Jobs Report
lour441
Posts: 543 Member
Yet another horrible Jobs Report published in the wake of the DNC. Talk about terrible timing. This really makes you wonder what country the Democrats are talking about when they say we are in recovery. I guess it is all a matter of perspective. At least the smoke and mirrors of the unemployment rate keeps dropping. Maybe Obama should halt unemployment benefits to everyone beyond a year to really get a huge drop in the unemployment rate!
Good thing the Democrats can run on abortion, contraception, and gay rights. The economy is killing them!
If only the Republicans weren't a mess, I would have someone to vote for
.
Good thing the Democrats can run on abortion, contraception, and gay rights. The economy is killing them!
If only the Republicans weren't a mess, I would have someone to vote for
. 0
Replies
-
Can you at least provide a link to what you're talking about?0
-
It was current Friday news but here ya go.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/09/07/jobs-report-is-more-bad-news-for-obama/0 -
There can be no recovery as long as outsourcing is allowed. Until America says if don't make it here, you can't sell it here (at least without heavy tariffs), we're screwed.0
-
Heavy tariffs will never happen... It pisses off the countries that we trade with and it can end up stifling the economy in its own right.0
-
Heavy tariffs will never happen... It pisses off the countries that we trade with and it can end up stifling the economy in its own right.
I know, but it's better than what is happening now. We can't compete with child labor and business friendly dictatorships, starvation wages, and horrible working conditions. We don't want to compete with those things, and as of now, we are being forced to more and more.
Even if we only refused goods from the worst human rights violators and put tariffs on the really bad ones, we'd bet better off than we are now.0 -
I will have to find it again, but recently I have been reading articles that state that companies are bringing their work back from overseas, because it is more beneficial for them to have their workforce here.0
-
I will have to find it again, but recently I have been reading articles that state that companies are bringing their work back from overseas, because it is more beneficial for them to have their workforce here.
Yeah, I'd love to read that. The only ones I've heard of coming back are a few call center jobs because Americans get snitty over Indian accents.0 -
I may be wrong, but I don't believe we can put tariffs on companies. Just countries where the goods are imported from.0
-
I may be wrong, but I don't believe we can put tariffs on companies. Just countries where the goods are imported from.
We can make a law saying whatever we darn well want. America couldn't care less about international law, or Bush would have been tried for war crimes.
Anyway, if we started refusing goods from countries with poor human rights records, some might improve on those, which would not only benefit us, but also benefit people around the world.
Looking at you, China.0 -
Aww China! The communist country that has benefitted from our "capitalism".0
-
It was current Friday news but here ya go.
Well since I'm not actually American no it's not current news for me. But hey, if you want to debate, posting your source is always a good thing!
Unfortunately there's not a lot Obama can do when he has an obstructionist Congress. Republicans. He's trying, but when you have Republicans on record stating that they want to keep the jobless rate high so they can win elections, Obama's hands are tied. For exmaple the Republicans have filibustered FOUR HUNDRED TIMES (http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/564775/GOP-uses-filibusters-to-obstruct-Obama--Democrats.html?nav=18) on the floor, DOUBLING what the Democrats did in the past 12 years. These include actual bills that were meant to create jobs. So how is is Obama's fault that job creation is lower?
Here's a British article on the Republicans efforts (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/06/republicans-anti-obama-strategy)
Here's another one (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/08/24/the_gop_plot_to_obstruct_obama039s_stimulus_288324.html) from the guy who did write a book on it, so there will be bias there.
You want to blame someone for the current mess America is in, blame the Republicans.0 -
Yup. Obama wanted to give a tax break to companies that brought jobs back to America and eliminate the tax credit for companies that ship jobs overseas. Sounds great right? Those GOP congressmen and Senators who ran on "creating jobs" should love that right? Yea, not so much. They blocked it. They don't care about getting jobs for Americans. Their sole purpose in life is to get rid of Obama. I'm amazed at the number of otherwise seemingly intelligent people who think that the GOP is actually going to help the unemployment rate.It was current Friday news but here ya go.
Well since I'm not actually American no it's not current news for me. But hey, if you want to debate, posting your source is always a good thing!
Unfortunately there's not a lot Obama can do when he has an obstructionist Congress. Republicans. He's trying, but when you have Republicans on record stating that they want to keep the jobless rate high so they can win elections, Obama's hands are tied. For exmaple the Republicans have filibustered FOUR HUNDRED TIMES (http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/564775/GOP-uses-filibusters-to-obstruct-Obama--Democrats.html?nav=18) on the floor, DOUBLING what the Democrats did in the past 12 years. These include actual bills that were meant to create jobs. So how is is Obama's fault that job creation is lower?
Here's a British article on the Republicans efforts (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/06/republicans-anti-obama-strategy)
Here's another one (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/08/24/the_gop_plot_to_obstruct_obama039s_stimulus_288324.html) from the guy who did write a book on it, so there will be bias there.
