07 Oct 12
Originally posted by KunsooThere were no deficit hawks for the first two years. In the second two these deficit hawks still granted and increased debt ceiling. Six trillion in new debt isn't exactly low throttle, and his addition of a new entitlement at this time is particularly bad timing.
He's fixing it. The only problem is that his initiatives have been stymied, and deficit hawks' obsessiveness is keeping everything in low throttle.
07 Oct 12
Originally posted by CLL53Agree entirely. What has Obama done to articulate how his programs have changed the unemployment numbers? Brag about jobs "created or saved", which amounts to verbal judo. He has done many things to demonstrably harm jobs. No Keystone pipeline, no ANWAR, green jobs programs that after spending billions of subsidy dollars are insolvent.
The numbers really don't matter much, if at all. The unemployed, under-employed, and uncounted, KNOW who they are and what predicament they are in, and will vote for the candidate they think may change their situation. OK, that is one group, the top leaders in industry don't make decisions based one a single number from a single source related to a single as ...[text shortened]... must be the work of Obama and his actions, Obama is the man, I am changing my vote to him."
The number is better, but better in spite of, not because of the President.
07 Oct 12
Originally posted by normbenignThat you have no understanding of economics doesn't mean no one does. There's little debate among economists that the stimulus plan created millions of jobs.
Agree entirely. What has Obama done to articulate how his programs have changed the unemployment numbers? Brag about jobs "created or saved", which amounts to verbal judo. He has done many things to demonstrably harm jobs. No Keystone pipeline, no ANWAR, green jobs programs that after spending billions of subsidy dollars are insolvent.
The number is better, but better in spite of, not because of the President.
07 Oct 12
Originally posted by no1marauderThat depends on the economists you ask. Since I don't only read left wing loony economists, I see that there is considerable debate, and if there were none, then Obama would be trumpeting his initiatives and telling the unwashed how they accomplished what they did.
That you have no understanding of economics doesn't mean no one does. There's little debate among economists that the stimulus plan created millions of jobs.
Besides that, creating millions of jobs is no accomplishment if millions more are lost, and those created don't last.
07 Oct 12
Originally posted by normbenignWhich economists' analysis do you read?
That depends on the economists you ask. Since I don't only read left wing loony economists, I see that there is considerable debate, and if there were none, then Obama would be trumpeting his initiatives and telling the unwashed how they accomplished what they did.
Besides that, creating millions of jobs is no accomplishment if millions more are lost, and those created don't last.
07 Oct 12
Originally posted by KunsooWhy doesn't Obama just hire the 7% unemployed then?
He's fixing it. The only problem is that his initiatives have been stymied, and deficit hawks' obsessiveness is keeping everything in low throttle.
As far as paying for it, why not just pay for it the way they do everything else, which is deficit spending? Just call it QE4.
07 Oct 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraBob Chapman was a good source. He died recently though. Wile the official unemployment number was around the 9 percent number he claimed it was like 23 percernt or so. I believed him on that. Gerald Celente is a good one to listen to. I don't know if he is an economist or forcaster but I take his word for the most part.
Which economists' analysis do you read?
07 Oct 12
2 edits
Originally posted by joe beyserWhy didn't you just check the numbers? The broadest measure of unemployment as measured by the dept. of Labor will show a figure at around that 23% mark, so there's not much to "believe".
Bob Chapman was a good source. He died recently though. Wile the official unemployment number was around the 9 percent number he claimed it was like 23 percernt or so. I believed him on that. Gerald Celente is a good one to listen to. I don't know if he is an economist or forcaster but I take his word for the most part.
Edit: just looked up the figures, the U6 measure (which includes the underemployed and discouraged workers) topped at ~17% in 2010 so I'm not sure where the 23% comes from. Maybe that includes things like students who went to college because they could not find a job as well, or something. The current figure is 14.7%.
08 Oct 12
Originally posted by KunsooThey seem to have stabilized with Obama's lead substantially reduced or gone though more polls which include days following both the debate and the jobs report need to be seen. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
Looks like the report may have stabilized the polls for obama.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/oct-7-national-polls-show-signs-of-settling/
We'll probably know more by Thursday.
09 Oct 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI am not sure if the people "marginally attached to the workforce" are considered. Once the unemployment benefits run out or someone is out of work but not on unemployment, they are not counted as unemployed. I don't think they have recently fudged the numbers any more now than they have in the last few years, but they government has hired a lot of folks and that is why they claim to have created so many new jobs.
Why didn't you just check the numbers? The broadest measure of unemployment as measured by the dept. of Labor will show a figure at around that 23% mark, so there's not much to "believe".
Edit: just looked up the figures, the U6 measure (which includes the underemployed and discouraged workers) topped at ~17% in 2010 so I'm not sure where the 23% com ...[text shortened]... llege because they could not find a job as well, or something. The current figure is 14.7%.
09 Oct 12
2 edits
Originally posted by joe beyserA simple Google search would have revealed that the marginally attached are considered in the U6 unemployment rate. As far as I know anyone who is actively looking for work, but has no work at all (including parttime work) is included in the U3 figure (and therefore also the U6 figure which is broader), regardless of whether or not they are on benefits (the figures are not based on unemployment benefits, but rather on a survey where people are simply asked about their employment situation). You might be able to reach that 23% figure if you include people who retired early because they had no job anyway (but do not particularly need to or want to work) and students who went to college because they could not find a job (but are studying are therefore not unemployed).
I am not sure if the people "marginally attached to the workforce" are considered. Once the unemployment benefits run out or someone is out of work but not on unemployment, they are not counted as unemployed. I don't think they have recently fudged the numbers any more now than they have in the last few years, but they government has hired a lot of folks and that is why they claim to have created so many new jobs.
10 Oct 12
Originally posted by normbenignCensus workers come to mind. I remember the big deal lefties around here thought the increase in employment was when the big Census hiring was going on. One comment was that a government job is a job. The fact that the job was by definition very temporary was totally ignored. Whatever makes my side look good at the moment!
That depends on the economists you ask. Since I don't only read left wing loony economists, I see that there is considerable debate, and if there were none, then Obama would be trumpeting his initiatives and telling the unwashed how they accomplished what they did.
Besides that, creating millions of jobs is no accomplishment if millions more are lost, and those created don't last.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199196
10 Oct 12
Originally posted by normbenignThat's absolutely false. In the first year the Republicans broke all records for filibusters, mostly on spending issues and Obama had to pare down the stimulus package. The debt doesn't come from increased spending primarily. It comes from a sharp decline in revenues due to Bush's economic collapse.
There were no deficit hawks for the first two years. In the second two these deficit hawks still granted and increased debt ceiling. Six trillion in new debt isn't exactly low throttle, and his addition of a new entitlement at this time is particularly bad timing.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199196
10 Oct 12
Originally posted by whodeyThe Republicans have filibustered every jobs bill put foward, even threatening to filibuster maintaining low employment taxes. Anything to kill economic growth until after the election.
Why doesn't Obama just hire the 7% unemployed then?
As far as paying for it, why not just pay for it the way they do everything else, which is deficit spending? Just call it QE4.