News Will past personal issues affect Obama's 2012 campaign?

[mheslep]

...
Umm...huh? I never said the scope of government was not limited, nor up to a majority to decide, with numerous unenumerated powers. I have no idea how you are reading into my words things I haven't said.

Prior post:

[Libertarianism] assumes people will do the right thing, businesses won't pollute or take advanatge of employees, etc., and because of this, government can be limited since ...

Well apologies if I took you wrong, but did you not mean here by "government can be limited" that limited government is an optional in the US, depending I assume on political preference?

 

[daveb]

No, I didn't mean as an option depending on preference. I meant that when people and businesses act ethically, there is no need for a broadly powerful government. That's why I mentioned I'm a pessimist.

IMO, pessimist presumes the worst, and therefore a government is a necessary evil. The optimist presumes not the worst, and therefore government is the greatest evil.

OK, maybe that makes me more of a cynic than a pessimist.

 

[mheslep]

No, I didn't mean as an option depending on preference. I meant that when people and businesses act ethically, there is no need for a broadly powerful government.

?? But you agree that the ability of the federal government to regulate is highly restricted under the US constitution?

 

[daveb]

It is allowed up to the point that it secures the rights of all citizens. Beyond that, no, which is why we have SCOTUS to say when the government has overreached that authority and when it hasn't (well theoretically - even SCOTUS sometimes seems inconsistent to me, but then, I haven't read every single opinion). But, I have to assume that (since SCOTUS are the experts), that what they say is within the authority of the federal government is, and what they say isn't, isn't.

And that's the whole left vs right debate - where is that dividing line between what is necessary and what is overreaching.

 

[SixNein]

Regarding the quickness of alterations to the Constitution, by my count there were 4 amendments in the 19th century, 12 in the 20th century including a repeal. A decade into 21st century would not be that quick to add one more in my view.

Remember the proposed marriage amendment a few years back?

 

[mheslep]

Remember the proposed marriage amendment a few years back?

Sure. ??

 

[DoggerDan]

And that's the whole left vs right debate - where is that dividing line between what is necessary and what is overreaching.

It's actually a Constitutional issue, not a left/right issue: All powers not expressly given to the feds are reserved to the states, or to the people. The feds have long, repeatedly, and extensively overreached their authority, at least according to the Constitution. SCOTUS decisions have tended to side with the feds on the basis of "necessity," but I see some, if not many, of those decisions based more on "desire" than actual necessity.

 

[WhoWee]

Rick Perry has thrown his hat into the ring - and apparently jumped to the head of the pack with Romney?

I have to wonder how the Gore- connection will be perceived - Democrats and Republicans?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61428.html

"In an interview with an Iowa radio station on Monday, the Republican presidential contender explained his role as the Gore campaign’s Texas chairman by saying that “this was Al Gore before he invented the Internet and got to be Mr. Global Warming.” ".

 

[skippy1729]

Infrastructure! (Stimulus 2, the sequel)

The argument that many roads, bridges, sewer and water systems are in grave condition cannot be disputed. After the non-results of Stimulus 1 (700 billion of pork and political wet dreams) and the remarks on jobs being "not so shovel ready after all"
does he have any credibility on this issue? I suppose we are going to pay for it with the mythical golden apple tree in the back yards of the rich.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm trying to figure out the President's strategy with these comments?
http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/08/16/obama-i-m-just-lincoln

" "Lincoln," the president said, "they used to talk about him almost as bad as they talk about me.""

WOW! (IMO of course)

 

[daveb]

I'm trying to figure out the President's strategy with these comments?
http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/08/16/obama-i-m-just-lincoln

" "Lincoln," the president said, "they used to talk about him almost as bad as they talk about me.""

WOW! (IMO of course)

The president's remarks came in response to a question from a woman who said that congressional Republicans are refusing to be a "good partner" to work with the president. "What happens to our democracy?" the woman asked. "We are in a very divided country right now. What can you say to help us with democracy itself?"

Obama told the woman that "democracy is always a messy business in a big country like this." In addition, he said, "We kind of romanticize sometimes what democracy used to be like."