You want to blame someone for the current mess America is in, blame the Republicans.0 -
Yup. Obama wanted to give a tax break to companies that brought jobs back to America and eliminate the tax credit for companies that ship jobs overseas. Sounds great right? Those GOP congressmen and Senators who ran on "creating jobs" should love that right? Yea, not so much. They blocked it. They don't care about getting jobs for Americans. Their sole purpose in life is to get rid of Obama. I'm amazed at the number of otherwise seemingly intelligent people who think that the GOP is actually going to help the unemployment rate.It was current Friday news but here ya go.
Well since I'm not actually American no it's not current news for me. But hey, if you want to debate, posting your source is always a good thing!
Unfortunately there's not a lot Obama can do when he has an obstructionist Congress. Republicans. He's trying, but when you have Republicans on record stating that they want to keep the jobless rate high so they can win elections, Obama's hands are tied. For exmaple the Republicans have filibustered FOUR HUNDRED TIMES (http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/564775/GOP-uses-filibusters-to-obstruct-Obama--Democrats.html?nav=18) on the floor, DOUBLING what the Democrats did in the past 12 years. These include actual bills that were meant to create jobs. So how is is Obama's fault that job creation is lower?
Here's a British article on the Republicans efforts (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/06/republicans-anti-obama-strategy)
Here's another one (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/08/24/the_gop_plot_to_obstruct_obama039s_stimulus_288324.html) from the guy who did write a book on it, so there will be bias there.
You want to blame someone for the current mess America is in, blame the Republicans.
Add to that the main reasons that companies are not hiring include a continued fear of the recession in Europe, an understandable fear of jumping back into the pool with both feet from the US recession and the unknown results of the election. There is not much that a President can do to get people to not fear the market conditions of another world sector while the other portion of government is doing everything it can to keep fear in the market while stymieing any efforts to fix the situation.0 -
There can be no recovery as long as outsourcing is allowed. Until America says if don't make it here, you can't sell it here (at least without heavy tariffs), we're screwed.
I think that the Protectionism you are looking for would cause more issues then it solves. It would most certainly raise prices on just about everything we need that we import from other countries. This would primarily hurt the poor and middle class but at least we are making stuff in the US now, right??!
There is plenty on the net about how protectionism is a bad idea. You can Google if you are really interested.
http://www.voxeu.org/article/protectionist-temptation-lessons-great-depression-today0 -
Graphs are always fun. Here is the first, showing private-sector job creation under Bush and Obama:
And here is the second, showing public-sector jobs:
That pretty much sums it up. I actually posted these graphs in an earlier discussion on a similar topic. The facts are that millions of new jobs have been created in the private sector--moreso than during the same period of the Bush administration. The difference is due to the drastic cuts in public sector jobs during this same period.
If you go back to the ARRA, you will remember that a big chunk of the bill was providing funds to states to maintain the jobs of teachers, police, and firefighters--all part of the public sector. The right wing has always lied about this as a "Obama payoff to unions", instead of what it really was. After that money was gone, and the jobs have been eliminated, we can clearly see the effects.
I don't want to lay everything at the feet of "republican obstructionism", but it cannot be ignored or denied that those political tactics have played a big role in the slow jobs recovery. As has the fact that the eurozone is slipping back into recession (many think it is due to application of the same "austerity" measures republicans want to try here), and that growth is slowing in China and India.
There are a number of economists right now who are saying there is not much anyone can do right now
http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/07/13728411-weak-jobs-growth-beyond-governments-control?lite
So we are kind of stuck. There is no political will to do the things that are known to help (e.g. stimulus-type actions); uncertainly about what to do with one sector still dragging everything down (housing), and the other alternative being offered (from republicans) are actions that about 90 percent of economists agree would make things worse (except for a very select few).
Right now, that's the story of the election: a lot of people are disappointed in the performance of the Obama administration, but they are reasonably certain that republicans suck and they are absolutely certain that Romney sucks. That is why you continue to see the odds strongly in favor of Obama's re-election, although I sill think a lot of the numbers are soft. As I pointed out in another article I cited in a previous discussion, a number of people like Obama, but are looking for Romney to give them a reason to vote for him. Luckily, so far, Romney only continues to give them reasons to think he's a d!ck.
But there are debates coming up, and Romney has at least $300 million to buy himself a lot of "truthiness", so I still think this is anyone's race.0 -
It was current Friday news but here ya go.
Well since I'm not actually American no it's not current news for me. But hey, if you want to debate, posting your source is always a good thing!
Unfortunately there's not a lot Obama can do when he has an obstructionist Congress. Republicans. He's trying, but when you have Republicans on record stating that they want to keep the jobless rate high so they can win elections, Obama's hands are tied. For exmaple the Republicans have filibustered FOUR HUNDRED TIMES (http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/564775/GOP-uses-filibusters-to-obstruct-Obama--Democrats.html?nav=18) on the floor, DOUBLING what the Democrats did in the past 12 years. These include actual bills that were meant to create jobs. So how is is Obama's fault that job creation is lower?
