# Obama's Candidacy

by Pythagorean
Tags: candidacy, obama
 PF Gold P: 3,098 I'm missing how the AP article contradicts the Washington Examiner article? Both state that Obama is calling for a raise of the tax incentive on EV's such as the Volt to $10K. Mentor P: 26,552  Quote by mheslep I'm missing how the AP article contradicts the Washington Examiner article? Both state that Obama is calling for a raise of the tax incentive on EV's such as the Volt to$10K.
Because the article WhoWee posted, which is not mainstream, more or less skewed the truth to make it seem that Obama was wanting the government to pay people to specifically buy the Volt. That's absolutely false.

 Obama promotes proposed $10,000 Volt tax credit It is not a "Volt" tax credit. Then WhoWee stated it wasn't a tax credit, it was an instant rebate at point of sale, yet he furnished no proof of this and I find no proof of it. Whowee knows better than to post such misinformation as contained in that article. He used to be so good at checking sources and being a great example of how people should vet the information before they post and if it's questionable to not post it.  Emeritus Sci Advisor PF Gold P: 11,155 No contradiction that I can tell. However, both the Examiner's headline and WhoWee's choice of quotes make it look like Obama is singling out the Chevy Volt for special treatment (noteworthy, if it were true), while in fact, the tax benefit applies for all high-efficiency vehicles, including natural-gas-powered commercial trucks. Emeritus Sci Advisor PF Gold P: 11,155  Quote by Evo Then WhoWee stated it wasn't a tax credit, it was an instant rebate at point of sale, yet he furnished no proof of this and I find no proof of it. I've seen that corroborated (I use that loosely, I can't be sure they're independent sources) by another source: http://wot.motortrend.com/obama-asks...ks-177641.html Mentor P: 26,552  Quote by Gokul43201 I've seen that corroborated (I use that loosely, I can't be sure they're independent sources) by another source: http://wot.motortrend.com/obama-asks...ks-177641.html Today's article on CNN mentions nothing about it being an "instant rebate", just an increase of the current tax credit. It will be interesting to see how it pans out. http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/07/auto...cars/index.htm PF Gold P: 3,098  Quote by Evo Because the article WhoWee posted, which is not mainstream, more or less skewed the truth to make it seem that Obama was wanting the government to pay people to specifically buy the Volt. That's absolutely false. Starting with the false headline It is not a "Volt" tax credit. The headline was incomplete, misleading perhaps, but not absolutely false. There are exactly 11 EV's currently for sale in the US that qualify the credit. Of these, only the Chevy Volt (~6000) and Nissan Leaf (~8000) have annual sales above one thousand units per year.  Then WhoWee stated it wasn't a tax credit, it was an instant rebate at point of sale, yet he furnished no proof of this and I find no proof of it. The Examiner reference Whowee quoted may not have been acceptable, but it is nonetheless correct according the WhiteHouse website:  Quote by WhiteHouse.gov The President is proposing to transform the existing$7,500 tax credit for electric vehicles into a rebate that will be available to all consumers immediately at the point of sale.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...y-vehicles.pdf
Mentor
P: 26,552
 Quote by mheslep http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...y-vehicles.pdf
That was proposed in 2008 and never happened.

 Quote by mheslep The headline was incomplete, misleading perhaps, but not absolutely false. There are exactly 11 EV's currently for sale in the US that qualify the credit. Of these, only the Chevy Volt (~6000) and Nissan Leaf (~8000) have annual sales above one thousand units per year.
This has absolutely nothing to do with sales volume.