"When you listen to what the Federalists said about the Anti-Federalists, and the names that Jefferson called Hamilton and back and forth -- I mean those guys were tough," Obama said. "Lincoln -- they used to talk about him almost as bad as they talk about me. So democracy has never been for the faint of heart."

(my bold)

Um...no strategy to it. He was just trying to answer the woman's question. Granted, it was a piss poor answer by stating it's always been that way and offering no solution.

 

[WhoWee]

(my bold)

Um...no strategy to it. He was just trying to answer the woman's question. Granted, it was a piss poor answer by stating it's always been that way and offering no solution.

He's making this comparison while at the same time complaining about House Republicans - is he trying to say the political deadlock really isn't that bad - or that he's being attacked too much? I'm really not sure how to interpret that comment? On the other hand, maybe it was just really hot out and he was tired and rambling - happens to the best of us.

 

[WhoWee]

Also in the news, Maxine Waters has been critical of the President this week. Personally, I don't think she's fair to him in that he's done quite a bit - it just hasn't yielded the desired results.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-frustrated-black-voters-unleash-us-on-obama/

"The unemployment rate African Americans is 15.9 percent while nationwide it stands at 9.2 percent.
Obama is at the end of his three-day bus tour through the Midwest in which he emphasized his prescription for the nation's economic woes. He announced on the tour that after Labor Day he will deliver what is being billed as a major speech on job creation and deficit reduction.
At her town hall meeting, Waters questioned why Obama hasn't gone to any black neighborhoods during his bus tour.
"We don't know what the strategy is. We don't know why on this trip that he's in the United States now, he's not in any black communities," she said."

******
Yet, if you look at the White House website - he's clearly delivered help - just not many jobs.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/101210-tax-relief-african-americans.pdf
"The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010:
A Win for African American Families
The agreement announced by the President not only secures vital tax relief and investments in
our workers that will create jobs and accelerate economic growth, it contains specific policies
that provide targeted support for African Americans. In addition to extending unemployment
insurance for 13 months, the bill builds off the gains made in the Recovery Act. The agreement
will extend key provisions such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax
Credit (CTC) that disproportionately help African American families and children."

 

[WhoWee]

The new CBO report indicates job growth will be slow for the next few years.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011...wth-so-slow-jobless-rate-to-top-8-until-2014/

"CBO: No Recession, But Growth So Slow Jobless Rate To Top 8% Until 2014"

 

[WhoWee]

This was forwarded to me by an attorney/former (county) Democrat Party Chairman. It was written by a 2008 Obama bundler.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...r-obama-donor/2011/03/29/gIQAyp4meJ_blog.html

"The breadth of government has reached a tipping point from Roosevelt’s efforts in the 30’s to ostensibly attempt to provide a safety net for the most neediest Americans to becoming an economically unsustainable entitlement bazaar that is eroding any remaining collective sense of traditional American self reliance and independence. I have flipped back and forth over the years between which party frightens me the most and clearly I now prefer the deficiencies of the Republicans to the deficiencies of the Democrats. I always fear the extremes of both parties but the Democrats have shifted so far left they they now seem intent on using Western Europe as their economic and social template, which is a disaster without possibility of a solution. Entitlements (and I mean more than just Social Security and Medicare), a corrosive, debilitating, nonsensical tax policy and government overreach are literally sucking the life force out of the underlying vitality and spirit that has made us both remarkable and exceptional in the course of world history and are the primary contributors of our current situation. While there is no certainty that Republicans will succeed in addressing these issues, there is certainty that Democrats will not."

 

[WhoWee]

I've been waiting for an ACORN update - to see if they will be as active in 2012 and by what name(s)?

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/obama-acorn-project-vote/2011/08/29/id/409048?s=al&promo_code=CF07-1

“If the Obama campaign was intent on trying to disassociate itself from the criminal activity which took place with its vendor last time, which was ACORN, using the name of their partner seemingly would be the wrong way to do it."

 

[WhoWee]

A "Fast and Furious" debacle update.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/62572.html

"At least three White House officials had some knowledge of a controversial federal gun-running investigation that resulted in a large number of guns falling into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, according to emails the Justice Department sent to Congress.