Here's a British article on the Republicans efforts (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/06/republicans-anti-obama-strategy)
Here's another one (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/08/24/the_gop_plot_to_obstruct_obama039s_stimulus_288324.html) from the guy who did write a book on it, so there will be bias there.
You want to blame someone for the current mess America is in, blame the Republicans.
Where to start...
First I would like to apologize for forgetting this is a worldwide audience. Typical Americans thinking they are the center of the universe!!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-history-of-the-filibuster-in-one-graph/2012/05/15/gIQAVHf0RU_blog.html
The article you posted from the Maui news includes 2 years while Bush was in office. In fact, based on the link I have provided, the largest number of Cloture filings in the Senate occurred during the 110th Congress before Obama was elected. Is this because the Senate was trying to undermine Obama when he was not even president? Or is it more likely due to the fact that the Republicans and Democrats are more divided and more far apart on issues then any other time in history?
One can argue that filibusters occur due to the minority party practicing obstructionism. Others could argue filibusters occur due to the majority party using bullying tactics to attempt to push their policy through without working with the minority. I guess it all depends on your perspective.
I am not naive to think there is one person or party to blame for what is occurring right now. There is plenty of blame to go around. That said, the Democrats at the DNC pumped their chests and took credit for 4.5 million new jobs created during the last 4 years. This tells me they are owning the economy now or they should just give credit to Bush for that. Despite "adding" 4.5 million new jobs in the last 4 years there are only 300k more people working in the U.S. now then there were when Obama took office. In addition, work force participation in the U.S. is at the lowest level since 1981.
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
Obama is president. He will need a lot of spin to get re-elected because the state of the economy is not going to help.0 -
It was current Friday news but here ya go.
Well since I'm not actually American no it's not current news for me. But hey, if you want to debate, posting your source is always a good thing!
Unfortunately there's not a lot Obama can do when he has an obstructionist Congress. Republicans. He's trying, but when you have Republicans on record stating that they want to keep the jobless rate high so they can win elections, Obama's hands are tied. For exmaple the Republicans have filibustered FOUR HUNDRED TIMES (http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/564775/GOP-uses-filibusters-to-obstruct-Obama--Democrats.html?nav=18) on the floor, DOUBLING what the Democrats did in the past 12 years. These include actual bills that were meant to create jobs. So how is is Obama's fault that job creation is lower?
Here's a British article on the Republicans efforts (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/06/republicans-anti-obama-strategy)
Here's another one (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/08/24/the_gop_plot_to_obstruct_obama039s_stimulus_288324.html) from the guy who did write a book on it, so there will be bias there.
You want to blame someone for the current mess America is in, blame the Republicans.
Forget blaming one party.... They both are an atrocity to Americans.0 -
Forget blaming one party.... They both are an atrocity to Americans.
Except for the fact one party is currently actively stopping job creation while complaining that Obama isn't creating jobs. On this particular point (ie the topic we're discussing) the Republucans are the ones who should be criticized not the Democrats.
Before I move on to my next point, the two party system sucks no matter what country you're in. Unfortunately it's not going to change anytime soon. (unless the moderate Republicans form a new party and leave the cesspit that is the current Republicxn party. As a history major to see the party of Lincoln and Eusenhower turn into its current incantation is depressing)The article you posted from the Maui news includes 2 years while Bush was in office. In fact, based on the link I have provided, the largest number of Cloture filings in the Senate occurred during the 110th Congress before Obama was elected. Is this because the Senate was trying to undermine Obama when he was not even president? Or is it more likely due to the fact that the Republicans and Democrats are more divided and more far apart on issues then any other time in history?
No but they were trying to stop a Democratic controlled house from passing bills.
Unfortunately bi-partisanship requires both sides to co-operate. The Republicans won't even when Obsma attemps to work with them. A lot of the criticism I've seen of Obama (from Democrats) is that he tries too much to work with the Republicans even when it's obvious they aren't going to work with him.
Honestly I don't get the filibuster, it's do I democratic it's not funny. The American people elect representatives to enact laws and one person can stop that from happening by reading the phone book?0 -
There can be no recovery as long as outsourcing is allowed. Until America says if don't make it here, you can't sell it here (at least without heavy tariffs), we're screwed.
I think that the Protectionism you are looking for would cause more issues then it solves. It would most certainly raise prices on just about everything we need that we import from other countries. This would primarily hurt the poor and middle class but at least we are making stuff in the US now, right??!
There is plenty on the net about how protectionism is a bad idea. You can Google if you are really interested.
http://www.voxeu.org/article/protectionist-temptation-lessons-great-depression-today
I don't think we should go the complete protectionism route, but we should refuse goods from countries with poor human rights records. Because right now, a global market means we are being forced to compete with workers who don't have our protections.
While our infrastructure, tech, and industry do give us some leeway in remaining competitive for now, that won't be true much longer and is increasingly less true.