The truth.
 Obama urges shift to new energy technologies By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press – 3 hours ago President Barack Obama on Wednesday made his most urgent appeal yet for the U.S. to wean itself from oil, calling it a "fuel of the past" and demanding that the country broaden its approach to energy. Mindful of the political dangers of high gas prices, he said shrinking demand for oil must drive the solution. Obama, promoting his energy policies in a politically prominent state that will host the Democratic National Convention, called on Congress to provide $1 billion in grants to local communities to encourage greater use of fuel-efficient technologies. The administration's goal is to make electric vehicles as affordable and convenient as gasoline-powered vehicles by 2020. The president also proposed greater tax incentives to encourage the purchase and use of more fuel-efficient vehicles. Obama's$1 billion incentive for local communities is designed to promote use of advanced technologies such as more charging stations for electric vehicles. Obama has called for 1 million plug-in vehicles on American roads by 2015. Obama also was calling for increasing a tax incentive to $10,000 from$7,500 for people who purchase certain advanced vehicles.
P: 193
http://www.gallup.com/poll/153161/Un...-February.aspx

Gallup is reporting an increase in unemployment and underemployment for last month.

 Regardless of what the government reports, Gallup's unemployment and underemployment measures show a sharp deterioration in job market conditions since mid-January. This is consistent with a similar decline in Gallup's Job Creation Index to +13 in the second week of February, from +16 for January. It is also consistent with an economy that continues to struggle with modest growth, particularly as gas prices surge. Further, it suggests that it is premature to assume the condition of the economy will not remain a major issue for Americans both financially and politically in 2012.
Mentor
P: 26,552
Figures from Reuters today.

 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Employment grew solidly for a third straight month in February, a sign the economic recovery was broadening and in less need of further monetary stimulus from the Federal Reserve. Employers added 227,000 jobs to their payrolls last month, the Labor Department said on Friday, while the unemployment rate held at a three-year low of 8.3 percent - even as more people returned to the labor force. Economists polled by Reuters expected payrolls to increase 210,000 last month and the jobless rate to be unchanged. It marked the first time since early 2011 that payrolls have grown by more than 200,000 for three months in a row - bolstering President Barack Obama's chances for re-election.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/februa...060614362.html
PF Gold
P: 3,098
 Quote by Evo Figures from Reuters today. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/februa...060614362.html
Understand roughly that many jobs need to be created for the employment rate to cover population growth (i.e. immigration) and just stand still. Remember that 2.6 million jobs were lost in 2008; substantially stronger growth will be required to gain them back.
Mentor
P: 26,552
 Quote by mheslep Understand roughly that many jobs need to be created for the employment rate to cover population growth (i.e. immigration) and just stand still. Remember that 2.6 million jobs were lost in 2008; substantially stronger growth will be required to gain them back.
We agree on this point. I personally don't think we can create enough jobs to accomodate the population growth. There are just too many people needing jobs now. IMO, high unemplyment is something we will have to accept for quite awhile. Companies have learned to do with fewer employees, especially at management levels, IMO.
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 11,155
 Quote by mheslep Understand roughly that many jobs need to be created for the employment rate to cover population growth (i.e. immigration) and just stand still.
We can quantify the "many", at least approximately. Pop growth rate is close to 1% (I think). How big is the labor force? Around 150M? So, to stand still, we need to add 1.5M jobs a year or about 125,000 a month. If we can add 200,000 a month consistently, that is definitely better than stand-still. At that rate, unemp should drop by about 0.6% a year or thereabouts, probably not fast enough to give Obama much cushion, come November. At 400,000 a month he'd be sitting pretty. But in the game of expectations management I suppose most anything is possible. Dropping into the 7's could be hailed as a big deal, if orchestrated cleverly.

 Remember that 2.6 million jobs were lost in 2008; substantially stronger growth will be required to gain them back.
"...substantially stronger growth will be required to gain them back" as quickly.
PF Gold
P: 3,098
 Quote by Evo We agree on this point. I personally don't think we can create enough jobs to accomodate the population growth. There are just too many people needing jobs now. IMO, high unemplyment is something we will have to accept for quite awhile. Companies have learned to do with less employees, especially at management levels, IMO.
I don't see why not. In the Reagan years, '82-'89, 20 million US jobs were created, with a much smaller economy ($3T to$5.7T) than the US has now ($15T). http://www.presidentreagan.info/jobs.cfm Emeritus Sci Advisor PF Gold P: 11,155  Quote by mheslep I don't see why not. In the Reagan years, '82-'89, 20 million US jobs were created, with a much smaller economy ($3T to $5.7T) than the US has now ($15T). http://www.presidentreagan.info/jobs.cfm
Recovery from a run-of-the-mill recession tends to be historically much faster than recoveries from financial crises. Don't have the time to cite sources now, but if that statement doesn't sound reasonable to you, I can look for references later.
PF Gold
P: 3,098
 Quote by Gokul43201 Recovery from a run-of-the-mill recession tends to be historically much faster than recoveries from financial crises. Don't have the time to cite sources now, but if that statement doesn't sound reasonable to you, I can look for references later.
The '80 recession was bad. Unemployment over 10% (as you posted earlier), inflation was 9.4%. I generally agree that the recession of 2008 was(is?) the worst since the 30's, but not with the Obama excusing hyperbole that '08 destroyed the world and that everything else by comparison was run-of-the-mill.

With regards to financial panics, I can find six prior 1819, 1837, 1873, 1901, 1907, 1929, and now 2008. One can ~see the financial panics, but in most cases they seem momentary to me, except for '29 and now.
 PF Gold P: 4,287 Not to mention the global economy has undergone rapid changes in the last 20 years, globalization has become stronger, communication across the globe faster.
HW Helper
P: 2,280
 Quote by mheslep I don't see why not. In the Reagan years, '82-'89, 20 million US jobs were created, with a much smaller economy ($3T to$5.7T) than the US has now (\$15T). http://www.presidentreagan.info/jobs.cfm
The high unemployment around '80-'81 was partially caused by anti-inflation measures, plus older factories were being closed in the rust belt as newer factories were being built in states with lower taxes/wages. Nationwide, unemployment was high, but unemployment wasn't evenly distributed.

Unemployment caused by government measures (or by the federal reserve hiking up interest rates) are more likely to be effected by government measures to lower unemployment.

But, even with more jobs being created overall in the 80's, true changes in the economic environment (manufacturing moving out of the rust belt states) were a permanent disaster for the rust belt, with unemployment mainly decreasing because younger people moved places where there were more jobs (Buffalo - population decreasing from 580,000 in 1950 to only 261,000 in 2010; Cleveland - population 914,000 in 1950 to 397,000 in 2010; etc).

High unemployment in 2008-2011 was caused by market forces that will be longer lasting. Some of those market forces are entirely domestic and seemingly should correct itself much faster than it has, but a big piece of that unemployment is do to jobs moving overseas and that part will definitely take longer to recover from (and may be permanent). And I don't think moving to China, India, etc, is nearly as attractive an option as merely moving to a new state.
P: 2,179
 Quote by BobG But, even with more jobs being created overall in the 80's, true changes in the economic environment (manufacturing moving out of the rust belt states) were a permanent disaster for the rust belt, with unemployment mainly decreasing because younger people moved places where there were more jobs (Buffalo - population decreasing from 580,000 in 1950 to only 261,000 in 2010; Cleveland - population 914,000 in 1950 to 397,000 in 2010; etc).
The numbers don't support your argument. I'm using wiki which has slightly different numbers from yours.
The population in Buffalo in 1950 was 358,000. So the decrease from 1950 to 1980 was 38% but the decrease from 1980 to 2010 was only 27%.
wiki Buffalo, NY

The population in Cleveland in 1950 was 915,000 and in 1980 was 573,000. So the decrease from 1950 to 1980 was 37% but the decrease from 1980 to 2010 was only 31%.
wiki Cleveland

In other words, the population decline in these cities was faster before Reagan than after for the time period that you chose. Perhaps using different time periods will support your argument, but these don't.

 Related Discussions Current Events 578 Current Events 492 Current Events 47 Current Events 23