However, the emails do not indicate that the White House aides were briefed on the most controversial aspect of Operation Fast and Furious: the practice of allowing guns to “walk” or move across the border with little or no interference by law enforcement officials despite their suspicions that the guns were headed for drug gangs. "

I'm anxious to see what the President does in response to investigative findings - when completed.
"http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7371762n"

 

[WhoWee]

The Poll results are not improving for President Obama.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/06/president-obama-faces-historic-low-in-poll-numbers/

"Devastating poll numbers met President Barack Obama Tuesday morning, indicating that although fall is just around the corner, the summer of discontent is far from over."

*****

Mitt Romney was also in the news.
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-jobs-plan-cut-taxes-slap-china-drill-201111301.html

"NORTH LAS VEGAS, Nev. (AP) — Casting himself as America's CEO, Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on Tuesday outlined a sweeping economic plan that would reduce regulations and taxes on companies, sanction China over its currency practices and weaken the clout of labor unions."

"America's CEO" has a nice ring to it - IMO - much better than "Campaigner In Chief".

 

[ThomasT]

"NORTH LAS VEGAS, Nev. (AP) — Casting himself as America's CEO, Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on Tuesday outlined a sweeping economic plan that would reduce regulations and taxes on companies, sanction China over its currency practices and weaken the clout of labor unions."

I guess that Romney's plan won't affect the opinions of most Americans. How's Romney going to put millions of laid off Americans to work when there's just no work for them? If they like Romney I'm guessing that they like him for other reasons -- the main one being that he isn't Obama.

The combined effect of the Bush and Obama administrations might be seen as ranging from pretty disastrous to essentially ineffectual, but I don't see Romney, or anybody else for that matter, including Obama, as being able to significantly affect the demographic and economic trends in America. So, fapp, I don't think it much matters who gets elected to the presidency. Flip a coin, it doesn't matter who you vote for -- which is what we've been told by the major parties for a long time. So, I'll probably vote for Nader again -- whether he runs or not.

I don't think it much matters what Obama's strategy for 2012 is. If he gets reelected, then it will be for the same reason he got elected in 2008. People like the way he talks and carries himself, and he'll get the ethnic minority and labor votes. I would guess that most people see Obama as inheriting some rather huge problems rather than creating them. But then he has been a disappointment wrt the promise of his wonderful rhetoric. So who knows what will happen?

You like Romney?

 

[WhoWee]

I guess that Romney's plan won't affect the opinions of most Americans. How's Romney going to put millions of laid off Americans to work when there's just no work for them? If they like Romney I'm guessing that they like him for other reasons -- the main one being that he isn't Obama.

The combined effect of the Bush and Obama administrations might be seen as ranging from pretty disastrous to essentially ineffectual, but I don't see Romney, or anybody else for that matter, including Obama, as being able to significantly affect the demographic and economic trends in America. So, fapp, I don't think it much matters who gets elected to the presidency. Flip a coin, it doesn't matter who you vote for -- which is what we've been told by the major parties for a long time. So, I'll probably vote for Nader again -- whether he runs or not.

I don't think it much matters what Obama's strategy for 2012 is. If he gets reelected, then it will be for the same reason he got elected in 2008. People like the way he talks and carries himself, and he'll get the ethnic minority and labor votes. I would guess that most people see Obama as inheriting some rather huge problems rather than creating them. But then he has been a disappointment wrt the promise of his wonderful rhetoric. So who knows what will happen?

You like Romney?

Romney's plan is quite comprehensive and includes specific regulatory relief. It does make a difference who is elected. We haven't yet felt the full destructive effects of President Obama's agenda - we need to change direction before our economy passes the point of revival - IMO.

 

[ThomasT]

Romney's plan is quite comprehensive and includes specific regulatory relief. It does make a difference who is elected. We haven't yet felt the full destructive effects of President Obama's agenda - we need to change direction before our economy passes the point of revival - IMO.