Companies who violate workers' human rights should not be permitted to do business in the US, and that includes companies that outsource to countries where they know their workers will have no protections.
It's also bad for our security. People hate us for a reason, and these outsourcing companies looking for the cheapest, most exploited labor aren't helping.0 -
Democrats are far from perfect when it comes to job creation themselves.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/opinion/nocera-how-democrats-hurt-job-creation.html
And as far as statistics are concerned, I am quite skeptical about them, since you can get them to say virtually anything (just like I can with maps). And how much of that "job creation" was congress (that actually makes the policies) vs the president... The current administration vs the last.... State governments vs federal.
As much as people like to tout, so and so is better at creating jobs than so and so... I am skeptical because it's all about timing and until the unemployment percentage starts on a much steeper decline and I start seeing reports of fewer people needing to resort to government assistance, then maybe, just maybe I might give credit to the government for creating jobs...0 -
Graphs are always fun. Here is the first, showing private-sector job creation under Bush and Obama:
And here is the second, showing public-sector jobs:
That pretty much sums it up. I actually posted these graphs in an earlier discussion on a similar topic. The facts are that millions of new jobs have been created in the private sector--moreso than during the same period of the Bush administration. The difference is due to the drastic cuts in public sector jobs during this same period.
If you go back to the ARRA, you will remember that a big chunk of the bill was providing funds to states to maintain the jobs of teachers, police, and firefighters--all part of the public sector. The right wing has always lied about this as a "Obama payoff to unions", instead of what it really was. After that money was gone, and the jobs have been eliminated, we can clearly see the effects.
I don't want to lay everything at the feet of "republican obstructionism", but it cannot be ignored or denied that those political tactics have played a big role in the slow jobs recovery. As has the fact that the eurozone is slipping back into recession (many think it is due to application of the same "austerity" measures republicans want to try here), and that growth is slowing in China and India.
There are a number of economists right now who are saying there is not much anyone can do right now
http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/07/13728411-weak-jobs-growth-beyond-governments-control?lite
So we are kind of stuck. There is no political will to do the things that are known to help (e.g. stimulus-type actions); uncertainly about what to do with one sector still dragging everything down (housing), and the other alternative being offered (from republicans) are actions that about 90 percent of economists agree would make things worse (except for a very select few).
Right now, that's the story of the election: a lot of people are disappointed in the performance of the Obama administration, but they are reasonably certain that republicans suck and they are absolutely certain that Romney sucks. That is why you continue to see the odds strongly in favor of Obama's re-election, although I sill think a lot of the numbers are soft. As I pointed out in another article I cited in a previous discussion, a number of people like Obama, but are looking for Romney to give them a reason to vote for him. Luckily, so far, Romney only continues to give them reasons to think he's a d!ck.
But there are debates coming up, and Romney has at least $300 million to buy himself a lot of "truthiness", so I still think this is anyone's race.
Graphs are fun. They tell the story you want told.
http:/www./factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-economic-sleight-of-hand/
The real story is there are only 300k more people working now then when Obama got elected. Work force participation is at the lowest it's been since 1981. Obama has a tough sell.
btw... Democrats talking about money makes me giggle like a school girl.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/advertising-money-mccain-vs-obama/0 -
Graphs are always fun. Here is the first, showing private-sector job creation under Bush and Obama:
And here is the second, showing public-sector jobs:
That pretty much sums it up. I actually posted these graphs in an earlier discussion on a similar topic. The facts are that millions of new jobs have been created in the private sector--moreso than during the same period of the Bush administration. The difference is due to the drastic cuts in public sector jobs during this same period.
If you go back to the ARRA, you will remember that a big chunk of the bill was providing funds to states to maintain the jobs of teachers, police, and firefighters--all part of the public sector. The right wing has always lied about this as a "Obama payoff to unions", instead of what it really was. After that money was gone, and the jobs have been eliminated, we can clearly see the effects.
I don't want to lay everything at the feet of "republican obstructionism", but it cannot be ignored or denied that those political tactics have played a big role in the slow jobs recovery. As has the fact that the eurozone is slipping back into recession (many think it is due to application of the same "austerity" measures republicans want to try here), and that growth is slowing in China and India.
There are a number of economists right now who are saying there is not much anyone can do right now
http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/07/13728411-weak-jobs-growth-beyond-governments-control?lite
So we are kind of stuck. There is no political will to do the things that are known to help (e.g. stimulus-type actions); uncertainly about what to do with one sector still dragging everything down (housing), and the other alternative being offered (from republicans) are actions that about 90 percent of economists agree would make things worse (except for a very select few).
Right now, that's the story of the election: a lot of people are disappointed in the performance of the Obama administration, but they are reasonably certain that republicans suck and they are absolutely certain that Romney sucks. That is why you continue to see the odds strongly in favor of Obama's re-election, although I sill think a lot of the numbers are soft. As I pointed out in another article I cited in a previous discussion, a number of people like Obama, but are looking for Romney to give them a reason to vote for him. Luckily, so far, Romney only continues to give them reasons to think he's a d!ck.
