EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Better Give One Hell of a Speech
On the eve of a Labor Day that will mark the unofficial launching place of his 2012 reelection campaign, on the eve of an address to Congress that could be the most important of his presidency, there is no good economic news for Barack Obama.
Vice President Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., applaud as President Barack Obama addresses a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber of the Capitol in Washington , Tuesday, Feb. 24, 2009. Of course, it's too many speeches and not enough good policy that got us into this mess in the first place. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, Pool)
A net total of zero jobs were added in the month of July, for which economic data was released Friday morning.
In addition, Friday's report revealed, the number of hours worked by the average American has begun to decline.
And hourly earnings have dropped.
So even if Americans are employed, they are working less and making less.
"These numbers, with no net job creation at all—and 14 million people officially unemployed—show that the economy is dead in the water.” says Roger Hickey of the Campaign for America's Future.
But that's not the scariest part of the story.
While the official unemployment rate held steady at 9.1 percent—almost twice the level that former U.S. Senator Hubert Humphrey and former U.S. Congressman Gus Hawkins identified as a unacceptable when they were pushing their Humphrey-Hawkins full-employment bill in the 1970s—the real rate continues to grow worse.
The broad measure of unemployment—the Department of Labor's U-6 figure, which includes the long-term unemployed and under-employed—rose to 16.2 percent (from 16.1 percent in June). That's the highest level this year.
The 16.2 percent figure is, by any honest measure, the real unemployment rate. And it is ticking upward.
Why? Because the United States has failed to create jobs at a rate to keep up with population growth.
How big a failure are we talking about?
Consider these facts:
The number of employed Americans in July, 2011 was 139,296,000.
The number of employed Americans in July, 2004, 139,556,000.
So there are 260,000 fewer people working today than when George Bush was in his first term as president. Yet, the U.S. population grew during the period from 2004 to 2011 by almost 20 million—from 292,892,000 in July, 2004 to 312,150,000 today.
Tens of millions of Americans who have stopped looking for work, who never had work or who are severely underemployed live in the shadows—unreflected in the official figures. “Long-term unemployment remains at record levels, and 25 million Americans who want work can’t get full-time jobs.," says National Employment Law Project director Christine Owens. "Midlife job losers fear they’ll never work again, while young people yearn for any start. Economic growth has barely dented the yawning jobs deficit, and those jobs we are adding are largely low-wage. Earnings are stagnant for most workers and have fallen for the lowest-paid."
As job growth literately grinds to a halt, the crisis becomes all the more evident. And Owens states the obvious yet critical point: "This distressing news sets the stage for President Obama’s address to Congress next week on jobs and the economy."
President Obama is starting to recognize this reality.
He's going to give that "major" address to Congress on Thursday.
And he's going to talk about some kind of jobs program.
But Obama has yet to display the sense of urgency that is required.
He wasted the summer on a ridiculous debt-ceiling debate that—with the establishment of the congressional "super committee" on debt and deficit reduction—"ended" with a commitment to continue the wrangling.
Now, even as he has focused on the jobs crisis, Obama continues to send weak signals.
The worst of those weak signals took the form of the wrestling this week over when to schedule his speech before the Congress.
With American teetering on the brink of potentially severe recession, a president who is in charge does not worry about scheduling conflicts with a partisan debate involving his potential opponents—as Obama did—or a football game. He says that some issues are more important than politics or football.
Obama did not do that. It was a mistake.
There is much talk about how the president has to "go big" with his jobs speech. There's no question that this is true. But there are many ways to "go big." For Obama to succeed next week—and he must succeed if he hopes to right the course not just of his presidency but of the economy—he must hit all the bases.
1. His speech must inspire confidence that he has a plan for job creation, that the plan can he measured in real time and that there is an end goal. Obama cannot talk vaguely about creating jobs or improving the economy. He ought not peddle false hope or fabtasy, He should come on strong with specfic plans, specific goals and specific timelines,
2. To inspire that confidence, he must be willing to say that his plan is essential and cannot be compromised or dialed down. Obama's failure to do this with the original stimulus plan of 2009 robbed that initiative of the resources needed to provide a sufficient jumpstart to the economy.