Change direction? What can be done? Businesses, banks, and lots of individuals have plenty of money to 'create jobs'. But there's not enough money in the general population, the general economy, to support that on a large scale. That is, if there was money to be made by private sector financing of new businesses and extensions of established ones, then investors would be doing it. As far as I can tell, the only way that large scale unemployment is going to be alleviated is on a nonprofit, or even losing, basis. That is, government initiated and financed programs. Otherwise, the trend of downsizing, layoffs and outsourcing seems likely to continue.

But I don't think it's 'critical'. The financial sector seems to be doing fine. It's just that we're going to have to get used to the general economy growing at a slower rate than before, and a permanent double digit unemployment rate.

There's lots of things that can be done to solve the country's financial problems. It's just up to the congress to do them.

I don't think it's so much any president's agenda, but rather congress's actions and inactions that directly affect the status quo. Any member can devise prospective solutions and present them for legislative action.

How might Romney's specific regulatory relief proposals affect things?

 

[WhoWee]

Change direction? What can be done? Businesses, banks, and lots of individuals have plenty of money to 'create jobs'. But there's not enough money in the general population, the general economy, to support that on a large scale. That is, if there was money to be made by private sector financing of new businesses and extensions of established ones, then investors would be doing it. As far as I can tell, the only way that large scale unemployment is going to be alleviated is on a nonprofit, or even losing, basis. That is, government initiated and financed programs. Otherwise, the trend of downsizing, layoffs and outsourcing seems likely to continue.

But I don't think it's 'critical'. The financial sector seems to be doing fine. It's just that we're going to have to get used to the general economy growing at a slower rate than before, and a permanent double digit unemployment rate.

There's lots of things that can be done to solve the country's financial problems. It's just up to the congress to do them.

I don't think it's so much any president's agenda, but rather congress's actions and inactions that directly affect the status quo. Any member can devise prospective solutions and present them for legislative action.

How might Romney's specific regulatory relief proposals affect things?

It's not just President Obama's agenda - Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd deserve much credit (among others). The one group that doesn't deserve ANY credit for creating the problems in the economy is the TEA Party (House Republicans) as they just arrived and are the only ones standing in the way of the aforementioned Democrat leaders agenda(s).

Specifically - Obamacare is hanging over the US economy like a black cloud, massive tax hikes are looming for everyone if spending continues unchecked, SOX was an over-reach, Dodd-Frank has major problems, union initiatives are being initiated through regulations, the EPA is implementing the President's agenda, "Green" programs are not working, the auto bailout has not "worked" - selling assets to China, handing out $45Billion in tax cuts, creating a more diverse group of auto dealer franchises, cash for clunkers, and pushing EV's that nobody wants are not the solution. The US does not have a clear energy policy and we're moving towards greater reliance on imports (not good).

Please label this entire post IMO.

 

[ThomasT]

It's not just President Obama's agenda - Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd deserve much credit (among others). The one group that doesn't deserve ANY credit for creating the problems in the economy is the TEA Party (House Republicans) as they just arrived and are the only ones standing in the way of the aforementioned Democrat leaders agenda(s).

Specifically - Obamacare is hanging over the US economy like a black cloud, massive tax hikes are looming for everyone if spending continues unchecked, SOX was an over-reach, Dodd-Frank has major problems, union initiatives are being initiated through regulations, the EPA is implementing the President's agenda, "Green" programs are not working, the auto bailout has not "worked" - selling assets to China, handing out $45Billion in tax cuts, creating a more diverse group of auto dealer franchises, cash for clunkers, and pushing EV's that nobody wants are not the solution. The US does not have a clear energy policy and we're moving towards greater reliance on imports (not good).

Please label this entire post IMO.

I'll have to take your word for the negative effects or ineffectiveness of some of this stuff until I check it out in more detail.

It does seem that the US doesn't have a clear energy policy. What would you recommend? Eg., emphasis on nuclear?

I was reading the other day about how there's plenty of lithium for lithium batteries (for battery powered cars), and it occurred to me: how are we going to charge them, with electricity from coal-fueled power plants? Well, there seems to be plenty of coal, but the byproducts of burning it are rather nasty and difficult to deal with.

 

[daveb]

I'll have to take your word for the negative effects or ineffectiveness of some of this stuff until I check it out in more detail.

