The latest employment report from the Labor Department is out and there's not a hint of good news:
Unemployment still 9.1%
Net jobs created: zero.
June and July jobs revised down.
Average work week: down.
Hourly earnings: down.
Worst of all, this will trigger a whole new round of stale speeches from Obama about how we need to work together before he questions his opponents patriotism in the next breath.
But wait, there's less! "Among the more disturbing numbers: the amount of people "marginally attached to the labor force" rose to 2.6 million from 2.4 million. These are workers not included in the unemployment count because they had not sought work in the past four weeks but have looked in the past year."
14 comments:
Private & government job figures, 2001-2011:
http://www.unc.edu/~kapark/BushObamaEmployment.jpg
The April 14 Twitter message from the House Majority Leader:
@GOPLeader
Eric Cantor
Over 478,000 Jobs Created Since January, #GOPMajority #TCOT
Hmm, did anything happen to U.S. economic policy since April 2011? And why no more bragging tweets about who deserves full credit for job creation? Or is it because of the 2% John Boehner wanted, but didn't get?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_09/gop_leaders_stop_taking_credit031960.php
Well, I don't know about that, but I know Obama invested half-a-billion in Solyndra and that's worked out great with many green jobs to boot.
Wait, what?
Very responsive. Also, the Miami Heat are counting on draft pick Norris Cole to shore up their point guard position. Wait, what?
But since you prefer to change the subject:
"The fact is that, when judged by its entire diverse portfolio of investments, the [Dept. of Energy Loan Guarantee Program] has performed remarkably well. Indeed, with a capitalization of just $4 billion, DOE has committed or closed $37.8 billion in loan guarantees for 36 innovative clean energy projects. The Solyndra case represents less than 2% of total loan commitments made by DOE, and will be easily covered by a capitalization of eight to ten times larger than any ultimate losses expected following the bankruptcy proceedings.
The broad success story of the LGP shows why federal investment in clean energy is necessary to help early-stage clean energy technologies achieve scale and reach commercialization. The inherent uncertainty in investing in novel technologies, coupled with the high capital costs and long time horizons, prohibits most venture capital funds from investing in large-scale clean energy projects. Financing tools and direct investment from the federal government can help bridge this well-known “Commercialization Valley of Death,” and the LGP is an effective way of doing that.
Instead of “picking winners and losers,” as the program’s critics allege, the program actually reduces risk for a suite of innovative clean energy technologies and allows venture capitalists and other private sector investors to invest in the best technology. Rather than picking winners, the LGP enables innovative companies to compete in the marketplace, allowing winners to emerge from competition. And while Solyndra is shutting its doors, companies like SunPower, First Solar, and Brightsource Energy, which also received loan guarantees and other support from the federal government, are industry leading success stories...
But to assert, as numerous conservative commentators have been quick to do, that Solyndra’s failure is proof positive of the government’s supposed inability to “pick winners” is patently absurd. After all, Solyndra received repeated rounds of investment to the tune of $1.1 billion from some of the private sector’s biggest stars, including Richard Branson, the WalMart family, and leading venture capital firms like U.S. Venture Partners and RockPort Capital. Venture capitalists and the U.S. government both placed a bet, Solyndra’s entrepreneurs took a shot, and unfortunately for all, they missed. Such is to be expected in the high-risk but high-reward world of early-stage technology ventures. In addition, the loan commitment places the government in a senior position in the result of a bankruptcy, ensuring that DOE will get paid out before the VCs and other investors.
Critics who think the government has no place in supporting technology innovation have a tenuous grasp of U.S. economic history. In fact, the government has a long and successful history in helping America’s intrepid entrepreneurs succeed in new high-risk, high-reward technology sectors... Indeed, without a visionary government investing in key strategic industries, world-leading companies like Google, Genentech and Boeing would not exist...
U.S. companies compete with low-cost Chinese manufacturers who benefit from generous state subsidies and a robust and comprehensive set of policies to encourage solar manufacturing. Indeed, in 2010 the China Development Bank provided more than $30 billion in loans to Chinese solar manufacturers. China’s large clean energy investments have helped reduce the price of solar cells by 42% in just the last nine months, which was one factor in Solyndra’s inability to compete."
That's from the spend-it-all socialists at Forbes.