3. Obama's plan must provide incentives for the private sector to create jobs in the United States—not overseas. If he includes a major free-trade component his initiative will—according to studies by government and non-government analysts—lead to increased unemployment.
4. Obama's plan must recognize the most severe layoffs right now are taking place at the state and local government and school district levels—550,000 jobs lost since the fall of 2008. State and local government layoffs are triply damaging to the economy as they create greater unemployment, reduce buying power for teachers and others who tend to spend a lot on Main Street for supplies, and cut services that are more needed in a time of recession. The president needs to include federal funding to keep local government functioning and even, where possible, to expand services. CAF's Hickey is right when he says: “The policy of our government is systematically undermining the recovery. Public sector layoffs are undermining consumer buying power, crippling the ability of the private sector to sell products and services. Clearly, President Obama must reverse this downward spiral by creating jobs directly, putting money in consumer’s pockets, and helping small and large companies to find buyers and invest in growth."
5. Obama has to talk about how to fund his program, so that he does not get bogged down in the usual DC debate about spending. If the debate about renewing the economy becomes a spending fight, Republicans in the House will prevent anything meaningful from happening. There has to be a revenue component and Obama should be talking about taxing Wall Street and financial speculation. Even if he does not get everything he asks for, it will shift the focus of the debate away from the spending fight to a real dialogue about whether billionaires ought to aid a recovery—or continue to stream money out of the real economy and into the paper economy of the speculators.
The president should take a cue from Progressive Democrats of America national director Tim Carpenter, who says, "America's working families have lost their homes, jobs, and healthcare. Young people can't afford the price of college, can't find jobs, and older folks can't retire because of an economy destroyed by greedy Wall Street corporations. It is only fair that Wall Street pay for the destruction they have wrought."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
56 Comments so far
Show AllWhat Nichols and others fail to understand is Obama isn't concerned about job creation one iota. His job is to wage more wars and thus ensure the flow of money to the elite continues to grow. The Corporadoes he serves are dong quite well, and their jobs are secure--and it is those jobs that concern Obama, not those of the general populus. The proof is there for those with open eyes to see--the "Jobs Crisis" has existed since day #1 of Obama's term, yet he has done absolutely nothing to fulfill his legal obligation as president to maintain full employment, as the 1946 Full Employment Act demands.
Almost every time I read John Nichols I see what Rahm Emanuel meant when he called liberals "f-king retards."
Geez... first Reich, then Kuttner, now Nichols. The Obamapologists are getting a little antsy that ole' Barack may be somnambulating into an ass whoopin' at the hands of whatever troglodyte the Repugs toss out.
ZERO jobs in July.
Surely it's time for the classic Bushism -- "Hell of a job, Barackie!"
"President Obama is starting to recognize this reality.
He's going to give that "major" address to Congress on Thursday.
And he's going to talk about some kind of jobs program."
WOW!!!!!! Hold onto your hats. I am almost excited about this. The President is starting to "recognize this reality"... now if that does not fill you with awe nothing will.
What he should be doing is offering lucrative contracts to 'take out' Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, Austan Goolsbee, and some of the other brainiacs who helped him construct his economic program. At least that would create some 'jobs'.
Honestly, Obama does care about jobs and the unemployment numbers. He would really, really like them to be better. He just doesn't care enough about jobs to ruffle the feathers of his Wall Street owners.
Obama with his office better just be ignored. Like the rest of his kind he is merely the Patsy Of The United States of America.
The USA in its turn has, when all is taken onto account, long been the name of a pirate ship lurking in the fog of 'American' Democracy, War and Law.
There is no reason to believe that this moderate right wing president will suddenly turn his back on his corporate donors in favor of the American people. He will promote republican policies and add an infrastructure bank while avoiding at all costs a large direct fedral jobs program. He is well on his way to becoming the first billion dollar candidate to lose an election.
'moderate right wing'?! ...only by comparison to the clowns proffered up by the oligarchs. But if you ignore the bachmann's, et al., and look simply at policy, this president's belief system is much more aligned with the likes of dick cheney (minus the snarl, of course).