WhoWee labeled it as opinion, so there's no need to take his word for it, other than the actual facts, such as:

The one group that doesn't deserve ANY credit for creating the problems in the economy is the TEA Party (House Republicans) as they just arrived and are the only ones standing in the way of the aforementioned Democrat leaders agenda(s).

The TEA party didn't cause the mess, but some people have the opinion they're making it worse by being obstructionist.

 

[mheslep]

Among the hundreds of sound answers available for the question on job creation, "what can be done?", should be http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110904/BUSINESS/309030089/Gibson-goes-offensive"

Eleven days ago, Gibson Guitar [117 year old company] CEO Henry Juszkiewicz was getting ready for work when he got a phone call at home from his assistant, whose voice sounded panicky.

Half a dozen armed federal agents with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were searching the Gibson executive suite. Two of the company’s South Nashville guitar factories also had just been raided, along with one in Memphis.

 

[daveb]

Among the hundreds of sound answers available for the question on job creation, "what can be done?", should be http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110904/BUSINESS/309030089/Gibson-goes-offensive"

While I agree the raid using federal agents who are armed is a tad over the top, it was hardly "dozens", and that it is "ridiculous bureaucratic minutia" is your opinion.

 

[turbo]

The raid involved 1/2 dozen agents, according to the link.

Other guitar-makers have been subject to this type of scrutiny, some with justification. Bob Taylor prides himself on working with foreign nationals to provide sustainable harvests of tone-woods to build his Taylor guitars, and his "Wood and Steel" magazine (sent to all Taylor owners) has detailed articles to back it up. I own a small Taylor concert-sized guitar made with Brazilian Rosewood, mahogany neck, and cedar top. It is the sweetest-sounding guitar ever, and best of all, I have confidence that Bob is doing his best to preserve the viability and availability of tropical tone-woods, and work with the people that live in those forests instead of accepting wood from "liquidators" that want to clear rain-forests in order raise crops or cattle.

His is a very successful small business that has no problems complying with those "onerous" regulations that the GOP says are job-killers.

 

[mheslep]

...

Other guitar-makers have been subject to this type of scrutiny,

Regulation of other guitar companies? Yes. Raids by Fish and Wildlife federal agents? No.

...some with justification.

You know this how?

... Bob Taylor prides himself on working with foreign nationals to provide sustainable harvests of tone-woods to build his Taylor guitars, and his "Wood and Steel" magazine (sent to all Taylor owners) has detailed articles to back it up. I own a small Taylor concert-sized guitar made with Brazilian Rosewood, mahogany neck, and cedar top. It is the sweetest-sounding guitar ever, and best of all, I have confidence that Bob is doing his best to preserve the viability and availability of tropical tone-woods, and work with the people that live in those forests instead of accepting wood from "liquidators" that want to clear rain-forests in order raise crops or cattle.

No doubt many people work with foreign nationals to import wood. No doubt many of them do not want to liquidate Asia forests, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903895904576542942027859286.html"

Scott Paul, a Greenpeace official in New York responsible for forestry issues, said Gibson for years has done "great work" to promote better forestry practices. The question, he said, is whether Gibson did everything possible to avoid buying wood from dubious sources. "We have no idea," he said.

...His is a very successful small business that has no problems complying with those "onerous" regulations that the GOP says are job-killers.

No problems? Call me skeptical a small business owner can even <i>identify</i> all the applicable regulations, must less comply with them all with no problems.

According to the Gibson's Juszkiewicz he had to send several hundred employees home due to the raid the other day and it cost the company a million dollars in lost production.

 

[mheslep]

While I agree the raid using federal agents who are armed is a tad over the top, it was hardly "dozens",

The raid involved 1/2 dozen agents, according to the link.

Come on. The half dozen figure applied to raid only of the "executive suite." We know from the Tennessean alone that three separate factories in two different cities were raided on the same day.

"Two of the company’s South Nashville guitar factories also had just been raided, along with one in Memphis."

And that's just this time. Gibson was also raided in 2009, about which they have never been charged:

...went down to the factory, sure enough, there were several dozen SWAT attired people with automatic weapons and bullet proof vests, and they had evacuated the plant, made all the employees stand out in the parking lot. They had grabbed several employees and put them in small rooms with four or five armed people, verbally intimidating them. [...] We haven't been charged with any wrong doing yet."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RnIdhb2iXg

 

[mheslep]

.. and that it is "ridiculous bureaucratic minutia" is your opinion.

