Bad News Bears

Bad News Bears, venture brothers, marcia gay harden, sammi kane kraft, rate my cop, ratemycop

When are folks going to just say that we are in hard times? Well McClatchy News has the headline today "Job Losses Suggest a Recession."

Suggests? Who are these people? Why do we ever listen to any of them?

The consensus among mainstream economists was for sluggish employment that still would create about 25,000 new jobs. Instead, not only were Friday's numbers down sharply but government statisticians also revised January's negative job numbers downward. Employers cut 22,000 jobs, not the 17,000 first reported.

"Sure looks like a recession, with exports remaining the only bright spot in the U.S. economy," John Silvia, chief economist for Charlotte, N.C.-based Wachovia, said in a note to investors.

"Ah Shucks", Mr. Silvia, duh yuh think it might be a recession?" The only economists that I trust right now are Paul Krugman and Dean Baker and anybody on their side. These mainstream economists should be retired. Their ideas are bankrupt and they've bankrupted the U.S.

Hillary's statement is as follows:

Today's dismal jobs new should put to rest any doubts that our economy is in deep trouble. We have now seen two straight months of job loss, and the 63,000 decline in February is the worst since March of 2003. This troubling news comes at the end of a week where oil toped $104 a barrel and we learned that home foreclosures hit an all time high in the fourth quarter of 2007.

These are painful reminders that we need a President who is ready to be a steward of our economy, starting on day one. Because behind these statistics, every job lost means there is another family missing a paycheck, another parent worried about providing for their kids, and another family in danger of losing their home.

The time for action is now. While the stimulus measures in the pipeline are important, it's going to take more than tax rebates to avoid a deep economic downturn. We need to immediately extend unemployment insurance and invest at least $5 billion right now in green-collar jobs to help avert a recession. And we need a comprehensive solution to the housing crisis, not more half-measures and hand-wringing. That is why I've called for a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures, a 5-year freeze on interest rates for subprime mortgages and a $30 billion emergency fund to help states handle the crisis in their communities.

Obama's statement is as follows:

The second straight month in a row of job loss is the biggest drop in five years and brings more bad news for an economy showing signs of recession and more heartache and struggle for the Americans I meet every day who are looking for work, can't pay the bills, or are worried that their job will be the next to disappear. They can't afford John McCain's promise of four more years of the very same failed Bush economic policies that have failed us for the last eight, and they can't afford another politician who promises solutions but won't change the divisive, lobbyist-driven politics in Washington. As President, I'll bring both parties together and take on the money and influence of Washington so we can restore balance to our economy, and I'll create millions of new jobs with good wages by investing in infrastructure and renewable energy.

So can somebody tell me the difference between the two statements? Hint: One has specifics and one is faith-based.

The Wonk or the Wizard? The Manager or the Evangelist? Martha Stewart or Joel Osteen?

But neither of them are pointing the finger at Wall Street. We lost that finger pointer when Edwards was marginalized and Kucinich and Gravel silenced. The gain has gone to a few at the top and the pain is being borne by the rest of us.

Private profits rule over public good. Financial values rule over life values. And we are asked to have faith that one man can force or cajole everybody to get along and create millions of jobs. La, la, la, la, la....

Republicans don't care! They don't care about poor people. They don't care about individual foreclosures. They care about the banks. It's not "we the people" for them. It's "them the bankers." The shadowy puppet masters have won.

UPDATE: My friend Edrie had this to say about the two statements; what's your take?

The biggest difference to me is that Clinton is making specific proposals, some of which can be introduced into Congress right now, and Obama is promising to stop everyone from fighting.

On the one hand, recognition of the problem and what it's doing to Americans coupled with specific ideas to address the issue.

On the other hand, recognition of the problem and what it's doing to Americans coupled with "can't we all get along."

Cue the Beach Boys: "Wouldn't it be nice to live together....and

Maybe if we think and wish and hope and pray... it might come true

Baby, then there wouldn't be a single thing we couldn't do... Wouldn't it be nice.