There is absolutely nothing moderate about obama...the image is all the result of a well-orchestrated and highly successful PR illusion.
"Obama must"....blah, blah blah, "the president should" blather, blather, blather or else we will get very annoyed with him. This president, I predict will not be bold and will act he always has, as though small patchwork solutions will work because he, good Republican Capitalist that he is, believes it only takes small adjustments to get the economy humming--and he will still get 70% approval ratings from the Democratic base--and he will lead the sheep to the slaughter next November. Then the Dems, who will so richly deserve the electoral rebuke they are about to get, will again misread the signs of defeat, miss the target, the real reason for public anger, and nominate an even more right wing shadow puppet in 2016. So obvious-- anybody believe me or should I change my name to Casandra?
Obama must wake up to the fact that not one of his administration has ever created a job, and that as a consequence, the advice he's been getting and the resulting economic policies have been complete failures.
Obama needs to do a 180 and try to repair the damage he's done to our economy.
But it takes a big man to admit he was wrong and I'm not sure that he's got the strength of character to do that.
However, if he did, he'd have most of the country supporting him, and his chances of re-election would soar.
Nichols: "Obama Better Give One Hell of a Speech"
Obama better... Obama should... Obama needs to... and if he doesn't Nichols and Reich will be out with articles in another week pleading to Obama again
And so what if Obama gives a Hell of a speech. Before he got elected and early in his term he gave great speeches that turned out to be empty rhetoric. Obama's speeches were meaningless as he squandered the chance for meaningful legislation when the Democrats were in control of both chambers, he sealed his fate on the economy when he signed the Obama tax cuts, and then again when he signed the debt deal (as other CD posters have noted). And to make matters worse, he is participating in the destruction of Social Security with the payroll tax cuts. He has no more tools left if he really wanted to look out for the masses (of the US, as he stands firmly behind Israel). He is now just the Emperor with no clothes trying to cover himself.
Ha! Indeed. Speeches are pointless at this date, and very few are still buying the snake oil --- not here anyway. After realizing the title was not satirical, I couldn't finish the article. I think Nichols writes to tweak CD readers. He should stick to MSNBS.
The content of the speech is quite predictable of course---another ScAmway rally---mourning in America. We'll get a program of tax cuts for corporate sponsors, new rigged-trade SHAFTA pacts, and a vague, token infrastructure/alt energy investment plan. The latter will of course be jettisoned in the ensuing "negotiation/capitulation" stage, leaving nothing but shock doctrine tax cuts and a giant sucking sound. Forget the banana republic; welcome to Africa.
Indeed, Oblabla talks and the liberals glorify his sell out. WTF?
Nichols and Reich GTH!
Nichols tells Obama what to do only to placate his readers. In the end everyone at The Nation will vote for Obama and encourage all their friends and readers to vote for Obama. Nichols is another elitist white guy who talks the talk but can't walk the walk.
I haven't the slightest doubt BORAT Obama is reading Nichol's article and will act upon it with great alacrity.
+1 right here.
I always find new depths of contempt for John Nichols every time he types. I know we have a diverse readership here, but man, I'd love to not see his name for a whole week one of these days.
Poor Nichols, he still clings to the desperate Obamabot fantasy that Barry can be convinced to do what needs to be done for workers. In realty, this craven lickspittle has his nose so far up his corporate benefactors' rectum by that he hasn't seen daylight in years. He simply doesn't care about anybody, except those who can enrich his own coffers.
Spot on!! And, given the subject, delicately understated.
Obama? Who's that? Never heard of him.
When fascists are seeking power, there is no promise, however wild, they will not make, deals they will not cut, rhetoric will be high.
When fascists are in power, only their contempt for the people that put them there is manifested. Once in power, they don't need rhetoric or promises, they have the Iron Heel.
"I can hire one half of the working-class to kill the other half."