Yes this is my opinion and a sensible one.

 

[redsunrise]

most of our electorate is STUPID. they ridiculously go to one side or the other, and stay there. neither side has the best interest of the populace. until the majority realizes that govt is for govt, then we will always have way more govt than we need, and all the problems that come from it.

if we look backwards in american history and examine the results, i doubt that people will wise up in my lifetime.

It's only rational for a voter to piggy-back on better informed voters. That's a problem inherent in representative democracy: it makes for rule-by-shallow-impression.

Karl Rove is not an accident, but essence of repr. democracy. And so now e.g. Paul Krugman is turning into left's equivalent of Rove.

 

[redsunrise]

The TEA party didn't cause the mess, but some people have the opinion they're making it worse by being obstructionist.

Obstructionism and brinkmanship are the only things that make representative democracies do anything consistent. Were it not for obstructionism and brinkmanship, the public debt deal would not get made.

Tea party = democracy works as designed.

Not that design is very good, mind you.

 

[redsunrise]

Obama strategy for 2012: roll belly up and play dead. That's the strategy that is least bad for him. There are no good ones.

Job plan will fail. That's basically certain, given beliefs of Obama's base. Stimulus has failed, and so will job plan, as it will contain complex, weird mix of quasi-private, pretend-not-to-be-public make work jobs. Those will create some increase in aggregate consumption, perhaps having some Keynesian-style short-term multiplier effects in the economy, but nothing major. Unemployment and discouraged workers numbers will not change significantly, making Obama political dead meat.

He's in a no-win situation. Cannot do centrist, as this would alienate him from the left (there's already serious talk on the left of jettisoning Obama). Cannot do centre-left as this would make center abandon him. He cannot do left, because that doesn't work, we know that by now, after failures of large-scale Keynesianism and stagflation a la Carter and failure of just about any govt program, from "public allies" to green jobs to ever worse education. Beyond certain size, public sector is a drag and not an asset, but that cannot be cut, not by Republicans and even less by Obama. Same with unions. He can't say no to them, and cannot say yes to hard experience pointing to evidence of many countries that unionization harms job creation (see e.g. IMF studies on the subject), as the public wants to hear anything but truth about the unions, true necessity of cutting spending, true necessity of raising taxes, and excessive size of budget deficits ($4 trillion of deficit spending or so so far and all he got is anemic job creation - not quite a result expected by Keynesians, where public and deficit spending was supposed to increase aggregate consumption demand and thus spur job creation by mobilizing "unutilized/underutilized assets"). And obviously he will not do right or centre-right.

So he will continue muddling through, making no serious waves. That will make nobody happy, and everybody frustrated for not getting what they want or prefer.

I'd rather be in place of a duck in a redneck state during hunting season than in place of Obama.

 

[WhoWee]

The results of the New York special election to fill Weiner's seat are in - a Republican has won.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/13/new-york-special-election-results_n_961363.html?ncid=webmail1

""The results in NY-09 are not reflective of what will happen in November 2012 when Democratic challengers run against Republican incumbents who voted to end Medicare and cut Social Security while protecting tax loopholes for big corporations and the ultra wealthy," said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel of New York."

I have to wonder who this Democrat spokesperson is trying to convince?

 

[daveb]

The results of the New York special election to fill Weiner's seat are in - a Republican has won.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/13/new-york-special-election-results_n_961363.html?ncid=webmail1

""The results in NY-09 are not reflective of what will happen in November 2012 when Democratic challengers run against Republican incumbents who voted to end Medicare and cut Social Security while protecting tax loopholes for big corporations and the ultra wealthy," said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel of New York."

I have to wonder who this Democrat spokesperson is trying to convince?