But there are debates coming up, and Romney has at least $300 million to buy himself a lot of "truthiness", so I still think this is anyone's race.
Graphs are fun. They tell the story you want told.
http:/www./factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-economic-sleight-of-hand/
The real story is there are only 300k more people working now then when Obama got elected. Work force participation is at the lowest it's been since 1981. Obama has a tough sell.
btw... Democrats talking about money makes me giggle like a school girl.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/advertising-money-mccain-vs-obama/
Well, if everyone is done giggling now, I have some things to add. So since Obama took office, we have only gained 300K jobs. Well....if that is true, that would mean that he had had some job growth. If this is the argument that I shouldn't vote for him and go back to the Republicans....why couldn't they fix the economy in the 8 years we were in decline when GWB was in office and bottomed out in 2008? Even if you could make the case that some how the economic downturn was Clintons fault, they still had 8 years of Bush to fix it...and he didn't, it just got worse. Why does Obama only get 4 years? So why should I vote for a Republicans who are clearly embracing almost all of GWBs fiscal and foreign policies if they had no tanked the economy completely? Sounds to me like this is weird debating tactic, that Obama has only been minorly successful, so let's relect a party that was completly unsuccessful?0 -
Graphs are always fun. Here is the first, showing private-sector job creation under Bush and Obama:
And here is the second, showing public-sector jobs:
That pretty much sums it up. I actually posted these graphs in an earlier discussion on a similar topic. The facts are that millions of new jobs have been created in the private sector--moreso than during the same period of the Bush administration. The difference is due to the drastic cuts in public sector jobs during this same period.
If you go back to the ARRA, you will remember that a big chunk of the bill was providing funds to states to maintain the jobs of teachers, police, and firefighters--all part of the public sector. The right wing has always lied about this as a "Obama payoff to unions", instead of what it really was. After that money was gone, and the jobs have been eliminated, we can clearly see the effects.
I don't want to lay everything at the feet of "republican obstructionism", but it cannot be ignored or denied that those political tactics have played a big role in the slow jobs recovery. As has the fact that the eurozone is slipping back into recession (many think it is due to application of the same "austerity" measures republicans want to try here), and that growth is slowing in China and India.
There are a number of economists right now who are saying there is not much anyone can do right now
http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/07/13728411-weak-jobs-growth-beyond-governments-control?lite
So we are kind of stuck. There is no political will to do the things that are known to help (e.g. stimulus-type actions); uncertainly about what to do with one sector still dragging everything down (housing), and the other alternative being offered (from republicans) are actions that about 90 percent of economists agree would make things worse (except for a very select few).
Right now, that's the story of the election: a lot of people are disappointed in the performance of the Obama administration, but they are reasonably certain that republicans suck and they are absolutely certain that Romney sucks. That is why you continue to see the odds strongly in favor of Obama's re-election, although I sill think a lot of the numbers are soft. As I pointed out in another article I cited in a previous discussion, a number of people like Obama, but are looking for Romney to give them a reason to vote for him. Luckily, so far, Romney only continues to give them reasons to think he's a d!ck.
But there are debates coming up, and Romney has at least $300 million to buy himself a lot of "truthiness", so I still think this is anyone's race.
Graphs are fun. They tell the story you want told.
http:/www./factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-economic-sleight-of-hand/
The real story is there are only 300k more people working now then when Obama got elected. Work force participation is at the lowest it's been since 1981. Obama has a tough sell.
btw... Democrats talking about money makes me giggle like a school girl.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/advertising-money-mccain-vs-obama/
So, basically you are saying you don't have a substantive response.0 -
Graphs are always fun. Here is the first, showing private-sector job creation under Bush and Obama:
And here is the second, showing public-sector jobs:
That pretty much sums it up. I actually posted these graphs in an earlier discussion on a similar topic. The facts are that millions of new jobs have been created in the private sector--moreso than during the same period of the Bush administration. The difference is due to the drastic cuts in public sector jobs during this same period.
If you go back to the ARRA, you will remember that a big chunk of the bill was providing funds to states to maintain the jobs of teachers, police, and firefighters--all part of the public sector. The right wing has always lied about this as a "Obama payoff to unions", instead of what it really was. After that money was gone, and the jobs have been eliminated, we can clearly see the effects.
I don't want to lay everything at the feet of "republican obstructionism", but it cannot be ignored or denied that those political tactics have played a big role in the slow jobs recovery. As has the fact that the eurozone is slipping back into recession (many think it is due to application of the same "austerity" measures republicans want to try here), and that growth is slowing in China and India.
There are a number of economists right now who are saying there is not much anyone can do right now
http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/07/13728411-weak-jobs-growth-beyond-governments-control?lite
So we are kind of stuck. There is no political will to do the things that are known to help (e.g. stimulus-type actions); uncertainly about what to do with one sector still dragging everything down (housing), and the other alternative being offered (from republicans) are actions that about 90 percent of economists agree would make things worse (except for a very select few).
