Obama Promotes a long view on jobs.

[elleng]

POLAND, Ohio – For President Obama, this is the new normal.

On the heels of another anemic employment report, the president found himself acknowledging again that the economy was not generating enough jobs, that the recovery was not taking hold fast enough, and that too many Americans lacked basic financial security.

“It’s still tough out there,” Mr. Obama said to a sympathetic crowd in an elementary-school gymnasium here, on the second day of his campaign swing through Ohio and Pennsylvania.

As he has after previous reports, the president took a glass-is-half-full approach to the numbers. . .

With few signs that the labor market will strengthen appreciably before Election Day, Mr. Obama is honing a vocabulary to deal with a listless economy – one in which the difference between recovery and recession is hard to discern. One of his techniques is to focus not just on the latest indicators, but on longer-tem economic trends, which he said have deepened inequality and put at risk the future of the middle class.


Lengthening his frame of reference allows Mr. Obama to argue that the problems of today are not principally his fault, but the result of a Republican philosophy practiced by the Bush administration and advocated by Mr. Obama’s challenger, Mitt Romney.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/obama-promotes-a-long-view-on-jobs/?hp

[AnotherMcIntosh]

1. Long view? Wages will be depressed for the remaining working-class jobs in this country

while the super-rich will see their corporate expenses go down and their portfolio values go up.

There is no "long view" towards returning industrialization and what was the middle-class back to this country. If you don't already know that all of us are screwed in the long run, you haven't been paying attention.

Trans-Pacific negotiations have been taking place throughout the Obama presidency. The deal is strongly supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the top lobbying group for American corporations. Obama's Republican opponent in the 2012 presidential elections, Mitt Romney, has urged the U.S. to finalize the deal as soon as possible.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html

The pending wage-lowering, let's-send-even-more-jobs-to-foreign-countries "free-trade" agreement, like NAFTA and the other "free-trade" agreements signed since that time, will benefit the Wall Street crowd and the wealthy donors to Rmoney's campaign. It will benefit the greedy super-rich who support politicians like Rmoney.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

2. 'working class', 'returning industrialization'--I think you are correct--the days when

high-school dropouts can earn good wages on assembly lines are gone forever.

There are very few ice-boxes, washboards, etc. left to be replaced by millions of new refrigerators, washing machines, etc from old-fashioned manufacturing plants.

But President Obama is laying out a long-term future of NEW-fashioned middle-class jobs. He wants to reforn and expand community colleges that prepare future workers for careers in healthcare, green energy, infrastructure-building, and other areas where demand will skyrocket. Just imagine, for example, how many middle class jobs could arise from breaking the DDS stranglehold over dental services and allowing trained but lesser-degreed practitioners to serve tens of millions who currently get no dental care at all.

IMO the middle class can rise again, but only if Reaganomics is thrown into the dustbin of history. The true 'job creators' are not the 1 percent but rather the future 99 percent, and job growth must come from investing in education and healthcare, not from cutting school spending and bestowing the "saved" funds on more tax cuts for the wealthy. IMO that is what the President is saying, and I agree with him.

[elleng]

3. Thanks, Progressive

ECONOMIST??? OMG

[AnotherMcIntosh]

6. IMO, he's been on the job for 3 years and has done little to create jobs except in foreign countries

with the additional "free-trade" agreements that he signed with South Korea, Panama, and Columbia.

Sure, it can be said that he is better than Rmoney, but now - 3 years later - we're supposed to use our imagination and believe, really believe that "He wants to reforn and expand community colleges that prepare future workers for careers in healthcare, green energy, infrastructure-building, and other areas where demand will skyrocket" along with dental services to be provided by persons who will not obtain DDS degrees?

Three-years later and "the middle class can rise again, but only if Reaganomics is thrown into the dustbin of history"?

Look, this is as good as it gets under Obama. He has expressly his admiration for Reagan, extended tax-breaks for the rich,
and his administration is working on another wage-lowering, let's-send-more-jobs-to-foreign-countries "free-trade" agreement. We may be told that "He really didn't want to extend the Bush tax breaks for the rich and he really won't do so again," but he will do so again. It's a done deal.

You don't like Reaganomics? Who participated in bailing out the banksters? Who was in office during the last three years when no effort was made to go after the banksters? Sorry, I may vote for him over Rmoney, but I'm not buying it anymore.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

7. 4.4 million jobs in the last 28 months, with Rs blocking his every move,

is "done little"? When the economiy was LOSING 750,000 jobs a month ehen the President was inaugurated? See http://www.democraticunderground.com/125152609 for jobs grwoth statistics, and see http://www.democraticunderground.com/125152662 on Republican sabotage of the President's jobs plans.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

8. At the Battle of the Little Big Horn when Custer was losing fewer men, it didn't mean he was winning

None of those mean Republicans forced Obama to sign wage-lowering, job-transferring "free-trade" agreements with South Korea, Columbia, and Panama.

None of those mean Republicans are forcing his Administration to participate in the pending wage-lowering, union-busting, let's-send-even-more-jobs-to-foreign-countries "free-trade" agreement.

The reason why Obama ran on a platform in 2008 to renegotiate or do away with NAFTA is because NAFTA transferred jobs out of the United States at the expense of the American working class. That is obvious.

If he would have renegotiated NAFTA or done away with it, and if he would have not signed the additional three "free-trade" agreements, the number of jobs in the United States would have been even higher.

When the latest pending "free-trade" agreement is signed, it is going to reduce jobs in the United States even lower. These are the good old days.

[WI_DEM]

4. The president needs to assert more forcefully EVERYTHING the GOP has done to slow down the recovery.

[elleng]

5. Yes, and I expect he'll do that.

Not sure when the best time to start is, as everyone's not as focused as we are now, in HOT HOT July.