It's funny this came up. Yesterday (I think, maybe it was Monday) on the way home from work on NPR's "All Things Considered", this topic came up. Apparently, the district is very heavily registered Democrat with a large orthodx Jewish population. The Democrat running is orthodox Jewish, but the consensus (according to the program) is that due to redistricting, the seat will be gone come next November, so there is no danger by voting in Republican. The base there are "sending a message" to Obama about his policy towards Israel, and not the economy. I haven't verified this, but this wasa according to the program.

 

[mheslep]

Registration is 3:1 Democratic in NY-9. This is the first time that seat has gone Republican since 1922.

One can not say that any particular seat will 'be gone' because of the last census despite what government sponsored radio may say; all that can be accurately said now is that NY state will have one less congressional district. The people currently in the borders of NY 9 will still have a vote next year, and Congressman-Elect Turner will be able to stand for office in the new district boundaries if he chooses.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The President has stated that his $447B jobs program will create 1.9M jobs. That's 235k per job. You would think he would have learned to be vaguer with his numbers after the 8% unemployment fiasco.

Put another way, to take the entire 9% unemployed segment of the economy and pay them minimum wage would cost only $207B.

Putting numbers like that out only encourages this kind of comparison.

 

[MarcoD]

The President has stated that his $447B jobs program will create 1.9M jobs. That's 235k per job. You would think he would have learned to be vaguer with his numbers after the 8% unemployment fiasco.

Put another way, to take the entire 9% unemployed segment of the economy and pay them minimum wage would cost only $207M.

Putting numbers like that out only encourages this kind of comparison.

Hmpf, I still think the problem of the US is just that they need to compete with all the emerging markets. Fiscal stimulus won't change a bit, probably only will make it worse. IMO, the US just needs import restrictions and relevantly 'normal' state budget.

 

[WhoWee]

The President has stated that his $447B jobs program will create 1.9M jobs. That's 235k per job. You would think he would have learned to be vaguer with his numbers after the 8% unemployment fiasco.

Put another way, to take the entire 9% unemployed segment of the economy and pay them minimum wage would cost only $207M.

Putting numbers like that out only encourages this kind of comparison.

IMO - we don't need any new jobs programs - we just need to open the existing programs up to all unemployed people and all business locations. Currently, the tax incentives are available to employers that hire from select groups of people - with the greatest incentives for hiring in the "Empowerment Zones". Unfortunately, the programs don't work as designed - evidenced by the $Billions in unused credits (about $9 Billion unclaimed in 2009) and high unemployment rates.

This company website provides a (biased in the context of their marketing pitch) overview.
http://www.taxbreakllc.com/tax_credit_services.html

"The Opportunities

Billions of dollars are forfeited every year because business leaders and managers do not have the means to track, research and take advantage of the available government incentives. TaxBreak’s due diligence in tracking employer business incentives is focused on the following key categories:

Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC)
Employee FICA Tip Credits
Geographic Based Credits
Disaster Relief Tax Credit
Indian Employment Credit
Research and Development Credit
Cost Segregation
State Tax and Incentive Credits"

 

[WhoWee]

Some direct info on HIRE - from March 2010 - results are difficult to track (IMO). my bold

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=220745,00.html

"Under the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act, enacted March 18, 2010, two new tax benefits are available to employers who hire certain previously unemployed workers (“qualified employees”).

The first, referred to as the payroll tax exemption, provides employers with an exemption from the employer’s 6.2 percent share of social security tax on wages paid to qualifying employees, effective for wages paid from March 19, 2010 through December 31, 2010.

In addition, for each qualified employee retained for at least 52 consecutive weeks, businesses will also be eligible for a general business tax credit, referred to as the new hire retention credit, of 6.2 percent of wages paid to the qualified employee over the 52 week period, up to a maximum credit of $1,000."

IMO - again - the Government needs to stop trying to pick winners and losers and open the incentives to everyone.

 

[WhoWee]

A quick update on the Obama administration's developing Stimulus/solar energy scandal.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...a-and-4-other-companies-have-hit-rock-bottom/

Solyndra, the solar panel company whose highly publicized failure and consequent investigation by federal authorities has flashed across headlines recently, isn't the only business to go belly up after benefiting from a piece of the $800 billion economic stimulus package passed in 2009.

At least four other companies have received stimulus funding only to later file for bankruptcy, and two of those were working on alternative energy.""