Right now, that's the story of the election: a lot of people are disappointed in the performance of the Obama administration, but they are reasonably certain that republicans suck and they are absolutely certain that Romney sucks. That is why you continue to see the odds strongly in favor of Obama's re-election, although I sill think a lot of the numbers are soft. As I pointed out in another article I cited in a previous discussion, a number of people like Obama, but are looking for Romney to give them a reason to vote for him. Luckily, so far, Romney only continues to give them reasons to think he's a d!ck.
But there are debates coming up, and Romney has at least $300 million to buy himself a lot of "truthiness", so I still think this is anyone's race.
Graphs are fun. They tell the story you want told.
http:/www./factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-economic-sleight-of-hand/
The real story is there are only 300k more people working now then when Obama got elected. Work force participation is at the lowest it's been since 1981. Obama has a tough sell.
btw... Democrats talking about money makes me giggle like a school girl.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/advertising-money-mccain-vs-obama/
Well, if everyone is done giggling now, I have some things to add. So since Obama took office, we have only gained 300K jobs. Well....if that is true, that would mean that he had had some job growth. If this is the argument that I shouldn't vote for him and go back to the Republicans....why couldn't they fix the economy in the 8 years we were in decline when GWB was in office and bottomed out in 2008? Even if you could make the case that some how the economic downturn was Clintons fault, they still had 8 years of Bush to fix it...and he didn't, it just got worse. Why does Obama only get 4 years? So why should I vote for a Republicans who are clearly embracing almost all of GWBs fiscal and foreign policies if they had no tanked the economy completely? Sounds to me like this is weird debating tactic, that Obama has only been minorly successful, so let's relect a party that was completly unsuccessful?
I think a lot of people feel that way, which is why Obama is still out in front in an election that, by historical standards, he has no business even being competitive.
That and the fact that republicans have backed themselves into a demographic corner by making "angry white guys" the cornerstone of their electoral strategy, and excluding all African Americans, 2/3 of Latinos, and 60% of women.
The recent conventions drew a sharp contrast between the two candidates and the two parties in a way that has rarely happened during my lifetime. Basically, deep down, Americans want to feel positive and I think most of them want to feel they are a part of a shared community with a shared purpose. Republicans have based their future on the tea party, which at its peak only had about a 30% approval rating. And Bill Clinton made a lot of people feel like it was OK to support Obama again (which still mystifies me that he has that kind of appeal, even now).
I still think that this election is going to be unique enough that the old historical patterns do not offer a reliable template for predicting the outcome. But I also feel at this point that the Romney/Ryan team has yet to give anyone a reason to vote for them, other than as an "anti-Obama" alternative. And since neither of them can take a consistent position for even a full day, it's hard to see how that will change.0 -
Graphs are always fun. Here is the first, showing private-sector job creation under Bush and Obama:
And here is the second, showing public-sector jobs:
That pretty much sums it up. I actually posted these graphs in an earlier discussion on a similar topic. The facts are that millions of new jobs have been created in the private sector--moreso than during the same period of the Bush administration. The difference is due to the drastic cuts in public sector jobs during this same period.
If you go back to the ARRA, you will remember that a big chunk of the bill was providing funds to states to maintain the jobs of teachers, police, and firefighters--all part of the public sector. The right wing has always lied about this as a "Obama payoff to unions", instead of what it really was. After that money was gone, and the jobs have been eliminated, we can clearly see the effects.
I don't want to lay everything at the feet of "republican obstructionism", but it cannot be ignored or denied that those political tactics have played a big role in the slow jobs recovery. As has the fact that the eurozone is slipping back into recession (many think it is due to application of the same "austerity" measures republicans want to try here), and that growth is slowing in China and India.
There are a number of economists right now who are saying there is not much anyone can do right now
http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/07/13728411-weak-jobs-growth-beyond-governments-control?lite
So we are kind of stuck. There is no political will to do the things that are known to help (e.g. stimulus-type actions); uncertainly about what to do with one sector still dragging everything down (housing), and the other alternative being offered (from republicans) are actions that about 90 percent of economists agree would make things worse (except for a very select few).
Right now, that's the story of the election: a lot of people are disappointed in the performance of the Obama administration, but they are reasonably certain that republicans suck and they are absolutely certain that Romney sucks. That is why you continue to see the odds strongly in favor of Obama's re-election, although I sill think a lot of the numbers are soft. As I pointed out in another article I cited in a previous discussion, a number of people like Obama, but are looking for Romney to give them a reason to vote for him. Luckily, so far, Romney only continues to give them reasons to think he's a d!ck.
But there are debates coming up, and Romney has at least $300 million to buy himself a lot of "truthiness", so I still think this is anyone's race.