- Jay Gould, Gilded Age rail tycoon and land speculator
The remnant middle-class and working-class people who most need to rise and organize are bombarded by two things no other similar population has ever experienced in previous history: (1) A 24/7/365 global "news" (read: corporatist, militarist infotainment propaganda) cycle that Josef Goebbels himself couldn't have dreamed up, and (2) pervasive legal and illegal over-medication including over-reliance on psychological stimulants, 'lite anti-psychotics' and anti-depressives that tend to make their users over time into complacent zombies and affect their hormone balances. American children are the most over-medicated in the world--by their own deteriorated public school system--and many of them grow up believing unquestioningly in "better living through chemistry."
Conditions will soon be so harsh for so many Americans and their friends and loved ones that it will shake them out of their TV/drugged haze to awaken into a Brave New World they haven't even begun to think through. That's when we'll need true leaders the most--especially for the younger generation.
As far as economically desperate dupes carrying out government & corporate crack-downs against poverty-driven civil unrest? Well, we have millions who've cycled through multiple tours in brutal occupation zones, far too many of whom took part in brutality and were psychologically brutalized and "preemptively" numbed to future brutalities they might take part in or experience.
But they don't need to murder people to brutalize them into submission. They can detain them for years sans habeas corpus, psychologically and/or physically torture them, detain or deport their family members, beat the living shit out of them, permanently maim and inflict brain damage on them (sound cannons are perfect for doing this to entire crowds), destroy their reputations, careers, family relationships, etc.
In the old days of the company towns they'd hire armed goons and use sheriffs' deputies to evict entire groups of families onto the street and sometimes send goons to burn them out. They'd have armed goons drive by at night with shotguns and shoot through the windows of the "shotgun shacks" many workers' families lived in.
The assault on collective bargaining starting in Wisconsin earlier this year rolled the relationship between ownership/management and labor back to the 1920s--the days of open, violent class warfare in the streets. The public and enough of "organized" labor just haven't woken up to that fact, yet. But with negligible (and this month, null) net job creation faster than population growth and 300,000 public sector workers a year losing their jobs with no end in sight, the pressures to face that grim reality will rapidly mount. Accelerated offshoring of jobs all this year hasn't helped, and there's no end in sight on that either.
This means, because we are the Divided States of Alzheimers, the sinking middle-class and working-class are going to have to learn the bloody lessons of the labor struggles from the 1870s to the 1930s all over again--only on a larger scale, within a population twice the size it was in 1939, with "free trade" as a barrier to rebuilding domestic manufacturing jobs, high-tech warrantless surveillance, electronic nationwide blacklisting, Next Generation Identification and other techno-fascist hurdles to overcome that didn't exist in the earlier struggles. It's going to get rough and tough and chaotic. Maybe too chaotic for an intelligent revolution. That's my biggest worry.
____________________________________
Who cares about a SPEECH? Obama's ACTIONS NEVER match ANY aspects of his speeches that might even touch on a progressive or sensible idea to move this country in a more positive direction.
So can we once and for all STOP paying attention to what Obama's doing/saying? His record has proven that it's a MEANINGLESS endeavor!
Rhetoric is bullsh*t. Action.
When Boehner says jump, Obama says how high.
Boehner will not settle for less driving the unemployment rate to thrice its current level, that way, they will demand a repeal of minimum wage laws, child labor laws, unemployment insurance, social security, food stamps, medicare, medicaid, labor and environmental regulations, and require that corporations have carte blanche on everything.
And Obama will trip over himself to immediately concede unconditional surrender on all fronts.
The better and more progressive the speech, the bigger the lies he tells, as he has no intention of doing anything progressive that might interfere with the profits of his corporate employers.
TOTALLY agree, CDRESEARCH and NONAMENSIAC!
Obama has given many great speeches -- but what the hell has he done after that for us???? NOTHING!! So he can give all the glowing speeches he wants, and I will mute the TV set because every word he utters in promises doesn't mean a damn thing!
He's a con man -- but how many times can the listener be fooled?
Fool me once, shame on you
Fool me twice.........
You won't get fooled again
__________________________
Exactly. I never listen to any of his speeches anymore. It's probably been almost two years. I think I tried to listen to the 2010 SOTU speech, but almost barfed on my lap so I turned the channel, or turned off the TV, I can't remember which.