OK, I'll aver that the Republicans shouldn't have taken any credit for job creation since the President is always held responsible. Which is what makes Obama's endless blame game against Bush and then Congress so petty.
Also, I was not aware the government "invested" in Google, but I hope they got a bigger share back than the bath we're going to take on General Motors. Which leads to a bigger question: why is the government picking winners and losers in the private market?
Obama rolled the dice on Solyndra because he desperately wanted to believe the myth of green jobs. It was a failure. If Dubya invested taxpayer money in an oil-recovery firm that went belly-up, we'd never hear the end of it. But Obama had good intentions, which always washes sins clean among the Left as they waste other people's money.
Let the venture capitalists and the Walmart family take the risk.
Forbes: Instead of “picking winners and losers,” as the program’s critics allege, the program actually reduces risk for a suite of innovative clean energy technologies and allows venture capitalists and other private sector investors to invest in the best technology.
Rather than picking winners, the LGP enables innovative companies to compete in the marketplace, allowing winners to emerge from competition.
To assert, as numerous conservative commentators have been quick to do, that Solyndra’s failure is proof positive of the government’s supposed inability to “pick winners” is patently absurd.
Eric: Which leads to a bigger question: why is the government picking winners and losers in the private market?
?????
Ahhh, it IS picking winners and losers. Perhaps not across the "green energy" market but it is as compared to the ENERGY market. Renewables simply can't compete with regular energy sources (oil, natural gas, coal, etc.).
Whereas allowing existing energy companies like Exxon Mobil, General Electric, Valero, ConocoPhillips and Chevron to pay $0.00 in federal income tax, that's an even playing field.
Suuurrrre.
(Actually, that's not entirely fair. Those companies don't have a $0 tax bill. They get tax credits and refunds.)
What does not paying income tax have to do with receiving government subsidies?
As to corporations even paying an income tax, I have always thought that is a crock anyway. There is no Mr. Exxon paying this money out of his pocket. It is the consumer paying those taxes. Pretending otherwise is just being stupid.
Irrespective, if you think operating under the existing tax code which allows a corporation to keep its OWN money is not different than the government cutting someone a check, I am not sure I could explain it to you...
You could keep all your OWN money too, if you got to write the tax code.
An excellent non-response
Is this better?
You're someone who swallows distinctions without distinction that are fed to you by oligarchs, as if a dollar loaned to a startup company is more precious to the taxpayer than a dollar handed away to an already successful company.
A person who is sad and troubled by the idea of corporations being obliged to pay any income tax at all, even though many of the largest companies already have a negative tax rate.
A person who thinks government business loans are "picking winners and losers," but that the practice of taking tax code language directly from lobbyists and making it federal law is just good sense.
And perhaps, a person who feels existing tax codes just "exist" somehow, whereas those who haven't been in the room writing them for the last 50 years "simply can't compete."
In other words, a chump.
Ahhh, name calling. Truely the mark of a liberal "intellectual."
I also like how you throw up lots of straw men I never mentioned, only to knock them down......
Barrack, is that you? Maybe we can share a cold beer in the White House together, you know, Beer Summit II. Have to be soon though, like within 18 months, as your new place wouldn't be as good....
Oh, heavens, my deepest apologies for the unprovoked slur, Mr. "Pretending otherwise is just being stupid... I'm not sure I could explain it to you."
This "intellectual" never meant to "offend" your "sensibilities."
Between 2005-2010, ExxonMobil, BP, Shell and Chevron recorded $546 billion in profits. Over 11,000 U.S. employees were fired by these companies over the same period. The four companies will receive over $43 billion in targeted tax breaks through 2020, to go along with $53 billion of taxpayer subsidies for royalty-free drilling through 2035.
Meanwhile, the DOE's Loan Guarantee Program's $4 billion budget - loans, not subsidies - is a terrible case of "picking winners."
You also think their tax burden BEFORE all these tax breaks are applied should be $0.
Chump.
P.S. The term "straw man" has an actual definition. It doesn't automatically mean any fact you didn't mention first. But feel free to tell us more about my "excellent non-responses"...
Barrack, is that you? Maybe we can share a cold beer in the White House together, you know, Beer Summit II. Have to be soon though, like within 18 months, as your new place wouldn't be as good....
You'd better hang onto that keg. If you honestly think Obama is going to lose the Presidency, you'll want to have a LOT of beer on hand for Election Night 2012.
Post a Comment