Graphs are fun. They tell the story you want told.
http:/www./factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-economic-sleight-of-hand/
The real story is there are only 300k more people working now then when Obama got elected. Work force participation is at the lowest it's been since 1981. Obama has a tough sell.
btw... Democrats talking about money makes me giggle like a school girl.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/advertising-money-mccain-vs-obama/
Fixed my link
http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-economic-sleight-of-hand/0 -
Graphs are always fun. Here is the first, showing private-sector job creation under Bush and Obama:
And here is the second, showing public-sector jobs:
That pretty much sums it up. I actually posted these graphs in an earlier discussion on a similar topic. The facts are that millions of new jobs have been created in the private sector--moreso than during the same period of the Bush administration. The difference is due to the drastic cuts in public sector jobs during this same period.
If you go back to the ARRA, you will remember that a big chunk of the bill was providing funds to states to maintain the jobs of teachers, police, and firefighters--all part of the public sector. The right wing has always lied about this as a "Obama payoff to unions", instead of what it really was. After that money was gone, and the jobs have been eliminated, we can clearly see the effects.
I don't want to lay everything at the feet of "republican obstructionism", but it cannot be ignored or denied that those political tactics have played a big role in the slow jobs recovery. As has the fact that the eurozone is slipping back into recession (many think it is due to application of the same "austerity" measures republicans want to try here), and that growth is slowing in China and India.
There are a number of economists right now who are saying there is not much anyone can do right now
http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/07/13728411-weak-jobs-growth-beyond-governments-control?lite
So we are kind of stuck. There is no political will to do the things that are known to help (e.g. stimulus-type actions); uncertainly about what to do with one sector still dragging everything down (housing), and the other alternative being offered (from republicans) are actions that about 90 percent of economists agree would make things worse (except for a very select few).
Right now, that's the story of the election: a lot of people are disappointed in the performance of the Obama administration, but they are reasonably certain that republicans suck and they are absolutely certain that Romney sucks. That is why you continue to see the odds strongly in favor of Obama's re-election, although I sill think a lot of the numbers are soft. As I pointed out in another article I cited in a previous discussion, a number of people like Obama, but are looking for Romney to give them a reason to vote for him. Luckily, so far, Romney only continues to give them reasons to think he's a d!ck.
But there are debates coming up, and Romney has at least $300 million to buy himself a lot of "truthiness", so I still think this is anyone's race.
Graphs are fun. They tell the story you want told.
http:/www./factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-economic-sleight-of-hand/
The real story is there are only 300k more people working now then when Obama got elected. Work force participation is at the lowest it's been since 1981. Obama has a tough sell.
btw... Democrats talking about money makes me giggle like a school girl.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/advertising-money-mccain-vs-obama/
Well, if everyone is done giggling now, I have some things to add. So since Obama took office, we have only gained 300K jobs. Well....if that is true, that would mean that he had had some job growth. If this is the argument that I shouldn't vote for him and go back to the Republicans....why couldn't they fix the economy in the 8 years we were in decline when GWB was in office and bottomed out in 2008? Even if you could make the case that some how the economic downturn was Clintons fault, they still had 8 years of Bush to fix it...and he didn't, it just got worse. Why does Obama only get 4 years? So why should I vote for a Republicans who are clearly embracing almost all of GWBs fiscal and foreign policies if they had no tanked the economy completely? Sounds to me like this is weird debating tactic, that Obama has only been minorly successful, so let's relect a party that was completly unsuccessful?
GWB had 9/11 and inherited a recession in his first term. He also had two wars, one of which I don't agree with but that is for another thread. Despite that, the economy was in recovery by the time he was up for reelection. In addition, the unemployment rate was >2% less then it is right now when he was up for reelection. Has any sitting president been reelected with an unemployment rate over 8%? I am too lazy to look it up but I don't think so.
You and other Libs would vote for a stick figure with a D in his title. Why should an independent vote for Obama with his current record? Right now the only thing Obama has going for him is he is running against Romney which we don't want either.0 -
Graphs are always fun. Here is the first, showing private-sector job creation under Bush and Obama:
And here is the second, showing public-sector jobs:
That pretty much sums it up. I actually posted these graphs in an earlier discussion on a similar topic. The facts are that millions of new jobs have been created in the private sector--moreso than during the same period of the Bush administration. The difference is due to the drastic cuts in public sector jobs during this same period.
If you go back to the ARRA, you will remember that a big chunk of the bill was providing funds to states to maintain the jobs of teachers, police, and firefighters--all part of the public sector. The right wing has always lied about this as a "Obama payoff to unions", instead of what it really was. After that money was gone, and the jobs have been eliminated, we can clearly see the effects.
I don't want to lay everything at the feet of "republican obstructionism", but it cannot be ignored or denied that those political tactics have played a big role in the slow jobs recovery. As has the fact that the eurozone is slipping back into recession (many think it is due to application of the same "austerity" measures republicans want to try here), and that growth is slowing in China and India.