"President Obama is starting to recognize this reality."
Oh, please! The President of the United States has just realized the problem?
What this man needs to do next week is to announce he's not running for reelection. That would inspire more confidence than anything else.
What a turkey.
Yes, the observation that "President Obama is starting to recognize this reality" is reminiscent of a new parent's proud and hopeful observation that Baby is starting to Recognize its siblings or grandparents.
"What this man needs to do next week is to announce he's not running for reelection."
If he did that, it truly would be a great speech, and the nation would be uplifted.
We can probably expect Obama to act as the Obama we know: approve the pipeline, cancel prosecution of the banksters, offer a nothing "jobs" program in line with the Republican program to make fearful, obedient serfs of us all, etc.,etc. Nichols may be saying that IF he were the Obama of 2008, he would "go big." Was Obama a sham all along? Was he buffaloed--or made an offer he couldn't refuse--by our Overlords upon taking office? (He hasn't resigned yet. Does he just like being a celeb? If he took his own job and the country's plight seriously, you might think he would have resigned. He obviously CAN'T DO the job we were led to envision he would during the campaign). CONCLUSION: WE probably need to write him off and stop thinking about him. We need to do the hard work of mustering a political force of the disaffected, out-of-work, poor-and-getting-poorer to take some first steps toward creating a livable society here at home. I rely on the slightly jaded, but brilliant CD brain-trust to supply the specifics (most of which we can enumerate in our sleep already).
You're right. Obama deserves severe criticism, but so do the Americans who sit back and wait for him to "deliver". It's time to move beyond hoping Obama will "go big", and start building a movement that can bring about the major changes needed.
Nichols doesn't even mention the massive problem of personal debt, which holds so many millions of people in serfdom. He doesn't mention the capital strike that the rich have inflicted on the country -- they are hoarding trillions of dollars of cashthat is needed to stimulate the economy. Their feeble excuse? "Uncertainty" and "lack of confidence". Enough of that nonsense: break the strike, open the granaries, feed the people.
Nichols fails to mention the growing immiseration of the African American population, who have lost 53% of their wealth (which is now being held tight in the hoards of the rich), their jobless rate is twice that of other Americans, and that rate is underestimated because so many of them are in prison, where they are not counted as jobless. The irony of this obscene situation with Obama ensconced in the White House needs no emphasis.
A way has to be found to cancel the enormous, never-to-be-paid debts of millions of Americans. Inflation can do this over time, growth can be helpful. But are Americans really to be sent back to work (a slender possibility) simply to pay off their debts to the banks and the rich who own them? Are they to be taught a lesson in capitalist morality, while the holders of debt are to be excused from human morality?
"Incentives" to invest in the US? Is Nichols kidding? More benefits to the rich? More enticements to them to please stop hoarding the people's wealth? Does he not realize that any such incentives will quickly be cancelled by other countries providing even bigger incentives to invest?
Maybe these suggestions of mine are rather radical. But they are no more radical than the actual policies of the American government, which have facilitated a radically massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, and endowed the rich with trillions of dollars in cash, which they arrogantly hold back while their fellow Americans go without food, lose their homes, and learn to beg for crumbs from their "betters" by mouthing the slogans suggested to them by the very people who are impoverishing them.
nice work, lee. thanks.
____________________________
"It's time to move beyond hoping Obama will "go big", and start building a movement that can bring about the major changes needed."
YES!!!!!
"He hasn't resigned yet. Does he just like being a celeb? If he took his own job and the country's plight seriously, you might think he would have resigned."
To do that, he would have to care about the country and its people. He clearly cares only about himself.
"Obama Better Give One Hell of a Speech."
That will entirely depend upon the words he reads off of the teleprompter. Oblahdee, Oblahblah and it doesn't really matter.
How blatant do things have to get before we decide we can sue the Democratic party for misrepresentation or something?
"Obama Better Give One Hell of a Speech"
The nation is going to hell and YOU want a f***ing SPEECH, Nichols??!?! Eat s**t!
hee hee...man, I felt the righteousness of this post all the way over here!
