Disgusted With Obama Administration.
-
ptown_trojans_1
The Prez has done awful on the economy, but we are no where near Cater levels.QuakerOats;1162149 wrote:"it is just getting sad now. In April the number of people not in the labor force rose by a whopping 522,000 from 87,897,000 to
88,419,000. This is the highest on record. The flip side, and the reason why the unemployment dropped to 8.1% is that the labor force participation rate just dipped to a new 30 year low of 64.3%."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/people-not-labor-force-soar-522000-labor-force-participation-rate-lowest-1981
obama: The Master of Unemployment ...... he is making Jimmy Carter look like Ronald Reagan.
Change we can believe in ...
This is more akin to the 1991-1992 economic crisis with Bush and Clinton. Only, thing, Romney isn't Clinton..... -
gut
Well, he's got unemployment going down, since people are dropping out of the workforce. So the more apt description might be "Obama: Destroyer of the Will to Work"QuakerOats;1162149 wrote: obama: The Master of Unemployment ......
Or, apparently, he can add "creating jobs nobody wants" to his resume of "building bridges to nowhere". -
gut
Bush '92 was a fair bit more popular than Obama at this point, and the economy was sour but not nearly as rough as it is now.ptown_trojans_1;1162898 wrote: This is more akin to the 1991-1992 economic crisis with Bush and Clinton. Only, thing, Romney isn't Clinton.....
Liberals were giddy that Obama was trouncing Romney and the others in most of the polls, then could only shake their heads in disbelief as the gap disappeared (predictably) within just weeks of Santorum dropping out. -
BoatShoes
Let's hear your solution for getting the unemployment rate down. Slashing State budgets in Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, etc. has not had the desired effect and has kept the unemployment rate up. There are solutions we know that will work but Obama, even if he were to propose them, could not get them through the house of Representatives.QuakerOats;1162149 wrote:"it is just getting sad now. In April the number of people not in the labor force rose by a whopping 522,000 from 87,897,000 to
88,419,000. This is the highest on record. The flip side, and the reason why the unemployment dropped to 8.1% is that the labor force participation rate just dipped to a new 30 year low of 64.3%."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/people-not-labor-force-soar-522000-labor-force-participation-rate-lowest-1981
obama: The Master of Unemployment ...... he is making Jimmy Carter look like Ronald Reagan.
Change we can believe in ...
So please, enlighten me as to how you propose we get our economy back to full employment. -
BoatShoes
Obama is in deep shit but it is sad because if we took your and Mitt Romney's advice, things would be even worse. Really blows that our choices are sticking with Obama and his perpetually depressed economy and going for Romney and the Republicans who think we'd be better off if we were Ireland :rolleyes:gut;1162930 wrote:Bush '92 was a fair bit more popular than Obama at this point, and the economy was sour but not nearly as rough as it is now.
Liberals were giddy that Obama was trouncing Romney and the others in most of the polls, then could only shake their heads in disbelief as the gap disappeared (predictably) within just weeks of Santorum dropping out. -
fish82
Here's an amusing nugget for today. http://news.yahoo.com/obama-time-shift-attention-wars-home-100802257.html
During yet another uplifting and inspiring campaign speech, Bam had this to say:
Depending on the source/spin, we're currently running at about 170-225 Billion a year in both theaters."That's why I've called on Congress to take the money we're no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt and use the other half to rebuild America," he said.
Interest alone on the current debt is about $200 Billion/year, give or take.
Even if Bam waved his magic wand today and our entire operation in both countries was teleported home...every penny we save doesn't even cover the fugging interest, let alone use half of it to "pay down the debt."
Smartest man ever to sit in the chair. We're fortunate to have him. :rolleyes: -
gut
Keynesian economics is failing. If you're out there living and seeing it in business/investing, there's a definite Obama/deficit overhang. In other words, that overhang is an impediment to real, sustainable growth. They are hunkering down because they see some big tax bills, and another recession, looming with 4 more years of Obama and these massive deficits. In this scenario, dumping more stimulus (i.e. running up a higher deficit) only exacerbates the problem. And truthfully if Romney and the 2012 class can't change course responsibly the purse strings will quickly tighten again.BoatShoes;1163189 wrote:Obama is in deep **** but it is sad because if we took your and Mitt Romney's advice, things would be even worse. Really blows that our choices are sticking with Obama and his perpetually depressed economy and going for Romney and the Republicans who think we'd be better off if we were Ireland :rolleyes:
You don't even have to look guess at this. There is plenty of empirical evidence from the stock markets that leverage (i.e. debt) can be used to add and create value, but beyond a certain point companies (read: economies) begin to fail under too much debt, and that overhang sends investors running for the exits.
I believe deficit spending works to a point, but you are clearly wrong to believe there's no limits. In all honesty, Keynesian economics only works because everyone is not actually rational nor is there perfect information as assumed in the classical models. Fool me three times, four times or whatever, but eventually people do see the writing on the wall. We are at that point.
You only have to look at Europe to see this model is not sustainable. The bottom line is business and markets no longer put any faith in future cuts/limits to spending. They no longer have confidence our present course is sustainable. The cure to debt overhang is never more debt, as you want to suggest.
What is needed to restore confidence is a rational and sustainable plan to a balanced budget. You don't have to actually get there tomorrow, you simply have to establish credibility that you are going to get there reasonably and responsibly. That's why more stimulus isn't going to work. More false promises about tax increases to close the budget gap isn't going to work. NOT PASSING BUDGETS isn't going to work. There's only one solution and that is to rationalize spending. Or a VAT, which in that case I will grab my popcorn and sit back to watch. -
gut
It's hard to believe Obama actually believes some of the stuff he says. Not any different from most politicians in that regard. The statements you quoted are really a sad commentary on how stupid and easily fooled the electorate is.fish82;1163216 wrote: Smartest man ever to sit in the chair. We're fortunate to have him. :rolleyes:
Businesses and investors are considerably more savvy, however. And this is why structural roadblocks are emerging in the economy because the average Joe keeps voting for politicians printing money to give him a handout, and businesses/investors are hunkering down for the financial Armageddon we are racing to. We saw what happened with the banking/mortgage crisis, but there will be no US Govt coming in to save the day with DIP financing when the US Govt defaults. That should scare the bejeezus out of anyone, but it's very difficult to understand or believe, especially when nearly all the politicians and media are complicit in the deception.
So the average Joe votes for what he knows and likes, which is "free" handouts. So the policitians continue to pander for votes with short-run placebos while putting the economy and average Joe's they are so compassionate and concerned about on increasingly shakier foundations. We are gambling with the wealth and livelihood of the middle 60% in increasingly failing efforts to support and lift-up the bottom 20-30%. -
sleeper
Well said gut. Pretty much how I feel to a "T". -
BoatShoes
Dude, you're literally living in an alternative universe. No one in Europe or the U.S. is doing anything with regard to fiscal policy that Keynes would have advocated for.gut;1163227 wrote: You only have to look at Europe to see this model is not sustainable. The bottom line is business and markets no longer put any faith in future cuts/limits to spending. They no longer have confidence our present course is sustainable. The cure to debt overhang is never more debt, as you want to suggest.
What is needed to restore confidence is a rational and sustainable plan to a balanced budget..
Everyone with power in Europe has been repeating that same nonsense you just posted. And it has failed. The Brits imposed huge spending cuts in pursuit of a balanced budget to restore confidence and it has gotten them as far as another recession.
Huge Cuts and "rational paths to balanced budgets" is what is destroying Europe right now. Even countries that were fiscally virtuous and running budget surpluses are diving toward the abyss as they keep cutting and cutting trying to get confidence. Furthermore it's making their debt problems worse.
Everything you're saying is what was done in Europe. It's what was done in states like Ohio. It has proved disastrous. We literally know now that taking your advice won't only 1. Not bless firms with "confidence" and spur expansion, but will also 2. likely make our debt problem worse.
It amazes me that you're looking at the world, where your solutions have failed and yet draw the exact opposite conclusion. -
sleeper
When does it end BoatShoes? I don't see how we can continue to just keep running trillion dollar deficits into eternity. Eventually we have to cut spending and get the debt under control.
The only way I can see it happening is if we continue to pump endless amounts of dollars into the economy. Inflate our way out. -
gut
You clearly missed the point about credibility. You don't have to make huge cuts now - that's not responsible, nor do you instantly establish credibility until you've demonstrated the discipline and commitment. Businesses and markets are forward looking, if you're looking for a quick fix there isn't one and I've never said there is. Europe ran out of options, it's another strawman argument you're making. Obama is long on rhetoric and short on ideas, which does NOTHING to restore confidence and credibility. You eliminate the deficit over 4 years and you can get offsetting gains and then some in an economy relieved of the debilitating effects of increasingly crushing govt debt. I've never advocated or proposed the sort of shock therapy Europe was forced to resort to and I don't know why you keep insisting I have.BoatShoes;1163240 wrote:Dude, you're literally living in an alternative universe. No one in Europe or the U.S. is doing anything with regard to fiscal policy that Keynes would have advocated for.
Everyone with power in Europe has been repeating that same nonsense you just posted. And it has failed. The Brits imposed huge spending cuts in pursuit of a balanced budget to restore confidence and it has gotten them as far as another recession.
You also commit a logical fallacy that continuing spending somehow affects a better outcome in Europe. They're doing better than they were when they had no money and no plan (well, Greece and a few others are still kind of struggling with a plan). They couldn't keep spending because they didn't have the money or any more credit available. But that's precisely the scenario you are proposing for the US just throwing more money after bad.
I don't understand why you advocate Keynesian policy when you acknowledge that Keynes would not propose the current fiscal policy? Implicitly you are acknowledging that Keysian economics isn't working and can't work with current fiscal policy. Yet somehow you keep clamoring for MORE wasted and ineffective stimulus. The economy won't respond in nearly full capacity until the underlying structural problems are addressed, and that structural problem is mostly a spending one. -
gut
That's ultimately an option for debt, not deficit, reduction. You can't responsibly inflate your way out running 30%+ annual deficits.sleeper;1163241 wrote: The only way I can see it happening is if we continue to pump endless amounts of dollars into the economy. Inflate our way out. -
sleeper
Well yeah. I'm saying continuously borrow money then when it becomes unsustainable(I'd argue we are already there), just have 10-20% inflation to pay it all back.gut;1163254 wrote:That's ultimately an option for debt, not deficit, reduction. You can't responsibly inflate your way out running 30%+ annual deficits. -
gut
10-20% inflation would make Paul Volker puke. It's worked for 20+ years and I don't think recent events have really done anything to suggest a little bit of controlled inflation in the 2-3% range is not optimal. Investors don't like surprises, and stable monetary policy is clearly more productive for an economy.sleeper;1163257 wrote:Well yeah. I'm saying continuously borrow money then when it becomes unsustainable(I'd argue we are already there), just have 10-20% inflation to pay it all back.
But you are probably not wrong about 10-20% inflation, I just don't think it's going to be the result of anything the govt/fed decides or can control. I think the market/investors will soon begin to dictate higher prices and interest rates. -
BoatShoes
The Wall Street Journal has been saying this for almost half a decade now! This has been wrong and it's going to continue to be wrong for the foreseeable future as we're looking at core inflation below the target rate for years to come. You've got a FED chairman who has patently refused even 3-4% inflation targeting. 10-20% inflation is not going to happen folks.gut;1163267 wrote:10-20% inflation would make Paul Volker puke. It's worked for 20+ years and I don't think recent events have really done anything to suggest a little bit of controlled inflation in the 2-3% range is not optimal. Investors don't like surprises, and stable monetary policy is clearly more productive for an economy.
But you are probably not wrong about 10-20% inflation, I just don't think it's going to be the result of anything the govt/fed decides or can control. I think the market/investors will soon begin to dictate higher prices and interest rates.
And again, You argue that there's all this fat that we need to cut in government now but it is precisely the huge amount of losses in public sector jobs (orchestrated by Republicans) that is holding us back.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-stump/103110/public-job-losses-and-gop-chutzpah
^As this piece in the New Republic argues...the arguments the GOP push on this front optimize chutzpah because they're blaming Obama for the unemployment rate when private sector employment is back to where it was but GOP governors went and fired a bunch of people. -
Footwedge
Clean up the grammar...who can read that shit? And you work behind a desk?sleeper;1163257 wrote:Well yeah. I'm saying continuously borrow money then when it becomes unsustainable(I'd argue we are already there), just have 10-20% inflation to pay it all back. -
Footwedge
And this really should end the thread altogether.BoatShoes;1163186 wrote:Let's hear your solution for getting the unemployment rate down.
So please, enlighten me as to how you propose we get our economy back to full employment.
The hypocracy from the John Birchers on this cite never offer a viable solution to help the US attain full employment (4.5 to 5%). Oh I forgot..."cut taxes", LOL"...My bad. -
BGFalcons82
It's really not that hard, foot. Your side thinks they can control, manipulate, subsidize, tweak, alter, edit, credit and enhance the tax code and target specific companies to create jobs. That has failed time after time after time after time after...Footwedge;1163300 wrote:And this really should end the thread altogether.
The hypocracy from the John Birchers on this cite never offer a viable solution to help the US attain full employment (4.5 to 5%). Oh I forgot..."cut taxes", LOL"...My bad.
First...determine where jobs come from.
Second, determine what is best to create jobs where they come from.
Third, foster an environment so those that create jobs have the best opportunity to grow their business and acquire the NEED for employees.
Fourth, and this is the hard one for the Big Government Team, get the hell out of the way and let them grow.
It takes confidence in capitalism, the greatest wealth and job creating economic system ever devised by mankind, to get to full employment. Attempts to control it, pick winners/losers, subsidize losing ideas, punish job creators and punish achievement have led us to May 5, 2012. The simplest solutions are always the best, don't you think? -
bigdaddy2003
I had the pleasure of hearing a funny but sad statement today. I was over at my parents' house having a conversation with my dad and a friend of his when out of the blue the friend says "I hope Obama beats Romney in November because he's screwed us over way too many times already." I understand that there are people who blindly vote R or D and you can pretty much put this guy in the same kind of category but to actually hear that statement first hand kind of made me laugh. -
believer
It's hypocrisy not hypocracy....it's site not cite. Clean up the grammar...who can read that shit?Footwedge;1163300 wrote:And this really should end the thread altogether.
The hypocracy from the John Birchers on this cite never offer a viable solution to help the US attain full employment (4.5 to 5%). Oh I forgot..."cut taxes", LOL"...My bad.
-
sleeper
I don't care. Have a nice day.Footwedge;1163299 wrote:Clean up the grammar...who can read that shit? And you work behind a desk? -
Manhattan Buckeye
This is the "X"th time you'e made this argument and the "X"th time it makes no sense. Public sector employment is down because (i) public sector employment was overlybloated to begin with, (ii) the inherent inefficiencies and diminishing demand for public services will dictate a right-sizing in the sector when budget issues become a concern, and (iii) as an extension of (ii), budget issues haven't just been a concern, they've been the utmost concern. The "Stimulus" was nothing more than a short-term band-aid to fill local governments' budget shortfalls. It didn't stimulate anything.BoatShoes;1163292 wrote:The Wall Street Journal has been saying this for almost half a decade now! This has been wrong and it's going to continue to be wrong for the foreseeable future as we're looking at core inflation below the target rate for years to come. You've got a FED chairman who has patently refused even 3-4% inflation targeting. 10-20% inflation is not going to happen folks.
And again, You argue that there's all this fat that we need to cut in government now but it is precisely the huge amount of losses in public sector jobs (orchestrated by Republicans) that is holding us back.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-stump/103110/public-job-losses-and-gop-chutzpah
^As this piece in the New Republic argues...the arguments the GOP push on this front optimize chutzpah because they're blaming Obama for the unemployment rate when private sector employment is back to where it was but GOP governors went and fired a bunch of people.
It makes no sense to keep a postal worker on payroll if the work isn't there for him or her. It makes even less sense when the revenue stream from falling property values and lower tax bases can't support the overhead for an inefficient if not useless worker. If any jurisdiction could spend its way out of a recession by just printing money and making up jobs no country would be in trouble. That isn't the case. People are paid with real money, and the real money has to come from somewhere. -
gutBoatShoes;1163292 wrote:The Wall Street Journal has been saying this for almost half a decade now! This has been wrong and it's going to continue to be wrong for the foreseeable future as we're looking at core inflation below the target rate for years to come. You've got a FED chairman who has patently refused even 3-4% inflation targeting. 10-20% inflation is not going to happen folks.
And again, You argue that there's all this fat that we need to cut in government now but it is precisely the huge amount of losses in public sector jobs (orchestrated by Republicans) that is holding us back.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-stump/103110/public-job-losses-and-gop-chutzpah
^As this piece in the New Republic argues...the arguments the GOP push on this front optimize chutzpah because they're blaming Obama for the unemployment rate when private sector employment is back to where it was but GOP governors went and fired a bunch of people.
People saw and predicted the internet bubble bursting long before it actually did. That didn't make them wrong, they were just early on the timing. What a horrible failure of logic for you to claim just because it hasn't happened already it can't happen.
What the fed chairman says ultimately rings hollow. The fed has credibility now because Volker worked like a dog to establish it, but actions ultimately speak louder than words. Like I said, there comes a point where the Fed can't dictate. The entire point is when we actually do hit the tipping point, it will be too late.
Private sector employment is nowhere near back to where it was. Where the hell do you get your information? There are 4.8M less jobs than the peak in Feb 2008. Yeah, the govt got bloated under Bush, too and we aren't back to anywhere near where we were under Clinton.
There is a debt overhang holding the economy back. You read the WSJ apparently, but must read it selectively because there have been plenty of articles with business people talking about concern over the Obamaconomy and large tax increases to fund the runaway debt.
And you're actually arguing that what is destroying this economy is cutting federal employment and not enough stimulus - two things that create 0 economic value? Please explain to me how that logic works. -
gut
I'm not running for office so I don't see how that makes me hypocritical for wanting to throw out the politicians who clearly don't have an answer. Kick out the proven failures, that's all I can do.Footwedge;1163300 wrote:And this really should end the thread altogether.
The hypocracy from the John Birchers on this cite never offer a viable solution to help the US attain full employment (4.5 to 5%). Oh I forgot..."cut taxes", LOL"...My bad.