"Well, a huge part of the problem is that banks are no longer loaning to small businesses. "

I'm neither a banker nor an economist, but even I can understand that it's a better business decision for banks to borrow at the Fed window for almost nothing and buy Treasuries with that borrowed money for more than something.

If you want to see more lending then raise interest rates. Yes, it's counter-intuitive, I know.

Same old talking points.

It is ALWAYS taxes and regulation.

The dishonesty is palpable. Lack of sales (i.e. lack of demand) is NEVER the problem. All that businesses care about is taxes and regulation. They don't need any customers. Just as long as they don't have to pay tax or experience any regulatory burden on $0 in sales, they will be looking to expand like crazy!

Except marginal tax rates have historically been much higher than they are now. And small businesses (where the bulk of new hiring is likely to come from) are exempt from much of the regulation that big businesses are always lobbying against. The facts are incredibly inconvenient for conservatives and their "arguments," but they keep on going.

There are some places where we should consider regulatory reform. For example, MAYBE it is possible to streamline the FDA drug approval process. Maybe it is possible to just as effectively protect the environment in a more cost effective way. But to act like it is primarily tax rates or regulation that is holding back hiring rates contradicts history and surveys of small business concerns.

What this is really about is that conservatives don't want to take responsibility for both creating the current economic mess and blocking any attempts to fix it. It is conservatives who are holding back economic growth by blocking stimulus due to their dogmatic dislike of government.

Not to worry. Conservatives will always make whatever fact free absurd arguments happens to serve their political agenda in the moment. Complaints about taxes and regulation are nothing more than a shiny ball that distracts from the real problem. That is, Republican politicians who are determined to block efforts to get the economy going again.

Double dip recession anyone? "Brought fresh to your door by do nothing Republican politicians." (TM) Lost decade anyone? Enjoy!

Control of the House of Representatives is all that is necessary to prevent any and all action to solve our economic problems, as Republican politicians have demonstrated.

Your point is relevant only for the years 2009 and 2010 when Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress.

But I actually agree with you.

Democrats should have moved on the economy and jobs before healthcare. And they should not have dragged out the healthcare debate as it became evident that getting Republicans to agree was an impossibility. (And this was very evident early on, at least to me.)

The first move of Democrats should have been to end the filibuster in the Senate. It was pure hubris for Democrats to assume that there would be no defections among blue dogs. With "friends" like Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson, who needs enemies?

Then they should have passed a massive stimulus. Something in the 3 trillion dollar range, with no tax cut component would have been a good start. Unemployment benefits should have been reformed to require most recipients to receive training in exchange for benefits, so that our economy can be more competitive going forward. Also, if they are not receiving training, make people receiving benefits work, whether for a non-profit or for profit enterprise. In this way, they gain contacts and also actual job skills for when the economy improves. Also, offer temporary wage subsidies so people can keep their existing jobs (like they do in Germany) so that private sector companies engage in fewer layoffs. In many cases, this could cost the same or less than unemployment benefits.

It is quite clear that President Obama made quite a few mistakes given the crisis he faced. Instead of overestimating the amount of stimulus that was needed and offering overly optimistic projections concerning the economy (that turned out to be a ripe target for mockery_, he should have overestimated the amount of stimulus that was needed and offered a more pessimistic view. If things turn out to be better than expected, the stimulus could have been gradually withdrawn, so that the economy could gradually transition.

Also, another huge error was giving the banks bailouts without conditions. Instead of requiring the banks to lend like healthy financial institutions would, they allowed the banks to hoard bailout money to cover themselves. This was great for the banks but bad for the economy. If you are going to bail out the banks, at least add enough conditions to make them really wish they didn't need to take the money. If at all possible, make banks that get bailouts go through the bankruptcy where they hopefully can restructure in a way that punishes existing executives. This would help deal with moral hazard problems.

Could the Obama administration have done a lot better? Absolutely. The Obama and Democratic Senators made a lot of unforced errors. The biggest one being a failure to abolish the filibuster and institute a more aggressive agenda. But pointing that out doesn't help us in our current situation.

The question is this. Who is CURRENTLY blocking any moves to fix the economy? The answer is Republican politicians. I am hopeful that they will be punished, although it is quite clear that they have certain structural advantages after doing so well in 2010 which allowed them to control redistricting in many states (protecting the House) and that Democrats aren't in as strong of a position going forward in terms of making gains in the Senate. Still, as people become more aware that it is Republican politicians who are preventing progress on our economic issues, I think it is quite possible to flip the House, Republican-favored redistricting or not.

As always, David remains utterly conviced that the wrong things he believes must be true.

For a guy who's never spent any time outside a university classroom, he sure claims to know everything there is about the real world.

What we need is more homos and more regulations to stop global warming. Quite evidently. And more money for Freddie Mac-Daddy Gingrich.

Wow, where did you study basic econ 101?

Adam Smith defined the market for all time: supply and demand.

And you believe that the nearly impoverished middle class 's inability to buy (i.e., lack of demand) is not a problem?

You cannot have a functioning economy without purchasers. GOP policies have enriched that tiny few who don't need to buy anything, except a few baubles.

Chickens are on their way to roost. Bummer that your trickle down theories turned out to be so wrong, wouldn't you agree now?

Lack of demand is caused by high taxes and regulations.

In your mind, the answer to every problem is more govt spending.

Same old talking points.

It is ALWAYS lack of sales (i.e. lack of demand).

The dishonesty is palpable. Taxes and regulations are NEVER the problem.

The reason consumers aren't spending is that they don't have the disposable income. The reason they don't have disposable income is because they lost their jobs or, more likely, haven't gotten a raise in 3 years. Every dollar a company spends on taxes or regulatory compliance is a dollar that can't be spent giving employees raises. The answer to "Raise my taxes" is "Give your employees a raise with that money instead." That would directly advance the stated lefty goal of getting consumers to spend more.

The problem is the weak hiring market and the reason the hiring market is weak is not a lack of consumer demand. The other Lefty Talking Point you conveniently left out is that corporations are hoarding cash, which obviously means the SOMEBODY is spending to buy their products. The reason that hoarded cash isn't invested in new hiring is the uncertainty in the tax and regulatory environment. Quick, Mr. Welker, exactly how much will Obamacare raise the cost of an employee for the next ten years?