To late. He lies, so why watch his speech? There is literally no reason to expect that he'll actually DO anything he says. Screw Obama. I'll watch a comedy show and be better off. As for Obama, I guarantee I'm not voting for him in 2012, no matter what. I'll vote Palin before Obama!
Obama is pretty close to being tuned out by most Americans. They don't care what he says because he has taught them that his words mean little. He has been a good constitutional monarch, offering consolation to people afflicted by storms and other disasters, pinning pretty medals on deserving folks, and holding himself above the political battle so as to play a minor mediating role. But he has failed to put forward an agenda that is even remotely helpful to most Americans. People "like" him, but no longer take him seriously as a leader.
It's time to move on, to ignore the celebrity aspect of politics, and get to work building a movement that can propose a clear, radical agenda that proposes solutions to the big problems like crushing private debt, increasing immiseration of large sections of the population, and which challenges the unbridled dominance of the rich, breaks the capital strike they are waging against the people, and and brings about a democratization of the nation's life.
Or is it preferable to sit back and bitch about Obama or whoever succeeds him, while the American people are enserfed by their creditors and forced ever deeper into misery?
Wait until you hear the first black president call for the renewal of slavery! That should wake up the liberals. Maybe even moderate blue collar whites?
Obama to call for workers to work for FREE! FREE equals SLAVERY!
Yes, everything everyone says about Obama and his liberal supporters like Nichols is true.
But can we now get past our bitterness and anger toward failed leaders like these, and focus on the fact that we are now in the downward spiral of an unsustainable economy/finance/agriculture/energy system? No one, "real" Democrat or otherwise, is going to create lots of jobs, and the economy is not going to start growing again, because the unsustainable industrial growth model has run its course. We will all have to start living with less, and living within the means of the planet. Jobs? Let's see if we can grow enough food to survive while we try to heal what we have done to our planetary life support system...
Nichols sez: "...Obama should be talking about taxing Wall Street and financial speculation. Even if he does not get everything he asks for, it will shift the focus of the debate..."
***
With all due respect, Obama does not determine the "focus of the debate". That focus is determined by the oligarchy and sharpened by the Assimilated Press.
"Obama better give one hell of a speech"??!?
Ha ha....fat chance! It's not gonna happen. Even if he were to give the speech of a lifetime, he's screwed his base hard enough so that they're angry enough to tune Obama out. Obama sure as hell wouldn't buy me, anyway, because I've never been sold on him from the beginning.
Jobs have failed to keep up with population growth. Population and consumption growth have had their day. Keeping costs down by moving jobs to Asia has reached its decreasing returns. Oil price and supply availability get tighter. 2012 marks the beginning of an oil supply gap, where production falls while demand continues to rise. Costs of moving goods around the world rises. A local subsistance economy needs to grow at home, because there are fewer places left in the global economy. Its a game of musical chairs, and the growth music has stopped playing.
Obama's given a hell of a speech before. But he didn't follow through with conviction, action, and persistence, now did he?
"Obama Better Give One Hell of a Speech"
Or else what??
Obama always gives one hell of speech. But that's all he does. Great oration, no follow-up. I'm done listening to his words. His actions are what matters to me, and in matters of policy, Obama is an abject failure.
Exactly right. You took my comment.
"Obama always gives one hell of speech."
____________________
Since it's essentially a matter of taste or opinion, davidslynch, I don't dispute or quarrel with this assertion.
But many of us were never enthralled by his technical eloquence, which seem to arise from wholly artificial passion and conviction; thus, his speeches are as palatable as a bowl of cunningly formed and tinted wax fruit.
So we'd say it's more a case of "Obama always gives a hellish speech."
Oh, it may seem obnoxiously presumptuous to insinuate that millions of satisfied listeners worldwide and a massive commentariat chorus of seasoned "inside politics" pundits are simply wrong to praise Obama as a masterful orator.
But it shouldn't be so outrageous a proposition to anyone who's read and understood Hans Christian Andersen's "The Emperor's New Clothes."
I don't see a great orator. Obama gets a lot of undo credit for public speaking because the public was so tired of his predecessor, who couldn't put a sentence together.