is that racism only against blacks, or did they measure racism against whites? There is already a good # for that, though - 93% of blacks voted for Obama (how do you liberals like your kind of spin aimed back at you?)
Kelly Roney November 21, 2012 at 08:03 PM
FindB, there's no arguing with the chip on your shoulder, but your facts - those are simply wrong. Check your history. The Republicans held both houses of Congress throughout the first six years of Bush/Cheney - except for some back and forth in the Senate in 2001 and 2002. Anyone who's looked at the mortgage crisis without cherry-picking the data will tell you that private interests caused the meltdown. See http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/opinion/nocera-an-inconvenient-truth.html. Last I checked, the regulators are all in the Executive Branch. They were under instructions not to regulate, even to the extent that regulations were already in place. By the way, Democrats are not blameless. Bill Clinton did ally with Republicans and centrist Democrats to repeal Glass-Steagall, which was a mistake of epic proportions. I guess you must think all those German loans into Spain had nothing to do with the European financial panic. You do realize that Europe's economy as a whole is close to ours in size, don't you? But Barney Frank was still able to pull it down around his ears! Look, the Fox-tested, GOP-approved fairy tale that the financial panic occurred because of the government is flat wrong. They're lying to you for a reason. Owning up to the truth would leave them out of power forever.
FindBalance November 21, 2012 at 08:33 PM
You want an honest discussion, Kelly? Some what you say is acceptable for a govt to provide to its underpriviledged, but we are past the point that it is constructive, and it is now destructive, and on many levels, including that our govt is getting too powerful, and we are more and more working for the govt to provide our society, and that is not a free people.
FindBalance November 21, 2012 at 08:36 PM
Kelly - You hit the the ideological difference on the head. My theory of incentives is that you get to keep what you earn (a theory agreed to by the Founding Fathers), while libeeral theory of incentives is that the govt decides on the incentives! That is not freedom.
FindBalance November 21, 2012 at 08:39 PM
Also, a question to you Kelly - if the working poor want a better life, how many of them achieve it? How many who are on any kind of assistance ever get off it, let alone get reduced assistance over time? Honestly, I never hear any studies on that.
FindBalance November 21, 2012 at 08:50 PM
Funny, I point out your condescension, and right away you accuse me of having a chip on my shoulder. FYI - I get my info from a lot of sources, and come to my own conclusions. Fox didn't tell me Frank and Dodd were chairs of the House and Senate Finance Committee leading up to the meltdown, nor did they tell me that the SEC really doesn't operate under an administration's influence, regardless of whether they are R or D; I just think they are mostly on the side to protect Wall Street, whether through incompetence (Bernie Madoff) or other. Look, I think we both laid out enough info for the reader to be better informed of alternate points of view on the same events.
FindBalance November 21, 2012 at 08:54 PM
Also, I agree with an updated form of Glass-Steagall to separate the monies between service and investment within a bank. That's the kind of regulation I agree with, because it prevents extremes. Why that hasn't been done yet is beyond me.
Ralph November 21, 2012 at 10:55 PM
"the economy continues to improve" - Tell that to the 18,000 people from Hostess that are out of work.
Kelly Roney November 22, 2012 at 02:07 AM
Correction of bald error is not condescension. If you accuse me of sarcasm, I'll happily own up to it. We don't have Glass-Steagall because not enough other states have elected people like Elizabeth Warren to Congress. By the way, putting investment banks and commercial banks under single enterprises won't work. They need to be separate to keep incentive and risk aligned. The Bush SEC drastically lowered enforcement through its political appointee Chris Cox: "During Cox's tenure, penalties imposed on companies fell 84 percent, from $1.59 billion in 2005 to $256 million in 2008." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/31/AR2009053102254.html Barney Frank and Chris Dodd probably had less than zero influence over Bush Administration finance regulators. Nope, the 2008 financial panic and subsequent Great Recession were squarely the fault of laissez-faire Republican ideology, which puts the interests of the already obscenely rich ahead of an orderly and non-catastrophic market.
Linda Worthy November 22, 2012 at 04:44 AM
Romney / Ryan support Black Friday and Shop Small Saturday http://store.mittromney.com/apparel/t-shirts/
Aaron November 22, 2012 at 04:28 PM
Sit back and watch the downward spiral
Max Walker November 22, 2012 at 06:29 PM
mike: why such pretzelling in answer to a simple question? and so what if it's a gotcha question? answer it straightforwardly. if the republican base is not anti science, the answers are that the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years (yes that first decimal place is important; that's how accurate the estimates are) and that the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old. he could have then added that written biblical records say something else, but that he has no wish to participate in an unproductive science versus faith discussion. that he chose not to do that is very telling.
David Nolta November 23, 2012 at 01:28 PM
Yes, when I was in junior high school, I dealt with a lot of bullies. As I said, they were all cowards. Two or three of them turned out to be decent people when they grew up. It never crossed my mind that I might be the problem--since I never spoke to them or engaged them in any way. I was quite small physically when I was a child. And I wore glasses, and, well, I read a lot and that provokes some people. Though I never did anything to engage these bullies, I did stop running from them, and that's how I learned that they were, generally speaking, cowards. Oh but Chris L, you already knew all of this, from your background checks, and my picture... The economy remains OURS, Chris L. Neither your threats nor your misrepresentations of other people's positions change that. It's not warm, it's not fuzzy. It's a fact.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »