Geithner: Economy not doing fine

By Erik Wasson - 06/13/12 05:46 PM ET

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner on Wednesday said that despite a gaffe by President Obama last week, in which the president said the private sector is “doing fine,” the administration understands the economy is in tough shape.

He acknowledged that, given pressures from Europe, the U.S. economy is not on track to bring down the current 8.2 percent unemployment rate faster, and implored Congress to act on stalled legislation to create jobs...

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/economy/232653-geithner-economy-not-doing-fine

An interesting read. Here's another:

http://money.msn.com/investing/washington-vs-the-middle-class-mirhaydari.aspx

I really don't know that the POTUS (Obama or anyone else for that matter) can really do much of anything about jobs. I think a healthy economy depends more upon people having confidence in their day-to-day lives to work/spend/pursue their goals. Folks just don't have confidence in much of anything these days and for good reason. Most of us working folks are getting it from both ends, as the article above points out.

Seems to me that the Bush tax cuts need to go and entitlements need to be heavily reworked. I strongly believe that many folks who are getting entitlements should not be - they're just sucking up the freebies. That's not to say that there are folks out there who truly need the help. I don't know what the answer to that is. DC certainly doesn't want to deal with it - too many votes hanging in the balance. I wonder if it wouldn't be better for entitlements to be determined at a state or even local level rather than the federal level. The closer to home the more discretion can be used in determining the truly needy. Then again the state doesn't deal with funding and budgets much better than DC.

I've said before and still believe that the federal budget needs to be cut 20% across the board. Yes, it'll hurt. But if we don't suck it up now it'll hurt a whole lot more later on. Then there are some who feel that austerity is worse. I'm no economist, but I've been dirt poor. When I didn't have the income to spend, I didn't spend. Simple as that.

There was an interesting interview on the PBS News Hour earlier in the week in which the person being interviewed (and his name escapes me unfortunately) postulated that our society has become too dependent on the concept of "buying our way to the front of the line", so to speak. He pointed to things like the practice of hiring homeless people to stand in line, sometimes for days, for, say, season tickets for the NFL so that one does not have to actually perform that task for themselves. He theorized that this type of behavior further bifurcates our "have"/"have-not" society and creates more class resentment. The primary question was: Where is the line drawn between free market economy and eliteism fueled by greed? I think most everyone has a different take on where that line is, but I also think that in times past there seemed to be more agreement on where it existed. And then again maybe I'm just being nostalgic.

Admitting there is a problem is a first step. But blaming others means they don't understand the first step.

cydl wrote: An interesting read. Here's another:

http://money.msn.com/investing/washington-vs-the-middle-class-mirhaydari.aspx

I really don't know that the POTUS (Obama or anyone else for that matter) can really do much of anything about jobs. I think a healthy economy depends more upon people having confidence in their day-to-day lives to work/spend/pursue their goals. Folks just don't have confidence in much of anything these days and for good reason. Most of us working folks are getting it from both ends, as the article above points out.

Seems to me that the Bush tax cuts need to go and entitlements need to be heavily reworked. I strongly believe that many folks who are getting entitlements should not be - they're just sucking up the freebies. That's not to say that there are folks out there who truly need the help. I don't know what the answer to that is. DC certainly doesn't want to deal with it - too many votes hanging in the balance. I wonder if it wouldn't be better for entitlements to be determined at a state or even local level rather than the federal level. The closer to home the more discretion can be used in determining the truly needy. Then again the state doesn't deal with funding and budgets much better than DC.

I've said before and still believe that the federal budget needs to be cut 20% across the board. Yes, it'll hurt. But if we don't suck it up now it'll hurt a whole lot more later on. Then there are some who feel that austerity is worse. I'm no economist, but I've been dirt poor. When I didn't have the income to spend, I didn't spend. Simple as that.

