It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


White House plans more to trim joblessness: aide

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 01:04 AM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama plans more economic stimulus measures to bring down the high U.S. unemployment rate, while cutting the bulging budget is a longer-term challenge, a top White House economic aide said on Sunday.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


More spending, more money thrown at the problem. Obama want's to jump start job creation. Pouring a second stimulus into the mix to try and get people back to work.

Whether or not this will work, is still up in the air, needless to say, spending control is not on this presidents mind.

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 01:09 AM
Pouring more money into what? Is he planning more brilliant ideas like weatherising homes to stimulate jobs? LMAO! This president and this government is so out of touch and clearly lost it's pathetic. I hate to say it but the President needs to start supporting the middle class and quit worrying about the rich and the poor. Everyone says the rich are the ones producing jobs so don't tax them or else...............well that's bs. The rich are not doing anything but hoarding all their wealth. They can't really do anything to create jobs anyways no matter how little they are taxed. A strong middle class will always take care of the poor.

America will never get back on its feet without less government, less taxes, less regulation, and more innovation. They will kill healthcare just like they've killed agriculture, and a dozen other industries. That's what government does.

Our economic system no longer produces competitive results.

One only has to look at Japan’s economic model to discover the vast shortcomings of the U.S. In 1945 Japan emerged from the ashes, and transformed itself into the most efficient production economy in the world. In just 60 years Japan has become an economic powerhouse, far outstripping the U.S.

Japan takes up less land mass than California, yet this tiny island nation provides numerous examples of what a country can accomplish in infertile and mountainous terrain. Japan has no natural resources; the country possesses no oil, iron ore, coal or timber.In order to manufacture a product, Japan has to import all of its required resources, and yet Japan still manages to have a larger annual balance of trade surplus with the U.S. and has accumulated one-third of the world’s savings in previous years.Japan currently has the second largest currency account surplus next to China. The country has a constant balance of trade surplus with the U.S. and China, while the U.S. has a $230 billion balance of trade deficit with China.Japan’s economy is knowledge and capital intensive. In Japan one man at one machine can produce the same output as 100 men at one machine in the U.S.If we are to compete, the U.S. has to take advantage of its size and resources and make drastic changes to the way we run our country.

[edit on 11-1-2010 by Zosynspiracy]

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 01:13 AM
reply to post by Zosynspiracy

America will never get back on its feet without less government, less taxes, less regulation, and more innovation.

Less regulation is exactly what got us into this mess to begin with.

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 08:34 PM
How do you reduce joblessness without generating greater demand for
what workers in the U.S. produce? As long as we the public keep demanding
the least expensive products, manufacturers have to keep producing those
products where labor, land and taxes are the lowest. Which is almost every
country BUT America. Using taxpayer dollars to create short term jobs is
not the answer.

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 01:36 AM
reply to post by whatukno

I had always thought it was government intervention through the fed (bubble creation) and the community reinvestment act (bad loans) that caused the US subprime mortgage crisis. Not lack of regulation.

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 03:03 AM
reply to post by Jacob08

From what I understand the sub prime mortgage crisis caused a lot of problems due to the strange way that companies like AIG were chopping up these mortgages and selling them off piece by piece.

Instead of just parts of banks going down or parts of stocks, it hit everywhere because these pieces of bad loans were a part of everything.

But basically yes in a way you are right, bad loans (thanks to deregulation) were a primary factor in the crash.

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 01:04 PM

Originally posted by whatukno
More spending, more money thrown at the problem. Obama want's to jump start job creation. Pouring a second stimulus into the mix to try and get people back to work.

What was it that Obama had said recently?

Oh yeah, ...

Obama: We Can't Treat Tax Dollars Like "Monopoly Money"

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 01:40 PM
Lets get a nice littler stroll into Americas jobless reality. . .

Obama and "his advisers" have not clue how to fix the increasing and will for every be never ending joblessness in the nation that started not with his presidency but much earlier.

During his first stimulus he poured millions into infrastructure because some genius from the old school wanted to follow the same pattern as the great depression when one of the main jobless fix where putting Americans into construction work.

It didn't work this time like it did back then . . .

Why? because infrastructure in this nation while a big problem is not enough to give jobs to every American that were unemployment before the financial meltdown and never will be enough for after the meltdown.

America became a nation of producers to a nation of consumers, in today Americas most of the jobs creation about over 90 percent is in the small business sector, one sector that is now under incredible stress as spending Americans do no have the income, credit and loans to support it.

The private sector or what is call the Mega corporations while account for the biggest pay roll accounts only hired about 3 percent of the population, in other worlds the super "employed well off".

So while many corporations had shed jobs during the financial meltdown they still account for the highest pay rolls but not with the highest employment.

We do not have the in between anymore the industrial jobs that fed America after the great depression, so we now have hole that can never be filled by the struggling small businesses with hourly wages hovering on minimum wages and will never be filled by the high end corporations with their 6 figures salaries.

The nation increasing unemployment is creating a vicious cycle, government assistance in the name of stimulus, government creation of jobs that are adding to the national debt and the leaching of tech jobs and industrial jobs to never return to America.

The way things are going right now and the wrong policies and remedies used by the government we are heading only one way, and that is down, down and down we will go.

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 02:04 PM
reply to post by whatukno

There are two sides of this issue and both related to government regulation. The real reason for the sub-prime mortgage problem is that the government, starting with Jimmy Carter and then expanded by Janet Reno in the Clinton administration forced banks to loan money to people who could not afford them. The Community Reinvestment Act mandated that a certain percentage of loans (Reno made it 50%) had to be given to low-income people and minorities. If the bank did not meet that threshold, they were red-lined and were prohibited from lending money at all, it other words they were stopped from doing business. In conjunction with that, the government did not relax the parameters upon which the health of a bank's portfolio was assessed. The bad loans, with too little capital or assets to back them by definition degraded the value of the debt the bank held. That forced the bank to take measures that enabled them to comply with the law because the loans they were being forced to make were essentially illegal in accordance with bank regulations.

Bank deregulation had nothing to do with this problem.

Now to the point of poor/inadequate regulation being part of the problem on the other side, you are 100% correct. Banks, being unable to resell their loans due to the poor quality of them (again this was mandated by the government), the banks created securitized loans, essentially slicing up good loans, medium quality loans and bad loans into a tradable security. That worked fine, because even though the bank knew that the poor loans would default, the middle tier and top tier would make up for it. When the housing market tanked the middle tier began to default and the whole thing collapsed.

There are two areas of regulation that could have been put in place (they still have not been enacted) that would have prevented or largely prevented this from happening. First, the government, wanting to hide the impact of the Community Reinvestment Act allowed banks to only have the top two tiers of the debt security to be rated. You had AAA debt that in reality was not AAA because the lousy loans were purposefully excluded from the rating. Regulated transparency would have helped, enabling folks to know what they were actually buying. Most of the folks who bought this crap were institutional investors like teacher's retirement plans. The government could easily have limited the exposure these types of public plans (since the plans are for public employees) had to these debt instruments.

At the end of the day the government should regulate to provide absolute transparency to financial instruments. Further they should enable banks to have a debt portfolio that they want to have. To the extent that a bank does not want to issue loans to low income folks, they should not be forced to do so. The government should also get rid of the private rating system. Private firms have a total conflict of interest in rating securities and debt. The model we currently have is rife with opportunities for corruption.

There are legitimate roles for the government to play in the regulation of financial markets, but they need to be supportive of free markets and ensure that there is transparency.

top topics


log in