 

[WhoWee]

Apparently, the DOE has guaranteed $38.6Billion - and claims 63,947 jobs (created/saved) of which 33,000 are at Ford Motor Company?

https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=45

Perhaps we'll hear more about these initiatives during the 2012 campaign?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Well, there are embarrassments and there are scandals.

Solyndra is certainly an embarrassment. When the President points at a company and tells the country that this is his vision of their future, it's more than a little embarrassing when a month later it's bankrupt. And yes, his opponents will make political hay of this when the time is right. But that's not a scandal.

Might there be a scandal? Perhaps - the role of George Kaiser needs to be clarified, certainly.

But that was not my point. My point is that it is a mistake for the President to be saying that "this will save 1.9 million jobs" when instead he cal say "millions of jobs". In the former case, anyone with a calculator, slide rule, or who went to school before 1975 can do exactly the same unflattering calculation as I did. Does he not have advisors to tell him "don't say that!"?

 

[WhoWee]

Here is another (potential) embarrassment for the Obama Administration.

http://biggovernment.com/mangley/2011/09/16/is-lightsquared-the-new-solyndra-the-case-of-the-air-force-4-star-and-white-house-pressure/

"Last week, Air Force General William Shelton, Commander of Air Force Space Command, told Congressional leaders in a closed-door session that the White House tried to pressure him to change his testimony to favor a company that turns out to be a major donor to the Democratic Party."

While none of these may turn into a "scandal" - they just don't fit the definition of "transparency, hope, or change" - bad news for a President trying to be re-elected after making these promises only 3 years ago.

 

[Gokul43201]

The President has stated that his $447B jobs program will create 1.9M jobs. That's 235k per job. You would think he would have learned to be vaguer with his numbers after the 8% unemployment fiasco.

Put another way, to take the entire 9% unemployed segment of the economy and pay them minimum wage would cost only $207M.

Pay them for how long? Not following the math here.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Pay them for how long?

The entire fiscal year. Same time frame as the $447B.

 

[Gokul43201]

1. I believe the $447B stimulus is meant to be a one-time kind of thing (at least on paper) - not a recurring yearly allocation - that is hoped to generate jobs that will survive at least until the next economic downturn, 10-15 years down the road (or permanently, like Solyndra!). Or if that's not the case, then some reasonable estimate of the lifetime of the expected jobs should be involved in the calculation. If the first job created is a 2-yr construction project to fix some bridge somewhere, then it would be expected to last at least 2 years (and so on, to generate an expectation value).

2. At the minimum wage of about $7 per hr, time 40 hrs a week = about $300 per week ... times 50 weeks is about $15000 per yr. Multiply that by the 14M unemployed, and I get a little over $200B for a year ... somewhat larger than your $200M. Was that a typo?

 

[Vanadium 50]

The M for B is a typo. Thanks for catching it; I've fixed the original post.

In the US, Congress cannot obligate money for future fiscal years. Second, the President has never said that these 1.9M jobs are going to last for more than a decade. The Keynesian model says economic downturns are caused by a lack of demand, so governments should stimulate demand by reducing unemployment, even on temporary projects, and then once the "pump is primed", the economy will recover.

The obvious question is that if this is a good idea for 1.9M jobs, wouldn't it be a better idea for 9M jobs?

 

[WhoWee]

President Obama was an early investor? An Obama campaign "bundler" runs the FCC? This story ran in the Huffington Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-c...grity/politically-connected-lig_b_902421.html

"Politically-connected LightSquared wins approval for wireless Internet plan despite GPS disruption concerns"

This entire story is worth reading - IMO.

 

[WhoWee]

Will it destroy the president's credibility to deny a $1.5Trillion tax hike is class warfare?

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/obama-this-is-not-class-warfare-its-math.php

""Either we have to ask the wealthy to pay their fair share, or we have to ask seniors to pay more for medicare, or gut education," he continued. "This is not class warfare. It's Math.""

Does anyone actually believe the Buffet/secretary example or the new $50Million hedge fund manager versus a teacher example is an apples to apples comparison?

Btw - isn't everyone allowed to invest in the market and otherwise earn capital gains?