There was an interesting interview on the PBS News Hour earlier in the week in which the person being interviewed (and his name escapes me unfortunately) postulated that our society has become too dependent on the concept of "buying our way to the front of the line", so to speak. He pointed to things like the practice of hiring homeless people to stand in line, sometimes for days, for, say, season tickets for the NFL so that one does not have to actually perform that task for themselves. He theorized that this type of behavior further bifurcates our "have"/"have-not" society and creates more class resentment. The primary question was: Where is the line drawn between free market economy and eliteism fueled by greed? I think most everyone has a different take on where that line is, but I also think that in times past there seemed to be more agreement on where it existed. And then again maybe I'm just being nostalgic.

Good points!

Akilina - true enough! Maybe an AA meeting! tongue:

A Denver Post letter writer today was trying to defend Obama today and the weak 2% growth, that it is fine. No, it isn't. After such severe setbacks and a growing population, 2% means we are losing ground every year.

Yes, it's a shame that corporate profits and CEO salaries are at an all-time high while companies continue holding onto record amounts of cash and other liquid assets while cutting costs, laying off workers and wringing more productivity from the remaining staff.

Of course, (to use a Romney term), they "walked back" that "doing fine" comment within an hour, even if technically it is true.

But the GOP plan of "obstruction at all costs" seems to be rather effective. I think they will ultimately pay a price for it.

I don't think Obama had a gaffe- as is claimed by his flunkie- he really did intend to say what he did about the private economy doing fine- he really thinks this way.

It was one of those revealing moments- where we get to see what he is really thinking. The private economy in Obama's opinion- is not doing badly enough for him to be concerned about it. Many of his voters might feel differently- but I have no doubt how Obama feels about it after hearing his comment.

I also dis-agree that the POTUS can't do anything about the situation- he can indeed. It's the policies at the top that very much affect us all- and the condition of the economy and the way we individuals feel about our prospects for the future.

Beyond that - the very real policy from the top impacts us in a significant way, the rules, the regulations and the tax policy do affect our lives everyday. We may not notice a direct connection, but it is there in-directly. A regulation affects an industry- which has to make adjustments, economic and otherwise- and eventually is trickles down to us all.

This administration has added thousands of new rules, laws and regulations in the last 4 years. We are already paying for a few of the new health care taxes- and several more will kick in at the end of the year for instance.

What happens at the top does have it's effects- and we are seeing this now with an economy that just cant get out of first gear.

Regulations do indeed impact the economy - but to me that's still not really in the realm of the POTUS - that's Congress. And we all know how much THEY do. :Snooze

I do believe there is a great deal of over-regulation - a lot of regulations could go away for the benefit of all. But some things (hedges and derivatives, for example) really need more scrutiny and regulation in my opinion. That's the one place where I disagree with the Libertarian platform - I don't buy into the concept of a totally free market. That, I think, will bring us the robber barons of the 19th century. We're seeing it in Wall Street now.

That, I think, will bring us the robber barons of the 19th century. We're seeing it in Wall Street now.

I'd like to note that while you see the 19th century as a "robber baron" period, I see it differently.

The 19th century was a period of un-paralled economic expansion - those "robber barons" brought the industrial revolution and it's economic benefits to the United States and at a level where we far exceeded the economic expansion of the rest of the world- we provided jobs for every American who wanted work- including the millions of immigrants who came to America during this period.

Some of my european ansestors came here during that time and started out working for those "robber barons'- and in short order established themselves in other businesses that allowed them to find economic success.

The United States became a world class economic power during this period, and expansion of the middle class was established- and it grew from those roots into the middle class of the 20th century.

The free market did work- with fabulous results. We outpaced the wealth creation of every other country on earth during that time, and this is why we became the #1 world economic power and established a standard of living for Americans unknown throughout the rest of the world- people came flocking here by the millions because of the opportunity that existed only here in the USA.

Yes- the "robber barons" got rich- and so did everyone else. Millions of Americans improved their standard of living and achieved their economic dreams- including my family.

Where you saw "robber barons"- I saw economic prosperity for America.