There are a number of economists right now who are saying there is not much anyone can do right now
http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/07/13728411-weak-jobs-growth-beyond-governments-control?lite
So we are kind of stuck. There is no political will to do the things that are known to help (e.g. stimulus-type actions); uncertainly about what to do with one sector still dragging everything down (housing), and the other alternative being offered (from republicans) are actions that about 90 percent of economists agree would make things worse (except for a very select few).
Right now, that's the story of the election: a lot of people are disappointed in the performance of the Obama administration, but they are reasonably certain that republicans suck and they are absolutely certain that Romney sucks. That is why you continue to see the odds strongly in favor of Obama's re-election, although I sill think a lot of the numbers are soft. As I pointed out in another article I cited in a previous discussion, a number of people like Obama, but are looking for Romney to give them a reason to vote for him. Luckily, so far, Romney only continues to give them reasons to think he's a d!ck.
But there are debates coming up, and Romney has at least $300 million to buy himself a lot of "truthiness", so I still think this is anyone's race.
Graphs are fun. They tell the story you want told.
http:/www./factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-economic-sleight-of-hand/
The real story is there are only 300k more people working now then when Obama got elected. Work force participation is at the lowest it's been since 1981. Obama has a tough sell.
btw... Democrats talking about money makes me giggle like a school girl.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/advertising-money-mccain-vs-obama/
Well, if everyone is done giggling now, I have some things to add. So since Obama took office, we have only gained 300K jobs. Well....if that is true, that would mean that he had had some job growth. If this is the argument that I shouldn't vote for him and go back to the Republicans....why couldn't they fix the economy in the 8 years we were in decline when GWB was in office and bottomed out in 2008? Even if you could make the case that some how the economic downturn was Clintons fault, they still had 8 years of Bush to fix it...and he didn't, it just got worse. Why does Obama only get 4 years? So why should I vote for a Republicans who are clearly embracing almost all of GWBs fiscal and foreign policies if they had no tanked the economy completely? Sounds to me like this is weird debating tactic, that Obama has only been minorly successful, so let's relect a party that was completly unsuccessful?
GWB had 9/11 and inherited a recession in his first term. He also had two wars, one of which I don't agree with but that is for another thread. Despite that, the economy was in recovery by the time he was up for reelection. In addition, the unemployment rate was >2% less then it is right now when he was up for reelection. Has any sitting president been reelected with an unemployment rate over 8%? I am too lazy to look it up but I don't think so.
You and other Libs would vote for a stick figure with a D in his title. Why should an independent vote for Obama with his current record? Right now the only thing Obama has going for him is he is running against Romney which we don't want either.
GWB had a recession to inherit. The only person I have ever heard claim this was Sean Hannity. That right there should be enough for any rational person to question it. As to 9/11......ok, if it caused financial hardship, why couldn't Bush fix it in 7 years....why did it keep getting worse with a metldown at the end of his presidency? If two wars are the reason he couldn't, Obama also had those wars, so doesn't he get that excuse as well?
As far as libs voting for anyone with a D....are you seriously making the case the conservatives aren't as biased? Is this a joke? As a matter of fact, the libs are actually known to be a lot more disorganized because of their failure to band together because of differences on issues. Republicans have always been the party that falls in line.
ic
And once again in this thread as in on others, you seem to be lacking basic reading comprehension skills. Never once did I say I was voting for Obama in my post. I simply asked questions and pointed out extremely flawed logic in your arguments. As far as being a liberal....yeah, I'm really liberal on social issues, probably more of a libertarian on those issues. But as far as fiscal ideology goes, the conservatives have never shown once that they are any more capable of running an econmy than the liberals are. Not once. Trickle down economics is a failure in the global economy. I just read an article last week that with the tax cuts GWB gave the top 1%, that in spite of the recession this nation has more wealth than we ever had before.
It's just all at the top. But instead of reinvesting it and being "job creators" the filthy rich are hording it like dragons and when they do invest it, it's in third world countries with no worker protection rights, making sneakers with 7 years old child labor and crap like that.0 -
I will have to find it again, but recently I have been reading articles that state that companies are bringing their work back from overseas, because it is more beneficial for them to have their workforce here.
Oh yes and isn't that the greatest news? Another supposed tale of humility and redemption. Just google "resourcing" and the hits are immense. What the news doesn't recount, however, except in fine print, is the net gain or loss by net production wages and benefits. Workers are hired back at lower wages and less or non-existent benefits such as health. The only redemption from this latest slight of hand is the PR spin towards beleagured corporate employers.0 -
Aww China! The communist country that has benefitted from our "capitalism".
Capitalism knows no political ideaological boundaries. Don't you love it? Stalin used it all by himself to bring his country into the Industrial Age. He didn't even need U.S. help. ha!0 -
At least we're going up, not down. I do have to say you can't really blame or credit Obama for anything over the last 2 years, because congress refuses to pass any of his legislation and the senate shoots down anything passed by the house, so the president never even has anything to sign or veto. I for one think Democratic policies are better for the economy, but neither side really understands the problem.0
